Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
We can also say that the first version was the Creation of Essence (YHVH and Yah from LEHIYOT = "to be", as explained in my notes to chapter 1), with the forms of corporeal Existence coming into existence on the latter days; and that this is now a greater elaboration of those latter days, and of day 6 in particular, through the "womb" of Earth, the fertile sacred garden of the mother-goddess, the "Mother of All Living Creatures", whose name, Chavah, or Eve, comes from LECHIYOT = "to exist".
2:4 ELEH TOLDOT HA SHAMAYIM VE HA ARETS BE HIBAR'AM BE YOM ASOT YHVH ELOHIM ERETS VE SHAMAYIM
אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם בְּיוֹם עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם
KJ (King James translation): These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
BN (BibleNet translation): This is the history of the heavens and of the Earth from the time of their creation, from the day that YHVH Elohim made Earth and sky.
ED (אד): = "dew that forms clouds" (which in turn causes rain). Again punning between ED (אד), ADAM (אדם), ADAMAH (אדמה), almost as if the three were a logical progression; and then the additional aural pun from ED to EDEN, as though Eden were Ed-On, "the place of the mist".
In Assyrian, according to Hertz, the word ED means "the overflow of a river" rather than a mist. I have not been able to find a source to verify this.
2:7 VA YIYTSER YHVH ELOHIM ET HA ADAM APHAR MIN HA ADAMAH VA YIPACH BE APAV NISHMAT CHAYIM VA YEHI HA ADAM LE NEPHESH CHAYAH
In early Rabbinic times the word YETSER acquired an entirely new meaning, which referred to Humankind's good and evil inclinations, the YETSER HA TOV and the YETSER HA RA, an essential theological difference between Talmudic Judaism and Christianity. These were probably learned during the exile in Babylon (586-536 BCE), and specifically after the defeat of Babylon by the Median Persians, whose king Koresh (Cyrus) supported the restoration of Yehudah; the Medeans were followers of Zoroaster, whose principal deity Ahura Mazda created the twin spirits, Angra Mainyu, the destructive spirit, and Spenta Meynu, the good spirit.
APHAR (עפר) is connected to EPHRON (עפרון), from whom Av-Ram bought the Cave of Machpelah at Chevron as a burial-ground for Sarah (Genesis 23); Robert Graves demonstrates that Ephron is a Semitic rendering of the Chitite god whom the Greeks would later call Phoroneus, and who may also have been a version of Orpheus; a connection of some significance as there are very close parallels between Orpheus's journey into the underworld and the pursuit of the young David by King Sha'ul, which ended with David as king precisely in Chevron. EPHRON in the same spelling is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 13:19 as a town of Bin-Yamin, and in Joshua 15:9 as a mountain between Yehudah and Bin-Yamin. APHAR (עפר) = "dust", but may here refer to a place. EPHER (עפר) = "a calf" or "young animal"; OPHER = a form of deer, goat, gazelle.
TOV VA RA: Good and evil: but see Deuteronomy 1:39, which seems to imply a Blakeian view of inherent innocence in children. Most people refer to it as "The Tree of Knowledge" and draw all manner of erroneous conclusions about Elohim intending us to remain naive and uneducated etc; but it is not "The Tree of Knowledge"; it is much more precisely "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". This is about knowing right from wrong; which is to say, it is about the acquisition of a thinking, reasoning, independent, or at least autonomous, ratiocinative faculty: the capacity to not need Elohim because Humankind can stand alone; and as such it takes us back to verse 7, to VA YIYTSER, for which see the notes there. This is why the Tree is forbidden. The acquisition of consciousness should lead to atheism. No religion can allow that. Death, and the loss of Paradise, and childbirth, and manual labour become "our own fault" for daring to think for ourselves and recognise that we have no need for priestly cults! Learn the catechism! Recite it by rote! That truth is all ye know on Earth, or need to know!
2:10 VE NAHAR YOTSE ME EDEN LEHASHKOT ET HA GAN U MI SHAM YIPARED VE HAYAH LE ARBA'AH RA'SHIM
The Yeru-Shala'im "connection" can be found in 1 Kings 1:32, where King David, having just been told that yet another coup has taken place, this time his son Adoni-Yah declaring himself king, pre-empts matters by sending the heir that he does want, Shelomoh (Solomon), to the pool of Gichon on mule-back, to be anointed as Prince Regent. Gichon lies in the gorge that separates Mount Tsi'on from Mount Mor-Yah; the Pool of Silo'am is filled from a spring known in the Christian world as Mary's Well, previously as The Virgin's Fountain, but in Yehudit as Gichon (גִּחֽוֹן). It remains one of the great tourist-adventures in contemporary Yeru-Shala'im, for it is the journey from Gichon to Silo'am that is made through Hezekiah's Tunnel. And as to why here, for Shelomoh's anointment, it was believed that this was the same Gichon as in the Eden myth, and that its waters became turbulent, not because they understood the science of underground springs, but because a sea-creature, probably Tiamat herself, inhabited the spring.
Much more likely, however, it was a fig; traditionally the fig is seen in the Middle East as symbolic of the female pudendum, while the hanging roots suggest the form of a snake, and the plethora of seeds, like those of the pomegranate, epitomise fertility.
But that is only the Christian perspective - the lines from Milton continue "till one greater Man restore us, and regain the blissful seat", super-imposing Messianic theology upon the Hellenic. The Jewish reading stays with the Hellenic: since Good and Evil are both aspects of the divinity (a key factor in the Yetser ha Tov-Yetser ha Ra distinction, and in the Monism-Dualism distinction, between the two religions), the instruction is not that the fruit is bad for you, but that the fruit is the god, and that it is wrong to eat the god (this is known as theophagy), the reason why the original eucharist of flesh and blood was reduced to the symbolic eucharist of bread and wine, in both Judaism and Christianity. Here, then, we have a perfect example of Ezraic Judaism seeking to supplant the ancient Beney Yisra-Eli cults. Compare this to other early cults (cf Joseph Campbell in "The Masks of God", and particularly relevant the cult of the sacred thigh-bone connected with Ya'akov/Yah-Ekev/Jacob (and also, perhaps, with Yitschak/Yah-Tschock?/Isaac, though Campbell is less than convincing on this one).
LEVADO (לבדן): from the root BAD (בד) = "separate"; also "a branch of a tree".
HOWEVER there are also spellings with a final Aleph:
(v) TSEL'A (צלא) = "to pray". The term appears only twice in the Tanach, and is clearly Aramaic rather than Yehudit (Daniel 6:11 - 6:10 in some versions - and Ezra 6:10).
(vi) TSALAH (צלה) = "to roast".
The two-letter root of all these is TSEL (צל) = "a shadow"; whence
AZAV (עזב) also means "to loosen bonds, untie, leave, desert, abandon". Why in this verse though? The "therefore" is also odd: a sense that the Redactor was looking for a good sermon on the importance of marriage, and created it here, appended to a story about something quite different, but adaptable for his purposes; and then the adaptation became the norm. This becomes the pattern for much of the Tanach!
2:25 VA YIHEYU SHENEYHEM ARUMIM HA ADAM VE ISHTO VE LO YITBOSHASHU
KJ: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
BN: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and they were not ashamed.
ARUM (ערום): = "naked", but also "crafty, subtle", as with the snake in Genesis 3:1.
LO YITBOSHASHU (יתבששו): the root is BUSH = "to be ashamed". But the point here is that they were not ashamed; which conflicts with the fig-leaves and the explanation to the deity in the next chapter (3:7 specifically), where clearly they were ashamed.
TOLDOT (תולדות): From the root YALAD (ילד), literally = "generations", "families", "races"; "genealogy", "pedigree" - also "history"; used to mean "origin". The word is going to crop up repeatedly in the Book of Genesis, offering very precise, and usually, once investigated, extremely imprecise and contradictory genealogical tables, very few of them proving actually to be genealogical at all, all of them essential to one of the key purposes of writing down the Tanach in the first place, upon return from Babylonian exile in the mid 5th century BCE - the need to create, invent, artifice something that could be accepted as a shared national history, by a hugely disparate range of tribes and peoples who really had very little history, and even less of family, in common.
BA YOM: "On the day". Yet the previous version required six days. Which is whyI have translated this as "from the day".
YHVH ELOHIM (יהוה אלהים): The first Creation was by Elohim, this version belongs to YHVH Elohim. The common view is that the Torah as we have it is a composite of four major documents, known as J, E, D and P. TheBibleNet disputes this as a remarkable underestimation, and the defense of this position will become apparent through the commentary. J refers to those texts in which YHVH (Yahweh) is the named deity, E to those in which Elohim has that status; however there are also occasions, such as here, when an attempt of no particular success has been made to synthesise or syncretise the two into one, naming the deity YHVH ELOHIM; elsewhere we will also witness HA ELOHIM, and texts where EL SHADAI is the predominant deity. When we encounter YHVH ELOHIM we need to recognise that two versions have been amalgamated, and then not be surprised when we come upon contradictions within the text.
