THE DAWN OF EVE AND THE ETIOLOGY OF MYTH
Iris Francine Putman
B.A., University of Texas at San Antonio, 2002
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
LIBERAL ARTS
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
FALL
2009
THE DAWN OF EVE AND THE ETIOLOGY OF MYTH
A Thesis
by
Iris Francine Putman
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Jeffrey Brodd
__________________________________, Second Reader
Dr. Bradley Nystrom
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Iris Francine Putman
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Dr. Jeffrey Brodd
Department of Liberal Arts Master's Program
iii
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
THE DAWN OF EVE AND THE ETIOLOGY OF MYTH
by
Iris Francine Putman
In an attempt to clarify some of the mystery associated with the story of creation,
I offer a hermeneutic approach to the first four chapters of the book of Genesis. The
complexities of the scripture's meaning can never be wholly comprised through a literal
reading of the text. Much of its message is conveyed through symbolism, allegory, and
metaphor. Therefore, a close examination of the ancient Hebrew language is necessary in
order to approach a more accurate interpretation. Moreover, identifying the intersection
between ancient history (here, the history of ancient Mesopotamia) and biblical
history/literature remains paramount.
This interpretation makes use of various biblical translations, works by
theologians, and works and translations of myths from original languages by historians of
ancient Assyria, Sumeria, and Babylonia. The story of creation is rich and offers ideas
regarding relationship in all its forms, moral freedom, equality between the sexes, and
human value, as well as exhortations against the exploitation of the natural world and the
advent of civilization.
______________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Jeffrey Brodd
_______________________
Date
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Illustrations ...................................................................................................... vi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION........................………………………………………………....1
2. IN THE VERY BEGINNING ................................................................................ 4
3. AN ANCIENT ATTEMPT AT PRE-HISTORY ................................................. 12
4. WOMAN: A DIVINE IMAGE ............................................................................. 20
5. CHOICE AND THE CURSE............................................................................... .27
6. EVE, THE SERPENT, THE CITY, AND MYTH............................................... .35
7. A NEW GENRE OF HEROES..............................................................................56
8.
CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................86
Work Cited....................................................................................................................92
v
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
1. Illustration 1 Map of Ancient Mesopotamia………..…………………….………91
Saggs H.W.F. Babylonians: Peoples of the Past, 180.
vi
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Throughout my academic career in Humanities and Religious Studies, certain
philosophies, opinions, and ideas have weighed heavily on my mind, but none as heavy
as some of the opinions set forth by the Early Church Fathers. For example, the “doctrine
of the inferiority of women,” the idea that “religion” was divinely ordained, and the idea
that “Church,” as an institution is biblically based--these notions, whether a believer or
not, affect our lives as we live in a culture indelibly shaped by interpretations such as
these--interpretations that have also strongly directed the course of our world. As I began
investigating these issues, I found no biblical support for such propaganda. Moreover,
since many of the theological arguments centered around the story of creation, I too
decided to start at the beginning.
In this proposition, I offer a hermeneutic approach to the first four chapters of the
book of Genesis. The book of Genesis captures the essence of the Bible as a whole. The
first four chapters set the stage and define more distinctively all that follows. However,
the complexities of the scripture's meaning can never be wholly comprised through a
literal reading of the text. Much of its message is conveyed through symbolism, allegory,
and metaphor; therefore, a close examination of the ancient Hebrew language is
necessary in order to approach a more accurate reading of the text. Moreover, identifying
the intersection between ancient history (here, the history of ancient Mesopotamia) and
biblical history/literature remains paramount.
2
Using various biblical translations, works by biblical scholars, and works and
mythological translations by historians of antiquity I offer some further considerations.
The story of creation is rich and offers ideas regarding relationship in all its forms, moral
freedom, equality among the sexes, and human value, as well as exhortations against
exploitation of the natural world and the advent of civilization. Each of the chapters
address these issues in detail.
Chapter 2 introduces the creative character of the God of the proto-Hebrews and
his pre-existent nature in that it is pertinent in understanding the rest of the story. In
addition, I suggest that to improve fluidity and comprehension of the reading, J's account
must precede that of P. Chapter 3 defines the redactor's attempt at documenting prehistory by elucidating life within the garden. Here, the reader witnesses a primeval era
delineated by a simple way of life, worship, and respect for nature and the divine. In this
chapter, I use what I prefer to identify as “non-religion” to describe a life devoid of
civilization, technology, or man-made religion. Chapter 4 highlights the equality between
the sexes--both males and females as equally created in the image of God. Chapter 5
focuses on the freedom of choice (Eve), temptation (serpent), disobedience, and
expulsion. Chapter 6 gives meaning to the more specific symbolism associated with Eve
and the serpent and underscores the point of intersection between the two characters. This
point of intersection foreshadows the advent of civilization and technology which comes
to fruition through the line of Adam and Eve's son Cain. Moreover, since the conflict
between Cain and Abel arrives in the context of worship, the redactor implies that the
greatest conflict will come from man-made religion (polytheism). Chapter 7 provides a
3
long description of the character of biblical heroes. Because God “made them male and
female” in his image, both Judith and David are analyzed. Since the expulsion prevents
reentry into Eden, Judith and David provide examples of reclamation of creation--the
original intent of life within the garden. They understand the necessary pattern of conduct
and possess an intense understanding of the natural world and the way God works within
it. Judith and David provide examples of maintaining a relationship with God, even under
the influences of popular belief. Chapter 8 summarizes my analysis in total.
In my work I make the assumption that most, if not all, of my readers are at least
familiar with the Genesis account of creation. Moreover, because the text underscores
important truths about the human predicament that still reverberate today, I have chosen
to write in the present tense. Where I synchronize more closely with scholarly consensus
is in my description of the Hebrew God and Eve's link with civilization. The rest of my
interpretation offers further considerations especially in regard to the symbolism
associated with the serpent, Eve's meaning and placement in the story, the platform of the
conflict between Cain and Abel, and Eve's association with myth.
My desire in this endeavor is a discourse unadulterated and fresh. A discourse
arrived upon merely through the language of the text. I experienced difficulty finding
sources that did not present interpretations acquired through a patriarchal lens. However,
the most challenging aspect of my research was expressing with words the abstruse,
ambiguous concepts that form the bulk of the text. In this light, I have actively engaged
the text to offer some new possibilities regarding the Genesis creation story, a living
experience that reflects our lives even today.
4
Chapter 2
IN THE VERY BEGINNING
The stories of Genesis possess a timeless quality as they address the abstruse
regions of the soul that, through irresistible fascination, perpetually beckon for
understanding. Thus, in an attempt to explore origins, Genesis is an obvious staging
point. Genesis is a story of beginnings: the beginning of the universe, the beginning of
the people of Israel, the beginning of the human race and civilization, and the beginning
of monotheism. However, this exploration does not provide the kind of God and
worldview that conventional religion dictates. This exploration seeks to clarify some of
the mystery associated with the story of creation, Eve and her meaning and placement
within the story, her visitation by the serpent and the correlation to the etiology of myth.
The analysis here does not focus on the creational aspects in general (light, sky,
vegetation, etc.), but attributes associated with the divine-human relationship. The first
four chapters set the stage for the rest that follows.
Genesis, chapter one, expounds on the origins of earth, sky, vegetation, living
creatures, and human beings, as well as the Sabbath. Chapter two recounts the beginning
of human life and culture as well as the first transgression; chapter three focuses on
judgment, curse, and expulsion; and chapter four on sin, hatred and murder, as well as
cities and crafts. The initiating verse of the story assumes universal belief in a God that
needs no introduction. He has no family, no genealogy and his creative acts need no
sexual intercourse or violence, but are effortless and merely spoken into existence.
Understanding this creative character of the God of the proto-Hebrews is paramount to
5
the rest of the story. Here, the Hebrew verb bara' (created) whose sole subject is God,
encompasses all aspects of God including those that manifest themselves in the New
Testament; for example salvation, Wisdom, the Word, and Jesus--all then being present
“in the beginning” (Genesis 1:21, see note). According to Colossians the redactor
professes, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him
all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether
thrones or dominions or rulers or powers--all things have been created through him and
for him. He himself is before all things and in him all things hold together” (Col 1:15-17).
The power in this statement asserts itself in the preposition “for him.” Not only does this
statement elaborate on the existence of pre-creation activities, it testifies to the Son's
preexistence and establishes that it is God's creation. He can act within it and do with it as
he so desires. (Herein, perhaps, lies the challenge of faith).
Along these lines, Karen Armstrong author of In the Beginning, lends perspective
to the Hebrew creation story:
P uses the formal divine title 'Elohim,' a term that sums up everything that the
divine can mean for humanity . . . Most of the Near Eastern deities had parents
and complex biographies that distinguished them from one another, but P
introduces his Elohim without telling us anything about his origins or past history
in primordial time. The pagan world found the timeless world of the gods a source
of inspiration and spirituality. Not so P, who ignores God's prior existence. As far
as he is concerned, his God's first significant act is to create the universe. Again,
the very notion of a wholly omnipotent deity was a new departure. All gods in the
6
Near East had to contend with other divine rivals. None had a monopoly of
power. It was a belief that expressed the tragic realism of the pagan vision, which
recognized life's complexity and could not admit the luxury of a final solution.
Pagans could not imagine a deity that could set all things to rights. P's claim that
his god can provide the only solution to life's ills is daring; his strict
monotheism is also a new departure in Israel, since hitherto most Israelites had
recognized the existence of other gods.
(10-11)
Armstrong is accurate in her assessment as the discussion of myth below will portray;
however, this monopoly of power transcends the visible lines of the story. The phrase “in
the beginning” suggests an existence of something before the creation--the principle
elements, the prime substance, the abode of the divine. The Hebrew word for
“beginning,” taken from the translations of James Strong in The Strongest Strong's
Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, is rē'ṧît which defines “what is first,” “firstfruits,”
“principle thing” (1564). In order to better grasp this concept it is helpful to examine
John's description of creation. John states: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things
came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being” (John 1:13). The Greek word for beginning here is archē, which envelops the same meaning as
found in Genesis but with broader explanation: “beginning,” “origins,” “first,” “ruler,”
“power,” “position of authority,” and “domain” (Strong 1595).
The two terms taken as a whole give meaning to formless matter and the darkness
that covered it. Like John here, Proverbs 8:22-31 suggests God's pre-existent nature and
7
his activity “before the beginning of his work” where he created Wisdom and the Word
to share his elemental abode with him (Prov 8: 22). Moreover, John's inclusion of Logos,
not simply the spoken word as in God's creative vehicle, but the Logos, in Greek thought
“the divine principle of reason that gives order to the universe and links the human mind
to the mind of God” (John 1:1, see note). Perhaps here, several other implications present
themselves: 1) an inward intention underlying the act of speech: to give order and reason
to the divine act, and to set a standard and a time limit to the divine purpose; and 2) to
offer the possibility of one language, an initial form of communication between the
divine and his human creation.
Thus, the intrinsic link between God and nature plays itself out even to the end of
the story, perhaps then, Armstrong's final solution. God's relationship to the world
involves both transcendence and immanence--his work in the world is never finished.
Revelation 21:1-2 states, “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven
and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, the
new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God . . .” God then is seen as creatordestroyer-re-creator in what might be viewed as the circularity of God (a completion of
the cycles of his nature). Throughout the Bible, the Hebrew God uses the natural
elements to bless and to curse, to destroy and to rebuild. Therefore, in addition to the
book of Revelation, Old and New Testament alike attest to the un-creative/destroyer
nature of God and the earthly elements (Isa 34:4; Eze 38:20; Nahum 1:5; 2Peter 3:10).
Paul even warns his readers in Galatians 4 that the “elemental spirits,” or more
8
specifically, stoicheia, will not last forever. Stoicheia addresses basic principles; elements
of nature; elementary truths: elements, rudiments, truths (Strong 1644).
Here, Paul's discourse denounces attachment to a number of basic principles as
they were not created to last forever: 1) rudiments or first principles or elements: earth,
air, fire and water. In Paul's time these were seen as basic elements that control human
destiny (Gen 4, see note 4:1-7), 2) “elemental milk:” Milk and solid food commonly
symbolize levels of teaching. Those who live on milk alone never advance past their
elementary instruction, and perhaps will not ever advance to the word of righteousness,
or ethics (defined well in Heb 5:12-13), 3) demonic powers that oppress humankind:
philosophy, empty deceit, false teaching, human tradition, ritual, ceremony, festivals, and
the Law, and 4) a return to old ways: paganism/Judaism (Gal 4:1-20). Therefore, no
reality independent of God is a threat to creation, not observations of pre-existent chaos
or human device or wickedness. It is God who chooses to destroy or preserve.
Understanding this aspect of the Hebrew God lends perspective to further reading.
Moreover, this intrinsic link between God and nature reveals order and purpose, and a
delimitation within a set of prescribed divine boundaries that foreshadow future
behavioral expectations between God and his creatures, and underscores the disruption to
divine boundaries generated through human creation.
Terrence E. Fretheim, commentator on Genesis in The New Interpreter's Bible
asserts, “Many scholars consider the opening two chapters of Genesis as two creation
stories, assigning 1:1-2:4a to the Preistly writer and 2:4b-25 to the Yahwist. Moreover,
considerable effort has been expended in comparing and contrasting them. Newer
9
approaches to biblical texts, however, have raised anew the question of the shape of the
present form of the text. While the two accounts certainly have different origins and
transmission histories, they have also been brought together in a coherent way by a
redactor” (I : 340). Therefore, when reading Genesis, the fluidity and functionality of the
book are enhanced when the creation stories of P and J are viewed not as two separate
stories, but as two parts of the same story. Along these lines, it is necessary for J's
account to precede that of P.
Genesis 2:4b reads, “In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up-for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth and there was no one to till the
ground.”1 The timing indicated in this verse “in the day that,” or more precisely, at the
same time as, places the creation of Eden and its inhabitants on Day One of the six days
of creation. Day, or yôm, defines daytime (in contrast to night); by extension an indefinite
period of time, an era with a certain characteristic, for example “the day of the Lord” and
the prophetic “on that day” (Strong 1580). Here, “in the day that” places the creation of
Eden and its inhabitants on the first day of creation in all of its simplicity and indicates an
era that establishes a quintessential paradigm for living. Moreover, yôm represents the
spiritual potentials of living in communion with the divine: “continuance,” “everlasting,”
“sabbath,” and “prolonged life” (Strong 1580). This concept is solidified through the
author's use of YHWH (Yahweh), which in addition, enhances the creative element.
1 This verse presents an obvious break in its subject and format: Genesis 2:4a states: “These are the
generations of the heavens and earth when they were created; Genesis 2:4b states: “In the day that the
Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” The latter is of concern here.
10
J's use of Yahweh serves as a divine introduction to the God of a chosen people.
Here, Yahweh is not one god among many, but is the Creator and Ruler of the heaven
and earth. The name pictures God as the one who exists and causes to exist, the one who
is worthy of the complete homage of his human creation. The use of this very ancient and
intensely personal name denotes the creational purpose of an intensely personal
relationship with the whole of creation (Strong 1714, 3068). Moreover, the use of
Yahweh captures this creative essence best through the eternal nature of its association:
He who is (I am) or He who causes to be. God reveals his name as “I am who I am,” his
eternal covenant name that implies self-existence and saving presence (Ex 3:14-17); in
addition, the name embodies both the masculine and the feminine: Y and W are
masculine, and H and H are feminine (Strong 1816), which then points directly to the
creation of the first male and female . Thus, the androgynous traits of God are expressed
through the creation of his human counterparts. The shift in focus from “heaven and
earth” to “earth and heaven” indicates this point of emphasis--the capacity for personal
relations with humankind is included in the nature of the Deity.
Moreover, the use of language indicates an archetypal identity. In contrast to
Genesis 1:27 which uses 'ādām to represent humankind (male and female alike), Genesis
2 uses 'ādām as a proper noun to represent Adam, the first half of the divine couple
(Strong 1468). Timothy supports this as he states, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve .
. .” (1Timothy 2:13). Adam and Eve represent an original state of living, worship,
relationship, and contravention. In addition, placing J's account first is necessary because
it foreshadows the shaping of human destiny through focus on the people of Israel (hand
11
picked or formed by the hand of God), corruption of the interdependent relationship
between the humans and the divine, and the cause of the corruption as symbolized
through the temptation of Eve. The benefit of this reading is multifaceted.
First, it is the redactor's attempt at pre-history. Second, the story offers an
explanation of the origin of the institution of marriage and the intended equality between
the sexes. Third, it explains the existence of people and institutions (tribes, villages,
religions) outside of Eden after the expulsion and the point of supply for Cain's wife; and
last, Eve's correlation to the etiology of myth. Each will be taken in order.
12
Chapter 3
AN ANCIENT ATTEMPT AT PRE-HISTORY
The pre-history of Genesis spans Chapters 1-11 beginning with creation and
progressing through the early generations of humanity, ending in Mesopotamia. “These
texts tell a story of the past, more particular, a story of beginnings. They speak, not
simply of the general human condition, but also of the beginnings of life. This is not to
say that the material is historical in any modern sense, nor does it necessarily make any
historical judgments. Rather these narratives offer Israel's own understanding,” maintains
Fretheim (I : 336). J's rendition indicates Semitic origins beyond Israel's experience--a
beginning for the first monotheists--that form the link between a primeval era and later
developments: civilization, religion, language, script, polytheism, and kingship.
In addition, the first chapter of Genesis establishes that nature is God's language
for communicating with humankind: “and God said,” “and God made,” “and God
separated.” God controls, leads, and punishes with natural forces: He creates from dust
(Genesis 2), and destroys with natural disasters (Exodus). Job and Isaiah both testify that
God is the power behind nature whose ways cannot be questioned. This belief
corresponds with Paul's statement, “Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power
and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the
things he has made. So they are without excuse” (Romans 1: 20). Nature serves as a
universal language--any to whom God speaks understands.2 This idea is reinforced by
God “walking” in the garden following the transgression of Adam and Eve. Walk or
2 Compare to the confusion of language at the Tower of Babel.
13
hālak defines movement by extension: to walk as a lifestyle, or pattern of conduct
(Strong 1493). The weight here is twofold: 1) God maintains his conduct in the
relationship with Adam and Eve, and 2) it foreshadows Adam and Eve's breach of
conduct and expulsion through the fashioning of the fig leaves to hide their shame.
Speech and action are inseparable--good or evil. Hence, the will of God is the supreme
“good” because it is his will and he is God (“for him”). Humankind's safety and welfare
depend upon obedience to this will. In contrast, “evil” exists as an energy or compulsion
resident in human nature that the serpent arouses to activity. Any interruption in the
divine-human relationship results in the termination of paradise and living life in the
shadow of a curse.
Throughout the chapters regarding pre-history, in particular this focus on the first
four chapters, issues of relationship dominate the text from every conceivable
perspective. Most basic are the relationships between God and the creatures, especially
humans. The recurrent litany that all is created “good” serves as a warning signal
regarding God's creative work and the divine intention associated with the creation. The
appearance of disobedience/human sin, while it does not obliterate the divine-human
relationship or the important role humans play in the divine economy, has nonetheless
brought “deep and pervasive ill effects upon all relationships (human-God, human-human
at individual, familial, and national levels; human-non-human) and dramatically portrays
the need for reclamation of creation” (I : 337). Thus, the movement back and forth
between the first man and humankind, Adam and 'ādām, suggests an equitable link
between the prototype and the rest of humanity. This equitable balance among all human
14
creatures, especially between the sexes, is demonstrated at the naming of woman. The
equal partnership between man and woman is expressed by Adam renaming himself ish
(man/human being) and his new partner ishshah (woman) (Genesis 2:23, see note). Then,
the more specific naming of woman as Eve links woman to living life in a particular way
(Genesis 3:20). Therefore, Adam becomes “Every human” and woman becomes ḥawwâ,
or life, whose roles play out within or against their natural landscape (Strong 1499). Yet
there is a particular etiology associated with Adam. He is the progenitor of natural
worship, or more precisely non-religion, where he and his wife become the first
missionaries post-expulsion.
“In both P and J the unique relationship of mankind to God is shared by man and
woman. P expresses this most strikingly, but J conveys the same idea by representing
man as unable to find companionship among the animals and as finding it in her who was
made of his bone and flesh,” asserts Millar Burrows in his book An Outline of Biblical
Theology (142).3 The divine reflection as incomplete without woman is found in the “not
good” of man being alone. However, at this point God solicits assistance from Adam in
the continuation of the creation process. God creates the animals from the same dust as he
did Adam and Adam names each one. Fretheim expounds on the symbiosis of this
relationship: “God acts as name giver in vv. 5-10; God names the day, the night, the sky,
the earth, and the seas. God's naming stands parallel to, but does not overlap, the human
naming in 2:19-20.” He continues, “The act of creation constitutes, thus, no simple
3 There are perhaps etiological concerns, wherein origins (and/or prohibitions) are rooted in the very
distant past: dietary regulations (1:29-30; 2:16), prohibitions against bestiality (2:20), origin of fertility
worship as exemplified through Eve's self-aggrandizement (4:1), origins of various cultural activities
(4:20-22).
15
punctiliar act, but also involves a process of action and interaction with what has been
created. In this process, naming entails knowledge of and relationship with the thing
named” (I : 344).
This relationship extends to the earth itself (adamah), the raw material of God's
creative outlet, and is alluded to in verse five as there was “ no one to till it [the ground]
and keep it.” Fretheim suggests, “This image [deity as potter] reveals a God who focuses
closely on the object to be created and takes painstaking care to shape each one into
something useful and beautiful. At the same time the potter's work remains very much
bound to the earth and bears essential marks of the environment from which it derives” (I
: 349). Therefore Adam's relationship to God, the earth, and the animals are to bear the
same essential marks.
The Hebrew term 'ābad (till) captures the essence of this relationship well as it
suggests much more than mere gardening: 1) to work, serve, labor, do; to minister, work
in ministry; 2) to be plowed, to be cultivated; 3) to cause to serve, to worship [a god]
(Strong 1542). To “till” in this context suggests then that Adam is to serve and worship
God as well as serve and ŝāmar (keep, preserve) the garden in Eden he has been given to
inhabit (Strong 1576). It cannot mean work in this context as Adam's portion of the curse,
due to breach of divine law (Genesis 3:14-19), requires that “by the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread . . .” Here, the Hebrew noun zē'â, or sweat, refers to “heavy manual
labor” (Strong 1496) which provides a rigid contrast to “till” or worship making the
future curse effective. Moreover, God creates a paradise in which to live with water,
16
plants, food, and divine law. The only tasks left for Adam are to serve and worship the
creator, obey one divine law, and preserve the environment provided.
Consequently, the concept of non-religion, arrives through Adam. To better grasp
the concept of non-religion, it is best to first define what it is not:

It is not political in structure or form.

It is not civilized or technological.

In it exists no evil.

There exists a different notion of work which involves protection and care of
the earth and its inhabitants, in opposition to exploitation of the earth and its
inhabitants.
What exists then in the concept of non-religion is a harmony between God and
humankind, and humankind and the natural environment. Belief in God, here, is a natural
theology. God is never separate from the world and his worship is not separate from the
ordinary activities of everyday life.
Further support for this is found in the (divine couple's) state of being
“naked”('ārôm) without shame (Strong 1550), a condition which represents a
relationship with the divine absent of any barriers. The prohibition against eating of the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil is designed to maintain this barrier free
relationship. Knowledge of good is assumed as all that was created has been labeled as
such. However, even in the idyllic setting of the garden, evil has its potential. Evil or ra'
expresses that which is disagreeable to God as ethically evil (Strong 1567). In the words
of Burrows lies testimony to this relationship: “Another point to be kept in mind is that
17
the language of the Bible is not the language of philosophy or science; it is the language
of worship. It must be understood as poetry, not as factual description or analysis. Strictly
speaking, the Bible does not present a doctrine of God but a way of thinking about God.”
Along these lines he continues, “The clue to what may be expected of God is found in
what is best for man. It is from this point of view that biblical theism must be understood
and judged and accepted” (62-63).
Therefore, it is not surprising that parallels exist in the second half of the story
(Genesis 1:26-31) regarding 'ādām or humankind in the world at large. God continues to
allow for partnership in the creative process. The “let us make” extends not only to the
consultation of other divine beings but to human beings as well, “for they are created in
the image of one who chooses to create in a way that shares power with others” (I : 345).
This sharing of the creative process extends to the procreative capabilities of humankind
(and “every living creature”) and is fueled through the divine command to “be fruitful
and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28). Moreover, the seven day cycle of work
and rest designated for humankind replicates the creation process and the divine-human
sharing of it, and serves as a perpetual reminder that all are in a right relationship with the
Creator (Exodus 31:12).
Likewise, the absence of prohibition against eating from the tree of life (Genesis
2:16-17) magnifies a state of living that has movement and vigor that allows living to a
“whole age” and can be shared with a multitude (this applies to non-humans as well as
humans) (Strong 1499). Yahweh then is a God of relationship and his creation is the stage
upon which life plays out. However, it must be realized that life in this context is
18
inextricably linked to the judgments of God as “good” or “not good.” Evaluation remains
part of an on-going process within which improvement or injury are possible.
God gives the commands in the garden to worship (till) and protect (keep) and to
the rest of humanity to “have dominion” and “subdue.” Dominion or rādâ corresponds to
the command ŝāmar and indicates terms of care-giving and nurturing, not exploitation.
Human beings should relate to non-humans as God relates to them as reflections of his
image (I : 346). On the other hand, subdue offers sharp contrast to the garden story.
Subdue or kābaŝ, which means to subject or bring under control, provides a particular
latitude to life outside of Eden. Much like God's acceptance of the names Adam gave to
all the animals, God gives creation to the humans to decide how they will proceed within
it. Fretheim asserts, “This process [subduing] offers to the human beings the task of intracreational development, of bringing the world along to its fullest possible creational
potential . . . The future remains open to a number of possibilities in which the creaturely
activities will prove crucial for the development of the world” (I : 346).
The use of Elohim in this portion of the story reflects these “creaturely activities.”
In the Pentateuch the name Elohim connotes a general concept of God; that is, it portrays
God as the transcendent being, the creator of the universe. It does not connote the more
personal and palpable concepts inherent in the name Yahweh. Moreover, it can also be
applied to false gods as well as judges and kings. This foreshadows the interference in the
divine-human relationship that the advances in civilization and technology bring upon the
created order. As the human prototype demonstrates, all developments must be done in
the framework of worship, respect for the environment, and obedience to the divine. In
19
whatever manner humans decide to exercise their freedom of choice, God will work
around it as it is God who will ultimately evaluate the “good” and “not good” of the
developmental processes within his creation. In this light, Adam represents a series of
sharp contrasts: 1) nature and civilization, 2) God and humans, 3) worship and
disobedience, and 4) God as God and man as God. These contrasts come to fruition
through his wife, Eve.
20
Chapter 4
WOMAN: A DIVINE IMAGE
It is not surprising that Eve is the catalyst and pivotal point for the rest of the
story. The complexity of her character is both enlightening and disturbing. Eve's debut
initiates as the divinely hand-crafted partner made from Adam's own rib. Over the
centuries much has been hypothesized regarding woman's place in creation to which
Burrows sheds some light: “Undue stress by commentators on woman's subordination to
man in Genesis, chapter 2, has obscured the more basic point of their common elevation
above the animals” (142). In the Genesis story, it is God who decides that Adam needs a
helper (ēzer), not as an act of subordinating woman to man, but to share equally in the
ways of worship, care of creation, and the issues of life. Helper in no way implies
subordination. In the Old Testament, God is often called the helper of human beings,
actually, when ēzer is not referring to Eve, it appears seventeen times in reference to God
(Strong 542). For example, Psalms 121:1-2 suggests that the help for humankind comes
from the creator of the heavens and the earth. Therefore, a more precise reading would
suggest mutual assistance is necessary for a more complete way of living.
Adam is formed of dust which ties him unarguably to the earth, and Eve is made
of living tissue which ties her to life and the living--earth and life are inextricably linked
and meaningless without the other. Being made of a rib buttresses this concept in many
ways: 1) “One flesh” indicates a kinship which highlights mutuality and equality
(Genesis 29:14; 2 Sam 19:12-13), 2) Man is to leave the identity of his family and create
a new identity with his wife with a particular focus on the husband-wife relationship--
21
man and woman as an indissoluble unit of humankind from every perspective (I : 354), 3)
ribs come in pairs, 4) ribs are supporting structures, and 5) The relationship of husbands
and wives, as reflections of the divine, are to be prophetic of their personal relationship
with the divine.
Once again, it is the curse that causes misconceptions. Both Adam and Eve's
positions result from shared disobedience. Eve's portion of the curse for disobedience to
God (Genesis 3:16) is to experience pain in child birth and yet continue to desire her
husband, but be ruled by him as well. The verb māŝal, or “rule,” combines the idea of
dominion and rule. This maintains the idea of care of without exploitation; however, rule
means exactly what it implies. Fretheim elaborates: “The 'rule' of man over woman is part
and parcel of the judgment on the man as much as the woman. This writer understood
that patriarchy and related ills came as a consequence of sin rather than being the divine
intention” (I : 363). Therefore, to operate here or to create a “doctrine” of the inferiority
of women is to operate within the curse rather than within the original intentions for
human creation--both man and woman are equally created in the image of God. It may be
surprising to note that it is the Paul of the New Testament that sheds light on divinely
created equality between the sexes.
John Temple Bristow, author of What Paul Really Said About Women, explores
what he calls “the Ephesians 5 Syndrome” (32). His research is the focus in this section.
Bristow prefaces his argument with details examining the origin of the idea that women
are inferior to men and ends with Paul's explanation on the harmonious balance between
the sexes, especially within the marriage relationship. In his book, Bristow accuses Zeno,
22
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and the Essenes, in short, Greek philosophy, for the
legacy of disdain for women. Hellenization saw the spread of this mode of thinking. Even
though the Old Testament is replete with examples of capable and strong-willed women
such as Rahab, Ruth, Tamar, Deborah, Jael, and Judith, the rabbis of Judaism devalued
women in their teaching due to cultural biases that led to misinterpretations of scripture.
The tendency toward the Hellenization of Jewish thought was given formal sanction in
the writings of Philo, a Jewish scholar in Alexandria at the time of Christ. Philo sought to
harmonize the teachings of Plato and Aristotle and other Greek philosophers with the
teachings of the Old Testament. With this process came the imposition of Greek disdain
for women injected into his interpretation of the scripture. Later Christian scholars such
as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas sought to
systematize Christian beliefs and harmonize them with Greek philosophy (1-29).
Therefore, if Paul wanted to Christianize the lands that Alexander had Hellenized,
he had to tear down the walls that Greek culture and philosophy had solidified between
people--including walls between men and women, and husbands and wives (Bristow 31).
Paul's model was radical to people of his day; however, it reflects the creators intentions
from the beginning. Bristow elaborates on “the Ephesians 5 syndrome” with particular
emphasis on verses 21-33 focusing specifically on what he labels as the key words:
“head,” “be subject to,” and “love.”
“The husband is head of the wife,” Paul explains, “as Christ is head of the
church” (Eph 5:23). To contrast the English word for head that provides two meanings
within the context of one word, such as literally the physical head of the body and
23
figuratively the leader of a body of people--the two meanings intertwined--Greek
provides two separate words to accommodate each separate meaning. One is archē,
which represents point of leadership, beginning, first (as in terms of importance and
power). Paul and other writers of the New Testament used this form of archē to designate
the head or leader of a group of people: “magistrate,” “chief,” “prince,” “ruler,” etc.
However, Paul did not make a pun out of archē and suggest that the husband is the archē
(or head) of his wife, implying then that Adam was the archē (or source) of Eve. Being
aware of the use and meaning of this word, Paul chose to describe the husband-wife
relationship quite differently (Bristow 35-36).
