Noah,the Eighth Proclaimer of Righteousness: Understanding 2 Peter 2.5 in Light of Genesis 4.26

Eighth (ὄγδοος)

There are three main proposals regarding the meaning of ὄγδοος in 2 Pet. 2.5. First, ὄγδοος is interpreted as referring to Noah as the eighth person saved, that is, Noah, his wife, three sons and their three wives. ¹ The parallel with 1 Pet. 3.20 is cited in support of this view, since the number eight occurs in the description of Noah and the flood: ‘In the days of Noah … eight persons (ὀκτὼ ψυχαί), were saved through water’ (NRSV). ² Furthermore, Moulton (1906: 97-98), BDF §248(5) and BDAG 689 all explicitly list the cardinal ‘eight’ as the correct understanding of ὄγδοος, noting parallels with Classical Greek where ordinals can sometimes be used in an idiomatic way to refer to the total number of a group. So, for example, BDAG 689 cites a total of seven apparent occurrences: three from Thucydides, and one each from Plato, Plutarch, Ps. Apollodorus and 2 Maccabees.

However, this view has a couple of contextual and semantic weaknesses. Contextually, Noah is the second example of three cited in 2 Pet. 2 to demonstrate that the Lord knows how to rescue the godly while judging the unrighteous (2.9). All three examples demonstrate the Lord’s ability to judge the unrighteous, but only the second and third examples speak of rescue for the righteous (Noah and Lot respectively). However, there is a marked difference between the report of Noah and Lot if ὄγδοος is understood to represent Noah and his family, because there is no parallel reference to the salvation of Lot’s daughters. If ὄγδοος refers to the number saved, then the example of Noah is set out differently from that of Lot. The central point of the comparison remains the Lord’s ability to save the righteous, but the extent of that salvation is different. If, on the other hand, ὄγδοος does not refer to the number of people saved, then there is closer resemblance between the comparison of Noah and Lot (along with the absence of reference to Lot’s daughters). Further, it seems an unusual way to describe the salvation of Noah and his family, because the Genesis narrative presents Noah as the first and his family as with him, rather than understanding Noah as the eighth person saved. ³ The comparison with 1 Pet. 3.20 also seems overplayed, because 1 Pet. 3.20 refers to the number of people saved in the ark (that is, eight persons, were saved – τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν ὀκτὼ ψυχαί διεσώθησαν) and does not adjectivally modify Noah.

Semantically, although BDF, BDAG and Moulton all argue that ὄγδοος could be understood as a cardinal on this occasion rather than the usual ordinal ‘eighth’, they also note that this is an exception to the norm. The adjective ὄγδοος is not used in this way in any of its other four occurrences in the New Testament (Lk. 1.59; Acts 7.8; Rev. 17.11; 21.20). Furthermore, this would be the only such use of any ordinal in the New Testament. ⁴ BDAG lists seven examples of ordinals functioning as cardinals to support this possibility. However, even though a few scattered examples from other Greek documents demonstrate that it could be understood in this sense (cf. 2 Macc. 5.27), a simpler option that is consistent with the normal usage of the ordinals would be more attractive. It is the intention of this article to demonstrate that there is a more straightforward way to understand this verse and that appeal to this exception is unnecessary.

Secondly, some scholars interpret ὄγδοος as a symbolic reference to eschatological salvation. ⁵ The world was created in seven days and, with the resurrection of Jesus on Easter Sunday (the ‘eighth’ day), a new creation was inaugurated. Early Christians seem to adopt this symbolic view of the eighth day (cf. Barn. 15.9; Justin, Dial. 24.1; 41.4) and on one occasion link it with Noah (Justin, Dial. 138.1). On this understanding, Noah as the eighth person saved becomes a type for the resurrection and thus the new creation.

