LAMECH ; Sept. Aatax). 1. The son of Methusael, fifth in descent from Cain (Gen. iv. 1S-24). He is recorded as having married two wives, A dah and Zillah, and in this we have probably a note of the origin of polygamy. In his family the arts flourished ; for, though one of his sons followed thc nomadic pastoral life, two others, Jubal and Tubalcain, are mentioned, the one as the inventor of two musical instruments, the Kinnor and the Ugab [MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS], the other as the introdu cer of the metallurgic arts. Jewish tradition increases the number of his sons to seventy-seven (Joseph. Antiq. I. 2. 2) • and makes his daughter Naarnah the mistress dlamentations and songs' (i+rp rim innn, Targ-. you. in loc.), after whom all the world wondered, yea, even the sons of God, and from whom evil spirits were born (Mia'rash Euth and Zohar). In Lamech, also, we have to recog nise the Father of Poetry ; for his chant, which the sacred writer has preserved, is the oldest piece of rythrnical composition in the world. It may be rendered thus : And Lamech said to his wives :— Adah and Zillah hear my voice, Wives of Lamed] give ear to my speech_ A man for my wounding I slay And a youth for my bruise.
For sevenfold shall Cain be avenged, But Lamech seventy times seven.
We regard this as the chant of a fierce and law. less spirit exulting in the possession of arms, the preparation of which from iron had been discovered in his family, and boasting of the terrible vengeance which he would take on all who should injure him. It seems to be generally held by interpreters :hat the possessive affix my,' in ver. 24, is to be taken objectively, so that ` my wounding' is equivalent to the wounding of me,' and my bruise,' to the bruising of me.' There is a difference of opinion as to whether the verb ninri, rendered slay, should be takcn as a preterite•Or 'as a future. If it be taken as the former, the meaning will be that Lamech had already avenged himself on the person who had wounded him ; so the LXX., the Vulg. and the Syr. versions, which are closely fol lowed by the English of the A. V. If it be taken as the latter, the language is that of boastful threat ening as to what Lamech would do if any should dare even to lay a stroke on him. This latter is preferred by the great mass of recent commenta tors, as well as by Calvin, Piscator, and Le Clerc, amongst the older, and Ibn Ezra among the Jewish interpreters. Calvin says, Mihi vera et simplex videtur esse eorum sententia, qui verbum prxteriti temporis in futurum resolvunt, et indefinite acci piunt : ac si jactaret sibi satis esse roboris et vio lentix ad fortissimum quenque hostem occidendum.'
On this ground Calvin translates the word by occi dero,' /will s/ay. It seems more in accordance, !towever, with the idiom of our language, to render it in the definite present, as expressive of what was the fixed resolution and purposed habit of the speaker. That the Heb. preterite (so-called) may be legitimately so rendered, the following remarks of Ewald will sufficiently show :--` The perfect is used . . . (3.) Of actions which in reality are neither past nor present, but which the intention or the imagination of the speaker contemplates as being already as good as done, therefore as per fectly unconditional and certain, when, in modern lang,uages, at least, the more energetic definite pre sent would be used instead of the future.'—lieb.Gr., sec. 262, Nicholson's Transl., p. 136.
As this passage appears in the A. V. it is so rendered as to convey the idea that Lamech's lan guage is that of penitence or of remorseful feat. But this seems entirely alien from the spirit of the passage. The language is not that of a man who has been betrayed, through sudden passion, into an act of murderous violence which he deplores, and the vengeance due to which he dreads : rather is it that of one who neither fears God nor regards man, and who, confident in his strength and his arms, boasts, that if any shall dare to touch him, he will take upon him a summary vengeance seventy times greater than that by which the life of Cain was pro tected. Whether this was uttered in the prospect of some danger which his irregular habits had brought on him, and of which his wives were afraid, as Vatablus, Munstez, Rivet, and some others, think ;* or whether, as good old Ainsworth sug gests, that for violating the law of marriage by taking two wives, God vexed him with a disquiet life between them ; that they lived in discontent and emulation one with another, and both of them with their husband, so in his wrath he uttered these words unto them to repress their strife ' (Anna. in loc.); or whether these are merely a Thrasonie jactation' (to use on expression of Rivet's) called forth by his savage delight at finding himself possessed of deadly weapons, as Herder suggests (Geist d. Heb. Poes., part i. p. 344), and as Rosenmiiller, Knobel, and others, approve, may be left to the judgment of each reader.
2. The son of Methuselah, and father of Noah (Gen. v. 25, 29).—W. L. A.