The word Paul chose to describe this relationship is kephale. This word does
mean “head” in reference to the part of the body, but also, it was used to mean
“foremost” in terms of position such as a capstone over a door or the cornerstone in a
foundation. Moreover, kephale as a military term denotes “one who leads,” not a
“general” or “captain,” but a kephale was one who went ahead of the troops as the first
one into battle. The validity of this interpretation, Bristow assures, relates to how these
two words are used in the Septuagint. In Hebrew, just as in English, one words means
both “physical head” and “ruler”--this Hebrew word is rosh. The lack of
interchangeability between archē and kephale is “carefully preserved” in the translations
of the Septuagint. When the seventy scholars who wrote the Septuagint came to the word
rosh they could have used either Greek word as they wished or one of the words all the
time; however, they were careful to note the context of the usage of rosh as to whether it
referred to “physical head” or “ruler of a group.” Whenever rosh meant “physical head”
24
or referred to a soldier leading others into battle with him, the translators used kephale.
However, when rosh meant “ruler” or “chief” or “leader” the translators used archē.
Bristow insists that “every time the distinction was carefully preserved” (36-37).
The second key word presents a broader scope of usage. In the above cited
scripture, the words “be subject to” appear three times: 1) believers (the Church) are to be
subject to one another, 2) wives are to be subject to their husbands, and 3) the Church is
to be subject to Christ (Eph 5:21-24). It must be noted, that if kephale does not indicate
rule or authority, then “be subject to” cannot refer to obedience. To be sure, Paul uses the
word for obedience (hupakouo) in regards to the behavior of children towards their
parents in Ephesians 6:1. If Paul intended to convey obedience, he would have used
hupakouo; however, this is not the case. When addressing wives, Paul used a form of the
Greek word hupotasso by writing in the imperative, middle voice, thus the word becomes
hupotassomai. By writing in the imperative mood, Paul was instructing wives, or rather
requesting that wives choose to behave in a particular way toward their husbands. (Here,
the subject of the verb is acting in a way that affects the subject). Therefore,
hupotassomai defines a request along the lines of “tend to the needs of” or “be supportive
of” rather than the awkward translation “be subject to.” Additionally, hupotassomai
serves as a military term referring to taking a position in the phalanx of the soldiers
without implication of rank or status, but as an equal sharing of the task for which the
soldiers are ordered (Bristow 38-41). The subtle analogy of Paul's words imply
something quite different than a Greek philosophical assumption portrays. Bristow writes
that the military usages implies that “ the husband is head when he sticks his neck out and
25
goes first into battle, and the wife is subject to her husband only by standing in formation
next to him and obeying the same orders as he” (44). Love is the solidifying factor.
Three times in this short passage husbands are instructed to love their wives. Of
the three kinds of love defined in Greek, erao, phileo, and agapao, it is the third listed to
which Paul refers. Indeed, agapao is the form of love most frequently used and
commanded in the New Testament as it is to reflect the love God has for his son and his
people (Strong 1748-1749). Bristow explains that erao denotes having sexual desire and
passion and was not commanded by Paul as it is not something that can be commanded.
Likewise, phileo denotes an emotional kind of love such as fondness, friendship, a deep
liking--a warmth that cannot be ordered into being. However, agapao is not attached to
emotion as much as attitude and action; therefore, it can be commanded. For example, the
greatest commandments use this word to instruct love of God, neighbors, and even one's
enemies. Bristow relays the “almost identical” link between agapao and hupotassomai as
involving giving up one's self-interest to serve and care for another (Bristow 41-42).
What then does Paul's model reveal?
Paul's model reveals that “wives are to hupotassomai their husbands; husbands
are to agapao their wives.” Paul described a husband as the head of the wife as Christ is
head of the church; therefore a husband is to nourish and sanctify his wife and even be
willing to die for her, and a wife is to be supportive of and responsive to the needs of her
husband and he is to (agapao) be responsive to her needs as well (Bristow 42-43). Thus,
it is not surprising that Paul quotes Genesis 2:24 emphasizing the “one flesh” of marital
union. Being formed first and out of the earth symbolizes that Adam is the foundation
26
(kephale) upon which Eve can stand. Eve's creation from the rib of Adam symbolizes that
she is his supporting structure (hupotassomai). Therefore, Paul's request for husbands to
love their wives as their own bodies is not surprising. Eve was formed out of the body of
her husband, so in loving her he demonstrates self-respect, and they are one flesh. Yet,
Eve offers more than support for her husband. She is the vehicle through which the
freedom of choice was first expressed.
27
Chapter 5
CHOICE AND THE CURSE
Chapter three initiates with a very brief introduction of the serpent: “Now the
serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made”
(Genesis 3:1a).4 Everett Fox, author of In the Beginning: A New English Rendition of the
Book of Genesis, suggests a successful link is made between the Garden of Eden and the
temptation through the use of the word crafty by “linking two identical-sounding words
in the Hebrew, arum (here, 'nude' and 'shrewd')” (15). This link foreshadows a change in
circumstance and relationship as the serpent stands as the disruptor of the paradisaical
balance. On one hand, nude represents a harmonious relationship with the divine devoid
of barrier and shame (Genesis 2:25); on the other hand, nude represents separation from
the divine, barrier, and shame (Genesis 3:10). In addition, the serpent brings to mind the
series of contrasts that have been at play since the beginning of the narrative: heaven and
earth, “good” and “not good” (with the potential for evil), life and death, knowledge and
choice.
The most important contrast established since the beginning of the story is the
contrast between “good” and “not good,” with steps taken to resolve all that was “not
good.” All other contrasts (and situations and people) fit quite neatly under these two
headings. God is good, the serpent not good and both are indicators within the rest of the
narrative. However, what astounds most is that God created the serpent as he did all other
4 There is an obvious break in subject and format: Genesis 3:1a reads, “Now the serpent was more crafty
than any other creature the Lord God had made;” Genesis 3:1b reads, “He said to the woman, Did God
say, 'You shall not eat from any tree in the garden?'”
28
earthly creatures. The woman's phlegmatic response to the serpent's appearance, perhaps
indicates her awareness of its existence and even her awareness of the possibilities the
serpent presents. In general, the “serpent” represents all things in God's “good” creation
that presents options to humans that might ultimately entice them away from God.
According to Strong, temptation has two meanings: 1) any attempt to entice or tempt into
evil, and 2) a testing that aims at an ultimate spiritual good (1802). Both aspects are
active in the garden and between the two extremes stands the tree in the middle of the
garden.
The author of Genesis writes: “He [the serpent] said to the woman, Did God say,
'You shall not eat from any tree in the garden?' The woman said to the serpent, We may
eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of
the tree in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.' But the
serpent said to the woman, You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your
eyes will be opened and you will be like God” (Genesis 3:1b-5). Thus, the second most
important contrast is life and death. Both life and death correspond to creative elements:
dust and flesh, and spirit. As indicated above, living life to the fullest and eating of the
tree of life has been freely offered. Just as the potential for evil exists in the idyllic setting
of the garden, so too, the potential for immortality. However, this potential is requisite
upon the maintenance of the divine-human relationship. For example, part of the
judgment delivered to Adam, “you are dust and to dust you shall return,” suggests the
loss of a more enduring life (Genesis 3:19). Moreover, the lengthy age of the post
expulsion Adamic generations, perhaps, indicates a gradual loss of the longevity
29
associated with Eden. As humans drift further and further from the divine, their
transgressions are reflected in their length of days. “Then the Lord God said, 'My spirit
shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred
twenty years'” (Genesis 6:3). Therefore, just as God chose to animate the flesh with spirit,
he chose to un-animate the flesh through its removal--death.
Flesh, then, indicates the physical (flesh/dust) and spiritual (breath/wind) aspects
of living; death indicates the physical and spiritual aspects of dying. The serpent's
question cleverly challenges this concept: “Did God say, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of
any tree in the garden?'” (Genesis 3:1). Fretheim asserts, “This tactic sets the agenda,
which centers on God, and provokes a response by suggesting that the woman knows
more about the prohibition than the serpent does.” He continues, “The question is clever,
to which a simple yes or no response is impossible, if one decides to continue the
conversation (a key move in such situations)” (I : 360). Through the use of flattery, the
serpent tests the woman's trust in what God has said. The dialogue implies that the
woman knows the prohibition better than the serpent, perhaps she also knows better than
God as well. In addition, the serpent not only challenges which fruit, but which death.
Indeed, the couple did not die in the physical sense.
Just prior to the expulsion, God addresses the heavenly court with concerns
regarding immortality: 'See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil;
and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live
forever' (Genesis 3:22). This may seem contradictory to the freedom of eating of its fruit
in the preceding chapter; however, one of two possibilities exist. First, the concern may
30
reflect the couple's neglect in sampling the fruit. More likely though, it suggests a
developmental relationship through which (a type of) immortality is earned. In this case,
immortality is a process, such as eating daily for physical nourishment and worshiping
daily for spiritual nourishment, something one must work at to gain. In the garden, the
focus was not work, but worship, which indicates spiritual possibilities. The curse
focuses on work with an implied decrease in time for worship (relationship, quality of
life, etc.). The story in no way attempts to prove a doctrine of immortality, yet,
throughout the Bible it is assumed as an undisputed postulate. Therefore, the condition of
believers in their state of immortality is not a bare endless existence but a communication
with God in eternal satisfaction and blessedness (Strong 1725). In contrast, evil is
acquired quite easily through sensory perceptions: seeing, touching, tasting.
The clever antics of the serpent expose the appealing allure of that which God
called evil. “You will be like God,” the serpent tells the woman, but only in one way,
“knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). Therefore, it is not likely that Eve's acquisition
of the fruit was to gain knowledge or to be like God. Rather, Eve more likely wondered if
God was telling the truth--a risk Eve considered worthwhile. The intimacy of their
relationship had not been enough. Consequently, Eve exercised another aspect of being
created in the image of God--the freedom of choice. Fox maintains that “rebellion against
or disobedience toward God and his laws results in banishment/estrangement and literally
or figuratively, death. Thus from the beginning the element of choice, so much stressed
by the Prophets later on, is seen as the major element in human existence” (16-17). The
creative action found in “and God said” indicates purposeful action--God's choice in his
31
creation. In addition, the book of Jonah reveals that God himself can change his mind:
“When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his
mind about the calamity that he said he would bring upon them [destruction of Nineveh];
and he did not do it (Jonah 3:10). Likewise, the command to “let them have” dominion
and the ability to subdue, “according to our likeness,” implies that humankind, like
heavenly beings, have the choice of how they will proceed in the newly created world.
In a particularly challenging verse, Paul makes a strong assertion regarding
women and the divine retinue. He writes, “For this reason a woman ought to have a
symbol of authority on her head because of the angels” (Cor 11:10, see note). “Some
translators assume that Paul was speaking metaphorically when he wrote of authority for
women, and so they word this sentence, “Therefore, a woman ought to wear a veil
because of the angels.” What would wearing a veil have to do with angels? Tertullian
offered one suggestion. He believed that if angels looked down and saw women without
veils, they might fall in love with them,” writes Bristow (87). This is an unlikely
scenario. The word Paul uses is exousia and never corresponds to an article of clothing,
but is the equivalent of “power,” “right,” “strength,” and “authority” and is used in
regards to kings and magistrates. In addition, it is used in regards to Christ's authority in
heaven and earth (Bristow 87). The “on her head” relates to her freedom of choice (Cor
11:10, annotations x and w). Therefore, woman has the authority to exercise her freedom
of choice because she has a greater sensitivity to her divinely inspired attributes. This
spiritual authority given to women was foreshadowed by the action of angels. An angel
came to Mary to enlist her cooperation in the birth of the Christ child (Luke 1:30-31).
32
Moreover, two angels announced the resurrection of Jesus to Mary Magdalene, Joanna,
and Mary the mother of Jesus at the empty tomb (Luke 24: 1-12). The appearance of the
angels to the women affirms the spiritual authority that women (and men) may choose to
enjoy from God as reflections of his divine image.
The image is not corporeal but rational, spiritual, and social, a reflection of the
divine. The earthly realm is the playing field upon which human choice is exercised. God
is active, but not intrusive in this realm. Like the naming of the animals, he allows for
human choice; however, choice corresponds to relationship quality, blessing, or
expulsion. God and the other divine beings already “know” evil, the prohibition was a
protective measure for the benefit of humankind. Therefore the couple's tasting of the
fruit is not related to the idea that knowledge and mortality are inextricably linked, but
rather that obedience and responsibility ensure blessing--it is all a matter of choice. The
serpent acts as a catalyst in assisting the woman's own mental processes to discover the
freedom she had the power to grasp (I : 366).
However, “looks good,” “feels good,” “tastes good” does not define the long term
goodness of the choice. Disobedience, pride, sin, whatever the label, leads to a death that
is possible to avoid. The spiritual aspects of living and dying, discussed above, are
completely within the power of humankind. Fox suggests a psychological point of view:
The story resembles a vision of childhood and the transition to the contradictions
and pain of adolescence and adulthood. In every way--moral, sexual, and
intellectual--Adam and Havva (Eve) are like children, and their actions after
partaking of the fruit seem like actions of those who are unable to cope with new
33
found powers. The resolution of the story, banishment from the garden, suggests
the tragic realization that human beings must make their way through the world
with the knowledge of death and with great difficulty.
(17)
This reading is far too simplistic and leaves too much of the given information
unexplored. According to the creative term bara', every potential existed in the
beginning: wisdom, knowledge, life, progress, etc., hence the creation of humankind as
adults--all potentialities are within the grasp of adult cognition. However, the “good” (not
perfection) of creation allows for growth and the development of potentialities, so too, its
corruption. Fretheim asserts, “By the way human responsibility for what happened is
lifted up, the writer does not assign the problem of human sinfulness to God or consider it
integral to God's creational purposes. Certainly God creates the potential for such
developments for the sake of human freedom. Especially important are the effects of this
human decision, which ranges in an amazingly wide arch; it disrupts not only their own
lives, but (given the symbiotic character of creaturely relationships) that of the entire
cosmos as well, issuing in disharmonious relationships at every level” (I : 368).
The curse involves a transformation in the primary roles in life, roles of stature
among the animals, roles of wife and mother, roles of laborer and provider. Every
conceivable relationship has been disrupted: among the animals; between an animal and
humans; between the earth (adamah) and humans; between human beings and God;
between an animal and God; within the individual self (e.g., shame, guilt, and alienation).
The man and woman bear the consequences of their own choices. Accordingly, it must be
34
noted here that 'ādām (humankind: male and female) functions generically in this section
of the story.
This overlap indicates the necessity of reading the story of paradise as the first
part of the creation story. Humankind must have a reference point of relationship and
behavior, the “it was good” from which to move. God provides the example for this as
anything in the garden deemed “not good” was rectified. Evil however, is a different
matter. Evil is presented as the antithesis of morality, integrity, relationship and
completeness, and thus shown to dissolve community, a fragmentation that spreads
dissolution and effects the whole cosmic order. In this light Armstrong writes, “But
perhaps we can see the sin of Adam and Eve as a refusal to accept the nature of things . . .
A lust for life can be an expression of rampant egotism and desire for self
aggrandizement which takes no care for the rest of the world” (31). Eden is meant to
provide a sharp contrast to the rest of the world. It is not only a place but an attitude, a
frame of mind where evil cannot live if one desires a natural balance of things. The most
assertive movement away from the natural balance of things is found in the more specific
symbolism attached to the encounter between Eve and the serpent.
35
Chapter 6
EVE, THE SERPENT, THE CITY, AND MYTH
The clothing of Adam and Eve prior to expulsion from the garden foreshadows
the more specific symbolism attached to Eve and the serpent that will eventually
culminate in her offspring Cain. However, clothing the divine couple offers a certain
degree of ambiguity in association with the expulsion. It is both punitive and protective.
God makes good on his promise of (spiritual) death should the couple choose to violate
his law; and it seems that God underscores the newly found knowledge of shame by
double-clothing the couple. Yet, the clothing offers protection for the couple to the life
that awaits them outside of Eden: not garments as a protective covering per se, but as a
preliminary introduction to social convention.
