Commentaires bibliques

20. Jabal] The meaning of this name is doubtful. Dillmann conjectures “a wanderer.” Jabal, like Abel (see note, on Genesis 4:2), is a founder of the shepherd’s and herdsman’s life.

father of] i.e. the founder, or originator, of nomad life. To the Hebrews, to live in tents was the alternative to life in the village or the town. It is strange to find that tent life is here placed later than the building of a town (Genesis 4:17).

such as dwell in tents, &c.] Literally, “such as dwell in tents and cattle”; i.e. those who wander about, occupied in the care of flocks and herds, and pitching their camps at different places. The eldest brother represents the Bedouin chieftain, the second brother represents the arts of primitive pastoral life, the third brother represents the most necessary industry.

21. Jubal] The originator of musical instruments. Music is thus regarded as the most ancient art. For the name, compare the word “Jubilee”; yôbêl is “the ram’s horn.”

harp and pipe] i.e. the simplest of stringed and wind instruments used by shepherds. LXX ψαλτήριον καὶ κιθάραν: Lat. cithara et organo.

22. Tubal-cain] The double name is strange, and presumably means “Tubal of the family of Cain.” Tubal is traditionally supposed to have given his name to the people mentioned in Genesis 10:2 (see note). “Tubal” in Ezekiel 27:13; Ezekiel 32:26; Ezekiel 38:2; Ezekiel 39:1 is associated with Javan and Meshech as a community whose traffic included “vessels of brass.” The Assyrian inscriptions record a people called “Tabal,” apparently living to the S.E. of the Black Sea.

the forger] Heb. “the sharpener.” The expression is intended to denote the first smelter of metals. LXX τὸν Θόβελ, καὶ ἦν σφυροκόπος χαλκεὺς χαλκοῦ καὶ σιδήρου. Lat. Tubalcain qui fuit malleator et faber in cuncta opera aeris et ferri.

The R.V. marg. = A.V. “an instructor of every artificer,” is a conjectural rendering of an obscure passage, and does not follow the original.

22. brass] Better than copper. The metal, like the Gr. χαλκός, was probably our “bronze,” for which “brass” was the equivalent in all early English literature. “Brass” is an alloy of copper and zinc; “bronze” of copper and tin. Copper-mining (not “brass”) is referred to in Deuteronomy 8:9; Job 28:2. Our English word “bronze” is derived from “Brundusium.”

It should be noticed here (1) that Hebrew tradition realizes how important an epoch in the progress of civilization is marked by the discovery of the use of metals; (2) that in this verse the mention of bronze precedes that of iron; (3) that no knowledge is shewn of a stone age, which archaeology has demonstrated to have preceded.

Naamah] meaning “pleasant.” The mention of her name, concerning whom nothing else is recorded, implies the existence of legends or traditions which have disappeared. Perhaps she symbolized luxury, as Jubal symbolized art and Tubal-Cain industry. The juxtaposition of Naamah and Tubal-Cain reminds us of Venus and Vulcan, more especially as Naamah is said to have been the Phoenician title of the Semitic goddess Istar. It is the name borne by the mother of Rehoboam, an Ammonitess (1 Kings 14:31).

23. a man for wounding me] Lamech boasts that he has slain a man who had wounded him and a young man who had bruised him. Whether “a man” and “a young man” are the same person, or whether they mean a man and his son, cannot be decided. Lamech has exacted the vengeance of death for the insult of a blow2[11].

[11] See for an explanation by Jewish tradition Appendix B.

It is, however, possible that the poem only describes an imaginary instance in which Lamech had retaliated in self-defence, and boasts that with the assistance of metal weapons Lamech’s capacity for revenge is increased elevenfold.

23, 24. The Song of the Sword. These verses are written in a poetical style, with the parallelism of clauses characteristic of Hebrew poetry. It is the first instance of Hebrew poetical composition in the Bible1[10]. It contains (1) the address of Lamech to his wives; (2) the announcement of a recent exploit; (3) the boast of confidence and security against injury or insult. It is generally supposed that Lamech’s Song is intended to represent his exultation after the invention of metal weapons by his son Tubal-Cain. The new possession inspired primitive man with confidence and eagerness for savage retaliation.

[10] See G. Adam Smith’s Early Poetry of Israel, p. 21 (Schweich Lectures, 1910).

The substance of line (or stichos) 1 is repeated in line (or stichos) 2: “Adah and Zillah” correspond to “Ye wives of Lamech,” and “Hear my voice” to “Hearken unto my speech.”

