Chapter XI: Introduction (9)

=14, 15. The curse on the serpent= is legible, partly in its degraded form and habits (¹⁴), and partly in the deadly feud between it and the human race (¹⁵).――=14.= _on thy belly, etc._] The assumption undoubtedly is that originally the serpent moved erect, but not necessarily that its organism was changed (_e.g._ by cutting off its legs, etc. _Rabbis_). As a matter of fact most snakes have the power of erecting a considerable part of their bodies; and in mythological representations the serpent often appears in the upright position (Bennett). The idea probably is that this was its original posture: how it was maintained was perhaps not reflected upon.――_dust shalt thou eat_] Compare Micah 7¹⁷, Isaiah 65²⁵. It is a prosaic explanation to say that the serpent, crawling on the ground, inadvertently swallows a good deal of dust (Bochart _Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ_ iii. 245; Dillmann, al.); and a mere metaphor for humiliation (like Assyrian _ti-ka-lu ip-ra_; _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 232 f.) is too weak a sense for this passage. Probably it is a piece of ancient superstition, like the Arabian notion that the _ǧinn_ eat dirt (Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 150).――_all the days of thy life_] i.e. _each_ serpent as long as it lives, and the _race_ of serpents as long as it lasts. It is not so certain as most commentaries seem to think that these words exclude the demonic character of the serpent. It is true that the punishment of a morally irresponsible agent was recognised in Hebrew jurisprudence (9⁵, Exodus 21²⁸ ᶠᐧ, Leviticus 20¹⁵ ᶠᐧ). But it is quite possible that here (as in verse ¹⁵) the archetypal serpent is conceived as re-embodied in all his progeny, as acting and suffering in each member of the species.――=15.= The serpent’s attempt to establish unholy fellowship with the woman is punished by implacable and undying enmity between them.¹――_thy seed and her seed_] The whole brood of serpents, and the whole race of men.――_He shall bruise thee on the head, etc._] In the first clause the subject (הוּא) is the ‘seed’ of the woman individualised (or collectively), in the second (אַתָּה) it is the serpent himself, acting through his ‘seed.’ The current reading of Vulgate (_ipsa_) may have been prompted by a feeling that the proper antithesis to the serpent is the woman herself. The general meaning of the sentence is clear: in the war between men and serpents the former will crush the head of the foe, while the latter can only wound in the heel. The difficulty is in the verb שׁוּף, which in the sense ‘bruise’ is inappropriate to the serpent’s mode of attack. We may speak of a serpent _striking_ a man (as in Latin _feriri a serpente_), but hardly of _bruising_. Hence many commentaries (following LXX al.) take the verb as a by-form of שָׁאַף (strictly ‘pant’), in the sense of ‘be eager for,’ ‘aim at’ (Gesenius, Ewald, Dillmann, al.); while others (Gunkel al.) suppose that by paronomasia the word means ‘bruise’ in the first clause, and ‘aim at’ in the second. But it may be questioned whether this idea is not even less suitable than the other (Driver). A perfectly satisfactory interpretation cannot be given (_v.i._).

¹ “Fit enim arcano naturæ sensu ut ab ipsis abhorreat
homo” (Calvin). Compare (with Bochart _Hierozoicon, sive
bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacræ Scripturæ_ iii. 250)
“quam dudum dixeras te odisse æque atque angues” (Plautus,
_Mercator_ 4); and ἐκ παιδὸς τὸν ψυχρὸν ὄφιν τὰ μάλιστα
δέδοικα (Theocritus _Idyll_ 15).

The Messianic interpretation of the ‘seed of the woman’
appears in Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ and Targum Jerome, where the verse
is explained of the Jewish community and its victory over the
devil “in the days of King Messiah.” The reference to the person
of Christ was taught by Irenæus, but was never so generally
accepted in the Church as the kindred idea that the serpent
is the instrument of Satan. Mediæval exegetes, relying on the
_ipsa_ of the Vulgate, applied the expression directly to the
Virgin Mary; and even Luther, while rejecting this reference,
recognised an allusion to the virgin birth of Christ. In
Protestant theology this view gave way to the more reasonable
view of Calvin, that the passage is a promise of victory over
the devil to mankind, united in Christ its divine Head. That
even this goes beyond the original meaning of the verse is
admitted by most modern expositors; and indeed it is doubtful if,
from the standpoint of strict historical exegesis, the passage
can be regarded as in any sense a _Protevangelium_. Dillmann
(with whom Driver substantially agrees) finds in the words
the idea of man’s vocation to ceaseless moral warfare with the
‘serpent-brood’ of sinful thoughts, and an implicit promise of
the ultimate destruction of the evil power. That interpretation,
however, is open to several objections. (1) A message of
hope and encouragement in the midst of a series of curses and
punishments is not to be assumed unless it be clearly implied in
the language. It would be out of harmony with the tone not only
of the Paradise story, but of the Yahwistic sections of chapters
1‒11 as a whole: it is not till we come to the patriarchal
history that the “note of promise and of hope” is firmly struck.
(2) To the mind of the narrator, the serpent is no more a symbol
of the power of evil or of temptation than he is an incarnation
of the devil. He is himself an evil creature, perhaps a demonic
creature transmitting his demonic character to his progeny, but
there is no hint that he represents a principle of evil apart
from himself. (3) No victory is promised to either party, but
only perpetual warfare between them: the order of the clauses
making it specially hard to suppose that the victory of man
was contemplated. Dillmann admits that no such assurance is
expressed; but finds it in the general tenor of the passage: “a
conflict ordained by God cannot be without prospect of success.”
But that is really to beg the whole question in dispute. If
it be said that the words, being part of the sentence on the
serpent, must mean that he is ultimately to be defeated, it
may be answered that the curse on the serpent is the enmity
established between him and the human race, and that the feud
between them is simply the manifestation and proof of that
antagonism.――It is thus possible that in its primary intention
the oracle reflects the protest of ethical religion against the
unnatural fascination of snake-worship. It is psychologically
true that the instinctive feelings which lie at the root of the
worship of serpents are closely akin to the hatred and loathing
which the repulsive reptile excites in the healthy human mind;
and the transformation of a once sacred animal into an object
of aversion is a not infrequent phenomenon in the history
of religion (see Gressman _l.c._ 360). The essence of the
temptation is that the serpent-demon has tampered with the
religious instinct in man by posing as his good genius, and
insinuating distrust of the goodness of God; and his punishment
is to find himself at eternal war with the race whom he has
seduced from their allegiance to their Creator. And that
is very much the light in which serpent-worship must have
appeared to a believer in the holy and righteous God of the
Old Testament.――The conjecture of Gunkel, that originally the
‘seed of the woman’ and the ‘seed of the serpent’ may have been
mythological personages (compare _Das Alte Testament im Lichte
des alten Orients_², 217 f.), even if confirmed by Assyriology,
would have little bearing on the thought of the biblical narrator.

