Chapter X: Introduction (8)

1. Several recent theories seek an exact determination of the
locality of Paradise, and of all the data of ¹⁰⁻¹⁴, at the cost
of a somewhat unnatural exegesis of verse ¹⁰. That of Friedrich
Delitzsch (_Wo lag das Paradies?_, 1881) is based partly on
the fact that North of Babylon (in the vicinity of Bagdad) the
Euphrates and Tigris approach within some twenty miles of each
other, the Euphrates from its higher level discharging water
through canals into the Tigris, which might thus be regarded
as an offshoot of it. The _land_ of Eden is the plain (_edinu_)
between the two rivers from Tekrit (on the Tigris: nearly a
hundred miles North of Bagdad) and ‛Ana (on the Euphrates) to
the Persian Gulf; the _garden_ being one specially favoured
region from the so-called ‘isthmus’ to a little South of
Babylon. The _river_ of verse ¹⁰ is the Euphrates; Pishon is
the Pallakopas canal, branching off from the Euphrates on the
right a little above Babylon and running nearly parallel with
it to the Persian Gulf; Giḥon is the _Shaṭṭ en-Nil_, another
canal running East of the Euphrates from near Babylon and
rejoining the parent river opposite Ur; Ḥiddeḳel and Euphrates
are, of course, the lower courses of the Tigris and Euphrates
respectively, the former regarded as replenished through the
canal system from the latter. Ḥavilah is part of the great
Syrian desert lying West and South of the Euphrates; and Kush
is a name for northern and middle Babylonia, derived from the
Kaššite dynasty that once ruled there. In spite of the learning
and ingenuity with which this theory has been worked out, it
cannot clear itself of an air of artificiality at variance with
the simplicity of the passage it seeks to explain. That the
Euphrates should be at once the undivided Paradise-stream and
one of the ‘heads’ into which it breaks up is a glaring anomaly;
while verse ¹⁴ shows that the narrator had distinctly before
his mind the upper course of the Tigris opposite Assur, and
is therefore not likely to have spoken of it as an effluent
of the Euphrates. The objection that the theory confuses
rivers and canals is fairly met by the argument that the
Babylonian equivalent of נָהָר is used of canals, and also by
the consideration that both the canals mentioned were probably
ancient river-beds; but the _order_ in which the rivers are
named tells heavily against the identifications. Moreover, the
expression ‘the _whole_ land of Ḥavilah’ seems to imply a much
larger tract of the earth’s surface than the small section of
desert enclosed by the Pallakopas; and to speak of the _whole_
of northern Babylonia as ‘surrounded’ by the _Shaṭṭ en-Nil_ is
an abuse of language.――According to Sayce _The Higher Criticism
and the Verdict of the Monuments_, 95 ff.; _A Dictionary of the
Bible_, i. 643 f.), the garden of Eden is the sacred garden of
Ea at Eridu; and the river which waters it is the Persian Gulf,
on the shore of which Eridu formerly stood. The four branches
are, in addition to Euphrates and Tigris (which in ancient times
entered the Gulf separately), the Pallakopas and the Choaspes
(now the _Kerkha_), the sacred river of the Persians, from whose
waters alone their kings were allowed to drink (Herodotus i.
188). Besides the difficulty of supposing that the writer of
verse ¹⁰ meant to trace the streams _upwards_ towards their
source above the garden, the theory does not account for the
order in which the rivers are given; for the Pallakopas is West
of Euphrates, while the Choaspes is East of the Tigris.¹ Further,
although the description of the Persian Gulf as a ‘river’ is
fully justified by its Babylonian designation as _Nâr Marratum_
(‘Bitter River’), it has yet to be made probable that either
Babylonians or Israelites would have thought of a garden as
watered by ‘bitter’ (_i.e._ salt) water.――These objections
apply with equal force to the theory of Hommel (_Aufsätze und
Abhandlungen arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_, iii. 1, page
281 ff., etc., _The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated
by the Monuments_, 314 ff.), who agrees with Sayce in placing
Paradise at Eridu, in making the single stream the Persian Gulf,
and one of the four branches the Euphrates. But the three other
branches, Pishon, Giḥon, and Ḥiddeḳel, he identifies with three
North Arabian wādīs,――Wadi Dawāsir, Wadi Rummā, and Wadi Sirhān
(the last the ‘wādī of Diḳlah’ = _ḫad-deḳel_ [see on verse ¹⁴
above], the name having been afterwards _transferred_ to the
Tigris).

¹ This objection is avoided by the modified theory of Dawson,
who identifies Pishon with the Karun, still further East
than the Kerkha. But that removes it from all connexion with
Ḥavilah, which is one of the recommendations of Sayce’s view.