Are there indications from the two texts of where precisely the two gods resided? In the introductory notes to this chapter we observed the contention in Ezekiel 28:16 that the mountain of Elohim was Mount Saphon, Jebel el-Agra, north of Ugarit in Syria; later we will see that YHVH initially inhabits the Midyanite volcanic crater that has formed and is erupting in Mount Chorev (Horeb), and is then symbolically carried with the Beney Yisra-El in the royal litter which is the Mishkan, the Ark of the Covenant.
ERETS VE SHAMAYIM (ארץ ושמים): Even the grammar in this version is different, reflecting a different period of time, or perhaps a different original language or dialect, or simply a different narrator or scribe. The Elohim version would have read ET HA (את ה) before both ERETS and SHAMAYIM,and then a definite article; indeed, the standard translation which is used here has presumed the intention of the definite, article and included it, where this should correctly translate as "...from the day that YHVH Elohim made Earth and sky."
2:5 VE CHOL SIYACH HA SADEH TEREM YIHEYEH VA ARETS VE CHOL ESEV HA SADEH TEREM YITSMACH KI LO HIMTIR YHVH ELOHIM AL HA ARETS VE ADAM AYIN LA'AVOD ET HA ADAMAH
ERETS VE SHAMAYIM (ארץ ושמים): Even the grammar in this version is different, reflecting a different period of time, or perhaps a different original language or dialect, or simply a different narrator or scribe. The Elohim version would have read ET HA (את ה) before both ERETS and SHAMAYIM,and then a definite article; indeed, the standard translation which is used here has presumed the intention of the definite, article and included it, where this should correctly translate as "...from the day that YHVH Elohim made Earth and sky."
2:5 VE CHOL SIYACH HA SADEH TEREM YIHEYEH VA ARETS VE CHOL ESEV HA SADEH TEREM YITSMACH KI LO HIMTIR YHVH ELOHIM AL HA ARETS VE ADAM AYIN LA'AVOD ET HA ADAMAH
וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ וְכָל עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִצְמָח כִּי לֹא הִמְטִיר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים עַל הָאָרֶץ וְאָדָם אַיִן לַעֲבֹד אֶת הָאֲדָמָה
KJ: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
BN: No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for YHVH Elohim had not yet caused rain to fall on the earth, and there was no man to till the soil.
TEREM (טרם): always used as an adverb, from the root TARAM (טרם) = "to cut off"; having the sense of a beginning, previously, beforehand. But there is also a play on words, linked to Himtir (המטיר) in the following phrase.
KI LO HIMTIR (כי לא המטיר): MATAR (מטר) = "to rain". In the first Creation myth, the insemination of the earth, engendering fertility, was the consequence of mist, where here it is the rain. Having said which, see verse 6.
KI LO HIMTIR (כי לא המטיר): MATAR (מטר) = "to rain". In the first Creation myth, the insemination of the earth, engendering fertility, was the consequence of mist, where here it is the rain. Having said which, see verse 6.
VE ADAM... ADAMAH (ואדם אין לעבד את האדמה): Adam as Humankind rather than the man Adam; again the connection is made between Adam (אדם) and Adamah (אדמה), the red-coloured earth of Edom (אדום), from which the human is made, like clay on a potter's wheel.
2:6 VE ED YA'ALEH MIN HA ARETS VE HISHKAH ET KOL PENAY HA ADAMAH
2:6 VE ED YA'ALEH MIN HA ARETS VE HISHKAH ET KOL PENAY HA ADAMAH
וְאֵד יַעֲלֶה מִן הָאָרֶץ וְהִשְׁקָה אֶת כָּל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה
KJ: But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
BN: But then a mist rose up from the earth, and made the whole surface of the earth moist.
Once again I find myself wondering how much of what we would call science the ancients understood, and where the gaps were. Clearly they did understand the connection between moisture and fertility, and between its absence and desertification, but at no point in the Tanach do they seem to have been able to distinguish the mist and fog which comes down to the earth, from the dew that rises up from it (click here for a proper explanation), though in this verse there is some suggestion that they understood that rising condensation leads to cloud formation, and then the rain which brings the water back to the ground. A point I can make because that key word, missing from verse 5, is indeed here in verse 6:
HISHKAH (השקה): SHAKAH (שקה) = "to drink", "to water", "to irrigate" (cf 3:16).
In Assyrian, according to Hertz, the word ED means "the overflow of a river" rather than a mist. I have not been able to find a source to verify this.
2:7 VA YIYTSER YHVH ELOHIM ET HA ADAM APHAR MIN HA ADAMAH VA YIPACH BE APAV NISHMAT CHAYIM VA YEHI HA ADAM LE NEPHESH CHAYAH
וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה
KJ: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
BN: Then YHVH Elohim fashioned Man out of the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul.
VA YIYTSER (וייצר): In Genesis 1:26 the mode of creation was NA'ASEH ADAM (נעשה אדם), and BARA (ברא); here it's YATSAR (יצר) = "to form", "fashion"; as in pottery; but it is written with a dagesh chazak in the YUD, suggesting it roots from NATSAR (נצר) = "to watch", "keep" (especially of a vineyard); also "to keep" or "observe" a commandment (whence NOTSRIM - נוצרים - the Yisra-Eli name for the Christians); also "to besiege a city"; also "to shine", "to be verdant". NETSER (נצר), from YATSAR (יצר) = "a sprout, shoot, branch"; which may be the alternative root of Notsrim-Christians, especially bearing in mind the Yesha-Yahu reference to "a scion of David" (Isaiah 11:1). In this sense, is Adam a scion of the branch of the tree ELON (אלון) = "oak" from which Elohim is named? The distinct impression is not the creation of a human being so much as of the fashioning from clay of an idol or human image into which YHVH ELOHIM then breathes life; as such ADAM is not simply the species Humankind, but also in some way the earth-god, a divine version of the Golem, and very much the manner in which Mesopotamian Enki created the first Man in the Myth of Atra-Hasis, and likewise Quingu in another Mesopotamian version (see my notes to Etemmu).
In early Rabbinic times the word YETSER acquired an entirely new meaning, which referred to Humankind's good and evil inclinations, the YETSER HA TOV and the YETSER HA RA, an essential theological difference between Talmudic Judaism and Christianity. These were probably learned during the exile in Babylon (586-536 BCE), and specifically after the defeat of Babylon by the Median Persians, whose king Koresh (Cyrus) supported the restoration of Yehudah; the Medeans were followers of Zoroaster, whose principal deity Ahura Mazda created the twin spirits, Angra Mainyu, the destructive spirit, and Spenta Meynu, the good spirit.
Talmudists also point out that here YETSER has two yuds - this is what the dagesh chazak indicates - whereas in 1:19, referring to the making of the animals, it had only one; this is interpreted to mean that Humankind has a moral dimension while the animals do not, or that Humankind inhabits the realms of the Earth and the heavens, whereas animals only inhabit the former. How this interpretation is reached is unclear, but faith is faith and we are asked to respect it.
HA ADAM (האדם): Distinguishing the species from the individual, but still not yet the individual named Adam.
HA ADAM (האדם): Distinguishing the species from the individual, but still not yet the individual named Adam.
APHAR MIN HA ADAMAH (עפר מן האדמה): Male from female: the Earth as female goddess.
APHAR (עפר) is connected to EPHRON (עפרון), from whom Av-Ram bought the Cave of Machpelah at Chevron as a burial-ground for Sarah (Genesis 23); Robert Graves demonstrates that Ephron is a Semitic rendering of the Chitite god whom the Greeks would later call Phoroneus, and who may also have been a version of Orpheus; a connection of some significance as there are very close parallels between Orpheus's journey into the underworld and the pursuit of the young David by King Sha'ul, which ended with David as king precisely in Chevron. EPHRON in the same spelling is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 13:19 as a town of Bin-Yamin, and in Joshua 15:9 as a mountain between Yehudah and Bin-Yamin. APHAR (עפר) = "dust", but may here refer to a place. EPHER (עפר) = "a calf" or "young animal"; OPHER = a form of deer, goat, gazelle.
Not to be confused with this is APHAR (אפר, with an aleph - א - rather than an ayin - ע) = "to be white as sand" or "red as clay"; also "to be rough, heavy" (as was Esav - Esau - the first Edomite). It is connected to EPHER (again with an aleph rather than an ayin) = "ashes". The tribal name EPHRAYIM (אפרים) comes from this root. The phrase "ashes to ashes, dust to dust", derived from Genesis 3:19, exploits the same aural pun.
The myth of Humankind's creation from earth, clay or dust is common. In addition to the Mesopotamian parallels already noted, in Mitsrayim (Egypt) both Khnum and Ptah are said to have created the first man on a potter's wheel; and in Babylon both the goddess Aruru and the god Ea (sometimes known as Enki) are said to have kneaded man from clay. According to the Phocian Greeks, Prometheus used a certain red clay at Panopeus, and what was left there exuded an odour of human flesh.
