Enoch's Sumerian ancestors

by Leolaia 13 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Within the antediluvian geneology lists of Genesis, one figure stands out. In the formulaic "Priestly" geneology, we read: "When Enoch was sixty-five years old he became father to Methuselah. Enoch walked with God. After the birth of Methuselah he lived for three hundred years and he became the father of sons and daughters. In all, Enoch lived for three hundred and sixty-five years. Enoch walked with God. Then he vanished because God took him" (Genesis 5:21-24). The Kenite "Yahwist" (J) geneology in ch. 4 also mentioned another Enoch: "Cain had intercourse with his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Enoch. He became builder of a town, and it was given the name of name of Enoch" (Genesis 4:17). The enigmatic figure of Enoch in Genesis was elaborated considerably in later Jewish legend (especially in the first century B.C. apocalypse 1 Enoch), but the traditions contained therein are much older. For many years it has been recognized that the Enochian traditions are dependent on Sumerian and Akkadian legends.

    From the Kenite geneology in Genesis 4, we learn that (1) Enoch was either the builder or the namesake of the first city; from the Sethite geneology in Genesis 5, we learn that (2) Enoch was the seventh in a ten-member antediluvian geneology, (3) Enoch "walked with God", (4) Enoch lived for 365 years (the number being a solar motif), and (5) Enoch was taken by God; and from 1 Enoch we learn that (6) Enoch was taken into heaven, journeyed through the extremities of the earth and the darkness of Sheol, and settled into Paradise to receive eternal life, and (7) Enoch was inducted into the astronomical mysteries of heaven, the movements of the sun, moon, and stars and the years and seasons. We also know that (8) Enoch's name means "to instruct, initiate, dedicate" in Hebrew. Each of these motifs have Sumerian antecedents and the figure of Enoch combines features ascribed to Enmeduranki, Ziusudra, and Gilgamesh in Sumerian myth.

    The two antediluvian geneologies in Genesis 3-6 are doublets of each other, viz. the Kenite Kayin = Sethite Kenan, Enoch = Enoch, Irad = Jared, Mehujael = Mahalalel, Methushael = Methuselah, Lamech = Lamech. Sumerian and Akkadian etymologies have been posited for some of these names, e.g. Sumerian lamga "priest" < Lamech, Akkadian wardu "servant" < Jared, and Akkadian mutusha-ilu "vassal of God" < Methushael < Methuselah. The first obvious parallel with Babylonian/Sumerian myth is the belief in ten antediluvian kings followed by a Flood and postdiluvian dynasties, with the antediluvian kings having considerably longer life-spans than the postdiluvian ones. Various versions of the antediluvian king list exist; the earlier editions designate 8 kings and the later editions insert an additional fourth king and an additional tenth king (the Flood hero). The first millenium B.C. list of Berossus, representing the traditions of the Neo-Babylonian period, would thus better fit the time-frame of the exilic Priestly narrative. Although the names on Berossos' list have been distorted through their rendering into Greek, each can be identified with their original Sumerian or Akkadian versions. When we compare the Sethite list with the Babylonian list of Berossus, we find a number of striking coincidences.

    BerossosSumerian EquivalentsSethite List
    1. AlorosAlulimAdam
    2. AlaparosAlagarSeth
    3. AmelonEnmenluanna; Amelu "Man" Enosh "Man"
    4. Ammenon(?); Ummanu "Workman"Kenan "Metal-Worker"
    5. AmegalaronEnmengalannaMahalalel
    6. DaonosDumuziJared
    7. EvedoranchusEnmendurankiEnoch
    8. AmepsinosEnsibziannaMethuselah
    9. Otiartes/Opartes UburtutuLamech
    10. XisouthrosZiusudraNoah

