A FRESH LOOK AT THE GARDEN OF EDEN
by Mary Phil Korsak
BRIEF INTRODUCTION
Certain attributes of the Godhead have been
forgotten by interpreters of the Garden of Eden story. Furthermore, biblical
commentary imposes a negative image of the first human couple and particularly
of the woman in the garden. Words with moral overtones such as "fall",
"evil", "temptation", "shame", legal terms such
as "prohibition", "forbidden", "guilty", "punishment",
"time of judgment", psychologically dismal terms such as "doubt",
"suspicion", "anxiety", "broken relationship",
"hostile", "estrangement", "anxiety", characterize
biblical footnotes to this "temptation story" (cf. The Oxford Annotated
Bible. RSV 1962:3-5).
This article sets out to demonstrate how working
on a new translation of Hebrew Genesis has led to fresh exploration of the
text. First the translation, At the start… Genesis made new,
is presented along with the translator's working method. This presentation
illustrates in particular the hermeneutical possibilities of Hebrew/English
word patterns. Second, a creative approach to the unraveling of new interpretation
of the Garden of Eden story is proposed. The intention is to give the myth
new life and keep it in touch with modern (post-modern?) times. Emphasis shifts
from a negative, moralizing interpretation to a positive understanding of
the story.
My work as translator of the Hebrew text of
Genesis, which falls into the category of ethno-poetics, has led me to discern
vital forces at work in the Garden of Eden story: the basic theme of the story
concerns the emergence of life. This theme emerged thanks to an "archeological"
approach to the text. In the translation At the start... Genesis made
new (Korsak, 1993) Hebrew word patterns are retained in English. This
method of "excavating" the ancient text suggested new hermeneutical
possibilities. In the latter part of this article, two specific aspects of
the story are examined: they concern the nature of the stay in the garden
and the divine figure of YHWH Elohim.
The presentation of At the start... Genesis made new (henceforward
referred to as At the start...) is illustrated by quotations. Whenever this
is deemed helpful, parallel passages are cited from The Revised Standard
Version (henceforward referred to as Genesis). This juxtaposition
facilitates the highlighting of fresh hermeneutical insights.
At the start... is inspired by the
biblical translations of Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig, whose work set
an example for a twentieth century school of translators (E. Fleg; A. Chouraqui;
E. Fox..). The working method adopted represents a radical break with that
of many translators. The source text is the Hebrew text: influences stemming
from ancient Greek, Latin and vernacular versions are purposely left aside.
Furthermore, an attempt is made to narrow the gap between the original Hebrew
and the English version. This is achieved by echoing Hebrew word order and
rhythm, and by a word for word rendering of Hebrew vocabulary. One English
word systematically corresponds to one Hebrew word. The rules of mutual concordance
are also respected. One English word translates only one Hebrew word, not
two. In this way, verbal repetitions and distinctions that have often been
lost or obscured in the translation process are transferred to the English
version.
In The Revised Standard Version the
first book of the Bible is entitled The First Book of Moses commonly called
GENESIS. In the new translation, the term Genesis is rejected
because of its Greek origins. Instead, in keeping with the tradition of the
ancient near east, the first word or phrase of the book, bereshit, provides
the title. (cf. the Babylonian Poem of Creation, known as Enuma elis,
"When on high", and the Epic of Gilgamesh, Sa nagba imuru,
"He who experienced all": Speiser, 1962: xvii). The novelty of the
title At the start... for bereshit announces the color of
the translation, which proposes a "Genesis made new".