Faced with the options presented by the serpent, Eve and Adam move one step
away from Eden and one step closer to the city. Accordingly, Jeremy Black and Anthony
Green authors of Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated
Dictionary maintain, “Representations of snakes are naturally frequent in iconography
from the prehistoric period onwards, but it is not always easy to decide whether or not
they carry any religious value.” (167) However, several attributes remain certain: 1) when
depicted as attributes of deities serpents are seen associated with both gods and goddesses
(167), 2) serpents are associated with “Slain Heroes (164), and 3) serpents and serpentine
monsters can be a metaphor for gods and kings (71). Therefore, if Eve represents life,
living, and permanent settlements and the serpent represents gods, myths, and kings the
point of intersection must be civilization and technology. Along these lines, one must
36
question the redactor's motivation in writing the text. Is the redactor suggesting an
exhortation against progress? To those with modern day sensibilities, this may seem most
disturbing. However to further complicate the issue, the answer is both yes and no. What
happens in the garden manifests itself in disharmonious relationships that accompanies
the history of humankind outside the garden.
The abrupt transition to life outside the garden appears initially positive, with the
intimacy between the husband and wife and the birth of children. Maintenance of a
creational theme appears foremost: Adam and Eve fulfill the creational command to “be
fruitful and multiply” and Cain and Abel fulfill the commands to “have dominion” and
“subdue the earth.” Moreover, the initial focus of the text remains in the context of
worship; however, it is in this context that the dissension between the brothers arises.
Evidence of the impending clash ensues from Eve's cry: “I have produced a man with the
help of the Lord” (Genesis 4:1). Here, the verb “produced” plays upon Cain's name and
foreshadows his approaching future.
Cain (qayin) means “brought forth,” “acquire,” “smith,” and “metal worker”
(Strong 1561), implying an immediate conflict with the nature of things. Moreover, as a
“tiller of the ground,” Cain's chosen occupation operates within the realm of the curse:
“By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread” (Genesis 3:19). “Sweat” and “bread”
refer to the arduous and tedious processes required in grain cultivation. Agriculture was
the key development that led to the rise of civilization (and animal husbandry) creating
food surpluses that enabled the development of more densely populated and stratified
37
societies. H.W.F. Saggs, author of Babylonians: Peoples of the Past, attests to these
developments:
Civilisation, in the same sense of a way of life associated with cities and writing,
began in south Mesopotamia in the fourth millennium. But this was not the
sudden single- handed achievement of a master race. Behind it lay many millennia
of human advance. Already, 300,000 years ago, an early form of man using fire,
and fashioning tools and weapons. Our own form of man, Homosapiens, emerged
in Africa by 90,000 BC and by 30,000 BC had supplanted neanderthal man
throughout Europe. Soon after, trading was taking place as far away as 400 km
(250 miles) from the supply base, as the distribution of flint from an identifiable
source in Poland shows. By 20,000 BC man had invented the needle, a tool which
greatly facilitated the making of clothing for the protection against the bitter cold
of the last Ice Age. Man had also learnt many other skills: he could control the
movement of herds for more effective hunting; he knew how to store food;
and he could build shelters and long-term camp sites. These last achievements
prepared the way for further advances, since it was only a step from storing wild
cereals to sowing and cultivating them, and it was an easy transition from semipermanent camp sites to permanent villages.
(23)
This brief historical record is represented through the Adamic family, particularly the
later developments which are realized through the genealogy of Cain. These latter
developments began after the end of the last Ice Age, from about 90,000 BC, running in
an arc from Palestine along the foothills of the Taurus to the foothills of the Zagros. The
38
presence of wild sheep and goats, wild wheat and barley, and plentiful rainfall made these
developments possible. Genesis 2:16-3:23 reflects these beginnings “when it tells how
mankind, after first living in a garden where food was to be had for the gathering, was
driven out to an existence dependent on tillage of the soil” (Saggs 23).
In contrast to Cain, Abel is a “keeper of sheep” (Genesis 4:2). Although Cain is
the eldest brother, Abel and his occupation precede Cain's in the text. Abel's prime
placement in the story underscores his harmonious relationship with God, his family, and
the earth. He fulfills the creational command to ŝāmar (preserve and keep) the earth and
its creatures. Moreover, Abel is translated as “meadow,” and “morning mist,” something
more “transitory” (Strong 1492). The importance of the transitory association to Abel's
character offers a tripartite explanation of the text. First, it foreshadows Abel's transient
existence on the earth. Second, it perhaps suggests that city living can kill the
righteousness of humankind; and last, it provides a sharp contrast to a static population
that exhibits a greater harmony with the natural world. Thus, God accepts Abel's
sacrifice; but “for Cain and his offering he had no regard” (Genesis 4:5).
God looks at both the offerer (the intentions of the heart) and the offering (Heb
11:4; 1 Sam 16:7). Cain's offering of “the fruit of the ground” is reminiscent of the
transgression in the garden just prior to expulsion. Fruit (pᵉ rî) means not only fruit, as in
produce, but also the “result of any action” good or evil (Strong 1555). Hence, it is likely
that the inward character of Cain and Abel are defined through their occupations. Thus,
before God, Cain did not “do well.” The external manifestation of his inward character
39
presents itself through Cain's anger and fallen countenance. Therefore, God offers Cain
advice:
Why are you angry and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you
not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at your door; its desire
is for you, but you must master it.
(Genesis 4:6-7)
Finally, the disharmony within the creation receives a label-- “sin.” The reality of sin is
portrayed as something active and predatory, a potentially consuming fact of life that can
control every aspect of Cain's seeing, touching, and tasting (thinking, feeling, and acting).
Conquering sin, therefore, requires self-control and self-mastery. Perhaps, the redactor
suggests that self-control is the only way to reclaim that which was lost in Eden--through
the maintenance of a paradisaical attitude within the self. For certain, the redactor
purports that the choices of humankind genuinely make a difference regarding the shape
of the future.
However, the reality of sin continues and intensifies Cain's problematic
relationship to God, to others, to the ground, and to himself. For God's advice, Cain had
no regard. He lures his brother to the field and murders him. God is aware of the
homicide, yet he moves to elicit a confession from Cain. Rather than hiding from God,
Cain tells a bold-faced lie. Even more, he turns the question back on God: “Am I my
brother's keeper?” (Genesis 4:9). Cain negates God's command to ŝāmar, he has no
intention of keeping and preserving any part of creation, not even his own brother.
Moreover, by setting the conflict between the brothers in the context of worship, the
redactor alludes to the birth of religion. The more specific allusion is toward polytheism
40
and its direct association with the material aspects of civilization and technology. The
admonition is not against progress per se, but the exploitation thereof. Material progress
frequently outruns moral progress and human ingenuity, so potentially beneficial to
humankind, is often directed towards evil ends (I : 377). This idea resonates strongly in
that the first murder arises in the context of worship. Cain's act not only violates the
cosmic order, but its creator. By taking a life, Cain appropriates to himself a godlike
power over Abel's very existence. Religion, thus, is merely one of the ways by which
men seek to get what they want, to satisfy their desires, and avoid the dangers they fear
(Burrows 154). Humans remain non-religious when all their needs are met as illustrated
by life in the garden. Nevertheless, God remains the evaluator.
Like the sentence meted out to his parents, Cain's sentence is both punitive and
protective. The story maintains the close relationship between humans and the land, and
underscores the link between the moral order and the cosmic order. Although Cain's
“sins” are not intentionally directed toward the ground, the shedding of human blood
adversely affects the productivity of the soil. The prophet Hosea sheds light on the moralcosmic link:
Hear the word of the Lord,
O people of Israel;
for the Lord has an indictment
against the inhabitants
of the land.
There is no faithfulness or
41
loyalty,
and no knowledge of God in
the land.
Swearing, lying, and murder,
and stealing and adultery
break out;
bloodshed follows bloodshed.
Therefore the land mourns
and all who live in it languish;
together with the wild animals
and the birds of the air
even the fish of the sea are
perishing.
(Hosea 4:1-3)
Human behaviors that do not manifest themselves in the consciousness of others, will
nonetheless, come to the consciousness of God. The creation itself both records and
reveals the abuses of humankind. Abel's blood cries out to God from the ground. The
ground “which has opened its mouth” to receive Abel's blood will no longer produce any
yield, regardless of Cain's efforts, and Cain “will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the
earth” (Genesis 4:12). Cain laments his sentence--the murderer fears for his own life.
Here, Cain appears cognizant of the population even further outside of Eden. (The
humans from the sixth day of creation). Yet, God promises that should anyone kill Cain,
he will be avenged seven-fold. Cain prepares to enter the existing order of things, the
42
present customs, practices, and power relations in the world at large. Placing a mark on
Cain establishes God's care for him and sets him apart as a believer in Yahweh. (The
interaction between Cain and God establishes this belief). The evaluation Cain receives
intensifies the earlier curse and displaces him even further East from the garden. Cain is
removed from the presence of the Lord and he settles in the land of Nod or “wandering”
(Strong 1535).
As Cain's name and occupation foreshadow, it is not surprising that within the
existing population, Cain finds a wife with whom he begins the Cainite genealogy and
builds the city of Enoch named after his son. From the line of Cain arises permanent
settlements, stock-breeding, musicians, and metallurgy--trades all vital to the rise of cities
(Genesis 4:17-22). However, “to 'settle' in 'wandering,' an ironic comment, may refer to a
division within the self, wherein spatial settledness accompanies a troubled spirit (see Isa
7:2). That Cain founded a city (nothing is said about the nature of the city) suggests that
rootlessness means more than physical wandering. Those who live in cities can also be
restless wanderers,” asserts Fretheim (I : 375). With the rise in population and
advancement in technology, sin intensifies and humankind is further distanced from the
divine, from nature, and from natural theology. In this portion of the story, Lamech
exemplifies this intensification.
It is from the offspring of Lamech that the material aspects of the civilizing
process come to the fore. Moreover, betraying the original intent of monogamous union,
Lamech is the first polygamist. This bold maneuver perhaps implies Lamech's doubly
sinful nature. Moreover, there is an interesting ambivalence associated with Lamech and
43
his family. Nomenclature plays the predominant role here, and the pairing of names is
most significant. For example, Adah is the mother of both Jabal and Jubal. Adah means
“adornment” (Strong 1544) and Jabal and Jubal both translate as “stream” or
“watercourse” (Strong 1506, 1508). The pattern established here contrasts a civilizing
agent with the natural world. This pattern continues with Lamech's second wife and her
children. Zillah means “God is my shadow” (Strong 1559); the name of her son Tubalcain translates as “smith” or “metal worker,” and her daughter's name Naamah translates
as “pleasant” (Strong 1538). God as a protector contrasts sharply with metallurgy, and
Naamah's name represents that which is socially acceptable, pleasing or enjoyable. This
patterning defines division not only at the family level, but within the tribe, the nation,
and the world. The song of Lamech buttresses this further.
“Whereas God avenges the death of Abel, Lamech takes vengeance into his own
hands; he exacts death only for an injury; he appropriates God's own measures and
intensifies the level of retribution, so much so that only a blood feud could ensue. The
song shows how Cain's violence had been intensified throughout the generations.
Progress in sin and its effects matches the progress in civilization,” maintains Fretheim (I
: 375). Furthermore, Lamech's song is directed to both of his wives: one representing
cultural conventions, the other Yahweh. With the dissolution of the Adamic family, they
are not only affected by the existing cultural influences outside of Eden, but they also
influence those around them through the worship of Yahweh (Genesis 4: 26). Thus, the
song of Lamech depicts an allegory of temptation. Each wife represents a choice
humanity must make outside the garden. The exhortation here is not against sex (“be
44
fruitful and multiply”) or progress (“subdue the earth”), but against anything that
separates one from the Creator. By setting the conflict between the brothers in the context
of worship, the redactor suggests that the greatest conflict will come from man-made
religion. This conflict is best revealed through the myths of the ancient Mesopotamians.
For example, one might consider The Epic of Gilgamesh a sequel to the
expulsion. Strong asserts that Eden not only means “paradise” or “pleasure,” but also
refers to “flat land” (1544). Perhaps, this classical Epic of Gilgamesh records a
movement of more primitive Semitic people from the flat lands (or steppes) East of Eden
into greater Mesopotamia. This movement parallels to Enkidu's (the hairy man of the
steppe) introduction to city life. Shamhat, the harlot civilizes Enkidu in every sense of the
word: through sex (Shamhat is a temple prostitute), eating bread, drinking ale, and
appropriate grooming and attire. It was only after this process that Enkidu “turned into a
man” (8. I.190-14. P.110). The inferences gleaned from Enkidu's experience (polytheism,
temple prostitution, functioning within the status quo) captures the essence of the contrast
between life in the city (Uruk) and life in the garden. Through his civilizing experience
the text reveals that “Enkidu had defiled his body so pure” (8.I.199). This statement
captures, perhaps, an earlier time defined by simplicity, non-religion, and a natural
balance of things.
The early people of Mesopotamia did not think in terms of history. These ancient
people saw their institutions and way of life as something which the gods had decreed in
the beginning and which had existed unchanged forever, as opposed to developments
from more primitive forms. Because social progress was a foreign concept, they lacked
45
the incentive to make a conscious record of life in the thousand years before 2500 BC,
“when some of the most momentous advances in human society were taking place”
(Saggs 32). Their record of much earlier times came in the form of myths and epics--the
myths somewhat earlier than the epics. Some of the myths tell of a land called Tilmun, a
kind of Paradise where there was no sickness or death, and of two peoples that migrated
into Mesopotamia from Aratta, a place near the Zagros mountains East of Eden. These
two peoples clearly worshiped the same goddess Inanna, shared the same culture, and
apparently understood the same language (Saggs 32).
Along these lines, Jean Bottéro, devout Assyriologist and author of Mesopotamia:
Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods, expands on the cultural cohesion of the Mesopotamian
peoples: “The best term to indicate the area whose history I will consider here (the
ancient inhabitants usually said 'the land'--kalam in Sumerian and mâtu in Akkadian) is
Mesopotamia” (1). Literally it means 'Between-Rivers' and, although in the past it had a
more restrictive sense, it applies more or less to the territory of modern day Iraq. Bottéro
confesses that he does not know a term equally appropriate in titling “the land.” Babylon,
as a general term would be anachronistic as it neglects the long period before 1750;
Babylonia customarily indicates the southern half of the Mesopotamian territory from the
middle of the second millennium on, Assyria the northern half, and Assyro-Babylonia he
feels is “more misleading than useful.” His strictest objection is the use of the name
Sumer. Bottéro maintains:
It [Sumer] is only to the southernmost part of Lower Mesopotamia (the other part
in the north had the name Akkad). It did not refer, as naïve and simplistic fad has
46
made us believe for far too long, and still makes us believe, to an independent
Sumerian culture that can be isolated as such. The existence of that culture cannot
be doubted--the use of Sumerian language vouches for it--but it existed before
History--and in any case it falls outside our documentation. Our sources, from the
earliest moment we have them, reveal nothing but one coherent civilization, even
if it had been formed by two influences that did not have the slightest element in
common: the Sumerians on one hand and the Semites, Akkadians, on the other.
(1-2)
Therefore, in ancient Mesopotamia only one recognizable culture existed: one
thought, one religion, one literature (written partly in Akkadian and partly in Sumerian).
Finds of Palaeolithic stone tools in northern Iraq provide evidence of human presence
from about 100,000 BC, and small camp or settlements from about 9000 BC reveal the
shift from total dependency on hunting and gathering towards the domestication of
animals and the exploitation of cereal plants (Saggs 8). Slow shifting channels of the
Euphrates bring silt down from the mountains which settles on its bed and continually
raises its level. This continuous metamorphosis of the land makes dating the first
settlement in the south almost impossible as archeology can only trace farming
settlements from the mid-sixth millennium (Saggs 9). However, the absence of
permanent settlements in no way indicates the absence of people whose evidence most
likely lies buried in the silt beds or under the ever rising and shifting Persian Gulf. It is
likely that nomadic pastoralists or groups who lived by fishing, fowling, and collecting
47
edible plants occupied south Mesopotamia long before permanent settlements arose
(Saggs 25).
Even the earliest settlers utilized their environment to their strictest advantage.
