§ 141a 1:1–2:3 God prepares a Home for Mankind—When God first created the earth, it was without vegetation or animal life, as it was covered by water. Over the waters was only darkness, and the Spirit of God brooded over them preparing the earth and the waters for the production of life, 1–2. The universe was gradually brought into its present condition by successive divine operations extended over six days. The first three days saw the preparation of the fixed setting of the world, and the second three the adornment and peopling of its different regions by the creation of moving beings, inanimate and animate. The first day saw the creation of light and the consequent separation of light and darkness, 3–5. The work of the second day was the creation of the vault or firmament of heaven with the separation of the waters on the surface of the earth from those supported by the firmament which come down on the earth in due season in the form of rain, 6–8. On the third day God gathered the waters on the earth into one gathering which received the name of the seas. Thus a portion of the surface of the earth became visible and was then clothed with vegetation, 9–13. So far all was motionless or rooted in one spot. On the fourth day God created the sun, the moon and the stars, and placed them in the firmament of heaven, 14–19. On the fifth day God peopled the waters and the skies by the creation of the fish and other dwellers in the seas and of the birds, 20–23. On the sixth day God peopled the earth first by the creation of the terrestrial animals and secondly of man. God created man to his own image and decreed that he was to have dominion over the living creatures, whether in the air, in the waters or on the earth. To all the animals and birds as to man God gave the vegetable kingdom for their nourishment, 24–31. Having completed his work of creation God rested on the seventh day and sanctified it, 2:1–3.
§ b Various doctrinal and other questions are omitted from the following notes, which set down only such remarks as appear necessary on the separate verses; see §§ 137a–d, 142a–g. 1. As the creation of the firmament is recorded in 7 f., ‘heaven and earth’ here stands for the universe, which Hebrew had no one word to express. The verse is thus a summary of what follows. For an alternative translation see § 142 f. 2. The earth was ‘waste and empty’, as it was without its vesture of vegetation and without any living creatures to move about on its surface. In the prescientific era the earth was naturally conceived to have been created in its solid mass and with its contours such as man has always known them. That this is the meaning is shown both by the fact that the earth presented a solid surface on which the waters rested and by Ps 103:6, where the Psalmist treating of the creation of the world says ‘above the mountains stood the waters’. The darkness in which the world was created used to be described as ‘chaos’. Thus in the breviary hymn for Sunday Vespers the oncoming of night is mentioned in the words ‘illabitur tetrum chaos’. And this seems to have been the principal reason for the popularity of the idea that the world was created in a chaotic state. See Sutcliffe, ‘Primeval Chaos not Scriptural’ in Miscellanea Biblica II (1934) 203–15. The Spirit of God brooding over the waters depicts metaphorically God’s loving care for the world and his preparation of it for the living creatures which were to come out of it. There appears to be no reason in the context for the ‘powerful wind’ which some would substitute as a translation for ‘the Spirit of God’. 3. In the form γενέσθω φῶς καὶ ἐγένετο this first divine command is quoted in illustration of its theme in the treatise of Longinus On the Sublime, 9, 9 (ed. W. R. Roberts, 1899, 64).
§ c 5. The Hebrew Sabbath began at evening on what we call Friday and ended in the evening of what we call Saturday, and as God’s rest on the seventh day after his six days of work is proposed as a model of the Sabbath rest, it seems clear that the days of creation are represented as beginning in the evening. With this agrees the fact that the first day begins with a period of darkness which is followed by a period of the newly created light. 7. Omit the double ‘that were’, as there cannot have been waters above the firmament before its creation. 11. Three kinds of plants are mentioned, those which appear to have no seed like grass, those which have seeds that may be called naked like wheat and barley, and those which produce fruit with the seed within itself like figs and apples. 14. The heavenly bodies act as signs by aiding men to orientate themselves (the Hebrews fixed the points of the compass by facing the rising sun) and to find their direction when travelling. 20. ‘the gliding creature’ is from LX1330X, and also the production of the birds from the waters; M1331T ‘let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let the birds fly over the earth’. 24. Cattle are domesticated from the beginning; ‘the beasts of the earth’ are the wild animals. 26. For ‘the beasts and the whole earth’ read with Syr, ‘the cattle and all the beasts of the earth.’ ‘Man’ is used collectively, as is shown by the plural verb ‘let them have dominion’ (M1332T, LX1333X). Note the solemnity with which is introduced the crowning act of creation, namely that of man. All else was created for his benefit.
§ d 29. To man for food God gave all plants with naked or covered seed (cf. on 11), but to the animal creation, 30, except the fish which are not mentioned, ‘all green herbs’. The suggestion is that peace and harmony reigned in the whole of creation. No animal was in danger from its fellows or from man. And the Messianic age is depicted in Is 11:6–9 as a return to this primitive condition of universal harmony. The underlying idea is to emphasize the state of innocence in which man was created and to prepare the reader for the disharmony which sin was later to introduce into the world. The creatures of the sea, mentioned before together with the birds in 20–22, could not be introduced here, and there is consequently no allusion to the food provided for them. 31. After the various works of the previous days God saw that they were good, 4, 8 (LX1334X), 10, 12, 18, 21; and so also after the creation of the terrestrial animals on the sixth day, 25. Now when the creation of man had completed the execution of God’s design, he saw that the world was ‘very good’. This again prepares the reader’s mind for the sad fact to become plain later in the story that everything evil which mars the perfection of the world, is due to the sin of man. 2:1. ‘The heavens and the earth’ were completed in the work of the first three days. They provide the fixed setting of the theatre in which the drama of man’s religious history is to be played out. The second three days witnessed the creation of their ‘furniture’ or adornment (LX1335X, V1336g). M1337T (with ’aleph for yod) speaks of their ‘host’, the host of the firmament being the heavenly bodies, that of the seas the fish, and so forth. 2–3. God finished his work on ‘the sixth day’ (Sam., LX1338X, Syr1339.). The seventh day (M1340T, V1341g) was introduced here by an incautious copyist misled by its being mentioned later in the verse. D1342V ‘rested’ (V1343g ‘requievit’) is a strong anthropomorphism. The word šāḇaṯ occurs twice in this passage, in both 2 and 3, and in both cases LX1344X translates by κατέπαυσεν ἀπό ‘God desisted from all his works’; and the words are so quoted in Heb 4:4. But the idea of ‘rest’ is at least implicit in šāḇaṯ, and is quite explicit in Ex 31:17 ‘On the seventh day he rested and was refreshed’ (R1345V; V1346g and D1347V omit the second verb). V1348g in 3 translates ‘cessaverat’ though D1349V reverts to the word ‘rested’. Such variety in the choice of expression is characteristic of St Jerome.
§ 142a To understand this account aright it is important to bear in mind certain theological principles of interpretation. The Bible is not a handbook of physical science. Its purpose is religious truth. Consequently the sacred writers, or more correctly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not intend to teach men what would help no one to attain his salvation’. So taught St Augustine in words made his own by Leo XIII (D1350z 1947; E1351B 106). The Pope goes on to say that the sacred writers consequently speak of the constitution of the visible world and of its phenomena as the men of their time spoke and in language intelligible to their contemporaries. Now it is clear that the account of the way the world was formed could depend only on either reason or revelation. The principle laid down by Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus just quoted excludes the revelation of the truths of natural science. And it is not credible that in the early prescientific days of the Hebrew people human reason had reached that exact knowledge of the constitution of the universe which it has taken mankind at large some thousands of years to attain. It follows, therefore, that God did not intend to give us in Gen 1 an account of the world in full accord with the actual facts of physical science.
§ b What we have is a popular account of the world as conceived by the ancient Hebrews in accordance with appearances. This is borne out by an examination of the text. We have light even on dull days when the sun is completely obscured, and it consequently appears to be an independent entity. In accordance with this it existed for three days before the creation of the sun on the fourth day. The earth appears to be flat and to be surmounted by a celestial dome or vault, which we call the firmament, a name which, it may be recalled in passing, implies its solidity. Water descends from above in the form of rain, apparently from a celestial reservoir in which it is stored. This is naturally supposed to be supported by the solid firmament, 6 f. It falls when the apertures or ‘flood gates’ are opened, 7:11. The plants and trees are created on the third day, 12, as part of the fixed scene, and so before the existence of the sun, without which they cannot flourish. The heavenly bodies appear to be set on the under surface of the firmament, 17, and the sun and moon seem to be of greater size than the stars, 16. That the days of creation are proposed as natural days seems evident from the following facts. They are set forth as a model of the Hebrew week which culminated in the Sabbath rest, 2:3. Each has an evening and a morning, and the day is ruled by the heavenly bodies, 16. These days are part of the popular account and not intended to specify the time actually occupied in the work of creation. St Athanasius, P1352G 26, 276, and St Augustine, P1353L 34, 231, understood this and taught that all things were created at one and the same time; cf. Sutcliffe, The Six Days of Creation (CT1354S, 1945).