* * * * *

=14.= מכל] On this use of מן (= _e numero_), see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 119 _w_, and compare Exodus 19⁵, Deuteronomy 14² 33²⁴,
Judges 5²⁴ etc. Stade’s argument (_Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xvii. 209) for deleting מכל הבהמה ו,
on the ground that the serpent belongs to the category of
חית השדה but not to בהמה, is logical, but hardly convincing.――גחון]
Probably from √ גחן (Aramaic) = ‘curve’ or ‘bend’ (Delitzsch,
Brown-Driver-Briggs), occurs again only Leviticus 11⁴², of
reptiles. Vulgate renders _pectus_, LXX combines στῆθος and
κοιλία.――=15.= זֶרַע] in the sense of ‘offspring,’ is nearly always
collective. In a few cases where it is used of an individual
child (4²⁵{?} 21¹³, 1 Samuel 1¹¹) it denotes the immediate
offspring as the pledge of posterity, never a remote descendant
(see Nöldeke _Archiv für Religionswissenschaft._, viii. 164
ff.). The Messianic application therefore is not justified in
grammar.――הוא] the rendering _ipsa_ (Vulgate) is said not to be
found in the Fathers before Ambrose and Augustine (Zapletal,
_ATliches_, 19). Jerome at all events knew that _ipse_ should
be read.――ישופך ... תשופנו] The form שוף recurs only Job 9¹⁷, Psalms
139¹¹, and, in both, text and meaning are doubtful. In Aramaic
and New Hebrew the √ (ע״ו or ע״ע) has the primary sense of ‘rub,’
hence ‘wear down by rubbing’ = ‘crush’; in Syriac it also means
to crawl. There are a few examples of a tendency of ע״ו verbs to
strengthen themselves by insertion of א (König i. 439), and it
is often supposed that in certain passages (Ezekiel 36³, Amos
2⁷ 8⁴, Psalms 56²ᐧ ³ 57⁴) שׁוף is disguised under the by-form שׁאף.
But the only places where the assumption is at all necessary are
Amos 2⁷ 8⁴, where the א may be simply _mater lectionis_ for the
_â_ of the participle (compare וְקָאם, Hosea 10¹⁴); in the other
cases the proper sense of שָׁאַף ‘pant’ or metaphor ‘long for’)
suffices. The reverse process (substitution of שוף for שאף) is
much less likely; and the only possible instance would be Job
9¹⁷, which is too uncertain to count for anything. There is
thus not much ground for supposing a confusion in this verse;
and Delitzsch points out that verbs of hostile _endeavour_,
as distinct from hostile achievement הכּה, רצח, etc.), are never
construed with double accusative. The gain in sense is so
doubtful that it is better to adhere to the meaning ‘crush.’
The old versions felt the difficulty and ambiguity. The idea of
crushing is represented by Aquila προστρίψει, Symmachus θλίψει,
LXXᶜᵒᵈᵉˣ ᶜᵒⁱˢˡⁱⁿⁱᵃⁿᵘˢ τρίψει (see Field) and Jerome (_Quæstiones
sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_) _conterere_; ‘pant
after’ by LXXᴬ ᵃˡᐧ τηρήσει[ς] (if not a mistake for τρήσει[ς] or
τειρήσει[ς]). A double sense is given by Vulgate _conteret ...
insidiaberis_, and perhaps Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase); while
Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ paraphrases: הוא יהא דכיר מה דעבדת ליה מלקדמין ואת תהי נטר ליה לסופא.

* * * * *

=16. The doom of the woman=: consisting in the hardships incident to her sex, and social position in the East. The pains of childbirth, and the desire which makes her the willing slave of the man, impressed the ancient mind as at once mysterious and unnatural; therefore to be accounted for by a curse imposed on woman from the beginning.――_I will multiply, etc._] More strictly, ‘I will cause thee to have much suffering and pregnancy’ (see Davidson § 3, _R._ (2)). It is, of course, not an intensification of pain to which she is already subject that is meant.――For הֵרֹנַךְ, LXX read some word meaning ‘groaning’ (_v.i._); but to prefer this reading on the ground that Hebrew women esteemed frequent pregnancy a blessing (Gunkel) makes a too general statement. It is better (with Holzinger) to assume a _hendiadys_: ‘the pain of thy conception’ (as in the explanatory clause which follows).――_in pain ... children_] The pangs of childbirth are proverbial in Old Testament for the extremity of human anguish (Isaiah 21³ 13⁸, Micah 4⁹, Psalms 48⁶, and often: Exodus 1¹⁹ cannot be cited to the contrary).――_to thy husband ... desire_] It is quite unnecessary to give up the rare but expressive תְּשׁוּקָה of the Hebrew for the weaker תְּשׁוּבָה of LXX, etc. (_v.i._). It is not, however, implied that the woman’s sexual desire is stronger than the man’s (Knobel, Gunkel); the point rather is that by the instincts of her nature she shall be bound to the hard conditions of her lot, both the ever-recurring pains of child-bearing, and subjection to the man.――_while he_ (on his part) _shall rule over thee_] The idea of tyrannous exercise of power does not lie in the verb; but it means that the woman is wholly subject to the man, and so liable to the arbitrary treatment sanctioned by the marriage customs of the East. It is noteworthy that to the writer this is not the ideal relation of the sexes (compare 2¹⁸ᐧ ²³). There is here certainly no trace of the matriarchate or of polyandry (see on 2²⁴).