Fresh initiative is also taken with regard
to the lay-out of the text. Whereas the pages of Genesis are made
up of two columns of prose sub-divided into paragraphs, the text of At
the start... is presented in the free verse form. This lay-out recalls
the structure of the Hebrew text, in which the spoken rhythms of biblical,
oral tradition correspond to consecutive units of meaning. These rhythms,
which are heard when the text is recited, are projected onto paper by means
of a line by line breakdown, which acts as a guide for the eye as well as
the ear. The frugal use of punctuation harks back to the Hebrew text, whilst
linking up with modern poetics. To illustrate how this lay-out functions,
here are two passages from the Joseph story. They tell how Joseph interprets
the dreams of the chief butler and the chief baker. The passages quoted are
at once similar and different. The structure of the new lay-out sets off verbal
repetitions, variants and omissions. In particular, the crucial words "off
you" in the second passage stand out in a startling manner
This is its interpretation
The three tendrils? They are three days
Within three days
Pharaoh will lift up your head
and return you to your office (40,12-13)
This is its interpretation
The three baskets? They are three days
Within three days
Pharaoh will lift up your head off you
and hang you on a tree (40,18-19)
The word for word method of translation ensures
the transfer of Hebrew word patterns to the target language. These patterns
are formed by interconnected words, which are related etymologically, e.g.
adam/adama, or associated through the sound links of "folk etymology",
e.g. isha/ish. The combination and repetition of such words form
an extended word pattern. In Genesis no importance is attached to this phenomenon.
In chapter 2,5-9a, adam/adama are translated as "man/ground". Consequently,
the repetitive pattern which characterizes the Hebrew text is lost in English:
In the day that the Lord God made
the earth and 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; but a mist
went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground - then the
Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life; and man became a living being.
And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden in the east; and there he put the
man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made grow every
tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food... (2,5-9a)
It Is suggested that in the above translation, the loss of the word pattern
formed by adam/adama involves a loss of color and a consequent weakening
of impact. In At the start..., adam/adama are echoed by
equivalent paronyms: "groundling/ground". Here, the same passage,
in which the Hebrew words inserted for the purpose of clarification, reads
as follows:
On the day YHWH Elohim made
earth and skies
no shrub of the field was yet in the earth
no plant of the field had yet sprouted
for YHWH Elohim had not made it rain on the
earth
and there was no groundling (adam)
to serve the ground (adama)
But a surge went up from the earth
and gave drink to all the face of the ground
(adama)
YHWH Elohim formed the groundling, (adam)
soil of the ground (adama)
he blew into its nostrils the blast of life
and the groundling (adam) became a living soul
YHWH Elohim planted a garden in Eden in the
east
There he set the groundling (adam) he had formed
(2,5-8)
The verbal link "groundling/ground" emphasizes an important aspect
of human identity: the adam, the human being, is closely related to the "ground".
The repetition of the words "groundling/ground" underscores the
nature of this relationship: the vocation of "the groundling" is
"to serve the ground" (2,5); "the groundling" is formed
from the "soil of the ground" (2,7). These statements at the beginning
of the story are counterbalanced by similar statements at the end of the story:
the "groundling" "will return to the ground" (3,19) and
will be expelled from the garden "to serve the ground from which it was
taken" (3,23). In summary, the word pattern draws the reader's attention
to two facets of the human situation: the destiny of the groundling is to
emerge from the ground and to return to it; the groundling's vocation is to
serve the ground.
Moreover, the word pattern points to further
relationships. Through their common origin "the ground", "the
groundling" is also connected with trees:
YHWH Elohim made sprout from
the ground (adama)
all trees attractive to see and good for eating...
(2,9a)
and the beasts and fowl:
YHWH Elohim formed out of the
ground (adama)
all beasts of the field, all fowl of the skies
and brought them to the groundling (adam)
to see what it would call them (2,19)
Ecologists interested in biblical sources may find food for thought here.
The second word pattern to be discussed here
is formed by the pair isha/ish. Though isha and ish
are not true paronyms, they are connected by the sound of their common syllable
ish. Happily for the translator, although familiarity has effaced awareness
of this, the English equivalents "woman" and "man" also
share a common syllable. To recuperate this advantage, in At the start...,
a hyphen is inserted in the English word "wo-man". The hyphen draws
attention to the similarity and dissimilarity of the pair "wo-man/man".
In Hebrew, isha/ish and
adam/adama form two distinct word patterns. When the
rule of mutual concordance is applied, these distinctions emerge in English.