Samuel Noah Kramer, author of The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character
explains that “the idea of irrigation made it possible for them to collect and channel the
rich silt-laden overflow of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and use it to water and fructify
their fields and gardens. To make up for the dearth of materials and stones, they learned
to bake the river clay and mud, the supply of which was practically inexhaustible, into
sickles, pots, plates, and jars. In lieu of scarce building timber, they cut and dried huge
and plentiful marsh reeds, tied them into bundles, or plaited them into mats, and with the
help of mud-plastering fashioned them into huts and byres. Later, the Sumerians invented
the brick mold for shaping and baking the ubiquitous river clay and so had no more
building problems” (3-4).
From these beginnings developed what was probably the first high civilization in
the history of humankind. The people of Sumer had a penchant for material progress and
technological invention. To their credit they devised the potters wheel, the wagon wheel,
the plow, the sailboat, the arch, the vault, the dome, casting in copper and bronze,
riveting, braising and smoldering, sculpture in stone, engraving, and inlay. Moreover,
they originated a system of writing on clay, which was borrowed and used all over the
Near East for two thousand years (Kramer 4). The ancient Mesopotamians were the very
first to expend a considerable amount of energy not only for making use of the world by
the ingenuity of their rapid technological progress but also for attempting to understand it
48
through their reasoning, their observations, their comparisons, and their interpretations
(Bottéro 10). Kramer summarizes their “universal” contributions well:
But the fact is that the land of Sumer witnessed the origin of more than one
significant feature of present-day civilization. Be he philosopher or teacher,
historian or poet, lawyer or reformer, statesman or politician, architect or sculptor,
it is likely that modern man will find his prototype and counterpart in ancient
Sumer . . . Even so, it is still apparent in a Mosaic law and a Solomonic proverb,
in the tears of Job and a Jerusalem lament, in the sad tale of a dying man-god, in
the Hesiodic cosmogony and a Hindu myth, in an Aesopic fable and a Euclidean
theorem, in a zodiacal sign and a heraldic design, in the weight of a mina, the
degree of an angle, the writing of a number.
(5)
The far reaching affect of their cultural contributions penetrated as far East as
India and as far West as the Mediterranean, as far South as ancient Ethiopia and as far
North as the Caspian (Kramer 5). The Elamites of Southeastern Iran and the Semites of
Elba in Syria borrowed their script and, in part, their language from the Mesopotamians.
In the second millennium the same situation occurred between the Semites and Hurrians
of Syria-Palestine and among the powerful Hittites, the Indo-Europeans of Anatolia. In
addition, the Akkadian language appears in diplomatic correspondences in Egypt at elAmarna; and the Egyptians and Greeks borrowed their astrology and the age-old practice
of extispicy from Babylonia, which spread to Asia Minor, and even to the Etruscans.
Ionian thinkers, such as Thales, kept water as the primary matter of the world in line with
Mesopotamian thinking. Moreover, “all ancient Greek philosophers worked exactly
49
within the path outlined by the earlier mythographers of Mesopotamia” (Bottéro 10-11).
In addition, the Bible ensures that the memory of the civilization of ancient
Mesopotamia was never entirely lost. Through the use of the names of Uruk (Erech in
Genesis 10:10), Babylon, Nineveh, Assyria, Ur of Chaldees, and Tower of Babel the
readers, historians, and theologians are reminded of the Mesopotamian influences as
powerful symbols of antiquity. However, the redactor of Genesis highlights the glory of
civilization to adduce humankind's potential for decadence and destruction. The
convergence of all the ancient Mesopotamian beliefs in the individual and the state was
religion and the central axis that ordered all of them was the principle of royal power
“simply transposed from earth to the supernatural universe by mythological reflection”
(Bottéro 7).
As witnessed through Eve's visitation by the serpent, the power of gods and kings
inveigles humans away from the natural order and out of the presence of God.
Consequently, the birth of the gods is tied to a technological impetus, identifying a
religion perfectly joined with the civilization and deeply entangled with it. The
enmeshment ensued, not from scientific premise and deduction, but from the power of
representation. Taken from the fundamental principle of the cuneiform writing system,
pictography, invented in Mesopotamia, developed a transference of power to the universe
and its gods that reflected the concept behind one object representing another. For
example, the drawing of a foot also evokes walking, standing up, and transport. The
drawing of a stem with an ear of cereal also represents the products of agriculture. Thus,
“from that principle the conviction was born that the 'script of the gods' consisted of the
50
things themselves that they produced when making the world” (Bottéro 32). That was the
foundation of the oldest known discipline of deductive divination. Bottéro asserts, “It
[divination] involved reading in events or objects that were unusual and irregular, in
order to draw and deduce from them divine decisions that touched upon the future of the
interested party: either the king or the country, or any individual who was put in touch
with the object of the divinatory action” (33). Humankind develops script and assigns the
“script” of divination to the gods who themselves were born through means of
representation.
Convinced that the world could not be explained by itself, the ancient
Mesopotamians were forced to set up superhuman personages who created and governed
the world. Their own political powers served as the model with the monarch at the top of
the pyramid of subordinate authorities, whose powers emanated from his. The
Mesopotamians transposed and organized their pantheon according to this model, which
defined the way the pantheon functioned. Just as the king governed the country, directly
or through vicars, through his wishes, decisions, or communications, the gods also made
the world function according to their designs, wishes and communications (Bottéro 32).
Mesopotamian myth illustrates graphically gods that were anthropomorphic. Like
humankind the gods plan and act, eat and drink, marry and raise families, support large
households, and are addicted to human passions and weaknesses (Kramer 117).
In line with the scheme of representation, the Mesopotamians assigned the
categories of creative and non-creative gods in their pantheon. Each category consisted of
gods representative of a particular act or element of creation or technological advance.
51
For example, in the creative category there was a god or goddess of heaven, earth, and
water. In the non-creative category, their was a god or goddess of the pickax, the brick
mold, dikes, and ditches. Each city had its own tutelary deity that served as the city's
protector and underscored its achievements and political supremacy. C.K. Hillegass,
author of Mythology, maintains in regard to Mesopotamian mythology that “it is more
earth-bound and materialistic,” neither transcendental nor moralistic (25). All extant
myths are literary and etiological in character with considerable cosmological and
theological reflection. Moreover, he asserts that in the broadest terms the myths are
traditional stories about gods, kings, and heroes (9).
Thus, the analogy with the political organization of the human state leads one to
assume that the head of the pantheon was a deity recognized by all others as their king or
ruler. For example, Enlil is recorded as “the father of the gods,” “the king of heaven and
earth,” and “the king of all the land.” The close association with the human king and Enlil
is exemplified through the boasts of the ancient kings: Enlil gives them the kingship of
the land, causes their land to prosper, gives them land to conquer by his strength,
pronounces the kings name, gives him his scepter, and looks upon him with favorable
eyes (Kramer 119). In this light, the three most significant functions of the king
encompass acting as the primary intercessory between humans and the divine, organizing
the agricultural work of the city-state, and serving as a war leader (Saggs 136). Kings and
rulers constantly boast of the fact that they have established law and order, maintain
prosperity of the land, protect the weak from the strong, maintain canals, destroy the
wicked, and ensure that their people live in security. Moreover, it was common
52
understanding that humankind was created to do the work of the gods and that the king
was the delegate of the gods on earth. Thus, conforming to all demands of the king
ensured the piety of his subjects as the king himself was filled with 'divine grace' (136).
Throughout the history of Mesopotamia, the king maintained his sacral character
in conjunction with his very close link to the gods. In fact, in the period between the end
of the third millennium and the beginning of the second, the king was actually considered
divine. Although this association with complete divinity did not last, the king's heroic
successes were attributed to his semi-divine nature--one or the other of his parents was
usually divine. Moreover, the early Mesopotamian rulers liked to describe themselves as
constantly nourished by the goddess Ninhursag's ('the exalted lady”) milk (Kramer 122).
These early kings became the warrior-heroes of the epic tales that marked a shift from the
gods to the life of the individual. The character of these “sons of gods” exemplifies the
culmination of the distorting effect of sin on the world.
Returning to Genesis, the redactor claims, “When people began to multiply on the
face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were
fair, and they took wives for themselves of all they chose” (Genesis 6:1-2). The redactor
continues, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the
sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were
the heroes that were of old the warriors of renown” (Genesis 6:4). Relevant here are the
epics associated with Gilgamesh as they serve well in explaining this general belief of the
ancient Mesopotamians.
53
In The Epic of Gilgamesh, the hero Gilgamesh was the son of Lugalbanda. His
mother was the cow-goddess Ninsun, by virtue of whom he was two-thirds divine.
Gilgamesh was extremely handsome, and surpassed all other kings by his heroic stature.
He crossed the ocean and reached the edge of the world in his quest for eternal life.
However, Gilgamesh was a tyrant with misdirected superhuman energies: he conscripted
all the young men and claimed sexual rights over all the young women. In order to
redirect his energies due to the complaint of the people of Uruk, the gods called on the
Creatress to create a rival. Indeed she did, creating Enkidu, the equal of Gilgamesh, in the
form of a wild and shaggy-haired man.
In the personage of the king, lies the totality of civilization and its potential
abuses. The author of Genesis captures the essence of this through the use of the proper
noun “Nephilim.” Strictly speaking, it refers to “ones falling [upon]” hence, violent one
(Strong 1762), more specifically, the enemies of Yahweh and the natural order of things.
To be certain, the lamentation over the King of Tyre juxtaposes Eden and the perils of the
abuses of power (Eze 28: 12-19). Here, God proclaims to Tyre (a Syro-Palestinian state)
its final fate. The king is praised for his wisdom, beauty, and adornment--marks of a
strong civilization. Yet, these same attributes lead him to great pride. The king's pride
grows to the point that he claims himself a god. This leads the prophet to bring specific
indictments for his joy at the destruction of Jerusalem, improper trade practices, violence,
and defilement of sanctuaries. Ezekiel uses the metaphor of being cast out of Eden for his
“iniquities.” Through the reference to Eden, along with other terms (blameless, and his
creative link to God and his mountain) the redactor attaches ancestry to the original
54
inhabitants of Eden, if not literal, then through his choosing the power of man over the
power of God. Other similar examples exists. Isaiah brings the same indictments against
the King of Babylon who set himself up as a god (14:12-20). This description fits both
Sargon II and Sennacherib who ruled unjustly, even murdering their own people in order
to maintain control over their cities (see note 14:16-20). God remains the evaluator
through casting down, exposure, fire, and lack of a proper burial.
It is no wonder that God did not desire Israel to have a king. However, Israel's
desire was to be like all the other nations; therefore, they pleaded desperately for a king.
God sent Samuel to warn them about the perils of kingship and the abuses that would
ensue through a king's absolute power. However, Israel persisted in their plea. Thus, God
allowed Israel a king, not as a blessing, but as a consequence of their continued apostasy:
Samuel prayed to the Lord and the Lord said to Samuel, 'Listen to the voice of the
people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have
rejected me from being king over them. Just as they have done to me, from the
day I brought them up out of Egypt to this day, forsaking me and serving other
gods, so also they are doing to you.
(1 Samuel 8:7-9)
The judges of Israel were divinely chosen and appointed by the Lord, but a king will
expect his son to succeed him, taking the choice away from the Lord. In the
Deuteronomic prophecy of the kingship of Israel, the redactor lays the foundation for
successful rule. First and foremost, God must choose the king. Moreover, he must not be
a foreigner, but from Israel's own community, he must not acquire great wealth, he must
not betray his own people to acquire wealth, he must have only one wife so his heart does
55
not fail him, he must have a copy of the law written for him in the presence of the
levitical priests, he must fear the Lord his God, and he must diligently observe the law
and statutes and never exalt himself above any other member of the community (Deut 17:
14-20). However, this was never the case for Israel.
As noted, maintaining a paradisaical attitude in the civilized world remains
difficult. Yet, the heroes of the Bible provide a shining example. Whether male or female,
they seem to have internalized God's advice to Cain through the mastery of their own
natural impulses. In the likeness of God, they are able to assume androgynous
characteristics that create a wholeness and internal strength that is not easily broken.
Moreover, they operate outside the status quo and defy social conventions through an
internal reclamation of the garden. Their successes in these areas are reflective of their
understanding of the natural order, their extreme piety, and their incomparable and
unwavering faith in God and his laws. Because the image of God encompasses both male
and female and because their journeys are so similar, Judith and David provide the
examples here.
56
Chapter 7
A NEW GENRE OF HEROES
In the Biblical accounts of Judith and David, both characters emerge as saviors of
Israel and its people; yet, their heroic journey betrays the common archetypal pattern of
the hero. Through their fixed faith in “the Living God,” and their ability to assume
androgynous characteristics they violate the cultural norms of their day to redeem Israel
from an aggregation of foes by serving as an avenue through which the divine will can be
expressed. Both characters are depicted in the most favorable terms as handsome in
appearance, wise in speech, consistent in prayer, strong in character, courageous in their
actions, charismatic, and endowed with extraordinary skills. Along these lines, Carol
Pearson, in her book “The Female Hero in American and British Literature,” expresses
the essence of their character well:
Both male and female heroes begin the quest for wholeness and selfhood by
risking the violation of conventional norms, including conventions about appropriate
sex-role behavior; both learn not to manipulate and restrain other
people; and both
reach accommodation with the best qualities associated with
men and with women,
integrating strength with humility, independence with
empathy, rationality with
intuition, and thought with emotion. Because society
divides human qualities into
categories of male and female, the symbols for the final state of wholeness usually are
androgynous.
(34).
Such is the case for Judith and David. Both characters violate conventional norms and
neither manipulate or restrain others to achieve their desired goals. Moreover, both are
57
successful in their undertakings as the narrator repeatedly reminds the reader in both
accounts that the Lord is with them--a relationship achieved only through the exceptional
faith and piety of the characters. Both are representative of Israel as a whole and serve as
the example Israel is to follow. However, it is Judith that astounds the readers through the
extreme nature of her faith and piety and the strength of her will that can be neither
limited, controlled, hidden, or destroyed.
Outside of her own story, Judith remains an enigma. According to Toni Craven in
her commentary on Judith in The Harper Collins Study Bible, Judith is an anonymous
book, written in Greek with imitations of Hebrew idiom and syntax, thus, it is possibly
written by a Palestinian (Hellenized) Jew. The author conflates five centuries of real
history by intermingling references to well-known geographical sites with uncertain and
possibly even imaginary ones. This technique complicates precise dating; however, the
book of Judith shows familiarity with Palestinian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and
Greek history and geography, and strongly underscores Jewish religious customs (most
likely of the second and first centuries B.C.E.).
Historical references consist of citations of Nineveh (1:1; 2:21), the Assyrian
capitol destroyed in the seventh century (612B.C.E.); Nebuchadnezzar (1:1), a sixth
century Babylonian ruler (605/4-562 B.C.E.); the second temple (4:3), rebuilt by 515
B.C.E.; two characters with Persian names: Holofernes and Bagoas (12: 10-11), who
campaigned together in the fourth century under Artaxerxes III Ochus (358-338 B.C.E.);
and associations with Antiochus IV Epiphanes who persecuted the Jews trying to
persuade them to forsake their God, and references to when the Jews were governed by a
58
High Priest who held military as well as religious responsibilities (4:6) (Craven 14591460).
The technique of conflating five centuries of real history serves a multitude of
purposes. First and foremost, the conflation of history emphasizes the timeless nature of
faith in God--true faith knows no end or season. Moreover, it emphasizes what it means
to serve only one God through a covenant relationship with a chosen people. The book of
Judith teaches that by vocation and God's design, the covenant people are free if they
only fear God and rely wholeheartedly on the covenant--as past history reveals. Next, the
conflation of history serves to underscore the history of God's covenant people as a motif
throughout the book of Judith. For a chosen people, history and God are inseparable.
Judith's character provides the example of the relationship between history, faith,
appropriate fear of the Lord, and the redemption from life's trials. In addition, the book of
Judith teaches to trust God without reserve regardless of the circumstances or the century,
suggesting that serving God should be a way of life for God's chosen people, not a
convenience. In much the same way, the technique that the narrator employs of dividing
the book into equal divisions offers further instruction to the readers.