2. Since none of the above theories furnishes a satisfactory
solution of the problem, we may as well go back to what appears
the natural interpretation of verse ¹⁰, and take along with
it the utopian conception of four great rivers issuing from a
single source. The site of Paradise is then determined by the
imaginary common source of the two known rivers, Euphrates and
Tigris. As a matter of fact, the western arm of the Euphrates
and the eastern arm of the Tigris do rise sufficiently near each
other to make the supposition of a common source possible to
ancient cosmography; and there is no difficulty in believing
that the passage locates the garden in the unexplored mountains
of Armenia. The difficulty is to find the Pishon and the
Giḥon. To seek them amongst the smaller rivers of Armenia and
Trans-Caucasia is a hopeless quest; for a knowledge of these
rivers would imply a knowledge of the country, which must have
dispelled the notion of a common source. Van Doorninck has
suggested the Leontes and Orontes (_Theologisch Tijdschrift_,
xxxix. 236), but a Hebrew writer must surely have known that
these rivers rose much nearer home than the Euphrates and Tigris.
There is more to be said for the opinion that they represent the
two great Indian rivers, Ganges and Indus, whose sources must
have been even more mysterious than those of the Euphrates and
Tigris, and might very well be supposed to lie in the unknown
region from Armenia to Turkestan.¹ The attraction of this view
is that it embraces all rivers of the first magnitude that can
have been known in western Asia (for, as we shall see, even the
Nile is not absolutely excluded); and it is no valid objection
to say that the Indian rivers were beyond the horizon of the
Israelites, since we do not know from what quarter the myth
had travelled before it reached Palestine. Yet I find no modern
writer of note who accepts the theory in its completeness.
Delitzsch and Dillmann identify the Pishon with the Indus, but
follow the traditional identification of Giḥon with the Nile
(see page 61 above). But if the biblical narrator believed the
Nile to rise with Euphrates and Tigris, it is extremely likely
that he regarded its upper waters as the Indus, as Alexander
the Great did in his time;² and we might then fall back on
the old identification of Pishon with the Ganges.³ But it
must be admitted that the names Ḥavilah and Kush are a serious
difficulty to this class of theories. The latter, indeed, may
retain its usual Old Testament meaning if Giḥon be the upper
Nile, either as a continuation of the Indus or a separate river;
but if it be the Indus alone, Kush must be the country of the
Kaššites, conceived as extending indefinitely East of Babylonia.
Ḥavilah has to be taken as a name for India considered as an
extension of North-east Arabia, an interpretation which finds
no support in the Old Testament. At the same time, as Dillmann
observes, the language employed (‘the whole land of Ḥavilah’)
suggests some more spacious region than a limited district
of Arabia; and from the nature of the passage we can have no
certainty that the word is connected with the Ḥavilah of Genesis
10.――An interesting and independent theory, based on ancient
Babylonian geographical documents, has been propounded by Haupt.
The common source of the four rivers is supposed to have been
a large (imaginary) basin of water in North Mesopotamia: the
Euphrates and Tigris lose themselves in marshes; the Pishon
(suggested by the Kerkha) is conceived as continued in the _Nâr
Marratum_ (Persian Gulf) and the Red Sea, and so ‘encompasses’
the whole of Ḥavilah (Arabia); beyond this there was supposed
to be land, through which the Giḥon (suggested by the Karun) was
supposed to reach Kush (Ethiopia), whence it flowed northwards
as the Nile. The theory perhaps combines more of the biblical
data in an intelligible way than any other that has been
proposed; and it seems to agree with those just considered in
placing the site of Eden at the common source of the rivers, to
the North of Mesopotamia.⁴

¹ Strabo reports the belief of the ancients that all Indian
rivers rise in the Caucasus (XV. 1. 13). The fact that in
mediæval Arabian geographers _Ǧeiḫun_ is a proper name of
the Oxus and the Cilician Pyramus, and an appellative of
the Araxes and the Ganges, might seem at first sight to have
a bearing on the question at issue; but its importance is
discounted by the possibility that the usage is based on
this passage, due to Jewish and Christian influences in the
Middle Ages.

² From the presence in both of crocodiles: Arrian, _Anabasis_
vi. 1, 2 f.; compare Strabo, XV. 1. 25, and the similar
notion about the Nile and Euphrates in Pausanias, ii. 5. 2.

³ Josephus and most of the Fathers. Strangely enough, there
seems to be no suggestion of the Indus earlier than Kosmas
Indicopleustes (ii. 131). Is this because the identity of
Nile and Indus was a fixed idea?

⁴ The summary is taken from Driver, page 59 f.; the original
article, in _Ueber Land und Meer_, 1894‒95, I have not been
able to consult.

3. It seems probable that the resources of philology and
scientific geography are well-nigh exhausted by theories such
as have been described above, and that further advance towards
a solution of the problem of Paradise will be along the line of
comparative mythology. Discussions precisely similar to those
we have examined are maintained with regard to the Iranian
cosmography――whether, _e.g._, the stream Ranḥa be the Oxus
or the Yaxartes or the Indus; the truth being that Ranḥa is a
mythical celestial stream, for which various earthly equivalents
might be named (see Tiele, _Geschichte der Religion im Altertum_
ii. 291 f.). If we knew more of the diffusion and history of
cosmological ideas in ancient religions, we should probably find
additional reason to believe that Genesis 2¹⁰⁻¹⁴ is but one of
many attempts to localise on earth a representation which is
essentially mythical. Gunkel (¹33, ²31), adopting a suggestion
of Stucken, supposes the original Paradise to have been at the
North pole of the heavens (the summit of the mountain of the
gods: compare Ezekiel 28¹⁴), and the river to be the Milky Way,
branching out――[but does it?]――into four arms (there is some
indication that the two arms between Scorpio and Capricornus
were regarded in Babylonia as the heavenly counterparts of
Euphrates and Tigris: see _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 528). It is not meant, of course, that this was
the idea in the mind of the biblical writer, but only that the
conception of the mysterious river of Paradise with its four
branches _originated_ in mythological speculation of this kind.
If this be the case, we need not be surprised if it should prove
impossible to identify Pishon and Giḥon with any known rivers:
on the other hand, the mention of the well-known Tigris and
Euphrates clearly shows that the form of the myth preserved
in Genesis 2¹⁰⁻¹⁴ located the earthly Paradise in the unknown
northerly region whence these rivers flowed. And the conclusion
is almost inevitable that the myth took shape in a land watered
by these two rivers,――in Babylonia or Mesopotamia (see Gressmann,
_Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, x. 346 f.).