In Genesis, no importance is attached to this phenomenon. Hebrew
ish and Hebrew adam are both translated as "man". The choice of
one English word for two Hebrew words has hermeneutical consequences. In effect,
Genesis relates that "man" exists before "woman"
and that "woman" is made from "man's" rib:
So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man and
while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and
the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and
brought her to the man. Then the man said,
"This at
last is bone of my bones
and flesh of
my flesh;
she shall be
called Woman,
because she was
taken out of Man" (2,21-23)
In At the start..., "groundling/ground" (adam/adama)
and "wo-man/man" (isha/ish) are dissociated. On the one
hand there is the "groundling" related to the "ground",
on the other there is "wo-man" related to "man". When
these distinctions are maintained in English, the translation conveys the
following message: "wo-man" and "man", like and unlike,
issue from the "groundling". The word "man" does not appear
in the text before verse 2,23. In order of appearance the word "wo-man"
precedes the word "man". The translation conveys the following message:
the word "man" represents a new identity, that of "man"
facing "wo-man".
YHWH Elohim made a swoon fall
upon the groundling (adam)
it slept
He took one of its sides
and closed up the flesh in its place
YHWH Elohim built the side
he had taken from the groundling (adam) into
woman (isha)
He brought her to the groundling (adam)
The groundling (adam) said
This one this
time
is bone from
my bones
flesh from my
flesh
This one shall
be called wo-man (isha)
for from man
(ish)
she has been
taken this one (2,21-23)
It is important to note that the systematic
choice of one English word for one Hebrew word respects the shifts of meaning
present in the original text. Both languages allow for semantic evolution:
first there is the "groundling", described as "male and female"
(1,27); then there is the "groundling" who, in the absence of its
counterpart, is seen to be alone (2,18.20); subsequently the "groundling"
falls asleep to wake up as "man" facing "wo-man"; finally,
the "groundling" is used for the male when accompanied by the female
(2,25).
Despite these shifts of meaning, the term "groundling"
(adam) appears to be a generic term. The presence of a common noun
is signaled by the definite article ha. The definite article, ha, accompanies
the noun adam throughout the text with three exceptions. In two of
the three cases (1,26 and 5,2) adam is defined as "male and
female": it is a generic. The remaining example (2,5) may be considered
the exception that proves the rule. Even when ha-adam refers to the
male in particular, it remains a generic. This is signaled by the presence
of woman. The phrase "the groundling and his woman" (2,25) can be
compared to the phrase "the bear and its mate", in which both male
and female are "bear". Despite the fact that in the Garden of Eden
story, ha-adam is said to be "alone" in verses 2,18.20,
the term is a generic here also. This is signaled by the remarked absence
of the female: the groundling is incomplete, in need of "its counterpart".
A final remark: in verse 4,25, adam appears for the first time as the proper
name of an individual, "Adam". The proper name is not accompanied
by the definite article ha.
Another form of word pattern based on the sound
associations of folk etymology plays an important role when names are given.
In so-called naming verses, a new name is followed by an explanation justifying
the choice of a particular name. The word-play connecting name and explanation
points to the nature of the one born, the circumstances of birth, the character's
destiny or vocation. A change of name implies a vocational change, e.g. Abram
becomes Abraham, "Father of a Multitude" (17,5). Hebrew names are
thus seen to be meaningful. Hebrew word-play in these verses indicates in
what way they are meaningful. In Genesis, the explanations in naming
verses are translated without any echo of Hebrew word-play in the text. Here
are three examples:
And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called
his name Seth, for she said "God has appointed for me another child instead
of Abel" (4,25)
Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD
confused the language of all the earth (11,9)
The man called his wife's name "Eve", because she was the mother
of all living (3,20)
In At the start... Hebrew word-play is reproduced. Sometimes, rarely,
it seems best to add the familiar name in a bracket, e.g. "Life (Eve)".
Here is how the above verses are translated. The Hebrew terms are inserted
for the purpose of clarification:
Adam knew his woman again
She bred a son
She called his name Seth (shet)
"for Elohim has set (shat) another seed in Abel's
place (4,25)
So they called is name Babel (babel)
for there YHWH made the lip of all the earth
babble (balal) (11,9)
The groundling called his woman's name Life
(Eve) (havva)
for she is the mother of all that lives (hay)(3,20)
The last example is particularly important. It marks a radical break with
standard translations, which do not echo the word pattern in the text and
which have thus allowed the name "Eve" to drift away from its significant
root and to be associated with sin, guilt and death. Ignoring the word-play
has led to a shift of stress from "life" to "mother".
