God. The judgment is tempered with compassion. Cain, though more terrified than penitent, receives the assurance of protection from blood-revenge. The favour of a token for good is granted to the first murderer; and symbolism is consecrated, in its earliest use, to hold a pledge of Divine love before the sinner's eyes. CHAPTER VI THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS The Genealogy of the Cainites IN passing to the next section in the narrative, we are conscious of a change in the general tone and style. If the story of Cain and Abel (vers. 2-16) has been taken from the same source as the story of Paradise, it is possible that vers. 17-24 have been derived from a separate stream of tradition, marked by a more curt and archaic, a less fluent and poetic, style. Its separate origin is shown by the general difference of treatment; and, in favour of its probably greater antiquity, it should be observed that the contents of Lamech's Song (ver. 24), being very possibly alluded to by anticipation, have influenced the language in ver. 15. Further evidence of its separate origin is forthcoming from the picture given of Cain. No restless fugitive or homeless nomad, he marries, he settles down, and builds a city (ver. 17). No further reference is made to the crime he has committed, none to any sentence of dishonour that has been pronounced upon him. He stands at the head of a list of names; he is followed by Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methusael, and Lamech with his sons Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-Cain. The whole passage is clearly intended to describe the beginnings of primitive eastern civilisation. Cain and Enoch are the founders of town communities (ver. 17); Lamech is the first polygamist (ver. 19); Jabal (not Abel, ver. 2) is the originator of pastoral life, Jubal of musical arts, Tubal of working in metals (ver. 22). The civilisation thus alluded to is regarded as having continued without interruption since the days of these patriarchs. When it is said that " Jabal" was "the father of such as dwell in tents and have cattle," there is clearly no thought of a flood having destroyed all the descendants of Jabal; nor is such a catastrophe supposed as having overtaken the descendants of Jubal, "such as handle the harp and pipe" (ver. 21). The structure and contents of these verses (17-24) suggest that they are derived from an early tradition in which the story of the Flood did not appear. If so, they may probably be derived from the same source as chap. vi. 1-4 and, possibly, xi. 1-9. This hypothesis will account for the difficulties, unimportant in themselves, that arise on the surface. of the narrative. The Prophetic narrator selected his material from different sources. He did not concern himself with reconciling, in every particular, divergences that presented themselves in the different narratives. The genealogy which he has here preserved is that of Cain. But it does not appear from the contents of vers. 17-24, that, in the tradition from which he has derived this section, any evil taint was associated with the family of Cain in consequence of Cain's crime. The popular assumption that Cain's descendants were preeminently wicked has no foundation in this chapter, nor in chapter vi. The object of the genealogy in chap. iv. is to trace the origin of primitive institutions; the object of the genealogy in chap. v. is to trace the ancestors of Noah. The resemblance in the names of the two lists is remarkable; and can hardly be accidental. In chap. iv. we have Cain, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methusael, Lamech, and Lamech's three sons; in chap. v. we have Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, and Noah's three sons. The six Sethite names here italicised are those which are similar in sound and form to the names of the Cainite group. Reckoning Adam with these names, we have in the one case a list of seven, in the other a list of ten, names; in each case, the last name splits up into three branches. Such The numbers seven and ten were doubtless chosen to render the lists easier of remembrance. artificial aids to the recollection of genealogies were commonly employed. Thus the number "ten" is the number employed in the genealogies of Genesis xi. and Ruth iv. 10; the number "seven" is the unit in the genealogy of Matthew i. What the names of the antediluvian patriarchs signified, we can hardly guess. The conjecture that the Cainite genealogy gives the races of Western, the Sethite genealogy those of Eastern Asia, has nothing to recommend it. The formation of some of the names is a puzzle to scholars; and philologists have even doubted whether they are all of Semitic origin. The similarity of the two lists makes it possible that we have in them two divergent versions of the same original prehistoric tradition. In such a tradition, proper names, especially those of unusual sound or foreign origin, were apt to be confused and altered. Perhaps we should not be far wrong in regarding them as constituting a group of demigods or heroes, whose names, in the earliest days of Hebrew tradition, filled up the blank between the creation of man and the age of the Israelite patriarchs. Such a group would be in accordance with the analogy of the primitive legends of other races. The removal of every taint of polytheistic superstition, the presentation of these names as the names of ordinary human beings, would be the work of the Israelite narrator. G |