Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/329

 5-9. Yahwe's Interposition.—The turning-point in the development of the story occurs at vv.$5. 6$, where the descent of Yahwe is twice mentioned, in a way which shows some discontinuity of narration.—On heaven as the dwelling-place of Yahwe, cf. 28$12f.$, Ex. 19$11. 20$ 34$5$ 24$10$, 1 Ki. 22$19$, 2 Ki. 2$11$; and with v.$5$ cf. 18$21$, Ex. 3$8$.

On the assumption of the unity of the passage, the conclusion of Sta. (Ak. Red. 274 ff.) seems unavoidable: that a highly dramatic polytheistic recension has here been toned down by the omission of some of its most characteristic incidents. In v.$5$ the name Yahwe has been substituted for that of some envoy of the gods sent down to inspect the latest human enterprise; v.$6$ is his report to the heavenly council on his return; and v.$7$ the plan of action he recommends to his fellow immortals. The main objection to this ingenious solution is that it involves, almost necessarily, a process of conscious literary manipulation, such as no Heb. writer is likely to have bestowed on a document so saturated with pagan theology as the supposed Bab. original must have been. It is more natural to believe that the elimination of polytheistic representations was effected in the course of oral transmission, through the spontaneous action of the Hebrew mind controlled by its spiritual faith.—On Gu.'s theory the difficulty disappears.

6. This is but the beginning, etc.] The reference is not merely to the completion of the tower, but to other enterprises which might be undertaken in the future.—9. Babel] G rightly [Greek: Synchysis]; v.i.

(see Dri. Sam. 217 f.), the ordinary sense suffices.—] the word, acc. to Gu., is distinctive of the recension B: cf. vv.$8a. 9b$.—6.—] incomplete interjectional sent. (G-K. § 147 b).—] lit. 'this is their beginning to act.' On the pointing, see G-K. § 67 w.—] imitated in Jb. 42$2$.—] lit. 'be inaccessible' (cf. Is. 22$10$, Jer. 51$53$); hence 'impracticable.'—] contr. for (G-K. § 67 dd).—7. ] G retains the pl. in spite of the alleged reading in Mechilta (see p. 14 above).—] (see last note): fr. [root] = 'mix' (not 'divide,' as S []).—] G-K. § 165 b.—] = 'understand': 42$23$, Dt. 28$49$, Is. 33$19$, Jer. 5$15$ etc.—8. It is perhaps better, if a distinction of sources is recognised, to point (juss. of purpose: G-K. § 109 f), continuing the direct address of $7b$.—] [E] pr. , and (with G) adds .—9. ] 'one called' (G-K. § 144 d).—] 'mixture' or 'confusion.' The name is obviously treated as a contraction from, a form not found in Heb., but occurring in Aram. (cf. S v.$9$, and T$O$ v.$7$) and Arab. On the Bab. etymology of the name, see 10$10$.—9b.—] G + [Greek: ho theos].