Eve is thus currently seen to be mother but she is a bad mother! In the Hebrew
text, the word-play havva/hay connects the woman with life-giving
forces. Indeed, the name havva derives from the verb h'ava, "to
live, to dwell" and hay, "lives" derives from h'aya,
"to live, to be alive". (Korsak:1994/95).
The word-play of naming verses is sometimes
extended beyond the original naming verse. When repeated, it provides a hermeneutical
key to the story of the one named. Isaac, "He Laughs", is an example.
Laughter occurs eleven times in the Isaac story (17,17.19; 18,12.13.15.15;
21,3.6.6.9; 26,8). In Genesis, however, the meaning of Isaac's name
is not communicated in the naming verses (17,19; 21,3). Moreover, in verse
21,9, "laughing" is replaced by "playing" (the words "with
her son Isaac" are added from the Septuagint and the Vulgate) and again
in verse 26,8, "laughing" is replaced by "fondling" to
fit the context of sexual play. In all, four fewer laughs for Isaac! In At
the start..., the meaning "He laughs" appears in the naming verses
and the key word is repeated in the text wherever it appears in Hebrew. Laughter
bubbles up in unexpected ways. In the following passage, where Elohim tells
Abraham that he will have a son, Abraham falls over with laughter; spluttering
with laughter, he interrupts his own sentence; finally Elohim joins in the
joke (Liebenow,1987:21-22):
Abraham
fell upon his face and laughed
he said in his heart
Shall a child be bred for a hundred-year old?
And if Sarah...
Shall a ninety-year old breed? (17.17)
Elohim said
You shall call his name He Laughs (Isaac) (17.19)
When the laughter theme is examined more closely, it provides a possible key
to the intrigue involving Isaac and his family. Adrien Bledstein convincingly
argues that it is Isaac who outwits Rebekah and not the contrary, as is usually
supposed (Bledstein,1993:282-95). If Bledstein's theory is right, Isaac laughs
longest and last.
It has been shown above that technical details
in translation, such as word patterns and word-play, have repercussions on
the interpretation of meaning. The close examination of the vocabulary it
uses is one way of entering into the spirit of a text, of absorbing its literary,
poetic, mythological implications. I have stayed a long time with the Hebrew
text of Genesis and perceive, as a result of this experience, a new way of
understanding the Garden of Eden story. This alternative reading is about
growth and birth. It suggests that the groundling, male and female, is formed
in the garden like the child in the womb and, like the child from the womb,
is expulsed from the garden to face life and death. Only two main points will
be developed in this article, however. First, whereas it is generally taught
that the groundling is put into the garden and is expected to stay there,
a re-examination of the text suggests that, on the contrary, the groundling
is put into the garden with a view to leaving it. Second, an attempt is made
to explore obscure sides of the divinity. How does YHWH Elohim relate to what
is bad in life? Does YHWH Elohim have mother-like as well as father-like attributes.?
The argument suggests that an in/out movement
characterizes the groundling's stay in the garden. It is clear in verses 2,7-8
that the groundling exists before the garden and that the garden is made subsequently
as a setting for the groundling:
YHWH Elohim formed the groundling,
soil of the ground
he blew into its nostrils the blast of life
and the groundling became a living soul
YHWH E lohim planted a garden in Eden in the
east
There he set the groundling he had formed (2,7-8)
The question then arises as to whether the
garden is to be a temporary or a permanent setting. Observation of the four
rivers provides a clue to the answer. Indeed, as soon as the groundling has
been put inside the garden, the story is interrupted by the following passage:
A river goes out in Eden to
give drink to the garden
>From there it divides and becomes four heads
The name of the first is Pishon
It winds through all the land of Havilah
where there is gold
The gold of that land is good
Bdellium is there and onyx stone
The name of the second river is Gihon
It winds through all the land of Cush
The name of the third river is Tigris
It goes east of Asshur
The fourth river is Euphrates (2,10-14)
A river rises in Eden and enters the garden to water it. From there it flows
out to form the four great rivers of the known world. The four rivers set
a precedent for the in/out process. They also effectively draw the attention
of the reader to the outside world. If the human horizon is to be limited
to the garden, why introduce the outside world here? Why map out those particular
areas where water makes life possible on earth and name rivers that evoke
early cultural development? Who will delight in the gold and the precious
stones that are mentioned? The world described here is attractive to humankind.