* * * * *

=16.= אל] Read וְאֶל־, with _The Samaritan Recension of the
Pentateuch_, LXX, Peshiṭtå.――הרבה ארבה] So 16¹⁰ 22¹⁷. On the
irregular form of infinitive absolute, see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 75 ff.――עצבון] (3¹⁷) 5²⁹† [Yahwist]). LXX λύπας (= עַצְּבוֹתֵךְ
?).――והרנך] (√ הרה): _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_
והריונך (Ruth 4¹³, Hosea 9¹¹). Olshausen (_Monatsberichte der
Königlich-Preussischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin._,
1870, 380) conjecture בְּהריונך, to avoid the harsh use of וְ. LXX
τὸν στεναγμόν σου probably = הגיונך; יְגוֹנַךְ (‘sorrow’) has also been
suggested (Gunkel); and צָרָתֵךְ (Dillmann, Holzinger, al.). The
other versions follow Massoretic Text.――בעצב] _The Samaritan
Recension of the Pentateuch_ בעצבון; LXX likewise repeats ἐν
λύπαις.――תשוקה] Probably connected with Arabic _šauḳ_, ‘ardent
desire’ (Rahlfs “עָנִי _und_ עָנָו,” page 71); compare שקק, Isaiah 29⁸,
Psalms 107⁹. Aquila συνάφεια, Symmachus ὁρμή. Although it
recurs only 4⁷ and Canticles 7¹¹, it is found in New Hebrew
and should not be suspected. LXX ἡ ἀποστροφή σου and Peshiṭtå
(‡ Syriac word) point to the reading תְּשׁוּבָתֵךְ, preferred by many,
and defended by Nestle (_Marginalien und Materialien_, 6) as
a technical expression for the relation here indicated, on the
basis of LXX’s text of 2 Samuel 17³. His parallel between the
_return_ of the woman to her source (the man) and the return
of the man to _his_ source (the ground, verse ¹⁹) is perhaps
fanciful.

* * * * *

=17‒19. The man’s sentence.=――The hard, unremitting toil of the husbandman, wringing a bare subsistence from the grudging and intractable ground, is the standing evidence of a divine curse, resting, not, indeed, on man himself, but on the earth for his sake. Originally, it had provided him with all kinds of fruit good for food,――and this is the ideal state of things; now it yields nothing spontaneously but thorns and briars; bread to eat can only be extorted in the sweat of the brow,――and this is a curse: formerly man had been a gardener, now he is a _fellaḥ_. It does not appear that death itself is part of the curse. The name death is avoided; and the fact is referred to as part of the natural order of things,――the inevitable ‘return’ of man to the ground whence he was taken. The question whether man would have lived for ever if he had not sinned is one to which the narrative furnishes no answer (Gunkel).――=17.= _And to the man_] _v.i._ The sentence is introduced by a formal recital of the offence.――_Cursed is the ground_] As exceptional fertility was ascribed to a divine blessing (27²⁸ etc.), and exceptional barrenness to a curse (Isaiah 24⁶, Jeremiah 23¹⁰), so the relative unproductiveness of the whole earth in comparison with man’s expectations and ideals is here regarded as the permanent effect of a curse.――_in suffering_ (bodily fatigue and mental anxiety) _shalt thou eat_ [of] _it_] See 5²⁹. The ‘laborious work’ of the husbandman is referred to in Sirach 7¹⁵; but this is not the prevailing feeling of the Old Testament; and the remark of Knobel, that “agriculture was to the Hebrew a divine institution, but at the same time a heavy burden,” needs qualification. It is well to be reminded that “ancient Israel did not live constantly in the joy of the harvest festival” (Gunkel); but none the less it would be a mistake to suppose that it lived habitually in the mood of this passage.――=18.= _the herb of the field_] See on 1¹¹. The creation of this order of vegetation has not been recorded by Yahwist. Are we to suppose that it comes into existence simply in consequence of the earth’s diminished productivity caused by the curse? It seems implied at all events that the earth will not yield even this, except under the compulsion of human labour (see 2⁵).――=19.= _in the sweat of thy brow, etc._] A more expressive repetition of the thought of ¹⁷ᵇ{β}. The phrase _eat bread_ may mean ‘earn a livelihood’ (Amos 7¹²), but here it must be understood literally as the immediate reward of man’s toil.――_till thou return, etc._] hardly means more than ‘all the days of thy life’ (in verse ¹⁷). It is not a threat of death as the punishment of sin, and we have no right to say (with Dillmann) that verses ¹⁶⁻¹⁹ are simply an expansion of the sentence of 2¹⁷. That man was by nature immortal is not taught in this passage; and since the Tree of Life in verse ²² belongs to another recension, there is no evidence that the main narrative regarded even endless life as within man’s reach. The connexion of the closing words is rather with 2⁷: man was taken from the ground, and in the natural course will return to it again.――_and to dust, etc._] Compare Job 10⁹ 34¹⁵, Psalms 90³ 146⁴, Ecclesiastes 3²⁰ 12⁷ etc.: ἐκ γαίας βλαστὼν γαῖα πάλιν γέγονα.

The arrangement of the clauses in ¹⁷⁻¹⁹ is not very natural,
and the repeated variations of the same idea have suggested
the hypothesis of textual corruption or fusion of sources. In
_Jubilees_ iii. 25 the passage is quoted in an abridged form,
the line ‘Cursed ... sake’ being immediately followed by ‘Thorns
... to thee,’ and ¹⁸ᵇ, being omitted. This is, of course, a
much smoother reading, and leaves out nothing essential; but ¹⁷ᵇ
is guaranteed by 5²⁹. Holzinger rejects ¹⁸ᵇ, and to avoid the
repetition of אכל proposes תעבדנה instead of תאכלנה in ¹⁷. Gunkel
is satisfied with verse ¹⁷ ᶠᐧ as they stand, but assigns ¹⁹ᵃ{α}
(to לחם) and ¹⁹ᵇ to another source (Yahwistʲ), as doublets
respectively of ¹⁷ᵇ{β} and ¹⁹ᵃ{β}. This is perhaps on the whole
the most satisfactory analysis.――The poetic structure of the
verses, which might be expected to clear up a question of this
kind, is too obscure to afford any guidance. Sievers, _e.g._
(II. 10 f.) finds nothing, except in verse ¹⁹, to distinguish
the rhythm from that of the narrative in which it is embedded,
and all attempts at strophic arrangement are only tentative.