In line (or stichos) 3, the word “I have slain” gives the note to the whole distich; but “a man for wounding me” is repeated in greater detail in line (or stichos) 4, “a young man for bruising me.” Line (or stichos) 5 mentions the traditional vengeance promised for Cain; line (or stichos) 6 boasts of a vengeance tenfold greater than this for Lamech.

24. seventy and sevenfold] Cf. Genesis 4:15. Lamech boasts that seventy and seven deaths should be the penalty of revenge if he were slain.

The first note of warfare is sounded in this fierce exultation in a deed which has exceeded the limits of self-defence and passed into the region of the blood-feud. The possession of new weapons and the lust of revenge are here recorded as the typical elements of the war spirit. “Although, technically, the law of Vengeance was satisfied by a ‘life for a life,’ yet in practice the avenging of blood was often carried to the utmost length of ruthless ferocity. For one life many were taken, the murderer and his kinsfolk together.” (Gordon, Early Traditions of Genesis, p. 204.)

25. called his name] Here, as in Genesis 4:1 (see note), the mother gives the name.

God] Elohim (not Jehovah, as in Genesis 4:1), probably because of Genesis 4:26.

hath appointed] Heb. shath. As was pointed out in the note on Genesis 4:1, the resemblance to a Hebrew word in the sound of a proper name does not supply its strict etymology. The name “Seth” (shêth) = “setting” or “slip,” resembles in sound the Hebrew verb for “appointed” or “set” (shâth), and it is to this assonance that Eve’s words refer.

It is an instance of a play on a word, viz. paronomasia, of which there are many cases in the O.T. But assonance is a delusive element in etymology.

another seed] We are not to infer that no other children were born to Eve, but that Seth was “appointed” to take the place of Abel, and his seed to form a righteous counterpart to the unholy seed of Cain. In Sir 49:16 Seth is united with Shem as “glorified among men.”

25, 26. The Line of Seth

These two verses begin the line of Seth which is parallel to that of Cain. The more complete genealogy, found in ch. 5, comes from a different source (P). But it is not unlikely that they are derived from the same materials as the previous section.

26. Enosh] This word, used in Hebrew poetry, means “man,” and is thus to be compared with Adam.

then began men] In the Hebrew it is impersonal, “then was a beginning made.” The origin of Jehovah worship is here connected with the line of Seth, and is probably intended to be contrasted with the origin of secular callings in the line of Cain.

to call upon] “Properly, as always, to call with, i.e. to use the name in invocations, in the manner of ancient cults, especially at times of sacrifice; cf. Genesis 12:8, Genesis 13:4, Genesis 21:33, Genesis 26:25.” (Driver.)

the name of the Lord] i.e. the name of Jehovah. This statement by J, who uses this title by preference, is in conflict with the statement that the name was first revealed to Moses (E), (P), Exodus 3:14; Exodus 6:2. But in view not only of this text, but also of recent cuneiform decipherments, shewing the probability that a form of the name was known in Babylonia before the time of Moses, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the name belongs, as the tradition of J evidently taught, to prehistoric antiquity.

Ch. 5. The Descendants of Seth. (P.)

On the Cainites and Sethites, see note at the close of the chapter. In Genesis 4:25-26 a commencement was made of the Sethite genealogy taken from J. In ch. 5 a fresh start is made, and the line of Seth is traced from Adam to Noah. The genealogy is taken from a different source, which is clearly P. (a) The contents of Genesis 5:1-3 refer back to Genesis 1:26-28; (b) the “generations” (tôl’dôth) of Genesis 5:1 is the expression employed by P as the superscription of successive sections in his narrative (see note on Genesis 2:4); (c) the name Seth in Genesis 5:3 is given by Adam; according to J (Genesis 4:25) it was given by Eve; (d) the formal and systematic description of the patriarchs, consisting of (1) their names, (2) their age at the birth of their firstborn, (3) the length of their life, corresponds with the characteristics of P’s literary style and his fondness for statistics. With the exception of Genesis 5:29, the whole of the chapter may be regarded as the writing of P and the continuation of Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:4 a.

NOTE ON THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS

According to chap. 5 (P), the interval of time between the work of Creation (Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:4 a) and the visitation of the Flood (Genesis 6:9 ff.) is occupied by a list of ten Patriarchs.

