Beyond Eden: The Biblical Story of Paradise (Genesis 2-3) and Its Reception History (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161496462, 9783161511325, 3161496469

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by

Bernd Janowski (Tübingen) · Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

34

Beyond Eden The Biblical Story of Paradise (Genesis 2–3) and Its Reception History Edited by

Konrad Schmid and Christoph Riedweg

Mohr Siebeck

Konrad Schmid is professor of Old Testament and Early Judaism in Zürich. Christoph Riedweg is professor of Classics in Zürich and currently director of the Istituto Svizzero di Roma.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151132-5 ISBN 978-3-16-149646-2 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2008 by Mohr Siebeck Tübingen. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Held in Rottenburg. Printed in Germany.

Table of Contents Preface .................................................................................................. VII Vorwort ................................................................................................. XI

JEAN-LOUIS SKA Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions .........................................

1

TERJE STORDALEN Heaven on Earth – Or Not? Jerusalem as Eden in Biblical Literature ............................................... 28 KONRAD SCHMID Loss of Immortality? Hermeneutical Aspects of Genesis 2–3 and Its Early Receptions ......... 58 HERMANN SPIECKERMANN Is God’s Creation Good? From Hesiodus to Ben Sira ................................................................... 79 THOMAS KRÜGER Sündenfall? Überlegungen zur theologischen Bedeutung der Paradiesgeschichte .......................................................................... 95 LAURA NASRALLAH The Earthen Human, the Breathing Statue: The Sculptor God, Greco-Roman Statuary, and Clement of Alexandria ............................. 110 MICHAEL E. STONE Satan and the Serpent in the Armenian Tradition .................................. 141 CHRISTOPH RIEDWEG Das Verbot, vom Baum der Erkenntnis von Gut und Böse zu essen (Gen 2,17): Zeichen eines missgünstigen Gottes? Kaiser Julian und Kyrill von Alexandrien in einer virtuellen Debatte ........................ 187

VI

Table of Contents

MICHAEL A. SIGNER Coming to Consciousness: Knowing, Choosing or Stealing? Approaches to the Story of the Garden (Genesis 2–3) in Medieval Northern French Jewish Exegesis ..................................... 209 NIRA STONE The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden ............................................... 227 EMIDIO CAMPI Genesis 1–3 and the Sixteenth Century Reformers ............................... 251 RÜDIGER BITTNER Wozu Paradiese? ................................................................................... 272

Authors ................................................................................................. 283 Index of Biblical Passages .................................................................... 285 Index of Names ..................................................................................... 291

Preface The essays in this volume began as papers delivered at a conference held on October 19–20, 2007 at the Istituto Svizzero di Roma and the Facoltà Valdese di Teologia in Rome. The topic of the conference was the anthropology and theology of the biblical “Fall” narrative (Genesis 2–3), whose intellectual and cultural-historical relevance can hardly be overestimated. Genesis 2–3 is certainly one of the best known texts in world literature, formulating the fundamental premises and problematics of human self understanding in Judeo-Christian thought. For what reason is the concrete experience of human life interpreted as “paradise lost?” Why is the human acquisition of knowledge considered problematic? Why is society organized patriarchally? To what degree is freedom an integral part of the conditio humana? Why does human existence have intrinsic temporal limits? In addition to being one of the most famous narratives, Genesis 2–3 is also one of the most multi-dimensional narratives of the Bible. It is typically known as the story of Adam, Eve, the apple, the Fall, and the punishment of humankind with mortality. However, of these popular elements, only “Eve” actually appears in the biblical story itself. The other elements owe their existence to the productive reception of the story in the Intertestamental and New Testament literature as well as the later history of reception. The Hebrew narrative speaks of ha’adam, which – as a result of the definite article – does not signify the proper name “Adam” but instead the category of “human.” The fruit of the forbidden tree is not botanically identified, but later becomes regarded as an “apple” as a result of a wordplay arising from its Latin adaptation (malum). Eating the fruit is never termed “sin” in Genesis (“sin” appears for the first time in the Bible in Gen 4:7), and the first humans were created mortal, as is shown by their creation from dust and the formulation of Gen 2:16f., which is similar to a law of capital punishment. The consumption of the forbidden fruit is therefore punishable by the death penalty, not with the penalty of mortality, a notion that first develops in the later reception history. These preliminary observations already reveal the importance of analysis both of the Bible itself and of its diverse interpretive potential and impact in order to get to an adequate understanding of Genesis 2–3. In light of this challenge the conference adopted an interdisciplinary approach to investigate the historical meaning of the story itself as well as its variegated reception and influences. The goal was, on the one hand, to profile

VIII

Preface

the anthropological and theological perspectives of the biblical paradise narrative in its historical context and evaluate its cultural historical importance (without reducing its multidimensionality), and on the other hand to survey the productive potential realized throughout its history of reception. This approach makes visible both the fruitfulness of ancient, Medieval, and more recent exegesis and hermeneutics of Genesis 2–3 in word and picture, and also the manifold interactions between historically conditioned interpretive situations and this foundational text. Jean-Louis Ska’s (Rome) contribution, “Genesis 2–3: Some fundamental questions” reviews the introductory and fundamental exegetical problems in Genesis 2–3, taking the literary relationship with Genesis 1 into special consideration. He designates Genesis 2–3 as a post-Priestly addition to Genesis 1, which does not attempt to answer the question of how the world came to be from the perspective of Babylonian science, but rather from the indigenous Israelite tradition. In “Heaven on Earth – or Not? Jerusalem as Eden in Biblical Literature,” Terje Stordalen (Olso) offers an overview of the implicit and explicit representations in the Bible of Jerusalem as Paradise. This essay reveals the contours of the innerbiblical discussion of the question of the thisworldliness or otherworldliness of Paradise. The article by Konrad Schmid (Zürich), “Loss of Immortality? Hermeneutical Aspects of Genesis 2–3 and Its Early Receptions,” addresses the anthropological constitution of the first humans (namely, the question of their mortality) from the perspective of Genesis 2–3 and early Jewish texts such as Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon, Josephus, and 4.Ezra among others. He concludes that, contrary to the widely held position, the Bible and its earliest receptions assume that humans were created mortal. This conclusion also provides an important backdrop for the interpretation of central New Testament passages such as Rom 5. Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen) asks, “Is God’s Creation Good? From Hesiodus to Ben Sira.” In his answer he presents a tour d’horizon of the various conceptions of creation from the regions of ancient Israel and Greece, analyzing the convergences and divergences of different positions. Thomas Krüger’s (Zürich) essay, “Sündenfall? – Überlegungen zur theologischen Bedeutung der Paradiesgeschichte,” provides an exegesis of Genesis 2–3 and contrasts it with traditional Christian interpretations of this text. In her essay, “The Earthen Human, the Breathing Statue: The Sculptor God, Greco-Roman Statuary, and Clement of Alexandria,” Laura Nasrallah (Harvard) traces the conception of the formation of the first humans in relation to Greco-Roman statuary sculpture and shows which conceptual profiles connect with works of sculpture.

Preface

IX

Michael Stone (Jerusalem), shows in his contribution, “Satan and the Serpent in the Armenian Tradition,” the diverse conceptualizations in the Armenian sources of how the Satan and the snake in Genesis 3 become connected. Many of the texts he examines are difficult to access. In this essay they are presented to the wider academic community for the first time. In “Das Verbot, vom Baum der Erkenntnis von Gut und Böse zu essen (Gen 2,17): Zeichen eines missgünstigen Gottes? Kaiser Julian und Kyrill von Alexandrien in einer virtuellen Debatte,“ Christoph Riedweg (Zürich/Rome) first of all discusses the views held by the Emperor Julian, called the Apostate, who in his sharp criticism of Genesis 2–3 takes up and further develops arguments of his Platonic precursors Celsus and Porphyry as well as Gnosticism. Riedweg compares Julian’s position to that of Cyril of Alexandria and also offers an in depth analysis of the Greek version of the Paradise story which is authoritative for both. Michael Signer’s (Notre Dame) contribution, “Coming to Consciousness: Knowing, Choosing or Stealing? Approaches to the Story of the Garden (Genesis 2–3) in Medieval Northern French Jewish Exegesis,” discusses various Rabbinic perspectives on Genesis 3 (such as Kimchi). It focuses on the inter-religious contact with the Christian interpretation of this text at that time, showing that the Christian and Jewish exegesis did not operate in splendid isolation from one another, but instead often integrated one another’s positions. In “The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden,” art historian Nira Stone (Jerusalem) displays numerous iconographic examples of the motif of the four rives from Gen 2:10–15, which, especially in Christian art, has been juxtaposed with the resumption of the motif in the Johannine Apocalypse. Emidio Campi (Zürich) investigates the relationship between “Genesis 1–3 and the Sixteenth Century Reformers.” Giving special attention to Petrus Martyr Vermigli as well as Calvin, Campi profiles the exegesis of Genesis 2–3 during the Reformation. As a compliment to Signer’s essay, Campi demonstrates how the current Jewish exegesis exercised a strong influence on the reformers’ understanding of this text. Rüdiger Bittner (Bielefeld) concludes the volume by asking the question “Wozu Paradiese?” Bittner’s contribution offers a close reading of Genesis 2–3 from a philosophic perspective and inquires about the logical coherence and lacunas in this text. The present volume as a whole documents the manifold convergences between the various historical, exegetical, and reception-historical approaches to Genesis 2–3. On the other hand, the different accentuations in theological profile between Genesis 2–3 and its various receptions emerge through their juxtaposition with one another.

X

Preface

The abbreviations in this volume follow S.M. Schwertner, Theologische Realenzyklpädie, Abkürzungsverzeichnis, Berlin/New York 1994 and P.H. Alexander et al., eds., The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies, Peabody, MA 1999. We thank our collaborators in Zürich and Rome for their commitment and their help with putting on the conference and preparing the essays for print, especially Ms. Luise Oehrli for the manuscript preparation. We would also like to thank the Swiss National Science Foundation and the University of Zürich for their financial support, the editors of the series “Forschungen zum Alten Testament” as well as the publisher Mohr Siebeck in Tübingen for their cooperation. Zürich and Rome, in July 2008

Konrad Schmid – Christoph Riedweg

Vorwort Der vorliegende Band geht auf eine Tagung zurück, die am 19. und 20. Oktober 2007 am Istituto Svizzero und an der Facoltà Valdese di Teologia in Rom stattgefunden hat. Ihr Thema war die Anthropologie und Theologie der ausgesprochen wirkmächtigen Erzählung vom „Sündenfall“ in der Bibel (Genesis 2–3), deren geistes- und kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung kaum zu überschätzen ist. Genesis 2–3 ist wohl einer der bekanntesten Texte der Weltliteratur. Er formuliert fundamentale Prämissen und Problemfelder menschlichen Selbstverständnisses der jüdisch-christlichen Geistestradition. Weshalb wird die Erfahrung der realen menschlichen Lebenswelt als „paradise lost“ interpretiert? Weshalb ist menschliche Erkenntnisfähigkeit problematisch? Weshalb ist eine Gesellschaftsordnung patriarchal organisiert? Inwiefern ist Freiheit ein elementarer Bestandteil der conditio humana? Weshalb ist menschliche Existenz notwendigerweise zeitlich begrenzt? In dieser Eigenschaft gehört Genesis 2–3 gleichzeitig zu den mehrdimensionalsten Erzählungen der Bibel. Sie ist etwa bekannt als die Geschichte von Adam, Eva, dem Apfel, dem Sündenfall und der Bestrafung des Menschengeschlechts mit der Sterblichkeit. Von all diesen populären Elementen findet sich nur „Eva“ in der biblischen Geschichte selbst, die restlichen verdanken sich der produktiven Rezeption der Geschichte in der zwischen- und neutestamentlichen Literatur sowie der späteren Wirkungsgeschichte: Die hebräische Erzählung spricht von ha’adam, was – ausweislich des Artikels – nicht den Eigennamen „Adam“, sondern die Gattung „Mensch“ bezeichnet. Die Frucht des verbotenen Baumes wird botanisch nicht identifiziert, sondern wird im Sinne eines Wortspiels erst in der lateinischen Wirkungsgeschichte zum „Apfel“ (malum). Der Genuss dieser Frucht wird in Genesis nirgends terminologisch als „Sünde“ fixiert (der Begriff fällt in der Bibel zum ersten Mal in Gen 4,7), und die ersten Menschen sind, wie ihre Erschaffung aus Staub und die Gestaltung von Gen 2,16f. als Todesrechtssatz zeigen, von allem Anfang an sterblich geschaffen. Der Verzehr der verbotenen Frucht wird mit der Todesstrafe belegt, nicht mit der Strafe der Sterblichkeit. Diese Vorstellung ist erst in der späteren Wirkungsgeschichte entwickelt worden. Schon diese Beobachtungen zeigen, wie wichtig für ein angemessenes Verständnis von Genesis 2– 3 ein kritischer Blick auf die Bibel selbst, aber auch auf ihre vielfältigen Potentiale und Wirkungen ist. Die Tagung verfolgte deshalb einen bewusst disziplinenübergreifenden Zugang, um den historischen Eigensinn ebenso

XII

Vorwort

wie die vielfältigen Rezeptionen und Wirkungen dieser Erzählung zu erkunden. Sie setzte sich zum Ziel, die anthropologischen und theologischen Perspektiven der biblischen Paradieserzählung einerseits in ihren historischen Kontexten zu profilieren und in ihrer kulturgeschichtlichen Bedeutung zu würdigen (ohne ihre Mehrdimensionalität zu reduzieren) und sie andererseits auf ihre produktiven Potentiale hin zu befragen, die sich in der Wirkungsgeschichte dieses Textes realisiert haben. Deutlich wurden dabei zum einen die produktiven Möglichkeiten antiker, mittelalterlicher und neuzeitlicher Exegese und Hermeneutik von Genesis 2–3 in Text und Bild, zum anderen wurden die vielfältigen Interaktionen zwischen historisch bedingten Auslegungssituationen und diesem Text in ihren kulturmächtigen Wirkungen sichtbar. Jean-Louis Skas Beitrag (Rom) „Genesis 2–3: Some fundamental questions” bespricht die elementaren einleitungswissenschaftlichen Probleme zu Gen 2–3 und diskutierte vor allem den literarischen Zusammenhang mit Gen 1. Er bestimmt Gen 2–3 als nachpriesterschrifliche Ergänzung zu Gen 1, die die Frage der Weltentstehung nicht aus der Sicht babylonischer Wissenschaft, sondern von indigenen Traditionen her beantwortet. Terje Stordalen (Oslo) bietet in „Heaven on Earth – or Not? Jerusalem as Eden in Biblical Literature“ einen Überblick über die impliziten und expliziten Vorstellungen in der Bibel, die Jerusalem als Ort des Paradieses interpretieren. So werden Konturen einer innerbiblischen Diskussion zur Frage der Diesseitigkeit oder Jenseitigkeit des Paradieses sichtbar. Der Beitrag von Konrad Schmid (Zürich) „Loss of Immortality? Hermeneutical Aspects of Genesis 2–3 and Its Early Receptions” behandelt die Frage nach der anthropologischen Konstitution der ersten Menschen, namentlich der Frage ihrer Sterblichkeit, in der Perspektive von Gen 2–3 sowie in einigen frühjüdischen Texten wie Sir, SapSal, Josephus, 4Esr u.a. Entgegen einer weit verbreiteten Ansicht lässt sich zeigen, dass sowohl die Bibel als auch ihre frühesten Rezeptionen davon ausgehen, dass die Menschen sterblich geschaffen worden sind. Daraus ergeben sich auch Konsequenzen für die Interpretation zentraler neutestamentlicher Passagen wie Röm 5. Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen) fragt „Is God’s Creation Good? From Hesiodus to Ben Sira“. Er präsentiert in seiner Antwort einen tour d’horizon über verschiedene Schöpfungskonzeptionen aus dem Bereich des antiken Israel und des antiken Griechenland und arbeitet Konvergenzen und Divergenzen der verschiedenen Positionen heraus. Thomas Krügers (Zürich) Beitrag „Sündenfall? – Überlegungen zur theologischen Bedeutung der Paradiesgeschichte“ entfaltet den inneren Zusammenhang von Gen 2–3 und kontrastiert ihn mit den traditionellen kirchlichen Auslegungen zu diesem Text.

Vorwort

XIII

Laura Nasrallah (Harvard) spürt in ihrem Beitrag „The Earthen Human, the Breathing Statue: The Sculptor God, Greco-Roman Statuary, and Clement of Alexandria“ der Vorstellung der Ausbildung der ersten Menschen in Zusammenhang mit griechisch-römischer Bildhauerkunst nach und zeigt auf, welche konzeptionellen Profile sich mit Bildkunstwerken verbinden. Michael Stone (Jerusalem) zeigt in seinem Text „Satan and the Serpent in the Armenian Tradition“ an armenischen Quellen die Vielfalt der Vorstellungen auf, wie der Satan mit der Gestalt der Schlange in Gen 3 in Verbindung gebracht werden konnte. Viele der von ihm untersuchten Texte sind noch kaum publiziert oder schwer zugänglich und werden hier zum ersten Mal einer breiteren akademischen Öffentlichkeit vorgestellt. Christoph Riedweg (Zürich/Rom) behandelt in seinem Aufsatz „Das Verbot, vom Baum der Erkenntnis von Gut und Böse zu essen (Gen 2,17): Zeichen eines missgünstigen Gottes? Kaiser Julian und Kyrill von Alexandrien in einer virtuellen Debatte“ vor allem die Position des Kaisers Julian, genannt Apostata, der in seiner scharfen Kritik an Gen 2-3 Argumente seiner platonischen Vorläufer Kelsos und Porphyrios sowie der Gnosis aufgreift und weiterentwickelt. Riedweg vergleicht Julians Position mit derjenigen von Kyrill von Alexandrien und unterzieht auch die für beide massgebliche griechische Fassung der biblischen Paradiesgeschichte einer eingehenden Untersuchung. Michael Signers (Notre Dame) Beitrag „Coming to Consciousness: Knowing, Choosing or Stealing? Approaches to the Story of the Garden (Genesis 2–3) in Medieval Northern French Jewish Exegesis“ bespricht verschiedene rabbinische Perspektiven zu Gen 3 (u.a. Kimchi) und legt besonderen Wert auf die religionsübergreifenden Kontakte zur damaligen christlichen Auslegung dieses Texts. Er stellt dar, dass die christliche und die jüdische Exegese nicht in splendid isolation voneinander stattfanden, sondern vielfach untereinander interagierten. Die Kunsthistorikerin Nira Stone (Jerusalem) zeigt in „The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden“ an zahlreichen Beispielen die Ikonographie des Motivs der vier Flüsse aus Gen 2,10–15 auf, das vor allem in der christlichen Kunst mit der Wiederaufnahme in der Johannesapokalypse zusammengesehen worden ist. Emidio Campi (Zürich) untersucht das Verhältnis von „Genesis 1–3 and the Sixteenth Century Reformers“. Mit speziellem Augenmerk auf Petrus Martyr Vermigli, aber auch auf Calvin profiliert Campi die Auslegung von Gen 2–3 in der Reformationszeit. In komplementärer Ergänzung zu Signers Beitrag kann auch Campi aufzeigen, wie stark die reformatorische Beschäftigung mit diesem Text von der zeitgenössischen jüdischen Exegese beeinflusst war.

XIV

Vorwort

Rüdiger Bittner (Bielefeld) fragt schließlich lapidar: „Wozu Paradiese?“ Aus philosophischer Perspektive bietet Bittners Beitrag ein close reading von Gen 2–3 und fragt nach der logischen Kohärenz und den offenen Leerstellen dieses Textes. Der vorliegende Band dokumentiert insgesamt die mannigfachen Konvergenzen zwischen den unterschiedlichen historischen und auslegungsgeschichtlichen Zugängen zu Gen 2–3 auf, so dass die theologischen Profile von Gen 2–3 und seiner Rezeptionen in unterschiedlichen Akzentuierungen deutlich werden. Die Abkürzungen in diesem Band richten sich nach S.M. Schwertner, Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Abkürzungsverzeichnis, Berlin/New York 21994 sowie P.H. Alexander u.a. (Hgg.), The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies, Peabody MA 1999. Wir danken unseren Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeitern in Zürich und Rom für ihren Einsatz und ihre Hilfe bei der Durchführung der Tagung und den Vorbereitungen zur Drucklegung der Beiträge, besonders Frau Luise Oehrli für die Herstellung des Skripts dieses Buches, dem Schweizerischen Nationalfonds und der Universität Zürich für finanzielle Unterstützung, den Herausgebern der Reihe „Forschungen zum Alten Testament“ sowie dem Verlag Mohr Siebeck in Tübingen für die Zusammenarbeit.

Zürich und Rom, im Juli 2008

Konrad Schmid – Christoph Riedweg

Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions JEAN-LOUIS SKA

A short history of the research on Genesis 2–31 There are innumerable studies on Genesis 2–3 and, as one can imagine, a variety of opinions exist in these studies along side an equal number of methods and approaches to the text. It seems appropriate to me, therefore, before initiating a study of these chapters and mapping out a personal itinerary in the dark wood (Dante) which the contemporary research in this field resembles, to make a brief foray into the history of the research in order to orient better the reader. The critical study of the first three chapters of Genesis began, after the forerunners Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) and Richard Simon (1636– 1722), with Bernhard Witter (1683–1715), who published in 1711 a thesis on Genesis 1–3.2 His point of departure in the study was the difference in the use of the divine names, ’Ɵlǀhîm, on the one hand, and yhwh ’Ɵlǀhîm, on the other. He came to distinguish two accounts in these chapters: Gen 1:1–2:4a and 2:4b–3:24. His avant-garde contribution would be, unfortunately, soon forgotten. One would have to wait for Jean Astruc, doctor to King Louis XV of France, and the publication of his work, Mémoires originaux [… de] Moyse, in 1753, in order to take up once again the same route. Astruc also based his study on the distinction in the divine names. He added, however, other criteria, in particular the presence of “doublets” within the Pentateuch, and he concluded his study with Exodus 2, for the simple reason that in Exodus 3 God reveals his name yhwh and therefore the distinction in the divine names becomes, according to Astruc, irrelevant. We have, therefore, in Genesis 1–3 two different sources. Next, the studies of Eichorn and Ilgen resumed and deepened the study of Astruc and, after some difficult years in which the critical reading of the Bible found itself under fire, one arrives at Hupfeld, who, in 1853, published a famous study on Genesis in which he defended the so-called “documentary hypothesis” against other theories and against a purely theological reading 1

For a summary of the history of research up until the eighties, see WESTERMANN , Genesis 1–11, 255–259; for the later years, see BLUM, Gottesunmittelbarkeit, 9–11. 2 For full bibliographical references, see the bibliography at the end of this article.

2

Jean-Louis Ska

of the biblical text. It is interesting to note that, for Hupfeld and his predecessors, the first account of Genesis 1 – called in that time the Elohist account because it used the divine name ’Ɵlǀhîm – was considered to be older than the second account, Genesis 2–3. The reasons for this conclusion are not very clear. In part, however, it seems that the first chapter was considered to be older only because it preceded the second and, furthermore, because the passages written in the same style – the famous style of the priestly account, as it would be subsequently identified – form the supporting beam of the Pentateuch. The chronology of the texts underwent a radical change with de Wette, Reuss, Graf, Kuenen and Wellhausen. They discovered that the priestly account, as it was called in that time, was late. The studies during this period began with the law and then, under the impulse of Kuenen, went on to examine the narratives. Wellhausen gave to the new theories their classical and definitive form. From that moment, and for more than a century, the priestly account of creation in Genesis 1 would be considered later than Genesis 2–3, that would be called, beginning with Kuenen, the “yahwist” account. The following stage began in 1883 with the study of Karl Budde, which made tremendous waves.3 Budde applied to the yahwist account of Genesis 2–3 the same method which had been used to distinguish Genesis 1 from Genesis 2–3. He discovered some doublets in the account: for example, the presence of two trees, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; or the fact that God places man twice in the garden (2:8 and 2:15); or again the double expulsion from paradise in 3:23–24. On this basis, he proposed to distinguish an account of creation from an account of paradise. The first centers on the creation of man and woman, while the second speaks of the fault which leads to the exile of Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden. Budde’s proposal would not be accepted by all, but it had a resounding echo and it has its convinced supporters even today.4 Furthermore, it provides the basis of discussion for almost all the subsequent critical studies on Genesis 2–3. The research took a new turn under the impulse of Hermann Gunkel and the Formgeschichtliche Schule of the early twentieth century. The scholars no longer sought to resolve the textual problems through the individualization of the sources and redactions, but rather through the study of the oral tradition prior to their redaction. The research upon the oral tradition, 3 BUDDE, Urgeschichte; see also BUDDE, Paradiesesgeschichte. Among those who followed him, see GUNKEL, Genesis, 25–28 (who insists rather on the substantial literary unity of the actual text (26); SMEND, Erzählung, 18–21; PROCKSCH, Genesis, 19–22. 4 The first – and rather severe – criticism, which few followed, was that of KUENEN, Bijdragen.

Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions

3

however, could only start from the study of the written text and, therefore, the research on the text (Literarkritik) and the research on the oral tradition (Formgeschichte) crossed paths and often contaminated one another.5 One must wait for the crucial seventies in order to witness a profound change in the exegetical panorama of the Pentateuch. With the names F.V. Winnett, J. Van Seters, H.H. Schmid and R. Rendtorff, a new period began in the exegesis of the Pentateuch.6 From that moment, the Yahwist, who lived peacefully in the court of David and Solomon, began a true via crucis. One could now speak of an exilic and a post-exilic Yahwist; or of a school, or of a redactor rather than of an author, whose existence Rolf Rendtorff would simply deny. There were, as always, various reactions. In short, it was no longer appropriate to locate the account of Genesis 2–3 at the beginning of the monarchy as it was the case for Wellhausen and his disciples. The impulse given by the exegetes just mentioned above allows for – or demands – a reexamination of the question regarding the chronology of the texts. No one will be surprised, therefore, to see some scholars – such as Gordon J. Wenham or Joseph Blenkinsopp – proposing the overturning of the chronological order of the sources in Genesis 1–11, which had been established since the time of Wellhausen.7 Genesis 2–3, for them, would be chronologically subsequent to the priestly account of Genesis 1, and not preceding it. Eckart Otto would later defend the idea in an often cited article.8 For Otto, Genesis 2–3 was written intentionally to complete Genesis 1 regarding certain important points. Other exegetes resumed Otto’s idea, but with some essential nuances regarding the relationship between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2–3 (E. Blum, K. Schmid).9 In the vast range of studies on Genesis 2–3 a certain tendency recurs which leads us back to the first positions on the question. Once again, the redaction of Genesis 2–3 follows that of Genesis 1, just as exegetes thought it to be up until the time of Hupfeld and before Wellhausen.10 It is necessary to add that sev5 See in particular VON RAD, Genesis, 70–75; W.H. SCHMIDT, Schöpfungsgeschichte, 194–200; STECK, Paradieserzählung. 6 WINNETT, Tradition; ID., Re-examining; VAN SETERS, Abraham; H.H. SCHMID, Jahwist; RENDTORFF, Problem. 7 See above all BLENKINSOPP, Pentateuch, 64–67; ID., Genesis 1–11; ID., Lay Source; WENHAM, Genesis 1–15, 53–55; ID., Priority. 8 OTTO, Paradieserzählung. 9 BLUM, Gottesunmittelbarkeit; K. SCHMID, Unteilbarkeit; before them, R. Albertz had defended the unity of the text; see ALBERTZ, Gen 3,5. 10 Following Budde, other important recent contributions seek to distinguish an older account in Genesis 2–3. See, for example, DOHMEN, Schöpfung, 34–36; CARR, Politics; LEVIN, Jahwist, 82–92; ROTTZOLL, Gen 2f., Teil I; ID., Gen 2f., Teil II; WITTE, Urgeschichte, 79–87, 151–166; PFEIFFER, Baum I; Baum II; KRATZ, Komposition, 254–256;

4

Jean-Louis Ska

eral authors often declared themselves newly in favor of the literary unity of Genesis 2–3.11 This brief overview of the history of recent exegesis demonstrates that, among all the exegetical questions which we are able bring forward, there are some which require an answer more urgently. I cite three principal questions:12 Is the text of Genesis 2–3 unified or not? When was it written? Why was it written?

The composition of Genesis 2–3: A unitary or composite text? We begin with the study of Karl Budde (1883) and the reactions which it inspired. The question is simple: Are we able to find two accounts in Genesis 2–3, or is the account in its present form a unified text?13 Since the time of Budde, four principal difficulties regarding the text have been singled out:14 (1) It is not easy to reconcile the initial description of a world where absolute dryness reigns (2:5) with that of the rivers in 2:10–14. (2) It is said twice that Yhwh-God placed Adam in the garden (2:8 and 2:15). (3) Yhwh-God sends the first couple out of the garden twice (3:23, 24). (4) There are two trees, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (2:9; 2:16; 3:3; 3:24). The tree of life is mentioned only a few times, at the beginning and the end (2:9, then 3:22, 24). In 3:3, however, the tree which stands in the middle of the garden seems to be not the tree of life (cf. 2:9), but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There are some other minor difficulties. For example, the serpent and the first woman cannot know the prohibition against eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in 3:3, because they were not yet

SPIECKERMANN, Ambivalenzen. For a summary of these attempts, see K. S CHMID, Unteilbarkeit, 24–27; BLUM, Gottesunmittelbarkeit, 27. 11 See, among others, KUTSCH, Paradieserzählung; W.H. SCHMIDT, Schöpfungsgeschichte, 194–229; STECK, Paradieserzählung. ARNETH, Adams Fall, 97–146, cancels from the original text only some late additions, such as 2:10–15 and 3:24. Following Otto, he considers the passage to be post-priestly (147). 12 This contribution resumes a conference given during a convention entirely dedicated to Genesis 2–3. The more theological questions regarding the significance of the account were treated at length in other presentations which can be found in this volume. 13 See WESTERMANN, Genesis 1–11, 255–259; PFEIFFER, Baum I, 487–488, n. 3; BLUM, Gottesunmittelbarkeit, 9–11, for a more complete presentation of the problem. For the history of the research on Genesis 1–11, see WITTE, Urgeschichte, 1–16. 14 See SCHÜLE, Prolog, 153.

Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions

5

created when God declared this prohibition (2:16–17).15 The use of the divine name also varies in the account. For example, in 3:1, 3, 5, in the conversation between the serpent and the woman, one finds the divine title ’Ɵlǀhîm, and not the complete name yhwh ’Ɵlǀhîm as in the rest of the account. I am not able to resolve all these problems in this brief article. Others have already offered more complete studies on the question, and therefore I allow myself to direct readers to the studies of Paul Humbert and Gustave Lambert, published in the forties; or to the more recent studies of Eckart Otto, Erhard Blum and Konrad Schmid. I shall concentrate on some particular problems regarding special features of the narrative style of the account. I begin with the fundamental problem: Is it possible to imagine an account of creation apart from an account of paradise lost? The story of creation and the story of paradise lost The account of creation, according to Westermann, serves as an “exposition” for the account of paradise lost.16 Joachim Begrich, on his part, affirms, in keeping with Budde, that the creation of the animals and the woman is superfluous and gives the impression of an overly long exposition.17 Is this truly the case? The problem, in my opinion, may be resolved only if we carefully consider the particularity of our account. It is true that there exist accounts of paradise which are not followed by a story of its loss. Ovid, for example, in the Metamorphoses, describes paradisiacal situations which do not end in tragedy, as in Genesis 3. One is clearly dealing here, however, with mythological accounts, distinct from the accounts which suppose, as ours does, a “primordial time.” This is certainly not to say that the account intends to be a historiographical work in the modern sense of the term. I intend only to say that our account does not imagine “a time before time” but rather the very beginning of “time.” It does not speak of divine beings or events which have preceded the arrival of humanity on the earth. Even

15

LEVIN, Jahwist, 86. WESTERMANN, 263: “die Erzählung von der Menschenschöpfung [wird] zur Exposition der Paradiesgeschichte”; cf. 265: “sachlich gehört [V. 25] zur Zustandsschilderung des Paradieses (V. 9 und 15), also zur Exposition.” On the definition of “expostition,” see, for example, SKA, Our Fathers, 21–25. The exposition provides the reader with indispensible information on the stable situation which precedes the action. The exposition, however, is not always (or entirely) located at the beginning of the narrative. 17 BEGRICH, Paradieserzählung, 103: “[Die Schöpfung der Tiere und der Frau ist überflüssig]. Sie macht den Eindruck einer etwas zu lange geratenen Exposition.” 16

Jean-Louis Ska

6

God’s frequent interventions in the narrative belong to the usual features of many ancient or biblical narratives. The narrator of our story, nonetheless, faces a truly remarkable situation because the narrative begins in a desert: “In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up – for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the ground [. . . ]” (Gen 2:4b–5).18 Now, any account may begin only if there are actors, a scene, and some narrative element to create a dramatic situation. Thus, the narrator of Genesis 2–3 must literally “create” all the indispensable ingredients of the story since the world is still empty. And this is exactly what occurs in Gen 2:4–25. We are witnesses to the creation of the first character, the first human being (’ƗdƗm), and the “scene” of the account, that is to say, the garden of Eden. For the dramatic action, however, one character is not enough. The story sets off, therefore, in search of a second character and, after a first failed attempt, one is found: she is the first woman (2:18–25). The divine order in 2:16–17, as all the exegetes have noted, prepares the action of Gen 3:1–24. Gen 2:25, according to some, was added to prepare the following scene, and only insists upon the stability of the situation up to this point. We are therefore in a quiet and peaceful world, and such a situation will endure until a disturbing element will enter on stage. One may object that we have already in Gen 2:4–25 a certain dramatic tension. For example, one question arises in 2:18 when God says: “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” And it is true that one does not immediately find the right solution to the problem. After the creation of the animals, the narrator is forced to acknowledge: “but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him.” It is necessary to say, however, that the dramatic tension is minimal. The reader knows that God cannot fail. Furthermore, Genesis 2 does not offer a progression that goes from one initial stable situation to a once again stable situation, as in every story. The initial situation of the account is neither stable nor unstable. It is a non-situation lacking any dramatic element. The only real purpose of Genesis 2 is to set up the scene. One may add yet another reason, which was cited by E. Blum.19 I present it here, but in narrative terms. The reader of Genesis 2 cannot but note the difference between the existence in the garden of Eden and the existence which he/she knows. The account must therefore explain why the reader knows a different situation. The explanation is found in Genesis 3.

18 19

I cite the translation of The Revised Standard Version (1989) in this article. BLUM, Gottesunmittelbarkeit, 13.

Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions

7

In conclusion, we may say that it is difficult to imagine an account which only describes the creation of the first human beings and their existence in the garden of Eden. Such an account supposes, at the very least, a continuation, because it involves a typical “preparatory scene” which serves, in our case, as “the exposition” to the account of Genesis 3. In 3:1, in effect, the first truly disturbing element appears, the serpent, the element which will cause the crisis in the peaceful world created by God in Gen 2:4b–24.20 The doublet of vv. 8 and 15 The second serious problem involves the doublet in Gen 2:8 and 15. The first verse reads: “And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the East; and there he put the man whom he had formed;” and the second: “The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.” The differences are truly minimal. The second verse adds some particulars regarding the function or the duty of the human being in the garden. Do we have a real example of a doublet? It is worth the trouble, I think, to reread with greater care the account of Gen 2:7–15, leaving aside for the moment the digression of vv. 10–14 on the four rivers. God models the first human being in 2:7. Verse 8 says two things. First, God plants a garden, and then he puts in it the recently formed human being. Next, in v. 9, God sets out to make the trees of the garden sprout from the soil. In fact, one is dealing with a repetition here since it was already mentioned in v. 2:8a: “God the Lord planted a garden in Eden [. . . ].” The verse is more concise, certainly, but in substance it says exactly the same thing. How to solve the problem? Yet again E. Blum proposed the better solution: to see in v. 8 a “proleptic summary.”21 In a few words, the narrator announces in a synthetic way 20

Few today seek to separate the account of creation from the account of the fall. In this sense, see GERTZ, Adam, 232–236 who allows only for some redactional insertions; in the same sense ARNETH, Adams Fall, 97–147. For another opinion, see, HUMBERT, Études, 59; LEVIN, Jawhist, 83–102; WITTE, Urgeschichte, 151–166. For example, Levin and others want to see in 3:20–21 the direct continuation of 2:22–23, because it is more natural to give a name to the woman immediately after her creation. For a critical examination of the proposal, see BLUM, Gottesunmittelbarkeit, 12; K. SCHMID, Unteilbarkeit, 25 (with n. 29); GERTZ, Adam, 232–236. 21 BLUM, Gottesunmittelbarkeit, 18–19. For the concept of the “proleptic summary,” see SKA, Sommaires; ID., exemples; KOENEN, Prolepsen. The same idea, but in a more generic manner, is found in the fifth rule of Hillel, klal uprat, “the general and the particular.” The idea is rejected by GERTZ, Adam, 225–228; ARNETH, Adams Fall, 136–137. It is however supported by the fact that v. 15 interrupts the sequence between v. 9 and v. 16, which speak both of the tree of knowledge. Verse 15 reintroduces the first human being to whom the commandment of vv. 16–17 is addressed. Furthermore, v. 15 is in the

8

Jean-Louis Ska

all that will be subsequently described with more details, the creation of the garden and its destination, or the “place” where the human being will now reside. The reason for the procedure is simple. The human being formed in 2:7, in order to live, needs food. The response is given for the first time in 2:8. The particulars of the garden will be given in 2:9. Finally, 2:15 logically completes the description. It is in that garden, now provided with trees, that the Lord God puts the human being, and God entrusts it to him. The human being, once established in the garden, may be instructed on the rules to be followed in his new situation (2:16–17). We do not have, therefore, a particular reason for considering vv. 8 and 15 as doublets. How do the serpent and Eve come to know of the prohibition against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge? The fact that the serpent speaks to the first woman of a prohibition about which, in the story, neither the serpent nor the woman have any way of knowing, has led some exegetes to see here the sign of redactional work.22 Is this in fact the case? I do not believe so. In effect, there are other examples of this phenomenon in biblical narratives. Many times the story supposes that a character knows certain things without being explicitly informed.23 In Gen 12:10–20, Abraham goes down to Egypt and asks his beautiful wife to pass herself off as his sister. And so it happens. The officials see Sarah and boast of her beauty to Pharaoh, who takes her as his wife and showers Abraham with gifts. The Lord, however, strikes Pharaoh with plagues. Immediately after, Pharaoh summons Abraham and rebukes him because he hid the true nature of Sara. She is not his sister, but his wife. The story, however, never explains how Pharaoh managed to know that the plague sent by God had struck him because he had taken Sarah into his harem, and that Sarah was in reality the wife of Abraham. In Genesis 27, after the discovery of the subterfuge of Rebekah and Jacob, one reads that, “Now Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing with right place in the narrative sequence: God establishes the human being in the garden after having made the trees grow (2:9), and not before. It is, actually, the sequence announced in 2:8. 22 GUNKEL, Genesis, 15–16 had (evidently!) noted the fact. For him, the serpent possesses a “wunderbares Wissen” (16); regarding the woman, he notes nothing special, but see BUDDE, Urgeschichte, 48–50, who discusses only some difficulties inherent in the presence of two trees in the middle of the garden. LEVIN, Jahwist, 86, notes that the woman was not present when God prohibited the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He concludes from this that the woman takes the fruit from the tree without knowing what she is doing. 23 SKA, ellipses.

Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions

9

which his father had blessed him, and Esau said to himself, ‘The days of mourning for my father are approaching; then I will kill my brother Jacob’.” The following verse says: “But the words of Esau her older son were told to Rebekah.” Who conveyed the words of Esau to Rebekah? And how did this person manage to know that which Esau had said only “to himself,” without communicating it to anyone, at least according to the text of Genesis 27? No one says. The third example is also quite clear. In 2.Sam 4:1–12, two criminals kill Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan and potential claimant to the throne of Saul, during his siesta. They decapitate him and carry the head to David in Hebron. David, when he sees them, becomes indignant and says, among other things, that “they have killed an innocent man in his house, on his bed” (4:11). David, however, could not have known how the scoundrels killed Mephibosheth. In all these cases, someone “knows” everything, and there is only one referent which is important to the narrator, i.e. the reader. The reader knows the commandment imparted by God to the first man, knows who Sarah is, understands Esau’s plan, and sees how Mephibosheth was killed. To explain how the characters of the account are informed is, therefore, superfluous. It is, actually, more important to inform the reader than some character of the story. We must not forget that the principal addressee of the narrative is always the reader (or the hearer), not the character in the story. Once again, in conclusion, we can say that the feature just analyzed is part of the art of biblical narrative and does not justify the operations of literary criticism, such as the search for sources or redactions. Why is the tree of life mentioned only at the beginning and the end of the account? A question of grammar24 The commentaries and monographs on Genesis 2–3 often treat the question of the trees. It is the element which, more than all the others, has led to distinguishing two distinct accounts in the passage. The mentioning of the two trees are distributed in a sufficiently clear manner: we find them together only once, in 2:9. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil reappears only in 2:17. Then, it is spoken of implicitly in 3:1–12.17, although it is clear that the passage is dealing only with the tree of knowledge. Finally, God speaks again about the tree of life in 3:22, 24. Furthermore, it seems that a certain confusion reigns in regard to the tree which “stands in the middle of the garden.” According to 2:9, it is the tree of life which 24

For a presentation of the problem, see SOGGIN, Genesis, 63–64.

Jean-Louis Ska

10

occupies the center of the garden, while in 3:3 the woman undoubtedly locates the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in this place. Are they both in the center? Let us respond to the second question immediately. A. Michel has noted that there exists in Hebrew a grammatical phenomenon which is called “interrupted coordination” or “an interrupted chain of coordinated terms.”25 This is to say that a series of coordinated elements may be interrupted by another element, for example, a circumstantial specification such as in Gen 2:9. A. Michel, after a careful study of the case, arrives at two important conclusions regarding the specification “in the middle of the garden.” First, this determines the location of both trees, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Second, it is found after the syntagma “tree of life” because it is the most economic manner of showing that God planted many trees in the garden, but that he located two of them in the center of the same garden. Third, according to the rules of Hebraic prose, the shorter syntagma (“the tree of life”) precedes the longer (“the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”), and the local specification (“in the middle of the garden”) follows the shorter syntagma. A. Michel gives various examples of the procedure. Perhaps the closest example to the text of Gen 2:9 is 1.Sam 7:3:26 Then Samuel said to all the house of Israel, “If you are returning to the LORD with all your heart, then put away from among you the foreign gods and the Astartes [. . .]”

The part of the Hebrew text which is important to our discussion reads:

twrtv[hw ~kkwtm rknh yhla-ta wrysh Literally it would be translated: “Put away the foreign gods from among you and the Astartes.” The rules of Hebrew grammar, however, require the translation proposed above: “Put away from among you the foreign gods and the Astartes.” The Hebrew language prefers to insert the local specification immediately after the first direct object and not before, as in English and other European languages. The impression is that the second complement is “added” because it arrives “too late.” This impression, however, is only ours. Gen 2:9, to return to our argument, was written according to the

25

MICHEL, Theologie, 1–22, with a long and very instructive history of the research on the argument. One is struck by the fact that, among other things, several exegetes often consider the addition to be not the second element, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but the first, the tree of life. Now the second element “arrives too late.” The argumentation of Michel is welcomed by BLUM, Gottesunmittelbarkeit, 19–20; GERTZ, Adam, 228. 26 See MICHEL, Theologie, 196. For some clearer cases see Gen 1:16; Exod 24:4; Josh 9:4.

Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions

11

habitual conventions of Hebraic grammar and stylistics – following to the careful study of A. Michel. Another very clear example is found in Gen 1:16: And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.

The word “made” has three direct objects: the greater light, the lesser light, and the stars. The chain of objects is twice interrupted by the specifications which give precisions regarding the finality of the created works: “to rule the day,” “to rule the night.” The final object is therefore found isolated in the last sentence. The New Revised Standard Version sensed the difficulty and clarified the text by adding “and he made the stars also.” The Hebrew text just adds ~ybkwkh taw, “God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night and the stars.”27 According to the rules of Hebrew syntax, the phrase is impeccable. It is true that, in other cases, one follows a stylistic rule according to which the shorter syntagma precedes the longer syntagma. In the case of Gen 1:16 the rule is not respected because it wishes to mention the stars according to a rather clear hierarchy, the sun, the moon, the stars. In conclusion, and to return to our verse, neither the grammar nor the style of Gen 2:9 offer solid elements for the operations of literary criticism.28 A question of narrative style A second element to keep in mind for the understanding of the text is a well-known law regarding popular stories in general, and regarding biblical accounts in particular, the law of economy, or “the law of thrift.”29 Stated briefly, popular stories always use the minimum number of characters and elements to develop action. They mention only those elements 27

MICHEL, Theologie, 222–223. GERTZ, Adam, 228–231, after a long discussion, attributes the insertion of the tree of life to a redactor. See also WITTE, Urgeschichte, 81. He does not take sufficiently into account, in my opinion, some rules of biblical narratives. I speak in what follows of the law of narrative economy. Moreover, an element is sometimes introduced early in the narrative and its function is revealed only later on. I am thinking of, among many examples, the tent of Abraham in Gen 18:1, 6, 9, 10; the wood for the sacrifice of Isaac in Gen 22:3, 9; the opposed characteristics of Esau and Jacob in Gen 25:25, 27–28 and 27:11; the blindness of Isaac in Gen 27:1, 18–29; the idols stolen by Rachel in Gen 31:19 and 30–34; the objects given as a pledge by Judah to Tamar in Gen 38:18 and 25–26; the lefthanded Ehud and his peculiar knife in Judg 3:15–16 and 21–22; Absalom’s long hair (2.Sam 14:26 and 18:9); the bitterness in the heart and in the liver of the fish in the Apocryphal (Deuterocanonical) account of Tobit 6:5 and 11:8. 29 On this point, see LORD, Singer, 50–54; cf. SKA, Our Fathers, 70. 28

Jean-Louis Ska

12

which are indispensable for the progress of the action. Other details remain “in the wings.” Hermann Gunkel, along the same line of thought, had applied, among many other “epical laws” listed by A. Olrik, the law of the “unilinearity” or “single plot-line” (Einsträngigkeit), i.e. the account follows a single narrative thread and excludes, in general, any type of digression.30 In our case, the two trees are introduced for the first time together in Gen 2:9. Next, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appears alone in 3:1–6. The reason is simple: only that tree plays a role in the plot at that moment. To mention the tree of life would uselessly distract the reader. The tree of life will be mentioned again at the end of the story (3:22, 24) because only in the conclusion does it become important to speak of it. Access to the tree of life would have allowed Adam and Eve to become immortal, exactly like the gods.31 Double conclusion in 3:23–2432 A final problem emerges in regard to the conclusion of the account which reads: “therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.” From the time of K. Budde on, the discussion has centered upon whether or not we have a doublet in these two verses. Budde is the first to have argued in favor of the doublet, saying that the man is thrown out of the garden twice. The reaction was almost immediate. For A. Kuenen and A. Dillmann, for example, the verbs šlh and grš are not synonyms. There is therefore progression between “to send forth” in v. 23 and “to drive out” in v. 24.33 Some texts support this opinion, as in Exod 6:1; 11:1, where the 30

GUNKEL, Genesis, xlv–xlvii, lii. For this reason, we agree with K. SCHMID, Unteilbarkeit, 31–32, and BLUM, Gottesunmittelbarkeit, 19–20, and do not follow GERTZ, Adam, 228–230; SPIECKERMANN, Ambivalenzen, 366. 32 For a recent discussion, see GERTZ, Adam, 225 who speaks, in regard to v. 24, of a “funktionale Dublette zu V. 23”; for a similar opinion, see, among others, GESE, Lebensbaum; WITTE, Urgeschichte, 82–83; PFEIFFER, Baum I, 489; GERTZ, Adam, 225; ARNETH, Adams Fall, 142–144. 33 See, among others, KUENEN, Bijdragen, 134; DILLMANN, Genesis, 83; HUMBERT, Études, 36–39; LAMBERT, Drame, 1064 (there is progression: v. 23 shows the decision and v. 24 describes the execution); CASSUTO, Genesis, 173; GESE, Lebensbaum, 77; WENHAM, Genesis 1–15, 85–86; SEEBASS, Genesis I, 134: “Aber kann man dessen schweren Akzent am Schluß so einfach der Erzählung nehmen? Die Annahme [einer Bearbeitung in V. 24] ist zwar möglich, aber nicht notwendig”; BLUM, Gottesunmittelbarkeit, 18–19. 31

Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions

13

two verbs are clearly used to mean a progression: Pharaoh will allow Israel to depart; moreover, he will drive Israel out. Next, to defend the integrity of the text, other exegetes added a contentbased argument: the two verses describe two aspects of the same action. For P. Humbert, for example, v. 23 justifies the expulsion in a positive manner since the man was sent to cultivate the soil from which he had been drawn (cf. 2:7 and 3:23). Verse 24, however, explains the expulsion with a negative motivation because the human being cannot have access to the tree of life. For G. Lambert, God takes the decision in v. 23 and executes it in v. 24. A. Dillmann imagines that the first man, after v. 23, stopped and hesitated before the door of paradise, and that God was obliged to push him outside. E. Blum thinks that v. 23 describes the expulsion according to the perspective of the man who must go to work the soil, while v. 24 focuses instead upon the garden, since its access is now prohibited to mankind. The defenders of the “disunity” of the text, in general, continue, nonetheless, to affirm that we have a clear example of “doublet.” The affirmation of C. Westermann, to take up a single example, is typical: “[Das Nebeneinander der beiden Verben] ist […] nach den Regeln der alten Erzählkunst ein sicheres Zeichen dafür, daß zwei ursprünglich selbstständige Darstellungen der Vertreibung aus dem Garten zusammenkamen.”34 For the great commentator on Genesis, it is ancient narrative art which obliges one to see a classic doubling in Gen 3:22–23. In short, if one wishes to take a step forward in the discussion, it is necessary to find new arguments in favor of either one or the other thesis. A brief investigation will now require us to say that the double conclusion in Gen 3:23–24 is a common feature of biblical narrative art. The content of the verses is perhaps as complex, dense, and concise as the account itself. The style, however, must not surprise us. “God spoke once, I heard twice,” says Ps 62:11. The repetition in the conclusion of a story is a simple manner of indicating that the proposed journey of the story has arrived at the end. Every story, as already said before, describes a journey from one stable situation to another stable situation. Gen 3:23–24 demonstrates that the stable situation, at the end of the account, is that of a humanity which must live outside of the garden of Eden. Some more convincing examples will show that the case of Gen 3:23– 24 is in no way an isolated one, and does not lend itself, at least stylistically, to any operation of literary criticism.35 34

WESTERMANN, Genesis 1–11, 372–373. The examples abound. The repetition can be of various types, a synonymous expression, an antithesis, a progression, a hendiadys . . . In some cases, even a narrative segment (a “scene”) can be concluded with a certain type of repetition. Here are a few examples: Gen 8:21–22 (conclusion in prose and conclusion in verse; also see 8:21a and 35

14

Jean-Louis Ska

I take up once again the examples from the so-called historical books because they are clearer. Judg 9:56–57: Thus God requited the crime of Abimelech, which he committed against his father in killing his seventy brothers; and God also made all the wickedness of the men of Shechem fall back upon their heads, and upon them came the curse of Jotham the son of Jerubb’al.

