Notes on the text of the book of Genesis : with an appendix online

O'lnDi:::! ♦ . . Il^^^n n^51. ' And the Usser Ught wUh
the stars to goverii the night! D^nDI^H n«1 is closely attached
to JDplm^{D^ ns; see 2, 9. 12, 17. 43, 18; Dr., -S"^;/?., p. 292.

18. S^'innbl, the i? is pointed with -^ by Ges., § 10. 2.
Rem.; see also Stade, § 105; and Konig, Lehrg., p. 73.

20. HTI ITD^ ^living beings' an explanatory apposition
to TT; so the Pesh. : not as the LXX, Vulg., etc., as
a genitive after TT? '^ ^^^ ^^ ^er. 11 nb'y N^Tl. H?^ and
y}]^ are frequently found in P.

riC"!!^"^. Pilel from P|^y, a denom. from C|iy; on this form
of the intensive stem, cf. Ges., § 72. 7 ; Dav., § 40. 6. Pilel,
because a great number of birds is meant ; at the same time
expressing the idea of 'up and down,' 'to and fro;' cf.
Di. in loc.

I^^p'l ^1^ ^V ' in front of I on the side turned towards
the earth, i.e. in the air, for which Hebrew has no special
expression (Del., Di.).

2i.'cr^T'ir\. LXX, fc^rv; Pesh. U:jr; Vulg. Vf/^.' From
pn 'to stretch out' and used Ex. 7, 9. Deut. 32, 33, for
a serpent, but more frequently for the crocodile, see Is.
2 7» I- 5ij 9 ; and also for other marine animals. Job. 7, 12.
Ps. 148, 7. Render, 'sea monsters!



CHAP. I, VERS. 16-24. 13

nTin tTDj h^ il^^l. rfn is an adj., not a substantive
(its use as a substantive is only poetical, being then equivalent
to the prose D^^n). l^Si is practically limited and determined
by b^ , hence the adj. has the article, though it is absent with
the noun: cf. 9, 10; Dav., S., §§ 32, R. 2. 99, R. i. This
usage is rare, but is met with occasionally at all periods of
the language; see Ges., §§ 117. i. R. 2, and 126. 5. R. i a;
M. R., § 85. R. c ; Driver, § 209. i ; and Journal of Phil, xi.
229 (where nearly all the examples are collected). Ewald,
§ 335 ^5 explains ''V\T\ {J^DJ as = ' the soul that lives,' regarding
the adj. with the article as virtually = to a participle and
article as in ver. 28.

Q'^TDPT 1!J'^U} "llTi*^ ' wherewith the waters swarfji! "it^'X
is the ace. after ys^. Verbs of abounding in^ and wanting,
govern the ace; see Ges., § 117. 4. Rem. 4 b; M. R., § 35 ;
Dav., S., § 73 c; and 9, 2.

an5^rp^ scriptio de/ectiva, for nn^T^); cf. 4, 4 |nni)n.

^y2 fjly ' birds (coll.) of wing! On the construction of
a subs., where in English an adj. is used, see Ges., § 128. 2 i ;
M. R., §79; Dav., ^.,§24.

irij^^T'. See on ver. 12.

22. "[12''1. On the position of the tone, cf. Ges., § 64. 3.
Rem. 2.

24. in'^m. in^n with the old, so-called case ending S.
Probably the ending S was that of the nominative ; compare
the Arabic nominative ending u, but in Hebrew its distinctive
use as a mark of the nom. was lost. These terminations i or
^ also the ending ••., have no meaning in Hebrew, and are
retained as mere binding vowels in particular phrases (\
especially in participles before a preposition) as archaisms,
or in imitation of archaisms ; see Ges., § 90. 3 b ; Dav., § 17 ;



14 GENESIS,



Stade, § 344; Driver, p. 237 f . ; and cf. "^V^ ^J3 in Num. 24,
3. 15, and d:P ^^!V^ in Ps. 114, 8.

Y'^Sn T^'^Tl is one of the characteristic expressions of P.

26. nto] ' le^ us make' Verbs lY'i? hardly ever take the
H— of the cohortative, and verbs \^'p only very rarely ; cf.
Ges., §§ 75. 6 and 108, foot-note ; M. R., § 9 ; Dav., S., § 62 ;
and Driver, c. iv, esp. § 47.