VA YIPACH BE APAV NISHMAT CHAYIM (ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים): YIPACH from NAPHACH (נפח) = "to blow", "breathe life", specifically by breathing through the nostrils. NISHMAT from NASHAM (נשם) = "to pant"; used of women in childbirth; also "to bring forth", "to bear"; also used of the anger of the god, expressed through the flaring of the nostrils.
But the breathing of life as we recall from the other creation story is also symbolic of the presence of the female spirit or Shechinah; so it is the goddess who is giving life, not the god; and anyway, the Earth is itself the womb for all earthly creation.
2:8 VA YIT'A YHVH ELOHIM GAN BE EDEN MI KEDEM VA YASEM SHAM ET HA ADAM ASHER YATSAR
2:8 VA YIT'A YHVH ELOHIM GAN BE EDEN MI KEDEM VA YASEM SHAM ET HA ADAM ASHER YATSAR
וַיִּטַּע יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים גַּן בְּעֵדֶן מִקֶּדֶם וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם אֶת הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יָצָר
KJ: And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
BN: Then YHVH Elohim planted a garden to the east of Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
VA YIT'A (ויטע): "To plant"; used of trees, gardens, vineyards; also "to pitch a tent"; also "to set up an image or idol".
GAN (גן): A garden, especially with trees - without trees it would be a GINAH (גנה), root GANAN (גנן) = "to protect with a fence". But the garden is a symbol of Earth's fertility, in marriage with the sky but still requiring the female, and so we can assume that it was the goddess, she, not the god, he, who planted the garden and put the man there.
EDEN (עדן): With an Ayin (ע) not an Aleph (א) = "delight, pleasure" from the root ADAN (עדן) signifying "softness, laxity"; also "cane", "reed" or "tall rod vacillating, vibrating in the air". But Eden may be EDON (עדון) = a) "to put on ornaments" (such as fig-leaves!), or "to adorn"; b) "to pass over, away, leave, depart" (as Adam & possibly Chavah were obliged to do) in which case it is connected to AVAR (עבר), and provides the first of several possible sources for the word Habiru (Hebrew).
BE EDEN MI KEDEM: The text now becomes obscure, to the point of being accusable of mischievousness:
GAN (גן): A garden, especially with trees - without trees it would be a GINAH (גנה), root GANAN (גנן) = "to protect with a fence". But the garden is a symbol of Earth's fertility, in marriage with the sky but still requiring the female, and so we can assume that it was the goddess, she, not the god, he, who planted the garden and put the man there.
BE EDEN MI KEDEM: The text now becomes obscure, to the point of being accusable of mischievousness:
First EDEN itself, which is straightforward: Edinu is known to have been a fertile valley between the Tigris and the Euphrates; in Chaldean the word means "plain" or "steppe".
BE EDEN: BE means "in", so we must be on that plain or steppe. No problem there.
But then:
But then:
MI KEDEM (מקדם): KADAM (קדם) = "to precede, go before, do before". It came to mean "the east" because of the cycles of the sun. It suggests that a Beney Yisra-El compass would have had East in our North position, and the remainder turned 90 degrees accordingly. East in all Semitic religions is, metaphorically speaking, the magnetic pole - any link to Greek Cadmus, the founder of Greek Thebes but, more importantly, a late revision of the myth of the slaying of Tahamat?
But now we have to see the entire phrase as one, MI KEDEM, means "from the East"; does this mean that it was in the valley of Eden as you come into the valley from the East? Or, and verse 10 appears to confirm this, that the garden was not "in" Eden at all, but where Kayin went on his nomadic wanderings into Steinbeck territory, "east of Eden"?
2:9 VA YATSMACH YHVH ELOHIM MIN HA ADAMAH KOL ETS NECHMAD LE MAR'EH VE TOV LE MA'ACHAL VE ETS HA CHAYIM BETOCH HA GAN VE ETS HA DA'AT TOV VA RA
But now we have to see the entire phrase as one, MI KEDEM, means "from the East"; does this mean that it was in the valley of Eden as you come into the valley from the East? Or, and verse 10 appears to confirm this, that the garden was not "in" Eden at all, but where Kayin went on his nomadic wanderings into Steinbeck territory, "east of Eden"?
2:9 VA YATSMACH YHVH ELOHIM MIN HA ADAMAH KOL ETS NECHMAD LE MAR'EH VE TOV LE MA'ACHAL VE ETS HA CHAYIM BETOCH HA GAN VE ETS HA DA'AT TOV VA RA
וַיַּצְמַח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן הָאֲדָמָה כָּל עֵץ נֶחְמָד לְמַרְאֶה וְטוֹב לְמַאֲכָל וְעֵץ הַחַיִּים בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן וְעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע
KJ: And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
BN: And out of the ground YHVH Elohim cause every tree to grow that is pleasing to look at, and good for food; and the Tree of Life was also in the garden, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
YATSMACH (יצמח): from the root TSAMACH (צמח) = "to sprout".
ETS HA CHAYIM (עץ החיים): The Tree of Life, the Yisra-Eli equivalent of the World Tree. See also Proverbs 3:18 where the Tree of Life is associated with Chochmah = Wisdom, rather than the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which is the Yisra-Eli equivalent of the Bodhi Tree (the phrase in verse 18 of that passage is the one sung in synagogues whenever the Torah scrolls are taken out: Ayts chayim hi le machaziykim bo).
BETOCH: Does not mean "in the midst", but simply "inside", so that it could have been anywhere in the garden, and not necessarily anywhere near the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - even if either of these were literal rather than metaphorical trees in the first place (see again Proverbs 3:18).
TOV VA RA: Good and evil: but see Deuteronomy 1:39, which seems to imply a Blakeian view of inherent innocence in children. Most people refer to it as "The Tree of Knowledge" and draw all manner of erroneous conclusions about Elohim intending us to remain naive and uneducated etc; but it is not "The Tree of Knowledge"; it is much more precisely "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". This is about knowing right from wrong; which is to say, it is about the acquisition of a thinking, reasoning, independent, or at least autonomous, ratiocinative faculty: the capacity to not need Elohim because Humankind can stand alone; and as such it takes us back to verse 7, to VA YIYTSER, for which see the notes there. This is why the Tree is forbidden. The acquisition of consciousness should lead to atheism. No religion can allow that. Death, and the loss of Paradise, and childbirth, and manual labour become "our own fault" for daring to think for ourselves and recognise that we have no need for priestly cults! Learn the catechism! Recite it by rote! That truth is all ye know on Earth, or need to know!
2:10 VE NAHAR YOTSE ME EDEN LEHASHKOT ET HA GAN U MI SHAM YIPARED VE HAYAH LE ARBA'AH RA'SHIM
וְנָהָר יֹצֵא מֵעֵדֶן לְהַשְׁקוֹת אֶת הַגָּן וּמִשָּׁם יִפָּרֵד וְהָיָה לְאַרְבָּעָה רָאשִׁים
KJ: And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
BN: And a river went out from Eden to water the garden; and from there it separated, and became four tributaries.
VE NAHAR YOTS'E (ונהר יצא): Note the use of the present tense at the beginning of the verse, which then switches back to the past tense with YIPARED and HAYAH; this is not reflected in standard translations, which should read "And a river flows out of Eden... and from there it parted and became..."; which of course is odd, and suggests that it is either an error in the reading of the Yehudit, where יצא (YATS'A) would make rather more sense.
ME EDEN: As noted above (verse 8), the inference is that the garden was not actually "in" Eden at all, but "east of Eden"; and here the river flows "out of" Eden in order to water the garden.
ARBA'AH RA'SHIM: the four "heads" or "sources" are the four principal rays, the four quarters of Heaven, the four segments of the mandala of Horus from which the Christian image of the central head of Christ surrounded in a circle by those of the four evangelists is derived; the four point of the Cross too, for that matter. The story is thus both that of the river flowing out of the orchard, and of the sun-god from whose flaming head four streams of light flow out, one to each quarter of the universe. We are in the realm of Tammuz now, and Shimshon (Samson), not Prometheus.
And note, as I have previously, that this is the same word that yields the very first of the Bible, Bere'shit, the "head" or "source" of the universe itself.
2:11 SHEM HA ECHAD PIYSHON HU HA SOVEV ET KOL ERETS HA CHAVIYLAH ASHER SHAM HA ZAHAV
ME EDEN: As noted above (verse 8), the inference is that the garden was not actually "in" Eden at all, but "east of Eden"; and here the river flows "out of" Eden in order to water the garden.
NAHAR (נהר) = "to flow", but also "to shine, give light"; NEHARA (נהרה) = "the light of day", therefore the sun. Everything about this tale is metaphorical!
ARBA'AH RA'SHIM: the four "heads" or "sources" are the four principal rays, the four quarters of Heaven, the four segments of the mandala of Horus from which the Christian image of the central head of Christ surrounded in a circle by those of the four evangelists is derived; the four point of the Cross too, for that matter. The story is thus both that of the river flowing out of the orchard, and of the sun-god from whose flaming head four streams of light flow out, one to each quarter of the universe. We are in the realm of Tammuz now, and Shimshon (Samson), not Prometheus.