§ c This schematic and artistic presentation of the truth that the world belongs to God, that it was made by him and designed by him precisely as the home of man stands most suitably at the head of the OT, which in sum is the history of the covenant entered into by God with the people of Israel. From the first page the Israelite was reminded that the God whom he worshipped and who had condescended to make the children of Abraham his own chosen people out of all the nations of the earth was the one, true, only God, the Lord and Master of the whole world. The chapter contains besides other important heads of doctrine. This one, true God is depicted as alone creating and adorning the world. The sun and moon worshipped as divinities by the Babylonians are simply creatures, and so far from having any dominion over the human race were made by God for the service of man. So too the beasts and birds adored by the Egyptians are the work of God’s hands and put by him under the control of man. This implicit repudiation of polytheistic creeds is more effective than any explicit denial of their validity. § d Moreover, everything being made by God is good, even very good; and this inherent goodness of all God’s creatures serves to emphasize in the later development of the story the wicked use man so often makes of them, as of the power and rights of marriage here instituted and blessed by God. Man is the special object of God’s care. All else is designed for him and he is made the lord of all; cf. Ps 8. But though all else is subordinated to him, he is himself subordinated to his Maker and owes obedience to his commands. And this obedience is made the lighter by the loving condescension by which God deigned even to make man in his own image and likeness. § e It is to be noted that man as such, composed of body and soul, is made in the likeness of God, not one part of him only, and the immediate context suggests that the likeness is to be found primarily in man’s lordship of created things, which bear a relation of subordination to him analogous to that which he bears to his Creator. But this lordship is founded in man’s exclusive possession of intellect and will without which this lordship would be impossible. And it is therefore in these faculties of the spiritual soul that man’s likeness to God ultimately rests. This explanation goes beyond the meaning which the text would have conveyed to the early Israelites at a time when they had not yet arrived at the concept of spirituality. On this question see the full discussion in Petavius, De Opificio Sex Dierum, Lib. 2, cap. 2. (The angels too were created in the likeness of God, but Gen 1 treats only of the visible world.)
§ f The doctrine of creation out of nothing is explicitly stated in 2 Mac 7:28. Gen 1:1 speaks of ‘creation’ but does not say in so many words that the creation was out of nothing. Hence the question arises whether the doctrine can be proved from these opening words of Scripture alone. The word bārā’ ‘create’ or ‘make’, which is used exclusively of divine operations, does not of itself include the idea of making out of nothing. It is used three times in 1:27 of the making of man, whose body was formed out of pre-existing matter. If ‘in the beginning’ is understood of the absolute beginning of time or of created things (both began together), then clearly, before God made the world, there was nothing out of which it could have been made. Petavius, however, De Opificio Sex Dierum I, i, 19 (Paris, ed., 1866) points out that the word ‘beginning’ can be understood to include all the six days. These six days are the beginning in which God made the world and all that is in it. He therefore maintains that as far as the strict meaning and import of the words is concerned, it cannot be deduced from the opening sentence of Gen that God made all things out of nothing (ibi1355d. n. 9). He adds, however, that the doctrine being known from other sources illustrates the full meaning of the words ‘In the beginning God made heaven and earth’. This is the translation of LX1356X and V1357g. The Hebrew even with massoretic vocalization (cf. GK1358 130d) can be rendered ‘In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was desolate and void and darkness was on the face of the abyss and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters, then God said “Let there be light” ’. According to this rendering of the text God’s first recorded act was the creation of light, though, and this is important, it is not implied that God did not create the world out of nothing, and the statement sometimes made that an eternally existing mass is supposed, is incorrect. Hebrew style often emphasizes one truth without implying a denial of what is not explicitly stated.
§ g The biblical account of creation is independent of all pagan cosmologies. Not only is its religious outlook incomparably superior to the gross polytheism of Israel’s neighbours, the whole tone is far more lofty. The frame-work of six days followed by a day of rest is found nowhere else. There are, as would be expected, cosmological conceptions common to the Semitic world, such as the solid firmament and the waters above it, and tehôm, the word used of the primeval ocean, recalls Tiamat, its personification in Babylonia. But speaking of Enuma elish, the Babylonian epic of creation, Sir Frederic Kenyon rightly says ‘There is almost nothing to link the narrative to that of Genesis’, Archaeology and the Bible (1940) 47. The question is one of literary and historical, not of theological, interest. For the Babylonian accounts see Sir E. Wallis Budge, Babylonian Legends of the Creation (1931), R. Labat, Le Poème babylonien de la Création (1935).
§ 143a 2:4–25 The Creation of the First Man and Woman—With this section begins a narrative written in a simple homely style quite different from the elevated tone characteristic of ch 1. According to the plan of the book it is dove-tailed with the preceding section which leads up to the creation of mankind in general without reference to particular persons. The present section sets forth the creation and condition of the first human pair. It is not a second account of the creation of the world, though the production of plants and animals is introduced at those points of the story where their relation to man requires it.
§ b In a certain region of the earth, probably Babylonia, there was as yet no vegetation of the smaller kinds which require surface water for growth as there was neither rain from heaven nor man to irrigate the soil, 5. There was, however, a source of water which man would be able to turn to good account, 6. God now formed the body of a man and made it to live, 7. God then placed him in a lovely oasis in Eden, 8, in which grew all manner of pleasant and fruitful trees, two in particular being called the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, 9. The growth of these trees had been possible without the help of man as the undersoil received moisture from a river which ran through the oasis and on leaving it divided into four, 10–14. This oasis, which we call Paradise, was to be man’s home. He would have pleasant occupation in looking after it, 15, and abundance of food from its variety of fruits, 16. In these surroundings there was nothing to test his loyalty to God. So God made the continuance of his happy state, including the privilege of immortality, dependent on the observance of one command. Man must not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and of evil, 17. Now the man was alone and God intended him to have a consort, but he must first understand his need, as he did when he came to see and know the animals in the oasis. No one of them was fit to be his companion, 18–20. God then formed the first woman from his side, and in her the man recognized one of the same nature as himself and understood God’s purpose in the institution of marriage, 21–24. And having reason in complete control of their lower nature, although naked they had no cause for shame, 25.