The story suggests that it is waiting for the groundling, who to profit from
it must come out of the garden.
This destiny is confirmed by the groundling/ground
relationship evoked earlier. Three sentences, which all include the verb abad,
"to serve" are particularly relevant here:
and
there was no groundling to serve the ground (2,5)
YHWH Elohim took the groundling
and set it to rest in the garden of Eden
to serve it and keep it (2,15)
... the groundling ... (3,22)
YHWH Elohim sent it away from the garden of
Eden
to serve the ground from which it was taken
(3,23)
In the above examples, we are told twice that the groundling's vocation is
"to serve the ground" (le abod et ha-adama): first, before
the garden is planted (2,5); second, when the groundling is expelled from
the garden (3,23). In both cases, the ground to be served is outside the garden.
These two examples suggest that the vocation "to serve the ground"
outside the garden exists independently of the garden episode.
The intervening passage (2,15) presents an
anomaly. If one reads the text in translation, one understands here that the
groundling is to serve and keep the garden. The Hebrew word for "garden",
gan, however, is masculine, while the following pronoun "it"
of "serve it and keep it" is feminine, like adama, "ground"
(Humbert, 1940:79). The Hebrew phrase is le abdah u le shamrah. There
is a grammatical mistake here, which, curiously, (purposely?), has not been
rectified. It suggests that "to serve" is associated with adama,
"ground" as in the two preceding examples and that gan,
"garden" has replaced adama, "ground". The feminine
pronoun, however, remains like a fossil in the text pointing to the groundling's
two-fold vocation. Its basic task is "to serve the ground" outside
the garden (2,5; 3,23). Its temporary task is "to serve and keep the
garden" (2,15). This analysis of the phrases le abod et ha-adam,
"to serve the ground", and le abdah u le shamrah,
"to serve it and keep it", points in the same direction as the observations
about the river/rivers: the stay in the garden is a transitory experience
to be interpreted against the larger background of the outside world.
Turning now to the figure of YHWH Elohim, it
may be said that in Jewish and Christian traditions, certain images of God
have had little or no press. In effect, concepts such as divine goodness and
divine fatherhood are so familiar they have hardened and become exclusive:
God's goodness tends to eradicate the association of God with bad; God as
father has come to exclude God as mother. In the first case, a taboo seems
to lie on the association of the divine with bad. This is illustrated by versions
of the serpent's words to the woman. In the Hebrew text, the serpent pronounces
the name Elohim three times (3,1.5.5) In Genesis, the divine
name is rendered as "God", in At the start...,
as "Elohim". As both these translations are systematic here, they
call for no special comment. Looking further afield, however, one finds that
many Bibles, which commonly translate Elohim as "God",
prefer to speak of "divine beings" or "gods" when the
divine name is linked with "knowing good and bad", . To illustrate,
here are the textual renderings of the Jewish Publication Society of America
and the New Jerusalem Bible:
Did God (Elohim) really say : You shall not eat of any tree
of the garden? (3,1)
but God (Elohim) knows that as soon as you eat of it your eyes will be opened
and you will be like divine beings (Elohim) who know good and bad (3,5 JPSA,1978)
Did God (Elohim) really say you were not to eat from any of the trees in the
garden (3,1)
God (Elohim) knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be opened
and you will be like gods (Elohim), knowing good and evil (3,5 NJB,1968) (emphasis
mine)
Commentators also shy away from associating
God with bad. The inherent difficulty is sometimes avoided by the argument
that "knowing good and bad" means "knowing everything".