The double conclusion describes the divine judgment in two steps. First it speaks of the punishment of Abimelech, then of the punishment of the inhabitants of Shechem. Finally, it resumes the whole in order to see in the punishment the fulfillment of the curse pronounced by Jotham. The repetition allows the narrator to insist upon the accuracy with which the prediction of Jotham, pronounced in Judg 9:20, is fulfilled (see also 9:24).36 1.Sam 4:21–22 presents a clear case of repetition. This case enables us to pinpoint the difference between a real doublet and a double conclusion with progression: And she named the child Ich’abod, saying, “the glory has departed from Israel!” because the ark of God had been captured and because of her father-in-law and her husband. And she said, “The glory has departed from Israel, for the ark of God has been captured.” 8:21b); 16:13–14 (two etiologies); 17:26–27 (repetition of the key verb “circumcise” – a typical feature of the Priestly Writer); 18:15 (double mention of Sarah’s laughter); 27:44–45 (double mention of Esau’s anger; cf. however KUHN, Genesis 27:46); Judg 9:56–57 (double divine punishment); Judg 19:30–31 (LXX: double mention of the crime of Gibeah); 21:24 (hendiadys to describe the return home of the Israelites); 1.Sam 3:21 (double mention of the manifestation of Yhwh at Silo); 4:21–22 (double mention of the taking of the ark); 7:16–17 (double mention of the activity of Samuel as “judge”); 19:10 (double mention of the flight of David); 2.Sam 5:5 (double mention of the reign of David in Hebron and Jerusalem); 13:37–38 (hendiadys to mention the departure of Absalom); 15:6 (double conclusion on the intrigues of Absalom); 15:12b (double conclusion on the conspiracy of Absalom); 17:23 (hendiadys to describe the suicide of Ahithophel); 2.Kgs 10:31 (double mention of the blemishes of Jehu); 2.Kgs 23:3 (repetition of the root ‘md at the beginning and the end of the conclusion); Jer 38:13 (double description of the rescue of Jeremiah); Ruth 1:22 (double mention of the return of Naomi); 3:18 (discourse of Naomi with the double mention of the matter [rbd] which is about to be concluded)… In some cases, in particular in the Pentateuch, the repetition was used to distinguish the presence of two sources. The phenomenon is, however, too frequent to justify every time the presence of either sources or redactions. 36 See, for example, RICHTER, Untersuchungen, 303; BECKER, Richterzeit, 185, 200, and 205, who attributes these verses, along with v. 24, to the same DtrN (Deuteronomist “nomist,” interested in the law); see also JANS, Abimelech, 405–419, who insists on the unity of the two verses and their connection with v. 24; ASSIS, Self-Interest, 170–171. MÜLLER, Königtum, 108–118, distinguishes two different hands in the verses 56 and 57. Verse 56 accuses Abimelech of the assassination of his seventy brothers, while v. 57 makes the Shechemites responsible. Verse 57, however, does not speak of the assassination of the seventy brothers, but speaks more generically of “all the evil which they have done.”

Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions

15

The repetition manifests the tragic character surrounding the loss of the ark. In this case we have an example of redactional work or dittography.37 In effect, the repetition is absolutely literal and does not add any new element, either informative or explicative. The difference with Gen 3:23–24 is evident. 1.Sam 19:10: And Saul sought to pin David to the wall with the spear; but he eluded Saul, so that he struck the spear into the wall. And David fled, and escaped.

The narrator’s final affirmation establishes that, despite the attempt of Saul, David is safe and sound. The simultaneous use of the two roots nws, “to flee,” and mlt(nif.), “to escape,” “to exit unharmed,” “to get away with” is found in Jer 48:6, 19; 51:6; Amos 9:1. The text insists on the final result, that is to say, the success of the flight (“he fled and, therefore, escaped”).38 2.Kgs 10:31: But Jehu was not careful to walk in the law of the LORD the God of Israel with all his heart: he did not turn from the sins of Jerobo’am, which he made Israel to sin.

The sentence, in typical deuteronomistic style, establishes in two ways the fact that Jehu’s fidelity to the law of God was not perfect.39 Jer 38:13: Then they drew Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern. And Jeremiah remained in the court of the guard.

The double description of the exit of Jeremiah from the cistern aims at establishing that, with this gesture, the imprisonment of Jeremiah has definitively ended; he has thus escaped from a certain death. The first verb (mšk – “draw up”) describes the action as such, and the second the final result (‘lh [hif.] – “lift out”).40

37

For a summary of the discussion, see STOEBE, 1 Samuel, 135 (with bibliography), who concludes: “Die Doppelüberlieferung beweist nur, wie stark volkstümliche Überlieferung an solchen Sprüchen interessiert war.” MEIER, Speaking, 28, speaks of dittography because the repetition is literal. DIETRICH, 1 Samuel, 211 (with bibliography) considers v. 22 as an “Erweiterung” to demonstrate the cry of the mother and to create a connection with chapter 5, which speaks again of the ark. 38 See FOKKELMAN, Narrative Art, 261. 39 See DIETRICH, Prophetie, 34. 40 See FISCHER, Jeremia 26–52, 337 who refers to Gen 37:28, a composite text. In the latter text, the two verbs, mšk et ‘lh (hif.), belong, however, to the same source, that in which the Midianites secretly drag Joseph from the cistern and carry him to Egypt. Only in this source was Joseph thrown into a cistern. See GUNKEL, Genesis, 403 (“vielmehr sind die Worte nach [Gesenius-Kautzsch] § 120d zusammenzunehmen »sie zogen herauf«”; the rule of grammar just mentioned does not exactly apply to Gen 37:28, however, because one is dealing rather with a hendiadys); WESTERMANN, Genesis 37–50, 34; SEEBASS, Josephgeschichte, 25–26; CAMPBELL/O’BRIEN, Sources, 224, 226, and 229. In Jeremiah 38 there is no reason to distinguish either sources or redactions.

Jean-Louis Ska

16

The examples abound and it does not appear necessary to me to see the hand of a redactor in Gen 3:23–24. The account proceeds in a clear way. As some exegetes have said, v. 23 describes the fact under a more positive aspect: man is sent to cultivate the soil. Verse 24 adds an essential aspect because it definitively seals the expulsion from the garden. The introduction of new elements in v. 24, such as the cherubim and the flaming sword, reinforce the irrevocable character of the divine decision. As it has been noted many times, the cherubim belong to the image of the garden of Eden as, for example, Ezek 28:14 shows.41 The motif has a different function in both texts, which will not surprise anyone familiar with popular stories. In conclusion, it does not appear to me that there are sufficient motives to try to distinguish two accounts in Genesis 2–3 or, to put it more simply, to distinguish an older account reworked within a second. Apart from some redactional additions such as 2:10–14, the text is essentially unified. The comparison with other biblical narratives, in particular the study of some technical narrative characteristics of biblical accounts, do not encourage one to proceed to the dissection of the text on the sole basis of tensions in the content. We have come, therefore, to our second question: When was the text composed?

The date of composition42 For a long time, as we have seen, the account of Genesis 2–3 was attributed to the Yahwist. For the majority of the exegetes, one was therefore dealing with a pre-exilic text. With the crisis which began around the seventies, things changed a great deal. For J. Van Seters, as for C. Levin, the actual text is certainly post-exilic. Other exegetes go in this direction and the number of those who consider the text as late has increased in recent years.43 I think that we have good reasons to go in this direction. I limit myself to the more convincing arguments. 41

On the relationships between Genesis 2–3 and Ezek 28, see GUNKEL, Genesis, 34– 35; STORDALEN, Echoes, 332–356, 394–397, 478–479; WITTE, Urgeschichte, 241–242 (no direct relation between the two texts in their original substance); VAN SETERS, Prologue, 119–122 (Ezek 28 would be prior to Genesis 2–3); K. SCHMID, Unteilbarkeit, 36–37 (the two texts go in opposite directions: in Ezek 28, the primordial man loses wisdom, while in Genesis 2–3 he acquires it). See also NOORT, Gan-Eden, 22–25. According to Noort, it is possible to establish direct relationships only between the versions of the LXX of Ezek 28 and Genesis 2–3. 42 For a brief reflection on the argument, see STORDALEN, Echoes, 205–213 (with bibliography). The author is thinking of the Persian period. 43 See in particular the authors cited in the notes 11, 12 and 13, and WITTE, Urgeschichte, 204–205; ARNETH, Adams Fall, 230–236.

Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions

17

Sapiential motifs44 From the time of A. Dubarle and L. Alonso Schökel, scholars have noted the presence of sapiential motifs in Genesis 2–3.45 For a long time this fact has not impeded scholars from maintaining the redaction of the text at the beginning of the monarchy. The clearer and more numerous parallels, however, are found in the book of Job and Ecclesiastes. This invites us to set back significantly the date of the composition of the text. Certainly, one may always think that the motifs of the later age are taken from Genesis 2–3. The accumulation of late parallels and, inversely, the absence of ancient parallels require, I think, a serious reexamination of the question of an early dating. The creation from dust The motif of the creation from dust or clay (Gen 2:7) is found again in Job 10:9, which also mentions that “we return to dust” with an expression almost identical to that of Gen 3:19: ynbyvt rp[-law – “and to dust you will make me return (Job 10:9b); bwvt rp[-law – “and you will return to the dust” (Gen 3:19). Psalm 103:14 affirms that we are “dust” (rp[), as does Gen 2:7; 3:19. Job 33:4 speaks of “spirit” (xwr) and “breath” (hmvn) (see also Job 34:13), then of clay (rmx) (cf. Gen 2:7, which speaks not of clay, but of “dust” – rp[). “Return to dust” is an expression which we find in Job 34:15; Ps 104:29 (cf. Ps 90:3, with another vocabulary). Furthermore Eccl 3:20 (cf. 12:7); Wisdom of Solomon 15:8, 11 affirm that the human being comes from the dust and returns to the dust (cf. Gen 3:19). Other late texts, however, insist upon the fact that we are made from clay (Isa 64:7; cf. 29:16; 45:9; Jer 18:1–6; Sir 33:13). The strictest parallels, at any rate, are to be found in Job and Ecclesiastes. The tree of life The tree of life, as one knows, appears at the beginning of the book of Proverbs (Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; 15:4; cf. Rev 2:7; 22:14). The texts are difficult to date, certainly, and it is therefore impossible to find support only in these texts for the suggestion of a late dating. We can only say that

44

For a presentation of the texts, see, above all, WITTE, Urgeschichte, 200–205. Cf. K. SCHMID, Unteilbarkeit, 21–22; the main authors are DUBARLE, Sages, 7–24; ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Motivos; LOHFINK, Genesis 2f.; MENDENHALL, Wisdom; WHYBRAY, Tradition, 105–106, 154; FESTORAZZI, Gen 1–3; WYATT, Interpretating; BLENKINSOPP, Pentateuch, 65–67; CARR, Politics (the author, however, discerns in Genesis 2–3 an antisapiential tendency); see also the recent article of K. SCHMID, Unteilbarkeit, 21–24 (with bibliography). 45

Jean-Louis Ska

18

the existence of the tree of life was a known motif, common in many of the traditions of the ancient Near East.46 The garden of God and the garden of Eden47 Among the late motifs, we can number with certainty that of Eden, which appears in second Isaiah and in Ezekiel (Isa 51:3; Ezek 28:13; 31:9; 36:35). The “garden of Eden” is an expression which is also present in late texts, such as Ezek 31:9; 36:35; Joel 2:3. One speaks of the “Garden of Yhwh” in Gen 13:9; Isa 51:3 and of the “garden of God” in Ezek 28:13; 31:8, 9. All the texts are post-exilic, except for Gen 13:9, which is of an uncertain date. Eden and the garden of God are mentioned together in Isa 51:3; Ezek 28:13; 31:9. It is not necessary to insist upon this since the matter has been noted by many authors. Another motif, however, has not been sufficiently examined for the determination of the date of composition for Genesis 2–3. I refer to the capacity on the part of the God of Israel to make trees grow in the desert. Second Isaiah exploits the motif many times. The vocabulary is different, certainly, but we have, on the one hand, poetical texts and, on the other, an account in prose. In both cases, the God of Israel shows his power to make an oasis spring forth in a desert. Unlike the other cases, I do not try to show any dependence in one sense or the other. I would only like to prove that some themes have become popular in certain periods. Among the more important texts I number Isa 41:19; 44:3–4; 55:13, where God made various species of trees grow in the desert. Isa 41:17–20 speaks at the same time of trees and rivers in the desert. The phenomenon of water springing forth in the desert is also a characteristic act of the creator God in the later texts of Isaiah (Isa 35:6–7; 41:18; 43:19–20; 44:3). The contrary action, that is to say, to dry up the rivers and ponds, may also be attributed only to God the creator (42:14–17; 45:27; 50:2). There are certainly few points of contact among the texts of second Isaiah and Genesis 2–3 from the point of view of the vocabulary. We can, however, recognize a convergence in the compared themes, in particular the image of a God making the trees grow in the middle of the desert. The idea of rivers in the desert will be developed in the addition in Gen 2:10– 14, as seen above. Finally, we must say a word regarding Ezek 28:11–19, where we find together the motif of the garden of God and the motif of the fall. There are a few common elements; they are, however, used in different ways. We are 46

On this point, see GUNKEL, Genesis, 7–8; JAROŠ, Motive; STORDALEN, Echoes, 162–183; 459–465. 47 See STORDALEN, Echoes, 321–331; NOORT, Gan–Eden; LIVERANI, Storia, 262–264.

Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions

19

thinking above all of the garden of Eden, of the precious stones, of the cherubim, and of the fall or the expulsion of the primordial man. Scholars explained the connections between the two texts in various ways. One point is important for our thesis, that is to say the strict relationship between the two texts. It means that we have a supplementary element in favor of a later date for Genesis 2–3. Furthermore, the difference in style – prose, and not poetry – and in form – narration, and not a prophetic oracle – precludes us from seeking the authors of Genesis 2–3 in the circle of disciples of Ezekiel Allusions to Genesis 2–3 in the Old Testament It has been noted many times that there are very few explicit allusions to the account of Genesis 2–3 in the rest of the Old Testament.48 One must wait for the later books – the Apocrypha and Deuterocanonicals – of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon – in order to find clear references to the account of the fall. There are three texts in Sirach which allude to Genesis 2–3.49 The first refers to Gen 2:7 and 3:19: “The Lord created man out of earth, and turned him back to it again” (Sir 17:1). The second text is part of the same chapter 17 and contains a possible allusion to Gen 2:9, 17: “He filled them with knowledge and understanding and showed them good and evil.” The text, however, does not say in any way that God had prohibited access to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It seems even to say the contrary; or, to be more precise, that God has shown good and evil to all human beings. The third text would certainly be judged today as not being “politically correct”: “From a woman sin had its beginning and because of her we all die” (Sir 25:24). The book of Wisdom also speaks of the fall, but attributes the responsibility for it to the devil, identified with the serpent: “for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.” (Wisdom 2:24). The interpretation of the texts can be discussed. For our purposes it is sufficient to note that they are certainly late texts. Sirach is of the second century and Wisdom of the first century of our era. It means that the account of Genesis 2–3 cannot be very old. Conclusion We have, in conclusion, a series of rather solid arguments in order to affirm, with a sufficient degree of certainty, that the text of Genesis 2–3 as 48

Cf. the reflections gathered by STORDALEN, Echoes, 21–22. The translations of the Apocrypha (or of the Deuterocanonicals) are from the New Revised Standard Version. 49

Jean-Louis Ska

20

such was redacted in a late period, to be more precise in the post-exilic era, and probably toward the end of the Persian period, because the text is known only in the Hellenistic period. Such a conclusion is not without implications. It immediately poses a serious problem because the priestly account of creation is, in general, dated in the same era. We would therefore have two accounts of creation written more or less at the same time, and placed one next to the other in the book of Genesis. How to explain the phenomenon? It is the final question to which we must respond in our brief investigation.

In which environment did the account of Genesis 2–3 arise? Introductory statement Before confronting the question more directly, let us gather together some essential elements. The text of Genesis 2–3, as seen just before, is more or less contemporaneous with Genesis 1. The style is certainly much different and it is not necessary to insist upon the more popular and more anthropomorphic character of the second account. The language is anything but sophisticated. It is closer to the ingenuous style of fables or of popular accounts than to the more elaborate account of Genesis 1. H. Gunkel, among so many others, had already noted these characteristics.50 The two accounts therefore come from two very different environments. There is a second point to consider. The beginning of the account in 2,4b clearly assumes that the intention of the story is to describe the creation of the world ab ovo:51

~ymvw #ra ~yhla hwhy twf[ ~wyb When the Lord God made the earth and heaven [. . .]

In short, the second account resumes everything from scratch and requires the reader to return to a situation similar to the one described in Gen 1:1–2. The parallelism between Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:4b is too evident:

#rah taw ~ymvh ta ~yhla abr tyvrb When God began to create the heaven and the earth [. . .]52

50

GUNKEL, Genesis, 26–28. For a more developed analysis of Gen 2;4b, see, among others, DOHMEN, Schöpfung, 37–40; GERTZ, Adam, 218–220. 52 The grammar and the translation of Gen 1:1 is much discussed. The point is secondary for our argument. See, in this regard, among others, JENNI, Erwägungen; WEIPPERT, Schöpfung. 51

Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions

21

The reader must, so to speak, cancel the first account in order to be able to read the second. The two accounts are not concurrent and it is not possible to read them in an exclusively synchronic manner because they present themselves as two alternative and exclusive versions of the creation of the world.53 The points of view, furthermore, are rather different. Much has already been said in this regard and it is not worth repeating. I only note some more important points for our proposal. First, the account of Genesis 2–3 is more anthropological, while Genesis 1 is more cosmological. Genesis 2–3 essentially describes the origin of humanity and the conditions of life known in the land of Israel. The first human being is a farmer, and the creator God cares above all for his survival. He is not interested in anything else; all that is created – garden, trees, animals, woman – are created for the first human being. The rest is superfluous and is not mentioned, for instance, the heavens, the sun, the moon, the earth, the sea, etc. The focus of Genesis 2–3 is therefore primarily anthropocentric. Genesis 1, on the other hand, speaks of a cosmos in which one of the principal problems is that of the liturgical calendar (Gen 1:14–19) and in which the first human beings are “lords of the animals” (Gen 1:28).54 The account of Genesis 2–3 is, furthermore, well aware of the presence of evil in the world. We have seen that it is difficult to cancel Gen 2:9 from the original text. The tree of the knowledge of good and of evil ([rw bwj) is thus present from the beginning in the garden, and, therefore, in the world. The account of Genesis 1, however, repeats seven times that the world created by God was “good” (bwj: 1:4.10.12.18.21.25), or even more, “very good” (1:31). In conclusion, one could say that the first account seeks to found a sort of theocracy of the God of Israel over the entire world, while the second account wants to show how much the creator God was attentive, from the beginning, to the conditions of life for the humanity which populates the promised land. Genesis 2–3 and “the people of the land”55 The environment in which one may more easily locate Genesis 2–3 is certainly not the temple of Jerusalem, and its authors are not to be sought among the priestly families responsible for the redaction of Genesis 1. 53

Cf. OTTO, Paradieserzählung, 186, who refers to WESTERMANN, Genesis 1–11, 271. We do not enter into the discussion of the literary unity or disunity of Gen 2:4, because it does not pertain to our argument. Cf. GERTZ, Adam, 218–221; ARNETH, Adams Fall, 130–133. 54 On the theme of “lord of the animals,” see KEEL, Entgegnung, 86–125. 55 On “the people of the country,” see the fundamental article of GUNNEWEG, ‘m h’rs>.

Jean-Louis Ska

22

Even a rapid reading of the books of Ezra-Nehemiah allows for the identification of a group in conflict with the intelligentsia which had arrived from Babylon. One is dealing with “the people of the land,” who had remained in the province of Judah during the exile and who, more than the other, struggled to conserve their political and economic power.56 To the account of the creation of the world elaborated by the priests and by the golâ (the exiles who reentered during the Persian period), the “people of the land” opposed their own vision of the world, which reflected their own interests. One could say, moreover, that we have a sort of series of accounts of creation which respond to one another. The account of Gen1 is, for the most part, a response of the élite of Jerusalem to the accounts of creation known in Babylon, in particular the enuma eliš. The exiles write an account in which the God of Israel is the true creator of the world, not Marduk. It is not necessary to list the points in which Genesis 1 resumes the Mesopotamian accounts of creation or Mesopotamian cultural elements in order to appropriate them, correct them, and reinterpret them. I only note the importance of time, the stars, the calendar, and the Sabbath.57 To this account – an account which, in the end, justifies even for the most part the claims of the priests of Jerusalem who wanted to reorganize the people of Israel in the province of Yehud around the temple of Jerusalem – the “people of the land” oppose a simpler account which demonstrates that the creator God established on the “earth” a farmer, the ancestor of “the people of the land.” The world does not have as its center a God celebrated on the Sabbath and on the feasts of the liturgical calendar (cf. Gen 1:14: ~yd[wml – “[lights] for fixed times, for the feasts”). The world has as its center a garden entrusted to a farmer. And if he lost it, he is not about to go to worship God in a temple; rather, he is about to go to cultivate the soil from which he was drawn (3:23).58 It might also be said that the account of Genesis 1 was of “foreign origin” (made in Babylon), was an “imported account.” To the authors of Genesis 1, the “people of the land” respond that it is not necessary to go to Babylon in order to know how the world was created. The account of Genesis 2–3, on the contrary, is “of controlled origin,” is genuine, is

56

On this period, see, in particular, LIVERANI, Storia, 275–296, 297–321; GRABBE, History; LIPSCHITS, Fall, 349–359; FRIED, ‘am hƗ’Ɨres (for L.S. Fried “The Persian and Babyonian officials of the satrapy Beyond the River were the new ‘am hƗ’Ɨres” [141]; the thesis is original, but also problematic. Why is it not said that these officials are foreigners?). 57 For more particulars, see MÜLLER, Mythos. 58 On the agricultural background in Genesis 2–3, see in particular VOGELS, Être humain; cf. also STORDALEN, Man.

Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions

23

indigenous, because it was composed in the land of Israel and based, with all probability, on ancient local traditions.59

Conclusion: the two accounts of creation and the compromises of post-exilic Israel The two accounts are found one next to the other in the book of Genesis because, at a certain point, two groups arrived at a sort of “historical compromise.” They had to live together by force. The coexistence was imposed by the circumstances, but the differences remained. After much time and probably many discussions, it was decided to put the two accounts at the beginning of Genesis because no group succeeded in prevailing over the other and, furthermore, they needed one another. In this sense, one may truly speak of a “compromise.” In any case, as it has been said many times, the book of Genesis, like all the other books of the Bible, is a “cantata with many voices.”60

Bibliography ALBERTZ, R., Ihr werdet sein wie Gott“ (Gen 3,5), in: Was ist der Mensch…? Beiträge zur Anthropologie des Alten Testaments (FS H.W. Wolff), hg. von F. CRÜSEMANN u.a., München 1992, 11–27 ALONSO SCHÖKEL, L., Motivos sapienciales y de alianza en Gen 2–3, Bib 43 (1962) 295– 316 = Sapiential and Covenant Themes in Genesis 2–3, in: J.L. CRENSHAW (ed.), Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom, New York 1976, 468–480 ARNETH, M., Durch Adams Fall ist ganz verderbt... Studien zur Entstehung der alttestamentlichen Urgeschichte (FRLANT 217), Göttingen 2007 ASSIS, E., Self-Interest of Communal Interest: An Ideology of Leadership in the Gideon, Abimelech and Jephthah Narratives (Judg 6–12) (VTS 106), Leiden/Boston 2005 ASTRUC, J., Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux dont il paroit que Moyse s’est servi pour composer le livre de la Genèse, Bruxelles 1753. Recently republished under the title: Conjectures sur la Genèse: Introduction et notes de Pierre Gibert, Paris 1999 BECKER, U., Richterzeit und Königtum: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Richterbuch (BZAW 192), Berlin/New York 1990 59

On this point see the recent study of GERTZ, Adam, 235–236. Cf. GERTZ, Adam, 220–221, who does not see, however, in Genesis 1 and 2–3 two independent accounts later put together despite their differences. For me, Genesis 2–3 is not a simple “complement” of Genesis 1, as some suggest (see notes 12 and 13). Genesis 2–3 is rather in opposition to Genesis 1 and endeavors to explain in a different way the origin of humankind and its earthly condition. For more information, see now METTINGER, Eden, a recent monograph that was not yet at my disposal during the redaction of this article. 60

24

Jean-Louis Ska

BEGRICH, J., Die Paradieserzählung: Eine literargeschichtliche Studie, ZAW 50 (1932) 93–116 BLENKINSOPP, J., The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (ABRF), New York 1992 — P and J in Genesis 1–11: An Alternative Hypothesis, in Fortunate the Eyes that See (FS D.N. Freedman), ed. by A.B. BECK et al., Grand Rapids, MI 1995, 1–15 — A Post-exilic Lay Source in Genesis 1–11, in: J.C. GERTZ/K. SCHMID/M. WITTE (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (BZAW 315), Berlin/New York 2002, 49–61 BLUM, E., Von Gottesunmittelbarkeit zu Gottähnlichkeit: Überlegungen zur theologischen Anthropologie der Paradieserzählung, in: G. EBERHARDT/K. LIESS (eds.), Gottes Nähe im Alten Testament (SBS 202), Stuttgart 2004, 9–29 BUDDE, K., Die biblische Urgeschichte: Gen. 1–12,5. Anhang: Die älteste Gestalt der biblischen Urgeschichte, versuchsweise wiederhergestellt, hebräischer text und uebersetzung, Gießen 1883 — Die biblische Paradiesesgeschichte (BZAW 60), Gießen 1932 CAMPBELL, A.F./O’BRIEN, M.A., Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations, Minneapolis, MN 1993 CARR, D.M., The Politics of Textual Subversion: A Diachronic Perspective on the Garden of Eden Story, JBL 112 (1993) 577–595 CASSUTO, U., A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Translated from the Hebrew by Israel Abrahams, Jerusalem 1961–1964 DIETRICH, W., 1 Samuel (BK 8/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2006 — Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 108), Göttingen 1972 DILLMANN, A., Genesis (KHAT), Leipzig 61892 DOHMEN, Ch., Schöpfung und Tod: Die Entfaltung theologischer und anthropologischer Konzeptionen in Gen 2/3 (SBB 17), Stuttgart 1988; aktualisierte Ausgabe (SBB 35), Stuttgart 1996 DUBARLE, A.M., Les sages d’Israël, Paris 1946 EICHHORN, J.G., Einleitung in das Alte Testament I–III, Leipzig 1780–1783/21787/ 3 1795–1803/41823 FESTORAZZI, F., Gen 1–3 e la sapienza d’Israele, RivBib 27 (1979) 41–51 FISCHER, G., Jeremia 26–52 (HThKAT), Freiburg/Basel/Wien 2005 FOKKELMAN, J.P., Narrative Art and Poetry in the Book of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses, vol. II: The Crossing Fates (I Sam. 13–31 & II Sam. 1) (SSN 23), Assen-Maastricht 1986 FRIED, L.L., The ‘am hƗ’Ɨres in Ezra 4:4 and Persian Imperial Administration, in: O. LIPSCHITS/M. OEMING (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, Winona Lake, IN 2006, 123–145 GERTZ, J.C., Von Adam zu Enosh: Überlegungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte von Gen 2– 4, in: Gott und Mensch im Dialog (FS O. Kaiser [BZAW 345/1]), hg. von M. WITTE, Berlin/New York 2004, 215–236 GESE, H., Der bewachte Lebensbaum und die Heroen: zwei mythologische Ergänzungen zur Urgeschichte der Quelle J, in: Wort und Geschichte (FS K. Elliger [AOAT 18]), hg. von H. GESE/H.P. RÜGER, Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973, 77–85 = DERS., Vom Sinai zum Zion: Alttestamentliche Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie (BEvTh 64), München 1974, 99–112

Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions

25

GRABBE, L.L., A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, vol. 1: Yehud: A History of the Persian Province of Judah (Library of Second Temple Studies 47), London/New York 2004 GRAF, K.H., Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments: zwei historisch-kritische Untersuchungen, Leipzig 1866 GUNKEL, H., Genesis (HK 1,1), Göttingen 31910 GUNNEWEG, A.H.J., ‘m h’rs> – A Semantic Revolution, ZAW 95 (1983) 437–440 HUMBERT, P., Études sur le récit du paradis et de la chute dans la Genèse, Neuchâtel 1940 HUPFELD, H., Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung von neuem untersucht, Berlin 1853 ILGEN, K.D., Die Urkunden des ersten Buchs von Moses in ihrer Urgestalt zum bessern Verständniß und richtigern Gebrauch derselben in ihrer gegenwärtigen Form aus dem hebräischen mit kritischen Anmerkungen und Nachweisungen auch einer Abhandlung über die Trennung der Urkunden, Halle 1798 JANS, E., Abimelech und sein Königtum: Diachrone und synchrone Untersuchungen zu Ri 9 (ATSAT 66), Sankt Ottilien 2001 JAROŠ, K., Die Motive der Heiligen Bäume und der Schlange in Gen 2–3, ZAW 92 (1980) 204–215 JENNI, E., Erwägungen zu Gen 1,1 ‘Am Anfang’, in: DERS., Studien zur Sprachwelt des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart 1996, 141–149 KEEL, O., Jahwes Entgegnung an Ijob: Eine Deutung von Ijob 38–41 vor dem Hintergrund der zeitgenössischen Bildkunst (FRLANT 121), Göttingen 1978 KOENEN, K., Prolepsen in alttestamentlichen Erzählungen: Eine Skizze, VT 47 (1997) 456–477 KRATZ, R.G., Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments (UTB 2157), Göttingen 2000 KUENEN, A., Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het Ontstaan en de Verzameling van de Boeken des Ouden Verbonds, Leiden 1861–1865/21887–1889 — Bijdragen tot de critiek van Pentateuch en Jozua. IX: De geboortegeschiedenis van Genesis Hoofdstuck I–XI, Theologisch Tijdschrift 18 (1884) 121–171 KUHN, H., Is Genesis 27:46 P or J? And How the Answer Affects Translation, in: R.D. BERGEN (ed.), Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, Winona Lake, IN 1994, 283–299 KUTSCH, E., Die Paradieserzählung Gen 2–3 und ihr Verfasser, in: DERS., Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament (BZAW 168), Berlin 1986, 274–289 LAMBERT, G., Le drame du jardin d’Éden, NRT 76 (1954) 917–948, 1044–1072 LEVIN, C., Der Jahwist (FRLANT 157), Göttingen 1993 LIPSCHITS, O., The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, Winona Lake, IN 2005 LIVERANI, M., Oltre la Bibbia: Storia antica di Israele (Storia e Società), Bari 2003 LOHFINK, N., Genesis 2f. als geschichtliche Ätiologie: Gedanken zu einem hermeneutischen Begriff, Scholastik 38 (1963) 321–334 = DERS., Studien zum Pentateuch (SBAB 4), Stuttgart 1988, 29–45 LORD, A.B., The Singer of Tales, Cambridge, MA 31971 MEIER, S.A., Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible (VTS 46), Leiden 1992 MENDENHALL, G.E., The Shady Side of Wisdom: The Date and Purpose of Genesis 3, in: A Light unto My Path (FS J.M. Myers), ed. by H.N. BREAM et al., Philadelphia, PA 1974, 319–334

26

Jean-Louis Ska

METTINGER, T.N.D., The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 2–3, Winona Lake, IN 2007 MICHEL, A., Theologie aus der Peripherie: Die gespaltene Koordination im Biblischen Hebräisch (BZAW 257), Berlin/New York 1997 MÜLLER, H.-P., Babylonischer und biblischer Mythos von Menschenschöpfung und Sintflut, in: DERS., Mythos – Kerygma – Wahrheit: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament in seiner Umwelt und zur biblischen Theologie (BZAW 200), Berlin/New York 1991, 110–135 MÜLLER, R., Königtum und Gottesherrschaft: Untersuchungen zur alttestamentlichen Monarchiekritik (FAT 2/3), Tübingen 2004 NOORT, E., Gan-Eden in the Context of the Mythology of the Hebrew Bible, in: G.P. LUTTIKHUIZEN (ed.), Paradise Interpreted: Representations of Biblical Paradise in Judaism and Christianity (Themes in Biblical Narratives 2), Leiden 1999, 21–36 OTTO, E., Die Paradieserzählung Genesis 2–3: Eine nachpriesterschriftliche Lehrerzählung in ihrem Religionsgeschichtlichen Kontext, in: „Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit…“ Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit (FS D. Michel [BZAW 241]), hg. von A.A. DIESEL et al., Berlin/New York 1996, 167–192 PFEIFFER, H., Der Baum in der Mitte des Gartens: Zum überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Ursprung der Paradieserzählung (Gen 2,4b–3,24). Teil I: Analyse, ZAW 112 (2000) 487–500; Teil II: Prägende Traditionen und theologische Akzente, ZAW 113 (2001) 2–16 PROCKSCH, O., Genesis (KAT I), Leipzig/Erlangen 1913, 2–31924 RAD, G. VON, Das erste Buch des Mose: Genesis (ATD 2–4), Göttingen 41972 RENDTORFF, R., Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW 147), Berlin/New York 1976 = The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (JSOTS 89), Sheffield 1990 REUß, E., Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften des Alten Testaments, Braunschweig 1881 RICHTER, W., Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch (BBB 18), Bonn 1963 ROTTZOLL, D.U., Die Schöpfungs- und Fallerzählung in Gen 2f. Teil I: ZAW 109 (1997) 481–499; Teil II: ZAW 110 (1998) 1–15 SCHMID, H.H., Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung, Zürich 1976 SCHMID, K., Die Unteilbarkeit der Weisheit: Überlegungen zur sogenannten Paradieserzählung Gen 2f. und ihrer theologischen Tendenz, ZAW 114 (2002) 21–39 SCHMIDT, W.H., Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift: Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Genesis 1,1–2,4a und 2,4b–24 (WMANT 17), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1964/21967 SCHÜLE, A., Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel: Der literar- und theologiegeschichtliche Diskurs der Urgeschichte (Genesis 1–11) (AThANT 86), Zürich 2006 SEEBASS, H., Genesis I: Urgeschichte (1,1–11,26), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1996 — Genesis III: Josephgeschichte (37,1–50,26), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000 SIMON, R., Histoire critique du Vieux Testament, Paris 1678/Rotterdam 1685 SKA, J.-L., Sommaires proleptiques en Gn 27 et dans l’histoire de Joseph, Bib 73 (1992) 518–527 — De quelques ellipses dans les récits bibliques, Bib 76 (1995) 63–71 — Quelques exemples de sommaires proleptiques dans les récits bibliques, in: J.A. EMERTON (ed.), Congress Volume Paris 1992 (VTS 61), Leiden 1995, 315–326

Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions

27

— “Our Fathers Have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives (SubBib 13), Rome 22000 SMEND, R., Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht, Berlin 1912 SOGGIN, J.A., Das Buch Genesis: Kommentar, Darmstadt 1997 SPIECKERMANN, H., Ambivalenzen: Ermöglichte und verwirklichte Schöpfung in Genesis 2f., in: Verbindungslinien (FS W.H. Schmidt), hg. von A. GRAUPNER/H. DELKURT/ A.B. ERNST, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000, 363–376 SPINOZA, B., Tractatus teologico-politicus, Amsterdam 1670 STECK, O.H., Die Paradieserzählung: Eine Auslegung von Genesis 2,4b–3,24 (BS 60), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970 = Wahrnehmungen Gottes im Alten Testament: Gesammelte Studien (ThB 70), München 1982, 9–116 STOEBE, H.J., Das erste Buch Samuelis (KAT 8/1), Gütersloh 1973 STORDALEN, T., Man, Soil, Garden: Basic Plot in Genesis 2–3 Reconsidered, JSOT 53 (1992) 3–26 — Echoes of Eden: Gen 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (CBET 25), Leuven 2000 VAN SETERS, J., Abraham in History and Tradition, New Haven, CT/London 1975 — Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis, Louisville, KY/Zürich 1992 VOGELS, W., L’être humain appartient au sol: Gen 2,4b–3,24, NRT 105 (1983) 515–534 WEIPPERT, M., Schöpfung am Anfang oder Anfang der Schöpfung? Noch einmal zu Syntax und Semantik von Gen 1,1–3, TZ 60 (2004) 5–22 WELLHAUSEN, J., Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, Berlin 1866/21889/31899 WENHAM, G.J., Genesis 1–15 (WBC), Waco, TX 1987 — The Priority of P, VT 49 (1999) 240–258 WESTERMANN, C., Genesis 37–50 (BK 1,3), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982 — Genesis 1–11 (BK I,1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974, 31983 WHYBRAY, R.N., The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament (BZAW 135), Berlin/New York 1974 WINNETT, F.V., The Mosaic Tradition, Toronto 1949 — Re-examining the Foundations, JBL 84 (1965) 1–19 WITTE, M., Die biblische Urgeschichte: Redaktions- und theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Genesis 1,1–11,26 (BZAW 265), Berlin/New York 1998 WITTER, H.B., Jura Israelitarum in Palaestinam terram Channanaeam commentatione in Genesis perpetua sic demonstrata, ut idiomatis authentici nativus sensus fideliter detegatur, Mosis auctoris primaeva intentio solicite definiatur adeoque corpus doctrinae et juris cum antiquissimum, tum consumatissimum tandem er. Accedit in paginarum fronte ipse textus hebraeus cum versione latina auctore Henningo Bernhardo Witter 1711, Hildesheim 1711 WYATT, N., Interpretating the Creation and Fall Story in Genesis 2–3, ZAW 93 (1981) 10–21

Heaven on Earth – Or Not? Jerusalem as Eden in Biblical Literature TERJE STORDALEN

1 A Terrestrial Paradise? A persistent opinion in biblical scholars’ apprehensions of Genesis 2–3 has been that the ancient audience imagined the Garden of Eden as a ‘real’ garden. According to modern views, they thought this garden was located in Babylonia or in Anatolia, or perhaps in the Far East, if not in the utmost West. In any event, it has been clear to most scholars that Eden was perceived as a ‘real’ place. A host of biblical scholars have commented upon notions of the location of paradise,1 while simultaneously disqualifying such a view as primitive, mythical, etc. Admittedly, a few scholars did doubt geographical implications in the biblical text.2 Still, the persistence of the view that the ancient audience conceived of Eden as a regular garden in time and space has been remarkable indeed.3 Now, the translation ‘east’ for Hebrew ~d,Q,mi in Gen 2:8 is far from obvious: the phrase could well mean ‘beginning, earlier, first,’ as rendered in the Vulgate (see more below). In that case, Gen 2:8 would place Eden in remote time rather than space. The earliest Jewish sources that explicitly relate a location for the Garden of Eden do in fact place it in some otherworldly realm.4 So why 1

The location of Paradise was a classic even before DELITZSCH, Paradies. From the 1880’s onwards, the issue appeared on the agenda of different disciplines, among them historical cartography, cf. SCAFI, Mapping Paradise, 21–27. From the list of subsequent prominent biblical scholars contributing to the issue, consider for instance DELITZSCH, Genesis, 81–89; DILLMANN, Genesis, 56–64; GRESSMANN, Reste, 345f.; PROCKSCH, Genesis, 24–26; ALBRIGHT, Garden of Eden; SKINNER, Genesis, 59–66; MOWINCKEL, Paradiselvene; SPEISER, Rivers, 39f.; VON RAD, Genesis, 55f. 2 For instance CASSUTO, Genesis, 118; WESTERMANN, Genesis, 294; cf. doubts in GUNKEL, Genesis, 8–9; WENHAM, Genesis, 66f.; SOGGIN, Genesis, 65–68 and explicit denial of geographical implications in MCKENZIE, Characteristics, 158; RADDAY, Four Rivers; AMIT, Utopianism. 3 Recently DIETRICH, Weltbild; NOORT, Gan-Eden, 27–34; confirm continuing interest in this issue. 4 The view first occurs in the earliest Enochic literature, in a kind of horizontal mythography, cf. TIGCHELAAR, Eden; COLLINS, Models, 65f.

Heaven on Earth – Or Not?

29

should European scholarship so persistently portray an earthly, ‘realistic’ paradise in Genesis? This propensity is as much of an enigma as the interpretation of the text itself, and the present contribution aims to address them both. Approaching the view of the Garden of Eden in European scholarship, one realises that the propensity to identify a paradise on earth has a long history and a prominent place in Western culture.5 The view of the Garden of Eden as a paradise on earth had ancient roots, although most ancient interpreters tended to assume an Eden outside of space and time.6 Christian interpreters of later Antiquity came to see the garden as a realistic landscape but simultaneously portrayed Eden as symbolic, even mythological.7 However, the reflection on a terrestrial paradise came to pervade Western culture from the Middle Ages onwards,8 spreading in culturally wide patterns and occurring in culturally central authors, artists and artefacts. Carolyn Merchant goes so far as to argue that Western thought and narrative is still inscribed with the idea of some Paradise. This inscription is so strong it keeps influencing even ‘secular’ reflection on nature.9 Keeping with this mind-set, most biblical scholars would probably agree that the narrator of Genesis saw !d,[eB.-!G: as inaccessible, but they would nevertheless insist that when locating the park in known geography the author wished ‘to demonstrate the reality of Paradise.’10 The notion that an ancient mind would require a physical garden in order to see the Garden of Eden as ‘real,’ is remarkable indeed. At the face of it, this idea seems to reflect modern rather than ancient preferences. More strikingly, this way of putting the issue stages a difference between modern thought – where utopias are not ‘real’ – and that of ancient authors – where ‘paradise,’ crudely, was a ‘real place.’ Alessandro Scafi has demonstrated that ever since the Renaissance it has been conventional to scold earlier attempts at locating paradise before launching one’s own, final reply to the matter.11 The present contribution will argue that this modern notion of the biblical idea actually misses the central point of the biblical concept. It further argues that an ancient audience would identify utopian qualities in biblical concepts of Eden, and so would not have expected to find the original park in actual geography. 5 Cf. the recent, large-scale treatment of the topic in SCAFI, Mapping Paradise. See for instance pp. 27–29.365–373. 6 For the early history, cf. HULTGÅRD, Paradies, 32–39. 7 Cf. SCAFI, Mapping Paradise, 36–57. 8 SCAFI, Mapping Paradise, 84–159, etc.; GIAMATTI, Paradise. 9 MERCHANT, Reinventing Eden. While not always adequate on the biblical material, this book gives a fascinating cultural and psychological reading of Western mind-sets. 10 Thus NOORT, Gan-Eden, 33. 11 SCAFI, Mapping Paradise, 365–370.

Terje Stordalen

30

2 Biblical Weltbilder, Communicative Competence 1) Especially in German-speaking scholarship considerable effort has been spent during the last 30 years to reconstruct ancient Weltbilder i.e. ‘mental images of the world.’12 The attempt has been undertaken on the basis of textual as well as iconographic sources, and a main impulse has been research by Othmar Keel and his students. Keel has even undertaken to draw – for didactic purposes – his own synthesis of an ancient Hebrew Weltbild documented in cosmic iconography and texts (fig. 1).13 Professor Keel is of course aware of the anachronism in the undertaking and of the problem in constructing one image from very diverse sources. Still, his sketch may be useful if taken heuristically. In this capacity it may serve as a framework for refining the question of whether or not the ancient Hebrews conceived of the Garden of Eden as ‘real.’ Translated into Keel’s drawing, the question reads: would an ancient public have conceived of the Garden of Eden as part of the terrestrial realm, i.e. the world that in Keel’s reconstruction is located between the heavenly ceiling and the seas? For our purpose the important issue is the distinction between a terrestrial and an extra-terrestrial or other-worldly realm in biblical literature. Precisely how the two realms were imagined is a challenging question, but it does not undermine the fact that there was some distinction. 2) Although scholars describe Genesis 2–3 as a particularly ‘isolated’ piece of literature, biblical reflections of the Garden of Eden do in fact come in a large number.14 However, identifying these reflections is complicated. In order to adequately find allusions, one would need to have a command of ancient Hebrew perceptions of gardens, trees, rivers, etc., and of their associations. Only thus could one build the communicative competence required to recognise reflections and echoes of Genesis 2–3. The result would be that !d,[eB.-!G: hovers behind at least 30 biblical passages, possibly many more. This is not the place to argue the case. I can only quote a selection of passages, briefly state my apprehension of these, and beg the reader’s pardon for referring to my own and others’ previous works for further arguments and higher precision.

12

See contributions in JANOWSKI/EGO, Weltbild, with sources and secondary litera-

ture. 13 14

KEEL, Weltbilder, no. 13, = KEEL/SCHROER, Schöpfung, no. 85. For this and the following, see STORDALEN, Echoes, 21f.28–30.71.305–317, etc.

Heaven on Earth – Or Not?

31

3 Eden and the Garden as Topography: Some Passages 3.1 Explicit References We limit ourselves to topographical applications of Eden as a symbol, and for practical reasons to literature in Tanak. The most obvious references would be four similes. In these passages Jordan (like Egypt) as well as Zion and the land around Jerusalem are all compared to Eden, the Garden of Eden, or the Garden of YHWH: Gen 13:10 Lot lifted his eyes, and he saw the entire plain of Jordan, that all of it was well watered – this was before YHWH destroyed Sodom and Gomorra – like the garden of YHWH, like the land of Egypt, all the way to Zoar.

~dos.-ta, hw"hy> txev; ynEp.li hq,v.m; HL'ku yKi !Der>Y:h; rK;Ki-lK'-ta, ar>Y:w: wyn"y[e-ta, jAl-aF'YIw: `r[;co hk'a]Bo ~yIr;c.mi #r,a,K. hw"hy>-!g:K. hr'mo[]-ta,w> Isa 51:3 Yes, YHWH has pity on Zion. He has compassion for all her wasteland. He made her wilderness like Eden, her desert like the garden of YHWH. Joy and gladness will be found in her, thanksgiving and the sound of song.

h'yt,bor>x'-lK' ~x;nI !AYci hw"hy> ~x;nI-yKi hw"hy>-!g:K. Ht'b'r>[;w> !d,[eK. Hr'B'd>mi ~f,Y"w: `hr'm.zI lAqw> hd'AT Hb' aceM'yI hx'm.fiw> !Aff' Ezek 36:35 They will say [about Zion]: This desolated land has become like the Garden of Eden, and the wasted, deserted and ruined cities — people now live in their strongholds.

!d,[e-!g:K. ht'y>h' hM'v;N>h; WzLeh; #r,a'h' Wrm.a'w> `Wbv'y" tArWcB. tAsr'h/N tAMv;n>h;w> tAbrex\h, ~yrI['h,w> Joel 2:3 Before them fire devours, and behind them a flame consumes. The land before them is like the Garden of Eden, while behind is waste wilderness. Indeed, nothing escapes them.

hb'h'l, jhel;T. wyr'x]a;w> vae hl'k.a' wyn"p'l. hm'm'v. rB;d>mi wyr'x]a;w> wyn"p'l. #r,a'h' !d,[e-!g:K. `AL ht'y>h'-al{ hj'yleP.-~g:w> In Ezekiel 31:2–9 Pharaoh and Egypt are compared to Assyria and its king. Both princes are portrayed in the image of a major tree in Eden. Within this allegorical mode, the lands of Egypt and Assyria respectively then compare to the Garden of Eden:

Terje Stordalen

32

Ezek 31:3.8–9 Behold, Assyria , that cedar of Lebanon, beautiful branches and high stature. Among clouds was his crown.

`ATr>M;c; ht'y>h' ~ytibo[] !ybeW hm'Aq Hb;g>W lc;me vr,xow> @n"[' hpey> !Anb'L.B; zr,a, rWVa; hNEhi … Cedars did not overshadow him in the Garden of God, cypresses did not compare [even] to his limbs, plane trees were not [even] like his boughs. No tree in the Garden of God matched him in his beauty.

wyt'Po[;s.-la, Wmd' al{ ~yviArB.. ~yhil{a/-!g:B. Whmum'[]-al{ ~yzIr'a] `Ayp.y"B. wyl'ae hm'd'-al{ ~yhil{a/-!g:B #[e-lK' wyt'roapoK. Wyh'-al{ ~ynImor>[;w> Because of his many branches they envied him, every Eden-tree that was in the Garden of God.

`~yhil{a/h' !g:B. rv,a] !d,[e-yce[]-lK' Whaun>q;y>w: wyt'AYliD' broB. wytiyfi[] hp,y" The point in this passage is that Pharaoh will fall, just like the king of Assyria did. Both fall because of self-glorification, like Adam in Genesis 3. For Assyria this symbolic fall connects to a past catastrophe, whereas for Egypt it is a warning for the future. Ezekiel 28:11–19 must have had a complicated textual history and before that an intricate redaction history. As indicated in studies by Emmanuel Tov, the LXX often reflects an earlier text in Ezekiel.15 In Ezek 28:11–19 the text of MT is best explained as an alteration of a Hebrew base text for the LXX. Due to the parallel between Ezek 28:13 LXX and the description of the priestly robe in Exod 28:17–20 and 39:10–13, this is one of the few instances where it would seem possible to work back from the Greek towards its assumed Hebrew Vorlage.16 Still, I limit myself to quoting the translation of the presumed earlier text only: Ezek 28:12b–15* You were a seal of perfection, perfect in beauty. In Eden, the Garden of God, you were, covering yourself with precious stones: sardius, topaz and emerald; carbuncle, sapphire and jasper; and silver and gold, ligure, agate and amethyst; chrysolite, beryl and onyx. The handwork on your tambourines were gold, and your larger drums (?) were with you. On the day you were born, I placed you with the cherub. You were on the Holy mountain of God, among fire stones.

15

TOV, Recensional Differences; cf. TOV, Textual Criticism, 333f. For all this, see STORDALEN, Echoes, Appendix 2 (pp. 478f.) and discussion pp. 335–348. 16

Heaven on Earth – Or Not?

33

You were blameless in your ways from the day you were born until there was found inequity in you.

The enumeration of precious stones in the ‘covering’ matches that of the high priest outfit in Exod 28:17–20; 39:10–13. It seems to me, therefore, that Bernard Gosse must be correct when concluding that we have here an example of a redirected oracle.17 The original oracle behind Ezek 28:11–19 would have been directed at the high priest in Jerusalem. It was later re-directed to the priestly ruler of Tyre. For our purpose the point is that the oracle then indicates that the temple in Zion and also the one in Tyre could be seen ‘as Eden,’ and their princely priests ‘as being in the role of Adam.’ These six passages – no less than half of them from the Book of Ezekiel – are the non-ambiguous references to Eden in Tanak outside Genesis 2–4. However, this text basis allows detection of further allusions to Eden in biblical Hebrew literature. 3.2 Samples of Implicit References 1) First, the temple is the source of a fantastic, life-supporting river in Ezek 47:1–12.18 For the topographically competent it is clear that the river emanates in the vicinity of the historical spring Gihon, which is, of course, a homonym of one of those rivers in Gen 2:10–14. Eden is the source of the river (rh'n") in Gen 2:10, and in Ezekiel 47 the river goes forth under the House (tyIB;h; !T;p.mi tx;T;mi ~yaic.yO ~yIm;-hNEhiw>, v. 1). Along its course the river brings healing and life. On the shores grow trees that yield harvest every month, their fruit for food and their leaves for healing. Similarly the trees in the Garden of Eden yielded their fruit richly, and at least one of the trees apparently had the capacity to support enduring life. Given the prominence of the motif in the book, this should be understood as yet another vision of Zion ‘as Eden.’ Similar visions occur in Zech 14:8–11 and Joel 4:18. Additional terminological indications confirm that these passages do allude to the Eden complex. Zech 14:8–11: On that day, running water shall go forth (~yYIx;-~yIm; Wac.yE) from Jerusalem, half to the Eastern Sea and half to the Western Sea. Thus it shall be in summer and in winter. YHWH shall be king over the entire earth. On that day, YHWH will be one, and his name one. It shall go around the entire land – [now being] like the desert (hb'r'[]K' #r,a'h'-lK' bASyI) from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem. 17 18

GOSSE, Ezéchiel 28,11–19; GOSSE, Recueil d`oracles. For the following, see STORDALEN, Echoes, 363–368.

Terje Stordalen

34

She [Jerusalem] shall be high, residing in her site, from the Gate of Benjamin to the place of the former gate, to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king’s wine presses. They shall live in her, and there shall be no more destruction. Jerusalem shall dwell in security. Joel 4:18: On that day, mountains shall drip new wine, the hills shall flow with milk, and every ravine of Judah will flow with water. A source shall go forth from the House of YHWH, watering the brook of Shittim.

hd'Why> yqeypia]-lk'w> bl'x' hn"k.l;Te tA[b'G>h;w > sysi[' ~yrIh'h, WpJ.yI aWhh; ~AYb; hy"h'w> `~yJiVih; lx;n:-ta, hq'v.hiw> aceyE hw"hy> tyBemi !y"[.m;W ~yIm' Wkl.yE 2) Biblical literature portrays gardens as shrines – despite theological opposition to such cults in certain trajectories of the collection. From the Book of Jubilees it is evident that an ancient Jewish audience would indeed have been able to see the Garden of Eden as a shrine.19 One reason to see the garden as a temple is found in the guarding cherubs in Gen 3:24, as has long been noted.20 The constellation of a tree guarded by theriomorph figures is fairly universal in ancient Near Eastern iconography: such creatures guard entries to cultic domains. As part of the vision of the new temple (chs. 40–48) Ezekiel gives this description of the ornamentation of the central hall of the temple: 41:17b–20, 25f (NRSV): And on all the walls all around in the inner room and the nave there was a pattern. It was formed of cherubim and palm trees, a palm tree between cherub and cherub. Each cherub had two faces: a human face turned toward the palm tree on the one side, and the face of a young lion turned toward the palm tree on the other side. They were carved on the whole temple all around; from the floor to the area above the door, cherubim and palm trees were carved on the wall. … On the doors of the nave were carved cherubim and palm trees, such as were carved on the walls; and there was a canopy of wood in front of the vestibule outside. And there were recessed windows and palm trees on either side, on the side-walls of the vestibule.