And note, as I have previously, that this is the same word that yields the very first of the Bible, Bere'shit, the "head" or "source" of the universe itself.
2:11 SHEM HA ECHAD PIYSHON HU HA SOVEV ET KOL ERETS HA CHAVIYLAH ASHER SHAM HA ZAHAV
שֵׁם הָאֶחָד פִּישׁוֹן הוּא הַסֹּבֵב אֵת כָּל אֶרֶץ הַחֲוִילָה אֲשֶׁר שָׁם הַזָּהָב
KJ: The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
BN: The name of the first is Piyshon; this is the one which encircles the entire land of Chaviylah, where there is gold.
PIYSHON (פישון): The Yehudit Sheen (ש) is interchangeable with the Aramaic Tav (ת), and may once have been interchanged in Yehudit itself. Therefore Piyshon (פישון) may be read as Piyton (פיתון) = "python, snake", the traditional metaphor for rivers. PIYSHON (פישון) in Yehudit = "to flow".
The fact that this seemingly so-important river is never again mentioned in the entire Tanach must make us wonder about its authenticity.
CHAVIYLAH (חוילה): Probably the ancient land of Hodu (הודו) = India. Josephus therefore deduces that Piyshon is the Ganges, but the Indus would be more likely if it was India (cultural comparisons would require a vast blog of their own). A link to CHAVAH (חוה) is not implausible; cf Genesis 10:29. Hertz places it north-east of Arabia, on the Persian Gulf and notes that ancient Arabia was famous for its gold.
HA ZAHAV (הזהב): ZAHAV = "to shine like gold"; gold of course is connected to the sun.
2:12 U ZAHAV HA ARETS HA HI TOV SHAM HA BEDOLACH VE EVEN HA SHOCHAM
The fact that this seemingly so-important river is never again mentioned in the entire Tanach must make us wonder about its authenticity.
CHAVIYLAH (חוילה): Probably the ancient land of Hodu (הודו) = India. Josephus therefore deduces that Piyshon is the Ganges, but the Indus would be more likely if it was India (cultural comparisons would require a vast blog of their own). A link to CHAVAH (חוה) is not implausible; cf Genesis 10:29. Hertz places it north-east of Arabia, on the Persian Gulf and notes that ancient Arabia was famous for its gold.
HA ZAHAV (הזהב): ZAHAV = "to shine like gold"; gold of course is connected to the sun.
2:12 U ZAHAV HA ARETS HA HI TOV SHAM HA BEDOLACH VE EVEN HA SHOCHAM
וּזֲהַב הָאָרֶץ הַהִוא טוֹב שָׁם הַבְּדֹלַח וְאֶבֶן הַשֹּׁהַם
KJ: And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
BN: And the gold of that land is good; there is bedellium and onyx stone as well.
HA HI: The pointing here is, to use an old Yiddish-English expression, nischt a hier und nischt a there: neither one thing nor the other, but seemingly both, and we will witness this many times throughout the Tanach. HI (הַהִיא) would be feminine (she), HU (הוּא) would be masculine (he); what is offered here is a combination of both, but we know that it must be feminine because ARETS = "land" is a feminine word. The problem lies with the writing down of the Yud and the Vav, both of them vertical lines, but one slightly longer than the other, and in a hand-written text it isn't always possible to tell.
BEDOLACH (בדלח): BADIL (בדל) is an alloy found in ore mixed with silver and separated from it by means of fire. In Latin it is called PLUMBUM (whence a plumb line). The root yields BADAL = "to separate, distinguish, select", as in Genesis 1:4 "VA YAVDEL ELOHIM BEYN HA OR..." BEDOLACH in Numbers 11:7 is connected to the manna which fell from the skies; and in Exodus 16:14 to hoar frost. Josephus calls it "the gum of a tree, whitish, resinous and pellucid, nearly the colour of frankincense; when broken it is the colour of wax, with grains like frankincense". Therefore possibly myrrh, which is MOR (מר) in Yehudit, the root of MOR-YAH (מריה), Mount Moriah = the place of sacrifice to YAH (יה), denoted by the myrrh used as incense, one of the three gifts brought by the Magi (Matthew 2:11), and also used by Mary Magdalene to anoint Jesus (Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, John 12:1-8); and also possibly to MOR-YAM (מרים), which may be the original form of Mir-Yam (Miriam). Either way the yellow colour again connects it to the sun.
BEDOLACH (בדלח): BADIL (בדל) is an alloy found in ore mixed with silver and separated from it by means of fire. In Latin it is called PLUMBUM (whence a plumb line). The root yields BADAL = "to separate, distinguish, select", as in Genesis 1:4 "VA YAVDEL ELOHIM BEYN HA OR..." BEDOLACH in Numbers 11:7 is connected to the manna which fell from the skies; and in Exodus 16:14 to hoar frost. Josephus calls it "the gum of a tree, whitish, resinous and pellucid, nearly the colour of frankincense; when broken it is the colour of wax, with grains like frankincense". Therefore possibly myrrh, which is MOR (מר) in Yehudit, the root of MOR-YAH (מריה), Mount Moriah = the place of sacrifice to YAH (יה), denoted by the myrrh used as incense, one of the three gifts brought by the Magi (Matthew 2:11), and also used by Mary Magdalene to anoint Jesus (Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, John 12:1-8); and also possibly to MOR-YAM (מרים), which may be the original form of Mir-Yam (Miriam). Either way the yellow colour again connects it to the sun.
Hertz reckons it was some kind of a pearl, and this is how it is translated in this alternative link to Numbers 11:7.
The Yahwist writing this might have known about bedellium etc because he was well inside the iron age; but would oral tradition have known it?
The Yahwist writing this might have known about bedellium etc because he was well inside the iron age; but would oral tradition have known it?
VE EVEN HA SHOCHAM (ואבן השחם): Onyx or sard onyx - yellow/orange colour with white lines; probably a cornelian. Not to be confused with SOHAM, which was one of the twelve stones on the ephod of the Kohen Gadol (cf Exodus 28:17-20, and click here for more detail).
2:13 VE SHEM HA NAHAR HA SHENI GIYCHON HU HA SOVEV ET KOL ERETZ KUSH
2:13 VE SHEM HA NAHAR HA SHENI GIYCHON HU HA SOVEV ET KOL ERETZ KUSH
וְשֵׁם הַנָּהָר הַשֵּׁנִי גִּיחוֹן הוּא הַסּוֹבֵב אֵת כָּל אֶרֶץ כּוּשׁ
KJ: And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
BN: And the name of the second river is Giychon; this is the one which encircles the entire land of Kush.
GIYCHON (גיחון): from GIYACH (גיח) or GO'ACH (גוח) = "to break out, burst forth"; it was used for a river breaking from its source, or a child from the womb, the latter presumably because it required the breaking of the waters for that happen. 1 Kings 32 (1 Kings 1:33 in most Christian versions) associates it with SHILO'ACH (שלוח); but that is really talking about the spring in Yeru-Shalayim, ME'AYEN HA GICHON (מעיין הגיחון), rather than the river of Eden which this verse intends - unless two versions of the myth have become conjoined, one sourcing Eden in Iraq, the other in Yeru-Shalayim, just as a third will do in Chevron.
The Yeru-Shala'im "connection" can be found in 1 Kings 1:32, where King David, having just been told that yet another coup has taken place, this time his son Adoni-Yah declaring himself king, pre-empts matters by sending the heir that he does want, Shelomoh (Solomon), to the pool of Gichon on mule-back, to be anointed as Prince Regent. Gichon lies in the gorge that separates Mount Tsi'on from Mount Mor-Yah; the Pool of Silo'am is filled from a spring known in the Christian world as Mary's Well, previously as The Virgin's Fountain, but in Yehudit as Gichon (גִּחֽוֹן). It remains one of the great tourist-adventures in contemporary Yeru-Shala'im, for it is the journey from Gichon to Silo'am that is made through Hezekiah's Tunnel. And as to why here, for Shelomoh's anointment, it was believed that this was the same Gichon as in the Eden myth, and that its waters became turbulent, not because they understood the science of underground springs, but because a sea-creature, probably Tiamat herself, inhabited the spring.
KUSH (כוש): usually reckoned to be the ancient land of Ethiopia. Others say it was in Asia Minor; as noted previously, it was probably a generic name for the lands on either side of the Red Sea. The determination becomes important later on however, when Aharon and Mir-Yam raise objections to Mosheh marrying a Kushite woman (Numbers 12:1); imputations of racism if Kush is regarded as Ethiopia, though this was not in fact the issue; the imputations were of endogamy ("marrying out"), regardless of the woman's height, weight, size, looks, colour, dexterity, intellect, political opinions, or even the type of music she preferred.