In this way the image of God, in whom "knowing everything" is considered
an acceptable attribute, is redeemed. Everett Fox summarizes as follows: "Interpreters
disagree on the meaning of this phrase. It could be a merism (as in knowledge
from A to Z - that is, of everything) or an expression of moral choice"
(Fox,1983:11). Textual evidence, however, confirms that YHWH Elohim knows
good and bad. First, YHWH Elohim grows "the tree of the knowing of good
and bad" (2,9). Second, the serpent's words to the woman (3,5) are corroborated
by YHWH Elohim. Here are the relevant passages from At the start....
YHWH Elohim made sprout from
the ground
all trees attractive to see and good for eating
the tree of life in the middle of the garden
and the tree of the knowing of good and bad
(2,9)
YHWH Elohim said
Here, the groundling has become as one of us
knowing good and bad (3,22)
When "God" (RSV)
or "Elohim" (At the start...) is
retained throughout the serpent's speech the difficult and profound question
raised by the Hebrew text remains in the translation. The question might be
phrased as follows: is YHWH Elohim, who plants a garden with the tree of knowing
good and bad at its center and who puts the groundling in that garden, in
part responsible for what takes place there?
A similar taboo affects the association of
God and motherliness. Here the reader of this article is invited to accept
the idea that God can be both father-like and mother-like and with this in
mind to listen to the following passage with fresh ears. Two commands, one
positive and one negative, are given in verses 2,16-17:
Of all the trees of the garden,
eat! you shall eat
but of the tree of the knowing of good and
bad
you shall not eat
for on the day you eat of it
die! you shall die (2,16-17)
"Of all the trees of the garden, eat, you shall eat": the first
command expresses a total giving of all that is needed for human sustenance.
The tone of voice expresses care. "But of the tree of the knowing of
good and bad you shall not eat": the second command establishes a limit
or law. The tone of voice expresses authority. The structure here is not either/or
but both/and. The Hebrew language expresses this structure admirably. The
coordinating conjunction vav, "and/but", establishes perfect balance
between the two poles, "you shall" and "you shall not".
Two commands, two tones of voice. Here is the third part of the sentence:
"for on the day you eat of it, die! you shall die" (2,17). Here
an intriguing question arises. What tone of voice is heard now? How should
this be recited? What emotion is suitable here?. "Die! you shall die":
is this a threat, a reminder that consequences do follow upon deliberate action?
The text is usually read this way, whence the current sin/punishment interpretation
of the story. However, the third part of the sentence can be read as a warning
expressed with a note of anxiety. It has been argued above that the stay in
the garden is transitory. It is argued here that the voice knows that the
groundling will leave the garden, will risk free choice and autonomy. The
apparent threat masks anxiety and fear concerning what will happen outside
the garden. I call these mother-like propensities in YHWH Elohim. Furthermore,
subsequent events described in the text show that these sentiments are well-founded.
Outside the garden, the woman will give birth but it will be at the cost of
hard labor. She will be drawn to her man but will have to recognize the limits
he sets her.
Increase! I will increase
your pains and your conceivings
With pains you shall breed sons
For you man your longing
and he, he shall rule you (3,16)
Outside the garden, the ground will yield crops
for food but again at the cost of hard labor. The ground that produces life-
giving sustenance will also be burial ground.
cursed is the ground for you
With pains you shall eat of it
all the days of your life
Thorn and thistle it shall sprout for you
You shall eat the plants of the field
With the sweat of you face you shall eat bread
till you return to the ground
for from it you were taken
for soil you are and to the soil you shall
return (3,17-19)
The reality of life's experience thus proves
to be good and bad like the symbolic fruit of the tree. But worse follows.
Subsequently, moral evil is introduced into the world through the murderous
sin of Cain (4,8) and Cain's violence is amplified in his descendant Lamech.
For I have killed a man for wounding me
a child for bruising me
For 7 times is Cain avenged
but Lamech 77 times (4,23-24).
When with Cain's sin bad takes on the dimension
of moral evil, the fears of YHWH Elohim are fully justified. This observation
prolongs the earlier difficult question: does YHWH Elohim, who knows bad,
apprehend evil? Chapter 6 tells that YHWH is pained by the growth of evil
in the world. YHWH therefore not only apprehends evil, he suffers from it.