The main weakness of this position is contextual, both with regard to 2 Peter and Christian history. There is no contextual reason in 2 Peter why ὄγδοος should be understood as a symbolic number. Davids comments that there ‘does not appear to be any reason to import this symbolism into 2 Peter, for his point appears to be fewness, not a symbolic eight’ (2006: 227). ⁶ Schreiner goes further when he states that it ‘is unclear … that any New Testament writer used the number eight symbolically, nor does context indicate such a use here’ (2003: 338). ⁷ Additionally, it is the ordinal ‘seventh’ that is used of eschatological salvation in Heb. 4.4-10, where it is presented as current to its first-century readership. When a New Testament writer does use a number symbolically to refer to eschatological salvation, the number is seven not eight. ⁸

Thirdly, ὄγδοος is regarded as a reference to the number of generations from Adam to Noah. This possibility is noted by Bigg, who cites its source as ‘an old scholiast’ (1901: 276). ⁹ The evidence in support of this proposal can be found either in Gen. 4.17-24, where Noah is understood to be the son of Lamech (the seventh from Adam), or in Gen. 5, with Adam and Seth being omitted from the list. The logic of using ordinals to count generations is evident in Jude 14, where Enoch is cited as the seventh son from Adam (ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ Ἑνώχ). The significant overlap in material between 2 Peter and Jude adds weight to this observation.

This suggestion does, nevertheless, have some weaknesses. The family tree in Gen. 4.17-24 relates to Cain’s line, to which Noah does not belong. The faithful line of Gen. 5, to which Jude 14 seems to be referring, has Noah as the tenth – not eighth – from Adam. Bigg therefore notes that the omission of Adam and Seth in order to make Noah the eighth ‘is arbitrary’ (1901: 276).

Proclamation in Genesis 6–9

The second area of uncertainty in 2 Pet. 2.5 is the source of the description of Noah as a proclaimer of righteousness. ¹⁰ Many scholars generally acknowledge that this understanding of Noah was already established in the first century ce, citing Josephus, Ant. 1.74 and Sib. Or. 1.148-98 as supporting evidence. However, they are unable to identify a single passage in Genesis that acts as the textual basis for this description. ¹¹ For instance, Bauckham states that ‘Noah’s preaching is not mentioned in Genesis’ (1996: 250).

Two general justifications are given for this description. First, it is argued that Noah as a ‘proclaimer of righteousness’ is not an unfair inference drawn from the Genesis narrative. Noah is described as a righteous man (6.9) and, as such, his life would have testified to God’s righteousness. ¹² This explanation, however, requires the author of 2 Peter to infer that ‘a righteous man’ implies that Noah is a preacher (κῆρυξ), even though Genesis makes no explicit reference to him preaching and 2 Peter makes no use of Noah’s preaching in the argument. A more explicit usage of such a word would be more desirable. Secondly, Bailey (1989: 163-65) cites the work of Veenker (1986) in proposing a literary justification for this interpretation. After noting the parallels between the flood accounts of Gen. 6–9 and the Mesopotamian literature, Bailey observes that Utnapishtim preaches to the people before the flood while Noah does not do so. He suggests that ‘literate individuals’ would fill the gap in the Genesis narrative by understanding Noah as preaching, and that this is the basis for the tradition in later Jewish tradition and also in 2 Peter. However, this suggestion requires readers to have knowledge of the Mesopotamian literature, something that cannot be verified. If there were an explicit reference to Noah proclaiming, the ‘gap’ that most ‘literate’ scholars are still seeking to explain would not require filling.

Summary

Each of the three main proposals regarding the meaning of ὄγδοος in 2 Pet. 2.5 has its weaknesses. Understanding the ordinal in an exceptional way, either as a cardinal or in a symbolic sense, requires more evidence. Additionally, even though interpreting the ordinal as a way of referring to a position within a family tree has a strong precedent (Jude 14), the formulation suggested above does not fit with the evidence of Gen. 4 or 5. Moreover, the justifications for understanding Noah as a proclaimer of righteousness require either an inferential understanding of righteous that implies or modifies the word κῆρυξ or a view of the reader as highly literate in Mesopotamian literature. An understanding of 2 Pet. 2.5 that accepts the ordinal use of ‘the eighth’ (ὄγδοος), and which finds an explicit reference in Genesis to Noah as a proclaimer (κῆρυξ), would be preferable.

Starting-Point

Schreiner critiques the family tree option, as described by Bigg, by observing that there is no ‘suggestion that Peter began with Adam’ (2003: 338). Jude 14 explicitly links its counting system back to Adam (ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ Ἑνώχ), but a reference to Adam is absent from 2 Pet. 2.5. This observation allows the option that Adam is not the starting-point of the reference in 2 Pet. 2.5. Therefore, instead of beginning with Adam and counting forward, a better course of action would be to count eight generations backwards from Noah. This change of approach suggests that Enosh (Gen. 5.9) is the starting-point for 2 Pet. 2.5. The question which then arises is why the author of 2 Peter begins with Enosh rather than Adam. The reason seems to be found in what can be known about Enosh from Gen. 4–5.