The chronological scheme of P, according to the Hebrew text, makes this period to consist of 1656 years (in the Samaritan text, it is 1307 years; in the LXX, 2242). The description given of the ten Patriarchs is precise and formal. It is limited in each case to the bare formulae narrating facts respecting (i) the age of the Patriarch at the birth of his firstborn, (ii) the number of his remaining years, and the fact that he was the father of other children, (iii) his age at the time of his death.

The account which is thus given furnishes an explanation of the great population of the earth which is overthrown in the Flood. The chapter, however, contains no mention of the growing wickedness of the race. And it does not appear that P takes any account of the Narrative of the Fall (chap. 3 J). Budde, indeed (Urgesch. 93–103), contends that the names of the Patriarchs are intended to symbolize the condition of their age, the names Jared (= descent), Methuselah (= the man of the weapon, or the man of violence) denoting its deterioration.

The ten names represented the history of the human race before the Flood. The distribution of these ten names over the period of 1656 years implies a minute and elaborate calculation by the chronologists and chroniclers, whose work has been employed in P.

I. Ten Babylonian Kings

It is impossible to resist the conclusion that there is some sort of connexion between the ten Antediluvian Patriarchs of Genesis 5 and the ten kings before the Flood in the Babylonian Legends. The names of the ten kings are as follows:

(A. According to Berossus.)  (B. According to cuneiform inscriptions.)

1. Alôrus.  1.   Arûru.

2.   Alaparos.  2.   Adapa.

3.   Amêlôn.  3.   Amêlu (= Man, ? = Enosh).

4.   Ammenôn.  4.   Ummanu (= Master-crafts-man, ? = Kenan).

5.   Megalâros.

6.   Daônos.

7.   Euedôrachos.

8. Amempsinos.  7.   Enmeduranki (?=Enoch).

9.   Amel-Sin (= Man of the god Sin, ? = Methuselah).

10. Ôtiartes.  9.   Ubara-Jutu.

10 .  Xisûthros.  10.   Ḥasisatra (?=Noah).

In this list there may possibly be discerned some points of correspondence with the Hebrew. (a) In No. 3 Amelu (= Man) may be translated in Enosh=Man. (b) In (4) Ummanu (= Workman), in Kenan; and in (8) Amel-Sin (Man of Sin), in Methuselah (= Man of Shelah). (c) No. 7, Enmeduranki (king of Sippar, the city of the Sun-god, Shamash), who was the friend of the gods Ramman and Shamash, looks as if he must stand in some close relation to Enoch, whose life was 365 years and who walked with God. (d) The 10th in the list, Xisuthros or Ḥasisatra, the Ut-napishtim of the Epic, is the hero of the Babylonian Flood, and corresponds to Noah in the Hebrew list.

In the Babylonian list, the ten kings are assigned a period of 432,000 years.

II. Sethite and Cainite Genealogies

It is important to compare the two lists of the Sethite (P) and Cainite (J) Genealogies.

Sethite (chap. 5).  Cainite (chap. Genesis 4:17-24).

1.   Adam  1.   Adam

2.   Seth  

3.   Enosh  

4.   Kenan  2.   Cain

5.   Mahalalel  3.   Mehujael

6.   Jared  4.   Irad

7.  Enoch  5.   Enoch

8.   Methuselah  6.   Methushael

9.   Lamech  7.   Lamech

10.   Noah  " Jabal, Jubal, Tubal-Cain.

" Shem, Ham, Japheth.  

(a) The general resemblance in the names is very striking. (b) One list contains the perfect number ten, the other the perfect number seven. (c) Each list concludes in a family of three sons. We have to deal either with two variants of the same tradition; or with two distinct traditions, in which the same stock of primitive legendary names is found very closely repeated.

III. Different Chronologies

The Chronology of the Antediluvian Patriarchs varies in the three principal sources for the text, (1) the Massoretic (Hebrew), (2) the Samaritan, (3) the Septuagint. They are presented in the following Table.