Add to this palm trees in the inside ornamentation (Ezek 40:22.26.31. 34.37), and it would seem unavoidable that the temple in Ezekiel’s vision relates to the Garden of Eden. 3) We turn to Qoh 2:1–11, keeping in mind the above symbolic identification of Jerusalem as Eden. Obviously, !d,[eB.-!G: was a garden; most likely it was conceived of as a grandiose park like royal parks in Assyria or Baby19 20

See recently RUITEN, Eden. Explicitly already in JAROŠ, Bildmotive; WENHAM, Sanctuary Symbolism.

Heaven on Earth – Or Not?

35

lonia.21 The existence of similar gardens in West Semitic culture is attested in Mari (the Court of Palms) and reflected in Ugarit (Keret as well as Aqhat). Generally, biblical descriptions of royal fertility (as in Psalm 72) coincide well with the ideology Assyrian rulers expressed in their royal gardens. And in a recent article Francesca Stavrakopoulou argued for seeing the Garden of Uzza (2.Kgs 21:18.26) as a site for a royal ancestor cult.22 This, if accepted, would be an example of a cultic garden in Jerusalem, and one confirming chthonic associations of gardens found elsewhere in the ancient Near East.23 On this background Qoh 2:1–11, reports a ‘royal experiment’ that brings us as close as we ever get to a royal park in biblical literature: Qoh 2:4–6 I enlarged my works, I built myself houses and planted vineyards. I made me gardens and parks and planted in them every fruit tree. (`yrIP,-lK' #[e ~h,b' yTi[.j;n"w> ~ysiDer>p;W tANG: yli ytiyfi[') I made myself water pools to fertilise a forest of flourishing trees.

Qohelet creates a pardes, which is here a Persian loan word that originally denoted royal parks. As described recently again by Hultgård, this Persian word gave birth to Western words for ‘paradise,’ and it also created, through its use in LXX Gen 2:8 an associative connection between the phenomenon itself and the kind of installation described in Genesis 2–3.24 If, indeed Qoh 2 is later than LXX Gen 2:8, the implication would be that Qohelet created something like a local Eden. And more: unlike Adam he retained his wisdom, and in contrast with Eve, he was able to follow the desire of his eyes without falling into vanity. He achieved a state of balance when enjoying the blessings of Eden. Qoh 2:9–10 I became great and I surpassed everyone before me in Jerusalem – even my wisdom remained with me. (`yLi hd'm.[' ytim'k.x' @a; ~l'iv'WryBi yn:p'l. hy"h'v, lKomi yTip .s;Ahw> yTil.d;g"w>) Anything my eyes asked for, I did not restrain from them. (~h,me yTil.c;a' al{ yn:y[e Wla]v' rv,a] lkow>) I did not refuse my heart any kind of pleasure, indeed my heart took pleasure in all my work, and this was my portion from all my toil.

4) Rounding off, I would state that it is not novel to claim allusions to Eden in any single one of these passages, although the allusions are usually 21

See STORDALEN, Echoes 94–102 (with literature) and recently HULTGÅRD, Para-

dies. 22

STAVRAKOPOULOU, Garden of Uzza. See STORDALEN, Echoes, 105–111, et passim. 24 HULTGÅRD, Paradies, 12–20. 23

Terje Stordalen

36

not accumulated and interconnected in the way set out here. A web of additional allusions could be spun. Among the instances would be passages depicting Jerusalem or Zion as a garden, as a source of brooks and rivers (physical or spiritual), as a spender of abundance, as a location for peace and harmony, etc. This web would tie Eden symbolism into the blessings and curses in Leviticus 26 and include the vyaih'-yrev.a; of Psalm 1. However, remaining within our designated focus, we can ascertain that Eden is applied frequently in literature from the Persian and the Hellenistic era, within literary symbolic modes, to various topographical entities, and for a number of rhetorical purposes. In all these passages Eden symbolises qualities of life, abundance and peace, all according with the popular etymology of the root !d[; luxuriance25: Passage

Literary Mode

Topographical entity Denoting....

Gen 13:10 Isa 51:3 Ezek 28:11–19 Ezek 31:2–9 Ezek 36:35 Ezek 41:17–25 Ezek 47:1–11 Joel 2:3 Joel 4:8 Zech 14:8–11 Qoh 2:1–11

Simile Simile Metaphor (allegory) Allegory Simile Visionary report Symbolic vision Simile Metaphor (allegory) Metaphor (allegory) Narrative

Jordan (like Egypt) Zion Jerusalem (Tyre) Assyria (Egypt) The land of Israel Envisioned temple Envisioned Zion Zion with land Temple, Judah Jerusalem with land Jerusalem

Present blessing Expected future restoration Past glory and loss Past/future glory and loss Expected future restoration Envisioned glory Envisioned blessing Present glory, future loss Future bliss Future bliss Present blessing (?)

4 Jerusalem as Eden 4.1 Figurative Speech The above passages are cast mostly in figurative speech: similes, metaphors (on the brink of extending into allegories26), and one full blown allegory (Ezek 31:2–9). Even the visions and the visionary reports would be figurative literature, since they report something that does not (yet) exist, and they do so by the use of symbolism. As figures of speech and symbolic literature, these references do not suggest that Jerusalem and Eden are identical or even simply similar. On the contrary, figurative speech names associations despite recognised differences. In symbolic similes one would expect that the comparison be done between entities of different catego-

25 26

See STORDALEN, Echoes 257–261, with literature. For theory on such extension, see BJØRNDALEN, Untersuchungen.

Heaven on Earth – Or Not?

37

ries,27 in which case Eden would not be a garden or landscape of the same kind as Jerusalem-Zion. There are of course also non-metaphorical similes, so one cannot draw firm conclusions from this argument alone. Still, the assumption that Jerusalem is not identified as Eden is evident also in the fact that the figure applies to Jordan, Tyre, Egypt (twice) and Assyria as well, and in fact to more than one entity in two or three of the passages (Genesis 13, Ezekiel 31, and probably 28). 4.2 Utopian Biblical Literature Scholarly debate on utopian biblical literature is less than extensive.28 Clearly, the Bible does not contain any full-fledged utopia in the pattern of Sir Thomas More’s Utopia. Nevertheless, scholars like Steven Schweitzer and Kathleen O’Connor have convincingly argued that it is reasonable to identify utopian contents and literary techniques in biblical literature.29 A few biblical scholars have in fact recorded Genesis 2–3 as utopian,30 and in this view they are accompanied by literary critics.31 Steven Schweitzer (relying on Roland Boer and others) lists some of the more striking identifiers of utopian literature. Among them he recognises a ‘contraction between narrative and description of the utopian place, contraction between the description itself and any efforts at graphic presentation, and a dialectic of disjunction and connection between the constructed utopia and the outside world’ (p. 20). He further claims that while utopian literature appears to present a closed, inaccessible system, this is an illusion: the utopian systems actually resist closure and remain remarkably open to inconsistencies and change as well as to cross-referencing towards the world from which they are so programmatically distant. This is not the place for a lengthy argument on utopianism in biblical literature. Suffice it to state one major point that is salient for our purpose. Utopias are a particular kind of ‘place’: they have space and yet they cannot be located. According with this paradox there is a kind of realism in utopias. They present realities that are not, but that could or should or would have been. Hence, utopian literature sometimes provokes the reader

27

With FOGELIN, Figuratively Speaking. I rely in particular upon entries in BEN ZVI, Utopia and Dystopia; cf. COLLINS, Models; entries in AICHELE/PIPPIN, Violence; TARLIN, Utopia; AMIT, Utopianism, and earlier EBACH, Kritik. 29 SCHWEITZER, Utopia, 13–16; O'CONNOR, Visions, 86f. 30 BEN ZVI, Utopias, 56, n. 1; COLLINS, Models, 51f. 31 CLAEYS/SARGENT, Utopia Reader, 6; NEVILLE-SINGTON/SINGTON, Paradise Dreamed, 4. 28

Terje Stordalen

38

to implement realistic blueprints of the utopian vision.32 Utopia as a figurative mode seems to rely heavily upon this functionality.33 4.3 Eden as Utopia 1) Two of the above passages associate the temple of Jerusalem to Eden: Ezek 28:11–19 and 41:17–25. In a recent article Hanna Liss deals at length with Ezekiel’s temple vision as utopia.34 She claims its temporal data constitute a ‘fictionalised chronology’ (p. 131) loaded with symbolic sense, a ‘liturgical reality’ (p. 130): ‘in place of the prophetic experience, headed by an exact date, one finds a text, alluding to a variety of dating possibilities’ (p. 132). The spatial information of the plot similarly carries symbolic sense. It ‘functions as a “map”, allowing the “house” to exist outside of a geographical […] place.’ (p. 136). In view of the complete lack of humans in the envisioned temple as well as the unmediated and permanent presence of the divine dAbK', Liss concludes: ’The author(s) of Ezek 40–43* describe(s) a temple that should never be built (since it had already been erected by God or whomever when Ezekiel entered it in his vision) as well as a temple that was never built (since no one ever built the temple described in the vision)’ (p. 142, with italics). In this reading the temple in Ezekiel 40–43 occurs as a classic utopia; a place that never existed but still inspired the creation of concrete replicas. As seen in 41:17– 25, this non-existent model carried connotations of the Garden of Eden. Similar connotations are found also in the description of the Solomonic temple in 1.Kgs 6:29.35 One might note that this view of Eden as a kind of model for the Jerusalem temple concords with Thomas More’s depiction of Utopia as a land devoid of disruptive social forces. In a very interesting discourse David Harvey analyses this aspect of Utopia and its relevance to the temporarily enacted utopias.36 Seen from with inside of such a symbolism, a priest serving in a temple that is a ‘blueprint’ of Eden, would of course himself be ‘as in Eden.’ This gives a perfect rationale for addressing the High Priest ‘as Adam’ in Ezekiel 28. Therefore both of Ezekiel’s applications of the Eden motif to the cultic realm may see Eden as utopian. The symbolism stretches beyond the Book of Ezekiel and founds additional Eden allusions, such as those de32

This is a main point in Neville-Sington/Sington, Paradise Dreamed, see 83f., etc. It seems to me that this apprehension of utopian literature is at odds with some of the biblical utopias proposed in BEN ZVI, Utopia and Dystopia. 34 LISS, Temple Vision. 35 BLOCH-SMITH, King of Glory, 27 associates these to Eden. See recently SMITH, Like Deities, 7 (with further literature). 36 HARVEY, Spaces of Hope, 159–173. Thanks to Prof. Sidsel Roaldkvam, Oslo, for pointing out this connection. 33

Heaven on Earth – Or Not?

39

scribing the pious as flourishing trees in the court of the Lord (Ps 52:10; 92:13–15).37 2) The literary mode in Qoh 2:1–11 is perhaps less obvious. On the surface this is a narrative report of constructional undertakings. However, the report is clearly fictional, classified as a typical ‘fictional autobiography’ by Tremper Longman.38 Add to this the above convention of seeing Jerusalem ‘as Eden’ and the identification of wisdom as a tree-of-life in Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12 and 15:439 – the only occurrences of ~yYIx;-#[e outside Genesis 3. In light of this Qoh 2:1–11 could be read as a report on a fictional attempt to create an Eden in Jerusalem.40 That would again be a local blueprint of an utopian Eden. 4.4 Rivers from Eden: Cosmic Symbolism Three of the above passages portray rivers emanating from Zion just like the river emerged from Eden in Gen 2:10 (!d,[eme aceyO rh'n"w>): Ezek 47:1–11; Joel 4:18; Zech 14:8–11. Many of the observations by Hanna Liss on Ezekiel 40–43 apply also to Ezek 47:1–11. The measuring (with numeric symbolism) is similar. The fantastic trees have a parallel in the fantastic (and symbolically more poignant) appearance of hw"hy>-dAbk' in ch. 43. The temple in the vision did not exist, nor could a river like the one in 47:1–11 be spotted in daily life. However, the visions in Ezek 47:1–11; Joel 4:18; Zech 14:8–11 change as the rivers reach the land around Jerusalem. While exaggerated, the described transformations resemble those of, say, Ps 65:10–14. In Walter Zimmerli’s commentary to Ezekiel 47, precisely this element of the text was seen as problematic: it seemed to him to constitute points of contact between the utterly holy temple and the clearly unclean Dead Sea.41 His solution was to assume a surge of ‘non cultic’ reflection in the middle of the temple vision. However, a better solution is to regard this as part of a conventional cosmic repertoire on divine presence, creation and rejuvenation of the earth. These cosmic dimensions of the shrine go alongside the cultic ones and have a different symbolical grammar: their point is precisely to bring the effect of the deity to the world. The wording in Ezek. 47:9 confirms a cosmological orientation: ‘all living creatures that swarm’ (#rov.yI-rv,a] hY"x; vp,na;l. hy"h'w> dreP'yI ~V'miW !G"h;-ta, tAqv.h;l. !d,[eme aceyO rh'n"w> “A river sprang forth from Eden to water the garden. From there it divided and became four heads.”

So the river runs into four new sources much like the second vases in conventional iconography (above). These sources would then be four entry points for distributing cosmic water to the world. We could perhaps venture – in the spirit of Othmar Keel – to draw our own picture of all this. If so, I would imagine the human and the divine

55 SCAFI, Mapping Paradise, see esp. figures 6.3, 6.5, 6.8, 6.10, 6.11, 6.12 = 6.15, 6.20, 7.1, 7.3. 56 MCKENZIE, Characteristics, 158; RADDAY, Four Rivers; AMIT, Utopianism, and cf. further STORDALEN, Echoes, 270–286.

Terje Stordalen

44

world as two sides of a two-sided amulet of some kind.57 On the obverse, divine side would be an image something like fig. 5, portraying the deity and the cosmic river that divides and becomes four sources. On the reverse, human side would be a very approximate image of the ancient world. The entry points of cosmic water would be at the periphery of the human world, just as the exit points are at the periphery on the obverse side. (This pattern of peripheral points of transition between the human and the divine world is known for instance in tablet IX of the Neo-Assyrian Gilgamesh where the hero enters the jewel garden in the land Mashu.) Once commuted into the reverse, human world, one could perhaps still expect the cosmic rivers to make ‘leaps’ (as implied in fig. 6). This could be one explanation why Gihon of Jerusalem would be connected to the Gihon–Nile (through a word pun, no less!). According with Ezekiel 47:1–11 these rivers grow forcefully along their courses. When they converge towards the centre of the world, they accumulate a veritable potential for echoing Eden in the central regions. From an ancient Hebrew point of view, this allows for recognising divine qualities in Jordan, Tyre, Egypt, Assyria, and of course Jerusalem. While admittedly creative, this way of reading corresponds to what Alessandro Scafi in his cartographic tour de force called a new road to the past. It is preferable over the historical-critical road for one important reason. Instead of presuming the adequacy of modern, geographical and other analytical perceptions, it tries to make use of whatever iconographical and topographical concepts are known to have existed in the the cultural context of Gen 2:8–14.

7 Ou-topos: The Garden of Eden in a New Key 7.1 Paradises On Maps Translating the above insights back into Othmar Keel’s Weltbild (fig. 1), we would say that to an ancient Hebrew mind the Garden of Eden was located outside of the human world. It related to the human world through cosmic rivers transmitted through cosmographical sources into historical rivers. While not generally entertained in exegetical scholarship, such a view of the Garden of Eden corresponds for instance to Eliade’s interpretation of paradise as utopia or to the view of Fritz Stolz that paradises are

57

My two models for imagining such an amulet are first the Assyrian bronze tablet rendered in KEEL, Bildsymbolik, nos. 91–92, and secondly the so-called Babylonian World Map, cf. HOROWITZ, Cosmic Geography, 402.

Heaven on Earth – Or Not?

45

Gegenwelten (‘contrast worlds’).58 Similarly, Northrop Frye identifies a number of paradises (including Genesis 2–3) as utopian.59 In his study of mediaeval cartography, Allesandro Scafi found that the Garden of Eden plotted onto a map was usually a cognitive representation of aspects of reality thought to be accessible through, say, a spiritual journey or an imaginary journey in time.60 He also found that this cognitive representation became increasingly strange, indeed untenable, to scholars of the Renaissance and later eras. Gradually, Western scholars became unable to grasp the very sense of the representations on the maps. Instead, they engaged in a new discourse on the whereabouts of Paradise, gradually more restricted by ‘realistic’ geographical and cartographical concepts. Biblical and assyriological scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth century and their attempts to identify locations of Eden were of course conditioned by this general development: as scholars we always construct the objects of our scholarship according to how they are conceived of in our cultural context. The inevitable implication is that scholarly interpretations of the Garden of Eden missed the overall character and the salient points of the biblical vision. The present contribution is an attempt to restore in biblical scholarship a memory, a construction of utopian space that allows us to make sense of the many references seeing Jerusalem (and other topographical entities) ‘as Eden.’ 7.2 Cosmology in (Christian) Theologies The idea of a Garden of Eden is part of cosmology. However, subsequent to the abuse of biblical cosmology by das Dritte Reich, Christian theologians have avoided according much significance to biblical cosmology.61 The fear was that cosmological theology would again be self-uncritical and oppressive, lending itself to disastrous ventures. The bulwark against biblical echoes of Blut und Erde was a consistent focus upon the role of history in biblical theology and something close to negligence of cosmology and mythology. Support for this evaluation of cosmology could be distilled from the book Map Is Not Territory by Jonathan Z. Smith. This intriguing book identifies in religion two competing models for perceiving sacred space: the central-locative and the peripheral-utopian models.62 The central-locative model identifies the universe as a closed, bounded and regulated world. Sacred space is integral to social order, and cosmic harmony is at58

ELIADE, Paradise; STOLZ, Paradiese. FRYE, Literary Utopias, 34–36. 60 SCAFI, Mapping Paradise, 27f.182f., etc. 61 Evidently so already in VON RAD, Problem. 62 For this paragraph, see SMITH, Map, xi–xii; 130–46.160–171.293f. 59

Terje Stordalen

46

tained by everyone taking his or her proper place. In this world deities fight cosmic powers to establish cosmic order. Human rulers fight historical enemies to establish social order, and the cosmic and social rulers are associated. Gods and kings establish centres, palaces, temples that become points of reference in a universe of categories and boundaries. Salvation is communicated in time and space and is controlled by those managing the centres and the boundaries. The challenge for the central-locative model, according to Smith, is that individuals and societies sometimes need to escape from the despotism of this world to attain a world of freedom and openness.63 For this purpose the peripheral-utopian model emerges. This is a vision where humans are challenged to rebel against the present world order, where truly sacred space lies not in the cosmos but beyond it. Rather than taking one’s place, one must escape the restraints of one’s place and ravage the ruling order – because it is perverse. Smith claims that both models remain existential possibilities and may be appropriated when relevant. The fact that one view dominates a given culture does not affect the availability of both.64 One could in fact see this book as an attempt to restore the academic (and religious) relevance of temple and ritual.65 Still, Smith’s association between the central-locative model and the ruling classes renders this religion as potentially problematic. Smith himself portrayed how the central-locative model spread in biblical studies after the discovery of Mesopotamian mythologies in the 1870’s.66 The view is typical to ancient Near Eastern elite literature and it reflects urban bureaucracy values.67 It has become common to interpret dynastic Hebrew religion (the kind mainly expressed in the Hebrew Bible) as ruled by a central-locative view of the universe.68 All this invites the view that a vision of Jerusalem ‘as Eden’ could be part of a socially repressive elite strategy to enforce boundaries and regulate the ancient Hebrew social universe. As interpreters of this allimportant cultural document called the Bible, we need to ask ourselves: can we defend dignifying cosmologies of Eden by studying them? 7.3 Eden Cosmology – Symbolic and Utopian 1) Symbolic cosmology. Jerusalem is symbolically identified as Eden, and several of the passages above emphasise present or future discontinuity between the model and its target. The cities in Isa 51:3 and Ezek 36:35 are 63

See in particular SMITH, Map, 138–40.160–169.185–89. SMITH, Map, 101, cf. 188f. 65 Cf. also SMITH, Take Place. 66 SMITH, Map, 293. 67 SMITH, Map, xi. 68 As much was recently explicitly stated by CRENSHAW, Deceitful Minds, 107–110. 64

Heaven on Earth – Or Not?

47

presented in an embarrassing state. The temple in Ezekiel 40–43 was never built. Such constructions point to shortcomings of Jerusalem or the temple ‘as Eden.’ Obviously, the party that has the privilege to define the model (i.e. the literati) also has more power to interpret and applyit. That, however, goes for any system and not just central-locative ones. The point is that the positively existing temple is not identified as the norm: the system provides a measure against which the actual city or temple may be (and in fact: were) criticised. Since the symbolism is fairly open and the story possibly popular, this view of Eden as Jerusalem invites a distribution of the power symbolism. It could be argued, I maintain, that myths in general are part of symbolic speech.69 If that is correct, the notion that cosmology is consistently authoritarian, is perhaps up for review. Returning to Genesis 2–3, we find that the hero – who is symbolically to be identified as a ruler – is portrayed doing something that is not condoned by the deity. The same possibility applies to any historical person aspiring to assume the role of ‘Adam.’ In Ezek 28:11–19* the Eden story is in fact used to criticise the high priest (and a similar use may be read in 2.Chron 26:3–13).70 Ezekiel 31 and 28:11–19 testify to the critical potential of the story by applying it to princes of Tyre, Assyria, and Egypt. The view of Jerusalem as Eden did indeed nurture a potential for criticism against the authorities. 2) Utopian cosmology. Biblical Eden is a place that never ‘really’ existed, but that nevertheless is conceivable through its echoes (blueprints) in the human world. By modern standards, a characteristic function of the utopian is its potential for social critique.71 David Harvey in his marvellous book on utopia and hope makes a distinction between genuine and ‘degenerate’ utopias. The category ‘degenerate utopia’ (taken from L. Marin) names installations like Disneyland: fantasy worlds that have lost the potential for social critique.72 Genuine utopias, on the other hand, retain this potential. Harvey demonstrates that genuine utopias promote hope through social and cultural criticism even in modern urbanism. In a thematically parallel discussion Martin Parker points to the devastating effects of simply identifying aspects of the modern American Utopia in the actual Manhattan and its social and economic organisation, embodied in the World Trade Centre.73 69

STORDALEN, Echoes, 62–67; ID., Mother Earth. Cf. STORDALEN, Echoes, 446f. 71 NEVILLE-SINGTON/SINGTON, Paradise Dreamed and entries in PARRINDER, Learning. 72 HARVEY, Hope, 163–169, etc. 73 PARKER, Utopia, esp. 1f. 70

48

Terje Stordalen

It seems to me the most common way for a utopia to loose its critical potential is when the distance (topographically, qualitatively, etc.) between a utopian model and its historical implementation evaporates. Further, I suggest that the mind-set that has historically forgotten this distance – or, in fact, tried to overcome it by implementing full scale utopian social and economic experiments – is the same mind-set that invited biblical scholars to identify a geographical Eden in the ancient text. It is in the rich, late nineteenth and twentieth century western civilisations that a general lack of awareness about the distance between a utopia and its historical blueprints is at all possible. As opposed to this, the biblical ~d,Q,mi !d,[eB.-!G: retains a potential for social critique by its being portrayed as a non-place, an ou-topos. As part of the otherworldly realm the garden would have been in a liminal state.74 A central aspect of liminality is its potential to reverse social order.75 That potential is evident in Genesis 2–3. The world of the narrative pairs with that of the medieval annual carnival as interpreted by Mikhail Bakhtin: an upside-down world existing only as an enacted fantasy and only within a window of space and time.76 Genesis 2–3 has a strand of reversals: stated aims are achieved in unexpected fashions and with unforeseen consequences.77 For instance, had Adam not eaten of the forbidden tree, we would all still be running naked around in front of YHWH, which would not be a good thing according to biblical values.78 With its cunning beast, controlling woman, weak male/king, and a God failing to foresee the outcome of the story, this narrative certainly suspends established social conventions for a while. James Crenshaw has addressed what he regards as divine oppression in the Bible. In his view, wisdom literature is the only biblical voice really challenging divinely legitimated oppression. Apparently, sapiential sages developed the mental and moral capacities required for such a task.79 Now, with Macdonald, Alonso-Schökel and others one could argue that Genesis 2–3 is indeed a sapiential discourse.80 Two of the Eden passages express a critique of the Eden motif itself. In Genesis 2–3 there is a narrator speak74 There are indications that cultic and mythic gardens were conceived of as border areas between the human and the divine realm, see STORDALEN, Echoes, 161. 75 TURNER, Ritual Process, esp. 94–97. 76 BAKHTIN, Rabelais. On the matter of using Bakthin’s interpretation of mediaeval literature to apprehend biblical wisdom, see STORDALEN, Dialogue, 35–37. 77 See further STORDALEN, Echoes, 217f. 78 This apprehension of the knowledge gained by eating is now fairly common among scholars. Arguments in STORDALEN, Echoes, 228f.235–237. 79 See CRENSHAW, Whirlpool; ID., Education, 255–277; and recently ID., Deceitful Minds. 80 STORDALEN, Echoes, 206–210, with further literature.

Heaven on Earth – Or Not?

