Genesis 6 - Arthur Peake's Commentary on the Bible

The Angel Marriages. This section belongs to J, but to what stratum is not clear. In its nakedly mythological character it is quite unlike anything else in the history. It is obscure at some points, probably through abbreviation, and the phrase the men of renown implies that a cycle of stories was current about the Nephilim. It does not join on to the preceding genealogy, since the opening words point to a time much earlier than that of Noah. It serves at present as an introduction to the story of the Flood; matters had come to such a pass that nothing but the almost complete extermination of the race could cure the evil. But it does not really lead up to this, for the writer does not imply that these unions resulted in a progeny of monstrous wickedness. It is a kind of coarser parallel to the story of the forbidden fruit; in both the Divinely-appointed limits are transgressed. Here we read of union between the sons of God and the daughters of men, i.e. between angels and women. The sons of God (Job 1:5 *) are those who belong to the Elohim order of being, the immortals whose nature is spirit as contrasted with mortals whose nature is flesh. This is the oldest interpretation, and it is that now generally accepted. It is in harmony with the general use of the term, and if we interpreted it to mean the pious Sethites, the daughters of men would be Cainite women, a limitation for which there is no warrant; moreover the mere intermixture of human races would not produce the Nephilim, who are obviously the offspring of unnatural unions. Certain angels then, spirit though they were, inflamed by the beauty of women, took them at their will in marriage. Thus a race of demigods was produced, the Nephilim (a name of uncertain meaning), the ancient heroes far-famed for their exploits. But this blending of spirit and flesh, of human nature with that of the Elohim, sets at nought the barriers fixed by Yahweh in the very constitution of things. At present the Divine substance, the property of the Elohim (hence called by Yahweh my spirit) is dwelling in men. But this is not to continue since man is only flesh. How Yahweh proposed to retrieve the heavenly essence which had been mingled with the earthly is not said; the reduction of human life to 120 years, which is what the last clause of Genesis 6:3 seems to mean, would not secure its elimination, as it would be passed on with the propagation of the species. The clause may be a gloss. The blame apparently attaches to the angels only, the women being victims of their lawless lust, and the original story may have mentioned the penalty inflicted on them. Such penalties we hear of elsewhere (Isaiah 24:21 f., Psalms 8:2, cf. Psalms 5:8) for the misrule of the angels and the consequent miseries of the world and Israel in particular. (For further discussion the editor may refer to his Faded Myths, chap. iv.)

Genesis 6:3. Very difficult, and the text is corrupt. The rendering strive may be set aside; the sense required is that given by the VSS abide in (mg.), which may imply a different text. The clause for that he also is flesh yields no satisfying sense any more than the alternative in their going astray they are flesh (mg.). The simplest solution is to suppose that basar, the word for flesh, was written twice over (dittography), and that our present text has arisen from this.

Genesis 6:4. and also after that: apparently a gloss inserted by a reader who, remembering Numbers 13:33, points out that they were in the earth not only in those days but also after that.

The Flood. This section has been very skilfully composed from both J and P. There are numerous repetitions: Genesis 6:5-8 and Genesis 6:12 f.; Genesis 7:7-9 and Genesis 7:13-16; Genesis 7:11 and Genesis 7:12; Genesis 7:17 and Genesis 7:18 f.; Genesis 7:21 and Genesis 7:23; Genesis 8:2 a and Genesis 8:2 b. There are also differences of representation. According to Genesis 6:19 f., Genesis 7:15 f., the animals go in by pairs; according to Genesis 7:2 f. the clean go in by sevens (or seven pairs), the unclean by pairs. In Genesis 7:11 the Flood is caused by the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep and the opening of the windows of heaven, in Genesis 7:12 by a long-continued rain. According to Genesis 7:12 the rain continued forty days, according to Genesis 7:24 the waters prevailed 150 days. There are also phraseological and stylistic differences, those characteristic of P being specially prominent. The analysis into two sources has been effected with almost complete unanimity. To P belong Genesis 6:9-22; Genesis 7:6; Genesis 7:11; Genesis 7:13-16 a, Genesis 7:17 a (except forty days), Genesis 7:18-21; Genesis 7:24; Genesis 8:1-2 a, Genesis 8:3 b- Genesis 8:5, Genesis 8:13 a, Genesis 8:14-19; Genesis 9:1-17. To J belong Genesis 6:5-8; Genesis 7:1-5; Genesis 7:7-10; Genesis 7:12; Genesis 7:16 b, Genesis 7:22 f., Genesis 8:2 b - Genesis 8:3 a, Genesis 8:6-13 b, Genesis 8:20-22. In both cases some slight elements are due to the redactor. When the analysis has been effected, two all but complete stories appear, bearing the marks of P and J.