* * * * *

=10.= יפרד] Frequently imperfect? So Driver, _A Treatise
on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ §§ 30 α, 113, 4 β;
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 107 _d_ (‘always taking place afresh’),
Davidson § 54 (_b_). That seems hardly natural. Is it possible
that for once מִשָּׁם could have the effect of אָז in transporting
the mind to a point whence a new development takes place?
(Davidson § 45, _R._ 2).――רָאשִׁים] Not ‘sources’ but ‘branches’; as
Arabic _ra’s en- nahr_ (as distinct from _ra’s el-‛ain_) means
the point of divergence of two streams (Wetzstein, quoted by
Delitzsch, page 82). So Assyrian _rîš nâri_ or _rîš nâr_, of the
point of divergence (_Ausgangsort_) of a canal (Delitzsch _Wo
lag das Paradies?_ 98, 191).――=11.= האחד] See on 1⁵.――הוא הסבב] On
the determination of predicate, Davidson § 19, _R._ 3; compare
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 _k_ (so verse ¹³ ᶠᐧ).――החוילה] If the
article be genuine, it shows that the name was significant
(‘sandland,’ from חוֹל?); but everywhere else it is wanting, and
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ omits it here.――=12.=
וּֽזֲהב] On metheg and hataf-pathach, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 10
_g_, 16 _e_, _f_; König i. § 10, 6 _e_ δ (compare 1¹⁸).――הִוא]
The first instance of this _Qrê perpetuum_ of the Pentateuch,
where the regular הִיא is found only Genesis 14² 20⁵ 38²⁵,
Leviticus 2¹⁵ 11³⁹ 13¹⁰ᐧ ²¹ 16³¹ 21⁹, Numbers 5¹³ ᶠᐧ. König
(_Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache_ i.
page 124 ff.) almost alone amongst modern scholars still holds
to the opinion that the epicene consonantal form is genuinely
archaic; but the verdict of philology and of Hexateuch criticism
seems decisive against that view. It must be a graphic error of
some scribe or school of scribes: whether proceeding from the
original _script definition_ הִא or not does not much matter (see
Driver and White’s note on Leviticus 1¹³ in _The Sacred Books of
the Old Testament_, page 25 f.).――טוב] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_ + מְאֹד.――הבדלח] Of the ancient versions LXX
alone has misunderstood the word, rendering here ὁ ἄνθραξ
(red garnet), and in Numbers 11⁷ (the only other occurrence)
κρύσταλλος. Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) can only be a clerical
error. That it is _not_ a gem is proved by the absence of
אבן.――אבן השהם] LXX ὁ λίθος ὁ πράσινος (leek-green stone); other
Greek versions ὄνυξ, and so Vulgate (_onychinus_); Peshiṭtå (‡
Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ בורלא. Philology has as yet thrown no
light on the word, though a connexion with Babylonian _sâmtu_
is probable. Myres (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 4808 f.) makes the
interesting suggestion that it originally denoted malachite,
which is at once _striped_ and _green_, and that after malachite
ceased to be valued tradition wavered between the onyx (striped)
and the beryl (green). Petrie, on the other hand (_A Dictionary
of the Bible_, iv. 620), thinks that in early times it was green
felspar, afterwards confused with the beryl. It is at least
noteworthy that Jensen (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi.
1, 405) is led on independent grounds to identify _sâmtu_ with
malachite. But is malachite found in any region that could be
plausibly identified with Ḥavilah?――=13.= גיחון] Probably from √ גיח
(Job 38⁸ 40²³) = ‘bursting forth.’――=14.= שֵׁם] LXX omitted.――חדקל]
Babylonian _Idigla_, _Diglat_, Aramaic דִּגְלַת and (‡ Syriac word),
Arabic _Diǧlat_; then Old Persian _Tigrâ_, Pehlevi _Digrat_,
Greek Τίγρις and Τίγρης. The Persian _Tigrâ_ was explained by
a popular etymology as ‘arrow-swift’ (Strabo); and similarly it
was believed that the Hebrews saw in their name a compound of חַד,
‘sharp,’ and קַל, ‘swift,’――a view given by Rashi, and mentioned
with some scorn by Abraham Ibn Ezra. Hommel’s derivation (_The
Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 315)
from _ḫadd_, ‘wādī,’ and דִּקְלָה (= ‘wādī of Diḳlah,’ Genesis 10²⁷),
is of interest only in connexion with his peculiar theory of the
site of Paradise.――קדמת] Rendered ‘in front’ by LXX (κατέναντι),
Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) and Vulgate (_contra_); as ‘eastward’
by Aquila, Symmachus (ἐξ ἀνατολῆς) and Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ (למדנחא).
This last is also the view of Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and
of most moderns. But see Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen
morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxxiii. 532, where the sense
‘eastward’ is decisively rejected. The other examples are 4¹⁶,
1 Samuel 13⁵, Ezekiel 39¹¹†.――פרת] Babylonian _Purâtu_, Old
Persian _Ufrâtu_, whence Greek Εὐφράτης.

* * * * *

=15.= _to till it and to guard it_] To reject this clause (Budde), or the second member (Dillmann), as inconsistent with 3 ¹⁷ ᶠᶠ are arbitrary expedients. The ideal existence for man is not idle enjoyment, but easy and pleasant work; “the highest aspiration of the Eastern peasant” (Gunkel) being to keep a garden. The question from what the garden had to be protected is one that should not be pressed.――=16 f.= The belief that man lived originally on the natural fruit of trees (observe the difference from 1²⁹) was widespread in antiquity, and appears in Phœnician mythology.¹ Here, however, the point lies rather in the restriction than the permission,――in the imposition of a _taboo_ on one particular tree.――For the words _of the knowledge of good and evil_ it has been proposed to substitute “which is in the midst of the garden” (as 3³), on the ground that the revelation of the mysterious property of the tree was the essence of the serpent’s temptation and must not be anticipated (3⁵) (Budde, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). But the narrative ought not to be subjected to such rigorous logical tests; and, after all, there still remained something for the serpent to disclose, viz. that such knowledge put man on an equality with God.――_in the day ... die_] The threat was not fulfilled; but its force is not to be weakened by such considerations as that man from that time became mortal (Jerome, al.), or that he entered on the experience of miseries and hardships which are the prelude of dissolution (Calvin, al.). The simple explanation is that God, having regard to the circumstances of the temptation, changed His purpose and modified the penalty.

¹ Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10 (from Philo Byblius):
εὑρεῖν δὲ τὸν Αἰῶνα τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν δενδρῶν τροφήν.

=15.= The verse is either a resumption of ⁸ᵇ after the insertion
of ¹⁰⁻¹⁴, or a duplicate from a parallel document. It is too
original to be a gloss; and since there was no motive for
making an interpolation at ⁸ᵇ, the excision of ¹⁰⁻¹⁴ seems to
lead necessarily to the conclusion that two sources have been
combined.――את־האדם] LXX + ὃν ἔπλασεν (as verse ⁸).――וינּיחהו] On
the two Hiphils of נוח and their distinction in meaning, see
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 72 _ee_, and the Lexicon.――עדן] LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ
and most cursives render τῆς τρυφῆς: LXXᴬ and uncials omit the
word.――לעבדָהּ וגו׳] Since גן is nowhere feminine, it is better to point
לעבדֹה ולשמרֹה (see Albrecht, _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, xvi. 53).――=16.= האדם] LXX Ἀδαμ, Vulgate _ei_.
Except in verse ¹⁸, the word is regularly, but wrongly,
treated as a proper noun by these two versions from this point
onwards.――=17.= מות תמות] Symmachus θνητὸς ἔσῃ. In LXX the verbs
of this verse are all plural (as 3³ᐧ ⁴).

* * * * *

18‒25.
Creation of animals and woman.