49

ing from the point of view of present human realities.81 The implication is that Eden was perhaps not all that perfect after all. A parallel critique is aired in Qohelet 2:11, where building and enjoying a replicate of Eden amounts to ‘vanity and a chasing after wind’ (NRSV). 7.4 Eden – Simultaneously Locative and Utopian In Jonathan Smith’s terminology, the view of Eden as Jerusalem combines the central-locative and the peripheral-utopian into one model. On the one hand, the Eden narrative confirms human desire for gratuity and blessings and also human abilities to identify, apparently intuitively, what is in fact good and desirable. In so doing this biblical utopia verifies the very world itself. Although Eden can not be located, it does have space (Schweitzer) and so it is experienced in specific topography. One might assume the real enigma of Eden is the model’s ability to give shape to an otherwise silent cognition about the fabric of boons, values, propensities, and abilities that support human well-being. On the other hand, the biblical story resists any plain identification between the Garden of Eden and any given historical blueprint. Thus it also resists being used for legitimising purposes. Granted, there are examples, even inside biblical and early Jewish tradition that did apparently turn the story into religious propaganda. The most obvious example is Hodayoth 16.82 In this song an allegory of Eden is applied to legitimise the singer’s congregation ‘as Eden’ despite its apparent humility. More grandiose competing religious communities are labelled as usurpers of Eden. In Ezekiel 28:11–19* we seem to hear the echo of a similar application of the story to the benefit of the princely priest in Jerusalem. As opposed to this, the biblical material in general defies identifications between historical entities and the Garden of Eden. While clearly recognised as examples of supreme blessing and bliss, the priest of Jerusalem, the prince of Tyre, or the king of Assyria could not convince the biblical reader that their version of Eden is indeed the ultimate one. The story contains, so to speak, its own antidote. This simultaneous confirmation of radiant blessing and disallowance of its claim for finality is the great contribution of this story. It locates humankind always ‘beyond Eden’: anyone claiming to ‘actually’ be inside the Garden, has in fact entered a different Eden than the one found in biblical literature. This is rather different from industrial Western culture where utopian ideals are first scaled down a little, converted into social, political, or eco81

For arguments, see STORDALEN, Echoes, 216f.225f.229.249. 1QH 16 according to the current reconstruction. This was col. 8 according to Sukenik’s system. For a discussion of this passage, see STORDALEN, Echoes, 431–433. 82

50

Terje Stordalen

nomical visions, and then actually implemented in large-scale experiments. The mythologies of industrial European political utopias aim to locate us all, realistically, within their promised lands.83 I propose it must have been the inscription by such, often subconscious, concepts of utopia that convinced biblical scholars and assyriologists that the ancients too operated with basically realistic paradises. And because of the geographical framework in Gen 2:8–14, the expected realism was identified as geography and the Garden of Eden became a terrestrial paradise. Hopefully the present paper has shown there may be advantages for reflection on historical as well as on contemporary matters if modern unconscious mythologies are suspended when trying to make sense of biblical references to Jerusalem as Eden.

Bibliography AICHELE, G./PIPPIN, T. (eds.), Violence, Utopia, and The Kingdom of God: Fantasy and Ideology in the Bible, London 1998 ALBRIGHT, W.F., The Location of the Garden of Eden, AJSL 39 (1922) 15–31 AMIT, Y., Biblical Utopianism: A Mapmakers Guide to Eden, USQR 44 (1990) 11–17 BAKHTIN, M., Rabelais and His World, Cambridge, MA 1968 BEN ZVI, E. (ed.), Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Literature (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 92), Göttingen 2006 — Utopias, Multiple Utopias, and Why Utopias at All? The Social Roles of Utopian Visions in Prophetic Books within Their Historical Context, in: I D. (ed.), Utopia and Dystopia, 55–85 BJØRNDALEN, A.J., Untersuchungen zur allegorischen Rede der Propheten Amos und Jesaja (BZAW 165), Berlin 1986 BLACK, J./GREEN, A., Gods, Demons, and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary, London 1992 BLOCH-SMITH, E., “Who Is the King of Glory?” Solomon’s Temple and Its Symbolism, in: Scripture and Other Artifacts (FS P.J. King), ed. by M.D. COOGAN et al., Louisville, KY 1994, 18–31 CASSUTO, U., A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part One: From Adam to Noah, Jerusalem 1961 CLAEYS, G./SARGENT, L.T. (eds.), The Utopia Reader, New York 1999 COLLINS, J.J., Models of Utopia in the Biblical Tradition, in: “A Wise and Discerning Mind” (FS B.O. Long [BJS 325]), ed. by S.M. OLYAN/R.C. CULLEY, Providence, RI 2000, 51–67 CRENSHAW, J.L., A Whirlpool of Torment: Israelite Traditions of God as an Oppressive Presence (OBT 12), Philadelphia, PA 1984 — Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence (ABRL), New York 1998 — Deceitful Minds and Theological Dogma: Jer 17:5–11, in: E. BEN ZVI (ed.), Utopia and Dystopia, 105–121 83 See, instructively, JACQUES, Crypto-Utopia, esp. 29–33, stating for instance that ‘a crypto-utopia […] is a vision of the world that pretends not to be a vision at all.’ (31).

Heaven on Earth – Or Not?

51

DELITZSCH, FRANZ, Neuer Commentar über die Genesis, Leipzig 1887 DELITZSCH, FRIEDRICH, Wo lag das Paradies? Eine biblisch-assyriologische Studie, Leipzig 1881 DIETRICH, M., Das biblische Paradies und der babylonische Tempelgarten: Überlegungen zur Lage des Gardens Eden, in: B. JANOWSKI/B. EGO (eds.), Das biblische Weltbild, 281–323 DILLMANN, A., Genesis (KEHAT), Leipzig 1892 EBACH, J., Kritik und Utopie: Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis von Volk und Herrscher im Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40–48), Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde des Fachbereichs Evangelische Theologie der Universität Hamburg, 1972 EDZARD, D.O., Gudea and His Dynasty (RIME 3/1), Toronto 1997 ELIADE, M., Paradise and Utopia: Mythical Geography and Eschatology, in: F.E. MANUEL et al. (eds.), Utopias and Utopian Thought (Beacon Paperback 251), Boston 1965, 260–280 FOGELIN, R.J., Figuratively Speaking, New Haven, CT 1988 FRYE, N., Varieties of Literary Utopias, in: F.E. MANUEL et al. (eds.), Utopias and Utopian Thought (Beacon Paperback 251), Boston 1965, 25–49 GIAMATTI, A.B., The Earthly Paradise and the Renaissance Epic, New York 1966 GOSSE, B., Le recueil d'oracles contre les nation d'Ezéchiel XXV–XXXII dans la rédaction du livre d'Ezéchiel, RB 93 (1986) 549–553 — Ezéchiel 28,11–19 et les détournements de malédictions, BN 44 (1988) 30–38 GRESSMANN, H., Mythische Reste in der Paradieserzählung, ARW 10 (1907) 345–367 GUNKEL, H., Genesis, übersetzt und erklärt (HAT), Göttingen 1910 HARVEY, D., Spaces of Hope, Edinburgh 2000 HOROWITZ, W., Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Mesopotamian Civilizations 8), Winona Lake, IN 1998 HULTGÅRD, A., Das Paradies: vom Park des Perserkönigs zum Ort der Seligen, in: M. HENGEL et al. (eds.), La Cité de Dieu – Die Stadt Gottes: 3. Symposium Strasbourg, Tübingen, Uppsala 19.–23. September 1998 in Tübingen (WUNT 129), Tübingen 2000, 1–43 JACQUES, R.S., What Is a Crypto-Utopia and Why Does it Matter?, in: M. P ARKER (ed.), Utopia and Social Organization, 24–39 JANOWSKI, B./EGO, B., Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte (FAT 32), Tübingen 2001 JAROŠ, K., Bildmotive in der Paradieserzählung: Gedanken zur Botschaft von Genesis 2– 3, BLit 58 (1978) 5–11 KEEL, O., Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament: Am Beispiel der Psalmen, Zürich 1972 — Altägyptische und biblische Weltbilder, die Anfänge der vorsokratischen Philosohie und das DZȡȤȒ-Problem in späten biblischen Schriften, in: B. JANOWSK/B. EGO (eds.), Das biblische Weltbild, 27–63 KEEL, O./SCHROER, S., Schöpfung: Biblische Theologien im Kontext altorientalischer Religionen, Fribourg 2002 LEICK, G., A Dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern Mythology, London 1998 LISS, H., “Describe the Temple to the House of Israel”: Preliminary Remarks on the Temple Vision in the Book of Ezekiel and the Question of Fictionality in Priestly Literatures, in: E. BEN ZVI (ed.), Utopia and Dystopia, 122–143 LONGMAN, T., III, Fictional Akkadian Autobigraphy: A Generic and Comparative Study, Winona Lake, IN 1991

52

Terje Stordalen

MCKENZIE, J.L., The Literary Characteristics of Genesis 2–3, in: ID., Myths and Realities: Studies in Biblical Theology, Milwaukee, WI 1964, 146–175.262–266 MERCHANT, C., Reinventing Eden: The Fate of Nature in Western Culture, London 2003 MOWINCKEL, S., De fire Paradiselvene, NorTT 39 (1938) 47–67 NEVILLE-SINGTON, P./SINGTON, D., Paradise Dreamed: How Utopian Thinkers Have Changed the Modern World, London 1993 NOORT, E., Gan-Eden in the Context of the Mythology of the Hebrew Bible, in: G. LUTTIKHUIZEN/O. GERARD (eds.), Paradise Interpreted: Representations of Biblical Paradise in Judaism and Christianity (Themes in Biblical Narative 2), Leiden 1999, 21–36 O’CONNOR, K.M., Jeremiah’s Two Visions of the Future, in: E. BEN ZVI (ed.), Utopia and Dystopia, 86–104 PARKER, M., Utopia and the Organizational Imagination: Outopia/Eutopia, in: ID. (ed.), Utopia and Organization (Sociological Review Monographs), Oxford 2002, 1–8.217– 224 PARRINDER, P. (ed.), Learning from Other Worlds: Estrangement, Cognition, and the Politics of Science Fiction and Utopia (Post-Contemporary Interventions), Durham, NC 2001 PROCKSCH, O., Die Genesis übersetzt und erklärt (KAT 1), Leipzig 1913 RAD, G. VON, Das theologische Problem des alttestamentlichen Schöpfungsglaubens, in: P. VOLZ et al. (eds.), Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments: Vorträge gehalten auf der internationalen Tagung alttestamentlicher Forscher zu Göttingen vom 4.–10. September 1935 (BZAW 66), Berlin 1936, 138–147 — Das erste Buch Mose, Genesis übersetzt und erklärt (ATD 2/4), Göttingen 1976 RADDAY, Y., The Four Rivers of Paradise, HS 23 (1982) 23–31 RUITEN, J.T.A.G.M. van, Eden and the Temple: The Rewriting of Genesis 2:4–3:24 in The Book of Jubilees, in: G. LUTTIKHUIZEN/O. GERARD (eds.), Paradise Interpreted: Representations of Biblical Paradise in Judaism and Christianity (Themes in Biblical Narative 2), Leiden 1999, 63–81 SCAFI, A., Mapping Paradise: A History of Heaven on Earth, Chicago 2006 SCHWEITZER, S.J., Utopia and Utopian Literary Theory: Some Preliminary Observations, in: E. BEN ZVI (ed.), Utopia and Dystopia, 13–26 SKINNER, J., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC), Edinburgh 1930 SMITH, J.Z., Map Is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions (SJLA 23), Leiden 1978 — To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual (Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism), Chicago 1987 SMITH, M., Like Deities, Like Temples (Like People), in: J. DAY (ed.), Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 422), Oxford 2005, 3–27 SOGGIN, J.A., Das Buch Genesis: Kommentar, Darmstadt 1997 SPEISER, E.A., The Rivers of Paradise, in: J.J. FINKELSTEIN/M. GREENBERG (eds.), Oriental and Biblical Studies: Collected Writings of E.A. Speiser, Philadelphia, PA 1967, 23–34 STAVRAKOPOULOU, F., Exploring the Garden of Uzza: Death, Burial and Ideologies of Kingship, Bib 87 (2006) 1–21 STOLZ, F., Paradiese und Gegenwelten, ZRW 1 (1993) 5–24 STORDALEN, T., Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 25), Leuven 2000

Heaven on Earth – Or Not?

53

— Dialogue and Dialoguism in the Book of Job, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 20 (2006) 18–37 — Mother Earth in Biblical Hebrew Literature: Ancient and Contemporary Imagination, [Forthcoming] TARLIN, J.W., Utopia and Pornography in Ezekiel: Violence, Hope and the Shattered Male Subject, in: T.K. BEAL/D.M. GUNN (eds.), Reading Bibles, Writing Bodies: Identity and the Book (Biblical Limits), London 1997, 175–183 TIGCHELAAR, E.J.C., Eden and Paradise: The Garden Motif in some Early Jewish Texts (1 Enoch and Other Texts Found at Qumran), in: G. LUTTIKHUIZEN/O. GERARD (eds.), Paradise Interpreted: Representations of Biblical Paradise in Judaism and Christianity (Themes in Biblical Narative 2), Leiden 1999, 37–62 TOV, E., Recensional Differences between the MT and the LXX of Ezekiel, ETL 62 (1986) 89–101 — Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Assen 1992 TURNER, V., The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (The Lewis Henry Morgan Lectures), New York 1995 WENHAM, G.J., Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story, Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A: The Period of the Bible (1986) 19–25 — Genesis 1–15 (WBC 1), Waco, TX 1987 WESTERMANN, C., Genesis 1–11 (BKAT I/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974 ZIMMERLI, W., Ezechiel 25–48 (BKAT XIII/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969

54

Terje Stordalen

Figures

Fig. 1: Othmar Keel’s drawing of the biblical Weltbild, KEEL/SCHROER, Schöpfung, no. 85.

Heaven on Earth – Or Not?

Fig. 2: Cassite roll seal 14th Century B.C.E., KEEL/SCHROER, Schöpfung, no. 14.

Fig. 3: Cylinder of Gudea, Neo-Sumerian Period. Gudea is introduced to Enki by Ningišzida, BLACK/GREEN, Dictionary, no. 115.

55

56

Terje Stordalen

Fig. 4: Assyrian wall relief, 8th – 7th Century B.C.E., KEEL, Bildsymbolik, no. 185.

Fig. 5: Assyrian wall carving, around 1500 B.C.E., KEEL, Bildsymbolik, no. 153a.

Heaven on Earth – Or Not?

Fig. 6: Assyrian roll seal, 10th Century, KEEL, Bildsymbolik, no. 23.

57

Loss of Immortality? Hermeneutical Aspects of Genesis 2–3 and Its Early Receptions KONRAD SCHMID

1 Introduction: The Loss of Immortality as a Receptional Dimension of Genesis 2–3 Especially within the Christian tradition, there is a widespread notion that the first human beings were created to be immortal, making physical death the bitter consequence of human sin. For example, the first canon of the Council of Carthage from 418 C.E. states: “If any man says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he sinned or not he would have died, not as the wages of sin, but through the necessity of nature, let him be anathema.”1

The Protestant teachings differ little from this position. From the Reformation period up to the present time, there is a common, often implicit assumption in confessions and in doctrinal literature that humankind was created immortal, after which death entered the world through sin.2 However, there are also some newer approaches that see death as a natural part of creation, while death only becomes a frightening and threatening element under the influence of sin.3 The Jewish tradition seems to be ambigous as well. There is a remarkable strand of thought in the rabbinic tradition holding to the idea that humankind was mortal from the beginning, so sin does not cause death in general, but early death.4 Adam, for example, is said to have been appointed a life span of 1000 years, which is equal to one of the Lord’s days. But since he made a gift of seventy years to David, he died at the age of 930, as can be read in Gen 5:5.5 1

NR 338/DS 222. See SCHMID, Dogmatik, 150f.156; BARTH, KD III/2, 729; see also PANNENBERG, Theologie II, 306; AHLBRECHT, Tod. 3 See STOCK, Tod, with reference to HÄRLE, Dogmatik, 488. 4 GINZBERG, Legends V, 129f. See also Str-B III, 227–229. 5 GINZBERG, Legends I, 61. 2

Loss of Immortality?

59

Nevertheless, the rabbinic tradition also highlights the notion that there would be no death without sin,6 which on the other hand implies that there is a possibility for the righteous ones to enter the Paradise alive and to continue living there forever. This status is attributed to Enoch, Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh, Hiram, the king of Tyre, Eliezer, Abraham’s servant, Elijah, Jonadab the Rechabite and others.7 Pesiqta Rabbati 42:1 states explicitly: “When God created Adam He created him so that he might live forever like the ministering angels [as it is written] ‘And God said, Behold man has become like one of us’, just as the ministering angels do not die, so he will not know the taste of death … But since he did not abide by His commandments, death was consequently decreed for him.”8

In the apocalyptic tradition, a similar statement can be found in 1.Enoch 69:11, a text from the so-called “Similitudes” which is very hard to date, but likely belongs to the 1st or 2nd century C.E.:9 “For men were created exactly like the angels, to the intent that they should continue pure and righteous, and death, which destroys everything, could not have taken hold of them, but through their knowledge they are perishing.”

The midrash GenR 12:6 counts immortality among the original, but now lost qualities of Adam: “R. Yudan in the name of R. Abun: The [missing] six [that is, the numerical value of the vav] correspond to six things that were taken away from the first man, and these are they: his splendor, his immortal life, his stature, the fruit of the earth, the fruit of the tree, and the primordial lights.”10

This interpretation is still accepted among modern interpreters of Genesis 2–3 such as Karl Budde,11 Johannes Meinhold,12 Ephraim A. Speiser, Klaus Koch,13 Jan Gertz,14 Erhard Blum,15 André LaCocque,16 just to name a few, all together hold that the first humans were created immortal. However, such an interpretation is hardly possible.17 6

GINZBERG, Legends V, 129f.; Str-B, 228f. See the discussion in GINZBERG, Legends V, 95f. 8 See KUGEL, Bible, 71. 9 See UHLIG, Henochbuch, 474. 10 NEUSNER, Genesis Rabbah, 124. 11 BUDDE, Urgeschichte, 23. 12 MEINHOLD, Erzählung, 128. 13 KOCH, Adam, 213. 14 GERTZ, Adam, 230f. and n. 42. 15 BLUM, Gottesunmittelbarkeit, 22ff. 16 LACOCQUE, Trial, 100f. 17 As the majority of scholars seems to hold, see e.g., JACOB, Buch, 121; STECK, Paradieserzählung, 103; WOLFF, Anthropologie, 150; DOHMEN, Schöpfung, 295 and 295 n. 216, with bibliography. For general questions concerning this topic see NICKELSBURG, 7

60

Konrad Schmid

2 A Look Behind the Scene: Was Humanity Created to Be Immortal According to Genesis 2? When approaching this question, it is helpful to provide some preliminary clarifications in order to contextualize the theme of mortality or immortality within the overall story of Genesis 2–3. The biblical Paradise story is one of the foundational texts of Western culture. It is perhaps one of the best known texts in world literature. The popularity of this text contrasts sharply with our inability to understand it properly. The most commonly known elements associated with this text in a popular perspective – for example Adam, the original sin and the apple – are not really central to it. The human individual, Adam, is not mentioned in the Hebrew text, rather the protagonist is always called ~d'a'h', which means “man” in Hebrew and not “Adam” because of the article. Adam only shows up in the consonantal text of the Bible for the first time in Gen 4:1. The term “sin” – let alone “original sin” – does not occur in Genesis 2–3 either. The reader has to wait until Gen 4:7 for his or her first encounter with the explicit notion of “sin.” The forbidden fruit is not botanically identified in Genesis 2–3. Its traditional Christian identification with an apple has its roots in the Latin reception history of Genesis 2–3 which equated the evil “malum” humankind had done with the specific fruit “malum” “apple.”18 Yet these kinds of problems created by reception history are not the most troubling or most important ones for understanding Genesis 2–3. The whole story line of Genesis 2–3 has been obscured by the huge and admittedly rich reception history which has its own value and which has been explored by many scholarly contributions.19 Since especially Paul and Augustine of Hippo, it has become commonplace to subscribe to the fall of humankind from a glorious primitive state into the deplorable present state of sin. Of course the events in the garden are clearly depicted as the transgression of a given prohibition and a successive punishment, so there is a very basic element of decline which cannot be denied. Nevertheless, the biblical story of Paradise is much more ambiguous about the relationship between the primitive state and the present state of humankind. A small booklet by James Barr from 199320 and an article by Resurrection; LEVISON, Portraits; CALLENDER, Adam; ELLEDGE, Life. As for the Qumran literature see GLICKLER CHAZON, Creation. 18 For identifications in the Jewish tradition (fig, grape, etrog, nut) see GINZBERG, Legends V, 97. 19 See e.g. ANDERSON, Genesis; LUTTIKHUIZEN, Paradise; VAN RUITEN, Interpretation; NAGEL, Auslegung; METZGER, Paradieserzählung; TRILLHAAS, Felix culpa; KÖSTER, Urstrand. 20 BARR, Garden.

Loss of Immortality?

61

Hermann Spieckermann, written in the year 2000 and entitled with just one word “ambivalences,”21 have poignantly drawn attention to the fact that the storyline of Genesis 2–3 is not merely leading from a glorious situation to a deficient one, but from one ambivalent status to another one.22 This contribution cannot go into the details of the biblical text;23 however, this much should be obvious for any reader – besides all admitted multiperspectivity and ambiguity: Genesis 2–3 is organized thematically as a large chiasm. The situation before the fall contrasts the situation after the fall in an inverted manner. Before the fall, the human beings were very close to God, even familiar with him, but deprived of any knowledge. After the fall, they are expelled from the immediate vicinity of God, but they have gained the knowledge of good and evil. Hermeneutically speaking, the Paradise story deals with the common human experience that applying their own reasoning towards life necessarily creates distance between humankind and God. It is therefore helpful to see that, biblically understood, the knowledge of good and evil is not a hybrid or sinful wish of the human beings to take God’s place. King Solomon, for example, is praised by God in 1.Kings 3 for having chosen for himself an “understanding mind to govern your people, able to discern between good and evil.” (1.Kings 3:9). Rather, “knowledge of good and evil” means the capacity and necessity to make reasonable and responsible decisions which is an everyday task for every mature human being. Little children do not yet have the knowledge of good and evil: Deut 1:39: “And as for your little ones, […], your children, who today do not yet know good from evil […].”

Likewise elderly men do not have the knowledge of good and evil anymore: 2.Sam 19:36: “Today I [sc. Barzillai] am eighty years old; how can I still discern what is good and what is evil?”

Instead, every grown up has this knowledge: 1QSa 1,10f.: “[…] when he has reached twenty years, when he knows about good and evil.”

Genesis 2–3 apparently interprets this basic human ability as a theologically relevant element that necessarily entails a fundamental distance to God rather than as something which needs to (or even could) be avoided. 21

SPIECKERMANN, Ambivalenzen. For some Jewish approaches in that direction see GRADWOHL, Bibelauslegungen, 49–51. 23 See for a more detailed treatment SCHMID, Unteilbarkeit. 22

62

Konrad Schmid

In doing so, Genesis 2–3 just strives to understand how this situation came about. It is hard to detect any narrative elements that idealize the life in paradise. There is just one sentence – not more – which describes ordinary human life before the fall, and this sentence is Gen 2:25: Gen 2:25: “And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.”

We even do not know for sure whether this is a positive statement. In the historical context of Gen 2:25, is it more decent to be dressed or to be undressed?24 At any rate we should be cautious about applauding the nakedness from a modern, neoromantic stance. Be this as it may, the narrative reason why this is said is the fact that seven verses later, in 3:7, the man and his wife notice their nakedness and try to hide it: Gen 3:7: “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.”

What about the topic of immortality within the overall story line of Genesis 2–3? At first glance, the traditional notion of an original immortality which was lost after the fall would fit perfectly into this chiastic arrangement of the Paradise story. This would be just another element contrasting the situations before the fall and after the fall. In addition, God’s threat in 2:17 “you shall surely die” would be narratively fulfilled. Humankind, after its fall, has to die. Since God is not a liar, he accomplishes what he announces. But upon further review, there are far too many problems for such a thesis of an original human immortality in Genesis 2–3 to be maintained.25 First, Gen 2:7 states: “YHWH God formed man from the dust of the ground.” “Dust” in the Hebrew Bible functions clearly as a metaphor for transience, for being mortal.26 Secondly, in the punishment sentences in Gen 3:14–19, there is only one instance where the topic of death is brought up again, in 3:19. However, this verse does not claim that humankind from now on has to die in contrast to the situation before. Death is not mentioned among the elements of punishment themselves; it only appears in the second of the two yKi sentences providing a further explanation of the preceding statement. Gen 3:19: “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for (yKi) out of it you were taken; for (yKi) you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Thirdly, the formulation of 3:22b would be surprisingly odd: 24 25

See HARTENSTEIN, Beobachtungen. See already the objections made by GUNKEL, Genesis, 10; see also SARNA, Genesis,

18f. 26

See e.g. Qoh 3:20; 12:7 and the discussion in MÜLLER, Sterblichkeit, 73–85.

Loss of Immortality?

63

Gen 3:22: “Then YHWH God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.’”

This sentence apparently does not reckon with the possiblity that the human beings could again become immortal after having lost their original immortality a short while earlier. Rather, the prohibition of the tree of life is now mandatory, because after the humans have gained knowledge immortality is the main element which still very clearly distinguishes God and humans. Fourthly, it has often been observed that 2:17 is formulated similarly to a legal rule involving death penalty.27 Gen 2:17: “Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die (tWmT' tAm).”

The commentaries often have drawn attention to the so called tm'Wy tAmsentences for capital crimes in the Covenant Code in Exodus 21–23. Exod 21:15–17: “Whoever strikes father or mother shall surely be put do death (tm'Wy tAm). Whoever kidnaps a person, whether that person has been sold or is still held in possession, shall surely be put do death (tm'Wy tAm). Whoever curses father or mother shall surely be put to death (tm'Wy tAm).”

There are, however, two noteworthy dissimilarities. Gen 2:27 is formulated in 2nd person and in active voice, “you shall surely die,” Exod 21:15 is in 3rd person and in passive voice: “he shall surely be put do death.” But this can be easily explained. The change in person is due to the narrative situation in Genesis 2, and the active voice has to do with the fact that in Gen 2 there is no legal system to execute punishments beside God himself. A look into similar passages where the expression “you shall surely die (tWmT' tAm)” is used in the Hebrew Bible can corroborate this point. In almost every instances tWmT' tAm is used to describe a capital punishment executed by God himself and immediately, as for example in Gen 20:7: Gen 20:6–7: “Then God said [to Abimelech of Gerar] in the dream, ‘… Now then, return the man’s wife [i.e. Sarah to Abraham]… But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die (tWmT' tAm), you and all that are yours.’”

Or in Numbers 26, it is said of the rebellious Exodus generation: Num 26:65: “For YHWH had said of them, They shall surely die (Wtmuy" tAm) in the wilderness. And there was not left a man of them, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.”