    These ten kings had god-like status but the first seven were paired with apkallu "sages", which according to Berossus were fish-like beings that taught humans the practical matters of civilization. Other Akkadian traditions designated the apkallu as divinely wise but mortal men. Berossus says that the sage of Aloros was Oannes, a name derived from u-anna -- probably an abbreviation of u-anna adapa, who according to an earlier apkallu list was the sage of Alulim, the first king of world who ruled from Eridu. Adapa was priest at the temple of Ea in Eridu. The connection between Adapa, the sage of Alulim, and Adam has widely been noted. Adapa was created as a perfect being by Ea, endowed with divine wisdom but not eternal life. Adapa broke the wing of the south wind in a fishing accident and was summoned to appear before Anu in his heavenly court. Anu offered Adapa the food of life and the water of life, enabling Adapa to be like one of the gods, but Ea told Adapa that it was actually food and drink of death and that he would die if he partook of what Anu offered him. Adapa was thus deceived and lost his opportunity at eternal life. This forms a widely noted parallel with the story of Adam and Eve, which shares with Adapa the motifs of the food (fruit) of life, divine wisdom (via the tree of knowledge), deception about eating, and a lost opportunity at eternal life. "What ill he has brought upon mankind, and the disease that he brought upon the bodies of men" says one text regarding Adapa (cf. ANET, 103). The first items in the Berossus and Sethite lists are thus somewhat in parallel.

    The second king, Alaparos, is derived from Alalgar, the second king of the Weld-Blundell Sumerian king list, whose sage was U-an-dugga. The third and fourth kings are Amelon and Ammenon, which superficially derive not from Sumerian but from the Akkadian words amelu "man" and ummanu "workman". There is a direct parallel here with the Sethite list, where the third patriarch is named Enosh "Man" and the fourth is named Kenan "Metal-worker". The underlying amelu of Berossus' Amelon, however, is actually an Akkadian corruption of Ammilu-anna, the third king according to the king list of Schøyen Collection MS 2855, which itself is a corruption of the original Sumerian name En-men-lu-anna who was also the third antediluvian king (ruling from Badtibira) according to the Weld-Blundell, Isin, and other king lists. As mentioned earlier, a fourth king was inserted into the older 8-king list after Enmenluanna, and the name varies considerably between different versions of the list: (?)-alimma, Kichunna, and Berossus' Ummanu. Although formally the Akkadian word for "workman, expert" ummanu is possibly a corrupted doublet of Enmenluanna (cf. Enmenluanna < Emmuanna). In any case, the biblical Sethite geneology and the Berossos list both resemble each other in the third and fourth places. The fifth name, Amegalaron, is clearly derived from En-men-gal-anna, who follows Enmenluanna (or the fourth king in the ten-king lists), and the sixth name Daonos is a distorted form of Dumuzi. Skipping over the seventh king Enmenduranki for a moment, we may also note that the eighth king Amepsinos who ruled from Larak is Ensibzianna, king of Larak in the older king lists, and the ninth king Opartes (mistranscribed as Otiartes by copyists who misread the pi as "ti") is Ubur-tutu , who according to the 8-king list was the last king before the Flood. The Akkadian 10-king list that Berossus is dependent on has inserted the name Ziusudra, the Sumerian Flood-hero, as the last king before the Flood (cf. the Weld-Blundell Prism) which Berossus spells as "Xisouthros" in his list.