The book of Judith consists of sixteen chapters divided into two balanced and
proportional parts: Part I (1:1-7:32) and Part II (8:1-16:25). Part I begins in Persia and
introduces Nebuchadnezzar and his great city of Nineveh. Next, the narration quickly
moves to his campaign against Arphaxad, king of the Medes in Ecbatana, in order to
establish Nebuchadnezzar’s political sovereignty over the nations of the Western world.
The narrator emphasizes the greatness of Arphaxad's kingdom, the strength of its
59
fortification, and the power of the forces behind him. Arphaxad presents a formidable
challenge to Nebuchadnezzar. Therefore, Nebuchadnezzar appeals to “the whole region”
of the West (Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Egypt) to assist him in his campaign
(Judith1:11). However, the whole region disregards the summons and refuses to join him
in the war. Nebuchadnezzar swore he would take revenge on the whole territory, but first
he led his army against King Arphaxad. Nebuchadnezzar overthrew the entire army of
Arphaxad, his calvary, and all his chariots. Moreover, he took possession of all of
Arphaxad's towns, captured and plundered Ecbatana, murdered Arphaxad, then directed
his energies toward the West.
Nebuchadnezzar responds with rage and violence when the peoples of the West
refuse to submit to his rule. Thus, he sends Holofernes, second in command only to
himself, to move against the insurgents. Holofernes moves across the West with
monumental presence bringing vast numbers of foot soldiers, cavalry, and chariots
demanding submission to and worship of Nebuchadnezzar as a god, while establishing
inevitable death as a consequence for all dissidents. However, the Israelites do not
succumb so easily and his campaign comes into direct conflict with the sovereignty of
God in the small Jewish town of Bethulia.
In response to a barrage of questions presented by Holofernes concerning the
Israelites, who “alone, of all who live in the West, refused to come out and meet me,”
Achior, the leader of the Ammonites, presents a descriptive and pivotal point for the story
by placing further emphasis on the history of the Israelite's (Judith 5:4). He provides
Holofernes with a detailed account of the Israelite's past history and their relationship
60
with their God: “As long as they did not sin against their God they prospered, for the God
who hates iniquity is with them. But when they departed from the way he had prescribed
for them, they were utterly defeated in battles and were led away captive to a foreign
land. The temple of their God was razed to the ground and their towns were occupied by
their enemies” (Judith 5: 17-18). Achior continued, “But if they are not a guilty nation,
then let my lord pass them by; for their Lord and God will defend them, and we shall
become the laughing stock of the whole world” (Judith 5: 21). Displeased with Achior’s
dissertation, Holofernes has him sent to Bethulia to be handed over to the Israelites, and
Holofernes commences to prepare for war with Bethulia. Because of their position in the
hill country, Holofernes realizes that the Israelites “do not rely on their spears but on the
height of the mountains where they live.” Therefore he abandons the conventional
military formation and chooses the weapons of thirst and starvation to combat the
inhabitants of Bethulia--an effective tool against their mental well-being and their faith
(Judith 7:10).
The purpose of Part I is to place emphasis on the magnitude of Judith's heroic
feat. Nebuchadnezzar is defined as the conqueror of “the whole world” and aggressively
seeks the title “the lord of the whole earth” (Judith 2:5). Interestingly, Alexander the
Great previously conquered the same territory that Nebuchadnezzar sought to control and
moved upon his subjects in like fashion (Judith 2:28, see corresponding note.) Both
conquerors moved upon the face of the earth with a multitude of armies, calvary,
chariots, weapons, and provisions (Judith 2). The point here is that it takes a man with a
61
multitude of resources and armies to conquer the known world, but it takes only one
pious woman to defeat a world conqueror.
Thus, Part II begins with an introduction to Judith’s faith and piety. Not
surprisingly, this introduction initiates with the history of her genealogy, tracing her
lineage back fourteen generations to Israel (Jacob), Moses' replacement, who led the
righteous Israelite's into the promised land. Moreover, her father Merari led the Merarites
who held the specific responsibility of the transport of the tabernacle and were connected
to the Levites--the priestly line of Israel (Num 3:33-Num 4:33). This information
establishes Judith's pious inheritance, for her name itself is the feminine form of Jew or
Judean; however, her piety far exceeds even the most righteous of Israel (Judith 8:1, see
corresponding note).
For example, Judith remains as a widow for three years and four month after the
death of her husband Manasseh. She lives completely apart from the other inhabitants of
Bethulia in a tent on the roof of her house wearing only sackcloth and widow's clothing,
fasting “all the days of her widowhood” with the few exceptions of religious holidays and
days of rejoicing of the house of Israel. In addition, Judith maintains open
communication with God through fervent prayer and is greatly respected because of her
fear of God (Judith 8). Her fear of God serves as a framing device for this section of the
story as it is repeated in the story's conclusion as well as in Judith's introduction and is the
primary factor in her relationship with the others in whom she is in contact. Judith fears
no one save God and conducts her life in accordance with her belief.
62
Moreover, the phrase “Judith heard” links Part II with the events of Part I and
initiates Judith's active role in the salvation of her people (Judith 8:1). Therefore, the
narrative moves to her exhortation against the officials of Bethulia for their lack of faith
and planned apostasy. Judith reminds the officials:
For never in our generation nor in these present days, has there been any tribe or
family or people or town of ours that worships gods made with hands, as was
done in days gone by. That is why our ancestors were handed over to the sword,
and to pillage and so they suffered a great catastrophe before our enemies. But we
know no other god but him, and so we hope that he will not disdain us or any of
our nation. For if we are captured, all Judea will be captured and our sanctuary
will be plundered; and he will make us pay for its desecration with our blood.
(Judith 8:18-21)
Here, Judith reiterates the themes of history, faith, and redemption of the faithful. Judith
moves to the forefront of the story and discloses her plan to confront Holofernes herself
under the guidance and protection of the God of Israel.
She alone prepares for battle, but not before prostrating herself before the Lord.
Then, she makes herself very beautiful, packs a bag of ritually clean food, wine, and
dishes, and asks her maid to accompany her on her campaign against Holofernes. Before
leaving the gates of Bethulia, again Judith “bows down to God” (Judith10:8). The capture
of the women was inevitable as the valley was brimming with Assyrian soldiers. Judith
convinces the soldiers that she has fled from the Hebrews and brings a “true report” to
Holofernes on the capture of the hill country (Judith10:13). Judith is promptly escorted to
63
the tent of Holofernes and immediately wins his favor because of her beauty. While
under Holofernes' watch, she quickly establishes her desire to maintain her ritually clean
diet and just as quickly her freedom to go out into the valley of Bethulia to pray--a
request that remains unhindered at the command of the general. Holofernes and his
servants acclaim Judith as “beautiful and “wise in speech” (Judith11:21, 23).
However, Holofernes' desire to seduce Judith is so intense that he instructs his
eunuch, Bagoas, to persuade her to eat and drink with them so that he might have an
opportunity to have sexual intercourse with her. Judith, who “fears God with great
devotion” proves a more than equal opponent for Holofernes and she never abandons any
aspect of her faith (Judith 8:8). Holofernes became so captivated with her beauty that he
began to drink great quantities of wine which eventually rendered him unconscious. Then
Judith, standing beside the bed of the great adversary of Israel, prayed in her heart: “O
Lord God of all might, look in this hour on the work of my hands for the exaltation of
Jerusalem. Now indeed is the time to help your heritage and to carry out my design to
destroy the enemies who have risen up against us” (Judith 13:4-5). Approaching the
bedpost, Judith removes Holofernes' own sword from its sheath and prays for a second
time: “Give me strength today O Lord God of Israel” (Judith 13:7). Then she struck his
neck twice and cut off his head. After returning to Bethulia, Judith had Holofernes' head
hung from the parapet and the terrified Assyrian army fled in panic and fear. Then, all the
Israelite soldiers rushed out upon the enemy to destroy and plunder them. The purpose of
Part II establishes that by the hand of a woman, peace was restored to Bethulia--one Godfearing woman destroys the enemies of Israel.
64
Any understanding of Judith’s heroic function within the story must be considered
in light of culturally specific macrocosmic and microcosmic elements. Considering her
role as a cultural macrocosm, her name alone speaks volumes regarding her heroic
function. Craven asserts that Judith means “Jewess” and is the feminine form for Judah
(1460). Judith is Israel, its religion, and its history. She represents, as a whole, the
conduct and purity required of a covenant people. For example, according to Carey A.
Moore in his book Judith, “Although Judith is written in Greek, Bethulia alludes to the
Hebrew word /betulah/ meaning “maiden” or “virgin” and represents Jerusalem in
general and the temple in particular: btwlh means virgin where in Old Testament history
Jerusalem and Israel are symbolized as a virgin: Lam. 1:15, 2:13; Isa. 62:5; Jer. 14:17,
31:4, 13” (97).
For the residents of Bethulia, crisis makes apostasy and slavery appear appealing.
They ask the officials to surrender, indicating their willingness to accept the destruction
of their sanctuary and worship of Nebuchadnezzar as a god. Nebuchadnezzar/Holofernes,
then in this context, are viewed as the rapists of the Israelites and the Israelite's decision
to become apostate (allow the rape) indicates their loss of spiritual virginity, or in short,
adultery against God. Isaiah 62:5 indicates that God will delight in Zion (Jerusalem
and/or the Jewish people) and rejoice over all her land with all the attention that a
bridegroom gives to a new, chaste bride. Therefore, Judith’s prayer to God before
embarking on her campaign against Holofernes was “at the very time when the evening
incense was being offered in the house of God in Jerusalem” (Judith 9: 1). The effect of
65
this timing represents Judith as Zion, the Jewish people as a whole, and the chaste, pious
character with which they are to approach God.
Therefore, Judith's personal character represents the microcosmic element within
the story. Her character is the epitome of piety and faith (superseding her beauty and
wealth):
Judith remained as a widow for three years and four months [following her
husband Manasseh’s death due to sunstroke] at home where she set up a tent for
herself on the roof of her house. She put sackcloth around her waist and dressed in
widow’s clothing. She fasted all the days of her widowhood, except the day
before the Sabbath and the Sabbath itself, the day before the new moon, and the
day of the new moon, and the festivals and the day of rejoicing in the house of
Israel, she was beautiful in appearance, and was very lovely to behold. Her
husband Manasseh had left her gold and silver, men and women slaves, livestock,
and fields; and she maintained this estate. No one spoke ill of her, for she feared
God with great devotion.
(Judith 8: 4-8)
In light of her aforementioned character, scholars often attempt to manipulate Judith into
a prescribed archetypal heroic pattern; however, the fit always remains imperfect when
emphasis is placed on the similarity of Judith to Hebrew and Greek novels, or the heroic
archetype found in Joseph Campbell’s monomyth.
For example, Lawrence M. Willis in his commentary on Judith in The New
Interpreter’s Bible suggests that “in both the Greek and Jewish novels, there is a strong
focus on the female protagonist.” Here, the reader of the book of Judith would have no
66
objections. However, Willis continues, “But while the Greek novels of antiquity portray a
young couple in love, separated by challenging circumstances, in the Jewish novels a
vulnerable woman is often more alone at the center. She is often directly involved with
her extended family whom without she faces the trials of life and death alone” (III :
1080). The Greek novels do show the young heroines as widows and in the terms of
beauty, wealth, piety, and self-directedness; yet these heroines are not usually depicted in
a positive manner, but are sexually driven, powerful, sinister, and controlling. Judith is
beautiful, wealthy, pious, and self-directed; however, she is not sexually motivated,
power hungry, sinister, or controlling.
The most compelling difference between Judith and the heroines of the Greek or
Jewish novels is her invulnerability--her unshakable, unwavering presence regardless of
the circumstances (III : 1080-1081). What Willis is describing is the difference between a
heroine--a female figure who is passive and a female hero--one who is active. Therefore,
Judith does not blend well with the heroines of the Hebrew and Greek novels--Judith is a
female hero who is active. Even at the beginning of her introduction, as previously
pointed out, the reader finds her in her initiating action, “Judith heard.” Throughout the
story Judith maintains her active role as the hero: Judith hears, Judith prays, Judith
confronts, Judith defends, Judith cuts, and Judith redeems. In light of her character, Judith
does not fit the criteria for the hero in Joseph Campbell's monomyth as well.
In a simplified version of Joseph Campbell’s cross-cultural heroic pattern from
his book Hero With A Thousand Faces, we find instructive elements, yet these elements
are remiss in portraying the pattern of Judith’s heroic journey. In Campbell's work, the
67
mythological hero receives a call to adventure and then, assuming he accepts the call,
proceeds to the threshold of that adventure. There he encounters a shadow presence that
guards the passage, where he may defeat or conciliate this power and go alive into the
kingdom of the dark or be slain by the opponent and descend in death. The hero’s journey
is through an unfamiliar world where strangely intimate forces test or lend aid. When he
arrives at the nadir of the mythological world, he undergoes a supreme ordeal and gains a
reward (boon). Triumph for the hero may be represented by a sexual union with the
goddess, or through recognition by the father-creator, or by his own apotheosis. The hero
may receive the blessing of protection or the curse of pursuit. The final stage is that of
return; the hero’s transcendental powers are left behind where the hero, through the boon
he secured, restores the world (elixir) (245-246).
Willis suggests that the elements of Campbell’s narrative are very similar to the
book of Judith: the threshold is the gates of Bethulia, the trials of the hero and the slaying
of the monster is her experience with Holofernes, the boon is Holofernes’ head, the return
is the crossing of the threshold of Bethulia’s gate, and the elixir is peace (453). Yet, to
adhere to this formula alone is to analyze Judith in far too simplistic terms. For example,
Pearson defines the problem inherent with theorists' attempts to interpret the heroic
archetype: “Even when theorists endeavor to interpret the heroic archetype as inclusive
and nonelitist, the attempt is usually doomed to failure because of the patriarchal habit,
which uses the male pronoun to indicate the generic and which refers to the human
experience as the male experience” (29). Pearson finds similar problems with Joseph
Campbell's monomyth: “Joseph Campbell in Hero With A Thousand Faces, begins by
68
saying that the hero may be either male or female. He then proceeds to discuss the heroic
pattern as male and to define the female characters as goddesses, temptresses, and earth
mothers.” In short, the male is the world monarch and the female the mastered world
(29).
Pearson iterates that it “makes no sense” to label a human being as the mastered
world and to imply that a true hero 'masters' others as well as the natural world.
Therefore, Pearson concludes that “the assumption that the male is subject and hero and
the female is object and heroine injects patriarchal sex-role assumptions into the
discussion of the archetypal hero's journey” and that “this lapse into stereotypical
thinking about male and female behavior translates heroism into 'macho' terms”
confusing the issue and obscuring the true archetypal elements of the pattern (29).
Then, the macho hero represents an inadequate and distorted archetypal heroic
ideal and identifies that true heroism comes from understanding the world and others not
by dominating them. Therefore, recognition of female heroism is paramount (Pearson
29). Pearson identifies the elements of true heroism, elements that Judith exemplifies
fully. Judith as an active hero: 1) claims the events of her life, 2) risks affirming heroic
self-hood through courage, strength, and wisdom, 3) is the champion of creative life, 4)
shatters the established order and creates a new community, 5) achieves a transmutation
of the whole social order, 6) transforms society and serves to redeem it, 7) transcends
limiting sex-role patterns, and 8) achieves a state of wholeness by achieving male and
female qualities (Pearson 33-34). Along these lines, Moore adds to the list of Judith's
heroic attributes: “Judith, like many heroes past and present, had a goodly share of
69
desirable qualities: a very attractive physical appearance, intelligence, resourcefulness,
and great personal courage, to name only a few. Like many natural-born leaders, Judith
had great confidence in herself. What makes her unique among biblical heroes is her
piety and the particular outward forms that piety took, i.e., strenuous fasting, constant
prayer, celibacy, and great concern for observing the laws of kašrût. In this respect, none
of the other biblical heroines are like her, not Miriam, Deborah, Jael, or Esther” (62).