2:14 VE SHEM HA NAHAR HA SHELISHI CHIDEKEL HU HA HOLECH KIDMAT ASHUR VE NAHAR HA REVIY'I HU PHERAT
2:14 VE SHEM HA NAHAR HA SHELISHI CHIDEKEL HU HA HOLECH KIDMAT ASHUR VE NAHAR HA REVIY'I HU PHERAT
וְשֵׁם הַנָּהָר הַשְּׁלִישִׁי חִדֶּקֶל הוּא הַהֹלֵךְ קִדְמַת אַשּׁוּר וְהַנָּהָר הָרְבִיעִי הוּא פְרָת
KJ: And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
BN: And the name of the third river is Chidekel; this is the one which flows into eastern Ashur. And the fourth river is the Pherat.
CHIDEKEL (חדקל): In Aramaic the river DIGLA is known to be the Tigris; Yehudit has added a Chet, possibly to connect it to CHADAK (חדק) = "to prick", "thorn"; also "to sting", "bee"; also "to be sharp", "vinegar".
ASHUR (אשור) did not exist at this time, of course - none of these named lands did! It is worth doing some etymological analysis on this, because there is the land, and there is also a tribe called Asher, which is almost certainly a variation of Egyptian Osher (= Osiris – the coast of Asher is precisely where Eshet/Isis went to find his remains); and the goddess Asherah (who is probably Sarai and Sarah in the Yehudit source), and totem poles are Asherim and Ashterot, and there are Psalms (2, 34, 89, 94, 127, 146, many others) that begin with, or include, the word Ashrey... However, there are also two different spellings, Osher (עשר) with an Ayin (ע), as are Asherah (עשרה) and the Asherim and Ashterot (עשתרת), while Asher (אשר) has an Aleph (א), Ashur likewise, but with a Vav (ו) added (אשור) - the probable explanation simply being a dialect difference between the more guttural Egyptian (ע) and the more glottoral Aramaic (א).
KIDMAT ASHUR (קדמת אשור): ASHUR (אשור) = "a step"; metaphorically the god's footsteps. TE'ASHUR (תאשור) is a kind of cedar. Ashur was the usual name for ancient Ashur (Assyria). Note that all rivers have connections to place, tree, mineral etc; might it be worth the effort to see what connections there might be to the order or the number of the rivers?
HU HA HOLECH (הוא ההלך): This time HALACH (הלך) instead of SAVAV (סבב).
KIDMAT ASHUR (קדמת אשור): ASHUR (אשור) = "a step"; metaphorically the god's footsteps. TE'ASHUR (תאשור) is a kind of cedar. Ashur was the usual name for ancient Ashur (Assyria). Note that all rivers have connections to place, tree, mineral etc; might it be worth the effort to see what connections there might be to the order or the number of the rivers?
HU "PHERAT" (הוא פרת): The Euphrates river. PARAT (פרת) = "to be sweet" (of water). PORAT (פורת) is a fruit-bearing tree, from PARAH (פרה) = "to bear"; see also the note to Genesis 1:22 "Go forth and multiply..." Usually the Tanach simply calls it "the river" (Exodus 23:31 or Isaiah 7:20), and it is understood that this means the Pherat - or the Perat in Deuteronomy 1:7 et al.
2:15 VA YIKACH YHVH ELOHIM ET HA ADAM VA YANICH'EHU VE GAN EDEN LE AVDAH U LE SHAMRAH
2:15 VA YIKACH YHVH ELOHIM ET HA ADAM VA YANICH'EHU VE GAN EDEN LE AVDAH U LE SHAMRAH
וַיִּקַּח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם וַיַּנִּחֵהוּ בְגַן עֵדֶן לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ
KJ: And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
BN (provisional): Then YHVH Elohim instructed the man, and put him in the garden of Eden, to be its gardener and its steward.
VA YIKACH (ויקח): Usually translated as coming from the root LAKACH (לקח) = "to take"; but it is more logical in view of the subsequent text that it should be rooted in LEKACH (לקח) = "to instruct", which then affords a slightly different reading of the verse.
VA YANICH'EHU (וינחהו): Likewise the traditional translations assume this is from the root LANU'ACH (לנוח) = "to rest", "be at rest"; though not in the sense of SHABAT (שבת); cf NO'ACH (Noah), which has the same meaning. However it is more logical in the context to see this as stemming from the root LANU'ACH (לנוח) = "to settle, occupy, inhabit", which is how Jerome and King James render it.
LE AVDAH (לעבדה): And for the third time in the same verse... this is traditionally taken as stemming from the root AVOD (עבוד) = "to work", but it is more logical to trace it back to AVAD (עבד) = "to worship", which also has the work sense of "service" or "slavery" - a crucial distinction in the Exodus stories. However, it cannot mean "work" here (and the use of the word "dress" in the KJ feels like a partial recognition of the fact), or else the entire punishment for loss of Eden becomes undermined (see Genesis 3:17-19). Humankind does not work in the garden, nor dress it; but he does receive "instruction" on how to "worship" the gods once he has "settled" there. This conflict between AVODAH as worship and AVODAH as slavery will be seen constantly throughout the commentaries on the Torah.
LE AVDAH (לעבדה): And for the third time in the same verse... this is traditionally taken as stemming from the root AVOD (עבוד) = "to work", but it is more logical to trace it back to AVAD (עבד) = "to worship", which also has the work sense of "service" or "slavery" - a crucial distinction in the Exodus stories. However, it cannot mean "work" here (and the use of the word "dress" in the KJ feels like a partial recognition of the fact), or else the entire punishment for loss of Eden becomes undermined (see Genesis 3:17-19). Humankind does not work in the garden, nor dress it; but he does receive "instruction" on how to "worship" the gods once he has "settled" there. This conflict between AVODAH as worship and AVODAH as slavery will be seen constantly throughout the commentaries on the Torah.
U LE SHAMRAH (ולשמרה): And still one more; this is usually translated as coming from the root SHAMAR (שמר) = "to keep watch", "guard"; which of course was the role of the guardian of the shrine, as Frazer describes it in "The Golden Bough"; but this is not the man's role, nor will it be his role after the expulsion; that will be given to the Keruvim (cherubim) - one probably named Bo'az and the other Yachin - and to the flaming sword. A more logical root is SHAMAR (שמר) = "to honour, worship", which connects with AVAD as well.
Thus the fully revised translation should read (slightly laboriously in order to be absolutely clear):
"And YHVH Elohim instructed the man to cease his wanderings, to settle beside the sacred tree in the garden of Eden, to erect an altar there to YHVH Elohim, and to worship YHVH Elohim in that place".
Thus the fully revised translation should read (slightly laboriously in order to be absolutely clear):
"And YHVH Elohim instructed the man to cease his wanderings, to settle beside the sacred tree in the garden of Eden, to erect an altar there to YHVH Elohim, and to worship YHVH Elohim in that place".
If this is correct, then what was the tree? Not an oak - which would be the tree for the worship of EL. A sacred grove clearly, as there is more than one sacred tree? But which? See below!
2:16 VA YETSAV YHVH ELOHIM AL HA ADAM LEMOR MI KOL ETS HA GAN ACHOL TO'CHEL
2:16 VA YETSAV YHVH ELOHIM AL HA ADAM LEMOR MI KOL ETS HA GAN ACHOL TO'CHEL
וַיְצַו יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים עַל הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר מִכֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל
KJ: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
BN: Then YHVH Elohim instructed the man, saying, "You may eat freely from every tree of the garden...
VA YETSAV (ויצב): Usually translated as stemming from the root YATSAV (יצב) = "to command", but more logical in this sentence is TSAVAH (צבה) = "to appoint, constitute, set up"; this would then read as "YHVH Elohim appointed the man (to be his priest or even High Priest)". I have, however, translated it as "instructed", as I believe that this is the correct translation through the other four books of Torah, in which YHVH or Elohim continuously "instruct" Mosheh in the laws, rites, festivals and customs.
2:17 U ME ETS HA DA'AT TOV VA RA LO TO'CHAL MIMENU KI BE YOM ACHALCHA MIMENU MOT TAMUT
וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹת תָּמוּת
KJ: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
BN: "But of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for on the day that you do eat of it Mot will surely kill you."
U ME ETS HA DA'AT TOV VA RA (ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע): Where does the idea originate that the fruit of the forbidden tree was an apple? Probably from the Latin "malus" = "apple", and which sounds, at least in French, like "evil", which is one half of the fruit's symbolism.
Much more likely, however, it was a fig; traditionally the fig is seen in the Middle East as symbolic of the female pudendum, while the hanging roots suggest the form of a snake, and the plethora of seeds, like those of the pomegranate, epitomise fertility.
In later writings, the central pillar of wisdom (cf Proverbs 9:1) became the almond tree, for which cf the mystical writings around Chochmah = Wisdom; this probably derived from Greece, where Athena was identified with the almond, as was Minerva among the Etruscans, and later the Romans. However, as noted above (verse 9), Chochmah is connected with the Tree of Life rather than with this tree.
Throughout the Book of Genesis we will witness an inability by the Redactor to make up his mind whether Luz and Beit-El (Bethel) are the same or different places; the distinction between them reflects a distinction between the almond and the birch tree: the word Luz meaning "almond", and the tree of Beit-El, we are told, being a birch; presumably, at some point, the birch tree, which is an Asherah, was replaced by a stone, which is an Asher - the Phoenician word Baetylos likewise means a carved stone, probably a dolmen or menhir - or perhaps the other way around, and a primordial stone was replaced by a planted almond tree. Note that the name Betu-El (Bethuel) is linked, as is Betulah (בתולה) = virgin.