Genesis 5.6-11 records little about Enosh, other than that he was the son of Seth who begat Kenan at the age of 90 before living for another 815 years. However, Enosh is introduced in Gen. 4.26, a verse which both closes the account (תולדות) of the creation of heavens and earth (2.4) and sets the tone for the subsequent account of Adam’s descendants (5.1), in a way that breaks the normal genealogical pattern. The first part of Gen. 4.26 contains the same information as 5.6-11, namely that Seth was Enosh’s father. However, the second part of the verse describes the beginning of a new activity: people began to ‘call on the name of the Lord’.

Calling on the Name of the Lord

The phrase ‘call on the name of the Lord’ (קרא בשם יהוה) in Gen. 4.26b is syntactically the infinitive complement of the hophal verb ‘to begin’ (חלל). The phrase is introduced with the conjunction אז, which can be used either temporally or logically. Since אז is paired with the hophal verb, it is most natural to understand it in its temporal sense. ¹⁵ That is, it was at this time that people began to call on the name of the Lord. ¹⁶

The phrase ‘call on the name of the Lord’ in Gen. 4.26 is usually understood to be describing the act of worship. ¹⁷ The evidence cited for this understanding is the repetition of the phrase in Gen. 12.8, 13.4, 21.33 and 26.25, which describe individuals calling on the name of the Lord in the context of building an altar (Abram in 12.8; 13.4; Isaac in 26.25) and planting a tree (Abraham 21.33). However, there is another way to understand the phrase in this context, namely, that it refers to the proclamation of the name of Yahweh as it does in Exod. 33.19 and 34.5, where the Lord is described as proclaiming his own name before Moses. ¹⁸ Ross (1988: 169) includes Gen. 12.8 as evidence for this idea of ‘proclamation’ but provides little reasoning. ¹⁹ The key to choosing between these two options is to decide how to translate the difficult word קרא – as ‘call on’ or ‘proclaim’.

Translating קרא

HALOT 1128-32 and BDB 894-96 note two different uses of this verb stem: I. pertaining to speech, II. referring to an encounter. The more common first usage pertaining to speech occurs in Gen. 4.26b. Even so, HALOT lists eleven different possible translations of קרא and BDB offers six ways in which the qal form of this verb can be rendered: ‘call, call unto, proclaim, read aloud, summon, name’. Deciding between the possible English renderings for this verb is dependent on its context, namely both the immediate phrase in which it occurs and the sentence in which the phrase is located. ²⁰

The precise phrase קרא בשם יהוה (or a slight variant) is found ten other times in the Pentateuch, and קרא is translated in three different ways: ‘call unto’ (Gen. 12.8; 13.4; 21.33; 26.25), ‘name’ (Gen. 16.13; Exod. 17.15; 35.30) and ‘proclaim’ (Exod. 33.19; 34.5; Deut. 32.3). ²¹ The similar form of the phrase in all these occurrences indicates that the preposition ב seems to function to denote the object of the action. ²² As such, it is not necessary to translate ב in each case. In other words, the translation of קרא ב as ‘call on’ is not demanded by the presence of ב, hence the possibility of the other two options: ‘name’ and ‘proclaim’. ²³ The choice between English glosses is determined by the wider context of the sentence in which the phrase is used.