Collectively, considering both Pearson's and Moore's contributions, it is Judith's
extreme piety that allows her to assume her heroic nature. Judith understands the natural
world, but more than that she understands the God that she believes controls the natural
world and all the events associated with it. Judith understands and defends God's freedom
to deliver or destroy and knows that God cannot be won over by threat (Judith 8:15-16).
But more than that, she understands that faith is waiting for deliverance, calling upon His
name, and being heard, if it pleases God (Judith 8: 17). All her actions define her belief
that it is the faithful that are heard by God. Because of her security in this belief, and
because she maintains the paradisaical attitude of the garden she alone is the perfect
vehicle for the will of God, no one else in Bethulia could scarcely qualify.
Yet, Moore takes the elements of her heroic journey even further by expounding
on the heroic formula. Moore asserts, “But if Judith is the heroine of the tale, God is the
hero. (Neither the magistrates of Bethulia nor Joakim, the high priest, qualify for that
title.) Ultimately, it was not Judith who saved her people. Rather it was God, using her as
his means. The author is very emphatic on this point, having Judith herself affirm it on
three separate occasions: [8: 17], [9: 9-10], and [13:11]” (62). Accordingly, Judith as
70
representative of Israel as a whole epitomizes piety, courage, ardent nationalism, and
confidence in God; she is the example Israel is to emulate regardless of the type of threat
to the Jewish religion or nation. Judith cocooned herself in a tent on the roof of her house,
praying and fasting while remaining unconcerned with her looks, sex, or status quo--she
was self-aware and completely in tune with the divine, thus, she alone could serve as a
vehicle for the will of God. She did not embark on any conversation, journey, or action
without prayer, establishing as her internal stability prayer then action, prayer then action.
Even in the camp of Holofernes she secured her scheduled prayer time, and prayed twice
before beheading the Assyrian general.
However, it is her prayer before leaving the gates of Bethulia that may cause
some alarm. Judith prays that God gives her success by hearing her prayer (9:4), breaking
the strength of the Assyrians (9:8), and defeating the enemy by the deceit of her lips, a
request she asks for twice (9:10, 13). Hence, Moore claims that many scholars label
Judith as a seductress and a bold-faced liar; however neither label fits the hero as
established in Chapter 9 of the book of Judith. (Moore 185). On closer inspection, Judith
never betrays the Old Testament law of her people or their covenant with God. Moreover,
she uses the history of the Israelites to buttress her requests to God, for as she reveals, it
is God who created this history and the present circumstances that the residents of
Bethulia face; therefore, Judith asks for deliverance from the present trial in the same
manner God delivered her ancestors before her. Judith prays:
O Lord God of my ancestor Simeon, to whom you gave a sword to take revenge
on those strangers who had torn off a virgin's clothing to defile her, and expose
71
her thighs to put her to shame, and polluted her womb to disgrace her; for you
said, ‘It shall not be done’--yet they did it; so you gave up the rulers to be killed,
and their bed, which was ashamed of the deceit they had practiced, was stained
with blood, and you struck down slaves along with princes, and princes on their
thrones.
(Judith 9: 2-3)
The use of rape in this portion of her prayer has a tripartite function within the story.
First, by referring to her ancestor Simeon she is asking for protection against the rape of
the Israelites, protection against defilement of the sanctuary, pollution of the tabernacle,
and the breaking off of the horns of the altar--asking God to maintain the nation of Israel
as inviolate. Second, by referring to the rape of the virgin (Dinah), Judith asks in advance
for the protection of her own virginity. She is aware of the potentiality of rape as she is
about to enter the camp of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and the tent of Holofernes
himself. Third, she asks for the right of capital punishment for the inevitable rapist of
Israel, referring to Israel as the symbolic bride of God--“to whom you gave a sword to
take revenge on those strangers . . .” (9:2). The idea of capital punishment provides two
theological purposes within the story: literal and symbolic.
In the literal sense, Pentateuchal Law establishes the right of capital punishment
for adultery, bestiality, blasphemy, false evidence, false prophecy, idolatry, incestuous or
unnatural relations, murder, rape, striking a parent, witchcraft or augury, breaking the
Sabbath, kidnapping, and licentiousness with priest’s daughters. Judith's literal
motivation in cutting off the head of Holofernes is not only to remove his threat to Israel
and its God, but also to execute a legal sentence against a transgressor of Israel's God in
72
order to bring Israel, and its foe, into alignment with God’s divine law. In addition, her
legal sentence against Holofernes is symbolic in nature as well. According to Strong, the
Hebrew word for head is rō’š, and in this context refers to high in status or authority,
leader, chief, or source of origin (1564). In the case of beheading, the noun for head
changes to sûr meaning to remove, get rid of, or take off (1541). Correspondingly, the
number two, nayim, the number of strikes it took Judith to remove Holofernes’ head,
represents opposition, enmity, and oppression (1577). Therefore, Judith removes
Holofernes’ authority as head of the Assyrian army while simultaneously removing his
threat of opposition and oppression towards God’s chosen people. Adding insult to
injury, according to Judith 9:10 (see corresponding note), the word used for woman is the
Greek work thēleia which better translates as “female;” Judges 9:53-54 specifies that to
be killed by a female brings extreme disgrace (1472).
Moreover, when Judith asks for her weapon, “By the deceit of my lips strike
down the slave with the prince and the prince with his servant; crush their arrogance by
the hand of a woman,” she does not betray the law of her God in asking for deceit (Judith
9:10). Again, according to Pentateuchal Law, the prohibition against lying is
overshadowed by the many biblical stories in which private lies are told for the
preservation of the community: for example, the lies told by Rebekeh, Gen. 27-28;
Tamar, Gen. 38; the midwives, mother, and sister of Moses and the princess, Ex. 1-2;
Rahab, Josh 2; and the woman of Tekoa, 2 Sam.14. However, double entendre might best
replace outright deceit. For example, when Judith addresses Holofernes by saying, “Who
am I to refuse my lord? Whatever pleases him I will do at once and it will be a joy to me
73
until the day of my death,” Holofernes believes she is talking about him, when in fact,
she is speaking of the God of Israel (Judith 12:14). In addition, and according to the
history of the Israelite's, God allows a “lying spirit” to bring either ruin or victory to
Israel according to its degree of faithfulness (1 Kings 22: 21). As follows, Moore
maintains, “Holofernes, inebriated with passion and wine, abdicates his power and
surrenders to Judith while thinking it is she who has surrendered to him.” He continues,
“Judith does not attempt to seduce Holofernes; she is reserved and simply uses the
occasion of his own lust and gluttony to undo the whole Assyrian army” (226).
Consequently, Judith must not be condemned for her beauty. As noted, Judith
certainly does not use her beauty as a tool of seduction; however, before leaving the gates
of Bethulia “she made herself very beautiful, to entice the eyes of all the men that might
see her” (Judith 10: 4). Here, Judith’s motivation was not one of vanity, but one of
conquest. According to 1 Samuel 16: 7, “. . . the Lord does not see as mortals see; they
look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” According to Uzziah,
one of the officials of Bethulia that Judith confronts, Judith never displays a problem with
the disposition of her heart (Judith 8:29). Judith merely uses the power of popular belief
to secure her mission for her God.
Judith’s piety does not waver in the camp of Holofernes; even in the midst of the
enemy she maintains her prayers and her ritual purity--and her virginity. Judith, while
Holofernes proceeds to succumb to the effects of intoxication, begins to carry out her
divine plan: “Give me strength today O Lord God of Israel! Then she struck his neck
twice with all her might, and cut off his head” (Judith 13:7-8). Here, Judith combines
74
elements of the soldier as well as the feminine. She embodies, yet transcends, the
male/female dichotomy through the use of masculine strategies and traditional feminine
attributes seasoned with amazing piety to redeem Israel from a dreadful foe. Alice Ogden
Bellis, in her book Helpmates, Harlots, and Heroes: Women’s Stories of the Bible asserts:
Thus Judith is a new woman in another sense. Not only is she independent. Not
only is she able to act in ways that are thought of as masculine and feminine. She
is able to give of herself in ways that are public, constructive and self-chosen . . .
She gives of herself, using her mind, her feminine charms, and her masculine
military prowess. She gives of herself to achieve for the public good what no one
else in her town dared to imagine. She risks much, both in terms of her virtue with
Holofernes and her reputation back home where her actions are most unusual.
(Bellis 222).
The hero’s reward for violating the sex-role taboos of her society is the phenomenon of
combining inner wholeness with outward community where the female hero, in
particular, acquires a series of paradoxical truths: self and other, mind and body, spirit
and flesh, and male and female (Pearson 34). Moreover, the female hero is in tune with
spiritual or natural values that the society advocates but does not practice, is better able to
survive than more conventional characters because of her association with qualities the
society lacks, and defies social conditioning and implicitly challenges the status quo. The
female and male heroic patterns are synchronized by heroes courageous, skillful,
independent and wise enough to commit to a truth beyond that recognized by social
convention (Pearson 31).
75
Therefore, Pearson suggests two “facts” about literature that features a female as
the hero: 1) “If she [female hero] and the author of her story are aware that sexism is not
ordained by God or nature but that it is a social phenomenon that can be changed, the
work will be explicitly feminist” (32), and 2) “. . . any author who chooses a woman as
the central character in the story understands at some level that women are primary
beings, and that they are not ultimately defined according to patriarchal assumptions to
fathers, husbands, or male gods. . . female heroes challenge patriarchal assumptions”
(33). Judith as the hero is powerful, feminine, creative, masculine, and is alive through
her fear of God. Because of Judith's heroic feat, the Israelites understand more fully their
identity as God's chosen people.
Judith’s Hymn of Praise in Chapter 16 of her story calls her people to worship
and proclaims God the true victor and deliverer of Israel. Moreover, the hymn reiterates
the requirement of a people bound by a covenant with God: fear of God. Fear of God
equals the entitlement of mercy and true greatness to those that truly fear Him, and ruin
as the fate of those who rise against God’s people--the summation of Achior's speech to
Holofernes and the reason for Judith's heroic success (Judith 16: 15-17). Judith did not reintegrate into society but maintained her separateness, piety, and chastity with the same
extreme vigilance as when she was introduced, and it is this devout constancy with which
she conducts her life that sets her apart as the true vehicle, and lone hero, for the will of
God.
Of all the other Biblical heroes, David's heroic journey resembles Judith's the
most. As in the narrative of Judith, history serves as a dominant thematic element.
76
According to P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. in his commentary on David in The Harper Collins
Study Bible, “In their final form 1 and 2 Samuel are part of the Deuteronomistic History
that extends from Deuteronomy through 2 Kings. It recounts the history of the Israelites
from the time of their arrival on the plains of Moab and entry into the promised land until
the time of their deportation to exile in Babylon after the destruction of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar” (417-418). The use of history as a thematic element serves the same
purpose as in the book of Judith--it emphasizes what it means to serve only one God
through a covenant relationship with a chosen people. In addition, the intersection of
history between the two stories (the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar)
emphasizes that the covenant people will lose their freedom if they fail to fear God and
rely wholeheartedly on the covenant (as even Achior understood). Moreover, the books
of Samuel, which are treated as one continuous story, are divided roughly into five
narrative sections. Like the book of Judith they underscore history, faith in and fear of
God, and divine punishment for the unrighteous.
Section I is the story of the prophet Samuel which provides a transition between
the period of the judges and the monarchy (1 Sam 1:1-7:17). Section II describes the
advent of kingship in Israel with Saul serving as the central figure. Saul continues to
share the stage with Samuel, however, and the predominant atmosphere is suspicious of
monarchy in general and of Saul's kingship in particular. As soon as Saul proves himself
in battle his life begins to unravel and he is soon condemned for failing to obey the
prophetically mediated divine word (1 Sam 8:1-15:34). The third section is the story of
David's rise to power. It is animated by the conflict between the young David, to whom
77
the Lord has promised Saul's throne by a secret anointing, and the increasingly jealous
and often irrational behavior of the aging king (1Sam 15:35-2 Sam5:10). Section IV
documents a number of events from David's reign as King of Israel (2 Sam 5:11-12:31).
The last section, the end of 2 Samuel (2 Sam 20:23-24:25), is a miscellany containing
poetry attributed to David, lists of his various officers and warriors, and a variety of
narrative materials loosely related to other parts of Samuel and Kings (McCarter 416417). Section III will be the focus here. It identifies David's outstanding character,
extraordinary skills as musician, shepherd, and soldier, his unreserved courage in facing
Goliath, and the reason for his success in all his undertakings, “The Lord is with him.”
Because of his piety, David like Judith, is the only character worthy enough to serve as a
vehicle for the will of God.
Mirroring the narrative of Judith, the narrative of David and Goliath begins with
Israel under the threat of an aggressive, foreign adversary. The Philistine army stands in
formation against the Israelite army--an active and real threat to Israel. King Saul’s
mandate is precisely to cope with the Philistines, but it is the one thing he is not able to
accomplish. Like the inhabitants of Bethulia, not only has the King and his army lost
heart, they have lost their faith in the God of Israel as well, or at least in the advent of
tragedy they neglect to call upon His name. The totality of the threat of the Philistines is
embodied in the champion Goliath, where the detail of his personal size and strength
coupled with the detailed description of his armaments equates with the size and
imminence of Holofernes’ army--Goliath is a more than worthy opponent. Goliath’s size
78
and armor are matched by his magniloquence; the Israelite army is utterly intimidated
and immobilized.
David enters the battle scene carrying a bag of ritually clean food, mirroring the
ritually clean food in Judith’s food bag. Jesse, David’s father, directed him to go the
battlefield to check on his three brothers enlisted in Saul’s army as David’s family
actively support Israel’s first king. David’s age prevents him from serving in the army, he
is far too young. He, like Judith, remains set apart from the community (status quo) as he
is a shepherd isolated in the wilderness as his brother Eliab’s statement suggests: “Why
have you come down? “With whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness?” (1
Sam. 17:28). Upon arriving at the battle scene, David witnesses the bombast of Goliath
and the fleeing Israelites who are declaring glory in Israel for the one who brings Goliath
down. He is tantalized by the notion that whoever kills the Philistine will be honored in
Israel (1 Sam. 17: 24-25). “David said to the men who stood by him, ‘What shall be done
for the man who kills this Philistine and takes away the reproach of Israel? For who is
this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?’” (26).
David’s bold speech introduces a new factor into the action: “the living God.” For, if it is
irrelevant in the face of the Israelites who act as if God is irrelevant in battle, for David it
remains unthinkable to assess a battle (or anything else) apart from the rule of the living
God.
The character of David in this portion of the narrative parallels to Judith's
character in four ways. First, the mention of the kašrût, the ritually clean diet, establishes
like Judith in her story, the extent to which the character is willing to take his piety.
79
Moreover, the fact that David's father asks him to deliver the food to his brothers on the
battlefield establishes, like Judith, that David is the product of a pious lineage. Second,
the support David and his family offer the king of Israel not only reveals their faith in the
covenant people but their patriotism as well. Third, Eliab's statement provides evidence
that David lives apart from the community. As a shepherd, he understands the natural
world especially in relation to the God that he believes controls the natural world and all
the events that are associated with it. Last, David's defense of “the living God” stresses
the reality and power of the God of Israel while implying, as Judith did, that any who
challenge the authority of God will surely fail. Moreover, David's boldness in speech
brings a deeper understanding of David's heroic nature.
When Saul heard of this brave speech, he sent for David. Surprised to see David
was “just a boy,” Saul chided him for his bold speech in light of his youth and
inexperience in the presence of such a formidable opponent (1 Sam. 17: 33). However,
David retorts with a self-credentialing speech:
Your servant used to keep sheep for his father; and whenever a lion or a bear
came, and took a lamb from the flock, I went after it and struck it down, rescuing
the lamb from its mouth; and if it turned against me, I would catch it by the jaw,
strike it down, and kill it. Your servant has killed both lions and bears; and this
uncircumcised Philistine shall be like one of them, since he has defied the armies
of the living God. The Lord who saved me from the paw of the lion and the paw
of the bear, will save me from the hand of the Philistine. (1 Sam.17: 34-37)
80
Saul's observation brings to light two aspects of David's heroic nature. First, by
emphasizing David's youth as an inherent limitation to his success, Saul seeks to force
David into a conventional role. Here, David's youth equates with Judith's femaleness. Not
only does David meet Pearson's requirements for a hero in general, he exhibits the
qualities of the female hero as well. As a true hero, David: 1) claims the events of his life,
2) risks affirming heroic self-hood through courage, strength, and wisdom regardless of
social conventions, 3) is the champion of creative life, 4) shatters the established order
and creates a new community, 5) achieves a transmutation of the whole social order, 6)
transforms society and serves to redeem it, 7) transcends limiting sex-role patterns, and 8)
achieves a state of wholeness by achieving male and female qualities (Pearson 33-34).
But more than this, David exhibits the qualities that Pearson attributes to the
female heroes of literature. David exhibits the series of paradoxical truths: self and other,
mind and body, spirit and flesh, and male and female. The idea of David's recognition of
these truths becomes evident in his relationship with those in whom he comes in contact.
Though subsequent events will poison their relationship, David at first inspires affection
and loyalty in Saul. When the evil spirit of God would overtake Saul, David would play
his lyre for him and relieve him and return him to health (1 Sam 16:21-23). In addition,
David and Saul's son Jonathan made a covenant with one another because they loved
each other as their own soul (1 Sam 18:3). These instances of gentle nurturing, love, and
compassion underscore the female qualities of David's character as these are emotions
normally attached with the feminine. Yet, David is quite comfortable with them and does
not attempt to hide or destroy them. David's assimilation of female qualities is most
81
evident in the fact that he is in tune with spiritual or natural values that the society
advocates but does not practice, is better able to survive than more conventional
characters because of his association with qualities the society lacks, and defies social
conditioning and implicitly challenges the status quo. In David, like Judith, the
female/male heroic patterns are synchronized by his courage, skill, independence, and
wisdom that allow him to commit to a truth beyond that recognized by social convention
(Pearson 31, 34).
Second, like Judith, David is bold and wise in his speech. Both Judith and David
reveal in their verbal discourse the reason for their success--they are armed with the name
of the Lord. In analyzing this portion of the story, Walter Brueggemann in his book First
and Second Samuel asserts:
David makes his case on very different grounds. It is not that David killed the
animals but that Yahweh delivered (nsl) David from the lion and the bear. David
ceases to assert himself and bears witness to God. This God will deliver David in
the face of the Philistine. In the first part of the speech David has recited his own
bravery (vv. 34-36). In the second part David acknowledges that Yahweh is the
real rescuer (v. 37) . . . No one else in the story has named the name of Yahweh.
No doubt the narrator has intended it so. The others are cowards, because they
have abandoned their only source of courage. David’s very different perception of
the battle is theologically rooted.
(Brueggemann 130)
Like Judith, David draws upon the spiritual power of the God of Israel and is so
convincing in his disquisition that Saul agrees to let him go to meet Goliath. Saul offers
82
him his armor; however, David chooses his faith as an alternative to conventional modes
of self-defense.
After choosing five smooth stones for his shepherd bag, David moves toward the
battle line with his sling in hand, only to further endure the insults of Goliath. David
remains unaffected by his verbal blows and responds with a bold speech consistent with
his character:
You come to me with sword and spear and javelin; but I come to you in the name
of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This
very day the Lord will deliver you into my hands, and I will strike you down and
cut off your head; and I will give the dead bodies of the Philistine army this very
day to the birds of the air and the wild animals of the earth, so that all the earth
may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that
the Lord does not save by sword and spear; for the battle is the Lord’s and he will
give you into our hands.
(1 Sam. 17:45-47).
This portion of the narrative relates to the heroic character of Judith in two ways. First,
where Judith's personal internal stability and relationship with God is maintained through
prayer then action, David’s personal internal stability and relationship with God is
maintained through speech then action, speech then action. Second, like Judith, if David
is the vehicle, God is the hero. The narrator utilizes David’s bold speech to establish his
faith and first-hand experience with God. David is the only worthy vehicle for the will of
God. In addition, like Judith, David epitomizes piety, courage, ardent nationalism, and a
bold confidence in God--he too is an example Israel should emulate.
83
The ascent toward the climax of the story is long and deliberate as in the Judith
story, the climax swift and sure. David moves quickly forward, places a rock in his sling,
swings it, and sinks the rock deeply into Goliath’s forehead--prevailing over the
Philistine--the Philistine completely outmaneuvered. Then, as in the beheading of Judith's
adversary, David kills and beheads Goliath with the sword from his own sheath. With one
stone and one swing of the sword, David removes the threat to Israel. The use of capital
punishment in David's story is reflective of its use in Judith's story.
In the literal sense, David cuts off the head of Goliath not only to remove his
threat to Israel and its God, but to execute a legal sentence against the uncircumcised who
seeks to “defy the armies of the living God.” Moreover, the use of capital punishment is
symbolic as well. The number one in Hebrew is ‘ehad meaning “one” or “first” and is
associated with God as the beginning and the end, the prime impulse, the source of
creation. Moreover, “one” implicates God’s sovereign rule, His omnipotence, His
supremacy, and His unique character (Strong 1470, 1764). Therefore, the theological
tension (between David and Saul and Israel) is resolved in favor of David and Yahweh;
David brings freedom through faith to Israel as Judith did to Bethulia, along with the
proof that there is a God in Israel who must be reckoned with not only by the nations, but
by Israel itself.
Goliath’s head held the same effect on the Philistine army as the head of
Holofernes did on the Assyrian army. The fleeing Philistine army was pursued, defeated,
and plundered by the Israelites--“saved with a sling and a stone” (1 Sam. 17: 50).
According to Frank S. Mead in his book Who’s Who in the Bible, regarding David’s
84
character he asserts, “Most men do one thing well and call it enough. David did many
things well and died in grief. He is Many-sided David, the personification of his nation’s
many-sided development, ‘the embodiment of her qualities, the incarnation of her spirit,
the type of her destiny” (83). Like Judith, David is Israel, its religion, and the symbol of
its faith. Because David's heroic character reflects Judith's heroic character, David does
not fit any prescribed archetypal heroic pattern.
For example, Campbell's model is not helpful in detailing David's heroic journey.
Biblical heroes do not receive a “call” to adventure because they are consistently in tune
with the divine will. Moreover, David did not experience a shadow presence (his defeat
was never an option), the world in which he journeyed was not unfamiliar to him
(Biblical heroes are familiar with God's natural world and understand the way He works
within it), there was no goddess, no sexual union, and no reward. However, the
motivation of true Biblical heroes may relate to their internal reward--the desire to please
God and give Him the credit in all things. For the Biblical hero the “elixir” always
reflects the divine will--the journey begins and ends the same--magnification of the
reality and power of God.
Judith and David are not every hero. They do not fit well into any prescribed
archetypal heroic pattern, but define a new genre of the hero. One of the most outstanding
feature of these characters is that they do not acquire heroic qualities on their journey,
they are already in possession of them: they already are moral, independent, courageous,
assertive, pious, androgynous, defy conventional norms, and fear nothing save God. This
makes Judith and David a unique type of hero and the perfect vehicles for the will of
85
God. Here, one might consider application of Sidney Hook's definition of an “eventmaking man.” In his article “The Eventful Man and The Event-making Man,” he explains
the aspects of an event-making man: “The event-making man is an eventful man whose
actions are the consequences of outstanding capacities of intelligence, will, and character
rather than accidents of position” (25). This definition appears applicable to Judith and
David; however, Hook errs in two ways. First, Hook plays victim of the patriarchal habit
by using the male pronoun to describe the generic. By seeking to define the human
experience as the male experience he inadvertently discounts Judith. Second, Hook does
not require the hero to be “a morally worthy man” capable of “ethical judgments” (24).
This removes both Judith and David from his formula.
Biblical heroes play out their heroic journey in a uniquely different way. The
outcome of their journey is always a reminder of the reality and power of God and that
freedom comes only through fear of Him. They do not fit well into any prescribed
archetypal heroic pattern and they are more than “ideal citizens” as they play out their
roles apart from the status quo. Simply stated, they put God (and his laws) first. Their
relationship with their God has an undeniable reciprocity: their pious nature allows them
to serve as a vehicle for the will of God, and because they serve God they maintain their
pious nature. For the Biblical heroes, their journey never ends; they maintain their heroic
functioning regardless of whether they are acting in public or in private. They are not
merely great by virtue of what they do, but by virtue of who they are. Therefore when
“my oppressed people shouted; my weak people cried out,” the hero answered (Judith
16:11).
86
Chapter 8
CONCLUSION
The creation story in Genesis alludes to a simpler time in the history of
humankind. Adam and Eve represent that original state of living, worship, relationship,
and contravention. Thus, the redactor guides the reader in understanding that the creation
of Eden takes place “on the day that” God made the heavens and the earth--day one of the
six days of creation. This resolves the disjunctions that exist when this communication is
overlooked: the source of Cain's wife, and the reason for Cain's fear of retaliation at the
hand of another. But more than that, it provides a moral compass, the “it was good” from
which to move, and it brings a deeper understanding to the symbolism attached to Adam
and Eve, and the serpent.
Ultimately, the creation story is a story of relationship in all it forms: between
God and humans, humans and the earth, humans and humans, and humans and nonhumans. Part of being created in the image of God underscores the ability to form and the
desire to engage in relationships. Thus, Eden represents a quintessential paradigm for
living, a formula for managing all relationships. Adam represents this formula through
the concept of non-religion. Non-religion underscores an existence without politics,
civilization, or technology. It is a form of worship that recognizes the sovereignty of God
and his creative power which exists in the absence of any barriers generated through the
ascendancy of human power over that of the divine. Moreover, non-religion describes a
unique concept of “work” that involves protection and care of the earth and its inhabitants
in opposition to their exploitation. In short, non-religion illustrates an existence that
87
maintains a harmony between God and humankind, and humankind and the natural
world. This type of conviction is a natural theology where God is never separate from the
world and his worship is never separate from the ordinary activities of everyday life.
Eden represents not only a place, but an attitude where evil cannot exist if one desires a
natural balance in all relationships.
Another aspect of the image of God is found in the creation of humankind as
“male and female.” The manifestation of God's androgynous nature is seen in the
original equality between the sexes. Along these lines, God chooses to create in a way
that shares power with others. Adam assists God in the naming of the animals and in the
naming of woman. Moreover, the sharing of this creative power extends to the
procreative capabilities of humankind (and every living creature) and is fueled through
the divine command “to be fruitful and multiply” and “subdue the earth.” The process of
subduing offers humankind the task of intra-creational development, of bringing the
world along to its fullest possible creational potential--good or evil. However, as the
human prototype demonstrates, all developments are designed to be done in the
framework of worship, respect for the environment, and obedience to the creator.
Therefore, the most potent reflection of the divine image is realized through Eve-the freedom of choice. The serpent's visitation to Eve is the pivotal point of the story.
Representing gods, myths, and kings, the redactor's use of the serpent identifies the
sharpest contrast and greatest source of disruption to the natural world and its creator. As
Eve symbolizes life, living, and permanent settlements, and the serpent symbolizes gods,
myths, and kings the point of intersection between the two characters provides a direct
88
link to civilization and technology. The visitation forms the link between a primeval era
and later developments: civilization, religion, language, script, polytheism, and kingship.
Eve foreshadows the advent of all these civilizing agents, which come to fruition through
the line of her son Cain.
The redactor expresses concern regarding the civilizing process. Humankind does
not appear equipped to deal with the privilege or latitude involved in the process of
“subduing.” Progress in sin and it's effects matches the progress in civilization: sin
intensifies from generation to generation. Adam and Eve fashion fig leaves to hide their
shame and blame everyone but themselves for their actions, Cain murders his brother and
boldly lies to God about the incident, and Lamech murders because he appoints unto
himself godlike powers. Because the conflict of chapter four is set in the context of
worship, the redactor suggests that the greatest conflict will come from man-made
religion. Indeed, this is the case.
The first high civilization in the history of humankind, founded in ancient
Mesopotamia, reveals a religion completely entangled with the civilization and
inseparable from it. The gods of the Mesopotamian pantheon owe their conception to
technological advance. From the same fundamental principle of the cuneiform writing
system, pictography (one object representing another), the gods were born. There existed
a god or goddess for every civilizing agent or technological advance, which gave
justification for the objects existence. The kings themselves were the representatives of
the gods on earth. Conforming to all the demands of the king ensured the piety of his
subjects and gave the king absolute power. A power that was often abused through
89
exploitation of the natural world, exploitation of his own subjects, sexual and social
perversions, improper trade practices, and murder. The kings progressed to become the
hero-warriors of the epics and were venerated as semi-divine beings (some as complete
divinity).
The redactor makes the point at the outset of the narrative that God is the
evaluator of the “good” and “not good” within his creation. But more than this, God
punishes evil. The two wives of Lamech represent the choice humankind must make in
their journey on the earth: Yahweh or popular belief. Since civilization supersedes life in
the garden, God's advice to Cain is meant to help restore balance through self-mastery. It
is the biblical heroes that exemplify this best. They embody the final aspect of God's
image--earthly reflections of the divine will. To maintain this internal stability, they live
apart from the status quo and never succumb to popular belief.
In the struggle between nature and the civilized world, nature will ultimately
prevail. As the death of Abel reveals, nature will inevitably divulge humankind's abuses
to God who can (and does) release nature's cataclysmic powers upon them, if he so
chooses. In fact, the “elemental spirits” were not created to last forever, a fact to which
the creator-destroyer-re-creator nature of God testifies. Nevertheless, how humankind
decides to proceed within the creation is simply a matter of choice. God will allow for
humankind's creative choices, but in the end, the evaluation belongs to him.
The motivation of the redactor of Genesis is to demythologize the civilization
from which he and his people emerged. Bottéro expounds on the religious sentiments of
the ancient Semites, “In spite of its ancient Sumerian components, Mesopotamian
90
religion was partly created and especially developed during at least two millennia by the
Semites. It is the propensity to vigorously reveal the distance between gods and men: the
divine superiority in existence, in action, in duration, and in intelligence over mankind.
To say it in one word: transcendence, which truly culminated in the absolute monotheism
of the ancient Israelites” (7).
91
Map of Ancient Mesopotamia
92
WORK CITED
Armstrong, Karen. In the Beginning: A New Translation of Genesis. New York:
Ballentine, 1996.
Bellis, Alice Ogden. Helpmates, Harlots, and Heroes: Women’s Stories of the Bible.
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993.
Black, Jeremy and Anthony Green. Gods, Demons and Symbols of /ancient
Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary. Austin: University of Texas, 2000.
Bottéro, Jean. Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods. Chicago: The University
of Chicago, 1995.
Bristow, John Temple. What Paul Really Said About Women: An Apostle's Liberating
Views on Equality in Marriage, Leadership, and Love. San Francisco: Harper
Collins, 1988.
Brueggemann, Walter. First and Second Samuel. Louisville: John Knox, 1990.
Burrows, Millar. An Outline of Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1946.
Campbell, Joseph. The Hero With A Thousand Faces. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1973.
Fox, Everett. In the Beginning: A New English Rendition of the Book of Genesis. Trans.
Everett Fox. New York: Schocken, 1983.
Hillegass, C.K. Mythology. Lincoln: Cliffs, 1973.
Hook, Sidney. “The Eventful Man and the Event-Making Man.” The Journal of Modern
History 15 (1943) : 132-38.
Kramer, Samuel Noah. The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character. Chicago:
The University of Chicago, 1971.
93
Mead, Frank S. Who’s Who in the Bible. New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1934.
Moore, Carey A. Judith: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Garden
City: Doubleday, 1985.
Pearson, Carol. The Female Hero in American and British Literature. New York:
Bowker, 1981.
Saggs, H.W.F. Babylonians: Peoples of the Past. Los Angeles: University of California,
2000.
Strong, James. The Strongest Strong’s: Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
The Epic of Gilgamesh. Trans. Andrew George. London: Penguin, 1999.
The Harpers Collins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version Bible. New York:
Harpers Collins, 1989.
The New Interpreters Bible. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999.