* * * * *

=17.= Point וְלָאדם; there is no conceivable reason why אדם should
be a proper name here (compare 2²⁰ 3²¹).――לאמר ... ממנו] LXX
reads τούτου μόνου (see verse ¹¹) μὴ φαγεῖν, ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ
ἔφαγες.――בעבורך] LXX (ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις σου), Symmachus, Vulgate
read בַּֽעֲבָדֶךָ, Theodotion ἐν τῇ παραβάσει σου (בְּעָבְרְךָ). The phrase
is characteristic of Yahwist; out of 22 instances in the
Hexateuch, only about 3 can be assigned to Elohist (none to
Priestly-Code).――תאכלנה] The government of direct accusative seems
harsh, but is not unexampled: see Jeremiah 36¹⁶.――=18.= LXX
omits initial וְ: so Vulgate _Jubilees_.――קוץ ודרדר] Hosea 10⁸; דרדר
occurs nowhere else in Old Testament. It is still used in Syria
(_dardār_) as a general name for thistles.――=19.= זעה] (√ יזע,
_waḏa‛a_) is ἅπαξ λεγόμενον; compare יָזַע, Ezekiel 44¹⁸.――לחם] LXX
_Jubilees_ לחמך.

* * * * *

20‒24.
The expulsion from Eden.

=20.= The naming of the woman can hardly have come in between the sentence and its execution, or before there was any experience of motherhood to suggest it. The attempts to connect the notice with the mention of child-bearing in ¹⁵ ᶠᐧ (Delitzsch al.), or with the thought of mortality in ¹⁹ (Knobel), are forced. The most suitable position in the present text would be before (so _Jubilees_ iii. 33) or after 4¹; and accordingly some regard it as a misplaced gloss in explanation of that verse. But when we consider (a) that the name _Ḥavvāh_ must in any case be traditional, (b) that it is a proper name, whereas הָאָדָם remains appellative throughout, and (c) that in the following verses there are unambiguous traces of a second recension of the Paradise story, it is reasonable to suppose that verse ²⁰ comes from that recension, and is a parallel to the naming of the woman in 2²³, whether it stands here in the original order or not. The fact that the name Eve has been preserved, while there is no distinctive name for the man, suggests that חוה is a survival from a more primitive theory of human origins in which the first mother represented the unity of the race.――_the mother of every living thing_] According to this derivation, חַוָּה would seem to denote first the idea of life, and then the source of life――the mother.¹ But the form חוה is not Hebrew, and the real meaning of the word is not settled by the etymology here given (_v.i._).――כָּל־חַי commonly includes all animals (8²¹ etc.), but is here restricted to mankind (as Psalms 143², Job 30²³). Compare however, πότνια θηρῶν, ‘Lady of wild things,’ a Greek epithet of the Earth-mother (Miss Harrison, _Prolegomena to the study of Greek Religion_ 264).――=21.= Another detached notice describing the origin of clothing. It is, of course, not inconsistent with verse ⁷, but neither can it be said to be the necessary sequel to that verse; most probably it is a parallel from another source.――_coats of skin_] “The simplest and most primitive kind of clothing in practical use” (Driver).

¹ So Baethgen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins_ 148,
who appends the note: “Im holsteinischen Plattdeutsch
ist ‘Dat Leben’ euphemistischer Ausdruck für das pudendum
muliebre”――a meaning by the way which also attaches to
Arabic _ḥayy_ (Lane, _An Arabic-English Lexicon_ 681 b).

An interesting question arises as to the connexion between this
method of clothing and the loss of pristine innocence. That
it exhibits God’s continued care for man even after the Fall
(Dillmann al.) may be true as regards the present form of the
legend; but that is hardly the original conception. In the
Phœnician legend of Usōos, the invention is connected with the
hunting of wild animals, and this again with the institution of
sacrifice: ... ὃς σκέπην τῷ σώματι πρῶτος ἐκ δερμάτων ὧν ἴσχυσε
συλλαβεῖν θηρίων εὗρε ... ἅμα τε σπένδειν αὐταῖς ἐξ ὧν ἤγρευε
θηρίων (_Præparatio Evangelica_ i. 10; Orelli, page 17 f.).
Since sacrifice and the use of animal food were inseparably
associated in Semitic antiquity, it may be assumed that this is
conceived as the first departure from the Golden Age, when men
lived on the spontaneous fruits of the earth. Similarly, William
Robertson Smith (_Lectures on the Religion of the Semites_², 306
ff.) found in the verse the Yahwistic theory of the introduction
of the sacrifice of _domestic_ animals, which thus coincided, as
in Greek legend, with the transition from the state of innocence
to the life of agriculture.