§ c 4. ‘This is the history of the world.’ The word tôleḏôṯ, lit1359. ‘begettings’ came to mean ‘generations (of a family)’, ‘genealogy’, and so ‘history’. It is noteworthy that the history of a person is introduced as the history of his progenitor, as that of Abraham as ‘the history of Thare’, 11:27. So here the story of the first human beings is introduced as the history of the world out of which they were formed, 7. For the occurrences of the word, always as introduction to the following narrative, cf. § 136j–l. ‘When the Lord God made heaven and earth, 5, there was as yet no herb of the field on the earth and no plant of the field had as yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth’. The actions of secondary causes tend to be ignored by biblical writers and their causality to be attributed directly to God who created them. This was in part due to ignorance of these causes, an ignorance which, indirectly, had the happy effect of putting into prominent relief the reality of God’s ever-continued government of the world. Note too the Hebrew use of universal expressions limited only by the context. The writer has in mind not the whole earth, but the particular region of Babylonia, where the rainfall is negligible and the soil fruitful when irrigated by man from the rivers. ‘and there was no man to till the ground, 6, and raise the flowing waters from the earth to irrigate the whole surface of the ground’. The word ’ēḏ is explained by the Sumerian id ‘stream, canal’ and by extension the water they contain; see further B1360i 30 (1949) 77 f. § d 7. God now formed the body of man out of the soil and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and ‘the man became a living being’. At the time of Moses it was not yet known that the body of man is animated by a spiritual soul; cf. Sutcliffe, The Old Testament and the Future Life (194713612) 152–9. The most obvious difference between a living and a dead body is that the latter has ceased to breathe. Accordingly life is spoken of as God’s gift of breath, and death as his withdrawal of it as in Ps 103:29 f., where the phrase is used of the animals. There is consequently nothing in the expression to distinguish between the life of man and of brutes. § e 8. Events are not all narrated in chronological order but as the course of the story requires. God as a suitable home for man planted with trees ‘a garden in Eden’. The familiar name ‘Paradise’ is derived from LX1362X παράδεισος, itself of Persian origin and denoting originally an enclosed park. Eden may be Bit-Adini on the middle Euphrates or, perhaps more probably, may represent the Assyrian word edinu meaning an open plain or desert, as that is what the territory was in which the garden was situated. The word ‘pleasure’ is due to the existence of a homonym with that meaning and the fact that the garden was a most delectable home. § f 9. The trees had been able to grow because the undersoil was moistened by the water which seeped through from the river, 10. Some of the trees were purely ornamental, others also fruit-bearing. The tree of life is probably to be conceived as having fruit of preternatural power capable of entirely restoring human energy and vitality and so of preserving the strength of youth. By its means Adam and Eve, though mortal by nature, would have enjoyed the gift of immortality. Unlike this tree, the tree of knowledge of good and of evil would have no unusual powers in its fruit. But it was the subject of the one divine prohibition to which Adam was subjected, 17. If he transgressed this prohibition and ate of its fruit, he would learn by bitter personal experience how transient is the enjoyment of sin and how bitter and enduring its consequences. He knew already the distinction between good and evil; unless he had known that it is sinful to disobey the commands of God, there could be nothing morally wrong in his disobedience. He was plainly warned of the unhappy consequences of transgression, but before his sin he did not know them by experience. At the same time, the name could be interpreted to mean omniscience according to the Hebrew idiom by which totality is expressed by means of the conjunction of opposites. Of this possibility the powers of evil were ready to take advantage, as the sequel shows, 3:5.
§ g The passage, 10–14, interrupts the narrative and is marked by an entirely different style and outlook. Its purpose is to give a more exact geographical indication of the site of Paradise. This is done by the statement that a river watered the garden and after leaving it divided into four rivers, the names of which will have been well-known at the time when the narrative was written. As the Euphrates and the Tigris both gird Mesopotamia, various attempts have been made to identify the other two with confluents or canals in their upper, middle or lower courses. No such proposal bears the marks of probability. A more radical solution was current in the early Church. It must be remembered that geography is a science like astronomy, and, although scientific knowledge about the earth is more easily acquired than about the stars, nonetheless its acquisition presented formidable difficulties which it took many generations to overcome. Exact statement of geographical fact must not be expected in the Bible any more than of astronomical; cf. § 142a. Now according to St Augustine, whereas the Tigris and the Euphrates have retained their ancient names, the Phison and the Gehon have not, their new names being respectively the Ganges and the Nile, De Gen. ad lit., Lib. 8, cap. 7 (P1363L 34, 378). These were the four great rivers known to the ancient world and the ideal site of the home of our first parents would be at the central point where these four rivers separate to water the four quarters of the earth. So too Josephus, Ant. Jud. 1, 1, 3, identifies the Phison with the Ganges and the Gehon with the Nile. This former identification is suggested by St Jerome, Quaest. Hebr. in Gen. (P1364L 23, 941) and the latter is made also in LX1365X Jer 2:18. The historian Arrian provides a good illustration of geographical knowledge as late as the 4th cent. b.c. When Alexander the Great reached the Indus, he thought he had found the source of the Nile, Anabasis, 6, 1, 2 f.
§ h The thread of the narrative is picked up again in 15 by the repetition from 8 that God placed man in this garden ‘to dress it and keep it’, or ‘tend it’ (not ‘to guard it’; there was nothing and no one to guard it against). 16. ‘thou mayest eat’. 17 has been understood in two ways—as a threat either of immediate death which God did not carry out as the sinners were not obstinate, or of subjection to the law of death as they would no longer have access to the tree of life, 3:22. The Hebrew suggests the former. 19. The animals in question are only those of Paradise; see on 2:5. Being concerned with the story of Adam, and not with the creation of the world, this is the first time the writer has had occasion to mention them, and he does not mean that they were created now after man. The Hebrew mode of speaking does not warrant the idea that God miraculously brought all the animals before Adam; see on 2:5. In the natural course of things Adam came to see and know the various kinds of animal in the garden and the adequacy of his knowledge is emphasized by the statement that he gave them names and did so correctly (‘the same is its name’). The point of this is that the Hebrews names were not thought of as mere labels but as denoting the nature, character or office of the thing or person named. § i 20. It is thus brought home to Adam that surrounded as he is by living creatures, he is yet alone. 21. God now proceeds to give him a consort. The ‘deep sleep’ is expressed by the same word (tardēmāh) as is used for the natural slumber that overcame the weary Jonas, 1:5; There is no reason to doubt the translation ‘rib’ which is supported both by the ancient versions and by the cognate word in Arabic. 23. In the other living beings he had seen Adam had recognized no similarity of nature, but in the newly formed woman he recognized the very same nature as his own. This is an important point of doctrine against the view that woman is of a nature inferior to man. At the same time the manner in which her formation is described is designed to teach that in the institution of the family the husband and father is the natural and divinely instituted head to whom all the other members are subordinate as good order requires a central authority in every society. 24. It is not clear whether these words are Adam’s or the sacred writer’s. In either case they can be attributed to God as our Lord appears to do, Mt 19:4 f. In the former case they are conceived as a divine prophecy put into the mouth of Adam and in the latter as due to the divine inspiration of the hagiographer. The Council of Trent attributes them to Adam, but does not pretend to settle a point of this kind, D1366z 969. The words teach the indissolubility of marriage as one flesh cannot be divided. And that marriage by divine institution is between one man and one woman was made more plain by Christ when he referred to this passage and added, ‘Therefore now they are not two but one flesh’, Mt 19:6. 25 in the light of 3:7 signifies that in the state of innocence the lower powers of human nature were entirely subordinated to the rule of reason. § j Our first parents were thus placed in conditions of physical and spiritual felicity. Their bodily needs were supplied by the trees of the garden, the care of which was designed to supply pleasant occupation. As they were created in adult life, God will have given them that knowledge which was necessary to their state, a knowledge that human beings have normally to acquire through the years of childhood and adolescence. Though by nature mortal, they had in the tree of life the means of preserving health and strength indefinitely. In other words, they had the gift of immortality. They had moreover the preternatural gift of integrity. That is, by a special privilege their nature was ‘whole’ and without internal conflict, as their bodies with their physical powers were entirely under the control of reason, which had not therefore to control the spontaneous impulses of their lower nature. This gift of integrity is also called the absence of concupiscence, and is indicated by the fact that, though naked, they had no cause for any sense of shame. That they were created in the state of sanctifying grace and were destined for the beatific vision cannot be deduced from the OT, but is learnt from the NT.
§ k The theory of evolution or transformism, which figures so largely in modern text-books of biology, was unknown to the Hebrews and the animals are represented as created according to ‘their kinds’ or their species, such as they were known to have at the time Genesis was written. What the book offers is a popular account suited to the mentality of the age, and directed to a purely religious purpose. It was not the wish of the Holy Ghost in inspiring the sacred writers to teach men such matters of purely secular knowledge; cf. § 142a. This applies also to the theory—it is nothing more than a theory lacking proof—that the human body has been evolved from lower forms. If it should ever be established, the religious teaching of Genesis would remain the same, namely, that the world was created for the sake of man, who is himself the work of God’s hands no matter what path the divine wisdom chose to follow in the production of man’s bodily frame. That man has a spiritual rational soul is established by philosophy as is also the fact that such a spiritual substance could not have its origin in anything material. And it is due to man’s spiritual soul that his mental powers differ essentially from those of even the highest of the brute creation. The refined concept of spiritual being, however, was not attained till many centuries after the time of Moses.
§ l Pius XII reminds us that the question does not belong exclusively to the field of natural science and that the sources of revelation impose caution and moderation. It is one that may be freely discussed, provided we are prepared to accept the decision of the Church, to whom Christ committed the charge of interpreting Holy Scripture and of guarding the doctrines of the Faith (Humani generis AA1367S 42 (1950) 575 f.).
