DELITZSCH notes here, p.271:

Not as though men had not yet enjoyed the use of any animal food, but now first it is allowed to them; since, now that the fruitfulness of the ground and the nourishing power of its products have been diminished by virtue of the divine curse, iii. 17,v.29, man required a more extensive and more strengthening nutriment.

But it rather seems that, whatever may have been the case (1094) with the Jehovist, the Elohist did not suppose that, before the Flood, animal-food was used, as he makes no provision of such food for Noah and his family during the twelve months in the Ark. And yet, as already noted (1017), even in the eating of vegetables by men, or grasses and leaves by animals,-nay, even in the drinking of water,—there must have been abundant destruction of animal life, as common observation, and, at all events, the microscope, teaches. And great numbers of fish live by suction, and cause thus infinite destruction of animal life.

As regards the curse, it may be observed that the Jehovist seems rather to regard the Flood as having produced an alleviation of toil, v.29, viii.21.

1208. G.ix.4.

'Only flesh, with its soul, its blood, ye shall

not eat.'

This may either be a recognition by the Elohist, in the form of an express law, of a custom already existing in his time, of abstaining from the use of blood as food, or it may have been introduced with the view of checking and extirpating among the Hebrews the practice of eating raw meat, which, as KALISCH observes, is still customary among some tribes of Syria, as it is to a certain extent among the Zulus, but especially among the modern Abyssinians, who are said to eat raw steaks cut from the living animal: comp. 18.

xiv.32.

1209. G.ix.13.

'My bow do I set in the cloud.'

The writer evidently intends to account in this way for the first appearance of the rainbow. This is the plain meaning of the language here used, which must be twisted to imply that, though the rainbow had often been seen before, as it must have been, if

there was rain and sunshine together before the Flood,- it was then first, after the Flood, made the sign of The peace between God and man. writer supposes it was then first set in the clouds after the Flood.

1210. DELITZSCH notes as follows, 2.276:

It is plain that, in the writer's meaning, the

rainbow now appears for the first time, although-and this requires to be especially noticed-only that rainbow, which is visible far off in the clouds of heaven, after they have discharged their burden of water. For the same phenomenon of refraction is also to be observed at a waterfall, and it shows itself at times in a dew-dropping mist. But first after the deluge, with the entrance of the (socalled) rainbow, entered also the natural conditions, which made possible the appearance of the rainbow, as a cloud-bow bending itself high and far away over the earth. The production of the rainbow through a co-operation according to natural laws, of air, and water, and light, is no proof against its origin and ob

ject as here described.

The Hindoos see in it Indra's weapon, [with which he discharged his arrows of lightning against the Asuras, the assailants of heaven,

and] which he placed by his side, [as a sign of peace for men,] after his fight was ended. The Greeks named it Iris, [the daughter of Thaumas (wonder), VIRG., Æn. ix.5, by Electra (brightness), the daughter of Oceanus, HES. Theog. 265,] the messenger between gods and men,' [or they deemed it the path by which Iris herself descended]. Among the Germans it is the great bridge made by the gods, connecting Heaven and Earth. The Samoides call it the border on the mantle of Num, i.e. folk-lore, golden coins drop from it, and, in the Deity. According to still existing German the spot where it rises, there lies a golden key, or one finds hidden treasures. These and similar views, existing also outside of Israel, show that the knowledge of the origin and signification of the rainbow had travelled out of the house of Noah into the world of peoples, and had not yet quite died away, though overpart, contradictory imaginations. powered and repressed by various, and, in

1211. Surely, we must believe that these and similar views are merely the results of human speculation upon the origin, and attempts to explain the meaning, of this remarkable phenomenon. The Hebrew, however, is the most intelligent and beautiful of all these imaginings, and true, as beautiful. For it is true that God has set His bow in the heavens, as a sign of His goodwill to us. But He has done this from the time when He first created the light and the rain,-not then first after the Flood. All things beautiful in heaven and earth are signs of His loving

kindness, of His special favour to a creature like man, who is gifted with power to behold this and other manifestations of the glory and beauty of the universe, and with power also to reflect upon and realise their meaning, as messages of peace, with which our Father's Goodness cheers us. The very fact, that we have eyes to see the rainbow and rejoice in it, is a sign that we are children of God, that we share His favour, and are not an accursed race.

1212. The Elohist, then, was right, when he viewed the rainbow as a pledge of God's continuing care for man; though he has limited and narrowed its meaning, by connecting it thus with the story of the Flood. To the eyes of all mankind, the appearance of the mild hues of the rainbow after a storm is very soothing and refreshing. As DELITZSCH says, p.277:Shining out upon the dark ground, which was just before discharging itself with lightning flashes, it images forth the victory of the Divine Love over the dark fiery Wrath. Caused by the effect of the sun's rays upon the gloomy mass of cloud, it is a figure of the willingness of the Heavenly to penetrate and work upon the Earthly. Outspanned between Heaven and Earth, it announces peace between God and Man. Overspanning the horizon, it shows the all-embracing universality of the covenant of grace.

1213. These metaphors may be multiplied to any extent, and they have their proper use, as imaginative expressions setting forth broken images of the great eternal truth before our eyes. But we must not forget that a rainbow may herald a tremendous coming storm, as well as illuminate the dark cloud that has passed.

And, indeed, HOMER speaks of it as a portent,' foretelling either war or winter-storms, Пl.xi.27-28,xvii.54748; and the Chinese also regard it as the prognosticator of calamity.

the power of the wicked one,—a race, of whom (as some suppose) the vast majority are doomed to endless woe,with these bright exhibitions of His Goodness: for 'as His Majesty is, so is His Mercy.' Ecclus.ii.18. 1215. G.ix.25.

'Cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants

shall he be to his brethren.'

The other descendants of Ham, according to G.x.6, viz., the Ethiopians (Cush), the Egyptians (Mizraim), and the Moors (Phut), are not included with Canaan under this sentence of servitude; nor are the Babylonians and Assyrians, the descendants of Cush, x.8-12, or the different offshoots of Mizraim, v.13,14, as the Philistines. Only Canaan is doomed to be a servant of servants to his brethren.' This Scripture, therefore, though so often appealed to for this purpose, gives not the least sanction to the notion, that the African races, generally-as sons of Ham'-are doomed to be slaves.

6

1216. Some explain the fact of the Canaanites alone being selected for this condemnation, by supposing that Canaan, Ham's youngest son, was the first to detect his grandfather's condition, and reported it scoffingly to his father,-though the Bible says nothing of this. DELITZSCH writes, p.281:

Noah's curse lights on Ham, not in the case of all his descendants, but solely in that of Canaan, the youngest of them: the others receive neither blessing nor curse; and that, too, has its meaning in reference to the world's history. But is it, then, reconcilable with the righteousness of God, that for Ham's sin Canaan should be punished, and not in person merely, but in the entire body of his descendants? Noah looks through the innermost machinery of the actions of his sons: the development, proceeding from these acts as phetic eyes. His curse attaches itself to the first beginnings, is spread out before his pro

descendants of Canaan, in so far as the sin of condition; and between them and their sin their father became the type of their moral arises a chain of consequences, occasioned through their tribal extension and national unity.

But, on the whole, we prefer to adhere

1223. Possibly, bodies of people of Japhetic origin, among whom are reckoned in x.2,4, the Cimmerians (Gomer), Scythians (Magog), Medes (Madai), Thracians (Tiras), Greeks (Javan), including Hellas (Elisha), and Cyprus (Kittim),-scme, perhaps, for trading purposes, others, it may be, forced on by the increase of population, -had settled in some parts of the land of Canaan itself, which was reckoned as belonging of right to the Hebrew tribes, and had been allowed to do so without opposition. It is not unlikely that, on the northern boundaries of Palestine, there was always a pressure from without and we read in Is.ix.1 of

'the land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles.'

In the time of Josiah, it is known, a formidable horde of Scythians overspread Media, and almost_all_Asia. They then marched towards Egypt, and were diverted by presents from the King Psammetichus. Upon this they returned into Palestine; some of them plundered the temple of Astarte at Ascalon; others settled at Bethshan, in the tribe of Manasseh, which from them was called Scythopolis.

1224. Something of this kind may have happened in earlier days.

Or the reference may be to the fact that the Medes, Japhethites, lived in close contact with the Assyrians and Mesopotamians, Shemites, or to the founding of Greek settlements upon the coast of Asia.

Or, perhaps, the words may be meant to express nothing more than this, that

CHAPTER VIII.

1225. G.x.

GEN.X.1-X.32.

In this chapter we have a very interesting record of the extent of the Jehovist's geographical and ethnological knowledge, though it gives plain signs, of course, of the limited knowledge of the times. notes, p.289:

AS DELITZSCH

We cannot avoid the admission, that the

6

horizon of the author of this tabular list of nations was only as wide as the relations of his time allowed. Hence it is explained why e.g. he leaves the Chinese unmentioned, who are probably named [?] in Is.xlix.12, and these from the land of Sinim,' but who in the time of Joshua [? Solomon], in which we place the composition of the Table, were as yet unknown in Western Asia. They were not known either to the Egyptians, whose ethnographical knowledge, as the monuments indicate more and more clearly, was, in consequence of the conquering expeditions of the Pharaohs, surprisingly extensive, or to the Phoenicians, although their ships went westward, as far as Spain, and eastward, as far as India.

1226. We find here registered many names of countries, cities, and peoples, of which the writer had, doubtless, heard some rumour,-and especially, if he wrote in Solomon's days, through the closer intercourse which in that age existed between the people of Israel and the Phoenicians, 1K.v.1-12,x.22, and also the Egyptians, 1K.iii. 1,x.28,29. Many of them are named in Ez.xxvii. as having commerce with Tyre, e.g., Kittim, Elisha, Arvad, Elam, Lud, Phut, Aram, Togarmah, Dedan, Sheba, Raamah, &c., comp. especially, 'Javan, Tubal, Meshech,' named in the same order in G.x.2,Ez.xxvii. 13.

1227. But about some of these he

may have known little more than the bare name, or stories current among the common people. We have an instance of such popular talk in v.9, in the case of Nimrod:

'He was a mighty one in hunting before

Jehovah.

KNOBEL observes, Gen.p.103, that his account of nations-

confines itself to Europe, Northern Africa, and Western Asia, and in particular reaches eastward only so far as to the people lying next beyond the Tigris. It includes, consequently, about the same extent of district as was covered by the commerce of the Phonicians at the time of its composition; and we may assume that the ethnological knowledge expressed in it is in a great measure derived from the connection of the Hebrew with the Canaanite Phoenician people.

TUCH

1228. No tribes are so fully described as those of Canaan, v.15-19. writes, p.199:--

In the plainest manner the national interest

of the writer betrays itself in reference to the Canaanites, who, contrary to the actual relations, are derived from Ham, in order to exclude them from having anything in common with the Shemites, especially the Hebrews, for which preparation is already made in ix.25. While recognising in all these indications the Hebrew, who allows his feeling of interest to influence his combinations, we have at the same time gained a measure of the value of the whole Table, which, accordingly, together with much correct data, confirmed also from other quarters, delivers much, which rests upon special modes of explanation and private speculations; and we have through the Table itself no certain guarantee for any statements, where other ancient authorities leave us in the dark, to say nothing of those which are contradicted by them.

1229. The nations of Eastern Asia are not mentioned at all, having probably been unknown, even by name, to the Jehovist, who, however, as already observed (1105), appears to have had some vague notion of the existence of distant Eastern nations, not reckoned among the descendants of Seth. In a later age, when these nations became better known, attempts were made to connect them with Noah through Japheth, whom Arabic* writers describe

*Some Rabbinical writers also make Shem

to be the youngest son of Noah, upon these grounds:

(i) The order of the genealogy in G. x is

(i) Japheth, (ii) Ham, (iii) Shem.

Ans. This appears to be thus arranged, in order to bring the family of Shem into connection with the account of his descendant Abraham, in the following chapters.

(ii) If Noah begat a son at the age of five hundred, v.32, and entered the Ark at the age of six hundred, vii.11, and yet Shem was only a hundred years old, two years after the Flood, xi.10, he must have been the youngest son, and Japheth the eldest.

They relate that Noah gave him (Japheth) session of the Mongolians, on which the holy a mysterious stone, long preserved in the posname of God was written, and which furnished him with power to call down rain from the skies at his pleasure. They consider him as an inspired prophet, and as the ancestor of the Turks, and call him, therefore, Aboulturk; and they ascribe to him seven sons, by whom he became the sire of as many tribes or nations, the most celebrated of which are the Chinese, the Goths or Scythians, the Russians,

and the Turcomans.

1230. Many names of peoples and places are here set down as names of individuals, such as Tarshish, v.4, Sidon, v.15, Ophir and Havilah, v.29. So Mizraim, v.13,14, which is merely the dual name of the Double Egypt, Upper and Lower, begets six sons, each of whose names is a Plural Proper Name, and evidently represents a tribe or people, e.g. 'Casluhim, out of whom came Philistim,' the Philistines. Thus the Arabs derive the Persians From Pharis, the son of Aram, the son of Shem, and the Romans from Rum, the son of Esau, the son of Isaac. From the occurrence of the above Plural Names and Patronymics it is plain that the writer was aware of the real nature of the account which he was giving,-that he himself did not mean these names to be taken as the names of individual men,—at least, not in all cases, but wished to be understood as writing a chorographic description of the world as then known.

of

1231. KNOBEL writes thus, p.106:--As the Greeks assumed the mythical persons Pelagus, Lelex, Hellen, Eolus, Dorus, Achæus, Ion, Tyrrhenus, Iber, Kaltus, Scythes, &c., as progenitors of the peoples of like name, so the Hebrews referred back the different nations to separate progenitors having the