27

See OTTO, Paradieserzählung, 181. Symmachus and some other Greek and Latin manuscripts interpret the latter part of the verse: thnætos esæ/mortalis eris “you shall be mortal” (WEVERS, Septuaginta, 86, see KUGEL, Bible, 70).

64

Konrad Schmid

In Judg 13:22, Manoah tells his wife: Judg 13:22: “… We shall surely die (tWmn" tAm), because we have seen God.”

In Ezek 3:18, God is directly speaking to the prophet: Ezek 3:18: “If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die (tWmT' tAm),’ and you give them no warning, and do not speak to warn the wicked from their wicked way, in order to save their life, those wicked persons shall die for their iniquity; but their blood I will require at your hand.”

And finally, in 2.Kings 1:16, Elijah is telling king Ahaziah: 2.Kgs 1:16: “Thus says the Lord: Because you have sent messengers to inquire of Baalzebub, the god of Ekron, – is it because there is no God in Israel to inquire of his word? – therefore you shall not leave the bed to which you have gone, but you shall surely die (tWmT' tAm).’”28

Fifthly, as A. Kapelrud29 noticed some time ago, the ancient Near Eastern parallel texts for the motive of immortality, such as Gilgamesh and Adapa, show a similar pattern: “man is deprived of his possibility of attaining everlasting life by unexpected forces,”30 in Gilgamesh even in form of a serpent. The loss of the chance to become immortal, and not the loss of an original immortality, is a traditional element in Ancient Near Eastern mythology. Therefore, the following conclusion is unavoidable for the historical interpretation of Genesis 2–3: death was thought to be an integral part of human life from the very beginning of creation. There was, however, a virtual chance to attain immortality by eating from the tree of life, which was not forbidden before the so-called “fall.” Nevertheless, this chance was in fact also non-existant from the very beginning because of humans’ lack of knowledge. The motive in the speech of the woman, “not to touch the tree in the middle of the garden,” which goes beyond the divine command in Gen 2:17 reveals that they would not have eaten from it.

28

As the description of the conflict between Ahimelech and king Saul shows, the formula tWmT' tAm may have been an ancient privilege to the king, before it was theologically interpreted and transferred to the realm of God: 1.Sam 22:16: “The king said, ‘You shall surely die, Ahimelech, you and all your father’s house.’” 29 KAPELRUD, VT.S 1993. See also MÜLLER, Deutungen; ID., Erkenntnis. 30 KAPELRUD, VT.S 1993, 61.

Loss of Immortality?

65

3 Death and Immortality in Early Receptions of Genesis 2–3 The suggested historical meaning of Genesis 2–3, is, of course, not identical with its reception history. In this reception history, it is first of all important to note that there seems to be hardly any literary reflex on this text in the Hebrew Bible. This was a major problem for those assigning a monarchic date to this text in past scholarship. However, a broader consensus has been emerging at least in the European discussion that Genesis 2–3 is probably a Persian period text because of the shape of its theological positions.31 It reflects a certain development in the history of religious thought, making it very unlikely that Genesis 2–3 is an early text. It presupposes and universalizes the deuteronomistic notion that land can be lost by disobedience, and it critics traditional wisdom positions concerning human knowlege. From this perspective the silence about the Paradise story in the Hebrew Bible is not very astonishing. There are, however, quite a few reflections on Genesis 2–3 found in Early Jewish Literature from the 2nd and 1st century B.C.E. The most well known early Jewish receptions of Genesis 2–3 can be found in two somewhat cryptic and very short allusions from Ben Sira (Sir 25:24) and the Wisdom of Solomon (Sap 2:23–24).32 Ben Sira was probably written in the first half of the 2nd century B.C.E., while the date of the Wisdom of Solomon is more disputed. Nevertheless, a majority of scholars tend to date it to the end of the 1st century B.C.E.33 Sir 25:24: “From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die.” Sap 2:23–24: “For God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.”

Both passages seem to develop or presuppose the understanding that death entered the world through the so called fall, implying vice versa that the first humans being created as immortals. Can the source of this notion of human immortality be found here, in these earliest receptions of Genesis 2– 3?34 This seems to be the case, but a further glance in both books reveals that the situation is more complex.

31

See e.g. OTTO, Paradieserzählung, 173–185; WITTE, Urgeschichte, 158–166; SCHMID, Unteilbarkeit; SCHÜLE, Prolog, 149–217; ARNETH, Fall, 227–236. 32 See the overview by SCHÜNGEL-STRAUMANN, Frau. 33 See e.g., ZENGER, Einleitung, 396–416; KAISER, Apokryphen, 79–106; ID, Anweisungen, 57–116; BLISCHKE, Eschatologie, 44–47. 34 KUGEL, Bible, 69f., is thinking in that direction.

66

Konrad Schmid

3.1 Ben Sira It has often been noted that the verse Sir 25:24 with its concept of the origin of death is an astonishingly foreign matter in the book. J.J. Collins, for example, states: “Sirach 25:24 [...] is anomalous in the context of Ben Sira.”35 Otherwise, the book of Ben Sira thinks of death as a regular and common feature of creation.36 Most clearly, Sir 14:17 states “All living beings become old like a garment, for it is an eternal law to die.”

The same conviction can be found in Sir 17:1–2: “The Lord created man out of earth, and turned him back to it again. He gave to men few days, a limited time […]”

Or in 41:3–4: “Do not fear the sentence of death; remember your former days and the end of life; this is the decree from the Lord for all flesh […]”

These passages seem to be very clear: Humankind was created as mortal, not immortal, from the very beginning. What then about Ben Sira 25:24? There are two possible explanations. The first solution could be to understand the expression “to die” not in the sense of “to become mortal,” but meaning to only have a short life, to die early.37 This would be in accordance with statements like Sir 1:12 or Sir 30:24: Sir 1:12: “The fear of the Lord … gives … long life.” Sir 30:24: “Jealousy and anger shorten life, and anxiety brings on old age too soon.”

Another passage in Sir 26:1–2, in the immediate context of Sir 25:24, explicitly links a long life with a good wife: Sir 26:1–2: “Happy is the husband of a good wife; the number of his days will be doubled. A loyal wife rejoices her husband, and he will complete his years in peace.”

One could paraphrase the sequence of Sir 25:24–26:2 as follows: as the first sinful wife brought early death, every good wife will bring a long life. Generally, Ben Sira is very critical of women and stresses the negative impact women have on male life. This stance is quite traditional as it is

35

COLLINS, Fall, 297. See COLLINS, Fall, 296–301; SCHÄFER, Adam, 72f. 37 See LEVISON, Eve. COLLINS, Fall, 298: “In light of these sentiments, it is possible that Ben Sira was laying the blame for sin and death on woman in general rather than on Eve in particular;” cf. also SCHÄFER, Adam, 72 and Sir 17,2a, where the pronouns are shifting between singular (“Adam”) and plural (“mankind”) (LEVISON, Eve, 618 n. 3). 36

Loss of Immortality?

67

reminiscent of concepts in Proverbs 1–9 warning against the strange woman, especially in chapter 7.38 A second way to explain the peculiarity of Sir 25:24 within the book could be to consider Sir 25:24 as a redactional addition, introducing the connection between the genesis of death and the fall of the woman in Genesis 2. There are some indications in the overall structure of chapter 25 which could support this solution, but it would lead to far from my topic to pursue these clues further at this point. At any rate, it is far from clear that the book of Ben Sira already associated the so-called fall with the loss of an original immortality of the humans. Rather, the opposite is true: for Ben Sira, mortality is a feature of creation. Sin, induced by women or not, causes not death as such, but rather an early death. 3.2 Wisdom of Solomon While the case of Ben Sira is difficult, the Wisdom of Solomon seems to offer a clear position stating that the original state of humanity including the concept of genuine immortality. Sap 2:23–24: “For God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity, but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.”

The creation of humanity is depicted as an image of divine eternity. Consequently death came into the world through the devil, obviously an allusion to the accordingly interpreted serpent from Genesis 3, a trait otherwise known and elaborated in the Life of Adam and Eve 10–17, 2.Enoch 31:6, 4.Macc 8:18, Rev 12:9.39 In addition, we find the statement in Sap 1:12 that “God did not make death.” Isn’t this an obvious enough statement? But again, looking into the context of the rest of the book, there are also conflicting passages which take a contrary stance. For example Sap 7:1 reads as follows: “I also am mortal, like all men, a descendant of the first-formed child of earth […]”

38

An especially glaring example of Ben Sira’s misogyny can be found in Sir 42:12– 13: “Do not look upon anyone for beauty, and do not sit in the midst of women; for from garments comes the moth, and from a woman comes woman’s wickedness. Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; and it is a woman who brings shame and disgrace.” This text might be of some importance for the understanding of Sir 25:24, because it doesn’t seem to be far fetched to interpret the phrase “from a woman comes woman’s wickedness” might allude to Genesis 3 again. See SKEHAN/DI LELLA, Wisdom, 483. 39 WINSTON, Wisdom, 121–123; HOGAN, Background, 19; GEORGI, Weisheit, 409. For other interpretations of the “devil” as referring to Cain see LEVISON, Portraits, 1f.

68

Konrad Schmid

Sap 7:1 not only states that all men are mortal, but by using the imagery “child of earth” obviously also implies that the first human being was created mortal as well.40 How are these inconsistencies to be dealt with? Recent approaches to the Wisdom of Solomon41 have convincingly shown that “death” does not just denote the end of life. It is seen in a multi-perspectival way in the book: “Death” can mean physical death, but it many cases it refers to something which may be termed “spiritual death” – meaning the death of the soul while a person is still alive. Obviously, the Wisdom of Solomon is drawing on a distinction commonly known in ancient Alexandria, as some passages in Philo suggest. Although these texts may have been written down somewhat later than the book of Wisdom of Solomon, there are nevertheless hints that they rely on older traditions. The double notion of death is made explicit in Philo’s Legum allegoriae 1:105–107, in his exegesis on Gen 2:17: Philo, L.A. 1:105–107: “Death is of two kinds, one that of the man in general, the other that of the soul in particular. The death of man is the separation of the soul from the body, but the death of the soul is the decay of virtue and the bringing in of wickedness. It is for this reason that God says not only ‘die’ but ‘die the death’ indicating not the death common to us all, but that special death properly so called, which is that of the soul becoming entomed in passions and wickedness of all kinds. And this death is practically the antithesis of the death that awaits us all.”42

The mention of immortality in the Wisdom of Solomon, then, is to be understood as a spiritualized notion of the everlasting qualities of a righteous human being. Or as J.J. Collins puts it: “The wise and righteous individual is immortal because righteousness and wisdom are immortal.”43 Let me corroborate this view with a few passages from the book. Sap 1:12–15: “Do not invite death by the error of your life. [...] For righteousness is immortal.” Sap 6:18: “[…] to follow her laws [sc. the laws of wisdom] is assurance of immortality.” Sap 15:3: “For to know you [sc. God] is complete righteousness, and to know your power is the root of immortality.”

40 See COLLINS, Fall, 297: “Even the Wisdom of Solomon, which says emphatically that God did not make death and that it entered the world by the envy of the devil (Wis 1:13, 2:23–24), is most probably referring to spiritual death and taking mortality for granted.” See also BLISCHKE, Eschatologie, 114–116. 41 KOLARCIK, Ambiguity, 163; see also MILLER, Immortality. 42 Translation from HOGAN, Background, 11. 43 COLLINS, Death, 191. See also 187: “In short the Wisdom of Solomon shares the conviction of Proverbs and Sirach that wisdom confers ‘life’ in a transcendent sense, but unlike them it envisages that life as immortality in the presence of God.”

Loss of Immortality?

69

Apparently this spiritual concept of immortality was not commonly understood or accepted among the audience the book of Wisdom addresses. The book speaks of some “foolish” people who think that also the righteous ones just die like all others: Sap 3:1–4: “But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them. (2) In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died, and their departure was thought to be an affliction, (3) and their going from us to be their destruction; but they are at peace. (4) For though in the sight of men they were punished, their hope is full of immortality.”

The foolish ones make no distinction between physical and spiritual death, whereas the righteous ones know that their souls will live on thanks to their righteousness. To be sure, the Wisdom of Solomon thinks that both are right, as the immortality of the soul is contingent upon the way a person lives his or her life.44 For the foolish ones it is indeed true that they will die an ultimate death. To sum up: It seems more convincing that Sap 2:23f. is not alluding to an original physical immortality, but to spiritual immortality, which is attainable through a life full of righteousness.45 The “death having entered the world” means spiritual death, the death of the soul before or when the body physically dies. This interpretation is also imposed by the immediate context preceding Sap 2:23 in Sap 2:22: “And the [ungodly] did not know the mysteries of God, nor did they hope for the reward of holiness, nor did they choose the prize for blameless souls.”

3.3 1.Enoch What seems to be true for Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon also seems to be the case in some strands of the apocalyptic tradition. The book of 1.Enoch,46 for example, never addresses the origin of death explicitly. Nevertheless, in 15:3–7, within the Book of Watchers, 1.Enoch clearly assumes that “the fleshly human nature was thought to be inherently mortal.”47 1.Enoch 15,3–7: “Wherefore have you [sc. the angels] left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children (4) of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons? And though you were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled

44

HOGAN, Background, 2. HOGAN, Background, 16f. 46 For questions of composition and historical setting see the overwiew e.g. of BEDENBENDER, Gott, 146–151; VANDERKAM, Introduction, 91–94; but especially NICKELSBURG, 1 Enoch, 230. 47 COLLINS, Fall, 305. 45

70

Konrad Schmid

yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die (5) and perish. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget (6) children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you were formerly (7) spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.”

Collins further comments: “According to this passage, women were created so that mortal men could attain a substitute for immortality by begetting children. If Adam were originally immortal, there would have been no reason to create Eve. It is unlikely, then, that death was introduced as a punishment for the sin of Adam. Rather, as we saw in Ben Sira, mortality seems to have been the divine plan for human beings from the beginning.”48 3.4 4.Ezra and 2.Baruch In later apocalyptic texts like 4.Ezra and 2.Baruch, stemming from the period after 70 C.E.,49 the picture is still not radically different. Although there are general statements like 2.Bar 23:4 linking Adam’s sin with death, it is not clear whether this refers to the loss of an original immortality. 2.Bar 54:15, for example, explicitly says that Adam’s fall brought not mortality, but “untimely death,” which points to the conviction that Adam is conceived to be created as a mortal being (see also 2.Bar 56:5). Furthermore, the clarification in 2.Bar 17:2–3 is noteworthy, explaining Adam’s “bringing of death” as “cutting of years”: “For what did it profit Adam that he lived nine hundred and thirty years and transgressed that which he was commanded? Therefore the multitude of time that he lived did not profit him, but brought death and cut off the years of those who were born from him.”

Finally, 2.Bar 21:10 addresses God as the only “immortal.” 2.Bar 40:3; 85:5 imply that transcience is a feature of this world. Vice versa, the promise of “life” in 2.Bar 38:1; 48:22 seems to be an innerwordly result of respecting the law.50 In 4.Ezra the case seems to be a little different.51 4.Ezra 3:7 seems to argue that death entered the world through Adam’s sin:

48 49

306. See STONE, Fourth Ezra, 9–11; KLIJN, Baruchapokalypse, 113f.; SCHMID, Zerstö-

rung. 50 51

See KLIJN, Baruchapokalypse, 116f. See the excursus on “death,” in: STONE, Fourth Ezra, 65–67.

Loss of Immortality?

71

4.Ezra 3:7 And you laid upon him one commandment; but he transgressed it, and immediately you appointed death for him and for his descendants. From him there sprang nations and tribes, peoples and clans without number.

It is, however, not said what kind of death God appointed for Adam and his descendants. Physical death? Early death? Spiritual death? 4.Ezra 3:9f. compares Adam’s death with the flood, so one might think of a “cutting off of days” like in 2.Bar: 4.Ezra 3:9f.: But again, in its time you brought the flood upon the inhabitants of the world and destroyed them. And the same fate befell them: as death came upon Adam, so the flood upon them.

Ezra is not complaining in 4.Ezra 4:33 that human years are not eternal, but that they are “short and evil.” As in 2.Bar, “immortality” is a feature not of this world, but of the world to come (4.Ezra 7:113) Interestingly, however, the discussion of that problem does not seem to be fully clear in the transmission of the text of 4.Ezra. 4.Ezra 7:118 provides different readings as for the “fall”: 4.Ezra 7:118f.: O Adam, what have you done? For though it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours alone, but ours also who are your descendants. For what good is it to us, if an eternal age has been promised to us, but we have done deeds that bring death?

The Latin text reads “fall,” the Syriac and Ethiopic text “evil,” the Arabic versions have “death” or “doom.”52 4.Ezra might therefore need to be interpreted somewhat differently than 2.Bar. Nevertheless, it remains noteworthy that the position of 4.Ezra regarding the question of an original immortality of humankind is not expressed with full clarity. 3.5 Josephus Also a late 1st century C.E. text like the Antiquities of Josephus still holds that the first human beings were granted a long, but nevertheless non-eternal life, as can be seen from God’s punishment speech towards Adam and Eve in Ant. I, 46, where God recounts his original plans for humankind in paradise: Josephus, Ant. I, 46: “I [sc. God] had decided … that you would live a happy life ... and your life would have been long.”53

From this statement, it becomes sufficiently clear that in Josephus’ view humankind did not loose an original immortality, but was created mortal from the very beginning. 52 53

See SCHREINER, Esra, 358. Translation according to FELDMAN, Antiquities 1–4, 17.

72

Konrad Schmid

3.6 Philo One of the most influential interpretations of the topic of mortality in Genesis 2–3 can be found in Philo’s treatment of the passage in several places. The best known passage is De opificio mundi 134f., where Philo relates the first and the second accounts of the creation to each another in a platonizing way. According to this view, Moses reports in Genesis 1 the creation of the immortal idea of humandkind, while Genesis 2 relates to the creation of the mortal human body: Philo, De opificio mundi 134f.: “After this he [sc. Moses] says that ‘God formed man by taking clay from the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life’ (Gen. ii. 7) By this also he shows very clearly that there is a vast difference between the man thus formed and the man that came into existence earlier after the image of God: for the man so formed is an object of sense-perception, partaking already of such and such quality, consisting of body and soul, man or woman, by nature mortal; while he that was after the (Divine) image was an idea or type or seal, an object of thought (only), incorporeal, neither male nor female, by nature incorruptible. It says, however, that the formation of the individual man, the object of sense, is a composite one made up of earthly substance and of Divine breath: for it says that the body was made through the Artificer taking clay and moulding out of it a human form, but that the soul was originated from nothing created whatever, but from the Father and Ruler of all: for that which He breathed in was nothing else than a Divine breath that migrated hither from the blissful and happy existence for the benefit of our race, to the end that, even if it is mortal in respect of its visible parts, it may in respect of the part that is invisible be rendered immortal. Hence it may with propriety be said that man is the borderland between mortal and immortal nature, partaking of each so far as is needful, and that he was created at once mortal and immortal, mortal in respect of the body (qnhto.n me.n kata. to. sw/ma), but in respect of the mind immortal (kata. de. thn. dia,noian avqa,naton).”54

This method of interpreting the double creation of humankind in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2–3 is probably no invention of Philo’s, but insteaed relies on an older tradition also found in the LXX. The LXX renders ʸʶʩ “to form” in Gen 2:7 (“Yhwh Elohim formed man from the dust of the ground”) with pla,ssein and not with poiei/n, which is in accordance with Plato’s Timaios (42d–e): Only the supreme deity is able to poiei/n, meanwhile the formation, expressed with the verb pla,ssein, of the mortal human body is the task of the “younger gods.”55

54

Philo, On the Account of the World’s Creation Given by Moses (De opificio mundi), with an English Translation, COLSON/WHITAKER, Library, 107. 55 See RÖSEL, Übersetzung, 60.

Loss of Immortality?

73

3.7 The Letters of Paul In light of these findings, the traditional interpretation of Paul’s understanding of Genesis 2–3 in Romans 5 might need some reconsideration.56 Of course, death is the consequence of sin (Rom 6:23) beginning with Adam’s own fate (Rom 5:12), but it is noteworthy that Paul does not mention an original immortality of Adam. Rather, the notion of “eternal life” is explicitly linked not to the first man, but to the second man, not to Adam, but to Christ. Rom 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Rom 5:12: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned.”

This view can be corroborated by comparising with 1.Corinthians. In 1.Cor 15:47, Paul states that Adam was made from dust, indicating his transience and mortality. 1.Cor 15:47: “The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.”

Immortality can only be achieved through the second man, through Christ: 1.Cor 15:51–54: “We will not all die, but we will all be changed […]. For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: ‘Death has been swallowed up in victory.’”

But this immortality does not mean just living on, instead it is a new life in a completely changed way. Paul also seems to have a double notion of death. Of course we die. But death no longer entails separation from God. Or, anachronistically, in the words of Philo: physical death no longer means spiritual death.

4 Conclusion After trying to establish the hypothesis that the first human beings probably were considered mortals from the very beginning in the biblical Paradise story and its early receptions, it is appropriate to consider the theological significance of this interpretation.

56

See MEISER, Adamsaussagen; BLACK, Perspectives; KERTELGE, Adam; BRANDENMensch; HOFIUS, Adam-Christus-Antithese; BELL, Myth.

BURGER,

74

Konrad Schmid

First, the prevalent Christian interpretation which sees the primitive status of humankind as immortals is the result of an eschatologizing perspective on the paradise story which was historically alien to it. Genesis 2– 3 in its biblical shape is probably one of the most non-eschatological texts of the Bible, as is evident especially from its final verse: Gen 3:24: “[The Lord God] drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.”

The angels with their sword stand for the conviction that the paradise is lost forever. There is no way back, never ever. The Paradise story tries to explain how the present conditions of human life outside the paradise came about. It is not interested in painting out the protological status of humankind in order to provide a model for eschatological expectations. The common Christian interpretation has thorougly transformed this model, as can be seen for example from a famous German tune called “Lobt Gott ihr Christen alle gleich” (Nicolaus Hermann 1500–1561), which ends with the words: “Heut schleust er [sc. Jesus Christ] wieder auf die Tür zum schönen Paradeis; der Cherub steht nicht mehr dafür.” [“Today, he unlocks the door to the beautiful paradise, the cherub no longer stands in front of it.”]

Secondly, it is quite interesting to consider the biblical and early Jewish notion of the human beings as being created mortal from the very beginning theologically. The Bible obviously sees no problems in determining human life – as it was designed by the creator – as substantially limited. Genesis 2–3 seems to present the wish to become immortal as a real wish only for fallen humanity. Immortality as such does not seem to be theologically important. This is probably not a completely mistaken idea. Thirdly and finally, there is one problem left for God: Why did he not execute the punishment he announced? Why could the first couple live on? Is God a liar? Some scholars even went so far to state that because of this inconsequence, the verses Gen 2:16–17 – where God threatens the humans by death penalty – cannot have been part of the original story.57 However, such a solution would just be bizarre. It is not an impossible thought that God is not bound to his own will and that sometimes he can act gracefully instead of lawfully.

57

DOHMEN, Schöpfung, 155.

Loss of Immortality?