Rather than Athena, in modern Jewish Feminism it is Sophia, likewise a Greek goddess of Wisdom, with whom Chochma is identified, though there remains the odd coincidence that the Hebrew University, the centre of wisdom in modern Israel, is located on what non-Israelis insist on calling Mount Scopus - skops was the Greek name for the owl, Athena's emblem. Properly it is Har Ha-Tzofim, the Mountain of the Watchmen, for which see Ezekiel 33, especially verse 6.
The fruit of the Tree of Life in Eden is the antithesis of the pomegranate eaten in error by Persephone (Proserpine or Proserpina in the Greek). Or is it? If, as suggested earlier, the two trees of Eden are really only one tree, and that of Life and that of the Knowledge of Good and Evil are, for human beings, effectively and tantamount to the same thing, then the eating of "the fruit of that forbidden tree" was indeed the act "whose mortal taste brought death into the world, and all our woe, with loss of Eden" (Milton, Paradise Lost, Canto 1, ll 2-4). So Chavah (Eve) is Persephone, though elsewhere, as Mother-of-All-Living, she will also parallel Persephone's mother Demeter; and there are much earlier Babylonian myths too, notably those of Inanna and Geshtinanna - click here.
But that is only the Christian perspective - the lines from Milton continue "till one greater Man restore us, and regain the blissful seat", super-imposing Messianic theology upon the Hellenic. The Jewish reading stays with the Hellenic: since Good and Evil are both aspects of the divinity (a key factor in the Yetser ha Tov-Yetser ha Ra distinction, and in the Monism-Dualism distinction, between the two religions), the instruction is not that the fruit is bad for you, but that the fruit is the god, and that it is wrong to eat the god (this is known as theophagy), the reason why the original eucharist of flesh and blood was reduced to the symbolic eucharist of bread and wine, in both Judaism and Christianity. Here, then, we have a perfect example of Ezraic Judaism seeking to supplant the ancient Beney Yisra-Eli cults. Compare this to other early cults (cf Joseph Campbell in "The Masks of God", and particularly relevant the cult of the sacred thigh-bone connected with Ya'akov/Yah-Ekev/Jacob (and also, perhaps, with Yitschak/Yah-Tschock?/Isaac, though Campbell is less than convincing on this one).
KI BE YOM ACHALCHA MIMENU MOT TAMUT (כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות): MOT (מות), or MAVET (מות), is the nearest thing in Judaism to Pluto the Greco-Roman god of Hades. Mot is the angel of Death, Mavet is Hades (see also She'ol, Azaz-El and cf Job 28:22). Thus MOT TAMUT (מות תמות) lierally means "Mot will kill you", but all gods being metaphorical anthropomorphisms in the Yisra-Eli world, it really just means that "Death will take you". The theological problem with this line is that they do indeed eat it - but without dying; or at least, without dying immediately - all human beings die eventually, even those who become immortal! It is therefore taken to be an expression of a change of status from divine immortality, to human mortality. Rabbinical commentators (eg Hertz) prefer to treat their continued existence as confirmation of the all-merciful and omni-compassionate nature of YHVH Elohim, who effectively let Adam and Chavah off; given the continuing presence of Death in the world as an unavoidable reality for all of us, this may be deemed naive.
But the big questions remain unanswered, even by the most determined theologians: why would the god create a tree of knowledge of good and evil at all, unless he intended the fruit to be eaten? And why would he tell Adam about it, with this instruction, in this way, if not to have him tempted, provoked even, into eating? And why, just to be certain, create a serpent - all creatures are the god's creation after all - who is then sent, presumably in the full omniscience of the almighty, to make sure that temptation is successful? It is not poison after all. This tale compares with the Judas "betrayal" story in Christianity: the key point is not original sin, nor betrayal: in both cases (and Judas plays the role of serpent, just as Christ plays the role of Adam, and the Cross plays the role of Tree – these two really are the same story!) the "sin" is divinely required: Humankind cannot take up its eighth day responsibilities if we do not have consciousness, and that includes of necessity a knowledge of good and evil (how can we steward the garden if we cannot distinguish plastic from global warming, ethical capitalism from rapacious capitalism, enlightened despotism from dictatorship?), of survival through procreation, and the capacity to distinguish, to make moral choices (i.e the knowledge of good and evil). The serpent and Judas are really the heroes of the two stories, though the church, and to some extent the synagogue, has always portrayed them as the two villains. The serpent in Eden is of course Tiamat.
2:18 VA YOMER YHVH ELOHIM LO TOV HEYOT HA ADAM LEVADO E'ESEH LO EZER KE NEGDO
But the big questions remain unanswered, even by the most determined theologians: why would the god create a tree of knowledge of good and evil at all, unless he intended the fruit to be eaten? And why would he tell Adam about it, with this instruction, in this way, if not to have him tempted, provoked even, into eating? And why, just to be certain, create a serpent - all creatures are the god's creation after all - who is then sent, presumably in the full omniscience of the almighty, to make sure that temptation is successful? It is not poison after all. This tale compares with the Judas "betrayal" story in Christianity: the key point is not original sin, nor betrayal: in both cases (and Judas plays the role of serpent, just as Christ plays the role of Adam, and the Cross plays the role of Tree – these two really are the same story!) the "sin" is divinely required: Humankind cannot take up its eighth day responsibilities if we do not have consciousness, and that includes of necessity a knowledge of good and evil (how can we steward the garden if we cannot distinguish plastic from global warming, ethical capitalism from rapacious capitalism, enlightened despotism from dictatorship?), of survival through procreation, and the capacity to distinguish, to make moral choices (i.e the knowledge of good and evil). The serpent and Judas are really the heroes of the two stories, though the church, and to some extent the synagogue, has always portrayed them as the two villains. The serpent in Eden is of course Tiamat.
2:18 VA YOMER YHVH ELOHIM LO TOV HEYOT HA ADAM LEVADO E'ESEH LO EZER KE NEGDO
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים לֹא טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ אֶעֱשֶׂהּ לּוֹ עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ
KJ: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
BN: And YHVH Elohim said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I shall make him a companion."
As readers, we make an assumption here: that the helpmeet-companion will be Chavah (Eve). Not so. Not yet. This verse is deceptive!
LEVADO (לבדן): from the root BAD (בד) = "separate"; also "a branch of a tree".
EZER (עזר): cf EZRA (עזרה) = "helper", therefore priest. Note that the story was written, or at least written down, by the Priest Ezra, though his name is spelled, Aramaically, עזרא. The suggestion is of Chavah as priestess. However there is a theological problem here, in that the first man and woman were created together on Day 6, but now Male-Man is clearly on his own, and Woman will be created for his loneliness, and not specifically for his need to procreate, though inevitably the one will lead to the other. Not a problem of course if we accept that there are multiple texts combined here, that there are (at least) two different Creation myths being presented as though they were a single One.
KE NEGDO (כנגדו): "against" or "in front of", in the sense of "opposite"; a term which could simply mean two genders, but the sense here is already conflict, strife. This is not my opinion, nor even Rashi's, though Rashi states it in his commentary, citing Genesis Rabbah 17:3 and the Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 12: "a helpmate opposite him: If he is worthy, she will be a helpmate. If he is not worthy, she will be against him, to fight him."
As a whole the phrase appears to stress the role of Chavah as priestess-prophetess as well as wife. In many ancient societies, including Davidic and Solomonic Yisra-El, and indeed in many societies even now, (the Japanese Emperor until very recently, the Pontiff of the Vatican State even now), the King was both tribal chief and representative on Earth of the deity, if not actually the incarnation of the godhead; with the queen as his heavenly bride (lecha dodi likrat kalah, as Jews sing to welcome in the Sabbath).
There is also the root NAGAD (נגד), whence LEHAGID (להגיד) = "to show, tell" etc. Is there any connection here?
Again the Talmudic Rabbis cannot leave well alone; ignoring the fact that what takes place is sexual union (Kayin and Havel and Shet are born to them), there is no reason to deduce a solemn interchange of vows under the chupah; yet from these lines comes the deduction that marriage is a sacred institution ordained by YHVH Elohim at the time of Creation. We all interpret to bolster our prejudices. It would be in-, or at least un-human to do otherwise.
The other problem for this verse is that in creating Humankind, so we were told earlier, Elohim made male and female, equally, and at the same time. Then if the female already exists, what pray is he creating as a helpmeet now? Further confirmation that there are (at least) two versions running simultaneously here. The time of writing down this second version of Creation reflects the epoch of patriarchal dominance, where at the time of the first Creation myth there was a clear understanding of gender equality, reflected in the celestial marriage of the sun god and the moon goddess; here there is an equally clear statement of male predominance: the woman is the man's helpmeet, not the other way around; the woman is created out of the man; the woman is chosen only after animals prove inadequate; according to the Mishnah, she is chosen only after Adam has rejected Lilit. And what is a helpmeet? Someone who stands kenegdo: at his side. The classic little woman, the inexorable Tory wife.