§ m In the same Encyclical the Pope goes on to say that as regards polygenism Catholics do not enjoy the same liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace the opinion that after Adam there lived on this earth true men not derived from him by natural generation, or that Adam signifies a plurality of first parents ‘since it is not at all clear how such an opinion can be reconciled with what the sources of revelation and the acts of the Church’s teaching authority put forward concerning original sin’ (ibi1368d. 576).
§ 144a 3:1–24 The Temptation, Fall and Punishment of Adam and Eve—1. Adam and Eve had no source of temptation in their own lower nature on account of the absence of concupiscence, and the incitement to evil came from without. At the time when Genesis was composed the existence of wicked spirits, angels fallen from their high estate, had not yet been revealed—the name Satan first occurs in the book of Job and then not as that of a wicked spirit—and the power urging to evil is introduced under a symbolical form. The choice of the serpent was suitable for several reasons. The temptation to be proposed was subtle and the serpent was reputed to be crafty and cunning, Mt 10:16. As the narrative explains how the existing state of the world came to be, and God was to set enmity between the human race and the power that had incited to the first sin, 15, the animal chosen had to be one between whom and men hostility as a fact exists. This condition excluded all the domestic animals between which and Eve a friendly conversation might appear less surprising. But in Paradise peace and harmony existed between all creatures. The choice may also have been influenced by ideas current in the Semitic world. In the epic of Gilgamesh it was a serpent that deprived the hero of the precious plant of immortality. The choice may also have had a polemical purpose. Serpents were associated with Canaanite worship (J. Coppens, La Connaissance du Bien et du Mal, Louvain, 1948, 93 f., 123), and the part played by the serpent in procuring the downfall of mankind would tend to lessen the attractiveness of the cult. This supposition is strengthened by the consideration of the various polemical motives in ch 1. With the progress of revelation it came to be understood that the serpent is a symbol of the devil, Wis 2:24, Apoc 12:9
§ b The conversation starts with the untrue suggestion: ‘Has God really commanded you not to eat of any of the trees in the garden?’ 3. Omit ‘perhaps’ which is due to the Latin idiom of V1369g. 4. Now the serpent boldly lies, and even, 5, dares to attribute God’s prohibition to a jealous desire to prevent his creatures from acquiring a knowledge which would make them like to himself. The serpent plays upon the name of the tree as suggesting omniscience; cf. on 2:9. 6. Thus ‘the serpent seduced Eve by his subtlety’, 2 Cor 11:3, and she saw that the tree was ‘a delight to the eyes and desirable for the gaining of wisdom’. 7. The words of the serpent in 5 had been true but not in the sense it had insinuated. The knowledge immediately won was that of the power of their lower nature, now no longer under the complete control of reason, and their eyes were opened only to see their nakedness. 8. They heard ‘the sound’ of God’s steps approaching. 10. Again it is emphasized that the knowledge acquired was a knowledge of guilt and shame. 12. Instead of humbly confessing his sin Adam attempts to throw the blame on his wife, who, in her turn, 13, tries to make the serpent responsible. 14. St Basil points out that a change is implied and that the serpent had previously walked on legs and feet, P1370G 30, 68. This, however, is dubious and in any case it is not intended that the change should be understood as an historical fact. The idea is probably polemical suggested by the pagan representation of the serpent standing erect. There is no evidence of an ancient popular belief that serpents do eat dirt (Is 65:25 is a reference to our passage) and the thought will have been suggested by the serpent’s crawling gait and the metaphorical expression of abject humiliation as ‘licking the dust’, Ps 71:9, Is 49:23.
§ c 15a. The friendly terms that existed between Eve and the serpent are not to last. There will be hostility between them and between their respective descendants, signified by the word ‘seed’. It is unusual that this should be used of a woman though it is also used of Rebecca, 24:60, with the same sense of ‘posterity’. The hostility foretold is manifest in the relations normally existing between men and serpents. 15b. It can hardly be doubted that the feminine pronoun had its origin in the error of an early copyist of V1371g. In his Lib. Quaest. Heb. in Gen. St Jerome quotes the Old Latin version of this text with the masc. (ipse) and translates the Hebrew with the same, P1372L 23, 943, and ipse is the reading of various V1373g MSS. It is therefore highly improbable that he translated ipsa here; see Sutcliffe C1374R (1931) 151–3. As the word refers to the ‘seed’, it may be replaced in English by ‘it’. The translation of the verbs requires discussion. Both of the seed and of the serpent the word used is šûp̱. This occurs besides only Jb 9:17 ‘he breaketh me with a tempest’ (R1375V) or ‘he overwhelmeth me with a storm’, LX1376X ἐκτρίψῃ, V1377g ‘conteret’, and Ps 138 (139):11 ‘darkness shall overwhelm me’ (R1378V), LX1379X καταπατήσει, V1380g ‘conculcabunt’. (To speak of darkness crushing or overwhelming is not out of keeping with Heb. diction, and there is no need to emend to yeśûkkēnî ‘will cover me’.) In our passage LX1381X took the word as a parallel form of šā’ap̱ and translated τηρήσει … τηρήσεις ‘be on the watch for’. Syr1382. translates, first, ndûš ‘crush’ and, secondly, temḥe’ ‘wound, strike’. V1383g conjoins these two with ‘conteret’ and ‘insidiaberis’. A1384V R1385V have ‘bruise’ in both places. This cannot be considered satisfactory. The word is unsuitable for the serpent, and is not in harmony either with the strength of the concept manifest in Jb 9:17 or with the antecedent probabilities of the outcome of an attack on the serpent’s head. The outcome of enmity set by God between the two parties will not be a mere ‘bruise’ on either side. The sense ‘crush’ which the context suggests is supported by LX1386X, Syr1387. and V1388g with the renderings quoted above. This meaning is clearly suitable to describe the action on the serpent but not that taken by it. That the word is used with this sense of the first action is not likely to have induced its use, though unsuitable, of the second. The most likely explanation is that the linguistic sense of the Hebrews, while rejoicing in the assonance, recognized that here the word is used in the other sense ‘to be eager for’ attested by LX1389X and V1390g. The allied form šā’ap̱ has this sense, and that it is common to both is further suggested by the fact that both forms have in common meaning ‘crush’. Hence the translation: ‘It shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for its heel’. On the meaning of the prophecy see § 145d–e.
§ d 16. ‘I will multiply the sorrows of thy conceptions’: a hendiadys. ‘thy longing shall be to thy husband’. The proper subordination of the wife to her husband (see on 2:23) is now changed, as often in the ancient Orient, to one of subjection. There is, of course, no moral objection to measures for the mitigation of the pains of childbirth any more than there is to facilitate, 17, the labours of man in the production of food. In the garden no arduous toil was required to provide food. That is now changed. 18. The word ‘herbs’ is that used in 1:29 and includes those of which man eats only the seeds like wheat and barley. 19. Note that the introduction, 7, and improvement, 21, of clothing is mentioned expressly, which shows that ‘bread’ here does not denote baked flour. If this had been intended, there would have been a reference to its invention; cf. 4:17–22. The word leḥem is used of food in general, both of man, Jg 13:15 f., and of beasts, Ps 146 (147) 9. From this verse come the words with which the Church reminds the faithful on Ash Wednesday of man’s frail tenure of life adding the symbolic signing of the Cross with ashes on the forehead of each one. 20. The name ‘Adam’ means ‘man’ and first occurs definitely as a proper name in 4:25. In all previous occurrences wherever Hebrew admits of the use of hē’ (= the def. art.) it is found in M1391T; and, against M1392T, was certainly intended with the preposition in 2:20 and 3:17. Thus here and elsewhere up to 4:25 Adam is spoken of simply as ‘the man’. The name ‘Eve’ denotes the source of (human) life. The position of this verse rather interrupts the easy flow of the narrative. 21. On the omission of reference to secondary causes see on 2:5. The omission here, however, is probably due to the fact that life, which was created by God, is sacred to him. Man’s diet is still spoken of as purely vegetable, 17–19, and permission to eat flesh is first given in 9:3. 22. The construction of the sentence remains unfinished, but is readily understood. The foolish pride of the ambition to become like to God merited the severe irony of this sentence, which is in no way surprising in this strongly anthropomorphic passage. The irony is manifested by the context and not by any special form of speech. God determines that Adam shall not (again) eat of the tree of life. It is not implied that he had not previously done so. 23. ‘out of the garden of Eden’; cf. 2:8 ‘a garden in Eden’. 24. The Cherubim are interpreted by Christian tradition as Angels. The word is of uncertain derivation; the Assyrian karūbu and kurūbu mean ‘great, powerful’. A Mesopotamian analogy is provided by the twin figures of winged bulls guarding the entrance to temples.