The Creator, taking pity on the solitude of the man, resolves to provide him with a suitable companion. The naïveté of the conception is extraordinary. Not only did man exist before the beasts, but the whole animal creation is the result of an unsuccessful experiment to find a mate for him. Of the revolting idea that man lived for a time in sexual intercourse with the beasts (see page 91), there is not a trace.――=18.= _a helper_] The writer seems to be thinking (as in 2⁵), not of the original, but of the present familiar conditions of human life.――כְּנֶגְדּוֹ] (only here) literaly ‘as in front of him,’ _i.e._ _corresponding to him_.――=19.= The meaning cannot be that the animals had already been created, and are now brought to be named (Calvin, al. and recently Delitzsch, Stade): such a sense is excluded by grammar (see Driver _A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 76, _Obsolete_), and misses the point of the passage.――_to see what he would call it_] To watch its effect on him, and (eventually) to see if he would recognise in it the associate he needed,――as one watches the effect of a new experience on a little child.――_whatever the man should call it, that_ (was to be) _its name_] The spontaneous ejaculation of the first man becomes to his posterity a name: such is the origin of (Hebrew) names.――The words נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה are incapable of construction, and are to be omitted as an explanatory gloss (Ewald, al.).――=20.= The classification of animals is carried a step further than in ¹⁹ (domestic and wild animals being distinguished), but is still simpler than in chapter 1. Fishes and ‘creeping things’ are frankly omitted as inappropriate to the situation.――=21.= It has appeared that no fresh creation ‘from the ground’ can provide a fit companion for man: from his own body, therefore, must his future associate be taken.――תַּרְדֵּמָה] is a hypnotic trance, induced by supernatural agency (compare Duhm on Isaiah 29¹⁰). The purpose here is to produce anæsthesia, with perhaps the additional idea that the divine working cannot take place under human observation (Dillmann, Gunkel).――_one of his ribs_] A part of his frame that (it was thought) could easily be spared. There is doubtless a deeper significance in the representation: it suggests “the moral and social relation of the sexes to each other, the dependence of woman upon man, her close relationship to him, and the foundation existing in nature for ... the feelings with which each should naturally regard the other” (Driver). The Arabs use similarly a word for ‘rib,’ saying _hūa lizḳī_ or _hūa bilizḳī_ for ‘he is my bosom companion.’ On the other hand, the notion that the first human being was androgynous, and afterwards separated into man and woman (see Schwally _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, ix. 172 ff.), finds no countenance in the passage.――=22.= _built up the rib ... into a woman_] So in the Egyptian “Tale of the two brothers,” the god Chnum ‘built’ a wife for his favourite Batau, the hieroglyphic determinative showing that the operation was actually likened to the building of a wall (see Wiedemann, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, Sup. 180).――=23.= By a flash of intuition the man divines that the fair creature now brought to him is part of himself, and names her accordingly. There is a poetic ring and rhythm in the exclamation that breaks from him.――_This at last_] Literally, ‘This, this time’ (_v.i._): note the thrice repeated זֹאת.――_bone of my bones, etc._] The expressions originate in the primitive notion of kinship as resting on “participation in a common mass of flesh, blood, and bones” (William Robertson Smith _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 273 f.: compare _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 175 f.), so that all the members of a kindred group are parts of the same substance, whether acquired by heredity or assimilated in the processes of nourishment (compare 29¹⁴ 37²⁷, Judges 9², 2 Samuel 5¹ 19¹³). The case before us, where the material identity is expressed in the manner of woman’s creation, is unique.――_shall be called Woman_] English is fortunate in being able to reproduce this assonance (_’Κ_, _’Iššā_) without straining language: other translations are driven to _tours de force_ (_e.g._ Jerome _Virago_; Luther, _Männin_). Whether even in Hebrew it is more than an assonance is doubtful (_v.i._).――=24.= An ætiological observation of the narrator: _This is why a man leaves ... and cleaves ... and they become, etc._] It is not a prophecy from the standpoint of the narrative; nor a recommendation of monogamic marriage (as applied in Matthew 19⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ, Mark 10⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, 1 Corinthians 6¹⁶, Ephesians 5³¹); it is an answer to the question, What is the meaning of that universal instinct which impels a man to separate from his parents and cling to his wife? It is strange that the man’s attachment to the woman is explained here, and the woman’s to the man only in 3¹⁶.

It has been imagined that the verse presupposes the primitive
custom called _beena_ marriage, or that modification of it in
which the husband parts from his own kindred for good, and
goes to live with his wife’s kin (so Gunkel: compare _Kinship
and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 87, 207); and other instances
are alleged in the patriarchal history. But this would imply
an almost incredible antiquity for the present form of the
narrative; and, moreover, the dominion of the man over the wife
assumed in 3¹⁶ᵇ is inconsistent with the conditions of _beena_
marriage. Compare Benzinger _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 2675: “The
phrase ... may be an old saying dating from remote times when
the husband went to the house (tent) of the wife and joined her
clan. Still the passage may be merely the narrator’s remark;
and even if it should be an old proverb we cannot be sure that
it really carries us so far back in antiquity.”――See, however,
Gressmann, _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, x. 353¹; van
Doorninck, _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, xxxix. 238 (who assigns
2²⁴ and 3¹⁶ to different recensions).

_one flesh_] If the view just mentioned could be maintained, this phrase might be equivalent to ‘one clan’ (Leviticus 25⁴⁹); for “both in Hebrew and Arabic ‘flesh’ is synonymous with ‘clan’ or kindred group” (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 274). More probably it refers simply to the _connubium_.――=25.= _naked ... not ashamed_] The remark is not merely an anticipation of the account given later of the origin of clothing (3⁷, compare ²¹). It calls attention to the difference between the original and the actual condition of man as conceived by the writer. The consciousness of sex is the result of eating the tree: before then our first parents had the innocence of children, who are often seen naked in the East (Doughty, _Travels in Arabia Deserta_, ii. 475).

Verse ²⁵ is a transition verse, leading over to the main theme
to which all that goes before is but the prelude. How long the
state of primitive innocence lasted, the writer is at no pains
to inform us. This indifference to the non-essential is as
characteristic of the popular tale as its graphic wealth of
detail in features of real interest. The omission afforded
an opportunity for the exercise of later Midrashic ingenuity;
_Jubilees_ iii. 15 fixes the period at seven years, while R.
Eliezer (_Bereshith Rabba_) finds that it did not last six hours.