2:19 VA YITSER YHVH ELOHIM MIN HA ADAMAH KOL CHAYAT HA SADEH VE ET KOL OPH HA SHEMAYIM VA YAV'E EL HA ADAM LIR'OT MA YIKRA LO VE CHOL ASHER YIKRA LO HA ADAM NEPHESH CHAYAH HU SHEMO
2:19 VA YITSER YHVH ELOHIM MIN HA ADAMAH KOL CHAYAT HA SADEH VE ET KOL OPH HA SHEMAYIM VA YAV'E EL HA ADAM LIR'OT MA YIKRA LO VE CHOL ASHER YIKRA LO HA ADAM NEPHESH CHAYAH HU SHEMO
וַיִּצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן הָאֲדָמָה כָּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כָּל עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וַיָּבֵא אֶל הָאָדָם לִרְאוֹת מַה יִּקְרָא לוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָא לוֹ הָאָדָם נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה הוּא שְׁמוֹ
KJ: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
BN: And from the earth YHVH Elohim fashioned every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and he brought them to the man, to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that became its name.
VA YITSER: Man, birds and animals created just the same; this too conflicts with the first version of Creation, in which both flora and fauna were named into existence, with intrinsic reproductive capacity; whereas here they are moulded from the clay.
MAH YIKRA LO: In the first version of Creation, it is very much the deity who names things, indeed names them into existence: "light", "heavens", "seas", etc; but in this version, at least with regards to the earthly flora and fauna, they are formed rather than named into existence by the deity, and the privilege of naming them is then bestowed on Man - chimpanzee or azalea, algae or cotton are, after all, our human names, so this is logical. Was this also, perhaps, an ancient intellectual equivalent of the question: which came first, existence or essence: the butterfly or the caterpillar, the creature or its name?
In most cults the prophetess was the law-giver, the creature-namer, but here, as in the Exodus story later, it is the man. So we have still more evidence that this version of this version of the Creation belongs to a late epoch, probably Ezraic, but with enough of the Hellenic about it that it may even be a Hasmonean era redaction of the Ezraic redaction - and who can say how many versions in the centuries before that?
2:20 VA YIKRA HA ADAM SHEMOT LE CHOL HA BEHEMAH U LE OPH HA SHEMAYIM U LE CHOL CHAYAT HA SADEH U LE ADAM LO MATSA EZER KE NEGDO
2:20 VA YIKRA HA ADAM SHEMOT LE CHOL HA BEHEMAH U LE OPH HA SHEMAYIM U LE CHOL CHAYAT HA SADEH U LE ADAM LO MATSA EZER KE NEGDO
וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁמוֹת לְכָל הַבְּהֵמָה וּלְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וּלְאָדָם לֹא מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ
KJ: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
BN: So the man gave names to all the wild animals, and to the fowl of the air, and to all the beasts of the field; but no companion could be found for the man.
Which makes for a rather silly piece of story-telling, given that even the least educated of algae and amoeba know that males need females and vice needs versa. Why then make up such a silliness, unless it is intended in some way to place the male in a position of superiority to the female? And so it will prove, when she turns out to be a mere remodelling of his fifth rib, and not the equality of molecular creation that we were misled to believe in the previous chapter.
LO MATSA: Always translated as though it were passive, but that would be LO NIMTSA.
2:21 VA YAPEL YHVH ELOHIM TARDEMAH AL HA ADAM VA YISHAN VA YIKACH ACHAT MI TSAL'OTAV VA YISGOR BASAR TACHTENAH
VA YIKRA: in which language did he name the animals? nor is this as silly a question as it might at first appear. The text is in 5th century BCE Yehudit, a dialect of Hurrian which was itself a dialect of Hittite - so clearly that was not the language used by the paleolithic progenitor. From what we know of human development through theories of evolution, the first primate could do little more than grunt: Me Adam, you... whoever. But the Tanach is not written on a base of evolutionary theory. The same question will apply to chapter 3, when Adam and Chavah respond in language to their questioning by the deity. I have asked many Rabbis down the years, and all either smile and change the subject, or insist that it must have been an early form of "Hebrew", because that surely is the language that YHVH or Elohim use with the angels.
2:21 VA YAPEL YHVH ELOHIM TARDEMAH AL HA ADAM VA YISHAN VA YIKACH ACHAT MI TSAL'OTAV VA YISGOR BASAR TACHTENAH
וַיַּפֵּל יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים תַּרְדֵּמָה עַל הָאָדָם וַיִּישָׁן וַיִּקַּח אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר תַּחְתֶּנָּה
KJ: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
BN: So YHVH Elohim caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the scar with flesh.
VA YAPEL (ויפל): NAPHAL (נפל) = "to fall"; also used for "to prostrate oneself" (2 Samuel 1:2 & Ezra 10:1). NEPHEL (נפל) = "a premature birth" or "an abortion"; also connected to the NEPHILIM (נפלים) = "fallen ones" of Genesis 6.
TARDEMAH (תרדמה): RADAM (רדם) = "to sleep, snore".
VA YIKACH ACHAT MI TSAL'OTAV (ויקח אחת מצלעתיו): Probably the most interesting of all the phrases in this story, and certainly the most complicated. In the simplest sense it means: "And YHVH Elohim took one of Adam's ribs" - this however must be seen as a late alteration of the Ezraic scholars, who wished to eradicate all trace of the early Edomite cult in which, as with the Pesach cult, the thigh-bone was the sacrificial meal. Why the rib was chosen to stand in place of the sacred thigh-bone, ritually removed as part of the ceremony of king-making, is easy to explain; although the connections between the various roots connected with TSALAH (צלע) are less so:
(i) TSAL'A (צלע), as given in the text with an Ayin (ע) last letter = "to limp", "become lame", or "to lean to one side" (as in the Pesach ritual); its specific use was for sheep and goats who are known, when tired, to limp. The story of Ya'akov (Jacob) at Penu-El ends with him limping because of his thigh, which leads us to assume that the same or a very similar ritual was involved there, as part of his coronation as tribal sheikh. In the same way the Greek Oedipus = "swollen foot", and the sacred heel of Achilles, which is akin to the disabling of the feet of the emperor in China and Japan, to force him to walk on tip-toe rather than fully on the ground like mere mortals, all connect to the sheep and goat herding cults of which these are examples. Pesach (פסח) also means "to limp".
(ii) TSEL'A (צלע), also with an Ayin, is used to mean "a rib", and specifically in masonry as the ribs or beams of a ship or a building; an ancient version of scaffolding!
(iii) TSEL'A (צלע), as above, having the further meaning of the side chamber, in particular that of the Temple, and most particularly the women's court at the Temple, where the priestess and her entourage would have been housed, and the mother-goddess or her reborn son worshipped ((see Ezekiel 8:14)) - Ishtar-Dumuzi, Eshet-Osher, Anat-Ba'al, Asherah-Yitschak, or more likely, given that the redaction took place in Yeru-Shala'im, the local variant which appears to have been Mor-Yah and Tammuz. Previously it had indicated the side of the Tabernacle (Exodus 26:26/7) and of the altar (Exodus 27:7), or a quarter of heaven (Exodus 26:35). It is essentially the same as the Lady Chapel in many churches and cathedrals.
TARDEMAH (תרדמה): RADAM (רדם) = "to sleep, snore".
(i) TSAL'A (צלע), as given in the text with an Ayin (ע) last letter = "to limp", "become lame", or "to lean to one side" (as in the Pesach ritual); its specific use was for sheep and goats who are known, when tired, to limp. The story of Ya'akov (Jacob) at Penu-El ends with him limping because of his thigh, which leads us to assume that the same or a very similar ritual was involved there, as part of his coronation as tribal sheikh. In the same way the Greek Oedipus = "swollen foot", and the sacred heel of Achilles, which is akin to the disabling of the feet of the emperor in China and Japan, to force him to walk on tip-toe rather than fully on the ground like mere mortals, all connect to the sheep and goat herding cults of which these are examples. Pesach (פסח) also means "to limp".
(ii) TSEL'A (צלע), also with an Ayin, is used to mean "a rib", and specifically in masonry as the ribs or beams of a ship or a building; an ancient version of scaffolding!
(iii) TSEL'A (צלע), as above, having the further meaning of the side chamber, in particular that of the Temple, and most particularly the women's court at the Temple, where the priestess and her entourage would have been housed, and the mother-goddess or her reborn son worshipped ((see Ezekiel 8:14)) - Ishtar-Dumuzi, Eshet-Osher, Anat-Ba'al, Asherah-Yitschak, or more likely, given that the redaction took place in Yeru-Shala'im, the local variant which appears to have been Mor-Yah and Tammuz. Previously it had indicated the side of the Tabernacle (Exodus 26:26/7) and of the altar (Exodus 27:7), or a quarter of heaven (Exodus 26:35). It is essentially the same as the Lady Chapel in many churches and cathedrals.