Difficult questions are raised as to the relation in which these stories stand to other Deluge narratives. A very large number exists, and of these many are independent. It is still debated whether the legends go back to the primitive period of history before the dispersion; this is not probable, for the date would be so early that oral tradition would hardly have preserved it. Presumably many were local in their origin, for such catastrophes on a small scale must have been numerous, and some of the stories may have been coloured and enriched by contamination with others. These parallels, however, must be neglected here, except the Babylonian accounts. Two of these are known to us, and fragments of a third have been recently discovered. The two former tell substantially the same story, though with considerable differences in detail. One is preserved in the extracts from Berossus given by Alexander Polyhistor. The other was discovered by George Smith in 1872. It comes in the eleventh canto of the Epic of Gilgamesh. It describes how the god Ea saved Utnapistim by commanding him to build a ship and take into it the seed of life of every kind. He built and stored it, and when the rain began to fall entered the ship and closed the door. A vivid description is given of the storm, and the terror it inspired in the gods. On the seventh day he opened the ship, which settled on Mount Nizir. After seven days he sent out a dove, and then a swallow, both of which returned; then a raven, which did not return. Then the ship was left and he offered sacrifice, to which the gods came hungrily. Bel's anger at the escape was appeased by Ea on the ground that the punishment had been indiscriminate, and the hero with his wife was granted immortality. The coincidences with the Biblical account are so close that they can be explained only by dependence of the Biblical on the Babylonian story, though not necessarily on the form known to us. Probably the Hebrews received it through the Canaanites, and it passed through a process of purification, in which the offensive elements were removed. The Hebrew story is immeasurably higher in tone than the Babylonian. In the latter Bel in his anger destroys good and evil alike, and is enraged to discover that any have escaped the Flood. The gods cower under the storm like dogs in a kennel; and when the sacrifice is offered, smell the sweet savour and gather like flies over the sacrificer. In the Biblical story the punishment is represented as strictly deserved by all who perish, and the only righteous man and his family are preserved, not by the friendly help of another deity, but by the direct action of Him who sends the Flood.

The question as to the historical character of the narrative still remains. The terms seem to require a universal deluge, for all flesh on the earth was destroyed (Genesis 6:17; Genesis 7:4; Genesis 7:21-23), and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered (Genesis 7:19 f.). But this would involve a depth of water all over the world not far short of 30,000 ft., and that sufficient water was available at the time is most improbable. The ark could not have contained more than a very small proportion of the animal life on the globe, to say nothing of the food needed for them, nor could eight people have attended to their wants, nor apart from a constant miracle could the very different conditions they required in order to live at all have been supplied. Nor without such a miracle, could they have come from lands so remote. Moreover, the present distribution of animals would on this view be unaccountable. If all the species were present at a single centre at a time so comparatively near as less than five thousand years ago, we should have expected far greater uniformity between different parts of the world than now exists. The difficulty of coming applies equally to return. Nor if the human race took a new beginning from three brothers and their three wives (Genesis 7:13; Genesis 9:19) could we account for the origin, within the very brief period which is all that our knowledge of antiquity permits, of so many different races, for the development of languages with a long history behind them, or for the founding of states and rise of advanced civilisations. And this quite understates the difficulty, for archæ ology shows a continuous development of such civilisations from a time far earlier than the earliest to which the Flood can be assigned. A partial Deluge is not consistent with the Biblical representation (see above). And an inundation which took seventy-three days to sink from the day when the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat till the tops of the mountains became visible (Genesis 8:4 f.) implies a depth of water which would involve a universal deluge. The story, therefore, cannot be accepted as historical; but it may and probably does rest on the recollection of an actual deluge, perhaps produced by a combination of the inundation normally caused by the overflow of the Tigris and Euphrates with earthquake and flooding from the Persian Gulf.