    As for the seventh king Evedoranchus, he is clearly equivalent to the Sumerian Enmenduranki or Enmenduranna, who appears in seventh place even in the older 8-king lists (which put Ensibzianna in sixth place). Enmenduranki was king of Zimbir, or Sippar, which was city of the sun-god Utu (or Shamash in Akkadian). He was said to have been received into the fellowship of Utu and Ramman (Adad), and was also "beloved of Anu, Enlil, and Enki", and was thus "initiated into the secrets of heaven and earth" (Ritual-tablet, no. 24). Enmenduranki was credited for establishing the art of divination and the line of priests of E-babbar "white house", the temple of Utu in Suppar, and his name means "lord of the bond between heaven and earth". His apkallu was Utu-abzu "heavenly Utu" and several incantation texts say of him: "Utu-abzu, he who ascended to heaven". Since later tradition tended to conflate the apkallu with the kings they advised (as in the case of Adapa being identified with Alulim, or as the first man), there may have been a later tradition about Enmenduranki ascending to heaven and receiving the mysteries of heaven. In any case, the parallels between Enmenduranki and Enoch are quite striking. First, note that Enoch's name means "initiate, instruct" which recalls Enmenduranki's role in founding the art of divination. The Astronomical Book of 1 Enoch (ch. 72-82), thought to be the oldest section of the work, also presents Enoch as dispensing secret knowledge of heavenly laws on the movements of the sun, moon, and stars. Jubilees 4:17-18 also says of him: "He was the first among men that are born on earth who learnt writing and knowledge and wisdom and who wrote down the signs of heaven according to the order of their months in a book, that men might know the seasons of the years according to the order of their separate months. And he was the first to write a testimony and he testified to the sons of men among the generations of the earth, and recounted the weeks of the jubilees, and made known to them the days of the years, and set in order the months and recounted the Sabbaths of the years as we made known to him." As for divination and astrology, the practice of which the work regards as evil, 1 Enoch 7:1; 8:3-4 ascribes their origin to the fallen angels. Second, Enmenduranki's peculiar intimacy with the gods recalls the fact that "Enoch walked with God" (Genesis 5:22, 24). Third, Enmenduranki was especially affiliated with the sun-god Utu which recalls a focus on the solar calendar in both Genesis (cf. the 365 years of Genesis 5:23) and 1 Enoch (cf. 72:1-37, especially v. 32). And fourth, the ascent of Enoch into heaven is anticipated by Enmenduranki's apkallu. When we compare the Berossus list with that in Genesis, we find an overall similarity: (1) the first name on the list is associated with an Adam-like figure, (2) the third name is the word for "man", (3) the fourth name is the word for "workman, specialist", (4) the seventh is a special favorite of the gods, and (5) the tenth is the hero of the Flood.

    But Berossus relates another tradition about Ziusudra, the Flood hero, which closely corresponds to Enochian lore. In his account of the Flood, it is narrated that Xisouthros disappeared suddenly after leaving the ship and that those remaining behind looked for him and called after him. Then a voice came out of heaven saying that he had been taken away to live with the gods because of his piety (cf. Alexander Polyhistor, Syncel. Chron. 28). Compare with Genesis 5:24 which says: "Enoch walked with God. Then he vanished because God took him." The earlier Gilgamesh Epic also relates how the Flood hero, referred to as Ut-napishtim "He who found life", was rescued from death and was placed in the mythical paradise of Dilmun at the eastern edge of the world, where the sun-god Utu rises every day. The connection with Utu is a common thread between the stories. But it is the story of Gilgamesh's quest through the infernal regions to paradise that bears the closest similarly with the Enochian traditions -- especially to Enoch's very similar journey through the same regions in 1 Enoch 17-19 and 28-35. Realizing his own mortality through the untimely death of his friend Enkidu, Gilgamesh undertakes a journey to the ends of the earth in search of the one man known to have escaped death, Ut-napishtim. Imitating Utu, Gilgamesh seeks to pass through the twin peaks of Mount Mashu, which guards the rising and setting of the sun. The scorpion guards, though initially incredulous, permit Gilgamesh to travel through the mountains of sunset, on the "path of the sun" (Epic of Gilgamesh, 9). The "path of the sun," a route which runs almost entirely through total darkness suggests the sun's nightly passing through the realm of the dead. This passage extends from the mouth of the waters of the west and journeys northward to the east. Gilgamesh emerges in the east at the place of the rising sun to see a magnificent garden of jeweled trees, bearing precious stones as fruit. He must then cross the waters of death and with the assistance of the ferryman Urshanabi, Gilgamesh crosses the infernal waters to reach Ut-napishtim in Dilmun (Epic of Gilgamesh, 10). Utnapishtim and his wife, sole survivors of the Flood, were removed from the inhabited earth by the gods to dwell forever on an island at the source of the waters (Epic of Gilgamesh, 11). In 1 Enoch, we find two very similar journeys. In 1 Enoch 17:1-2, Enoch is first taken to the western extremity where there was "mountain with its summit reaching into heaven" guarded by fiery beings who "when they so desire appear like men". Then Enoch says:

