Genesis i. 28 XYH HRM#T attracts attention by the omission of the article with the substantive and its being merely prefixed to the following adjective; as if one should say in Greek, )ANHR (O )AGATHOS instead of (O )ANER (O )AGATHOS.  In the same way i. 21 YWM H##Y, and ii. 3 YWM H#BY(Y.  In Arabic there are some analogies for this, but on seeking one in Hebrew we have to come down to the period when it was usual to say KNST HGDWLH.  KB# and RDH are Aramaisms.  In KBSHWH we find the only verbal suffix in Genesis i.  Instead we have always the forms )TM )TW; this is so in the Priestly Code generally.  In the Jehovistic main work, in J, these substitutes with )T are only used sometimes and for special reasons:  it may be generally asserted that they are more used the later we come down.  Parallel with this is the use of )nky in J and )ny in the Priestly Code; the latter form grows always more frequent in later times.

These remarks carry us beyond Genesis i.; for the Priestly Code generally I am now able to refer to F. Giesebrecht’s essay on the criticism of the Hexateuch.  Such words as QRBN, (CM, L(MT, (#TY are each, by itself, strong arguments for assuming a late date for the production of the Priestly Code.  We cannot believe that such everyday words should never have come into use in the other literature before the exile, if they were in existence.  They cannot be counted technical terms:  QRBN used in Hebrew for sacrifice and offering is simply as if an English writer should say priere instead of worship.  In such comparisons of the vocabulary we have, however, to consider first the working up and revision which has been at work in every part of the books of the Bible, and secondly the caprice of the writers in apparent trifles, such as )NKY and )NY, especially outside the Pentateuch.  These two agencies have so dislocated the original facts in this matter, that in general we can only deal in proportions, and must be content with showing that a word occurs say 3 times in the other literature and 27 times in an equal extent of the later. 1

*************************************** 1.  Too much importance must not be attached to Aramaisms:  even when they admit of clear demonstration they prove little while occurring merely in single instances.  We early find remarkable phenomena, such as NDR for NZR (hence NZYR = vovens), N+R for NCR (Amos i. 11 , Y+R for Y+RP?), comp.  Arabic lata for laisa, Sur. 38, 2.  Hudh. 84, 1.  And yet such an Aramaism as BT #NTH in Numbers xv. 27, or even QRBN, is very remarkable. ***************************************