(iv) TSEL'A (צלע), again with an Ayin = a town of the Beney Yamin (Benjamites) where Sha'ul (Saul) was buried (2 Samuel 21:14).
(v) TSEL'A (צלא) = "to pray". The term appears only twice in the Tanach, and is clearly Aramaic rather than Yehudit (Daniel 6:11 - 6:10 in some versions - and Ezra 6:10).
And with a final Hey:
(vi) TSALAH (צלה) = "to roast".
The two-letter root of all these is TSEL (צל) = "a shadow"; whence
(vii) TSILAH (צלה) the wife of Lamech (Genesis 4:19 & 22).
An alternative reading of this verse might well be: "And YHVH Elohim built the woman's court..." though this interpretation does not hold up against the text thus far (however, the next verse will change that, though first see my notes on this in the Introduction to Chapter 2).
Why does the surgery take place during sleep? A fifth volume of Campbell's "The Masks of God" would be needed to answer that question! Two preferred options: that sleep in this case was a form of anaesthesia, because the surgery was painful; that we are in some Beney Yisra-El equivalent of what the Australian aboriginals call "dream-time", the period of the Earth before human consciousness has fully formed, when the gods are still walking it into existence.
2:22 VA YIVEN YHVH ELOHIM ET HA TSELA ASHER LAKACH MIN HA ADAM LE ISHAH VA YEVI'EHA EL HA ADAM
An alternative reading of this verse might well be: "And YHVH Elohim built the woman's court..." though this interpretation does not hold up against the text thus far (however, the next verse will change that, though first see my notes on this in the Introduction to Chapter 2).
Why does the surgery take place during sleep? A fifth volume of Campbell's "The Masks of God" would be needed to answer that question! Two preferred options: that sleep in this case was a form of anaesthesia, because the surgery was painful; that we are in some Beney Yisra-El equivalent of what the Australian aboriginals call "dream-time", the period of the Earth before human consciousness has fully formed, when the gods are still walking it into existence.
2:22 VA YIVEN YHVH ELOHIM ET HA TSELA ASHER LAKACH MIN HA ADAM LE ISHAH VA YEVI'EHA EL HA ADAM
וַיִּבֶן יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר לָקַח מִן הָאָדָם לְאִשָּׁה וַיְבִאֶהָ אֶל הָאָדָם
KJ: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
BN: Then YHVH Elohim built the rib which he had taken from the man into a woman, and he brought her to the man.
BEN (בן) = "son" or "grandson", as AV (אב) = "father" or "grandfather";but the fact that the root BANAH (בנה) = "to build", or "erect", is highly significant, suggesting that this is all about a shrine being rebuilt as a women's temple and rededicated as patriarchal; after all, it is not the verb that most obviously comes to mind in the context, and yet it is used repeatedly throughout the Torah in precisely this way.
Again, see my notes on this in the Introduction to Chapter 2. The translation offered there is: "Out of the women's court of the Temple, a maiden was brought forth for Adam."
2:23 VA YOMER HA ADAM ZOT HA PA'AM ETSEM ME ATSAMI U VASAR MI BESARI LE ZOT YIKAR'E ISHAH KI ME ISH LUKACHAH ZOT
Again, see my notes on this in the Introduction to Chapter 2. The translation offered there is: "Out of the women's court of the Temple, a maiden was brought forth for Adam."
2:23 VA YOMER HA ADAM ZOT HA PA'AM ETSEM ME ATSAMI U VASAR MI BESARI LE ZOT YIKAR'E ISHAH KI ME ISH LUKACHAH ZOT
וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקֳחָה זֹּאת
KJ: And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
BN: And the man said, "This is a bone from my own bones, and flesh from my own flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
HA PA'AM: "This time", but the phrase seems to be entirely out-of-place here. "This time" infers a previous time, or more than one, none of them successful; whereas this time the outcome is successful. Translations, including Jewish ones, generally do as King James, and duck the issue, yet Talmud, and especially Midrash, are lengthy in their explanations: that several helpmeets were created for the man, most famously Lilit, until at last the making of Chavah resolved the issue once and for all. Women, be aware, in the annals of intelligent design, you are the third, possibly the fourth draft.
ATSAM (עצם) = "to bind", "tie"; also "strength", "power", "to become strong". ETSEM (עצם) = "bone", "body" - ATSMUT (עצמות) = "bulwarks". All of which "confirms" that male comes before female, female is a mere part of male refashioned, and therefore belongs to him, as his property.
ATSAM (עצם) = "to bind", "tie"; also "strength", "power", "to become strong". ETSEM (עצם) = "bone", "body" - ATSMUT (עצמות) = "bulwarks". All of which "confirms" that male comes before female, female is a mere part of male refashioned, and therefore belongs to him, as his property.
ADAM...ISH: Because English uses the same word for ADAM (the individual with that name) and for ISH (Man), the nuances of this are missed. Because the translations treat ADAM as his name, and not as Man, the reader is not even aware that there are any nuances to be missed. But Woman is made from Man, as, shall we say, Madam is made from Adam - something of that order. But remember that the man, ha Adam, was himself made from the female earth, ha Adamah.
ISHAH (אשה): Yet Adam from Adamah is given the same explanation. Was it originally Ish from Ishah and not this way around? Given that women give birth, to men as well as women, it would make rather more sense. But this is patriarchal proto-Judaism; it would make no sense at all!
ISHAH (אשה): Yet Adam from Adamah is given the same explanation. Was it originally Ish from Ishah and not this way around? Given that women give birth, to men as well as women, it would make rather more sense. But this is patriarchal proto-Judaism; it would make no sense at all!
Is it reasonable to say that in the first story the woman created on the sixth day was not Chavah? And if this one is Chavah = "the mother of all living", i.e. a goddess, and she was taken from Adam's rib, then he is clearly a god, or at least a Titan.
However, according to the Midrashim, the woman in question at this stage is still not Chavah, but Lilit.
2:24 AL KEN YA'AZOV ISH ET AVIV VE ET IMO VE DAVAK BE ISHTO VE HAYU LE VASAR ECHAD
However, according to the Midrashim, the woman in question at this stage is still not Chavah, but Lilit.
2:24 AL KEN YA'AZOV ISH ET AVIV VE ET IMO VE DAVAK BE ISHTO VE HAYU LE VASAR ECHAD
עַל כֵּן יַעֲזָב אִישׁ אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד
KJ: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
BN: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh.
YA'AZOV...DAVAK BE ISHTO (יעזב): This is not simply the statement that a man will grow up, and transfer his love from his parents to his wife, and conduct his adult life with her rather than with them. It is a statement of matrilocal marriage as opposed to patrilocal marriage, a major theme that will run through all the stories in Genesis; the man does not just leave home when he marries; he leaves the tribe, becoming a member of his wife's tribe - exogamy is the technical term. This is what Kayin, Yishma-El and Esav will all do, and they are condemned for doing so. This is why Av-Ram will send his servant Eli-Ezer to Padan Aram to get a wife for Yitschak (Isaac) from among his own people - even if Yitschak were to do as Ya'akov would later, and live with his wife's family rather than his own, he remains a member of the tribe, because it is the same tribe. The dissemination of tribes also has a lot to do with matrilocal marriage, and the change from matrilocal to patrilocal parallels the diminution of the status of the female when patriarchal proto-Judaism came to predominance. Matrilocal marriage remains a fundamental issue within Judaism today, the mother's tribal status being the primary determining factor in the identity of the children.
AZAV (עזב) also means "to loosen bonds, untie, leave, desert, abandon". Why in this verse though? The "therefore" is also odd: a sense that the Redactor was looking for a good sermon on the importance of marriage, and created it here, appended to a story about something quite different, but adaptable for his purposes; and then the adaptation became the norm. This becomes the pattern for much of the Tanach!
2:25 VA YIHEYU SHENEYHEM ARUMIM HA ADAM VE ISHTO VE LO YITBOSHASHU
וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ
KJ: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
BN: And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and they were not ashamed.
ARUM (ערום): = "naked", but also "crafty, subtle", as with the snake in Genesis 3:1.
Though "a woman" is referred to here, the name Chavah/Eve at no time appears, and we must therefore assume that Chavah is not included in any of this; probably Chavah belonged to a much earlier cult, and perhaps even to another tribe than the Edomites, and was later suppressed in favour of the patriarchal cults; possibly even a mispronouncing of Hepat, the wife of the Chitite storm-god: this would equate her with Anat/Inanna. It is known that Hepat was worshipped as Ishtar in Yeru-Shala'im (Jerusalem). The Greek equivalent, Hebe, the wife of Herakles, daughter of Zeus and Hera, was probably a variation of Hepat.
LO YITBOSHASHU (יתבששו): the root is BUSH = "to be ashamed". But the point here is that they were not ashamed; which conflicts with the fig-leaves and the explanation to the deity in the next chapter (3:7 specifically), where clearly they were ashamed.
No comments:
Post a Comment