Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/280



sending out of the birds, (d) the sign of the rainbow (absent in Bab.), and (e) the name of the hero—sink into insignificance. They are, indeed, sufficient to disprove immediate literary contact between the Heb. writers and the Gilgameš Tablets; but they do not weaken the presumption that the story had taken the shape known to us in Babylonia before it passed into the possession of the Israelites. And since we have seen (p. 177) that the Babylonian legend was already reduced to writing about the time usually assigned to the Abrahamic migration, it is impossible to suppose that the Heb. oral tradition had preserved an independent recollection of the historical occurrence which may be assumed as the basis of fact underlying the Deluge tradition.—The differences between the two narratives are on this account all the more instructive. While the Genesis narratives are written in prose, and reveal at most occasional traces of a poetic original (8$22$ in J, 7$11b$ 8$2a$ in P), the Babylonian epic is genuine poetry, which appeals to a modern reader in spite of the strangeness of its antique sentiment and imagery. Reflecting the feelings of the principal actor in the scene, it possesses a human interest and pathos of which only a few touches appear in J, and none at all in P. The difference here is not wholly due to the elimination of the mythological element by the biblical writers: it is characteristic of the Heb. popular tale that it shuns the 'fine frenzy' of the poet, and finds its appropriate vehicle in the unaffected simplicity of prose recitation. In this we have an additional indication that the story was not drawn directly from a Babylonian source, but was taken from the lips of the common people; although in P it has been elaborated under the influence of the religious theory of history peculiar to that document (p. lx f.). The most important divergences are naturally those which spring from the religion of the OT—its ethical spirit, and its monotheistic conception of God. The ethical motive, which is but feebly developed in the Babylonian account, obtains clear recognition in the hands of the Heb. writers: the Flood is a divine judgement on human corruption; and the one family saved is saved on account of the righteousness of its head. More pervasive still is the influence of the monotheistic idea. The gods of the Babylonian version are vindictive, capricious, divided in counsel, false to each other and to men; the writer speaks of them with little reverence, and appears to indulge in flashes of Homeric satire at their expense. Over against this picturesque variety of deities we have in Genesis the one almighty and righteous God,—a Being capable of anger and pity, and even change of purpose, but holy and just in His dealings with men. It is possible that this transformation supplies the key to some subtle affinities between the two streams of tradition. Thus in the Bab. version the fact that the command to build the ark precedes the announcement of the Flood, is explained by the consideration that Ea cannot explicitly divulge the purpose of the gods; whereas in J it becomes a test of the obedience of Noah (Gu. p. 66). Which representation is older can scarcely be doubted. It is true, at all events, that the Bab. parallel serves as a "measure of the unique grandeur of the idea of God in Israel, which was powerful enough to purify