* * * * *

=18.= אעשה] May be cohortative (Gesenius-Kautzsch § 75 _l_);
LXX, Vulgate render as 1st person plural (as 1²⁶).――עזר]
(usually ‘succour’) = ‘helper’ (_abstractum pro concreto_)
is used elsewhere chiefly of God (Deuteronomy 33⁷ᐧ ²⁶, Psalms
33²⁰ 115⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ etc.); possible exceptions are Ezekiel 12¹⁴
(if text right), Hosea 13⁹ (if emended with Wellhausen): see
Brown-Driver-Briggs.――כנגדו] LXX κατ’ αὐτόν (but verse ²⁰ ὅμοιος
αὐτῷ); Aquila ὡς κατέναντι αὐτοῦ; Symmachus ἀντικρὺς αὐτοῦ;
Vulgate _similis sibi_ (_ejus_, verse ²⁰); Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac
word); Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ כקיבליהּ.――=19.= _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_, LXX insert עוֹד after אלהים.――Omission of את־ before
כל־חית is remarkable in this chapter (see on verse ⁹), and is
rectified by _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_.――נפש
חיה] The only construction possible would be to take לו as _dative
ethical_, and נ׳ ח׳ as direct object to יקרא; but that is contrary
to the writer’s usage, and yields a jejune sense. Even if (with
Rashi) we transpose and read ‘every living thing which the man
called [by a name], that was its name,’ the discord of gender
would be fatal, to say nothing of the addition of שֵׁם.――=20.=
ולעוף] Read with MSS LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ ולכלֹ־עוף
(Ball).――וּלְאָדָם] Here the Massoretic takes Adam as a proper name.
Delitzsch, al. explain it as generic = ‘for a human being’
(Gunkel); Olshausen emends וְהָאדם. The truth is that the Massoretic
loses no opportunity presented by the _Kethîb_ of treating
אדם as _noun proper_. Point וְלָֽאָדָם.――לא מצא] Tuch, al. take God as
subject; but it may be passive expressed by indefinite subject
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 144 _d_, _e_) = ‘there was not found.’――=21.=
תרדמה] LXX ἔκστασιν; Aquila καταφοράν; Symmachus κάρον; Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac word) (‘tranquillity’); Vulgate _sopor_; Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ
and some Greek versions (Field) have ‘sleep’ simply. The
examples of its use (15¹², 1 Samuel 26¹², Isaiah 29¹⁰, Job
4¹³ 33¹⁵, Proverbs 19¹⁵†), all except the last, confirm Duhm’s
view that hypnotic sleep is indicated. It is true that in the
verb (Niphal) that sense is less marked.――=23.= זאת הפעם] The
construction rendered above takes זאת as subject of the sentence
and הפעם = ‘this time,’ the article having full demonstrative
force, as in 29³⁴ ᶠᐧ 30²⁰ 46³⁰, Exodus 9²⁷ (so LXX, Symmachus,
Theodotion, Vulgate; Delitzsch, Dillmann, Gunkel, al.). The
accents, however, unite the words in one phrase ‘this time,’
after the rather important analogy of זֶה פַעֲמַיִם (27³⁶ 43¹⁰), leaving
the subject unexpressed. This sense is followed by Peshiṭtå,
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ⁻ᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, and advocated by Stade (_Zeitschrift
für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvii. 210 ff.); but
it seems less acceptable than the other.――אִישׁ, אִשָּׁה] The old
derivation of these words from a common √ אנשׁ is generally
abandoned, אישׁ being assigned to a hypothetical √ אוּשׁ = ‘be
strong’ (Gesenius _Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ
et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti_). Arabic and Aramaic, indeed,
show quite clearly that the √ seen in the plural אֲנָשִׁים (and in
אֱנוֹשׁ) and that of (אִנְשָׁה) אשָּׁה are only apparently identical, the one
having _s_ where the other has _ṯ_. The masculine and feminine
are therefore etymologically distinct, and nothing remains but a
very strong assonance. The question whether we are to postulate
a third √ for the singular אִישׁ does not greatly concern us
here; the arguments will be found in Brown-Driver-Briggs,
_s.v._ See Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen
Gesellschaft_, xl. 740 (“Aber אִישׁ möchte ich doch bei אנשׁ
lassen”). In imitation of the assonance, Symmachus has ἄνδρις,
Vulgate _Virago_. Theodotion λῆψις, represents אֶשָּׂא, ‘I will
take’: a curious blunder which is fully elucidated by the
quotation from Origen given in Field, page 15³².――For מאיש,
_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ
read מֵאִישָׁהּ, which is by no means an improvement.――לֽקֳחָה־זּאת]
See Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 10 _h_, 20 _c_.――=24.= והיו] Add שְׁנֵיהֶם
with LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ and New Testament
citations. _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ has והיה
משניהם, referring to the offspring.――=25.= עֲרוּמִּים] עָרוּם ‘naked,’ to
be carefully distinguished from עָרוּם (√ ערם) ‘crafty,’ in 3¹, is
either a by-form of עֵירֹם (√ עוּר = ‘be bare’) in 3¹⁰ ᶠᐧ, or (more
probably) a different formation from √ ערה (‘be bare’). See
Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.vv._――יתבששו] The Hithpael (only here)
probably expresses reciprocity (‘ashamed before one another’);
the imperfect is frequentative.

* * * * *

III. 1‒7.
The temptation.

Attention is at once directed to the quarter where the possibility of evil already lurked amidst the happiness of Eden――the preternatural subtlety of the serpent: _But the serpent was wily_] The wisdom of the serpent was proverbial in antiquity (Matthew 10¹⁶: see Bochart, _Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ_ iii. 246 ff.), a belief probably founded less on observation of the creature’s actual qualities than on the general idea of its divine or demonic nature: πνευματικώτατον γὰρ τὸ ζῶον πάντων τῶν ἑρπετῶν (Sanchuniathon, in Eusebius _Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10). Hence the epithet עָרוּם might be used of it _sensu bono_ (φρόνιμος), though the context here makes it certain that the bad sense (πανοῦργος) is intended (see below).――_beyond any beast, etc._] The serpent, therefore, belongs to the category of ‘beasts of the field,’ and is a creature of Yahwe; and an effort seems to be made to maintain this view throughout the narrative (verse ¹⁴). At the same time it is a being possessing supernatural knowledge, with the power of speech, and animated by hostility towards God. It is this last feature which causes some perplexity. To say that the thoughts which it instils into the mind of the woman were on the serpent’s part not evil, but only extremely sagacious, and became sin first in the human consciousness (so Merx, Dillmann, al.), is hardly in accordance with the spirit of the narrative. It is more probable that behind the sober description of the serpent as a mere creature of Yahwe, there was an earlier form of the legend in which he figured as a god or a demon.

