Many have stumbled at the language here used. Occurring in the midst of a plain, straightforward narrative, no ground is offered for any but a simple and literal interpretation.

In favour of the explanation, which is sometimes put forward, that the verses only allude to the disastrous results of the intermarriage between the descendants of Seth and the descendants of Cain, nothing can be said to make it at all probable. It is incredible that the two families should suddenly be designated by the writer with these marked titles, without a word of explanation to guide the reader towards their right distinction. Again, we have no reason to suppose that the descendants of Seth were at all distinguished by their piety. Enoch "walked with God," and Noah "was a righteous man"; but, from the very language used in reference to these two Patriarchs, we might rather infer that they were virtuous exceptions. Why, then, should the Sethites be called "the sons of God"?

In the context of this particular section there is no mention of Sethites and Cainites; and it is the purest assumption to suppose that any contrast between the members of the two genealogies is here intended, when no hint or clue is given to the reader to assist towards their right identification.

Equally improbable is the Jewish explanation, which identified "the sons of God" with the nobles and men of the upper classes, and "the daughters of

men" with women of inferior rank and station. It is based on the use of "the sons of men" (adam), and the "sons of noble men" (ish), rightly rendered in the Revised Version, "Both low and high" (Ps. xlix. 2); and it is illustrated by "Sons of the Most High. Nevertheless ye shall die like men (adam)" (Ps. lxxxvii. 6, 7). But obviously such poetical usage is no safe key to the understanding of simple prose; and even if it were, while explaining "the daughters of men" (B'noth adam), it fails to give us a suitable parallel for the use of "the sons of God" in the sense of the nobles." For, beyond all dispute, the occasional usage of such a phrase for the children of Israel, as the adopted family of God, affords no support to its technical application here, in the sense of "the upper classes."

We must, surely, adopt the simplest and most literal rendering. This is obtained from the usage of the expression "the sons of God" in other passages (Job i. 6, ii. 1, xxxviii. 7; Ps. xxix. 1, lxxxix. 6; Dan. iii. 25) where "angels" are clearly intended. Accepting that explanation for "the sons of God," we follow the analogy of the Hebrew passages where the same words occur, and we obtain the simplest and most natural antithesis to "the daughters of men."

What interpretation, then, does this solution afford us? Are we to suppose that angelic beings actually contracted marriage with terrestrial? That is the opinion of some.

It is preferable to regard the whole passage, which, as has been said, is undoubtedly an extract from some very ancient source, as a relic of an early Hebrew legend. In this legend, the marriages of the angels with the daughters of men were considered to account for the generation of giants, and to explain their daring and insolent confidence, as well as their exceeding sinfulness.

The suggestion has been made that the early legend, from which the contents of these verses were borrowed, had no previous story of the Fall, and, accordingly, that the present narrative, in its full original form, may have been intended to account for the origin of evil, which was deemed to have arisen from the confusion of the angelic and the human races. In any case, it was not unnatural that later tradition derived from these verses the idea of the fall of the angels from their first estate.

We may observe that the passage opens abruptly, without any direct connexion with what has gone before, and that it is clearly marked off from what follows. The mention of the "Nephilim "1 contains a reference to a race not elsewhere so designated. But, presumably, the name had previously been mentioned in the narrative from which the section was derived. Otherwise it is difficult to account for its occurrence here without any word of explanation. While, of course, it is impossible to speak with 1 Ver. 4. See R. V. marg.

any degree of certainty, there is some probability in the view, that vers. 1-3 epitomise a parallel, or alternative, version of the Fall. The temptation here comes from beings of a higher race; the entrance of sin and death is ascribed to the abandonment by "the daughters of men" of the position which God had allotted to them. Here, as in chap. iii., the woman as the weaker vessel yields to the temptation, and is the cause of sin and death prevailing among mankind.

The purpose of the insertion of the passage is obvious. It is to illustrate, from the earliest traditions, the current belief as to the enormity of the wickedness that prevailed in the prehistoric centuries. It is, indeed, coloured by primitive mythology: nor is this any loss. We are enabled thereby to see the method of the compiler. For while, as a rule, in the early chapters of Genesis, the more distinctly mythological elements are removed from the narratives by the scrupulous care of the Israelite writers, traces of their original shape and colouring are occasionally to be seen. But, perhaps, nowhere else does this appear so distinctly as in this short section.

CHAPTER VII

THE STORY OF THE FLOOD

(vi. 9-ix. 17).

THIS narrative naturally excites more interest than any other of the early narratives in Genesis. The vividness of the description, the wonderful character of the overthrow, the touches of detail in the story, the similarity to other accounts of a cosmical Deluge preserved in the records of other nations, combine to attract to it universal attention.

On this account, probably, more has been said upon these chapters than upon any other section of the same length in the whole of Genesis. There is, therefore, the less need here to enter with minuteness into the account of the Flood. In the present chapter it will only be necessary to touch upon (1) the structure of the Biblical narrative, (2) the parallel to it presented in Assyro-Babylonian literature, (3) the historic character of the story; and then to supplement this treatment with a brief notice of the place occupied by the Flood in the religious teaching of Israel.