  Massoretic Text  Samaritan  LXX  Year (Anno Mundi) of Death

  Firstborn  Remainder  Total  Firstborn  Remainder  Total  Firstborn  Remainder  Total  Mass. Text  Samaritan  LXX  

1.  Adam  130  800  930  130  800  930  230  700  930  930  930  930  

2.  Seth  105  807  912  105  807  912  205  707  912  1042  1042  1141  

3.  Enosh  90  815  905  90  815  905  190  715  905  1140  1140  1342  

4.  Kenan  70  840  910  70  840  910  170  740  910  1235  1235  1534  

5.  Mahalalel  65  830  895  65  830  895  165  730  895  1290  1290  1696  

6.  Jered  162  800  962  62  785  847  62  785  847  1422  1307  1923  

7.  Enoch  65  300  365  65  300  365  165  200  365  987  887  1484  

8. Methuselah  187  782  969  67  653  720  167*  802*  969  1656  1307  2256  

9.  Lamech  182  595  777  53  600  653  188  565  753  1651  1307  2204  

10.  Noah  500      500      500            

Till the Flood  100      100      100            

Year of the Flood  1656      1307      2242            

These different figures are not due to errors in the text. They seem to arise from the adoption of differing systems for the calculation of the chronology.

It has commonly been supposed that the Hebrew figures (1656) are part of a scheme which calculated 2666 years to have been the interval between the Creation and the Exodus, and that 2666 years represented two-thirds of a cycle of 4000 years.

The 2666 years are computed as follows:

1656  Creation to Flood

290  Flood to birth of Abraham

100  To birth of Isaac (Genesis 21:5)

60  To birth of Jacob (Genesis 25:26)

130  To Jacob’s descent into Egypt (Genesis 47:9-28)

430  Sojourn in Egypt (Exodus 12:40)

2666  

The Samaritan figure of 1307 is part of a system which calculated 3007 years to intervene between the Creation and the entrance into Canaan. The calculation was as follows:

Creation to Flood  =  1307  years

Flood to birth of Abraham  =  940  years

Birth of Abraham to descent into Egypt  =  290  years

Sojourn in Egypt  =  430  years

Wandering in Wilderness  =  40  years

    3007  years

Skinner (in loc.) points out, that, if the calculation be made in round numbers=3000, the entire period may then be divided into three decreasing periods of 1300, 940, 760 years, of which the second exceeds the third by 180 years, and the first exceeds the second by twice 180 years (2x180) = 360 years.

The LXX figure of 2240 is the equivalent of the Samaritan calculation from the Creation to the Flood (1300 years) + the Samaritan calculation from the Flood to the birth of Abraham (940 years). But whether this be the result of accident or design, it is impossible to say.

IV. Longevity of Patriarchs

The Hebrew tradition evidently assumed that human vitality, in the era immediately following upon the Creation, was at its highest point, and that, in consequence, immense longevity was to be expected in the lives of the Antediluvian Patriarchs.

The immense duration of life assigned to these ten Patriarchs has always been the occasion of difficulty. Attempts have been made to explain away the figures. (a) It has been suggested that the names of the Patriarchs represent dynasties. But the mention of the first-born and of other children obviously refers to personal history. Nor does the transference of these enormous figures to the duration of dynasties greatly diminish the improbability of their literal historicity. (b) It has been suggested that the Hebrew word for “year” (shânah) is used in this chapter to denote a shorter period of time. But this arbitrary solution is devoid of any evidence in its favour. Familiar Hebrew words, like “years” in this chapter, or like “day” in chapter 1, must not be supposed, because of our difficulties in interpretation, to require new meanings.

There is no reason not to interpret the statements respecting the longevity of the ten Antediluvian Patriarchs quite literally. The account of them belongs to the domain of primitive tradition. It would be strange, if the primitive unverifiable tradition were not accompanied by the exaggerations which popular legend weaves around prehistoric names.

It is instructive to compare the ages of the Antediluvian and Postdiluvian Patriarchs with those of the famous Israelites of more historic times.

Adam, the first of the Antediluvians, lived  930 years

Seth, the second of the Antediluvians, lived  912 years

Noah, the tenth of the Antediluvians, lived  950 years

Shem, the first of the Post-diluvians, lived  600 years

Arpachshad, the second of the Post-diluvians, lived  408 years

Terah, the tenth of the Post-diluvians, lived  205 years

Abraham  lived  175 years

Isaac  lived  180 years

Jacob  lived  147 years

Joseph  lived  110 years

Moses  lived  120 years

Joshua  lived  110 years

David reigned  40 years  

Solomon reigned  40 years  

Rehoboam lived  58 years  (2 Chronicles 12:13)

Hezekiah lived  54 years  (2 Chronicles 29:1)

Manasseh lived  67 years  (2 Chronicles 33:1)

It is clear that this descending scale, in the duration of life, corresponds to the stages of transition from legend to history.

There is no evidence to shew that the earlier phases of civilization were more favourable to longevity than the later.