    "And they [the angels] lifted me up unto the waters of life, unto the western fire which receives every setting of the sun. And I came to the river of fire which flows like water and empties itself into the great sea in the direction of the west. And I saw all the great rivers and reached to the great darkness and went into the place where all flesh must walk cautiously. I saw the mountains of the darkness of water and the place to where all the waters of the deep flow." (1 Enoch 17:14-7)

    In Enoch's report of his second (reverse) journey, he also describes "three open gates of heaven" at the "extreme ends of the earth," and later we read how Enoch "saw the storerooms of the sun and the moon, from what place they come out and to which place they return, and their glorious passage.... and the sun executes its course in accordance with the commandment of the Lord of the Spirits" (1 Enoch 35:1; 41:5-6). After passing through the "great darkness" and the "foundations of the earth", Enoch came to the "extreme ends of the earth which rests on the heaven. And the gates of heaven were open, and I saw how the stars of heaven come out and I counted the gates out of which they rise" (33:2-3; cf. 18:12-16). And there he saw, in both journeys, mountains with precious stones:

    "There were seven mountains of precious stones -- three toward the east and three towards the south. As for those toward the east, they were of colored stones, one of pearl stone and one of healing stone." (1 Enoch 18:6-7)
    "And from there I went to another place of the earth, and he showed me a mountain of fire which was flaming day and night. And I went in its direction and saw seven dignified mountains -- all different one from the other, of precious and beautiful stones, and all dignified and glorious....The seven mountains were situated in the midst of these ravines and in respect to their heights all resembled the seat of a throne which is surrounded by fragrant trees. And among them was one tree as I have never at all smelled....[Michael said to me,] 'This tall mountain which you saw whose summit resembles the throne of God is indeed his throne, on which the Holy and Great Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit when he descends to visit the earth with goodness. And as for this fragrant tree, not a single human being has the authority to touch it until the great judgment. This is for the righteous and the pious. And the elect will be presented with its fruit for life." (1 Enoch 24:1-25:5)

    The Enochian tradition about a bejeweled mountainous paradise at the ends of the world also is paralleled in Ezekiel 28:13-14 which says: "You were in Eden, in the garden of God. A thousand gems formed your mantle. Sard, topaz, diamond, carbuncle, emerald, the gold of which your flutes and tambourines are made, all were preapred on the day of your creation. I have provided you with a guardian cherub, as you were on the holy mountain of God", and 32:16, 18 twice mentions "all the trees of Eden". There were further mountains and trees that Enoch encountered in the east: "I saw seven mountains full of excellent nard, fragrant trees, cinnamon trees, and pepper. From there I went over the summits of the mountains, far toward the east of the earth" (1 Enoch 32:1-2). Then, like Gilgamesh, Enoch must journey over a mythological sea to reach the Garden of Eden: "I then passed over the Erythraean Sea and went far from it, and passed over the head of angel Zutu'el. And I came to the garden of righteousness and saw beyond those trees many other large ones growing there, their fragrance sweet, large ones, with much elegance....And I said, 'This tree is beautiful and its appearance beautiful and pleasant!' Then the holy angel Raphael who was with me, responded to me and said, 'This very thing is the tree of wisdom from which your old father and aged mother, they who are your precursors, ate and came to know wisdom.' " (1 Enoch 32:2-6). Then Enoch in ch. 33-35 journeys to the gates of the sun in the east, travels north, and returns to the westernmost extremity. Eventually, Enoch was taken by God and placed in the Garden of Eden with eternal life (compare Hebrews 11:5-6):

    "And he testified to the Watchers, who had sinned with the daughters of men; for these had begun to unite themselves, so as to be defiled, with the daughters of men, and Enoch testified against them all. And he was taken from amongst the children of men, and we conducted him into the Garden of Eden in majesty and honour, and behold there he writes down the condemnation and judgment of the world, and all the wickedness of the children of men.....And he burnt the incense of the sanctuary, even sweet spices acceptable before the Lord on the Mount. For the Lord has four places on the earth, the Garden of Eden, and the Mount of the East, and this mountain on which you are this day." (Jubilees 4:22-26)

