[See page image]
Page 376
Se a THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG $76 credited with a Palestinian-Phenician basis. But there is the statement of Philo Byblius (in Eusebius, Praparatio evangelica, I., x. 5 sqq.) that Ad6n (Time) had the care of trees, while the descendants of Aibn, viz., Phos, Pur, and Phlox (Light, Fire, and Flame), discovered fire and its uses, and their descendants were Casius, Lebanon, and Antilebanon, while their mother had commerce with those whom she met. Resemblance between this statement and Gen. iv. 17-24 is only in the general idea of giving the beginnings of inventions; reference is closest to the Greek myth of the discovery of fire, and the report of the shamelessness of woman reminds rather of Babylonian temple prostitution than of Gen. vi. 1-4, where the part of the women is innocent. The use by Philo Byblius of the name Jan, does not prove Hebrew origin, as J ge supposes (.gtudes our lea religions snit
pp. 411-112, Paris, 1905), since that name is very old. Positive indications of Canaanitic-Phenician origin of the patriarchs' names lacks specific foundation.
11. Relationship of the Sethite Series to the Cainite Series: In J only the Cainite series is complete (Gen. iv. 17-24), the Sethite is fragmentary (Gen. iv. 2526); the complete Sethite series comes from P. It is noteworthy that the names of Cainites are the same or similar to the Sethites'. Buttmann's remark (Mythologus, i. 171)that the same list appears twice with small variations in order and form has been often echoed (e.g., EB, iv. 4411); on the other hand, the independence of the lists is maintained (Driver, on Genesis, p. 80, London, 1905), and Zimmern (in Schrader, KAT, p. 542) affirms both to be very old. Probably Israelitic tradition had report of two lines of Adamic descendants.
III. The General Idea of the Sethite Line: While Ewald long held that the conception of the patriarchs among the ancestors of the Israelites was practically that of demigods (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 383, Gtittingen,1865), R. Brown (cf. Beweis des Glaubena, 1893, pp. 353-354) attributed to the patriarchs an astronomical significance in relation to the zodiac; Hommel (Expository Times, 1902-03, p. 105) remarks that the Chaldeans related the last seven [Babylonian] patriarchs to the seven planets, and the Babylonians distributed them among the ten months of the world year; and Zimmern (Schrader, KAT, p. 541) thinks that the Biblical ten patriarchs were originally heroes of the months of the first world year. But no trace is left [in the Bible] of this deification of the Sethites. For the statement that Seth is a divine name F. Ulmer (Die semitischen Eigennamen, p. 26, 1901) gives no proof. If the mythological view-point fails, ethnography is not more shadowed forth in the list. Lenormant (ut sup., i. 208 sqq.) would have the oldest races divided by these lists into the nomadic and the settled, or the yellow and the white. But the Old Testament makes the distinction rest upon religious-moral grounds. Over against the impious Cainites were the relatively better Sethites. In J are preserved in the Sethite genealogy the relatively good descendants of Adam by whom mankind is carried through the flood. J did not intend to say that the worship of Yahweh began wit)- Sethites (Gen. iv. 26b). If there were grounds for thinking that J had intended
to bring the Camite genealogy into proportionate connection with that of Seth, his intention failed in that he inserted the birth of Enos. In Gen. iv. 25-26 J laid his basis in the Sethite line, from which was to come he who, because of his relative rightness of relations with God, should lead mankind through the judgment to a better period of history. It was from the religious-moral view-point in the earliest Israelitic tradition that antediluvian man was divided into two lines, and so interpreters have generally understood it. If, as seems to be proved, the Hebrew narrative of primitive times is relatively independent, the question arises as to the meaning of the duality of series of patriarchs. Then the following considerations arise. (1) The religious-ethical superiority attributed to the Sethites is only relative. (2) From Sethites, not from Cainites, was derived the ancestor of postdiluvian mankind; the "comfort" (Gen. v. 29) expected from Noah was based in part upon immunity from a cursing of the earth on account of sin as in the case of Adam (Gen. viii. 21-22), it can not rest wholly upon the planting of the vineyard (as Budde thinks, Urgeschichte, pp. 306309). The curse of Yahweh was not to be averted by human action. (3) While the Masoretic text brings only one Sethite down to the flood, the Samaritan brings three; but the former appears to be the original conception. (4) The Sethite genealogy of J can not be considered entirely independent of the Cainite. The double line in Hebrew tradition arose not in the fact that Adam had two sons (Budde, us sup., p. 184) but because the early tradition distinguished between two lines ethically distinct. On this ethical distinction was based, probably, the long period of life awarded to the antediluvians.
IV. The Significance of the Individual Sethite Names: It seems that Seth, so far as he emerged in Hebrew tradition, was the substitute for Abel, who had perished in an outbreak of sinful power. But it remains questionable whether P (as Dillmann, in his commentary, on Gen. v. 3, and Budde, Urge achichte, p.163, think) intended to make Seth Adam's first son. The narrator's silence regarding the re lation of Seth to preceding children of Adam does not involve that he presupposed in his readers igno rance of that relation; according to analogy in the rest of the chapter, Seth is thought of as the first of Adam's children. Yet it can not be said with as surance that the narrator presupposed his readers' knowledge of Cain and Abel, nor does the fact that the name Enos means "mankind" involve for Seth restriction to the meaning "sprout." It can not be decided whether Cainan means "creature" or "worker in metals." Mahalaleel is "praise of God." Jared is regarded by Friedrich Delitzsch as mean ing "offspring" _ WO lag das Paradie§, p. 149, Leipsic, 1881); but it may mean "servant" or "de scent" [i.e., to a place]. Enoch means "consecra tion" and then "the consecrated one." Methuselah means "man of the javelin," and Lamech "warrior" or "conqueror." Noah means "rest." Whether these patriarchal names along with the assured or probable significance included each a special con ception depends upon the answer to the question whether the Hebrews attached to each the idea of a step in human development. Such a series of mean-