We have the plural again in 11, 7 and Is. 6, 8, and it has
been explained in various ways.

I. The Fathers here see a reference to the Trinity, and
many moderns have followed them; but as Del. {Comm.,
4th ed., p. loi) and Oehl. {Thcol. of 0. T., § 36) remark, the
mysterium Triniiatis is not sufficiently manifest in the O. T.
to warrant this interpretation. II. Tuch and others account
for the plural on the ground that in a case of reflection or
self-consultation, the subject stands as the object, in anti-
thesis to itself, the speaker conceiving himself as addressing
himself; cf. Hitzig and Del. on Is. 6, 8 ; Tuch, Comm., 2nd
ed., p. 23. But as Del. and Di. point out, there is no proof
of the existence of such a plural. III. Kn. and others
explain the plural from the custom which monarchs have of
using the first person plural in decrees, etc. ; but though this
occurs continually in the Qoran, and is found in the Bible,
Ezr. 4, 18. I Mace. 10, 19. 11, 31. 15, 9 (of Persian and
Greek rulers), it was never used in this way by the Hebrews.
IV. Di., Comm., p. 31, proposes a new explanation; his
words are, ' We should rather remember that the Hebrew
who speaks of God as D\1/'N in the plural, regarded Him as
the living, personal conception of a fullness of power and
might ; God could thus, differently from men, speak of
Himself in the plural.' A plausible explanation, but perhaps
hardly so natural as the one Del. adopts. V. Del. and others



CHAP. I, VER. 26.



may possibly be right when they refer the plural, as in Is.
6, 8, to the angels. God announces to them His resolve to
create man, without however allowing them to participate in
His creation: cf. Del. here, and for the idea i Kings 22,
19-22. Dan. 4, 14. 7, 10. Job i. Luke 2, 9. This is an old
interpretation, and is the one adopted by Philo {diakeyeraL

6 Tcov oXcov irarijp rais iavrov dwdfieo-iv, quoted by Del.^, p. 64),

Targ. Jon., which has '"l^i'l "'ioip pK^G^Dl ^S^^^^Pj' J! "IP.^.I
('V. spake io His angels who viinisier before Him! etc.), Rashi,
Ibn Ezra. Is. 40, 13. 14 and 44, 24 are cited against this
view, but are not conclusive : for as Del.^ (substantially
repeated in 5th ed.) remarks on this passage, ' A co-ordinate
sharing in the act of creation He does not grant them, any
more than in Is. 6, 8 in the act of sending : but He invites their
participation or interest in what He is doing, as the creating
of a being, who although of the earth, yet stands in a close
relation to them and to Him, is the point now in question.'

L31^^ ' 7nankiitd,' collective, as the pi. H"^^ shows.

D"7^^. The word is found in Hebrew and Phoenician, and
is preserved in Sabaean {C.I. S., iv. i. hn. 4) ; but in Syriac
and Arabic it only occurs as a proper name. In the Hebrew
text here, the name nm is clearly connected with HD^lN
' earth' as though = ' the earth-born,' yrjyevrjs, yrjivos. This,
however, cannot be, as a derivation, philologically defended.
Another derivation is from Q^X 'to be red; ' cf. Joseph., Ant.,
1. I. 2 ('ASa/io? cTTjfxaivet nvppos eneidrjnep dno t?js Tvvppas yrjs
(pvpadeio-rjs eyeyovei) ; SO many moderns, e. g. Ges., Tuch.
nDHN would then = ' the (red) earth,' possibly alluding to the
colour of the soil in Palestine ! But as Di. points out, the
two words cannot be regarded as limited to Palestine only,
nor is the term 'red' characteristic of all men. Another
explanation is based on the meaning of the root preserved



l6 GENESIS,



in Arabic, ' to attach oneself to' so D*1X = ' afiimal soci'abile!
This, however, is not very probable. The comparison with
the Assyr. adfjiu, 'â– young' (of a bird), Del., Proleg., 103 f.
and Assyr. Worterbuch, is also doubtful. Any certain etymo-
logy for mx has not as yet been found, see further Di.,
p. 53, and Del.^ on 2, 6.