    In a story that inversely parallels that with Gilgamesh, 1 Enoch 65:2 relates how a distraught Noah traveled to the ends of the earth to consult with Enoch, his great-grandfather. Likewise, in 1 Enoch 106:6-7, Methuselah seeks out Enoch to ask him about the unusual birth of his gradson Noah. Methuselah must also travel to the ends of the earth where Enoch dwells with the angels in order to make his inquiry. As for the city named Enoch (Heb. chnwk), it is interesting that Gilgamesh was king of Uruk which in Sumerian was Unug or Unuk. Enmenduranki has a connection with the city of Sippar, and Eridu, the first city that was built, resembles the name of Enoch's son Irad (Heb. 'rd) in Genesis 4:18.

  • Faraon
    Faraon

    Excellent post Leolia,

    As usual, with the likes of you, I do not debate, but certainly learn a lot from your posts. You have taught me a lot about the history and background of the bible. Narkissos, peacefulpete, and others also posting here have a deep insight also, and do not limit themselves to the bible alone.

    I hope you people do not get discouraged by the lack of response. I cannot talk for everyone, but I personally enjoy them tremendously.

    I especially like information about the obscure characters like Enoch, Melchisedec and its relationship with El Elyon, etc.

    I hope you people do not get bored by the lack of challenge from the likes of me. You are doing an excellent job as true teachers, and inspired me to seek further knowledge.

    Faraon

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Thanks Leolaia. Looking at the lists from J and P there are bvious correspodencies. Perhaps you already implied it but the two names Enosh (man) and Kenan in the P list can be understood to correspond with Adam (man) and Cain, and therefore the P material is simply a distorted retelling of the J.

    Alternately and provocatively Harwood suggests that the roots of the story are the Egyptian tale of Set (Seth) killing his brother Osiris in the field, combined with the sacrificial killing of the Divine King from antiquity. In this reconstruction Seth (eldest son) as Divine king selects a substitute sacrifice (Abel). Cain was the grandson of Seth. In his opinion then J regardedCain as killing Abel but in an earlier tradition Set killed abel. Finally R expurged the J Seth geneology and substituted in it's place the names given by J to Cain.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Leo:
    Fascinating work.

    I had already started corrulating the Genesis / Sumerian / Akkadian names, and reading in the "Book of Enoch", so you've preempted much of the work that I was currently undergoing in this field. Thanks.

  • outoftheorg
    outoftheorg

    I MUST REPEAT WHAT OTHERS HERE HAVE SAID.

    KEEP UP THE INFORMATION FLOW. I APPRECIATE ALL THE EFFORT YOU PUT INTO THIS.

    IT SEEMS THAT THE SUMERIANS WERE SELDOM QUOTED IN HISTORICAL BOOKS UNTIL JUST LATELY.

    THAT MAY BE DUE TO MY ONLY LOOKING INTO THESE ISSUES, LATELY-- LOL.

    Outoftheorg

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    PP....I agree that Enosh and Adam are in parallel, with Kayin and Kenan following each respectively. But I do not regard the P material as P's distorted retelling of the Kenite list of J. We know there was also a Sethite geneology in J, as one fragment survives in Genesis 4:25-26 and another in 5:29. My opinion is that J was itself a composite document with two main layers: an early layer (J1) which had a distinctively local Canaanite provenance, knowing of no Flood narrative, and describing the origin of various settled and nomadic tribes, and a later (J2) layer which under Babylonian influence inserted the Flood story into the narrative and replaced the original Sethite geneology with a variant of the Kenite geneology. Within J itself, we see a number of doublets. As I mentioned before in an earlier thread, there are two Noahs -- one being the discoverer of vine agriculture and the second being the Flood hero -- and both are incompatible in the current text. There are also two Cains in the Kenite story (ch. 3-4). One tradition implies that Cain is a hunted nomad, dwelling in a land of wandering, and the other describes him quite the contrary as having a settled life: being an agriculturalist and being the builder of the first city. Then we meet in 4:19-22 Jabal (ybl), the half-brother of Tubal-Cain (tblqyn) who is "the ancestor of the tent-dwellers and owners of livestock," despite the fact that similar-sounding Abel (hbl), brother of Cain (qyn), was already mentioned as the first shepherd (4:2). We thus appear to have two sets of traditions within the Kenite geneology and a third possibly separate tradition in the story of Cain and Abel.