75

Bibliography AHLBRECHT, A., Tod und Unsterblichkeit in der evangelischen Theologie der Gegenwart, Paderborn 1964 ANDERSON, G., The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian Imagination, Louisville, KY 2001 ARNETH, M., Durch Adams Fall ist ganz verderbt ... Studien zur Entstehung der alttestamentlichen Urgeschichte (FRLANT 217), Göttingen 2006 BARR, J., The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, Minneapolis 1993 BARTH, K., Kirchliche Dogmatik III/2, Zürich 1948 BEDENBENDER, A., Der Gott der Welt tritt auf den Sinai. Entstehung, Entwicklung und Funktionsweise der frühjüdischen Apokalyptik (ANTZ 8), Berlin 2000 BELL, R.H., The Myth of Adam and the Myth of Christ in Romans 5.12–21, in: A. CHRISTOPHERSEN et al. (eds.), Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Alexander J.M. Wedderburn (JSNT.S 217), London/New York 2002, 21–36 BLACK, C.C., Pauline Perspectives on Death in Romans 5–8, JBL 103 (1984) 413–433 BLISCHKE, M.V., Die Eschatologie in der Sapientia Salomonis (FAT II/26), Tübingen 2007 BLUM, E., Von Gottesunmittelbarkeit zu Gottesähnlichkeit: Überlegungen zur theologischen Anthropologie der Paradieserzählung, in: G. EBERHARDT/K. LIESS (eds.), Gottes Nähe im Alten Testament (SBS 202), Stuttgart 2004, 9–29 BRANDENBURGER, E., Alter und neuer Mensch, erster und letzter Adam-Anthropos, in: ID., Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des Urchristentums (SBAB 15), Stuttgart 1993, 209–250 BUDDE, K., Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen 1–12,5), Giessen 1883 CALLENDER, D.E. jr., Adam in Myth and History: Ancient Israelite Perspectives on the Primal Human (HSS 48), Winona Lake 2000 COLLINS, J.J., Death in the Context of Jewish Wisdom, HTR 71 (1978) 177–192 — Before the Fall: The Earliest Interpretations of Adam and Eve, in: H. NAJMAN/J.H. NEWMAN (eds.), The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (JSJ.S 83), Leiden/Boston 2004, 293–308 COLSON, F.H./WHITAKER, G.H., The Loeb Classical Library, London/Cambridge MA repr. 1956 DOHMEN, C., Schöpfung und Tod: Die Entfaltung theologischer und anthropologischer Konzeptionen in Gen 2/3 (SBB 17), Stuttgart 21996 ELLEDGE, C.D., Life After Death in Early Judaism: The Evidence of Josephus (WUNT II/208), Tübingen 2006 FELDMAN, L., Judean Antiquities 1–4: Translation and Commentary, Leiden et al. 2000 GEORGI, D., Weisheit Salomos (JSHRZ III/4), Gütersloh 1980 GERTZ, J.C., Von Adam zu Enosch: Überlegungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte von Genesis 2–4, in: Gott und Mensch im Dialog (FS O. Kaiser [BZAW 345/I]), ed. by M. WITTE, Berlin/New York 2004, 215–236 GINZBERG, L., The Legends of the Jews, vol. I, Philadelphia 1938 — The Legends of the Jews, vol. V, Philadelphia 1953 GLICKLER CHAZON, E., The Creation and Fall of Adam in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: J. FRISHMAN/L. VAN ROMPAY (eds.), The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection of Essays (Traditio Exegetica Graeca 5), Leuven 1997, 13–24

76

Konrad Schmid

GRADWOHL, R., Bibelauslegungen aus jüdischen Quellen, vol. 1, Stuttgart 32002 GUNKEL, H., Genesis, übersetzt und erklärt (HKAT I/1), Göttingen (1901) 81969 HÄRLE, W., Dogmatik, Berlin/New York 1995 HARTENSTEIN, F., “Und sie erkannten, dass sie nackt waren ...” (Gen 3,7): Beobachtungen zur Anthropologie der Paradieserzählung, EvTh 65 (2005) 277–293 HOFIUS, O., Die Adam-Christus-Antithese und das Gesetz: Erwägungen zu Röm 5,12–21, in: ID., Paulusstudien II (WUNT I/143), Tübingen 2002, 62–103 HOGAN, M.K., The Exegetical Background of the ‘Ambiguity of Death’ in the Wisdom of Solomon, JSJ 30 (1999) 1–24 JACOB, B., Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis, Berlin 1934 KAISER, O., Die alttestamentlichen Apokryphen: Eine Einleitung in Grundzügen, Gütersloh 2000 — Anweisungen zum gelingenden, gesegneten und ewigen Leben: Eine Einführung in die spätbiblischen Weisheitsbüche (ThLZ.F 9), Leipzig 2003 KAPELRUD, A.S., “You Shall Surely Not Die,” in: A. LEMAIRE/B. OTZEN (eds.), History and Traditions of Early Israel: Studies presented to Eduard Nielsen. May 8th 1993 (VT.S 50), Leiden 1993, 50–61 KERTELGE, K., Adam und Christus: Die Sünde Adams im Lichte der Erlösungstat Christi nach Römer 5,12–21, in: Anfänge der Christologie (FS F. Hahn), ed. by C. BREYTENBACH/H. PAULSEN, Göttingen 1991, 141–154 KLIJN, A.F.J., Die syrische Baruchapokalypse (JSHRZ V/2), Gütersloh 1975 KOCH, K., “Adam, was hast du getan?” Erkenntnis und Fall in der zwischentestamentlichen Literatur, in: T. RENDTORFF (ed.), Glaube und Toleranz: Das theologische Erbe der Aufklärung, Gütersloh 1982, 211–242 KOLARCIK, M., The Ambiguity of Death in the Book of Wisdom 1–6 (AnBib 127), Rome 1991 KÖSTER, H., Urstand, Fall und Erbsünde: Von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart, in: M. SCHMAUS et al., Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, II/3c, Freiburg i.Br. et al. 1982 KUGEL, J.L., The Bible as it was, Cambridge MA/London 52001 LACOCQUE, A., The Trial of Innocence: Adam, Eve, and the Yahwist, Eugene 2006 LEVISON, J.R., Is Eve to Blame? A Contextual Analysis of Sirach 25:24, CBQ 47 (1985) 617–623 — Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2Baruch (JSP.S 1), Sheffield 1988 LUTTIKHUIZEN, G.P. (ed.), Paradise Interpreted: Representations of Biblical Paradise in Judaism and Christianity, Themes in Biblical Narrative (Jewish and Christian Traditions 2), Leiden/Boston/Köln 1999 MEINHOLD, J., Die Erzählung vom Paradies und Sündenfall, in: K. MARTI (ed.), Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft Karl Budde zum siebzigsten Geburtstag am 13. April 1920 überreicht von Freunden und Schülern (BZAW 34), Giessen 1920, 123–131 MEISER, M., Die paulinischen Adamsaussagen im Kontext frühjüdischer und frühchristlicher Literatur, in: H. LICHTENBERGER/G.S. OEGEMA (eds.), Jüdische Schriften in ihrem antik-jüdischen und urchristlichen Kontext (JSHRZ Studien 1), Gütersloh 2002, 376–401 METZGER, M., Die Paradieserzählung (Gen 2,4b–3,24): Die Geschichte ihrer Auslegung von J. Clericus bis W.M.L. de Wette (APPP 16), Bonn 1959 MILLER, R.J., Immortality and Religious Identity in Wisdom 2–5, in: E.A. CASTELLI/ H.E. TAUSSIG (eds.), Reimagining Christian Origins: A Colloquium Honoring Burton L. Mack, Valley Forge 1996, 199–213

Loss of Immortality?

77

MÜLLER, H.-P., Erkenntnis und Verfehlung: Prototypen und Antitypen zu Gen 2–3 in der altorientalischen Literatur, in: T. RENDTORFF (ed.), Glaube und Toleranz: Das theologische Erbe der Aufklärung, Gütersloh 1982, 191–210 — Drei Deutungen des Todes: Genesis 3, der Mythos von Adapa und die Sage von Gilgamesch, JBTh 6 (1991) 117–134 — Weisheitliche Deutungen der Sterblichkeit: Gen 3,19 und Pred 3,21: 12,7 im Lichte antiker Parallelen, in: ID., Mensch – Umwelt – Eigenwelt: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Weisheit Israels, Stuttgart 1992, 69–100 NAGEL, P., Die Auslegung der Paradieserzählung in der Gnosis, in: K.-W. TRÖGER, Altes Testament – Frühjudentum – Gnosis: Neue Studien zu “Gnosis und Bibel,” Berlin 1980, 49–70 NEUSNER J. (ed.), Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis. A new Translation, vol. 1 (BJSt 104), Atlanta 1985 NICKELSBURG, G.W.E., Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (HTS 26), Cambridge, MA 1972 — 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Minneapolis 2001 OTTO, E., Die Paradieserzählung Gen 2–3: Eine nachpriesterschriftliche Lehrerzählung in ihrem religionshistorischen Kontext, in: “Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit ...” Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit (FS D. Michel [BZAW 241]), ed. by A.A. DIESEL et al., Berlin/New York 1996, 167–192 PANNENBERG, W., Systematische Theologie II, Göttingen 1992 RÖSEL, M., Übersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung: Studien zur Genesis-Septuaginta (BZAW 223), Berlin/New York 1994 SARNA, N., Genesis (JPSTC), Philadelphia 1989 SCHÄFER, P., Adam in der jüdischen Überlieferung, in: W. STROLZ (ed.), Vom alten zum neuen Adam: Urzeitmythos und Heilsgeschichte, Freiburg 1986, 69–93 SCHMID, H., Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, dargestellt und aus den Quellen belegt, Gütersloh 101983 SCHMID, K., Die Unteilbarkeit der Weisheit: Überlegungen zur sogenannten Paradieserzählung Gen 2f. und ihrer theologischen Tendenz, ZAW 114 (2002) 21–39 — Die Zerstörung Jerusalems und seines Tempels als Heilsparadox: Zur Zusammenführung von Geschichtstheologie und Anthropologie im Vierten Esrabuch, in: J. HAHN (ed.), Zerstörungen des Jerusalemer Tempels: Geschehen – Wahrnehmung – Bewältigung (WUNT 147), Tübingen 2002, 183–206 SCHREINER, J., Das 4. Buch Esra (JSHRZ V/4), Gütersloh 1981 SCHÜLE, A., Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel: Der literar- und theologiegeschichtliche Diskurs der Urgeschichte (AThANT 86), Zürich 2006 SCHÜNGEL-STRAUMANN, H., “Von einer Frau nahm die Sünde ihren Anfang, ihretwegen müssen wir alle sterben” (Sir 25,24): Zur Wirkungs- und Rezeptionsgeschichte der ersten drei Kapitel der Genesis in biblischer Zeit, BiKi 53 (1998) 11–20 SKEHAN, P.W./DI LELLA, A.A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AncB 39), New York et al. 1987 SPIECKERMANN, H., Ambivalenzen: Ermöglichte und verwirklichte Schöpfung in Genesis 2f., in: Verbindungslinien (FS W.H. Schmidt), ed. by A. GRAUPNER et al., Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000, 363–376 STECK, O.H., Die Paradieserzählung: Eine Auslegung von Gen 2,4b–3,24 (BSt 60), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970 STOCK, E., Art. Tod, TRE 33 (2002) 614–619

78

Konrad Schmid

STONE, M.E., Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Fourth Book of Ezra, Minneapolis 1990 TRILLHAAS, W., Felix culpa: Zur Deutung der Geschichte vom Sündenfall bei Hegel, in: Probleme biblischer Theologie (FS G. von Rad), ed. by H.W. WOLFF, NeukirchenVluyn 1971, 589–602 UHLIG, S., Das Äthiopische Henochbuch (JSHRZ V/6), Gütersloh 1984 VAN RUITEN, J.T.A.GM., Biblical Interpretation in Jubilees 3:1–31, in: K.-D. SCHUNCK/ M. AUGUSTIN (eds.), “Lasset uns Brücken bauen...” Collected Communications to the XVth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Cambridge 1995 (BEAT 42), Frankfurt a.M. 1998, 315–319 VANDERKAM, J.C., An Introduction to Early Judaism, Grand Rapids/Cambridge 2001 WEVERS, J.W. (ed.), Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. I: Genesis, Göttingen 1974 WINSTON, D., The Wisdom of Solomon (AncB 43), New York 1979 WITTE, M., Die biblische Urgeschichte: Redaktions- und theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Genesis 1,1–11,26 (BZAW 265), Berlin/New York 1998 WOLFF, H.W., Anthropologie des Alten Testaments, München 1973 ZENGER, E., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Stuttgart et al. 52004

Is God’s Creation Good? From Hesiodus to Ben Sira* HERMANN SPIECKERMANN Is God’s creation good? At least the Jewish-Christian tradition seems to be – apart from a few idiosyncrasies – unanimous and clear. Genesis 1 provides the fundamental answer. God calls every work of his creation good, the entirety of his work even very good. This is, however, not the only possible view of the world. The antagonism between benevolent and malevolent divine powers shaping the world can be traced back to the late third millenium, especially in Mesopotamia. It is a broadly documented heritage of the Ancient Near East that the world is a place of battles among gods striving for kingship, not only in the divine realm but also in the sphere of humans.1 Judaism had to face a further serious challenge when confronted with the religion of the Achaemenid kings.2 It has to be seriously questioned whether Persian rule offered more freedom to local cults than the preceding empires did. The notion of creation had now become an integral part of imperial ideology. “Auramazda is the prime creator of cosmic and earthly order, and it is through him, with him and as part of his bountiful creation that the Persian monarch rules this earth.”3 Finally, a new challenge arose when the Ancient Near East encountered Greek philosophy in the Hellenistic age, i.e. from the late fourth century B.C.E. onward. The idea of creation as an undoubtedly benevolent divine act was certainly among those ideas subject to controversy. Judaism was highly alert as the notion of a good creation by the one and only God had been deliberately developed as a central issue of post-exilic Jewish thought to evidence the universalistic and monotheistic character of the Jewish religion. The following presentation aims at recalling ancient near Eastern ideas of creation to illustrate the background from which Jewish creation theol* I should like to thank Franziska Ede and Peter Altmann for diligently revising my English manuscript. 1 Cf. SMITH, History; KLINGBEIL, Yahweh; SCHWEMER, Wettergottgestalten; a survey over the topic of creation in the Ancient Near East and in the Old Testament is provided by KRATZ/ SPIECKERMANN, Schöpfer/Schöpfung. 2 Cf. KOCH, Religion. 3 KUHRT, Problem‚ 120–121.

80

Hermann Spieckermann

ogy emerged. Hesiodus’ Theogony is taken as an example fitting this purpose. Thereupon, we proceed with the creation theology of the Priestly Code in Genesis 1 and the narratives in Genesis 2–3 that document different stages of post-exilic Jewish thought on creation. These thoughts are subsequently contrasted to the role of creation in Plato’s Timaios evoking divergent Jewish reactions as evidenced by Qohelet on the one hand and Ben Sira on the other hand. Adhering to this outline necessitates rushing through complex concepts of creation, developed within roughly half a millennium. Therefore, only a glimpse at those concepts can be offered.

1 Hesiodus To start with Hesiodus’ Theogony4 can be justified by the fact that it contains the heritage of Ancient Near Eastern creation traditions to a remarkable degree.5 Due notice is taken of those very traditions being perceived through the lens of Hesiodus. When he, whose father immigrated from Kyme on the West coast of Asia Minor, composed the Theogony around 700 B.C.E. in Boiotia, he had a well-grounded knowledge of divine genealogies and traditions from Asia Minor and Greece pertaining to the origins of those gods and the world, which he brought together in a new composition. The deities and numinous powers were numerous; it is only with difficulty, that Hesiodus combines both their origins and deeds in a way that the interrelation may be understood as creation.6 Rather, the work is shaped by an intertwined process of birth of the gods (theogony), battle of the gods (theomachy) and, consequently, either divine succession or victory resp. defeat. The beginning is chaos, and the ever threatened lordship of Zeus can be viewed as the goal. To speak of beginning and goal, however, is problematic in view of the disparity of subjects. The notions of beginning and goal do not charaterize the composition. Neither is creation. Rather, Hesiodus’ Theogony represents the multitude of Greek deities to convey the idea that the world is determined by disorder as much as by order. A cosmos arranged by good will and benevolent power of the gods is not the leading idea fostered in Hesiodus’ work.

4 SOLMSEN, Hesiodis Theogonia; cf. WEST, Theogony; VON SCHIRNDING, Hesiod, Theogonie. 5 Cf. BURKERT, Griechen, 55–78; ID., Mythen; SPIECKERMANN, “Erde”. 6 NESSELRATH, (Griechen) has evidenced that the notion of creation cannot be regarded as a major topic of Greek mythology.

Is God’s Creation Good?

81

2 The Creation Narrative in Genesis 1 Approximately two hundred years later, around 500 B.C.E., post-exilic Judaism in Palestine is, at least from a priestly point of view, in the position to depict the creation of heaven and earth as the seven day work of a god who is the only One (Gen 1:1–2:4a).7 Chaos precedes God’s actions. His creation brings about good order and space for life, out of the chaos and against the chaos. God acts by means of his efficacious word. The whole of creation reveals that God made heaven and earth primordially good. He did not populate the heavens with gods and numinous powers, instead he filled the earth with his creatures enabling life to flourish under the dominion of humans, created in his divine image. The Priestly Code does not only know the often emphasized Babylonian creation myths. It knows demonstrably more, yet makes use of only very little implicitly. Above all – and this may already be evoked by different world concepts mingling good and evil with a tendency toward dualism – the Priestly Code by means of God’s own judgement renders creation and goodness completely and entirely identical. Evil lurks within bounded chaos – and within the human being, this extraordinarily honoured creature, who perverts the divine image, right after having become the paradigm of his creation.

3 The Creation Narrative in Genesis 2–3 The human being just created has a propensity for evil. It is not treated in the Priestly code’s creation narrative, rather in its wake.8 There are good reasons to assume that the narrative in Genesis 2–3 in its present shape presupposes the priestly creation narrative in Genesis 1. The comprehensive redaction of Genesis 2–3 used as its Vorlage a preexilic etiological account highlighting the creation of man and woman subsequently falling in love. God cares for their clothing (3:21) and, finally, sends Adam and Eve forth from the garden Eden to procreate and till the ground (3:20,23). This is not to be understood as punishment, rather as the completion of creation and the beginning of every day life beyond the garden of Eden as the mythic residence of the creator. Tilling the ground and begetting children is the human destiny according to God’s good will, thus sustaining life and generating humankind.

7

STECK, Schöpfungsbericht; WEIMAR, Struktur. Cf. WITTE, Urgeschichte; SPIECKERMANN, Ambivalenzen; SCHMID, Unteilbarkeit; for a comprehensive review of the present state of research combined with own ideas cf. KÜBEL, Metamorphosen. 8

82

Hermann Spieckermann

The old account paralleled by similar cultural myths primarily from Mesopotamia9 has served as the basis of a quite elaborate composition witnessed in the present shape of Genesis 2–3. It is concerned with the existence of evil, since Genesis 1 unanimously and emphatically stresses the goodness of creation. The comprehensive redaction of Genesis 2–3 is striving to affirm the goodness of creation and to add an explanation of how evil emerged to play the important part among humans that it had always been perceived to do. The question of the origin of evil is similarly left open as in Genesis 1, though explained differently. God enables the human being to choose good or evil. Consequently, the human being is perceived as being capable of choosing either to comply with God’s will and thus preserving the goodness of creation or to resist it. Responsibility as a characteristic of the human being was not an explicit topic of Genesis 1, though it may have been consciously implied in the notion of humankind being created in the image of God. A specific term is still lacking in Genesis 2–3, but it is beyond doubt that this notion is of major importance for the plot. It is the tree of knowledge of good and evil “pleasant to the sight and good for food” (2:9) that provides the motif evoking the crisis and leading to the fall. It results in a coexistence of good and evil in God’s creation. The origin of evil is neither within God, nor within the serpent, or even in the human being. God does not prevent evil from exerting influence on his good creation – for the sake of the human being as God’s creature is endowed with the capability to choose between good and evil, to obey or to disobey God’s commandment. This is how responsibility is perceived. The serpent belonging to God’s good creation makes the human being aware of the far-reaching consequence included in his choice. To obey or to disobey means to accept or to reject being God’s creature. In the latter case, the human strives to become divine himself just as the serpent promised (3:4– 5). This is, of course, a portentous misunderstanding of being created in God’s image (1:26–27) induced by the serpent’s words and – according to the author’s intention – resolutely turned back. Finally, the human being chooses to disobey, yet not gaining a divine status but remaining human, guilty in a good creation and facing God’s verdict through the curses. The status achieved resembles the world as it is characterized by the coexistence of good and evil. The narrative in Genesis 2–3 provides God’s justification calling the human to account for his propensity for evil, rejecting his status of being a creature. God, however, does not exterminate the human being entangled in evil but preserves him surrounded by curses – maybe for his creating the world good. It is not stated explicitly, yet it may be surmised that the divine decision to preserve his honoured creature, is closely connected with God’s being good himself. 9

Cf. BOTTERO/KRAMER, Dieux.

Is God’s Creation Good?

83

4 Plato Roughly one hundred years later than the biblical creation narrative supplemented by Genesis 2–3, Plato composed his late dialogue Timaeus. The idea that a god judges the whole of creation as being good is inconsistent with Plato’s way of perceiving the world.10 An overview of the first fundamental part of this important dialogue is necessary.11 Plato underlines how little a Greek mind is inclined to speculate on creation. He would like us to believe that the Greeks understood themselves, like the Egyptians, as children of history, without any tradition and knowledge authorized by great age.12 How much more modest must one then be when speaking about the origin of the whole (to. pa/n), which, although more seldom, can be called universe (ko,smoj), and about the god of creation, the master of works (dhmiourgo,j), “the originator and father of the whole” (o` poihth.j kai. o` path.r tou/ panto,j). Nothing more than an attempt to discuss the topic is possible.13 This much is clear, namely that the god of creation allowed the whole to come into existence as a single souled being, similarly good as he himself and endowed with reason.14 Preferably called heaven, the creator furnishes this being with soul and body; it is a blessed god, self-sufficient in his excellence. Finally, he creates, as an image of eternity, time to give order to the created heaven.15 As the heavenly world is fair (kalo,j) and the god of creation is good (avgaqo,j) it is evident that the god creating the heavenly world must have looked at that which is eternal (to. avi,dion). The fair and the good are identical with the entirety of creation thus far as completed. The heavenly cosmos, however, is only the first stage of creation.16 It requires continuation performed by four types of creatures: the generation of the heavenly gods, furthermore the creatures of the air, the water, and the land. The first to become a deity within the heavenly cosmos is Earth (Gh/). Little is said about the further members belonging to the family of gods. It is Heaven (Ouvrano,j – not without tensions regarding the previous statements about the heavenly cosmos) aside from the Earth, both being a couple, furthermore their children Okeanos and Tethys, who for their part give birth to Phorkys, Kronos, and Rhea, the latter two of which begot 10

BURNET, Platonis Opera; cf. TAYLOR, Commentary; PLATON, Werke. Cf. PLATO, Timaeus, 17a–47e. 12 Cf. PLATO, Timaeus, 22a–23e. 13 Cf. PLATO, Timaeus, 28a–29d. In 29a Plato states that “the world is the fairest of creations (ka,llistoj tw/n gegono,twn) and he (the god of creation) is the best of causes” (o` d’ a;ristoj tw/n aivti,wn). 14 Cf. PLATO, Timaeus, 29d–30b. 15 Cf. PLATO, Timaeus, 34a–39e. 16 The following exposition is based on PLATO, Timaeus, 39e–42e. 11

84

Hermann Spieckermann

Zeus and Hera. It is evidenced that Plato knows Hesiodus quite well,17 but only draws on him reluctantly. We are expected to believe the family affairs (oivkei/a) of the gods, he states morosely, though no reasons are provided. Truth is to believe just as being is to become, i.e. both are fundamentally different.18 To Plato, Hesiodus’ gods are living beings, created and therefore not immortal per se, rather immortal only according to the will of their father, the demiurge. He leaves the creation of the remaining three kinds of creatures – the air, the water, and the land – to the gods already created. As those creatures should be mortal, the demiurge must not create them. A distinct line must be drawn between the spheres of being and becoming. The remaining creatures are brought about by the created gods, who imitate the creative capability the demiurge had used to create them. Finally, the whole of the cosmos truly becomes an entirety19 through the creation of the mortal human. He is a creature endowed with a soul, yet of only second or indeed third class. Every human first comes into being in the best form achievable, namely as a man, the god-fearing species among the creatures. Human nature, however, has a double face. On the one hand, they all have the same perceptive faculties, which they can use for thinking and acting; on the other hand, they become dominated by love, emerging from desire and pain as well as fear and wrath accompanied by all corresponding phenomena. Only the souls of humans who are able to master this double nature, managing to live in justice, will return after death to the stars allotted to them. Otherwise a rebirth will follow, a rebirth as a woman, or, in the case of enduring wickedness or total deterioration, as a corresponding animal. Under these presuppositions the task is assigned to the created gods to lead the mortals “in the best and wisest manner” (ka,lista kai. a;rista), and to avert from them all evils except for the self-inflicted ones.20 To what degree the created gods are prepared for their assigned leadership is subject to doubt, given all the divine struggles and failures the Greek myths are telling. The humans, a substantial part of the created whole of the cosmos, are exponents of the sphere of becoming and, consequently, differ from the created gods unto whom the special status of immortality is bestowed by the highest divine decree. They belong to the realm of necessity. In the realm of those who come into being, however, probability reigns. Therefore, nothing true and binding can be said about humans. In celebratory discourse, the demiurgic god turns to the young gods, who have become immortal, in order to leave to them the mortal humans, the creatures with an ambiguous double nature, 17

Cf. Theogonia (n. 4), 116ss. Cf. PLATO, Timaeus, 40d–e; 29c. 19 Cf. PLATO, Timaeus, 41c. 20 PLATO, Timaeus, 42e. 18

Is God’s Creation Good?

85

constantly in danger of being reborn. Not the creator-god, only the created gods are close to the mortals. Whereas the created gods escape the sphere of becoming by divine decree, the humans are chained to becoming, transitoriness and death. Being, truth, necessity as well as the good are unreachably far. Humans may experience the leadership of the created gods “in the best and wisest manner”. Those superlatives, however, are much less than the identity of “fair and good” (kalo,j kai. avgaqo,j), valid only for the heavenly cosmos of the creator-god, not for the world made by the created gods.

5 Qohelet Roughly a hundred years later, around 250 B.C.E., the Book of Qohelet, also known under the Greek-Latin name Ecclesiastes, no longer shares the conviction that God is speaking to the human; he cannot be addressed either.21 Nevertheless, the topic of God and his creation is intensely debated, for the first time in the Hebrew Bible literature frequently apostrophized as the relation of God and the whole (lKoh;).22 Whether Qohelet, the sceptic Jew familiar with Hellenistic philosophy, knew Plato’s Timaeus cannot be established with certainty. In view of the central role Plato’s texts played in the Hellenistic time, it is not improbable though that basic thoughts of the Timaeus were known in educated Judaism, especially since it addresses the central topic of creation. The view of creation authoritative in the Priestly Code is no longer possible for Qohelet.23 There can be no doubt that Qohelet regards humans and everything that surrounds them as God’s creation. But neither do heaven and earth denote a cosmos24 founded benevolently by the creator, nor can the creation be considered good, whether single works of creation or creation in its entirety. What God created is his work, and it is this whole which humans are harnessed on bending and breaking.25 Endowed 21

Cf. SPIECKERMANN, Gott. Rather consistently, the Septuagint translates lKoh; with ta. pa,nta. It is obvious that the translator aims at taking the Hebrew Vorlage as literal as possible, sometimes even without doing justice to the contents. 23 For introductory remarks on the Book of Ecclesiastes and the different ways of interpretation cf. SEOW, Ecclesiastes, 3–69; SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Kohelet; ID., Kohelet, 41–123. 24 It is noteworthy that in the one place in which this pair of words is used in the book of Qohelet, it is not meant to stress the close relation but to signal the remarkable distance (cf. 5:1). 25 The connection of lwk with the root hf[ “to make, do” and its derivatives can be used both for the action of God (in the special sense of creation and in a more general 22

86

Hermann Spieckermann

with eternity in their hearts and thus participating in God himself, they run into walls because the complete work of God does not promote understanding. On the contrary, creation seems to be made to hinder perception as the text Qoh 3:10–11 explains: I have observed the business that God gave man to be concerned with: He has made the whole fair (hp,y") for its time. He has also put eternity in their heart, yet they cannot find out the work, God has done, from the beginning to the end.26

Only one good share is granted to humans in the world by their God: joy.27 It is experienced by humans as God’s good gift, but completely by accident. Humans are unable to value the good gift accorded as part of a good creation (cf. 2:10; 3:13,22; 5:17–18; 9:7–9). Determinism and accident are ingredients of the whole of creation, experienced diffusely and not accessible to the light of perception (cf. 3:1–9; 9:11–12). Humans do not know where their spirit will one day go. Their fate is inseparably related to that of the animals, mortals exist without perceptible order or a goal decreed by God (cf. 3:18–22; 6:12; 9:2–3). Yet the consequence thereof is not a joyless life. Joy is brought forth by God as part of life (cf. 9:10). However, there is neither an immanent plan nor a transcendent purpose. The human should work as one who lets bread travel over water. There will be a finding for him, unable to be calculated, like every good part that falls in life (cf. 11:1–6). The whole is and remains the creation of the distant God, who cannot be addressed, even while he is to be revered with fear (cf. 3:14–15; 5:1–6; 7:18; 8:12–13). And the whole is at the same time lb