Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/276



and we have seen that there are independent reasons for regarding vv.$1-7$ as supplementary to the Deluge tradition followed by P. If that be the case, it is probable that these vv. were inserted by the priestly author with the intention of bringing under the Noachic those elementary religious obligations which he regarded as universally binding on mankind.—On the conception of the in J and P, see chs. 15 and 17.

28, 29. The death of Noah.

The form of these vv. is exactly that of the genealogy, ch. 5; while they are at the same time the conclusion of the (6$9$). How much was included under that rubric? Does it cover the whole of P's narrative of the Flood (so that is practically equivalent to 'biography'), or does it refer merely to the account of his immediate descendants in 6$10$? The conjecture may be hazarded that 6$9. 10$ 7$6$ 9$28. 29$ formed a section of the original book of, and that into this skeleton the full narrative of the Flood was inserted by one of the priestly writers (see the notes on 2$4a$). The relation of the assumed genealogy to that of ch. 5 would be precisely that of the of Terah (11$27ff.$) to the of Shem (11$10-26$). In each case the second genealogy is extremely short; further, it opens by repeating the last link of the previous genealogy (in each case the birth of three sons, 5$32$ 6$10$); and, finally, the second genealogy is interspersed with brief historical notices. It may, of course, be held that the whole history of Abraham belongs to the of Terah; that is the accepted view, and the reasons for disputing it are those mentioned on p. 40 f. Fortunately the question is of no great importance.

The Deluge Tradition.

1. Next to cosmogonies, flood-legends present perhaps the most interesting and perplexing problem in comparative mythology. The wide, though curiously unequal, distribution of these stories, and the frequent occurrence of detailed resemblances to the biblical narrative, have long attracted attention, and were not unnaturally accepted as independent evidence of the strictly historical character of the latter.

29., Heb. MSS (London Polyglott) and [E] .*