    Now when we look at the fragment of J's Sethite geneology in 4:25-26, we see that it knows nothing about Cain and the Kenite traditions. The current text does have a gloss "in place of Abel whom Cain killed" and a reference to giving birth "again", but these are widely regarded as a redactional interpolations for a number of reasons: (1) In the LXX, the word corresponding to 'wr "again" is absent while wthr "and she conceived" is inserted, suggesting the possibility that an earlier form of the text related the birth of Seth without reference to Cain, (2) the addition of "in place of Abel whom Cain killed" destroys the sense of the name-giving because the idea of substitution is quite foreign to the connotation of the verb shyt "grant, appoint," (3) the clause "whom Cain killed" is superfluous and awkward (where 'shr is more natural than ky), and (4) in her naming, Eve calls Seth her "seed" (Heb. zera') which refers back to 3:15 where both the significant words shyt and zr' occur: "And I will put (shyt) enmity between you and the woman, and between her seed (zr') and your seed". The original idea, then, in having Eve call Seth her "seed" was that Seth was her first-born son, and unintelligible of one who was regarded as a substitute for another. How completely the mind of the redactor was preoccupied by the thought of substitution is further shown in the very fact that he does not give any thought of Cain as Eve's seed. I thus would not look to the Egyptian myth of Set as relating Seth to Cain's fratricide -- as both characters originally derived from distinct, independent traditions. Indeed, what we see is that the whole story of Cain and Abel and the Kenite geneology (J 1) interrupts the narrative; Eve is foretold about granting (shyt) her seed in 3:15 and then her seed is born in 4:25-26, despite the fact she already had two other children who apparently were not her seeds. Neither does the Cain and Abel story assume the Eden narrative, aside from the gloss in 4:16; in ch. 3 the curse on agriculture results from transgressing a divine command, in ch. 4 the curse on agriculture results from fratricide. The Cain and Abel story instead functions as an eponymous myth similar to the story of Remus and Romulus and explains why the Kenites are wanderers by nature.

    The Kenites were a nomadic tribe of metal-smiths (cf. qyn "metal-smith" and Genesis 4:22, identifying Tubal-cain as "the ancestor of all metalworkers in bronze and iron"), who plied their trade while wandering the Arabah rift valley in the late second millenium B.C. and who Genesis 15:19 groups with the Kenezzites as among the aboriginal peoples of the Levant. The OT connects the Kenites with the Midianites (cf. Numbers 10:29; Judges 1:16; 4:11) who were worshippers of Yahweh (cf. Exodus 18), and thus some credit the Kenites with introducing Yahwism to Israel and Judah. The Kenites lived to the south of Judah in mineral-rich areas in Sinai and the Negeb (cf. Numbers 10:29-32, 24:21-22; Judges 1:16; 1 Samuel 15:6; Judges 1:16), and settled also in locales throughout Judea (cf. 1 Chronicles 2:54-55; 1 Samuel 30:29), eventually becoming absorbed into the Judean population. The Rechabites however were a Kenite clan who retained the nomadic lifestyle and dwelled outside Judean cities (Jeremiah 35:1-19), who exactly as in Cain's curse could not "build houses, sow seed, plant vineyards" and who were commanded by their ancestor Jonadab, "You must live in tents all your lives, so that you may live long on the soil to which you are alien" (Jeremiah 35:7). Compare with the curse in Genesis 4:12: "When you till the ground it shall no longer yield you any of its produce. You shall be a fugitive and a wander over the earth", as well as the description of Cain's descendent Jabal as "the ancestor of tent-dwellers" (v. 20). Genesis 4 appears to tell the origin of civilization from a Kenite point of view but at this point it is almost impossible to tell how the story was originally told. The narrative appears to combine at least two different strands together: (1) Cain as a city-builder and founder of civilization (v. 17-22) and (2) Cain as a murderer and whose descendents are locked in a blood lust (v. 1-16, 22-23). It is possible that genuine Kenite traditions contributed to (1), while (2) represents a Judean etiological legend on the origin of the Kenites (as victims of a divine curse). On the other hand, there may have been a conflation of two Cains, one being the ancestor of the Kenites, and the other viewed as the founder of civilization. An independent tradition on Cain as the ancestor of the nomadic Kenites can be found in Numbers 24:21-22 which says: "Balaam looked on the Kenites and declaimed his poem. He said: 'Your house was firm, Cain, and your nest perched high in the rock. But the nest belongs to Beor; how long will you be Asshur's captive?"