§ 145a The narrative is direct and objective and reflections such as the folly and ingratitude of Adam and Eve’s conduct are left to the reader. Similarly there is no analysis of the nature of the first sin. It had various elements, but first and foremost it was a sin of pride by which they irrationally desired to rise above their nature and attain a divine prerogative, 5. ‘Pride is the beginning of all sin’, Ecclus 10:15. It was also a sin of disobedience, Rom 5:19, and a sin of grave irreverence against God in that they believed the serpent rather than God, and even its suggestion that God’s prohibition was motivated by jealousy, 5. That Adam as well as Eve believed the serpent is implied in the statement made by God about his attainment of divine equality, 22.
§ b The further question now arises whether the sacred author under the symbol of the tree of knowledge and its fruit had some particular species of sin in mind. Such a possibility was indicated by St Augustine: ‘If any wish to understand the tree not literally as a real tree having real fruit but figuratively, let the application be consonant with the faith and the demands of verisimilitude’, De Gen. ad lit., Lib. 11, cap. 41, n. 56 (P1393L 34, 452). The interpretation St Augustine had in mind is that which understood the eating the fruit to signify the use of matrimonial rights. This was the teaching of Julius Cassianus, leader of the Docetae, who held such use to be sinful. He argued that the tree was the tree of knowledge and knowledge stands for sexual relations, 4:1, Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 3, 14 (P1394G 8, 1193 f.). It was also the view of St Zeno, Bishop of Verona, though he does not explain wherein the malice of the act lay, Tract., Lib. 1, 13, n. 5 (P1395L 11, 348). It is also urged that the close connexion established in the story between the eating of the fruit and the knowledge of concupiscence suggests a sexual interpretation. But the openness with which Scripture speaks of sexual relations is alone sufficient to show that if the sacred writer had had anything of the kind in mind he would not have hesitated to speak with some plainness. Moreover, the meaning attaching to the phrase ‘to know’ a wife cannot be separated from the object of that knowledge and transferred to knowledge in general. The knowledge of concupiscence which followed the sin is adequately explained whatever the nature of the sin, for, on any hypothesis, it was an act of rebellion against the dominion of God, who in just punishment withdrew the gift of integrity and allowed our first parents to suffer the rebellion of their own lower nature and to know its influence anticipating the control of reason. God had blessed the union of the sexes; he had created Eve precisely to be the necessary counterpart of Adam; he wished the human race to increase and multiply. St Augustine pours scorn on the idea: ‘ridiculum illud est’, loc. ci1396t. The fact is that the story presents no satisfactory basis for any sexual interpretation. It is true that there are allusions to matters of sex just as there are to the procurement of food and eating. Both being fundamental in human life and both being adversely affected by the first sin, neither could be omitted from the account. The punishment of pain in childbirth affects the woman only whereas a sexual sin would have been common to both. These pains are the outstanding characteristic of woman’s lot as the labour of procuring bodily nourishment in the sweat of his brow is characteristic of that of man. Each is punished according to natural disposition. As regards the trees, given the general interpretation proposed, § 143f, there does not seem to be any cogent reason for looking beyond the surface suggestion of the narrative (see on 2:9) for any specific symbolism. It appears that the sacred writer had received no revelation as to the exact nature of the first sin, and, it being difficult to conceive to what sin but pride and disobedience man in a state of innocence, with his lower nature entirely subject to reason, could be exposed, he represented the moral fall of man in a way suggested by the paradise in which he lived. The gravity of the sin lies in the fact that it is equivalent to the proud refusal ‘I will not serve’, Jer 2:20.
§ c In view of the apparent connection of the story with Mesopotamia it might be expected that some similar account would be found in that region. Actually no such story in Sumerian or Babylonian literature has been found among the tens of thousands of tablets recovered. The story of Paradise and the Fall appears to have been unknown among those peoples. Certain elements of the story, however, are found among the Babylonians. This is not surprising as the sacred writer uses for his own sublime purpose symbols and ideas current in his time. The Babylonians were familiar with a tree or plant of life. There is, however, no moral purpose in Gilgamesh’s being deprived of this plant by a serpent. A scene depicting Adam, Eve, a tree and the serpent was once supposed to be engraved on a certain cylinder seal. Such sensational interpretations are not uncommon when archaeological discoveries first become known. The scene probably represents two gods standing by the tree of life together with a serpent associated to their cult. See A. Condamin, S.J., DAF1397C I 339–42, esp. 341; also E. A. Wallis Budge, The Babylonian Legends of the Creation (1931) 74; A. Deimel, S.J., ‘De Serpentibus in Religione Babyloniorum’ V1398D 4 (1924) 342 ff.; J. de Fraine, S.J., ‘Paradisus apud Sumeros?’ V1399D 25 (1947) 161–71.
§ d The punishment inflicted by God for the sin of Adam and Eve was accompanied by a promise of victory over the powers of evil. This first announcement of good tidings to fallen man is commonly called the Protoevangelium, 15. The force of the prediction is not exhausted by the hostility foretold between mankind and the serpents. The serpent symbolized the power of evil (see on 3:1) and God promises that he will put enmity between it and the woman and their respective seeds. The initiative is therefore taken by God, which is itself a guarantee of continued divine help and of final victory. The words were spoken in the presence of Adam and Eve and were intended to be understood by them, though not necessarily in the fullness of their signification. In the circumstances as they knew of no other woman, they could not understand by ‘the woman’ any other than Eve herself. Similarly the readers for whom Genesis was originally intended could have understood no one else, as no other woman is mentioned in the context either before or after. (It is true that Hebrew uses a definite form of speech, where we use the indef. art., as in Jg 4:21 where M1400T has ‘the peg’, obviously not the only peg holding the tent but made definite as the peg used by Jahel; but this construction is only possible where the context does not indicate exclusively one person or thing.) In the case of the devil ‘seed’ is doubly metaphorical as his ‘offspring’ are the spiritual beings who follow his leadership. Now as the seed of the serpent is collective, so also is the seed of the woman; and Eve ‘was the mother of all the living’, 3:20. God promises enmity, therefore, between the human race on the one hand and the devil and his spiritual accomplices on the other. God promises further that the seed (see on 3:15) shall crush the head of the serpent-devil, which denotes complete and final victory for the human race. The promise is made to the race collectively and not individually. It is for each one with the help of God and his own free will to ensure that he shares in the blessing promised to all. Then to the serpent God says that it will wound the heel of the seed or offspring of the woman. It will be able to inflict minor but not fatal injury. This, therefore, is a most consoling promise of final victory for all unless they choose freely to rank themselves among the seed of the devil, Mt 3:7, Jn 8:44. But how and by what means and under whose leadership this victory was to be achieved was not yet revealed and became clear only with the gradual progress of revelation; see J. Corluy, S.J., Spicilegium Dogmatico-Biblicum I (1884) 367.
§ e It is clear, however, in the full light of later revelation that what has been said does not exhaust the full meaning of the prophecy. For Jesus Christ was not only part of the human race to whom victory was thus promised, he was not only its leader in the victorious struggle, the victory was rendered possible solely by him. ‘For this purpose the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil’, 1 Jn 3:8. So too St Paul teaches that Christ became man that ‘he might destroy him who had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil’, Heb 2:14. But the victory is ours with Christ. So St Paul alluding to the Protoevangelium: ‘The God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily’, Rom 16:20. But we are one with Christ, he the head and we the members. ‘He saith not, And to his seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ’, Gal 3:16. Yet after this emphatic statement that the seed is one and is Christ, Paul goes on to say that if they are Christ’s, the faithful are also the seed, 3:29; cf. Rom 9:7 f. This rests on the doctrine of the spiritual union of all in Christ’s Mystical Body. In this true sense, as St Paul teaches, Christ is the seed. And from this it follows that the Woman is his Blessed Mother. This follows also from the typical relation existing between Eve and Mary, a relationship on which the Fathers loved to dwell and which is summed up in her title of the Second Eve. As Eve was the mother of all the living in the physical order, so Mary is the Mother of all the living in the spiritual order, just as Christ for an analogous reason is the Second Adam having in the first Adam ‘a figure of him who was to come’, Rom 5:14. These considerations explain, as it seems, why the prophecy is addressed, not as we should have expected to Adam, the head of the race, but to Eve, and why use is made of the unusual expression of the seed of the woman. Cf. Sutcliffe, C1401R 2 (1931) 149–60.
§ 146a 4:1–16 Cain’s Murder of Abel—1. There are many popular etymologies of names in Gen. In the present instance the name seems rather to have been chosen as having a suitable assonance with Eve’s utterance (Qayin, prob. ‘smith,’ q̣ānîṯî, ‘I have got’). Eve sets an example to parents in gratefully acknowledging her indebtedness to God. 2. Abel’s name is the same in form as heḇel ‘breath’ and metaphorically ‘what is evanescent, worthless’, but it is likely that this word was chosen to express the shortness of his life before it had acquired a disparaging sense. 4. ‘of their fat’; cf. Num 18:17. On similar occasions God showed his favour by consuming the offering by fire from heaven, Lev 9:24, Jg 6:21. 5. We may deduce from God’s displeasure that Cain had already been guilty of sin, as in fact St John teaches saying that Cain killed his brother ‘because his own works were wicked and his brother’s just’, 1 Jn 3:12; cf. Heb 11:4. 7. ‘If thou do well, will there not be forgiveness?’; cf. 18:26 for the meaning of the verb. Sin is represented as an animal crouching at the door and ready to spring. ‘It shall lust after thee, but thou canst have the mastery over it’. Note that man has free will and can overcome all appeals of evil; also that one sin not repented prepares the way for other and greater sins, as actually happened in the case of Cain. 10. For the other sins which cry to God for vengeance see 19:13, Ex 2:23, 3:9; Jas 5:4. 14. Cain is driven forth from the area of cultivated ground. In biblical language when God is angry, he hides his face, Ps 29:8. Cain speaks as if he would no longer be under God’s protecting care. The murder took place when there was already a large population. Seth was born after the murder, 25, when Adam was 130 years old, 5:3. God had blessed the race and commanded them to increase and multiply 1:28, and Adam begot unnamed and unnumbered sons and daughters, 5:4. As the story is told, therefore, in 130 years the number of men and women would have increased very considerably. 15. ‘sevenfold’ means ‘severely’. The mark set on Cain showed that he belonged to God, was under his protection, and therefore could not be touched. It was an ancient custom for slaves attached to a temple to be marked with the emblem of their deity; cf. Herod. 2, 113. 16. ‘and dwelt in the land of Nod’, which is otherwise unknown. The name suggests a land of wanderers or nomads.
§ b This narrative shows how quickly after the first transgression sin gained a hold in the world. It teaches how hateful to God the sin of murder and in particular of fratricide is; how smaller sins, if neglected, lead on to greater; that man is always master of and responsible for his actions; that God is the just ruler of the world who cannot allow evil to go unpunished. On the historical character of the episode see § 138c–d.
§ c 17–24 The Story of the Cainites—Biblical narratives do not always follow chronological order. Matters are sometimes grouped according to subject, independently of whether they are in part earlier than events narrated earlier or later than others set forth subsequently. Thus the birth of Henoch, 17, will have occurred before the murder of Abel. Similarly, as the sacred writer wishes to put down here all he has to say about the Cainites and to leave them out of his story, part of the account may well refer to events after the Flood. This will be the case with the invention of metal-working.
§ d 17. ‘As there were no human beings except those born (of Adam and Eve) men took their sisters in marriage. This practice owes its early origin to necessity and its later culpability to the prohibition of religion’, St Augustine, De Civ. Dei, xv, 16. The ‘city’ denotes a collection of dwellings surrrounded by some defensive work; cf. § 138c. Cain was not accompanied in his banishment by his family and he feared that an attempt might be made to take revenge on them. 19. The beginning of polygamy, a departure from strict morality on the part of the Cainites. 20. Abel had been a shepherd; Jabel introduced the nomadic life of herdsmen. His name in the older tradition of LX1402X was Jobel (Yobel) and denotes him as one leading his flocks in their migrations. 21. ‘pipe’ (D1403V ‘organs’). The name Jubal (Yubal) is prob. connected with yōḇēl ‘ram’s horn, cornet,’ whence our ‘jubilee’. 22. Cain signifies ‘smith’, the name again being chosen to suit the invention. The discovery of metal-working long antecedes the ‘Ages’ named after them (Early Bronze ending 1404c 2000 b.c., and the Iron Age beginning 1200 b.c.). According to Prof. Henry Louis, ‘it appears to be generally held that iron was first produced in workable quantity on the southern flanks of the Caucasus, and the date assigned is usually somewhere about 3000 b.c.’, Nature (18 May 1929) 762. But before the metal became available in any quantity the method of working it will for long have been preserved as a strict family or clan secret, as is implied in this story of Lamech. That with Lamech we reach proto-historical times after the Flood (see § 146c) is also indicated by the mention of Noema. The apparently pointless insertion of this name is explained if it rested on an ancient tradition which was set down as remembered. 23. ‘Ada and Sella, hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken to my speech; for I kill the man who woundeth me and the youth who striketh me; for sevenfold vengeance is taken for Cain but for Lamech seventy and sevenfold’. This most ancient verse is already marked by the parallelism so characteristic of Heb. poetry. Lamech is in possession of new and formidable weapons far superior to the clubs and stones at the disposal of possible aggressors. As it was God himself who had promised vengeance to Cain, Lamech’s words are tinged with blasphemy, as well as a spirit of unbridled vengeance.
§ e Two characteristics stand out in the history of the Cainites. Nothing morally good is told of them, only evil—murder, polygamy, contempt of human life, the spirit of vengeance, irreverent speech about God. On the other hand, they excel in the arts of material human progress. To them is attributed the first ‘city’, the craft of the herdsman leading a nomadic life, the invention of musical instruments, and the discovery of metal-working. These are not condemned; they are good uses of the creatures put by God at man’s disposal. But the lesson is clear. The more man gives himself to his material needs and temporal betterment, the greater the danger of his losing sight of his moral obligations. And in the extreme case, a life of luxury is unlikely to be one of virtue.
§ f 25–26 The History of Seth—25. The connection of this section with the preceding is that Seth was the first to be born to Adam after the murder of Abel. His name (Sheth) seems to be chosen to give the required assonance with shath (D1405V ‘hath given’). In this verse ‘Adam’ is used for the first time as a proper name. Previously he has been spoken of as ‘the man’=hā-’āḏām. The massoretic vocalization is faulty in 2:20 and 3:17. 26. ‘Enosh’ means ‘man’. ‘Yahweh’ here has prob. supplanted original ‘God’: ‘then men began to be called by the name of God’. So probably. This refers only to the Sethites whose genealogy is traced back to God in ch 5 and who in 6:2 are called ‘the sons of God’. For the construction cf. Is 44:5.
§ g 5:1–31 The Genealogy of the Sethites—The entirely new start which repeats even the creation of Adam shows that the Cainites are now dismissed from the story and that it is concerned now solely with the Sethites. On the numbers see § 140b–e. The Babylonians similarly listed ten antediluvian kings with immensely long reigns. The first, Alulim, is credited with 67,200 years, and his successor Alagar with 72,000; see B. Meissner, Babylonien und Assyrien, 2 (1925) 439. The names were chosen for reasons which escape us. The meaning of most is conjectural and the vocalization is sometimes uncertain. Malaleel means ‘Praise of God’.
§ h 1. ‘Document’ or ‘register’ (D1406V ‘book’). ‘Adam’ is here ‘man, mankind’, as is shown in 2 where it is said that God created them male and female and ‘called their name man’. In 3 it again occurs as a proper name. The likeness to God which Adam himself received he passed on to Seth, who, it is implied, transmitted it to his descendants. This is not said of the race of the Cainites. 22. Henoch was a man of markedly virtuous life, which is the meaning of he walked with God’; cf. 6:9. See Ecclus 44:16; 49:16; Wis 4:10–14. ‘By faith Henoch was translated that he should not see death’, Heb 11:5. He and Elias are commonly understood to be the two witnesses of Apoc 11:3–14. 29. ‘This same shall give us rest’, so LX1407X in agreement with the name Noe ‘rest’, prob. an allusion to Noe’s cultivation of the vine, 9:20. 31. Noe’s three sons were not necessarily all born in the same year.
§ i 6:1–8 The Wickedness of the Sethites calls for Divine Chastisement—The narrative continues exclusively with the Sethites, whose genealogy has just been given, ch 5; cf. § 136f–h. As this traced their line back to God, whose likeness was transmitted by Adam to his offspring, Seth, this exclusive reference is indicated also by the title ‘sons of God’ given to his descendants, 2. Universal expressions are here again, according to Heb. idiom, to be understood only of the subject-matter in hand.
§ j 1. ‘after that’ is a conjunction. 2. ‘Sons of God’ is used of the Angels in Job, chh 1–2, but it is illegitimate to introduce this late use into this passage against the context both immediate and remote. Here it signifies the Sethites; see just above. Women are styled ‘the daughters of man’, not because they do not figure in the genealogy but because the Sethites in their licentious polygamy took to wife whosoever pleased their fancy. 3. The reference cannot be to the length of individual lives because the sentence of mortality had already been passed on man and many are reported later to have lived much longer than 120 years. The word ‘man’ is here collective=‘mankind’, and the ‘spirit of God’=the breath of life, 2:7, Ps 103:29 f. The 120 years is the period allowed to man for repentance before the divine chastisement of the Flood is to come upon him; cf. Jon 3:4. The number of 120 years as a respite for repentance is prob. to be explained as=2 × 60, the Babylonian soss being = 60 (whence our 60 minutes and 60 seconds). § k 4. ‘The Nephilim were upon the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God.…’ The Nephilim are mentioned Num 13:34 (M1408T 33) as a Canaanite race of giants in Moses’ time; hence the clause ‘and also after that’, which is in origin a marginal gloss. The meaning and etymology of the name are unknown. They are referred to in Wis 14:6, Ecclus 16:8, Bar 3:26–8, etc. The term ‘giants’ does not imply more than unusually tall stature, and its import is relative to the average height of the race using it. The Hebrews were not a tall nation. Tradition of old preserved stories of their exploits but these have long since perished. 6. God does not change, Num 23:19, and the phrase is anthropomorphic. In like circumstances a man would regret what he had done. 7. If men perish in a flood, the animal life of the region perishes also. 8. Noe was the one man untouched by the corruption of the age.
§ 147a 6:9–8:14 The Flood—9. ‘perfect man among his contemporaries’. 11. Men were corrupt in the sight of and in the judgement of God. 13. ‘with the earth’, with all that lives and grows on the earth, as in 11 ‘the earth’ stands for the men living upon it. 14. ‘of gopher wood’, occurring only here. Pitch is still used in Iraq for making vessels water-tight, as of course elsewhere. 15. The cubit is a natural measure of length = the forearm; cf. foot. 16. The opening for light and air was to be a cubit in height and to run round the sides of the ark (broken by the beams supporting the roof) high up under the projecting roof and so protected from the rain. So prob., though some for ‘window’ translate ‘roof’. 17. ‘from under heaven … on the earth’. 19. ‘pairs’ (D1409V ‘two’); also in 20. 7:3. ‘pairs’ (D1410V ‘two and two’). The distinction between clean and unclean animals is of great antiquity and was incorporated into the Law as already sanctioned by custom, Lev 11:47, and cf. § 189b. 11. LX1411X: ‘27th day’. The subterranean ocean broke through its vents and the upper waters, 1:7, were given free passage through the sluices in the firmament. There appears to be an ocean under the earth since water gushes out in many places as at the sources of the Jordan. This invasion of the land by subterranean waters implies not the inroad of the ocean, but the rising waters of the rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates, flooding the country. 12. ‘40’ is often used in the Bible for a large indefinite number; see § 124l. 14. ‘all birds and all that fly’ is not in LX1412X and is prob. a marginal gloss. 17. ‘And the flood broke upon the earth’. ‘forty days’ is another marginal gloss to which LX1413X add ‘and forty nights’. § b 8:2. Chronological order is not always observed by Hebrew writers. The flood gates were shut up after forty days, 7:12. 3. ‘Little by little’ the waters diminished (D1414V ‘coming and going’), ‘and they were abated’ after 150 days, which counted from the 17th (LX1415X 27th) day of the 2nd month, 7:11, lead to the day, 4, when the ark came to rest on the 17th (M1416T; 27th V1417g, LX1418X) day of the 7th month. M1419T ‘the mountains of Ararat’, Accadian Urartu, a region corresponding to Armenia but extending further to the South. The reference is to the country and not to the mountain called Ararat today. ‘Mountain’ is a relative term and varies in its application in different countries. In a flat country like Mesopotamia the word could be used in cases where it would be inadmissible in English just as most English mountains would not be so called by the French. The ark rested on top of a hill, as, 5, the waters ‘decreased gradually’ and allowed the tops of the hills to appear only in the 10th month. 6. According to Heb. idiom the sense may be either the window’ or ‘a window’ (= the window which he actually opened; cf. § 145d). The word ḥallôn used here = ‘window’ is not subject to the doubt mentioned on 6:16. ‘a raven to see whether the waters were abated’; with LX1420X. 7. It ‘went forth to and fro’. The negative, absent in M1421T, was added in V1422g from the Old Latin. Ravens and crows were used by ancient mariners to find the direction of land in case they were driven out of their course. See H. Heras, S.J., ‘ “The Crow” of Noe’ CB1423Q 10 (1948) 131–9. 8. The original text prob. stated that Noe waited first for 7 days, as is implied by 10. 11. ‘a twig’ of olive. Noe now knew that the waters had largely drained away. 13. ‘the waters were dried up from off the earth’. After the waters had disappeared from the surface of the earth, Noe had still to wait till, 14, the earth itself had dried. Counting the day on which Noe entered the ark and the day he left it, the flood lasted a lunar year (= 354 days) + 11 days, which make a solar year of 365 days. 20. In holocausts the whole victim was consumed by fire.
§ c The Extent of the Flood—The universal expressions used in the narrative referring alike to men, beasts, and sky, and even it was thought to the earth, long gave the impression that the flood covered the whole of the earth’s surface and therefore necessarily involved the destruction of the entire human race and of the whole of the brute creation. This is called the theory of geographical universality. It arose at a time when the idiomatic usages of Hebrew speech were unfamiliar and the facts about the extent of the earth and the vast number of animal species were unknown. At the beginning of the 19th cent. it still held the field largely owing to the support of eminent geologists like Buckland who found in erratic blocks and striated rock-surfaces evidence of a worldwide deluge. Sea-shells high up on mountains, as on Moel Tryfaen in N. Wales, were also brought into the argument. But later the geologists, including Buckland, came to recognize that the boulder formation, the ‘diluvium’ as it was called, and the striated rocks were due to the action of glaciers. It was also recognized that no flood, however severe, but only changes in the level of the earth’s surface could account for the deep deposits of marine shells found high on certain mountains. The idea of a world-wide deluge was then gradually abandoned by all. A series of unheard of miracles would have been required to bring the animals from all over the world, to house them, to keep them alive in a climate strange for most, to return them to their natural habitats. For such miracles the sacred text affords no evidence, as universal expressions in the Bible are used with reference to the subject matter in hand as in the case of ‘all the beasts of the earth’, 2:19, by which is meant all those in Paradise. § d A new theory then arose called that of mixed universality. According to this a limited region of the earth’s surface was inundated but all mankind perished except those in the ark, as the race was supposed not yet to have spread beyond the boundaries of that region. The universal expressions were thus interpreted in a double sense. Those referring to the sky, the earth and the animal kingdom were taken to signify relative universality, whereas those referring to mankind were understood absolutely. As there is nothing in the text to warrant this distinction, it gradually became plain that the norm of relative universality must be applied in both cases.
§ e It has thus become ever more widely recognized that all the sacred writer’s expressions in this narrative were intended in the sense of relative universality. Of this he has given some clear indications. ‘Noe was a just and perfect man’, but ‘all flesh had corrupted its way’, 6:9, 12; Noe and his family were safe, yet ‘all men’ perished in the waters, 7:7, 21; even after ‘the tops of the mountains appeared’, ‘the waters were upon the whole earth’, 8:5, 9. Moreover, from 5:1 the narrative is concerned with the Sethites alone (cf. §§ 136f–h, 146g) the Cainites having been dismissed from the story. And the attribution of certain inventions to the Cainites in ch 4 implies that these did not perish in the flood. Indeed, in the case of metal-working it is probable that the invention in the mind of the sacred writer dates from after the flood and that his mention of it before that event is due simply to the desire to group in one section all that he had to say about the Cainites and their eponym. In either case it follows that the Cainites did not perish in the flood. Further, in view of the insistence shown by the sacred writer on the multiplication of the race by the repeated declaration that each of the patriarchs begot ‘sons and daughters’, and that he allows so long a period between Adam and the flood (M1424T 1656 years, Samaritan text 1307, LX1425X 2256), it is hardly to be assumed that he thought all men could still be living in one region. In fact, the text indicates the contrary, for God not only gave the command to increase and multiply, but also to ‘fill the earth’, 1:28. This argument is not weakened by any theory about sources for the reason that we are concerned with the book as finished by its compiler and therefore with the sense which he has impressed on the whole. The mind of the sacred writer as thus manifested by himself is in agreement with discoveries in the field of anthropology as human remains have been discovered in various parts of the world, from China to South Africa, dating from times long anterior to any date which can be assigned to the flood.
See further Al. Motais, Le Déluge biblique (Paris, 1885), E. F. Sutcliffe, S.J., Who perished in the Flood? (CT1426S 1943, reprint 1947), Hummelauer, who gives a full historical account of the question, 223–56.
§ f The Ark as Type of the Church—It was a commonplace among the Fathers that the ark was a type or figure of the Church; and see 1 Pet 3:20. As the ark was the divinely appointed means of temporal salvation for Noe and his family, so the Church is the divinely appointed means of eternal salvation; cf. St Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae 6 (P1427L 4, 503), St Jerome, Epist. 15 ad Damasum 2 (P1428L 22, 355); St Augustine, Contra Faust. Man. 12, 14 (P1429L 42, 262). The fact that the Church is appointed by divine providence as the ordinary means of grace does not exclude God’s extraordinary providence by which all who are not members of the visible Church but sincerely desire to do God’s will as far as it is known to them also receive his grace and all that is necessary for salvation. This significance of the ark is not invalidated by the relative universality of the flood as in both figure and antitype the means of salvation has reference to all exposed to danger, in the one case physical and in the other spiritual. The outstanding difference between the type and the antitype is that in the type the means of salvation were offered only to a few, in the antitype they are offered to all.
§ 148a The Purpose of the Flood—This was twofold. It was the punishment of the wicked, 6:12 f., to whom a period of time had been allowed for repentance, 6:3 and 1 Pet 3:20 ‘when the patience of God waited in the days of Noe’. Unlike the Ninevites to whom also a time for repentance was allowed, Jon 3:4, the sinners of Noe’s time paid no heed to the warning available to them at the sight of Noe’s prolonged labour in the construction of the ark. The flood was likewise the means of freeing ‘the sons of God’ from the danger of the corruption which surrounded them. To apply the words of Wis 4:14, God ‘hastened to bring (them) out of the midst of iniquities’. The ancestors of the Chosen People were thus given the opportunity to bring up a new generation in virtuous surroundings. With this we may compare God’s order to Abraham to leave his home and restart life in a new land, 12:1.
§ b Literary Criticism—The question whether the biblical narrative of the flood is conflated out of two separate accounts has been answered in the affirmative, e.g. by Heinisch, Ceuppens, Chaine, and in the negative by, e.g. Hummelauer, Hoberg, Bea. There are numerous repetitions which make it possible to disentangle at least the main outlines of two stories. At first sight this is itself convincing. But when it is noticed that even after the dissection has been carried through, the repetitions are still numerous, the conviction begins to grow that the repetitious style was deliberately chosen to heighten the dramatic effect. That the Hebrews had a predilection for repetition is clear from the parallelism characteristic of their poetry. In the parts assigned to P by Chaine it will be found that in 6:9–12 (after the heading of the section) each verse falls into two halves marked by parallelism, and that there are repetitions in 6:11 + 12; 13 + 17; 19 + 20; 7:18 + 19 + 24; 19 + 20 (the covering of the mountains); 8:17 + 9:1 + 7; 9:9 + 11. Again though 7:13 seems to us to follow strangely on 7:12, neither does it follow easily on 7:11 (both P), nor does 8:2a on 8:1 (both P). Moreover, there are no contradictions. In 6:19 pairs of all animals are to be taken into the ark: in 7:2 this is made specific—there are to be 7 pairs of clean and one pair of unclean. The rain of 7:4 does not exclude the irruption of subterranean waters of 7:11. This mode of not excluding but of prescinding from some fact is distinctively Hebraic; cf. the one and the two blind men at Jericho in the Gospels, where one does not exclude two. These ancient oriental writings have too often been judged by modern western ideas. ‘It often happens that they do not at once set forth the whole of a narrative as the laws of logic and historical sequence would require, but they proceed with it as by stages, almost in the manner of concentric circles. Details which chronologically belong earlier, are “supplied” later in the narrative or another part or other circumstances of the same fact are added’, Bea 78. This trick of going back on the story to add new information is called by the Germans ‘Nachholung’ and is acknowledged by Heinisch 176. The exact dating by years, months and days is probably due to the editor who added the years of the lives of the later patriarchs.
§ c The Babylonian Flood and its Date—In Babylonian tradition a great flood was recognized to have caused a break in the history of the country, and in the list of kings the first ten are recorded to have reigned before it. It is described in the 11th tablet of the Gilgamesh epic. See R. Campbell Thompson, The Epic of Gilgamish (1928); Brit. Mus., The Babylonian Story of the Deluge; A. Deimel’s Lat. trans. in V1430D 7 (1927) 186 ff. There are striking similarities and there is no doubt that the event is that of the biblical narrative. The boat is smeared with pitch and grounds on Mt Nizir. Birds are sent out, though in a different order, and after the flood the gods smell the sweet savour of the sacrifice offered. But there are also striking differences. The Babylonian story is crassly polytheistic and has no moral purpose. The gods are at variance among themselves; they are stricken with terror at the deluge; they assemble like flies round the sacrifice. The flood last for seven days only; numerous persons are saved with the hero Utanapishtim. Neither account is dependent on the other, but both go back to a common source.
§ d Excavations in Mesopotamia have revealed the traces of several severe floods; cf. H. Peake, The Flood: New Light on an Old Story (1930); E. Burrows, S.J., ‘The Discovery of the Deluge’ in Db1431R 186 (1930) 1–20. At Kish S. Langdon discovered three dated provisionally 3400, 4000 and 4200 b.c. respectively. At Ur Sir Leonard Woolley found 11 feet of water-laid material, witness of a flood so prolonged that its identification with that of tradition at once suggested itself. Peake considered this flood to be identical with the most ancient found at Kish. E. Burrows dated it some 400 years later, 1432c 3800. A date much more remote than this appears unlikely for the flood of biblical and Babylonian tradition, the memory of which remained so fresh. The identification suggested, if correct, would provide the first, though only approximate date in biblical history. Opinion, however, has moved away from that first adopted. 1433*J. Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past (Princeton, 1947) 24, speaks with reserve: ‘It is difficult to say’. 1434*Millar Burrows, What Mean these Stones (New Haven, 1941) 70 writes: ‘The lower one [at Kish] is ascribed by Langdon to about 4000 b.c., and it is this one which he equates with the Ur inundation. None of the inundations at Kish, however, is contemporary with any at Ur, and none at either place marks a division between two different civilizations.… In Woolley’s own excavation at Tell Obeid, only four miles from Ur, there was no silt at the levels corresponding to those at which it was found at Ur’. The further argument that ‘representations of Gilgamesh were found at a lower level than the “deluge” at Kish, showing that the Babylonian flood-story was of more ancient origin than this’, seems to overlook the fact that the two traditions may have become fused at a later date.