an element of disorder into the Creation which had to be checked by the special interposition of Yahwe (v.3).
The fragment belongs to the class of ætiological myths. The belief
in Nĕphîlîm is proved only by Nu. 1333 (E?); but it is there seen to
have been associated with a more widely attested tradition of a race
of giants surviving into historic times, especially among the aboriginal
populations of Canaan (Dt. 128 210. 11. 21 92, Jos. 1514, Am. 29 etc.). The
question was naturally asked how such beings came to exist, and the
passage before us supplied the answer. But while the ætiological
motive may explain the retention of the fragment in Gn., it is not to be
supposed that the myth originated solely in this reflexion. Its pagan
colouring is too pronounced to permit of its being dissociated from two
notions prevalent in antiquity and familiar to us from Greek and Latin
literature: viz. (1) that among the early inhabitants of the earth were
men of gigantic stature;[1] and (2) that marriages of the gods with
mortals were not only possible but common in the heroic age.[2] Similar
ideas were current among other peoples. The Ḳoran has frequent
references to the peoples of 'Ad and Thamûd, primæval races noted for
their giant stature and their daring impiety, to whom were attributed
the erection of lofty buildings and the excavation of rock-dwellings,
and who were believed to have been destroyed by a divine judgment.[3]
The legend appears also in the Phœnician traditions of Sanchuniathon,
where it is followed by an obscure allusion to promiscuous sexual intercourse
which appears to have some remote connexion with Gn. 62.[4]
That the source is J is not disputed. [5] Di., indeed, following Schrader
(Einl. 276), thinks it an extract from E which had passed through the
hands of J; but borrowing by the original J from the other source is
impossible, and the only positive trace of E would be the word (
Hebrew characters),
which in Nu. 1333 is by some critics assigned to E. That argument
would at most prove overworking, and it is too slight to be considered.—The
precise position of the fragment among the Yahwistic traditions
- ↑ Hom. Il. v. 302 f.; Herod. i. 68; Paus. i. 35. 5 f., viii. 29. 3; 32. 4; Lucret. ii. 1151; Virg. Aen. xii. 900; Pliny, HN, vii. 73 ff. etc. Cf. Lenorm. Orig.2 i. 350 ff.
- ↑ Hom. Il. xii. 23: (
Greek characters); Plato, Cratylus, 33: (Greek characters) [sc. (Greek characters)] [Greek: ] (text uncertain): see Jowett, i. 341.]. . . (Greek characters)
- ↑ Sur. vii, xv, xxvi, xli, xlvi, lxxxix: see Sale, Prelim. Disc. § 1.
- ↑ Euseb. Præp. Ev. i. 10 (see p. 124 above): (Greek characters) . . . (Greek characters)[(Greek characters)](Greek characters).
- ↑ The literary indications are not absolutely decisive (except (Hebrew characters) v.3); but the following expressions, as well as the structure of the sentences (in v.1f.), are, on the whole, characteristic of J: (Hebrew characters) (1), (Hebrew characters) (4): see Bu. Urgesch. 6 ff., 39 A.]