* * * * *

=20.= חוה] LXX Εὕα [Εὔα] (in 4¹), Aquila Αὖα, Vulgate _Heva_,
Jerome _Eva_ (English _Eve_); in this verse LXX translates
Ζωή, Symmachus Ζωογόνος. The similarity of the name to the
Aramaic word for ‘serpent’ (חַוֵּי, חִוְיָא, Syriac (‡ Syriac word),
Syro-Palestinian (‡ Syriac word) [Matthew 7¹⁰]); (compare Arabic
_ḥayyat_ from _ḥauyat_ [Nöldeke]) has always been noticed, and
is accepted by several modern scholars as a real etymological
equivalence (Nöldeke _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen
Gesellschaft_, xlii. 487; Stade _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_,
i. 633; Wellhausen _Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 154). The
ancient idea was that Eve was so named because she had done the
serpent’s work in tempting Adam (_Bereshith Rabba_; Philo, _De
Agricultura Noë_, 21; Clement of Alexandria _Protrepticus_ ii.
12. 1). Quite recently the philological equation has acquired
fresh significance from the discovery of the name חות on a leaden
Punic _tabella devotionis_ (described by Lidzbarski _Ephemeris_,
i. 26 ff.; see Cooke, _A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions_,
135), of which the first line reads: “O Lady _ḤVT_, goddess,
queen...!” Lidzbarski sees in this mythological personage a
goddess of the under-world, and as such a serpent-deity; and
identifies her with the biblical Ḥavvah. Ḥavvah would thus be a
‘depotentiated’ deity, whose prototype was a Phœnician goddess
of the Under-world, worshipped in the form of a serpent, and
bearing the title of ‘Mother of all living’ (see Gressman _l.c._
359 f.). Precarious as such combinations may seem, there is no
objection in principle to an explanation of the name Ḥavvah on
these lines. Besides the Ḥivvites of the Old Testament (who
were probably a serpent-tribe), Wellhausen cites examples of
Semitic princely families that traced their genealogy back to
a serpent. The substitution of human for animal ancestry, and
the transference of the animal name to the human ancestor, are
phenomena frequently observed in the transition from a lower to
a higher stage of religion. If the change took place while a law
of female descent still prevailed, the ancestry would naturally
be traced to a woman (or goddess); and when the law of male
kinship was introduced she would as naturally be identified with
the wife of the first man. It need hardly be said that all this,
while possibly throwing some light on the mythical background
of the biblical narrative, is quite apart from the religious
significance of the story of the Fall in itself.――אם כל־חי] William
Robertson Smith renders ‘mother of every _ḥayy_,’――_ḥayy_ being
the Arabic word which originally denoted a group of female
kinship. Thus “Eve is the personification of the bond of kinship
(conceived as exclusively mother-kinship), just as Adam is
simply ‘man,’ _i.e._ the personification of mankind” (_Kinship
and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 208). The interpretation has
found no support.――=21.= Point לָאָדָם, as in verse ¹⁷.

* * * * *

=22‒24. The actual expulsion.=――=22.= _Behold ... one of us_] This is no ‘ironica exprobatio’ (Calvin al.), but a serious admission that man has snatched a divine prerogative not meant for him. The feeling expressed (compare 11⁶) is akin to what the Greeks called the ‘envy of the gods,’ and more remotely to the Old Testament attribute of the zeal or jealousy of Yahwe,――His resentment of all action that encroaches on His divinity (see page 97). In verse ⁵ the same words are put in the mouth of the serpent with a distinct imputation of envy to God; and it is perhaps improbable that the writer of that verse would have justified the serpent’s insinuation, even in form, by a divine utterance. There are several indications (_e.g._ the phrase ‘like one of us’) that the secondary recension to which verse ²² belongs represents a cruder form of the legend than does the main narrative; and it is possible that it retains more of the characteristically pagan feeling of the envy of the gods.――_in respect of knowing, etc._] Man has not attained complete equality with God, but only God-likeness in this one respect. Gressman’s contention that the verse is self-contradictory (man has become like a god, and yet lacks the immortality of a god) is therefore unfounded.――_And now, etc._] There remains another divine attribute which man will be prompt to seize, viz. immortality: to prevent his thus attaining complete likeness to God he must be debarred from the Tree of Life. The expression _put forth his hand_ suggests that a single partaking of the fruit would have conferred eternal life (Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 52); and at least implies that it would have been an easy thing to do. The question why man had not as yet done so is not impertinent (Delitzsch), but inevitable; so momentous an issue could not have been left to chance in a continuous narrative. The obvious solution is that in this recension the Tree of Life was a (or _the_) forbidden tree, that man in his first innocence had respected the injunction, but that now when he knows the virtue of the tree he will not refrain from eating. It is to be observed that it is only in this part of the story that the idea of immortality is introduced, and that not as an essential endowment of human nature, but as contingent on an act which would be as efficacious after the Fall as before it.――On the _aposiopesis_ at the end of the verse, _v.i._――=23= is clearly a doublet of ²⁴; and the latter is the natural continuation of ²². Verse ²³ is a fitting conclusion to the main narrative, in which it probably followed immediately on verse ¹⁹.――=24.= _He drove out the man and made [him] dwell on the east of ... [and stationed] the Cherubim, etc._] This is the reading of LXX (_v.i._), and it gives a more natural construction than Massoretic Text, which omits the words in brackets. On either view the assumption is that the first abode of mankind was east of the garden. There is no reason to suppose that the verse represents a different tradition as to the site of Eden from 2⁸ or 2¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ. It is not said in 2⁸ that it was in the _extreme_ east, or in 2¹⁰ that it was in the extreme north; nor is it here implied that it was further west than Palestine. The account of the early migration of the race in 11² is quite consistent with the supposition that mankind entered the Euphrates valley from a region still further east.――_the Cherubim and the revolving sword-flame_] Literally ‘the flame of the whirling sword.’ It has usually been assumed that the sword was in the hand of one of the cherubim; but probably it was an independent symbol, and a representation of the lightning. Some light may be thrown on it by an inscription of Tiglath-pileser I. (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 36 f.), where the king says that when he destroyed the fortress of Ḫunusa he made ‘a lightning of bronze.’ The emblem appears to be otherwise unknown, but the allusion suggests a parallel to the ‘flaming sword’ of this passage.