"^'X\ ^yty^^'2. . D^V = 'figurel ' image' eUoiv, niOl is
more abstract = ' likeness,' SfMoicoais. ' The Greek and Latin
Fathers make a distinction between D?^ and niDl, referring
D^JV to the physical or inborn, DIDT to the ethical or receptive
side of the Divine image (Ebenbild)/ Di. But the absence
of 1 between the two words (only the LXX have /cm), and
a comparison of ver. 27 and 9, 6, where only the one, with
5, I, where only the other occurs, do not favour this view.
The two words are almost synonymous, the second being
added to emphasize the first (Di.).

Hyi, collective, ^fishes' = D\n ""H, 9, 2. Ps. 8, 9.

27. Int^ ^^H ^ made He him' i.e. mankind. DIN con-
ceived as collective, mankind in general being spoken of

â–¡nt^ h5"11 mp^l IDT ' male and female made He iheml
the two sexes are mentioned, hence the plural DHX.

28. 1211 11D. ma joined with nn is characteristic of P.

nt2)^"^rT. The art. supplies the place of the relative in
English; see Dav. S., § 99 and R. i ; M. R., § 92. Rem. a;
Ewald, § 335 a, and cf. Ges., § 138. 3. Rem. b. On the article
with nb^roi, after a subs, defined by i?D, see Driver, § 209. 2 ;
and cf 7, 21. Lev. 11. 46.

29. "^ririD for ''^^'^J; see Ges., § 66. 2. Rem. 3. ' I give',
the prophetic perf., ' the event being regarded as so certain,
it is already conceived of as actually come to pass ; ' cf. Ges.,



i



CHAP. I, VER. 27 CHAP. 2, VER. I. , I7

§ 106. 3; M.R. 3. I ; Dav., S., § 41; more fully, Driver, §§ 13,
14. See 9, 13. 15,18. 17,20. 23,11.13. 41,41-

11 "Itrt^, lit. 'which is in it,' i.e. 'wherein' see Ges.,
§ 138. I. and Rem. 2 ; Dav., S., §90, and R. i.

30.^'Sai pl^ Sd nt^. The verb ^nn3 here seems to have
dropped out. To make the ace. dependent on the ^nnJ in
ver. 29 is difficult, as rh'2'^ ^^"^"' Dsi? intervenes, and these
words can hardly be, as Di. suggests, a parenthesis. The
Vulg. paraphrases ' ut haheant ad vescenduml The Arab,
adds s.ili.:i ' / have appoiiited it ' or ' set it!

niry pi*" ^^2 = ' all verdure 0/ herbs;' of. Ex. 10, 15 xh

DtTi? = ' herb' in its widest sense, the green of it being
emphasized as that which animals commonly live on.

31. ^'tl^trn DV. Common words like DV are sometimes
treated as definite in themselves, and may then dispense
with the article; cf. 2, 3 ••y^a^n DV (also Ex. 20, 10). i Kings
7, 12 rh^i^^r^ ivn, also ver. 8 n")nN*n nvn, Ez. 40, 28. 31.
2 Chron. 23, 20 \\hv^ '^W, Neh. 3, 6 n^^^n "lyK^, also
Journ. Phil., xi. 229 f.; Ges., § 126. 5. R. i a; Ew., § 293 a;
Dav., 6'., § 32. R. 2; and Dr., § 209. i. On the relation in
which the Cosmogony of Genesis stands to modern science,
cf. Driver in the Expositor, Jan. 1886, pp. 23-45.

2.

I. D^^12, applied zeugmatically to X'\^T\'\ n''DK^n. The
phrase ' host 0/ heaven' is common in the O. T., e.g. i Kings
22, 19 ( = ' the angel hosts'). Josh. 5, 14 f. { — 'army or host
of God"). Ps. 103, 21 (of the elements). The phrase 'host
of the earth', here due to the D^CC'n N3V, is not common
elsewhere, we find instead pt^n xi'D, Is. 34, i.

c



l8 GENESIS,



2. y^'^'). 'And God efided,' not as a pluperfect as some
render. It is very doubtful whether an imperf. with waw
conv. can stand for a pluperfect, if no perfect in a pluperfect
sense precedes, and it is scarcely consistent with the meaning
of the idiom; cf. on i, 4. When a writer wishes to mark
that a pluperfect sense is necessary, he usually separates the
1 from the verb, which then naturally passes over into the
perfect (nb^ n^nbi