In Gen. 12.8, 13.4, 21.33 and 26.25 the wider context includes a reference to the construction of an altar (or, in 21.33, the planting of a tree), so it is understandable why the phrase קרא בשם יהוה can be translated as ‘call on’ with some act of worship as its intended referent. However, there is no reference to an altar (or tree) in the immediate context of Gen. 4.26, and, as a result, there is no contextual necessity to understand 4.26 as a reference to worship. In Gen. 16.13, Exod. 17.15 and 35.30, there is a separate phrase following the verb, which provides the content of קרא and indicates the ‘name’ of the object to which קרא refers – ‘the seeing God’ (Gen. 16.13), ‘the Lord is my banner’ (Exod. 17.15), and ‘Bezalel son of Uri son of Hur of the tribe of Judah’ (Exod. 35.30). As there is no separate phrase in Gen. 4.26 that gives content to the verb, this rules out ‘name’ as an option. In Exod. 33.19, 34.5 and Deut. 32.3, ‘proclaim’ is the best rendering for קרא. In both of the Exodus verses in question, the subject of the verb is ‘the Lord’, there are no references to an altar in the immediate context, and there is no phrase giving content to what is named. On this basis, the translation ‘proclaim’ is widely accepted for קרא in these particular instances. The occurrence of the phrase in Deut. 32.3 is similar to its counterparts in Exodus, because it does not contain a reference to an altar in the immediate context nor does it contain a phrase giving content to the verb. However it does contain one significant difference: the Lord is not the subject of the verb. Moses declares a song of praise about the Lord to the nation of Israel. This is significant because it provides an example of קרא בשם יהוה which means ‘proclaim the name of the Lord’ when God is not the subject, thus opening up the possibility that Gen. 4.26 should be translated as ‘proclaim the name of the Lord’. ²⁴

So, for good contextual reasons, it is viable to understand Gen. 4.26b as describing the beginning of the proclamation of the name of Yahweh: the absence of a reference to an altar/tree and no separate phrase indicating the content of the name being given. In the other occurrences that also lack these contextual features, the clause means ‘proclaim’ because God does it of himself (Exod. 33.19 and 34.5) and Moses proclaims the Lord’s name to the nation of Israel (Deut. 32.3). The name of the Lord is a reference to his character, as שם can mean both name and character. ²⁵ Elsewhere in the Old Testament the Lord’s name refers to his righteous character (Exod. 9.27; Isa. 45.21; Jer. 12.1; Zeph. 3.5; Ps. 11.7; 116.5; 119.137; 129.4; 145.17; Lam. 1.18; Dan. 9.14; Ezra 9.15; 2 Chron. 12.6). That is, to proclaim the Lord’s name is to be a proclaimer of righteousness.

The Wider Context of Genesis 4.26

This understanding of Gen. 4.26 fits well with the wider context of Gen. 4–5 and, in particular, with the thesis about Noah proposed in this article in two ways.

First, with the birth records of 4.25-26, a new line through Seth and Enosh is established in contrast to the family line of Cain (4.17-24). Cain’s line is viewed negatively due to his murder of his brother Abel, and it is reinforced in Lamech’s saying to his wives which concludes the section on Cain’s family tree (4.23-24). In contrast, Adam and Eve start a new family line through Seth and Enosh, who are viewed in positive terms, because Seth replaces Abel who offered the acceptable sacrifice (4.4) and Enosh marked the start of the proclamation of the Lord’s name/character (4.26) (Gertz 2012: 119-20). The subsequent genealogy of Adam, which ends with Noah (5.32), is read in this positive context. Thus, Noah is the ultimate heir of the heritage of Adam, a heritage that was restarted with the birth of Seth and marked the beginning of the proclamation of the Lord’s name during the lifetime of his son Enosh. Noah is the eighth generation of proclaimers from Enosh.

It may be objected at this point that no family lines in Genesis start with Enosh. Although this is true, the depiction of Enosh that breaks the genealogical pattern – as the person in whose days men began to call on the name of the Lord – indicates that something new started with him. It is not a genealogy, but it is the description that sets the tone for reading the following genealogy. Furthermore, both Jewish and Christian exegetes have viewed Enosh as the start of a new era: good (the beginning of true Yahweh worship) or bad (the advent of evil in the world). So, for instance, Philo in On Abraham starts his description of the godly line with Enosh (7-14) before discussing Enoch (15-26) and Noah (27ff.) (Fraade 1998). Moreover, Vermeylen (1991) goes so far as to suggest that many of the literary problems associated with the relationship between Gen. 4.26 and 5.28-29 would be solved if 5.28 followed immediately after 4.26 in the pre-P text of Genesis. Thus Noah would directly follow Enosh.

Secondly, Noah is described as righteous (6.9), a description that is expanded with the reference to him ‘walking with God’. That is, righteousness is understood in terms of walking with God. This same description has been used in the immediate context to portray Enoch (5.24), the member of the family line through Seth and Enosh who proclaimed the name of the Lord and to whom reference is made, in Jude 14, using the same understanding of the ordinal, referring to the position of Enoch from Adam.