    J's Sethite geneology of 4:25-26 and 5:29 is independent of the Kenite myth and likely presents the origin of civilization from a different point of view. The fragment only allows us to reconstruct a geneology of Adam -- Seth -- Enosh -- ? -- ... -- ? -- Noah, and it is possible that Adam and Enosh are doublets of each other, and Enosh originally stood at the head of the list but was displaced by Adam when the geneological tradition was combined with the Eden story. Numbers 24:17 mentions Seth eponymously as a tribe affiliated with the Moabites, possibly reflecting a Moabite or southern Judean tradition on Seth as a tribal deity or ancestor. It is interesting that thus far the Sethite list bears no resemblance with the Kenite list and there is some evidence that Shem or Ishmael (or Ishmaiah?) stood in place of Enosh in the original list. This is because of the confusing statement in 4:26: "And to Seth also was born a son; and he called his name Enosh, as it was then that men began to call upon the name (shm) of Yahweh". It is thus quite possible that the original Sethite list was quite different from the one given by P. One striking fact is that the Kenite geneology ends with three names (Jabal, Jubal, Tubal-cain) that stand outside the genology proper, just as Shem, Ham, and Japheth stand outside the geneology of Noah, and Abram, Nahor, and Haran outside that of Terah. I wonder if we are dealing with three distinct but related traditions (drawn from different locales in Israel and Judah) of an initial primeval geneology that bifurcates into three. When we look at the geneological material elsewhere in Genesis and in 1 Chronicles, we keep finding strange coincidences. As noted above, the Kenites were sometimes equated with the Midianites and in Genesis 4:17 the eponymous ancestor Kayin became father to Hanoch "Enoch". Then we read in Genesis 25:4 how the eponymous ancestor Midian also became father to Hanoch. Shelah occurs as an element in the name of Sethite Methuselah in 5:21, as Semite Shelah in 10:24, and as a son of Judah in 38:2-5. The biggest mystery for me is the relationship between names connected with the Judahites in 2 Chronicles 2:9-49. These were largely Jerahmeelites and Calebites who, according to v. 54-55, were related to the Kenites. Drawing on Genesis 46:12, the Chronicler says that Judah's descendents through Hezron included Segub ("Serug" in the LXX) and Peleth (v. 21-23), and his descendents through Caleb included Korah, Shema, Haran, Pelet, and Tirhanah (v. 42-48). Then we read in Numbers 16:1 that affiliated with Korah was Abiram, descended from Reuben and Peleth ("Phalek" in the LXX, that is, "Peleg"). 1 Kings 16:34 links Abiram's name with Segub. All of this recalls J's and P's postdilivian Semite lists (Genesis 10-11) which include the names Shem, Serug, Peleg, Reu, Haran, Terah, and Abram. Likely different tribes and communities had overlapping and related traditions, which would explain the repeating names in quite different lineages.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    I'm confused as hell. I think most of what follows harmonizes with your comment: What if Cain as grandson of Seth was the eponymous father of the Kennites and civilization (city,smithing, animal husbandry etc.) in general in the original J tradition but then because of some need to denigrate the Kennites, Cain was recast by J2 or P as the murderer of his brother doomed to wander. (Perhaps the nomadic ways of the Kennites was being explained by the murder story?) Another separate tradition had Seth the firstborn murder his brother in the field ( fertility rite sacrifice dependent upon the Egyptian Set (Seth,Set possibly the patron deity of the clan who framed the tradition) killing his brother Osiris in the field). Abel (possibly meaning "ram" ergo sacrifice) was the stand in for Osiris. P or R seamed the two traditions together clumsily by erasing the J Sethite lineage and replaced it with Cain's.

