are but labour lost. It is in another manner that the science of language serves to prepare the way for that end. Since philology has, under the sway of Christianity, which embraces all nations in love, become a scientific task taken up by loving hands, the walls of partition erected by the Babylonian confusion of tongues have lost their impenetrability and ruggedness, and a foreign language has gained a power of attraction great in proportion to its former repulsion repulsion which placed the people who spoke it among barbarians, as rather stammering and lisping than speaking like human beings.

a

25, is now followed by an scaffolding of Genesis and The tenth member (Noah)

THE Jahvistic section, xi. 1-9, giving more detailed information of the fact noted at x. Elohistic one, belonging to the forming its fifth main division. of the genealogical main line, ch. v., was concluded ix. 28 sq., the lines collaterally descending from Shem and his brothers were treated of in ch. x., as we were led to expect by the previous remarks, v. 32, ix. 18 sq. Now follows, in accordance with the constant historiographic method of Genesis, the continuation of the main line which has in view Abraham, and in him Israel. The genealogy, xi. 10-26, has this in common with ch. v., that it ends in Terah as the father of three sons, as the former ends in Noah as the father of three sons. Both also compute the years to and from the birth of the first-born; but there is not in xi. 10-26, as in ch. v., a summing up of the whole duration of the life of the fathers by adding together the years before this birth and the remaining years, which also is by no means necessary for continuing the thread of the chronology. The Samaritan

version nevertheless makes the two tables uniform in this addition also. And because this reckoning up of the duration of life is omitted, the eight times repeated stereotype n of ch. v. is also left out, the several members of the table each ending with the formula, repeated also ch. v., This is here repeated eight times, for the concluding member (Terah) is left here as there (Noah)

uncompleted. Here however we have, not ten members, but only nine.

If indeed the LXX. had the original text when it inserted after Arpachshad, both here and at x. 22, 24, a Kaïvâv (= ?'R in ch. v., the son of Enosh, the father of Mahalalel) with the year of birth 130, this genealogy of Shem would, like that of Adam, consist of ten members. Demetrius in Euseb. Præp. ix. 21, the Book of Jubilees and Luke iii. 16 herein follow the LXX., and Berth. Ew. Dillm. and others believe in the genuineness of this Kênan. But (1) since he is here the fourth from Noah, as v. 12 the fourth from Adam, his transference thence may be suspected; and (2) there is significance in Abram but not in Terah being the tenth from Shem, as Noah is the tenth from Adam; for in Abram as in Noah a new beginning is matured, and there is a decided separation between the old and the new. The abstract of the chronicler, 1 Chron. i. 24-27, knows nothing of Kênan and counts Abram as the tenth. METÒ TÒV KATакλvσμòν—says also Berosus (in Joseph. Ant. i. 7. 2)—δεκάτῃ γενεᾷ παρὰ Χαλδαίοις τις ἦν δίκαιος ἀνὴρ καὶ μέγας καὶ τὰ οὐράνια ἔμπειρος. This suits the Abraham of the Bible and the legend. Hence the acute Sextus Julius Africanus (see Gelzer's Monograph, p. 89) already rejects Kaivâv; and even a Calovius, notwithstanding Luke iii. 36, passes upon him the sentence expungendus est. He was invented for the sake of making the tables in chs. v. and xi. uniform, and not for the sake of the 130 years which he contributes to the enlargement of the chronological network; for in the LXX. the 365 years, which according to the Hebrew text elapsed from the Flood, or more strictly from the birth of Arpachshad, to the migration of Abram, are raised to 1245; the Book of Jubilees, which reckons 642 years, and the Samaritan, which reckons 1015 (see the following table), stand midway. Bertheau, who in ch. v. decided for the text of the Samaritan, here in ch. xi. regards that of the Hebrew as original, and at least the age 70 of Terah at Abram's birth and the age 75 of Abram at the migration as traditional. It cannot be

denied that here, as at ch. v., different calculations are before us, which remain irreconcilable, so that a settled primæval chronology, which can claim belief on the ground of authority, is out of question. We however give the preference, both here and ch. v., to the Hebrew text, for in it ch. xi., with its 365 years, forms an integral member of the 2666 years reckoned from Adam to the exodus, which represent of an assumed duration of the world of 4000 years. If we take a survey of the striking synchronistic relations which result from the long duration of the lives of Noah, Shem and Arpachshad, e.g. that Shem lived to witness the birth of all the following eight patriarchs, the birth of Abraham, the birth of Isaac, nay, even of Esau and Jacob, and that 'Eber also survived the birth of Abraham some years; the question arises, whether the dates were really set down with a consciousness of these consequences, and the conjecture is forced upon us, that the whole sum computed for the post-diluvian period down to Abram is divided among the individual patriarchs as representatives of the epochs of this period, in which case indeed the points of view and reasons of this manner of division are not fully perceptible. In general, it is assumed that the duration of life from Shem to Terah diminished, and that in proportion as this took place marriage was hastened: it is also explicable that just at Peleg (comp. x. 25) the length of life had fallen to about two hundred years. But these points of view do not suffice for comprehending the motley jumble of numbers, which for the most part betray no kind of purpose or design.

Shem's son Arpachshad, vv. 10, 11: These are the generations of Shem: Shem was one hundred years old, and he begat Arpachsad two years after the flood. And Shem lived after he begat Arpachsad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. If Noah begat Shem, as v. 32 says, in his 500th year, Shem as his first-born was in the second year after the Flood (which the Talmud and Midrash, misled by x. 21, mistake), not one hundred, but one hundred and two years old, since the Flood

took place (vii. 11) in Noah's 600th year. Hence 500 is at v. 32 a round number for 502 (see on x. 21), or there is to be strictly understood of beginning of origin, not of birth. If Noah, when he begat Shem, had completed the 500th year of his life, and Shem was born towards the close of his 501st year, it is also comprehensible that the latter had, two years after the commencement, not cessation, of the Flood, passed the 600th year of his life (Bengel, Kn. Dillm.). It is self-intelligible that could not be at once continued with after the title. At v. 1-5 also, before the imperfects consecutive appear, a circumstantial perfect is started with. That Arpachshad is here designated as Shem's first-born is not in contradiction with x. 22, where the descendants of Shem are introduced, not according to succession of birth, but from a geographicohistorical point of view. Shelah the son of Arpachshad, vv. 12, 13: And Arpachsad lived thirty-five years, and begat Selah. And Arpachsad lived after he begat Selah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. In ver. 12, and again also in ver. 14, a circumstantial perfect is begun with in the tone set at ver. 10; it is not till ver. 16 onwards that the beginning with ", according to the scheme usual from ch. v., is resumed. The name means, with reference to its fundamental notion: a departure in consequence of a given impulse, and applied to water: a flowing forth (Neh. iii. 15), to plants: a sprouting, to implements: a shooting; applied to persons, it would signify a sending away. 'Eber the son of Shelah, vv. 14-15: And Selah lived thirty years, and begat Eber. And Selaḥ lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. Arpachshad having given a name to a country at the southern extremity of the high land of Armenia (x. 20), and 'Eber to a whole group of nations (x. 21, comp. Num. xxiv. 24), Shelah too seems to have a more than individual signification. Still no tribe or locality can be pointed out to which the name adheres. Buttmann, Ewald, Bunsen take this proper name as a figure of national facts. So too Knobel (Völkertafel, p. 169): “The

:-)

Hence