The Flood. This section has been very skilfully composed from both J and P. There are numerous repetitions: Genesis 6:5-8 and Genesis 6:12 f.; Genesis 7:7-9 and Genesis 7:13-16; Genesis 7:11 and Genesis 7:12; Genesis 7:17 and Genesis 7:18 f.; Genesis 7:21 and Genesis 7:23; Genesis 8:2 a and Genesis 8:2 b. There are also differences of representation. According to Genesis 6:19 f., Genesis 7:15 f., the animals go in by pairs; according to Genesis 7:2 f. the clean go in by sevens (or seven pairs), the unclean by pairs. In Genesis 7:11 the Flood is caused by the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep and the opening of the windows of heaven, in Genesis 7:12 by a long-continued rain. According to Genesis 7:12 the rain continued forty days, according to Genesis 7:24 the waters prevailed 150 days. There are also phraseological and stylistic differences, those characteristic of P being specially prominent. The analysis into two sources has been effected with almost complete unanimity. To P belong Genesis 6:9-22; Genesis 7:6; Genesis 7:11; Genesis 7:13-16 a, Genesis 7:17 a (except forty days), Genesis 7:18-21; Genesis 7:24; Genesis 8:1-2 a, Genesis 8:3 b- Genesis 8:5, Genesis 8:13 a, Genesis 8:14-19; Genesis 9:1-17. To J belong Genesis 6:5-8; Genesis 7:1-5; Genesis 7:7-10; Genesis 7:12; Genesis 7:16 b, Genesis 7:22 f., Genesis 8:2 b - Genesis 8:3 a, Genesis 8:6-13 b, Genesis 8:20-22. In both cases some slight elements are due to the redactor. When the analysis has been effected, two all but complete stories appear, bearing the marks of P and J.

Difficult questions are raised as to the relation in which these stories stand to other Deluge narratives. A very large number exists, and of these many are independent. It is still debated whether the legends go back to the primitive period of history before the dispersion; this is not probable, for the date would be so early that oral tradition would hardly have preserved it. Presumably many were local in their origin, for such catastrophes on a small scale must have been numerous, and some of the stories may have been coloured and enriched by contamination with others. These parallels, however, must be neglected here, except the Babylonian accounts. Two of these are known to us, and fragments of a third have been recently discovered. The two former tell substantially the same story, though with considerable differences in detail. One is preserved in the extracts from Berossus given by Alexander Polyhistor. The other was discovered by George Smith in 1872. It comes in the eleventh canto of the Epic of Gilgamesh. It describes how the god Ea saved Utnapistim by commanding him to build a ship and take into it the seed of life of every kind. He built and stored it, and when the rain began to fall entered the ship and closed the door. A vivid description is given of the storm, and the terror it inspired in the gods. On the seventh day he opened the ship, which settled on Mount Nizir. After seven days he sent out a dove, and then a swallow, both of which returned; then a raven, which did not return. Then the ship was left and he offered sacrifice, to which the gods came hungrily. Bel's anger at the escape was appeased by Ea on the ground that the punishment had been indiscriminate, and the hero with his wife was granted immortality. The coincidences with the Biblical account are so close that they can be explained only by dependence of the Biblical on the Babylonian story, though not necessarily on the form known to us. Probably the Hebrews received it through the Canaanites, and it passed through a process of purification, in which the offensive elements were removed. The Hebrew story is immeasurably higher in tone than the Babylonian. In the latter Bel in his anger destroys good and evil alike, and is enraged to discover that any have escaped the Flood. The gods cower under the storm like dogs in a kennel; and when the sacrifice is offered, smell the sweet savour and gather like flies over the sacrificer. In the Biblical story the punishment is represented as strictly deserved by all who perish, and the only righteous man and his family are preserved, not by the friendly help of another deity, but by the direct action of Him who sends the Flood.

The question as to the historical character of the narrative still remains. The terms seem to require a universal deluge, for all flesh on the earth was destroyed (Genesis 6:17; Genesis 7:4; Genesis 7:21-23), and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered (Genesis 7:19 f.). But this would involve a depth of water all over the world not far short of 30,000 ft., and that sufficient water was available at the time is most improbable. The ark could not have contained more than a very small proportion of the animal life on the globe, to say nothing of the food needed for them, nor could eight people have attended to their wants, nor apart from a constant miracle could the very different conditions they required in order to live at all have been supplied. Nor without such a miracle, could they have come from lands so remote. Moreover, the present distribution of animals would on this view be unaccountable. If all the species were present at a single centre at a time so comparatively near as less than five thousand years ago, we should have expected far greater uniformity between different parts of the world than now exists. The difficulty of coming applies equally to return. Nor if the human race took a new beginning from three brothers and their three wives (Genesis 7:13; Genesis 9:19) could we account for the origin, within the very brief period which is all that our knowledge of antiquity permits, of so many different races, for the development of languages with a long history behind them, or for the founding of states and rise of advanced civilisations. And this quite understates the difficulty, for archæ ology shows a continuous development of such civilisations from a time far earlier than the earliest to which the Flood can be assigned. A partial Deluge is not consistent with the Biblical representation (see above). And an inundation which took seventy-three days to sink from the day when the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat till the tops of the mountains became visible (Genesis 8:4 f.) implies a depth of water which would involve a universal deluge. The story, therefore, cannot be accepted as historical; but it may and probably does rest on the recollection of an actual deluge, perhaps produced by a combination of the inundation normally caused by the overflow of the Tigris and Euphrates with earthquake and flooding from the Persian Gulf.

J gives no explanation of the universal wickedness which caused God to repent man's creation, but the previous narrative has prepared for it. Probably, however, the story, which begins abruptly, has lost something at the beginning. Observe the strong anthropomorphism in Genesis 6:6, characteristic of J but combined with a lofty conception of God. P's narrative begins with Genesis 6:9. This writer does not account for the prevalence of violence. The ark or chest is made of logs of gopher, i.e. probably fine cypress, though the word occurs only here, and its meaning is uncertain. It was divided into cells and the shell made watertight by the smearing of bitumen (Exodus 2:3 *) on the inside and outside. The specifications in Genesis 6:16 are obscure. The rendering roof (mg.) is accepted by several, though generally the meaning, an opening for light and air, is preferred. The following clause is difficult. Wellhausen puts the words to a cubit thou shalt finish it at the end of the verse; the reference is in that case to the ark, which is to be accurately finished off. MT perhaps means that an opening for light, a cubit high, ran round the sides of the ark at the top. Since it is God's purpose to make a covenant with Noah, he and his family must be saved from the universal destruction the Flood is to accomplish. The covenant is not the present guarantee for security, but that recorded in Genesis 9:8-17.

Genesis 6:9 a. generations of Noah: i.e. the genealogy of Noah's descendants. The phrase is used by P to introduce a new section, which sometimes consists of a genealogy alone, sometimes of a more extended history. The Heb. for generations in Genesis 6:9 b is different; the meaning is that Noah was blameless among his contemporaries.

Genesis 6:14. ark: the word (Egyptian or perhaps Babylonian) means chest. It is used of the ark in which Moses was entrusted to the Nile, but not of the Ark made in the wilderness.

Genesis 6:15. The cubit was about 18 inches; the ark was apparently an immense box about 450 ft. long, 75 broad and 45 high, with a door in its side, and fitted up with cells in three tiers. The fondness for specifications is characteristic of P, so too are the formulæ of enumeration in Genesis 6:18 and Genesis 6:20, and the type of sentence in Genesis 6:22.

Genesis 6:17. flood: Heb. mabbul, a foreign word, always used of the Deluge, except possibly Psalms 29:10.