=The Cherubim.=――See the notes of Dillmann, Gunkel, Driver;
_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 529 f., 631 ff.;
Cheyne in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 741 ff.; Jeremias _Das Alte
Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 218; Haupt, _The Sacred
Books of the Old Testament_, _Numbers_, 46; _Polychrome Bible_,
181 f.; Furtwängler, in Roscher’s _Ausführliches Lexikon der
griechischen und römischen Mythologie_ article GRYPS.――The
derivation of the word is uncertain. The old theory of a
connexion with γρύψ (_Greif_, griffin, etc.) is not devoid of
plausibility, but lacks proof. The often quoted statement of
Lenormant (_Les Origines de l’histoire_ i. 118), that _kirubu_
occurs on an amulet in the de Clercq collection as a name of
the winged bulls of Assyrian palaces, seems to be definitely
disproved (see Jeremias 218).――A great part of the Old Testament
symbolism could be explained from the hypothesis that the
Cherubim were originally wind-demons, like the Harpies of
Greek mythology (Harrison, _Prolegomena to the study of Greek
Religion_ 178 ff.). The most suggestive analogy to this verse
is perhaps to be found in the winged genii often depicted by
the side of the tree of life in Babylonian art. These figures
are usually human in form with human heads, but sometimes
combine the human form with an eagle’s head, and occasionally
the human head with an animal body. They are shown in the act
of fecundating the date-palm by transferring the pollen of the
male tree to the flower of the female; and hence it has been
conjectured that they are personifications of the winds, by
whose agency the fertilisation of the palm is effected in nature
(Tylor, _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, xii.
383 ff.). Starting with this clue, we can readily explain (1)
the function of the Cherub as the living chariot of Yahwe, or
bearer of the Theophany, in Psalms 18¹¹ (2 Samuel 22¹¹). It is
a personification of the storm-wind on which Yahwe rides, just
as the Babylonian storm-god Zû was figured as a bird-deity.
The theory that it was a personification of the thunder-cloud
is a mere conjecture based on Psalms 18¹¹ ᶠ, and has no
more intrinsic probability than that here suggested. (2) The
association of the winged figures with the Tree of Life in
Babylonian art would naturally lead to the belief that the
Cherubim were denizens of Paradise (Ezekiel 28¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶), and
guardians of the Tree (as in this passage). (3) Thence they came
to be viewed as guardians of sacred things and places generally,
like the composite figures placed at the entrances of Assyrian
temples and palaces to prevent the approach of evil spirits. To
this category belong probably in the first instance the colossal
Cherubim of Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 6²³ ᶠᶠᐧ 8⁶ ᶠᐧ), and the
miniatures on the lid of the ark in the Tabernacle (Exodus
25¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ etc.); but a trace of the primary conception appears
in the alternation of cherubim and _palm-trees_ in the temple
decoration (1 Kings 6²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ, Ezekiel 41¹⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ;; see, further, 1
Kings 7²⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ, Exodus 26¹ᐧ ³¹). (4) The most difficult embodiment
of the idea is found in the Cherubim of Ezekiel’s visions――four
composite creatures combining the features of the ox, the
lion, the man, and the eagle (Ezekiel 1⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ 10¹ ᶠᶠᐧ). These may
represent primarily the ‘four winds of heaven’; but the complex
symbolism of the _Merkābāh_ shows that they have some deeper
cosmic significance. Gunkel (page 20) thinks that an older form
of the representation is preserved in Apocalypse 4⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, where
the four animal types are kept distinct. These he connects
with the four constellations of the Zodiac which mark the four
quarters of the heavens: Taurus, Leo, Scorpio (in the earliest
astronomy a scorpion-_man_), and Aquila (near Aquarius). See
_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 631 f.

* * * * *

=22.= כאחד] Construct before preposition; Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 130 _a_.――מִמֶּנּוּ] The so-called oriental punctuation (which
distinguishes 1st plural from 3rd singular masculine suffix)
has מִמֵּנֿוּ, ‘from us’ (Baer-Delitzsch page 81). Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ
(יחידי בעלמא מינה) and Symmachus (ὁμοῦ ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ) treat the form
as 3rd singular: compare Rashi’s paraphrase: “alone below, as
I am alone above.”――לדעת] ‘in [respect of] knowing’: gerundial
infinitive; Davidson § 93; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 114 _o_; Driver
_A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew_ § 205.――The
pregnant use of פֶּן־ (= ‘I fear lest’) is common (Genesis 19¹⁹
26⁹ 38¹¹ 44³⁴, Exodus 13¹⁷ etc.). Here it is more natural to
assume an _anakolouthon_, the clause depending on a cohortative,
converted in verse ²³ into a historic tense.――גם] LXX, Peshiṭtå
omit.――=24.= LXX καὶ ἐξέβαλεν τὸν Ἀδὰμ καὶ κατῴκισεν αὐτὸν
ἀπέναντι τοῦ παραδείσου τῆς τρυφῆς, καὶ ἔταξεν τὰ χερουβὶν κτλ.
= ויגרש את־האדם וישכן מקדם לגן עדן וַיָּשֶׂם את־הכרובים וגו׳. Ball rightly adopts this
text, inserting אֹתוֹ after וישכן, against Yahwist’s usage. There is
no need to supply any pronoun object whatever: see 2¹⁹ 18⁷ 38¹⁸,
1 Samuel 19¹³ etc. For the first three words Peshiṭtå has simply
(‡ Syriac word), and for וישכן (‡ Syriac word) (with the cherubim,
etc., as object).――המתהפכת] Hithpael in the sense of ‘revolve,’
Judges 7¹³, Job 37¹²; in Job 38¹⁴ it means ‘be transformed.’

* * * * *

_The Origin and Significance of the Paradise Legend._

1. _Ethnic parallels._――The Babylonian version of the Fall of
man (if any such existed) has not yet been discovered. There
is in the British Museum a much-debated seal-cylinder which
is often cited as evidence that a legend very similar to the
biblical narrative was current in Babylonia. It shows two
completely clothed figures seated on either side of a tree,
and each stretching out a hand toward its fruit, while a
crooked line on the left of the picture is supposed to exhibit
the serpent.¹ The engraving no doubt represents some legend
connected with the tree of life; but even if we knew that it
illustrates the first temptation, the _story_ is still wanting;
and the details of the picture show that it can have had very
little resemblance to Genesis 3.――The most that can be claimed
is that there are certain remote parallels to particular
features or ideas of Genesis 2⁴‒3²⁴, which are yet sufficiently
close to suggest that the ultimate source of the biblical
narrative is to be sought in the Babylonian mythology. Attention
should be directed to the following:――

¹ Reproduced in Smith’s _Chaldean Genesis_, 88; Delitzsch
_Babel und Bibel_ (M‘Cormack’s translation, page 48); _Das
Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_², 203, etc.
Jeremias has satisfied himself that the zigzag line _is_
a snake, but is equally convinced that the snake cannot be
tempting a man and a woman to eat the fruit.

(a) The _account of Creation_ in 2⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ has undoubted
resemblances to the Babylonian document described on page 47 f.,
though they are hardly such as to prove dependence. Each starts
with a vision of chaos, and in both the prior existence of
heaven and earth seems to be assumed; although the Babylonian
chaos is a waste of waters, while that of Genesis 2⁵ ᶠᐧ is based
rather on the idea of a waterless desert (see page 56 above).
The _order_ of creation, though not the same, is alike in its
promiscuous and unscientific character: in the Babylonian we
have a hopeless medley――mankind, beasts of the field, living
things of the field, Tigris and Euphrates, verdure of the
field, grass, marshes, reeds, wild-cow, ewe, sheep of the
fold, orchards, forests, houses, and cities, etc. etc.――but no
separate creation of woman.――The creation of _man_ from earth
moistened by the blood of a god, in another document, may be
instanced as a distant parallel to 2⁷ (pages 42, 45).