The ascription of supernatural characters to the serpent presents little difficulty even to the modern mind. The marvellous agility of the snake, in spite of the absence of visible motor organs, its stealthy movements, its rapid death-dealing stroke, and its mysterious power of fascinating other animals and even men, sufficiently account for the superstitious regard of which it has been the object amongst all peoples.¹ Accordingly, among the Arabs every snake is the abode of a spirit, sometimes bad and sometimes good, so that _ǧānn_ and _ġūl_ and even _Shaitān_ are given as designations of the serpent (Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 152 f.; compare William Robertson Smith _Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 120¹, 129 f., 442).² What is more surprising to us is the fact that in the sphere of religion the serpent was usually worshipped as a _good_ demon. Traces of this conception can be detected in the narrative before us. The demonic character of the serpent appears in his possession of occult divine knowledge of the properties of the tree in the middle of the garden, and in his use of that knowledge to seduce man from his allegiance to his Creator. The enmity between the race of men and the race of serpents is explained as a punishment for his successful temptation; originally he must have been represented as a being hostile, indeed, to God, but friendly to the woman, who tells her the truth which the Deity withheld from man (see Gressman _l.c._ 357). All this belongs to the background of heathen mythology from which the materials of the narrative were drawn; and it is the incomplete elimination of the mythological element, under the influence of a monotheistic and ethical religion, which makes the function of the serpent in Genesis 3 so difficult to understand. In later Jewish theology the difficulty was solved, as is well known, by the doctrine that the serpent of Eden was the mouthpiece or impersonation of the devil. The idea appears first in Alexandrian Judaism in Wisdom 2²⁴ (‘by the envy of the devil, death entered into the world’): possibly earlier is the allusion in _Enoch_ lxix. 6, where the seduction of Eve is ascribed to a Satan called Gadreel. Compare _Secrets of Enoch_ xxxi. 3 ff., _Psalms of Solomon_ 4⁹; also _Bereshith Rabba_ 29, the name נָחָשׁ הַקַּדְמֹנִי (_Sifrê_ 138 b), and in the New Testament, John 8⁴⁴, 2 Corinthians 11³, Romans 16²⁰, Apocalypse 12⁹ 20² (see Whitehouse, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iv. 408 ff.). Similarly in Persian mythology the serpent Dahâka, to whose power Yima, the ruler of the golden age, succumbs, is a creature and incarnation of the evil spirit Angro-Mainyo (_Vend._ i. 8, xxii. 5, 6, 24; _Yaçna_ ix. 27; compare Dillmann 70). The Jewish and Christian doctrine is a natural and legitimate extension of the teaching of Genesis 3, when the problem of evil came to be apprehended in its real magnitude; but it is foreign to the thought of the writer, although it cannot be denied that it may have some affinity with the mythological background of his narrative. The religious teaching of the passage knows nothing of an evil principle _external_ to the serpent, but regards himself as the subject of whatever occult powers he displays: he is simply a creature of Yahwe distinguished from the rest by his superior subtlety. The Yahwistic author does not speculate on the ultimate origin of evil; it was enough for his purpose to have so analysed the process of temptation that the beginning of sin could be assigned to a source which is neither in the nature of man nor in God. The personality of the Satan (the Adversary) does not appear in the Old Testament till after the Exile (Zechariah, Job, Chronicles).

¹ Compare the interesting sequel to the sentence from
Sanchuniathon quoted above: ... καὶ πυρῶδες ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ
παρεδόθη παρ’ ὃ καὶ τάχος ἀνυπέρβλητον διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος
παρίστησι, χωρὶς ποδῶν τε καὶ χειρῶν, ἢ ἄλλου τινὸς τῶν
ἔξωθεν, ἐξ ὧν τὰ λοιπὰ ζώα τὰς κινήσεις ποιεῖται· καὶ
ποικίλων σχημάτων τύπους ἀποτελεῖ, καὶ κατὰ τὴν πορείαν
ἑλικοειδεῖς ἔχει τὰς ὁρμὰς, ἐφ’ ὃ βούλεται τάχος· καὶ
πολυχρονιώτατον δέ ἐστιν, οὐ μόνον τῷ ἐκδυόμενον τὸ γῆρας
νεάζειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὔξησιν ἐπιδέχεσθαι μείζονα πέφυκε.... Διὸ
καὶ ἐν ἱεροῖς τοῦτο τὸ ζῶον καὶ ἐν μυστηρίοις συμπαρείληπται
κτλ. (Orelli, page 44).

² Compare Nöldeke _Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie
und Sprachwissenschaft_, i. 413: “Das geheimnissvolle,
dämonische Wesen der Schlange, das sie vor allen grösseren
Thieren auszeichnet, die tückische, verderbenbringende
Natur vieler Arten, konnte in dem einfachen semitischen
Hirten leicht den Glauben erzeugen, in ihr wohne etwas
Göttliches, den Menschen Bannendes und Bezauberndes. So
finden wir die Schlange im Eingang des alten Testaments, so
ist sie im Alterthum, wie noch jetzt, ein Hauptgegenstand
orientalischer Zauberei. So glaubte auch der Araber, die
Schlange (wie einige andere schädliche Thiere) sei kein
gewöhnliches Geschöpf, sondern ein Dschinn, ein Geist. Schon
die Sprache drückt dies dadurch aus, dass sie mit _Džānn_,
einem Worte welches mit _Džinn_ eng verwandt ist, eine
Schlangenart bezeichnet, etc.”

The serpent shows his subtlety by addressing his first temptation to the more mobile temperament of the woman (Rashi, al.), and by the skilful _innuendo_ with which he at once invites conversation and masks his ultimate design.――_Ay, and so God has said, etc.!_] Something like this seems to be the force of אַף כִּי (_v.i._). It is a half-interrogative, half-reflective exclamation, as if the serpent had brooded long over the paradox, and had been driven to an unwelcome conclusion.――_Ye shall not eat of any tree_] The range of the prohibition is purposely exaggerated in order to provoke inquiry and criticism. The use of the name אֱלֹהִים is commonly explained by the analogy of other passages of Yahwist, where the name יהוה is avoided in conversation with heathen (39⁹ etc.), or when the contrast between the divine and the human is reflected upon (32²⁹). But Yahwist’s usage in such cases is not uniform, and it is doubtful what is the true explanation here (see page 53).――=2, 3.= The woman’s first experience of falsehood leads to an eager repudiation of the serpent’s intentional calumny, in which she emphasises the generosity of the divine rule, but unconsciously intensifies the stringency of the prohibition by adding the words: _nor shall ye touch it_] A Jewish legend says that the serpent took advantage of this innocent and immaterial variation by forcing her to touch the fruit, and then arguing that as death had not followed the touch, so it would not follow the eating (_Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi). Equally futile inferences have been drawn by modern commentaries, and the surmise that the clause is redactional (Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 241) is hypercritical.――_the tree ... midst_] See page 66 f.――=4.= _Ye shall assuredly not die_] On the syntax, _v.i._ The serpent thus advances to an open challenge of the divine veracity, and thence to the imputation of an unworthy motive for the command, viz. a jealous fear on God’s part lest they should become His equals.――=5.= _But God knoweth, etc._] And therefore has falsely threatened you with death. The gratuitous insinuation reveals the main purpose of the tempter, to sow the seeds of distrust towards God in the mind of the woman.――_your eyes shall be opened_] The expression denotes a sudden acquisition of new powers of perception through supernatural influence (21¹⁹, Numbers 22³¹, 2 Kings 6¹⁷).――_as gods_] or ‘divine beings,’ rather than ‘as God’: the rendering ‘as angels’ (Abraham Ibn Ezra) expresses the idea with substantial accuracy. The likeness to divinity actually acquired is not equality with Yahwe (see Gunkel on verse ²²).――_knowing good and evil_] See page 95 ff.――“The facts are all, in the view of the narrator, correctly stated by the serpent; he has truly represented the mysterious virtue of the tree; knowledge really confers equality with God (3²²); and it is also true that death does not immediately follow the act of eating. But at the same time the serpent insinuates a certain construction of these facts: God is envious, inasmuch as He grudges the highest good to man:――φθονερὸν τὸ θεῖον, an antique sentiment familiar to us from the Greeks” (Gunkel).――=6.= The spiritual part of the temptation is now accomplished, and the serpent is silent, leaving the fascination of sense to do the rest. The woman looks on the tree with new eyes; she observes how attractive to taste and sight its fruit seems, and how desirable _for obtaining insight_ (so most) or _to contemplate_ (LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå; so Tuch, Gesenius, Delitzsch, Gunkel, al.). The second translation is the more suitable――for how could she tell by sight that the fruit would impart wisdom?――although the verb is not elsewhere used in Hebrew for mere looking (_v.i._).――_gave also to her husband_] “The process in the man’s case was no doubt the same as that just described, the woman taking the place of the serpent” (Bennett). That Adam sinned with his eyes open in order not to be separated from his wife has been a common idea both among Jews and Christians (_Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Milton, etc.), but is not true to the intention of the narrative.――=7.= _the eyes ... opened_] The prediction of the serpent is so far fulfilled; but the change fills them with guilty fear and shame.――_they knew that they were naked_] The new sense of shame is spoken of as a sort of _Werthurtheil_ passed by the awakened intelligence on the empirical fact of being unclothed. A connexion between sexual shame and sin (Dillmann) is not suggested by the passage, and is besides not true to experience. But to infer from this single effect that the forbidden fruit had aphrodisiac properties (see Barton, _A Sketch of Semitic Origins_¹, 93 ff.; Gressmann, page 356) is a still greater perversion of the author’s meaning; he merely gives this as an example of the new range of knowledge acquired by eating of the tree. It is the kind of knowledge which comes with maturity to all,――the transition “from the innocence of childhood into the knowledge which belongs to adult age” (Driver).――_foliage of the fig-tree_] To the question, Why fig-leaves in particular? the natural answer is that these, if not very suitable for the purpose, were yet the most suitable that the flora of Palestine could suggest (Dillmann, Driver, Bennett, al.). An allusion to the so-called fig-tree of Paradise, a native of India (probably the plantain), is on every ground improbable;――“ein geradezu philisterhafter Einfall” (Budde). For allegorical interpretations of the fig-leaves, see Lagarde, _Mittheilungen_ i. 73 ff., who adds a very original and fantastic one of his own.

* * * * *

=1.= והנחש היה] The usual order of words when a new subject is
introduced, Gesenius-Kautzsch § 142 _d_; Davidson § 105.――ערום]
LXX φρονιμώτατος, Aquila, Theodotion πανοῦργος, Symmachus
πανουργότερος Vulgate _callidior_. The good sense (which appears
to be secondary, compare Arabic _‛arama_ = ‘be ill-natured’) is
confined to Proverbs; elsewhere (Job 5¹² 15⁵) it means ‘crafty,’
‘wily.’ The same distinction is observed in all forms of the √
except that in Job 5¹³ עֹרֶם has the good sense. The resemblance
to ערומים in 2²⁵ is perhaps accidental.――ויאמר LXX, Peshiṭtå +
הנחש.――אף כי] as a compound particple generally means ‘much more
(or less),’ ‘not to mention,’ etc., as in 1 Samuel 14³⁰, 1 Kings
8²⁷, Proverbs 11³¹ etc. In some cases the simple אף has this
sense, and the כי (= ‘when,’ ‘if’) introduces the following
clause (1 Samuel 23³, 2 Samuel 4¹⁰ ᶠᐧ etc.). It would be easy
to retain this sense in verse ¹ (‘How much more _when_ God
has said,’ etc.), if we might assume with many commentaries
that some previous conversation had taken place; but that is
an unwarrantable assumption. The rendering on which Driver
(Brown-Driver-Briggs) bases the ordinary meaning of אף כי――‘_’Tis
indeed that_’――requires but a slight interrogative inflexion of
the voice to yield the shade of meaning given above: ‘So it is
the case that God,’ etc.? The versions all express a question:
LXX τί ὅτι, Aquila μὴ ὅτι, Symmachus πρὸς τί, Vulgate _cur_,
Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ בקושטא (= ‘really’?).――לא
... מכל] = ‘not of any’: Gesenius-Kautzsch § 152 _b_.――=2.= מפרי]
LXX מִכֹּל, Peshiṭtå מפרי כל.――=3.= ומפרי] Not ‘concerning the tree.’
There is an _anakolouthon_ at אמר אלהים, and the emphatically
placed מפרי is resumed by ממנו.――העץ] _The Samaritan Recension of
the Pentateuch_ + הַזָּה.――תמתון] On the ending, see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§§ 47 _m_, 72 _u_.――=4.= לא מות תמתון] On the unusual order, see
Davidson § 86 (_b_); Gesenius-Kautzsch § 113 _v_. It is often
explained as a negation of the threat in 2¹⁷, adopting the same
form of words; but the phrase had not been used by the woman,
and the exact words are _not_ repeated. More probably its effect
is to concentrate the emphasis on the negative participle rather
than on the verbal idea (compare Amos 9⁸, Psalms 49⁸).――=5.=
כאלהים] LXX ὡς θεοί, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ כרברבין.――=6.= העץ²] LXX Vulgate
omitted.――להשכיל] LXX κατανοῆσαι, Vulgate _adspectu_, and
Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) all take the verb as verb of sight;
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ לאסתכלא ביה is indeterminate (see Levy, _Chaldäisches
Wörterbuch über die Targumim und Midraschim_ 163 a). In Old
Testament the word is used of mental _vision_ (insight, or
attentive consideration: Deuteronomy 32²⁹, Psalms 41², Proverbs
21¹² etc.); in New Hebrew and Aramaic it means ‘to look at,’
but only in Hithpael (Ithp.). On the other view the Hiph. is
intransitive (= ‘for acquiring wisdom’: Psalms 94⁸) rather
than causative (= ‘to impart wisdom’: Psalms 32⁸ etc.).――Gunkel
considers the clause ונחמד העץ לה׳ a variant from another
source.――ותקח] LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ + האשׁה.――ויאכל] _The Samaritan Recension
of the Pentateuch_, LXX ויאכלו.――=7.= עירמים] See on 2²⁵.――עלה]
collectively; but some MSS and _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_ have עֲלֵי.

* * * * *

8‒13.
The inquest.

Thus far the narrative has dealt with what may be called the natural (magical) effects of the eating of the tree――the access of enlightenment, and the disturbance thus introduced into the relations of the guilty pair to each other. The ethical aspect of the offence comes to light in their first interview with Yahwe; and this is delineated with a skill hardly surpassed in the account of the temptation itself.――=8.= _they heard the sound_] קוֹל used of footsteps, as 2 Samuel 5²⁴, 1 Kings 14⁶, 2 Kings 6³²: compare Ezekiel 3¹² ᶠᐧ, Joel 2⁵.――_of Yahwe God as He walked_] The verb is used (Leviticus 26¹², Deuteronomy 23¹⁵, 2 Samuel 7⁶) of Yahwe’s majestic marching in the midst of Israel; but it mars the simplicity of the representation if (with Delitzsch) we introduce that idea here.――_in the cool_ (literally ‘at the breeze’) _of the day_] _i.e._ towards evening, when in Eastern lands a refreshing wind springs up (compare Canticles 2¹⁷ 4⁶: but _v.i._), and the master, who has kept his house or tent during the ‘heat of the day’ (18¹), can walk abroad with comfort (24⁶³). Such, we are led to understand, was Yahwe’s daily practice; and the man and woman had been wont to meet Him with the glad confidence of innocence. But on this occasion they _hid themselves, etc._――=9.= _Where art thou?_] (compare 4⁹). The question expresses ignorance; it is not omniscience that the writer wishes to illustrate, but the more impressive attribute of sagacity.――=10.= _I feared ... naked_] With the instinctive cunning of a bad conscience, the man hopes to escape complete exposure by acknowledging part of the truth; he alleges nakedness as the ground of his fear, putting fear and shame in a false causal connexion (Holzinger).――=11.= _Hast thou eaten, etc.?_] All unwittingly he has disclosed his guilty secret: he has shown himself possessed of a knowledge which could only have been acquired in one way.――=12.= The man cannot even yet bring himself to make a clean breast of it; but with a quaint mixture of cowardice and effrontery he throws the blame directly on the woman, and indirectly on God who gave her to him.――=13.= The woman in like manner exculpates herself by pleading (truly enough) that she had been deceived by the serpent.――The whole situation is now laid bare, and nothing remains but to pronounce sentence. No question is put to the serpent, because his evil motive is understood: he has acted just as might have been expected of him. Calvin says, “the _beast_ had no sense of sin, and the _devil_ no hope of pardon.”

* * * * *

=8.= מתהלך] accusative of condition: Davidson § 70 (_a_).――לרוח היום]
LXX τὸ δειλινόν, Vulgate _ad auram post meridiem_, Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac phrase), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ למנח יומא. On this use of לְ
(= ‘towards’), see Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._ 6 a; and compare
8¹¹ 17²¹, Isaiah 7¹⁵, Job 24¹⁴. With רוח compare Arabic _rawāḥ_
= _tempus vespertinum_. Jewish exegesis (_Bereshith Rabba_)
and Calvin suppose the morning (sea) breeze to be meant, as is
probably the case in Canticles 2¹⁷ 4⁶, and would seem more in
accordance with Palestinian conditions. But it is manifestly
improbable here.――עץ] collectively, as often. LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ
omitted.――=9.= איכה] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 100 _o_. LXX supplies
‘Adam’ before, and Peshiṭtå after, the interrogative.――=10.=
שׁמעתי] LXX + περιπατοῦντος (as verse ⁸).――=11.= לבלתי] See
Gesenius-Kautzsch § 114 _s_.――Before μὴ φαγεῖν LXX has τούτου
μόνου.――=13.= מה־זאת] So commonly with עשה; with other verbs מה־זה
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 136 _c_; Davidson § 7 (_c_)).

* * * * *

14‒19.
Significance of the Fall.

This section contains the key to the significance of the story of the Fall. It is the first example of a frequently recurring motive of the Genesis narratives, the idea, viz., that the more perplexing facts in the history of men and peoples are the working out of a doom or ‘weird’ pronounced of old under divine inspiration, or (as in this case) by the Almighty Himself: see 4¹⁵ 8²¹ ᶠᶠ 9²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 16¹² 27²⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ ³⁹ ᶠᐧ 48¹⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ, chapter 49; compare Numbers 23 f., Deuteronomy 33. Here certain fixed adverse conditions of the universal human lot are traced back to a primæval curse uttered by Yahwe in consequence of man’s first transgression. See, further, page 95 below.――The form of the oracles is poetic; but the structure is irregular, and no definite metrical scheme can be made out.