YHWH saw
that the groundling's badness increased on
earth
All the thoughts its heart formed were only
bad
all the day long
YHWH was sorry he made the groundling on earth
he was pained in his heart (6,5-6)
Interestingly, the same Hebrew root atsab is used for YHWH's pain, for woman's
birth pains (3,16) and for the pains of agricultural labor (3,17).
To conclude, if we search for the mother-like
in YHWH Elohim, we may find meanings and analogies that resemble the birth
process in the Garden of Eden story, in the first stirrings of human life,
the preparation for autonomy, the expulsion from a protected environment,
the vulnerability of the newly-born, the irrevocable severing from the life
source, the risks and dangers (including sin) involved in life's adventure.
This search enhances divine attributes such as generosity, concern, worry,
tenderness. With these in mind, the last verses of the story lend themselves
to gentler interpretation than the current, punitive one.
YHWH Elohim made for the groundling
and his woman
robes of skin and clothed them
YHWH Elohim said
Here the groundling has become as one of us
knowing good and bad
Now, let it not put out its hand
to take from the tree of life also
and eat and live for ever!
YHWH Elohim sent it away from the garden of
Eden
to serve the ground from which it was taken
He cast out the groundling
and made dwell east of the garden of Eden
the Cherubim and the scorching, turning sword
to keep the road to the tree of life (3,21-24)
Translating the first book of the Bible has proved a liberating experience.
Long frequentation of the text has bred familiarity with the Garden of Eden
myth, has led to creative hermeneutical exploration, inspired initially by
Hebrew word patterns, punning and key words. An analogy between the Garden
of Eden story and the birth process has given rise to this article. Textual
evidence has been brought forward to support the view that the garden, like
the womb, is a temporary dwelling place, that from the outset it is part of
the divine plan that the groundling should leave the garden to assume its
destiny, which includes the experience of good and bad, of life and death.
Metaphors facilitating God-talk have been discerned in the text, widening
the image of the Godhead to include a mother-like figure, closely involved
in the experience of good and bad. If the groundling must leave the garden
because it has become like YHWH Elohim (3,22 ff), the patriarchal/good image
alone is not sustainable as a model in our lives. These concepts distance
us from God. A shift of emphasis to a mother-like divine figure, affected
by human experience, good and bad, brings God closer to us, makes God more
worthy of our veneration and especially of our care...
Published in Semeia 81, "Thinking in Signs", Scholars Press,
USA 1999
WORKS CONSULTED
Bledstein,
Adrien J. "Binder, Trickster, Heel and Hairy-Man: Rereading Genesis 27
as a Trickster Tale Told by a
Woman." Pp. 282-95 in A Feminist Companion to Genesis. Ed. Athalya
Brenner. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
1993
Buber, Martin and Rosenzweig Franz. Im Anfang. Berlin:
Lambert Schneider. 1930
Chouraqui, André. Entête. L'univers de la Bible.
Paris: Brepols. 1982
Ed. Eissfeldt O. Librum Geneseos. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung. 1969
Eisenberg, Josy et Abécassis, Armand. A Bible Ouverte
II. Et Dieu créa Eve. Paris: Albin Michel. 1979
Fleg, Edmond.Le Livre du Commencement Paris: Editions du Chant
Nouveau.1946
Fox, Everett. In the Beginning New York: Schocken. 1983
Humbert, Paul. Etudes sur le Récit du Paradis et de la Chute
de la Genèse. Neufchâtel 1940 (Op. cit. by Paul Nothomb
in L'Homme Immortel. Paris: Albin Michel. 1984.)
Korsak, Mary Phil. At the start... Genesis made new. A translation
of the Hebrew text. New York: Doubleday. 1993
"Eve, Malignant or Maligned?" Cross Currents 453-62.1994/95
"Hebrew word patterns retained in English". Amsterdamse Cahiers
15: 9-21.1996
Liebenow, Mark. Is There Fun after Paul? A Theology of Clowning.
San Jose: Resource Publications, Inc. 1987
Speiser, Ephraim. A. Genesis The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday.
The Torah, The Five books of Moses. 1982
Genesis. Philadelphia: JPSA 1962
Van Wolde, Ellen. Words become Worlds. Leiden: Brill. 1994