(b) The _legend of Eabani_, embedded in the Gilgameš-Epic
(Tablet I. Column ii. line 33 ff.: _Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, vi. 1, page 120 ff.), seems to present us (it has
been thought) with a ‘type of primitive man.’ Eabani, created as
a rival to Gilgameš by the goddess Aruru from a lump of clay, is
a being of gigantic strength who is found associating with the
wild animals, living their life, and foiling all the devices
of the huntsman. Eager to capture him, Gilgameš sends with the
huntsman a harlot, by whose attractions he hopes to lure Eabani
from his savagery. Eabani yields to her charms, and is led, a
willing captive, to the life of civilisation:

When she speaks to him, her speech pleases him,
One who knows his heart he seeks, a friend.

But later in the epic, the harlot appears as the cause of his
sorrows, and Eabani curses her with all his heart. Apart from
its present setting, and considered as an independent bit of
folk-lore, it cannot be denied that the story has a certain
resemblance to Genesis 2¹⁸⁻²⁴. Only, we may be sure that if
the idea of sexual intercourse with the beasts be implied in
the picture of Eabani, the moral purity of the Hebrew writer
never stooped so low (see Jastrow, _American Journal of Semitic
Languages and Literatures_, xv. 198 ff.; Stade, _Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xxiii. 174 f.).

(c) Far more instructive affinities with the inner motive
of the story of the Fall are found in the myth of _Adapa and
the South-wind_, discovered amongst the Tel-Amarna Tablets,
and therefore known in Palestine in the 15th century B.C.
(_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 92‒101). Adapa, the
son of the god Ea, is endowed by him with the fulness of divine
wisdom, but denied the gift of immortality:

“Wisdom I gave him, immortality I gave him not.”

While plying the trade of a fisherman on the Persian Gulf, the
south-wind overwhelms his bark, and in revenge Adapa breaks
the wings of the south-wind. For this offence he is summoned by
Anu to appear before the assembly of the gods in heaven; and Ea
instructs him how to appease the anger of Anu. Then the gods,
disconcerted by finding a mortal in possession of their secrets,
resolve to make the best of it, and to admit him fully into
their society, by conferring on him immortality. They offer
him food of life that he may eat, and water of life that he may
drink. But Adapa had previously been deceived by Ea, who did
not wish him to become immortal. Ea had said that what would
be offered to him would be food and water of death, and had
strictly cautioned him to refuse. He did refuse, and so missed
immortal life. Anu laments over his infatuated refusal:

“Why, Adapa! Wherefore hast thou not eaten,
not drunken, so that
Thou wilt not live...?” “Ea, my lord,
Commanded, ‘Eat not and drink not!’”
“Take him and bring him back to his earth!”

This looks almost like a travesty of the leading ideas of
Genesis 3; yet the common features are very striking. In both
we have the idea that wisdom and immortality combined constitute
equality with deity; in both we have a man securing the first
and missing the second; and in both the man is counselled in
opposite directions by supernatural voices, and acts on that
advice which is contrary to his interest. There is, of course,
the vital difference that while Yahwe forbids both wisdom and
immortality to man, Ea confers the first (and thus far plays
the part of the biblical serpent) but withholds the second, and
Anu is ready to bestow both. Still, it is not too much to expect
that a story like this will throw light on the mythological
antecedents of the Genesis narrative, if not directly on that
narrative itself (see below, page 94).

What is true of Babylonian affinities holds good in a lesser
degree of the ancient mythologies as a whole: everywhere we find
echoes of the Paradise myth, but nowhere a story which forms
an exact parallel to Genesis 2. 3. The Græco-Roman traditions
told of a ‘golden age,’ lost through the increasing sinfulness
of the race,――an age when the earth freely yielded its fruits,
and men lived in a happiness undisturbed by toil or care or sin
(Hesiod, _Opera et Dies_, 90‒92, 109‒120; Ovid, _Metamorphoses_
i. 89‒112, etc.); but they knew nothing of a sudden fall. Indian
and Persian mythologies told, in addition, of sacred mountains
where the gods dwelt, with bright gold and flashing gems, and
miraculous trees conferring immortality, and every imaginable
blessing; and we have seen that similar representations
were current in Babylonia. The nearest approach to definite
counterparts of the biblical narrative are found in Iranian
legends, where we read of Meshia and Meshiane, who lived at
first on fruits, but who, tempted by Ahriman, denied the good
god, lost their innocence, and practised all kinds of wickedness;
or of Yima, the ruler of the golden age, under whom there was
neither sickness nor death, nor hunger nor thirst, until (in one
tradition) he gave way to pride, and fell under the dominion of
the evil serpent Dahaka (see Dillmann page 47 ff.). But these
echoes are too faint and distant to enable us to determine the
quarter whence the original impulse proceeded, or where the myth
assumed the form in which it appears in Genesis. For answers
to these questions we are dependent mainly on the uncertain
indications of the biblical narrative itself. Some features (the
name _Ḥavvah_ [page 85 f.], and elements of chapter 4) seem to
point to Phœnicia as the quarter whence this stratum of myth
entered the religion of Israel; others (the Paradise-geography)
point rather to Babylonia, or at least Mesopotamia. In the
present state of our knowledge it is a plausible conjecture
that the myth has travelled from Babylonia, and reached
Israel through the Phœnicians or the Canaanites (Wellhausen
_Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 307; Gressman _Archiv für
Religionswissenschaft._, x. 345 ff.; compare Bevan, _The Journal
of Theological Studies_, iv. 500 f.). A similar conclusion
might be drawn from the contradiction in the idea of chaos, if
the explanation given above of 2⁶ be correct: it looks as if
the cosmogony of an alluvial region had been modified through
transference to a dry climate (see page 56). The fig-leaves of
3⁷ are certainly not Babylonian; though a single detail of that
kind cannot settle the question of origin. But until further
light comes from the monuments, all speculations on this subject
are very much in the air.

2. _The mythical substratum of the narrative._――The strongest
evidence of the non-Israelite origin of the story of the
Fall is furnished by the biblical account itself, in the many
mythological conceptions, of which traces still remain in
Genesis. “The narrative,” as Driver says, “contains features
which have unmistakable counterparts in the religious traditions
of other nations; and some of these, though they have been
accommodated to the spirit of Israel’s religion, carry
indications that they are not native to it” (_The Book of
Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 51). Amongst the features
which are at variance with the standpoint of Hebrew religion we
may put first of all the fact that the abode of Yahwe is placed,
not in Canaan or at Mount Sinai, but in the far East. The
strictly mythological background of the story emerges chiefly
in the conceptions of the garden of the gods (see page 57 f.),
the trees of life and of knowledge (page 59), the serpent (page
72 f.), Eve (page 85 f.), and the Cherubim (page 89 f.). It
is true, as has been shown, that each of these conceptions is
rooted in the most primitive ideas of Semitic religion; but it
is equally true that they have passed through a mythological
development for which the religion of Israel gave no opportunity.
Thus the association of trees and serpents in Semitic folk-lore
is illustrated by an Arabian story, which tells how, when an
untrodden thicket was burned down, the spirits of the trees made
their escape in the shape of white serpents (_Lectures on the
Religion of the Semites_², 133); but it is quite clear that a
long interval separates that primitive superstition from the
ideas that invest the serpent and the tree in this passage.
If proof were needed, it would be found in the suggestive
combinations of the serpent and the tree in Babylonian and
Phœnician art; or in the fabled garden of the Hesperides, with
its golden fruit guarded by a dragon, always figured in artistic
representations as a huge snake coiled round the trunk of
the tree (compare Lenormant, _Les Origines de l’Histoire_, i.
93 f.: see the illustrations in Roscher, _Ausführliches Lexikon
der griechischen und römischen Mythologie_ 2599 f.). How the
various elements were combined in the particular myth which lies
immediately behind the biblical narrative, it is impossible to
say; but the myth of Adapa suggests at least some elements of a
possible construction, which cannot be very far from the truth.
Obviously we have to do with a polytheistic legend, in which
rivalries and jealousies between the different deities are
almost a matter of course. The serpent is himself a demon; and
his readiness to initiate man in the knowledge of the mysterious
virtue of the forbidden tree means that he is at variance
with the other gods, or at least with the particular god who
had imposed the prohibition. The intention of the command
was to prevent man from sharing the life of the gods; and the
serpent-demon, posing as the good genius of man, defeats that
intention by revealing to man the truth (similarly Gunkel 30).
To the original heathen myth we may also attribute the idea of
the envy of the gods, which the biblical narrator hardly avoids,
and the note of weariness and melancholy, the sombre view
of life,――the ‘scheue heidnische Stimmung,’――which is the
ground-tone of the passage.

It is impossible to determine what, in the original myth, was
the nature of the tree (or trees) which man was forbidden to eat.
Gressman (_l.c._ 351 ff.) finds in the passage traces of three
primitive conceptions: (1) the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil, whose fruit imparts the knowledge of magic,――the only
knowledge of which it can be said that it makes man at once the
equal and the rival of the deity; (2) the tree of knowledge,
whose fruit excites the sexual appetite and destroys childlike
innocence (3⁷); (3) the tree of life, whose fruit confers
immortality (3²²). The question is immensely complicated by the
existence of two recensions, which do not seem so hopelessly
inseparable as Gressman thinks. In the main recension we have
the tree of knowledge, of which man eats to his hurt, but no
hint of a tree of life. In the secondary recension there is
the tree of life (of which man does not eat), and _apparently_
the tree of knowledge of which he had eaten; but this depends
on the word גַּם in 3²², which is wanting in LXX, and may be an
interpolation. Again, the statement that knowledge of good and
evil really amounts to equality with God, is found only in the
second recension; in the other it is doubtful if the actual
effect of eating the fruit was not a cruel disappointment of
the hope held out by the serpent. How far we are entitled to
read the ideas of the one into the other is a question we cannot
answer. Eerdmans’ ingenious but improbable theory (_Theologisch
Tijdschrift_, xxxix. 504 ff.) need not here be discussed. What
is meant by knowledge of good and evil in the final form of the
narrative will be considered under the next head.

3. _The religious ideas of the passage._――Out of such crude
and seemingly unpromising material the religion of revelation
has fashioned the immortal allegory before us. We have now
to inquire what are the religious and moral truths under the
influence of which the narrative assumed its present form,
distinguishing as far as possible the ideas which it originally
conveyed from those which it suggested to more advanced
theological speculation.

(1) We observe, in the first place, that the ætiological motive
is strongly marked throughout. The story gives an explanation of
many of the facts of universal experience,――the bond between man
and wife (2²⁴), the sense of shame which accompanies adolescence
(3⁷), the use of clothing (3²¹), the instinctive antipathy to
serpents (3¹⁵). But chiefly it seeks the key to the darker side
of human existence as seen in a simple agricultural state of
society,――the hard toil of the husbandman, the birth-pangs of
the woman, and her subjection to the man. These are evils which
the author feels to be contrary to the ideal of human nature,
and to the intention of a good God. They are results of a curse
justly incurred by transgression, a curse pronounced before
history began, and shadowing, rather than crushing, human life
always and everywhere. It is doubtful if death be included in
the effects of the curse. In verse ¹⁹ it is spoken of as the
natural fate of a being made from the earth; in verse ²² it
follows from being excluded from the tree of life. Man was
capable of immortality, but not by nature immortal; and God did
not mean that he should attain immortality. The death threatened
in 2¹⁷ is immediate death; and to assume that the death which
actually ensues is the exaction of that deferred penalty, is
perhaps to go beyond the intention of the writer. Nor does it
appear that the narrative seeks to account for the origin of
sin. It describes what was, no doubt, the first sin; but it
describe it as something intelligible, not needing explanation,
not a mystery like the instinct of shame or the possession of
knowledge, which are produced by eating the fruit of the tree.