    To be honest I think that the source hypothesis becomes rather subjective in this material.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    PP....I would agree except in saying that P or R did not "erase" J's Sethite geneology completely, inasmuch as fragments still survive (cf. 4:25-26, 5:29). Thus we have two seperate accounts of the birth of Seth and Enosh, one from J (4:25-26) and one from P (5:3-6). As I see it, there are two main ways to approach this problem. One would be to conflate two J geneologies, by taking 4:25-26 as the beginning of the J geneology with Adam, Seth, and Enosh, and then (taking Kenan as the grandson of Seth from the P geneology as a guide) attaching it with the Kenite geneology in 4:1 with Cain being born next, followed by Enoch, etc., and viewing the fratricide story and the Song of Lamech as later additions (as I also argued). The proposal is attractive because the birth of Seth would come right after the curses of 3:15-17, an order that best fits the context, and P's geneology could be regarded as a distorted variant but essentially the same as J's original geneology. Thus:

    J's geneology: Adam - Seth - Enosh - Kayin - Enoch - Irad - Mehujael - Methushael - Lamech
    P's geneology: Adam - Seth - Enosh - Kenan - Mahalalel - Jared - Enoch - Methuselah - Lamech - Noah

    However this approach fails to capture two things. First, it misses the parallelism between Adam and Enosh, both meaning "man," and the fact that Enosh fathers Kenan in P as Adam fathers Kayin in J. Second, the inappropriate notice in 4:26 that formally is supposed to explain the name of Seth's son strongly suggests that Enosh did not originally follow Seth and is best explained if a name like Shem (short for Shemiah or Ishmaiah, cf. Ishmael) had appeared in its place. So my proposal is something like this:

    J1's Sethite geneology: Enosh - Seth - Shem(iah) - ... - Noah - ...
    J2's Kenite geneology: Adam - Kayin - Enoch - Irad - Mehujael - Methushael - Lamech

    We could even conjecture, as do you, that Seth here was originally the subject of the fratricide legend and that the birth of Seth followed right after the Eden story of ch. 3 (possibly in a lost passage, Adam ("the man") had a name change to Enosh as did "Ishah" ("the woman") to Eve; Enosh emphasizes the mortality of man). We can think of J 1 and J 2 as separate editions of J circulating in Judah, each with a single primeval geneology, and the fratricidal traditions about Seth in one edition transfered to Cain in the other -- with both being in second place in the geneology. Then, during or after the exile, P combined these two geneologies into a single one, inserting Enosh and Seth between Adam and Kayin/Kenan, placing Noah after Lamech, and making Shem one of Noah's children:

    P's Sethite geneology: Adam - Seth - Enosh - Kenan - Mahalalel - Jared - Enoch - Methuselah - Lamech - Noah

    Then the Redactor (R) combined P with material from the two separate editions of J. Most of J 1's geneology was expunged because it did not agree with P, and material from the two recensions were awkwardly stitched together. This included a fragment of the J 1 geneology following the J 2 geneology. Since P placed Enosh after Seth, R replaced Shem(iah)'s name in 4:26 with Enosh -- rendering the explanation of the name unintelligible.

    This is completely hypothetical, I must stress, and indeed subjective, but it does seem to account for the various facts.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    my brain hurts

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Pete:That'll teach ya to mess with a smart b*st*rd!!!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit