Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
* by Aramaean I am thinking of Ya'akov (Jacob), who came from Padan Aram with his family, and then descended into Mitsrayim (Egypt), becoming the Mosaic tribes who then emigrated to Kena'an (Canaan). How much Aramaic language and culture was absorbed during his quarter-century there is unknowable, as is the extent of Egyptian language and culture absorbed during the period between Yoseph and Mosheh. I will return to the complexities of this when we reach Yoseph and Mosheh.
The link to Adam and Chavah is likewise erroneous in the ancestry, as is the very convenient descent to No'ach - again, we have to remember that the entire history was an artificial construction at the time of Ezra, sewing the loose fragments of mythology into a single garment for the purposes of political unification. The verses that end the first sedra (Genesis 6:1-8) must also be artificial, as Genesis 6:9 indicates by Eleh Toldot the start of a new scroll.
4:25 VA YEDA ADAM OD ET ISHTO VA TELED BEN VA TIKRA ET SHEMO SHET KI SHAT LI ELOHIM ZERA ACHER TACHAT HEVEL KI HARAGO KAYIN
וַיֵּדַע אָדָם עוֹד אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ שֵׁת כִּי שָׁת לִי אֱלֹהִים זֶרַע אַחֵר תַּחַת הֶבֶל כִּי הֲרָגוֹ קָיִן
KJ (King James translation): And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
BN (BibleNet translation): And Adam knew his wife again; and she bore a son, and called his name Shet: "for Elohim has granted me another seed to replace Havel; because Kayin murdered him."
It is by no means obvious how the author made the leap from the name to the explanation; it feels rather more like a blue-pencil note in the margin from the editorial committee to the author ("can you please include some sort of link back to the original Adam-Chavah/Kayin-Havel story, in case people don't remember it").
SHET (שת): cf Numbers 24:17 where Shet is given as a tribe living next to Mo-Av, probably the nomadic Sutu noted in Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions.
SHET (שת) = "a column" (metaphorically "a prince" or "a noble", the "column"in the sense of a "pillar of the community"), and is also used for "a buttock" (more logically it would be the spine, but there you go). A comparable root, SHA'AH (שאה), yields "tumult" (of war).
There is also the Chaldean number six; as with Aramaic, which is a development of Chaldean, the letters Tav (ת)and Sheen (ת) become interchanged in Yehudit, as do Nun (ן)and Mem (ם) for plurals; see for example Daniel 3:1 (where SHITIN - שתין- is also used for sixty, rather than the Yehudit SHISHIM - ששים); Ezra 6:15, which is written in Aramaic, speaks of "the sixth year of the reign of King Darius" as "שְׁנַת שֵׁת לְמַלְכוּת דָּרְיָוֶשׁ מַלְכָּא", "SHENAT SHET LE MALCHUT DARIUS MALCHA". Yehudit would have rendered the second word as "SHESH" (שש).
There is also SHATAH (שתה) = "to drink", normally from SHIYT (שית) = "to put, set, place". However, SHAYIT (שית) = "a thorn" (for which cf the notes to KOTS/קוץ in the previous commentaries, especially Genesis 3:18 and 4:3) or a thorn-hedge set around a garden or a vineyard, as has already occurred at two important points of the Eden story.
But to the Egyptians the name had only one meaning and it was obvious, the god Shet, whom they called Set, the uncle-killer of Osiris, whom they called Osher.
4:26 U LE SHET GAM HU YULAD BEN VA YIKRA ET SHEMO ENOSH AZ HUCHAL LIKRO BE SHEM YHVH
4:26 U LE SHET GAM HU YULAD BEN VA YIKRA ET SHEMO ENOSH AZ HUCHAL LIKRO BE SHEM YHVH
וּלְשֵׁת גַּם הוּא יֻלַּד בֵּן וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ אֱנוֹשׁ אָז הוּחַל לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה
KJ: And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
BN: And to Shet, to him also, a son was born; and he named him Enosh; at this time men began to call upon the name of YHVH.
ENOSH: connected to the root ISH, which was Egyptian as explained previously. Enosh came to be the principal word for Humankind (Ish/איש = "Man", Ishah/אישה = "Woman", Anashim/אנשים = "plural/People", Enosh/אנוש = "compound plural/Humankind"), replacing Adam; at least until Yechezke-El (Ezekiel) brought it back with his BEN ADAM (בן אדם - literally "son of Adam"), usually translated as "Son of Man" but actually meaning Human Beings in general.
But there is also a massive contradiction here, or perhaps just a failure of proof-reading in the office of the Redactor. Because there is also Exodus 3:6, in which YHVH tells Mosheh explicitly: "I appeared to Av-Raham, to Yitschak and to Ya'akov as El Shadai, but my name YHVH I did not make known to them."
The debate over YHVH versus Elohim, or "J and E" as it is known in scholarly circles, has dominated Biblical scholarship for the past two hundred and fifty years; we have already seen the shifts between the names in the opening chapters, but it is in this verse that the Ezraic redactors of the Tanach themselves set down the problem that arose from assimilating multiple tribal legends, myths and traditions into a single, unified, national mythology and history; and then made no attempt to resolve the problem. The most popular explanation of J and E is that YHVH (J) was the name of the deity amongst the southern tribes of Yehudah, Bin-Yamin and Shim'on, but Elohim among the remaining tribes, in what became known as "the northern kingdom of Ephraim" after the civil war that followed the death of Shelomoh (Solomon). I will give my reasons when the issue arises in the text, rather than now; sufficient for the moment simply to state that TheBibleNet rejects this hypothesis entirely, finding absolutely no textual evidence to support it, and significant amounts that refute it.
Some Yehudit texts have a pey break (indicating a paragraph end) at this point, others a samech break (indicating a section end); probably it should be both. End of chapter 4 in the Christian version; end of fifth fragment in the Yehudit.
*
Chapter 5
זֶה סֵפֶר תּוֹלְדֹת אָדָם בְּיוֹם בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם בִּדְמוּת אֱלֹהִים עָשָׂה אֹתוֹ
KJ: This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
BN: This is "The Book Of The Generations Of Adam". On the day that Elohim created Humankind, he made him with the same elements of which the Elohim are composed.
SEPHER TOLDOT ADAM (ספר תולדת אדם): Since this only goes on for a single chapter, the term "The Book Of The Generations Of Adam" is surprising to say the least. Either we must take the phrase to be fanciful, poetic, or mere hyperbole, or we must presume that there was once such a book, of which only these fragments now remain, and indeed now remained when Ezra had the anthology compiled (unless SEPHER has a much reduced meaning from book, and can actually mean a record on a single clay tablet or parchment scroll).
The Talmudic tradition is that Mosheh was given the Torah "megillah megillah" or scroll-by-scroll; this may explain why some chapters appear to reiterate what has gone before, or even contradict it. It also helps confirm our sense of the book as an anthology rather than a single, composite work, and leaves open a number of fundamental questions, such as: where did he get the parchment or papyrus for the scrolls? Where did he get the quills and ink to write with? And even more importantly, given that alphabetic writing was still three hundred years from being invented, did he write it down in Egyptian hieroglyphs, or some Av-Rahamic variation of Babylonian cuneiform? What is certain is that he did not write it down in "Hebrew", or even in Yehudit!
TOLDOT (תולדת): from the root YALAD (ילד) = "to give birth"; also "generations, races, families"; "tribes" more likely; used to mean "history" as in Genesis 2:4 and 6:9.
We must ask ourselves who was included in the term Human. Black and white? Jew and non-Jew? Humanity as a whole? If so, it is a remarkable concept for such an early time.
BI DEMUT: Pronounced BIDMUT, because a sheva (two vertical dots) under the letter that ends a syllable always also ellides the conjoining syllables; but I have written it here as BI DEMUT, so that non-Yehudit speakers can see the key word DEMUT on its own. The root is DAM (דם), and hugely significant that DAM means "blood" before it comes to mean "likeness"; and it is far from obvious how the same word can have these two apparently very different meanings. It is also unclear how the masculine DAM becomes DEMUT, which is feminine, rather than DAMEY (דמי), which it would be in the masculine. And then, to make things still more complex, there is DAMAH (דמה), which as a verb means "to be silent", but as a noun (DUMAH - דומה) is used both to mean "silence", and then very specifically "wilderness" or "wasteland" (cf Ezekiel 27:32), and even a version of the Underworld itself (Psalm 94:17; Psalm 115:17). DAMAH is feminine, and would therefore become DEMUT when conjoined to a genitive noun.
How then do we get from either "blood" or "silence" to "likeness"? I will suggest that the DAM is in fact the male equivalent of the female ADAMAH, and that to create ADAM, which requires both a male and female component, Humankind is born of the earth - not compounded from mud so much as composed of molecules - and that the same applies to all of Nature, and therefore to the deity as well. It is not that the deity resembles humankind, with an ape-like face, but that the same neutrons and protons are in evidence in all life-forms: DAM and ADAMAH combining to make ADAM. And those same neutrons and protons will continue to be present, even when the body is "laid to waste" in the "silence" of the posthumous Underworld - the organic matter turned, after all, into regenerative compost.
And why do I make the case for it being so important a word? The answer to that lies in the opening chapter of Maimonides' "Guide for the Perplexed", and in the "Thirteen Principles of Faith" which he elucidated. The latter was turned into a song, Yigdal, sung on Friday evenings especially, in synagogues to this day, and includes the line "Eyn lo demut ha guph ve eyno guph" - the Jewish deity has no corporeal existence; he is merely metaphor, the essence that manifests as blood, as matter.
ELOHIM: Not YHVH. In spite of what was written in the very last verse of the previous chapter.
5:2 ZACHAR U NEKEVAH BERA'AM VA YEVARECH OTAM VA YIKRA ET SHEMAM ADAM BE YOM HIBARAM
5:2 ZACHAR U NEKEVAH BERA'AM VA YEVARECH OTAM VA YIKRA ET SHEMAM ADAM BE YOM HIBARAM
זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמָם אָדָם בְּיוֹם הִבָּרְאָם
KJ: Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
BN: Male and female he created them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, on the day on which they were created.
SHEMAM (שמם): the plural giving away once more that ADAM, in the Elohim version, is not a person, but the whole of Humankind as genus; in the YHVH Elohim version, he is a man named Adam.
Note again that Elohim makes male and family together and equal; where the YHVH version makes Adam first, then Chavah from his rib.
samech break
5:3 VA YECHI ADAM SHELOSHIM U ME'AT SHANAH VA YOLED BI DEMUTO KE TSALMO VA YIKRA ET SHEMO SHET
5:3 VA YECHI ADAM SHELOSHIM U ME'AT SHANAH VA YOLED BI DEMUTO KE TSALMO VA YIKRA ET SHEMO SHET
וַיְחִי אָדָם שְׁלֹשִׁים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד בִּדְמוּתוֹ כְּצַלְמוֹ וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ שֵׁת
KJ: And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
BN: And Adam lived for a hundred and thirty years, and fathered a son in his own likeness, after his own image; and he named him Shet.
ADAM (אדם): At this point, and only now, can we conceive of a specific individual in any sense, most likely the tribal chief, whose king-name, passed from father to son, was Adam; in which sense the age given, here and throughout, is not that of a man but of the kingship itself. One may like to ponder the possibility of it being the age of the sacred tree, or the temple, or the idol...
VA YOLED (ויולד): does not say what was born, just that he bore; translations add "son".
BI DEMUTO... TSALMO (בדמותו כצלמו): Where Elohim in verse 1 only created Humankind BI DEMUTO, Humankind's progeny are both BI DEMUTO and KE TSALMO, the latter of which is the "likeness" that we all recognise in certain parts of our genetic inheritance from our parents. The difference is essential, literally; the former is about constructive matter – genes, proteins, hormones, etc; the latter is about facial appearance.
SHET (שת): See previous notes and the link to the Dictionary of Names. From the root SHET = "column"; and metaphorically "prince", "noble". Another root = "buttock". Yet another = "tumult", from the root SHA'A. However, as noted above, in Chaldean, and cf Daniel 3:1 and Ezra 6:15, SHESH is given as Shet = "six", and SHITIN rather than SHISHIM = "sixty".
SHET is of course the only "surviving" son of Adam, in that Havel is dead and Kayin cast out. Yet the genealogies of the two show remarkable similarities (e.g. Enosh and Chanoch, Keynan and Kena'an out of Cham etc). From the above root readings, "the sons of Adam are princes and nobles"; the Tanach (Bible) however gives it as stemming from the root SIM = "to place, set", as in "in place of the dead Havel"; this seems tenuous and apocryphal.
5:4 VA YIHEYU YEMEY ADAM ACHAREY HOLIYDO ET SHET SHEMONEH ME'OT SHANAH VA YOLED BANIM U VANOT
VA YOLED (ויולד): does not say what was born, just that he bore; translations add "son".
BI DEMUTO... TSALMO (בדמותו כצלמו): Where Elohim in verse 1 only created Humankind BI DEMUTO, Humankind's progeny are both BI DEMUTO and KE TSALMO, the latter of which is the "likeness" that we all recognise in certain parts of our genetic inheritance from our parents. The difference is essential, literally; the former is about constructive matter – genes, proteins, hormones, etc; the latter is about facial appearance.
SHET (שת): See previous notes and the link to the Dictionary of Names. From the root SHET = "column"; and metaphorically "prince", "noble". Another root = "buttock". Yet another = "tumult", from the root SHA'A. However, as noted above, in Chaldean, and cf Daniel 3:1 and Ezra 6:15, SHESH is given as Shet = "six", and SHITIN rather than SHISHIM = "sixty".
SHET is of course the only "surviving" son of Adam, in that Havel is dead and Kayin cast out. Yet the genealogies of the two show remarkable similarities (e.g. Enosh and Chanoch, Keynan and Kena'an out of Cham etc). From the above root readings, "the sons of Adam are princes and nobles"; the Tanach (Bible) however gives it as stemming from the root SIM = "to place, set", as in "in place of the dead Havel"; this seems tenuous and apocryphal.
5:4 VA YIHEYU YEMEY ADAM ACHAREY HOLIYDO ET SHET SHEMONEH ME'OT SHANAH VA YOLED BANIM U VANOT
וַיִּהְיוּ יְמֵי אָדָם אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ אֶת שֵׁת שְׁמֹנֶה מֵאֹת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת
KJ: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
BN: And the days of Adam after the birth of Shet were eight hundred years; and he fathered sons and daughters.
Given that he is the first man and the start of everything, one would have thought all his direct progeny were significant; but no, all we are told is that he begat lots of sons and daughters. Is it just the poetic manner? Or is it simply the necessity of providing cousins for Kayin, when he wanders into the land of Nod, and manages to find a wife?
Most of the characters who follow have already been presented as the descendants of Kayin; cf the comparison lists in the previous commentary.
5:5 VA YIHEYU KOL YEMEY ADAM ASHER CHAY TESH'A ME'OT SHANAH U SHELOSHIM SHANAH VA YAMOT
5:5 VA YIHEYU KOL YEMEY ADAM ASHER CHAY TESH'A ME'OT SHANAH U SHELOSHIM SHANAH VA YAMOT
וַיִּהְיוּ כָּל יְמֵי אָדָם אֲשֶׁר חַי תְּשַׁע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וַיָּמֹת
KJ: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
BN: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.
Nine hundred and thirty makes him extremely old, by our reckoning, so we can dismiss this as either fanciful, dynastic (like the Chinese emperors), or a different numbering system. SHANAH = "change", and is used because it indicates a shift from one time period to another, which could be a day, a week, a month, a year; given that the moon has always been more important to the Hebrews/Jews than the sun in calculating time, month makes sense, and nine hundred and thirty divided by twelve would make Adam seventy-seven years and five months old – not a bad term for a patriarch, and also that number 7 manifest again. Unfortunately, as we shall see, while this may work for Adam, it doesn't for others.
samech break
5:6 VA YECHI SHET CHAMESH SHANIM U ME'AT SHANAH VA YOLED ET ENOSH
5:6 VA YECHI SHET CHAMESH SHANIM U ME'AT SHANAH VA YOLED ET ENOSH
וַיְחִי שֵׁת חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד אֶת אֱנוֹשׁ
KJ: And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
BN: And Shet lived for a hundred and five years, and fathered Enosh.
ENOSH (אנוש) usually means "the human race" (see the note to Genesis 4:26, above); whence ISH = "a man", ISHAH = "a woman", ANASHIM = "people". If we read it in this way we could deduce a genealogy that goes from creator-divinity to Earth-god, to earthly princes, to the mere common man. This has a certain logic, particularly when taken with the curious phrase "VA YOLED BANIM U VANOT", as though Shet and Enosh and the others were not sons or daughters but something else altogether, such as types perhaps?
My hypothesis of months immediately breaks down, alas. If Shet managed to father a child at the age of a hundred and five months, that would make him only eight years and eight months old by my lunar calculation; not sufficient.
5:7 VE YECHI SHET ACHAREY HOLIYDO ET ENOSH SHEVA SHANIM U SHEMONEH ME'OT SHANAH VA YOLED BANIM U VANOT
My hypothesis of months immediately breaks down, alas. If Shet managed to father a child at the age of a hundred and five months, that would make him only eight years and eight months old by my lunar calculation; not sufficient.
5:7 VE YECHI SHET ACHAREY HOLIYDO ET ENOSH SHEVA SHANIM U SHEMONEH ME'OT SHANAH VA YOLED BANIM U VANOT
וַיְחִי שֵׁת אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ אֶת אֱנוֹשׁ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים וּשְׁמֹנֶה מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת
KJ: And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
BN: And Shet lived after the birth of Enosh for eight hundred and seven years, and he fathered sons and daughters.
5:8 VA YIHEYU KOL YEMEY SHET SHTEYM-ESREH SHANAH U TESH'A ME'OT SHANAH VA YAMOT
וַיִּהְיוּ כָּל יְמֵי שֵׁת שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וּתְשַׁע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיָּמֹת
KJ: And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
BN: And all the days of Shet were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.
5:9 VA YECHI ENOSH TISH'IM SHANAH VA YOLED ET KEYNAN
וַיְחִי אֱנוֹשׁ תִּשְׁעִים שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד אֶת קֵינָן
KJ: And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
BN: And Enosh lived for ninety years, and fathered Keynan.
KEYNAN (קינן): As if, now that the common man is produced, specific tribes can follow; here not the Kena'anites but the Kenites, or perhaps, as discussed previously, the Keynanites as a dialect variation of both Kena'anites and Kenites (do we say Pekin, Peking, or Bei-Jing? Bombay or Mumbai? Is the Christian deity Gott, God, Dios or Dieu?) from the root Kayin (קין); see previous commentary. Or are they two distinct tribes? Or perhaps the tribe known as the KENIM or KENITES were a people from the land called Kena'an who lived among the Amalekites of the southern desert (see Judges 4:11 and 4:17, 1 Chronicles 2:55, and especially 1 Samuel 15:6.) According to Numbers 24:21 they were descended from Chovav (Hobab) the father-in-law, or brother-in-law, of Mosheh (Moses) - cf Judges 1:16 and 4:11; see also 1 Chronicles 1:2.
5:10 VE YECHI ENOSH ACHAREY HOLIYDO ET KEYNAN CHAMESH ESREH SHANAH U SHEMONEH ME'OT SHANAH VA YOLED BANIM U VANOT
וַיְחִי אֱנוֹשׁ אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ אֶת קֵינָן חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וּשְׁמֹנֶה מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת
KJ: And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
BN: And Enosh lived after the birth of Keynan for eight hundred and fifteen years, and he fathered sons and daughters.
5:11 VA YIHEYU KOL YEMEY ENOSH CHAMESH SHANIM U TESH'A ME'OT SHANAH VA YAMOT
וַיִּהְיוּ כָּל יְמֵי אֱנוֹשׁ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים וּתְשַׁע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיָּמֹת
KJ: And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
BN: And all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years; and he died.
samech break
5:12 VA YECHI KEYNAN SHIV'IM SHANAH VA YOLED ET MAHALAL-EL
וַיְחִי קֵינָן שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד אֶת מַהֲלַלְאֵל
KJ: And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel:
BN: And Keynan lived for seventy years, and begat Mahalal-El.
MAHALAL-EL (מהללאל): what a shame the English versions never give translations of these wonderful names! It comes from the root MAHAL (מהל) = "to cut off, prune" or - figuratively, for wine etc – "to adulterate"; the name in full is therefore "cut off from El", and not, as is usually reckoned, from the root HALAL (הלל) = "to praise" or "give thanks" to El. The Mohel (usually mispronounced "moyel" by Ashkenazi Jews) is the man who conducts the rite of circumcision.
5:13 VA YECHI KEYNAN ACHAREY HOLIYDO ET MAHALAL-EL ARBA'IM SHANAH U SHEMONEH ME'OT SHANAH VA YOLED BANIM U VANOT
וַיְחִי קֵינָן אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ אֶת מַהֲלַלְאֵל אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה וּשְׁמֹנֶה מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת
KJ: And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
BN: And Keynan lived after the birth of Mahalal-El for eight hundred and forty years, and he fathered sons and daughters.
5:14 VA YIHEYU KOL YEMEY KEYNAN ESER SHANIM U TESH'A ME'OT SHANAH VA YAMOT
וַיִּהְיוּ כָּל יְמֵי קֵינָן עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וּתְשַׁע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיָּמֹת
KJ: And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
BN: And all the days of Keynan were nine hundred and ten years; and he died.
samech break
5:15 VA YECHI MAHALAL-EL CHAMESH SHANIM VE SHISHIM SHANAH VA YOLED ET YARED
וַיְחִי מַהֲלַלְאֵל חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים וְשִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד אֶת יָרֶד
KJ:And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
BN: And Mahalal-El lived for sixty-five years, and begat Yared.
YARED: Is this the same person as the Iyrad of Genesis 4:18? See my commentary there.
5:16 VA YECHI MAHALAL-EL ACHAREY HOLIYDO ET YERED SHELOSHIM SHANAH U SHEMONEH ME'OT SHANAH VA YOLED BANIM U VANOT
וַיְחִי מַהֲלַלְאֵל אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ אֶת יֶרֶד שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וּשְׁמֹנֶה מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת
KJ: And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
BN: And Mahalal-El lived after the birth of Yared for eight hundred and thirty years, and he fathered sons and daughters.
5:17 VA YIHEYU KOL YEMEY MAHALAL-EL CHAMESH VE TISH'IM SHANAH U SHEMONEH ME'OT SHANAH VA YAMOT
וַיִּהְיוּ כָּל יְמֵי מַהֲלַלְאֵל חָמֵשׁ וְתִשְׁעִים שָׁנָה וּשְׁמֹנֶה מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיָּמֹת
KJ: And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
BN: And all the days of Mahalal-El were eight hundred and ninety-five; and he died.
samech break
5:18 VA YECHI YERED SHETAYIM VE SHISHIM SHANAH U ME'AT SHANAH VA YOLED ET CHANOCH
וַיְחִי יֶרֶד שְׁתַּיִם וְשִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה וּמְאַת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד אֶת חֲנוֹךְ
KJ: And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:
BN: And Yared lived for a hundred and sixty-two years, and fathered Chanoch.
CHANOCH (חנוך): Usually rendered as Enoch in English. Chanoch is also the name of the eldest son of Kayin; the name is given in Genesis 4:17 as that of the city of Chanoch. Genesis 46:9, Exodus 6:14 and Numbers 26:5 also have a Chanoch as the eldest son of Re'u-Ven; while Genesis 25:4 makes him a son of Midyan; and of course the name is perfectly free to be repeated.
It comes from the root meaning "initiated". He was later held to have been the key antediluvian prophet, inventor of letters and learning; an apocryphal book was attributed to him, "The Book of Enoch", and he was said by the Christians to have uttered the prophecy recorded in verse 14 of the Book of Jude (probably written in the 1st century BCE). Later still he became the key prophet of Mormonism, especially through the "revelations" of Joseph Smith in "Pearl of Great Price", and his revised translation of "The Book of Moses".
5:19 VA YECHI YARED ACHAREY HOLIYDO ET CHANOCH SHEMONEH ME'OT SHANAH VA YOLED BANIM U VANOT
KJ: And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
BN: And Yared lived after the birth of Chanoch for eight hundred years, and he fathered sons and daughters.
5:20 VA YIHEYU KOL YEMEY YERED SHETAYIM VE SHISHIM SHANAH U TESHA ME'OT SHANAH VA YAMOT
KJ: And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
BN: And all the days of Yared were nine hundred and sixty-two years; and he died.
samech break
5:21 VA YECHI CHANOCH CHAMESH VE SHISHIM SHANAH VA YOLED ET METU-SHALACH
KJ: And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah.
BN: And Enoch lived for sixty-five years, and fathered Metu-Shalach.
METU-SHALACH (צתושלח): Or possibly Metu-Shelach. The famous "Methuselah", known by all small children as the oldest man in the Bible. Most etymologists have great difficulty with this name however, being unable to break it down by any known Yehudit weight or root process. If we follow the logic above, where Mahalal-El the outcast already took our genealogy outside of the language of the Beney Yisra-El, probably into the Kenites as a descendant tribe of the Kena'anites, perhaps, more likely, as a new tribe formed from a marriage between Edomites and Kenites, Yarad would then have given us a change of habitation for the people, an emigration, presumably to or towards the city of Chanoch in Assyria. In that case we need to look at the Assyriac language for an explanation of Metu-Shelach, or actually Metu-Shalach, who has anyway far too many letters in his name to be Beney Yisra-El.
It comes from the root meaning "initiated". He was later held to have been the key antediluvian prophet, inventor of letters and learning; an apocryphal book was attributed to him, "The Book of Enoch", and he was said by the Christians to have uttered the prophecy recorded in verse 14 of the Book of Jude (probably written in the 1st century BCE). Later still he became the key prophet of Mormonism, especially through the "revelations" of Joseph Smith in "Pearl of Great Price", and his revised translation of "The Book of Moses".
5:19 VA YECHI YARED ACHAREY HOLIYDO ET CHANOCH SHEMONEH ME'OT SHANAH VA YOLED BANIM U VANOT
וַיְחִי יֶרֶד אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ אֶת חֲנוֹךְ שְׁמֹנֶה מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת
KJ: And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
BN: And Yared lived after the birth of Chanoch for eight hundred years, and he fathered sons and daughters.
5:20 VA YIHEYU KOL YEMEY YERED SHETAYIM VE SHISHIM SHANAH U TESHA ME'OT SHANAH VA YAMOT
וַיִּהְיוּ כָּל יְמֵי יֶרֶד שְׁתַּיִם וְשִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה וּתְשַׁע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיָּמֹת
KJ: And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
BN: And all the days of Yared were nine hundred and sixty-two years; and he died.
samech break
5:21 VA YECHI CHANOCH CHAMESH VE SHISHIM SHANAH VA YOLED ET METU-SHALACH
וַיְחִי חֲנוֹךְ חָמֵשׁ וְשִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד אֶת מְתוּשָׁלַח
KJ: And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah.
BN: And Enoch lived for sixty-five years, and fathered Metu-Shalach.
METU-SHALACH (צתושלח): Or possibly Metu-Shelach. The famous "Methuselah", known by all small children as the oldest man in the Bible. Most etymologists have great difficulty with this name however, being unable to break it down by any known Yehudit weight or root process. If we follow the logic above, where Mahalal-El the outcast already took our genealogy outside of the language of the Beney Yisra-El, probably into the Kenites as a descendant tribe of the Kena'anites, perhaps, more likely, as a new tribe formed from a marriage between Edomites and Kenites, Yarad would then have given us a change of habitation for the people, an emigration, presumably to or towards the city of Chanoch in Assyria. In that case we need to look at the Assyriac language for an explanation of Metu-Shelach, or actually Metu-Shalach, who has anyway far too many letters in his name to be Beney Yisra-El.
From all this we can reasonably deduce that we have been left with a page of "The Book of the Generations of Adam" that was dealing with some distant relatives descending out of Kena'an; not particularly the sort of fragment we are after; as if we had found the lineage of William the Conqueror's second cousin, who had married a Serbian princess and emigrated to Croatia: very interesting pedigree, but it would cast no light on Anglo-Norman history.
A deeper knowledge of ancient Assyriac than mine is required to cast further light on the above hypothesis; those with expertise are invited to comment in the box below. I prefer, anyway, the logic of the interpretation below.
Genesis 10:24 and 11:12 name SHELACH as the son of Arphachshad (Areph-Kesed?), himself a sibling of Eylam, Ashur, Lud and Aram; an ancestor of Av-Raham; Genesis 11:10 states that he was born two years after the Flood, when Shem was a hundred. Arphachshad's son is called Shelach here, but in the Septuagint his son is named Keynan (קינן), which adds weight to the suggestion that Keynan and Kena'an and the Kenites are dialect variations of the same name.
The name may also be connected to the holy river of the Yevusim or Jebusites, the earliest inhabitants of what would become Yeru-Shala'im (Jerusalem). Nehemiah 3:15 speaks of the Berchat ha-Shelach (בְּרֵכַת הַשֶּׁלַח), the Pool of Shelach which "lies by the king's garden", which is usually understood to mean the Kidron Valley, and was probably the overflow of water out of Chizki-Yah's (Hezekiah's - יְחִזְקִיָּהוּ) tunnel which led from the spring of Giychon to the city, though it pre-existed that tunnel (and yes, it is definitely to be confused with the other Giychon, the one named as one of the four rivers of Eden - click here). Elsewhere it is called the Pool of Silo'am, the Waters of Shiloh, and the Pool of Shilo'ach, though these may have been different pools in the same general location. Isaiah 8:6, for example, has Mey ha-Shilo'ach (מֵי הַשִּׁלֹחַ) - the unpointed Yehudit makes no distinction between SHELACH and SHILO'ACH - and reckoned it to be one of the four rivers of Eden as well as the stream that served Chizki-Yah's (Hezekiah's) tunnel; in fact Giychon was more likely the stream that led to the well, and Shelach or Shilo'ach the aquaduct through the tunnel on which the water was carried into the city during the siege, and Silo'am the pool at which it ended. The significance of the tunnel in relation to Metu-Shelach lies in 2 Chronicles 32, where the siege of Yeru-Shala'im in the time of Chizki-Yah is described, and the tunnel that led to the well proved crucial, because Sennacherib could not take the city, and, as we are told in verse 21:
"And YHVH sent an angel, who cut off all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders and captains, in the camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned with shame of face to his own land. And when he came into the house of his god, they that came forth of his own bowels slew him there with the sword."
The identification of the angel with the tunnel and the well became part of Yisra-Eli folklore. The spring of Giychon was already part of folklore because that was where Shelomoh (Solomon) was anointed co-regent with the dying David (1 Kings 1:38), and the original tunnel, which was a natural ingress in the rock that Chizki-Yah would enlarge into a proper tunnel, was the means by which Yo-Av (Joab) led his men into Yevus, enabling David to take the city and establish proto-Yeru-Shala'im (1 Chronicles 11-12). Adding the word MAVET (מבת) to the name SHELACH, perhaps even at the time of Chizki-Yah, when one of the earlier written versions of the Tanach was being compiled, would have completed the association between the "angel of death" and the source of the victory over Sennacherib. The tunnel remains to this day one of the highlights of any visit to Yeru-Shala'im.
An alternative interpretation of the name links it with the Shilchi or Shilchim, a tribe or city based in the tribe of Yehudah (Joshua 15:32, 1 Kings 22:42, 2 Chronicles 20:31).
5:22 VA YIT'HALECH CHANOCH ET HA ELOHIM ACHAREY HOLIYDO ET METU-SHELACH SHELOSH ME'OT SHANAH VA YOLED BANIM U VANOT
5:22 VA YIT'HALECH CHANOCH ET HA ELOHIM ACHAREY HOLIYDO ET METU-SHELACH SHELOSH ME'OT SHANAH VA YOLED BANIM U VANOT
וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ חֲנוֹךְ אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ אֶת מְתוּשֶׁלַח שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת
KJ: And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
BN: And Chanoch walked with Ha Elohim after the birth of Metu-Shalach for three hundred years, and he fathered sons and daughters.
VA YIT'HALECH CHANOCH ET HA ELOHIM (ויתהלך חנוך את האלהים): The trouble with establishing conventional forms and stylistic genres is that they become immensely boringly tediously repetitive after a while, and so the writer feels impelled to break the rule - and it turns out not to matter in the slightest, may even improve the text. As on this occasion - because, what a wonderful way of phrasing it! But also important, because this concept of "walking with the deity" is used elsewhere, and on every other occasion it is translated as, or accepted by Bible readers as meaning, direct and face-to-face communication with the deity; which either means that Chanoch had such communication (and those who follow his cult believe that he did), or else it is simply a poetic description of the life-span, and must be applied as such in every instance. Verse 24 will confirm and endorse this second explanation.
METU-SHELACH: He was definitely METU-SHALACH in verse 21, and just as definitely he is METU-SHELACH here and in verses 25 through 27.
5:23 VA YEHI KOL YEMEY CHANOCH CHAMESH VE SHISHIM SHANAH U SHELOSH ME'OT SHANAH
וַיְהִי כָּל יְמֵי חֲנוֹךְ חָמֵשׁ וְשִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה
KJ: And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
BN: And all the days of Chanoch were three hundred and sixty-five years.
5:24 VA YIT'HALECH CHANOCH ET HA ELOHIM VE EYNENU KI LAKACH OTO ELOHIM
וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ חֲנוֹךְ אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים וְאֵינֶנּוּ כִּי לָקַח אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים
KJ: And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
BN: And Chanoch walked with Ha Elohim, and he was not; for Elohim took him.
YIT'HALECH (יתהלך): This is more significant than most commentators allow. In verse 22 Chanoch walked with Ha Elohim, as he does in the first part of this verse. But at the end of this verse Ha Elohim becomes Elohim - a development from the mythological to the theological stage in terms of human metaphysical explanations of the universe, and therefore enabling us to date the text (or at least this revision of the text) to not earlier than the 6th century BCE.
EYNENU: Surely should be EYNENO?
The variation of style also reflects the importance Chanoch had for the later Rabbis, who gave him huge tracts and whole books of the Talmud. He was held to be the repository of the mysteries of the universe; and even more than that for later Jewish mystics. And still more for the Mormon church, whose patron saint and founding father he became.
samech break. End of seventh fragment.
5:25 VA YECHI METU-SHELACH SHEVA U SHEMONIM SHANAH U ME'AT SHANAH VA YOLED ET LAMECH
5:25 VA YECHI METU-SHELACH SHEVA U SHEMONIM SHANAH U ME'AT SHANAH VA YOLED ET LAMECH
וַיְחִי מְתוּשֶׁלַח שֶׁבַע וּשְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה וּמְאַת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד אֶת לָמֶךְ
KJ: And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:
BN: And Metu-Shelach lived for a hundred and eighty-seven years, and fathered Lamech.
LAMECH (למך): In the Kayin list, CHANOCH fathers IYRAD (who may well be a variant upon YARAD/YARED above), who fathers MECHUYA-EL, who fathers METUSHA-EL (which is probably a variant upon METU-SHELACH or even METU-SHALACH) who fathers LAMECH. In the Kayin version a fuller story of Lamech is told than here. The root of LAMECH is unclear, but probably the same as the Arabic LAMACH, which signifies a particularly macho male of the adolescent variety. This would accord with the KAYIN version. (In the other version, Lamech is the seventh generation after Kayin. Though Kayin's curse was deemed to be eternal, we can read that as meaning seven years, because all sinners are paroled in the jubilee year. Thus Lamech is the redemption of Kayin, which may be a better explanation of why Lamech's curse is so much greater; and adds another seven to the many sevens in that story).
5:26 VE YECHI METU-SHELACH ACHAREY HOLIYDO ET LEMECH SHETAYIM U SHEMONEH SHANAH U SHEVA ME'OT SHANAH VA YOLED BANIM U VANOT
וַיְחִי מְתוּשֶׁלַח אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ אֶת לֶמֶךְ שְׁתַּיִם וּשְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וּשְׁבַע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת
KJ: And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:
BN: And Metu-Shelach lived after the birth of Lamech for seven hundred and eighty-two years, and he fathered sons and daughters.
5:27 VA YIHEYU KOL YEMEY METU-SHELACH TESHA VE SHISHIM SHANAH U TESH'A ME'OT SHANAH VA YAMOT
וַיִּהְיוּ כָּל יְמֵי מְתוּשֶׁלַח תֵּשַׁע וְשִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה וּתְשַׁע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיָּמֹת
KJ: And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
BN: And all the days of Metu-Shelach were nine hundred and sixty-nine years; and he died.
samech break
5:28 VA YECHI LEMECH SHETAYIM U SHEMONEH SHANAH U ME'AT SHANAH VA YOLED BEN
וַיְחִי לֶמֶךְ שְׁתַּיִם וּשְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה וּמְאַת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד בֵּן
KJ: And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
BN: And Lamech lived for a hundred and eighty-two years, and fathered a son.
BEN (בן): The son in question being No'ach; but the seeming inference here that Lamech only fathered one child will be revised when we reach verse 30.
Cf The Epic of Gilgamesh for the original of this tale, specifically the story of Utnapishtim and the angry god En-Lil. We can presume that the story entered the pre-Biblical oral tradition during the exile (586-536 BCE), along with Ester (Esther) and Mordechai, Iyov (Job), possibly Yonah (Jonah) as well (but not Dani-El, which was set in Persia at this time, but was in fact a historical fiction created much later, at the time of the Maccabees).
As to the ground being cursed etc as part of the explanation here; yet again we are in the realm of Eden and Kayin etc, where this keeps happening. But why? It is almost as if the editors made a rod for their own backs by cursing the ground for Adam, and now need to retrieve it; or is it because the myth was powerful and significant when they themselves were nomadic, but became a problem when they became sedentary farmers? No'ach was held by Talmudic commentators, reading this verse, to have invented the plough.
U ME ITSVON (ומעצבון): To understand this verse we need to go back to Genesis 3:16, where Chavah receives her punishment for the sin of Eden: "EL HA ISHAH AMAR HARBAH ARBEH ITSVONECH VE HERONECH BE ETSEM TELDI VANIM VE EL ISHECH TESHUKATECH VE HU YIMSHAL BACH" - in the King James translation: "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
LENACHEM does not quite revoke the curse on Humankind in the previous chapters, so that Original Sin no longer applies! But by providing children there is a measure of comfort in life to compensate for labour, in both senses of the word, male labour in digging out a living, female labour in giving birth.
The above will be further corroborated when the word recurs in the next part of the No'ach tale, in Genesis 6:6, and used there quite clearly to describe the deity "repenting" that he ever made Humankind in the first place - the precise opposite of "comfort".
5:30 VA YECHI LEMECH ACHAREY HOLIYDO ET NO'ACH CHAMESH VE TISH'IM SHANAH VA CHAMESH ME'OT SHANAH VA YOLED BANIM U VANOT
At this point the difference between the two lists becomes crucial. If Lamech is Kayin's descendant, rather than Shet's, then No'ach's ancestry is also altered. Either way he is the son of Lamech; but from which stable? One must presume, being ultra-sceptical and hyper-cynical as a point of methodological principle, that the answer is Kayin, but that this was not the popular version among serious Ezraic academics, and therefore a bit of playing around allowed Lamech to become a Shet descendant and thereby establish No'ach's pedigree (Bernhard Anderson argues very convincingly about the importance of genealogy to the Ezraic time: especially as Ezra annulled all marriages to foreign wives and insisted on proven and documented genealogies before admission to Yisra-Elite circles - much like the United Synagogue today!).
Bearing in mind certain other disparities above, such as Chanoch's questionable parentage, we can speculate that the entire list was an Ezraic invention, the Shet list too, fictioned out of necessity by an expeditious priesthood trying to establish a historical basis to newly acquired legends - necessary politics when trying to establish a nation in the aftermath of a failed empire, two generations in exile, a hundred tribes back in the native land, and the presence of an entirely new people, the Aramaic-speaking Samaritans, relocated there by the Babylonians and bringing with them their own myths and legends and cultural traditions. The No'ach story which follows adds weight and substance to this: it is a purely Babylonian tale, set between Bav-El (Babylon) and Anatolia (the land of Anat of the Beney Chet), and has nothing whatever of Kena'an or the Beney Yisra-El about it, except that which was superimposed to make a Beney Yisra-El tale out of it.
5:29 VA YIKRA ET SHEMO NO'ACH LEMOR ZEH YENACHAMENU MI MA'ASENU U ME ITSVON YADEYNU MIN HA ADAMAH ASHER ERERAH YHVH
Bearing in mind certain other disparities above, such as Chanoch's questionable parentage, we can speculate that the entire list was an Ezraic invention, the Shet list too, fictioned out of necessity by an expeditious priesthood trying to establish a historical basis to newly acquired legends - necessary politics when trying to establish a nation in the aftermath of a failed empire, two generations in exile, a hundred tribes back in the native land, and the presence of an entirely new people, the Aramaic-speaking Samaritans, relocated there by the Babylonians and bringing with them their own myths and legends and cultural traditions. The No'ach story which follows adds weight and substance to this: it is a purely Babylonian tale, set between Bav-El (Babylon) and Anatolia (the land of Anat of the Beney Chet), and has nothing whatever of Kena'an or the Beney Yisra-El about it, except that which was superimposed to make a Beney Yisra-El tale out of it.
5:29 VA YIKRA ET SHEMO NO'ACH LEMOR ZEH YENACHAMENU MI MA'ASENU U ME ITSVON YADEYNU MIN HA ADAMAH ASHER ERERAH YHVH
וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ נֹחַ לֵאמֹר זֶה יְנַחֲמֵנוּ מִמַּעֲשֵׂנוּ וּמֵעִצְּבוֹן יָדֵינוּ מִן הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר אֵרְרָהּ יְהוָה
KJ: And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.
BN: And he called his name No'ach, saying, "This child will comfort us when we labour, when we toil with our hands over the ground which YHVH has cursed."
NO'ACH (נח) from the root NACH (נח) = "to rest, sit down"; the Pi'el or intensive form yields LENACHEM (לנחם) = "to comfort". It obviously comes from the flood story, rather than before it, given because No'ach and the ark "came to rest" on Mount Ararat in Anatolia (the land of the goddess Anat; the Chitite heartland). The explanation of his name given here is one of the more ridiculous in the Tanach, where ridiculous explanations are the norm rather than the exception; this one comparable only with Pharaoh's daughter trying to explain her illegitimate baby away by claiming to have found it floating, poor dear, abandoned among some bulrushes - an unlikely tale that should have made a real virgin blush! The alternative, however, for the scribes needing a name for the man who YHVH-Elohim chose to re-start the human race, was Utnapishtim, but Yehudit requires three-letter roots at the maximum, and Utnapishtim did not work; though in fact it could be made to work, by setting the word NEPHESH (נפש) = "soul" in the Hitpa'el or reflexive form, which would give us LEHITNAPESH = "to restore the soul", or "to refresh the spirit": very simple, and very logical in the context of his story: he, like No'ach, is the man who restores humanity after the deluge. I am only surprised that this form of the verb is not in common usage in modern Ivrit, and wonder whether the word originally entered Yehudit from the Chaldean, or the Chaldean from the Yehudit.
Cf The Epic of Gilgamesh for the original of this tale, specifically the story of Utnapishtim and the angry god En-Lil. We can presume that the story entered the pre-Biblical oral tradition during the exile (586-536 BCE), along with Ester (Esther) and Mordechai, Iyov (Job), possibly Yonah (Jonah) as well (but not Dani-El, which was set in Persia at this time, but was in fact a historical fiction created much later, at the time of the Maccabees).
As to the ground being cursed etc as part of the explanation here; yet again we are in the realm of Eden and Kayin etc, where this keeps happening. But why? It is almost as if the editors made a rod for their own backs by cursing the ground for Adam, and now need to retrieve it; or is it because the myth was powerful and significant when they themselves were nomadic, but became a problem when they became sedentary farmers? No'ach was held by Talmudic commentators, reading this verse, to have invented the plough.
U ME ITSVON (ומעצבון): To understand this verse we need to go back to Genesis 3:16, where Chavah receives her punishment for the sin of Eden: "EL HA ISHAH AMAR HARBAH ARBEH ITSVONECH VE HERONECH BE ETSEM TELDI VANIM VE EL ISHECH TESHUKATECH VE HU YIMSHAL BACH" - in the King James translation: "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
LENACHEM does not quite revoke the curse on Humankind in the previous chapters, so that Original Sin no longer applies! But by providing children there is a measure of comfort in life to compensate for labour, in both senses of the word, male labour in digging out a living, female labour in giving birth.
The above will be further corroborated when the word recurs in the next part of the No'ach tale, in Genesis 6:6, and used there quite clearly to describe the deity "repenting" that he ever made Humankind in the first place - the precise opposite of "comfort".
5:30 VA YECHI LEMECH ACHAREY HOLIYDO ET NO'ACH CHAMESH VE TISH'IM SHANAH VA CHAMESH ME'OT SHANAH VA YOLED BANIM U VANOT
וַיְחִי לֶמֶךְ אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ אֶת נֹחַ חָמֵשׁ וְתִשְׁעִים שָׁנָה וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאֹת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת
KJ: And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:
BN: And Lamech lived after the birth of No'ach for five hundred and ninety-five years, and he fathered sons and daughters.
Whatever happened to No'ach's brothers and sisters? Were they so wicked that they too died in the Flood? Not enough has ever been made about Lamech being No'ach's father, which is to say that Lamech was a self-confessed murderer (Genesis 4:23), who knows that he has done far worse even than Kayin did to his brother Havel; though, as stated earlier, Lamech is also in part the redemption of Kayin. But that Lamech should be the father of No'ach, who is himself the ultimate redeemer - the man given the task of repopulating the world after the Flood, in whose name the seven universal laws are given, the man with whom YHVH made the first Covenant, the Covenant of the Rainbow. And he the son of a child-murderer! Is there a sense that Lamech in his original god-role was the god of the Akeda and the Calvary, the one who willingly sacrificed his first-born son precisely because this was the symbol of redemption?
5:31 VA YEHI KOL YEMEY LEMECH SHEV'A VE SHIV'IM SHANAH U SHEV'A ME'OT SHANAH VA YAMOT
וַיְהִי כָּל יְמֵי לֶמֶךְ שֶׁבַע וְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וּשְׁבַע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיָּמֹת
KJ: And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
BN: And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years; and he died.
Does this number reinforce the previously stated view that all Biblical numbers must be viewed with caution, especially these early longevities; 777 is far too sacred a sequence not to see a god in it, and not just any god, but YHVH himself, the god of the 7th day, the Jubilee in the 7th year, the 7 weeks of weeks from Pesach to Shavu'ot… see the notes to the Number 7. And in Lamech's case, his seven times seven curse, and then his age, and the fact that he was given earlier as being the 7th generation in the descent of Kayin.
What makes this difficult finally to resolve is that the root, Lamach (למך), is unused in Biblical Yehudit except in this one instance, so we have no parallels or even contradictory exemplars to compare it with and deduce precise meaning in the normal and formal agaddic manner. There is a word LAMACH in Arabic, which means "to taste", and another LAMACH, softer in pronunciation, which signifies "a strong young man"; but Arabic is not the best language to go looking in for comparatives: Chaldean, Assyriac, other ancient languages are better, but they throw up no LAMACHs either. The only other route that makes sense to follow is the possibility of a scribal error. If the final letter were a Chet (ח) and not a Chaf (ך), we might resolve this in the verb LIMCHO'A (למחא) which just happens to mean "to smite" or "to strike down" (cf Daniel 2:34 and 35); the only problem with this is that Dani-El is a very late text, and it is quite feasible that the verb was drawn from the Biblical reference, but making an error, rather than the other way around (as if, wanting to neologise the name for a murderer, the writer came up with "he Lameched him", as we might talk about a text being Bowdlerised or a cricket match Boycotted or a future American politician Trumping his opponent). The Aleph ending on LIMCHO'A is not relevant; merely a reflection of the fact that Dani-El belongs to the period when Aramaic had replaced Yehudit, and in Aramaic the natural Hey (ה) ending for an infinitive in Yehudit was always, instead, an Aleph (א).
samech break.
5:32 VA YEHI NO'ACH BEN CHAMESH ME'OT SHANAH VA YOLED NO'ACH ET SHEM ET CHAM VE ET YAPHET
samech break.
5:32 VA YEHI NO'ACH BEN CHAMESH ME'OT SHANAH VA YOLED NO'ACH ET SHEM ET CHAM VE ET YAPHET
וַיְהִי נֹחַ בֶּן חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד נֹחַ אֶת שֵׁם אֶת חָם וְאֶת יָפֶת
KJ: And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
BN: And No'ach was five hundred years old; and No'ach fathered Shem, Cham and Yaphet.
So the necessary historical link is made from Adam to No'ach, and the lengthy period of antediluvian time is fixed; and from No'ach will come all the peoples of the world.
CHAMESH ME'OT (חמש מאות): Suddenly a nice round number; always suspicious!
SHEM (שם): means "Name"; Semites are thus "the people of the Name", the name being YHVH or Elohim, or both. This is all rather mystical-sounding and obscure and can be assumed to be very late. According to Genesis 10:6-20 Shem fathered the races of Persia and the East, while Cham fathered those of Africa and Yaphet the Europeans.
CHAM (חם): means "hot", and is used of newly-baked bread. But Chem was specifically the ancient name of Egypt, the domestic name used by them when describing themselves, as we know from hieroglyphic readings of the Rosetta inscriptions where it occurs on no less than ten occasions. This, then, is the most likely root. Cham = "black" or "heat", reminding us that the aboriginal Egyptians were Africans, with Caucasian genes added (returned?) at a later stage. Psalms 105:23 and 106:22 pun between Cham and Chemi, making Cham mean "black". Cham was the father (Genesis 10:6) of Mitsrayim (the Yehudit name for Egypt), Phut (generally reckoned to be Somalia, and held to be the original negro race by the Beney Yisra-El), Kush (Ethiopia, and also negroid), and Kena'an.
The root is connected to Chameh (חמא) = "anger", and Chemah (חמאה) = "curdled milk"; it develops as a verb into the root CHAMAM = "to heat" or "to be hot". In all probability and logic, the name should be read as Chem (therefore English Hem) and not as Cham (English Ham).
Like Shem, Cham is a two-letter root and therefore probably an extremely ancient name; likewise, like Shem, vast numbers of words owe their origins to the two-letter root, a subject worth studying in itself, though not in this book.
YAPHET (יפת): the root appears to be YAPHAH (יפה), meaning "to shine" or "to be bright" or "to be beautiful", but in fact YAPHAH is a late evolution of a word that was originally spelled with an Ayin (יפע), as evidenced in Psalms 50:2 (the source of modern Ivrit's favourite adjective, Yophi), 80:2 and 94:1; so this must be discounted. A second theory notes - see above - that Cham was the father of Phut (Genesis 10:6), which is today's Somalia, and draws the name from this root; however Africa was Cham's territory, not Yaphet's, so this is also implausible.
There is a third theory, that YAPHET comes from the root Patach (פתח) = "to spread out", "to develop", "to extend", or "to open", and connects with YIPHTACH, a town in the tribe of Yehudah referred to in Joshua 15:43, and with YIPHTACH, a judge of Yisra-El famous for having sacrificed his own daughter in compliance with a vow (Judges 11:12 and 1 Samuel 12:11). Joshua 19:14 and 19:27 refer to YIPHTACH-EL, a valley in the tribes of Zevulun (Zebulon) and Asher.
If this is the case, then the name was likely derived from Ptah, or Ptach, the creator-god of the Egyptian capital Memphis, patron god of architects and artisans, the spouse of Sekhmet and the father of Nefertum. As such YAPHET may be comparable with Greek Iapetus, the son of Ouranos and Gaia, and the father of the Titans Atlas, Prometheus, Epimetheus and Menoetius, a kind of Greek Adam, ancestor of antediluvian Man. Iapetus was worshipped in Cilicia, the former home of the Hyksos (the Peoples of the Sea) who invaded Kena'an, adopted the language of the Beney Yisra-El, and intermarried with them - the tale of Yoseph's "coat of many colours" suggests that Ya'akov's arrival from Padan Aram may reflect their arrival, and that in fact they and the Beney Yisra-El were the same people. Shem and Yaphet's descendants enslaved Kena'an, who were Cham's descendants; a deed explained Biblically as a consequence of the castration of No'ach (see notes to Genesis 9:22).
That the very next fragment of the Tanach will offer a Beney Yisra-El equivalent of the Titans - the Nephilim (הַנְּפִלִים) - makes this explanation of the name all the more probable.
Yaphet's sons are listed (Genesis 10:2) as Gomer, Magog, Madai, Yavan, Meshech and Tiras. Gomer is probably the Cimmerians of Anatolia; Magog is Gog in Armenia (cf Ezekiel 38:1ff); Madai is probably Media, the land of the Medes whose king, Koresh or Cyrus, enabled the Yehudim to reurn from exile and rebuild Yehudah in 536 BCE - the chief patron of the Bible, if not intentionally or knowingly; Yavan is Ionia. Yavan's sons (Genesis 10:5) are Elishah = Alashya of Cyprus; Kitim, another Cypriot people; Tarshish, the Tartessians of southern Spain; Dodanim, which is an error for Rodanim, the Rhodians. Tuval = Tibareni of Anatolia; Meshech = Moschians, neighbours of the Tibareni; Tiras = Tursha of Egyptian references, probably the piratical Tyrsenians of Lemnos and Imbros who later became the Etruscans.
The mentioning of Kush, above, takes us into another area of recognition. An account of the "tribes" of Europe, circa 2000 CE, would be very different from the same list just a decade earlier, let alone sixty, when World War Two was raging, or ninety, when the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires still existed. Our geography reflects our politics. Our Europe today contains no Soviet Union, the dominant European power for the previous eighty years. Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia have gone too, and the new European Economic community has just expanded to include some thirty countries. What has this to do with Kush? We write the geographies we know, and the Biblical world knew nothing whatsoever of the land of Kush until the great Empire of Egypt fell to it, around 750 BCE. With his political centre at Napata and the shrine of his native religion at Meroë, Piye, the king of Kush, conquered Egypt and established himself as the head of its 25th Dynasty, also called the Nubian Dynasty, he and his heirs ruling until 663 BCE, when the last Nubian Pharaoh Tanwetamani was driven out by Ashurbanipal the Assyrian, whose father Sennacherib had defeated Yisra-El and taken the Ten Tribes into captivity.
So the mentioning of Kush allows us to date the writing very accurately; or, at the very least, to place an "earliest possible" tag on it, one which is between 600 and 1000 years too late for this text to feasibly be Mosaic.
Copyright © 2020 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment