David T. Tsumura<\/b><\/p>\n
This is the second in a series of articles on the relationship between the early chapters of Genesis and creation and flood stories from ancient Mesopotamia. \u2014 Ed<\/i>.<\/p>\n
David T. Tsumura is Professor of Old Testament at Japan Bible Seminary, Tokyo. He is author of The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation (1989), as well as numerous articles on the Hebrew Bible and Semitic languages.<\/p>\n
Man as the Image of God<\/b><\/p>\n
Clines offers a thorough discussion of \u201cThe Image of God in Man,\u201d reviewing the history of interpretation. He concludes that<\/p>\n
Genesis 1:26 is to be translated \u201cLet us make man as our image\u201d or \u201cto be in our image\u201d. .. according to Genesis 1 man does not have the image of God, nor is he made in<\/i> the image of God, but is himself the image of God (1968).<\/p>\n
As for the image itself, Clines observes, with K.H. Bernhardt, that<\/p>\n
in the ancient Near East the primary function of the image was to be the dwelling-place of spirit or fluid which derived from the being whose image it was (1968: 80\u201385).<\/p>\n
He also notes that in the ancient Near East the king is \u201cthe image of God,\u201d and<\/p>\n
the image of the god is associated very closely with rulerhood. The king as image of the god is his representative. The king has been created by the god to be his image (1968: 80\u201385).<\/p>\n
In her recent treatment of the specification of human sexual distinction, P.A. Bird, like Clines, asserts that the ṣelem \u2018elōhim \u2018image of God\u2019 in Genesis 1 is \u201ca royal designation, the precondition or requisite for rule\u201d (1994:341) and concludes that<\/p>\n
the genius of the formulation in Genesis 1:26 may be seen in its use of a common expression and image of Mesopotamian (Canaanite) royal theology to counter a common image of Mesopotamian (Canaanite) anthropology, viz., the image of humanity as servant of the gods (1994: 345).1 <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 9:2 (Spring 1996) p. 34<\/p>\n
Bird suspects a polemical intention also in the blessing of v. 28, \u201cBe fruitful and multiply.\u201d For, since \u201cthe power of created life to replenish itself is a power given to each species at its creation,\u201d it is \u201cnot dependent upon subsequent rites,\u201d that is to say, the fertility cult, \u201cfor its effect.\u201d However, the \u201cword of sexual differentiation [in v. 27] anticipates the blessing\u201d since \u201csexual constitution is the presupposition of the blessing of increase.\u201d Verse 27 as a whole, she holds, signifies that \u201cunlike<\/i> God, but like<\/i> the other creatures, adam<\/i> is characterized by sexual differentiation.\u201d In other words, \u201cadam is created like<\/i> (i.e., resembling) God, but as<\/i> creature, and hence male and female\u201d (1994: 351).<\/p>\n
Genesis 2-3
Adam and Adapa<\/b><\/p>\n
Shea lists \u201cprincipal parallels\u201d between the \u201cAdapa Epic\u201d2 and the account of Adam in Genesis 2\u20133:<\/p>\n
(1) Both subjects underwent a test before the deity, and the test was based upon something they were to consume. (2) Both failed the test and thereby forfeited their opportunity for immortality. (3) As a result of their failure, certain consequences passed upon mankind. (4) Both subjects qualify as members of the first generation of mankind. (5) Their names can be equated linguistically (1977: 39).<\/p>\n
However, among the differences Shea notes are these: (1) \u201cAdapa was tested with bread and water while Adam and Eve were tested with the fruit.\u201d (2) Though both were sentenced to death and \u201cthis sentence is even given in rather similar terms,\u201d these terms have \u201cquite different meanings in their respective contexts.\u201d (3) Adapa\u2019s choice was made in obedience to Ea, but Adam made his own free choice contrary to correct instructions. (4) \u201cAdapa\u2019s offense, in essence, was that he upset the course of nature, while Adam\u2019s offense was moral in nature.\u201d In conclusion, Shea suggests that \u201cit is possible to view these two separate sources as independent witnesses to a common event (1977:28\u201335, 41). Niels-Erik Andreasen also thinks that \u201cparallels do indeed exist between Adam and Adapa, but they are seriously blunted by the entirely different contexts in which they occur\u201d (1981:192). However, the view that \u201cthe name Adapa is a secondary development from Adam\u201d is not conclusive.<\/p>\n
As for the etymology of the word Adam,<\/i> recently Sj\u00f6berg suggested that the Sumerian a2-dam, which refers exclusively to people, is \u201ca \u2018Canaanite\u2019, West-Semitic loanword in Sumerian,\u201d since it has no \u201cSumerian\u201d etymology (1984:223). The nearest cognate of the Hebrew \u201c\u2018adam is, so far, the Ugaritic adm<\/i> which appears in an epithet of the god El, i.e., ab adm<\/i> \u2018father of man\u2019\u201d (Hess 1990:1\u201315; 1993:14\u201319; Andreasen 1981:181 n. 9).<\/p>\n
Creation of Man<\/b><\/p>\n
\u201cThe most important single witness to Babylonian speculation on the origins and nature of man is,\u201d as Moran says, \u201cthe description of his creation in the first tablet of the \u2018Atra-H\u00e3asis Epic,\u2019 especially lines 192\u2013248\u201d (1970: 48).3 In 1967, Millard first noted that the \u201cAtrahasis Epic is more specific on [the making of man] than any other Babylonian Creation account.\u201d In the \u201cAtra-H\u00e3asis Epic\u201d I 221ff.,<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 9:2 (Spring 1996) p. 35<\/p>\n
Man was created from the flesh and blood of a slaughtered god mixed with clay.. .. Man\u2019s earthy constituency is emphasized by both Babylonian and Hebrew (i.e., Gn 2:7) narratives, and his divine part equally.. .. No hint of the use of dead deity or any material part of a living one is found in Genesis (1994:120).<\/p>\n
In 1969, Lambert and Millard discussed the account of man\u2019s creation in the \u201cAtra-H\u00e3asis Epic\u201d in detail.<\/p>\n
The author used what was the generally accepted view. .. that man was formed from clay mixed with the blood of a slain god.. .. \u2018Clay\u2019 in this context is the material substance of the human body. This can be learnt from a number of passages that speak of death as a \u201creturning to clay.\u201d Exactly the same conception is shown in the Hebrew account of man\u2019s creation. .. (Gn 3:19) (1969:21; see also Lambert 1980:73).<\/p>\n
As for the \u201cblood,\u201d Lambert and Millard speculate that \u201cin all probability the Babylonians conceived of man as matter (\u2018clay\u2019) activated by the addition of divine blood,\u201d while on the other hand \u201cthe Hebrew account of creation in Genesis 2 explains that God imparted \u2018the breath of life\u2019 into man, and so animation began\u201d (1969: 22).<\/p>\n
Eden Story<\/b><\/p>\n
For a long time the Eden story has drawn much scholarly attention4 and has recently been treated thoroughly by Wallace in his monograph (1985). Here, however, I would like to focus on comparative materials with respect to this story.<\/p>\n
(a) Enki and Ninhursag<\/i>. The story has been compared with Sumerian myths such as Enki and Ninhursag, a Sumerian paradise story.5 Kramer summarizes it as follows:<\/p>\n
Dilmun is a land that is \u201cpure,\u201d \u201cclean,\u201d and \u201cbright,\u201d a \u201cland of the living\u201d which knows neither sickness nor death. What is lacking, however, is the fresh water so essential to animal and plant life. The great Sumerian water-god, Enki, therefore orders Utu, the sun-god, to fill it with fresh water brought up from the earth. Dilmun is thus turned into a divine garden, green with fruit-laden fields and meadows (1963:147\u201348).<\/p>\n
Kramer thinks that there are \u201cnumerous parallels\u201d between this \u201cdivine paradise\u201d myth and the Eden story. He suggests that the Biblical paradise, \u201ca garden planted eastward<\/i> in Eden,\u201d may have \u201coriginally\u201d been identical with Dilmun, \u201ca land some where to the east of Sumer.\u201d He also compares the \u201cfresh water brought up from the earth\u201d in Dilmun with the \u2018ēd<\/i>-water in Genesis 2:6. He notes that<\/p>\n
the birth of the goddesses without pain or travail illuminates the background of the curse against Eve that it shall be her lot to conceive and bear children in sorrow; Enki\u2019s eating of the eight plants and the curse uttered against him for his misdeed recall the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge by Adam and Eve and the curses pronounced against each of them for this sinful action (1963: 148\u201349).<\/p>\n
Kramer holds that this Sumerian literary background would explain why Eve, \u201cthe mother of all living,\u201d was fashioned from the rib of Adam. In the present myth one of Enki\u2019s sick organs is the rib (Sumerian ti<\/i>); the goddess created for healing his rib was called in Sumerian Nin-ti \u201cthe lady of the rib.\u201d But the Sumerian ti<\/i> also means \u201cto make live.\u201d The name Nin-ti may thus mean \u201cthe Lady who makes live\u201d as well as \u201cthe Lady of the rib.\u201d Through the wordplay, these two designations were used for the same goddess. It is this \u201cliterary pun,\u201d <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 9:2 (Spring 1996) p. 36<\/p>\n
according to Kramer, that explains Eve\u2019s title and her being fashioned from Adam\u2019s rib (1963; 149).6 <\/p>\n
(b) Eden\u2019s Four Rivers<\/i>. Speiser (1994) following F. Delitzsch (1881), holds that the term Cush<\/i> (Gn 2:13) is \u201cthe eponym of the Kassites\u201d rather than the name for the region of the Upper Nile and \u201conly a Kassite context can accord with the phrase \u2018in the east\u2019 of Genesis 2:8\u201d (177).7 Then Speiser, in search of the Garden of Eden refers to Dilmun, \u201cthe land of the living,\u201d which lay near the head of the Persian Gulf and tries to identify the Pishon and the Gihon with actual rivers not far from the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates (1994:178\u201382).8 <\/p>\n
Speiser contends that \u201cthe original narrator. .. has to be visualized as looking from the Persian Gulf inland\u201d and hence \u201cthe \u2018four heads\u2019 (v. 10) are meant to be viewed upstream rather than down.\u201d However, this view has been aptly criticized by Wenham, who holds that \u201cthe general setting as described in vv. 5\u20138 favors a Mesopotamian site.\u201d As Wenham says,<\/p>\n
the greatest difficulty with this [Speiser\u2019s] view is that, according to Genesis, the rivers as they flow from Eden split into four, whereas on Speiser\u2019s location they flow toward Eden to converge there (1987: 66).<\/p>\n
Westermann holds that<\/p>\n
the intention of the author in inserting 2:10\u201314 was not to determine where paradise lay, as the majority of interpreters hold, but rather to point out that the \u201clife-arteries\u201d of all lands of the earth have their source in the river that watered paradise (1984: 216).<\/p>\n
He thus denies any attempt to identify the source of the four rivers geographically. On the other hand, Wenham holds that<\/p>\n
in Eden a great river rises, and after leaving the garden, splits up into four rivers including the Tigris and Euphrates. On this basis alone we should conclude that Eden lies somewhere in Armenia near the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates. And this is a long-established, widely held view (1987: 66).<\/p>\n
(c) Sumerian Origin?<\/i> According to Miller (1994: 155\u201356), the picture of creation set forth in the initial section of the \u201cHarab Myth\u201d9 may be compared with Genesis 2\u20134:<\/p>\n
1. \u201cIn the Harab myth the re-creation state is \u2018wasteland\u2019 (harab<\/i>), not unlike the picture in Genesis 2 of a time with no planet or herb, no rain, nor anyone to till the earth.\u201d<\/p>\n
2. \u201cBoth stories give primacy to the need to work or till the earth.\u201d<\/p>\n
3. \u201cAs in Genesis 2, the first thing that is done in the creation is the creation of water, though in Genesis 2 it is sweet water to water the plants (\u2019ēd) and in Harab it is sea (Tamtu). But in the Harab myth, river, i.e., Idu (=Heb. \u2018ēd), comes in the next generation as daughter of sea (Tamtu).\u201d<\/p>\n
4. Farming and shepherding appear in the creation \u201cin a genealogical sequence<\/i>\u201d in both stories.<\/p>\n
5. In both, the first city tradition (Gn 4:17 Irad \/ \/ Eridu) comes between creation and flood.<\/p>\n
But there are also differences between the two, as Miller notes. In the Genesis account, there exists a clear distinction between the divine world and the human world and the tilling of <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 9:2 (Spring 1996) p. 37<\/p>\n
the earth and the ruling and shepherding of the animals as well as the building of cities are human tasks (Miller 1994: 156). We might add that in Genesis 2\u20133 Yahweh is the sole divine agent and is significantly without any female consort.<\/p>\n
Until recently, the Sumerian connection of the Eden story has been supported almost unanimously. However, according to Sj\u00f6berg, who recently reexamined Sumerian connections with regard to the \u201ctree of life,\u201d there is \u201cno evidence\u201d for such a tree in Mesopotamian myth and cult. He says,<\/p>\n
The identification of different trees on Mesopotamian seals as a Tree of Life is a pure hypothesis, a product of pan-Babylonianism.. .. There is no Sumerian or Akkadian expression \u201cTree of Life\u201d (1984: 219\u201321).<\/p>\n
Wallace collects \u201ca wide range of material which has some pertinence for the study of the tree of life in Genesis 2\u20133, \u201d including the tree symbolism of Asherah. He carefully avoids equating this Asherah symbol with the tree of life in Genesis 2\u20133, which \u201cconcerns eternal life and not the fertility of womb and field\u201d (1985: 114). However, it must be admitted that those references outside of the Bible are indirect.<\/p>\n
Etymology of \u2018<\/b>ē<\/b><\/p>\n
The term \u2019ēd in Genesis 2:6 has been rendered as \u201cspring\u201d \/ \u201cfountain\u201d or as \u2018ănānā\u2018 \u201c(rain-)cloud\u201d or \u201cvapor, mist\u201d (targum). Modern versions translate it \u201cmist\u201d WJV, RSV, NEB note, NIV note), \u201cflood\u201d (RSV note, NEB), \u201cwater\u201d (JB), or \u201cstreams\u201d (NIV). However, there has been no satisfactory Semitic etymology.<\/p>\n
Recently I investigated the etymology of \u2018ēd thoroughly (1989). I have shown that Albright\u2019s view that the Hebrew \u2018ēd is a Sumerian loanword via Akkadian id<\/i> \u201criver\u201d (1939: 102\u2013103) is less convincing than Speiser\u2019s view that \u2018ēd is connected to the Akkadian ed\u00fb<\/i> \u201cflood,\u201d which is a Sumerian loanword from e4-d\u00e9-a (1955: 9\u201311). While it is possible that \u2018ēd is a shortened form of \u2018ēd\u00f4 in Job 36:27, as a result of the loss of a final vowel when or after Akkadian ed\u00fb was borrowed into Canaanite, I have made the following suggestions:<\/p>\n
1. \u2018ēd (Gn 2:6) is a loanword directly borrowed from Sumerian e4-d\u00e9;<\/p>\n
2. \u2018ed\u00f4 (Jb 36:27) is a loanword from Sumerian via Akkadian ed\u00fb.<\/p>\n
Both \u2018ēd and its allomorph \u2018ēd\u00f4 mean \u201chigh water\u201d and refer to the water flooding out of the subterranean ocean (1989:115).<\/p>\n
Etymology of \u2018<\/b>ēden<\/b><\/p>\n
In the light of the new information from Fekheriyeh, Millard, Greenfield and others have recently suggested that the term \u2018ēden means \u201ca well-watered place\u201d (Millard 1984; Greenfield 1984; also Wallace 1985: 84). This fits the context of Genesis 2 very well. There are three theoretically possible explanations for the etymology of the Hebrew \u2018eden<\/i>:<\/p>\n
(a) Sumerian Loanword Directly into West Semitic<\/i>. The Sumerian edin \u201cplain,\u201d has been suggested as its origin. But since Sumerian presumably has no phoneme \/\u2019\/, it is not likely that the Sumerian edin was borrowed directly into Canaanite as \u2018ēden or the <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 9:2 (Spring 1996) p. 38<\/p>\n
like. Also, the meaning \u201cplain, steppe,\u201d or uncultivated land, does not fit the context of Genesis well.<\/p>\n
(b) Sumerian Loanword via Akkadian into West Semitic<\/i>. It has been suggested that the Sumerian edin was borrowed through Akkadian edinu<\/i>. While this has been a common view for the etymology, Hebrew \u2018eden<\/i> cannot be a loanword from or via Akkadian edinu<\/i>, since Akkadian has no phoneme \/\u2019\/ either. Also edinu<\/i> might be simply a semitized reading of the Sumerian edin and not used as an actual Akkadian word.<\/p>\n
(c) Common West Semitic<\/i>. The root *\u2019dn, which appears in the Fekheriyeh Inscription, in a Ugaritic text, in the divine epithet h\u2019dn<\/i> in Old South Arabic, as well as in the Arabic verb \u2018adana<\/i>, probably has the literal meaning \u201cto make abundant in water supply.\u201d Hence, the Hebrew \u2018ēden probably means \u201ca place where there is an abundant water supply\u201d (see Gn 13:10). The term *\u2019eden (plural ădān\u00eem in Ps 36), which means \u201cpleasure, luxury,\u201d has the same etymology as Eden<\/i>, though the MT seems to distinguish \u2018ēden from *\u2019eden (Tsumura 1989:123\u201337).<\/p>\n
Two Waters<\/b><\/p>\n
I compare the two waters in Genesis 2:5\u20136, \u201crain\u201d and \u201cflooding water\u201d (ēd), with the two thmt<\/i>-waters in a Ugaritic expression that seems to refer to the waters above in heaven and the waters below under the earth, as in Genesis 7:11 and 8:2, and to \u201can ancient tradition about the separation of heaven-water and ocean-water as reflected in the Genesis Creation story, not in 1:2, but in 1:6ff.\u201d (1989:151\u201352). This upper thmt<\/i>-water is probably associated or identified with the god \u201cHeaven,\u201d while the lower thmt<\/i>-water may well correspond to the goddess \u201cOcean\u201d in Ugaritic religion (1989:122).<\/p>\n
In various parts of the ancient Near East a rain-god such as Ada, Hadad, and Baal is called \u201ca giver of abundant water-supply.\u201d In the Fekheriyeh Inscription, for example, he is described not only as a rain-giver but also as the \u201cwater-controller of all rivers.\u201d Similarly, as I have noted before, the Lord God of Genesis 2 is presumably understood as a rain-giver and as the controller of the subterranean waters. When he planted a garden in a well-watered place (2:8ff.), he apparently drained the \u2018ēd-water there. Thus, he is also a controller of both rain and the subterranean water. However, the Lord God is more that a water-controller. He is the maker of the total universe, of \u201cearth and heaven\u201d (\u2018ereṣ wĕs̆āmāyim, 2:4) (1989:141\u201342).<\/p>\n
Canaanite Background<\/b><\/p>\n
Soggin suggests that the account in Genesis 3 \u201ccontains an Israelite attack on syncretism as it existed between Israelite and Canaanite religion.\u201d According to him,<\/p>\n
the origin of the story seems to have been Canaanite, that is, it came from the very milieu that the story was intended to oppose.<\/p>\n
Thus Soggin assumes that<\/p>\n
an original Canaanite account disclosing the rites of fertility was taken over by Israel and turned completely around as a direct polemic against those same rites accusing them of producing not life and fertility, but death and sterility (1975).<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 9:2 (Spring 1996) p. 39<\/p>\n
Recently Wyatt, following F.F. Hvidberg (1960), also advocated that \u201cthe story is intended as a polemic against Canaanite religion,\u201d though he suggests that \u201cit is the cult of El and As̆erah and not that of Ba\u2019al which is attacked\u201d (1981: 19). According to Wyatt\u2019s conjecture, \u201cthe tree of knowledge is an allusion to the cult of El,\u201d while the tree of life refers to As̆erah, who appears as the consort of El in the Ugaritic texts and whose As̆erah -pole was \u201cundoubtedly a surrogate tree (of life)\u201d (1981: 17).10 However, these hypotheses are highly speculative.<\/p>\n
Mullen, following Clifford and Cross (Clifford 1972:35\u201357; Cross 1973: 37\u201338), compares \u201cEden, the garden of God\u201d (Ez 28:13) with El\u2019s abode11 at the \u201csource of the two rivers\u201d (mbk nhrm<\/i>)\/ \/ \u201cin the midst of the streams of the two thmt<\/i>-waters\u201d (qrb apq thmtm<\/i>) or \u201cin the assembly of the two thmt<\/i>-waters\u201d (b\u2019dt thmt<\/i>) in the Ugaritic literature. He comments,<\/p>\n
While it is most common to associate the biblical Eden with the Mesopotamian \u201cland of the living\u201d and the Sumerian Dilmun, the Canaanite and biblical evidence points to the fact that the \u201cgarden of God\u201d (Ez 28:13), which is equivalent to the \u201cmountain of God\u201d (Ez 28:16; cf. v. 14), is to be located in the North, the yarkᵉ t\u00ea ṣāp\u00f4n (Is 14:13), the meeting place of the heavenly assembly (1980: 153; followed by Wallace 1985: 94; et al.).<\/p>\n
The abode of El was probably located at the farthest horizon where \u201cheaven\u201d and \u201cocean\u201d meet together.<\/p>\n
Based on two Ugaritic texts, de Moor suggests the existence of \u201ca Canaanite tradition about the Garden of Eden\u201d (1988: 106). According to KTU 1.100, a divine She-ass and her son were<\/p>\n
among the first living creatures<\/i>. Only the sun, heaven, primordial Flood, spring and stone precede them. So the story seems to be situated close to the origin of the inhabited world.<\/p>\n
In KTU 1.107, a rather broken text that de Moor thinks precedes 1.100,<\/p>\n
the premature death of the first man was eventually prevented by invoking the help of all the great gods against the offspring of the god of the serpents, Horonu the Devil. Therefore the latter had to give in, as related in KTU 1.100.12 <\/p>\n
Hence, de Moor suggests that<\/p>\n
the Israelite tradition about the enmity between the seed of man and the seed of the serpent13 (Gn 3:15) would have been derived from this myth under abolition of all references to a divine power next to God (1988: 109).<\/p>\n
It must be admitted, however, that de Moor\u2019s suggestion is based on the reconstructed text of KTU 1.107: 27\u201341, and his theory remains highly hypothetical.<\/p>\n
Literary Approaches<\/b><\/p>\n
In recent years a great number of literary analyses of the Eden story have appeared, and it is almost impossible to review all of them even briefly. The following is an inexhaustive sample.14 <\/p>\n
Structure<\/i><\/b>.<\/b> Walsh divides Genesis 2:4b\u20133:24 into a series of seven scenes \u201cprincipally by shifts in dramatis<\/i> personae<\/i> and changes in literary form,\u201d and for each scene, he discusses the literary structure, or framework, and its unity (1994). He also notes discourse grammatical features such as narrative and speech, monologue and dialogue, paraphrase, deliberation, transition or link, as well as the importance <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 9:2 (Spring 1996) p. 40<\/p>\n
of \u201cnarrative wayyiqtōls,\u201d15 operative words, or motif words for structural understanding.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe basic structural principle of the Eden account,\u201d according to Walsh, is<\/p>\n
the concentric arrangement of its scenes. The pattern involves dramatis personae<\/i>, themes, and in some cases, internal structural elements of each scene.<\/p>\n
He then argues that there are major structural divisions in the narrative: \u201cIntroduction (scenes 1\u20132), action (scenes 3\u20136), and epilogue (scene 7).\u201d He concludes thus:<\/p>\n
Analysis reveals that the apparently \u201cartless\u201d story of man and woman in the garden of Eden has in fact structures and intricate patterns of organization that involve even minor details of the text. Moreover, the patterns so interlock that the deletion of any part of the text (except, perhaps, 2:10b\u201314) would have significant repercussions for the whole passage (1994:375).<\/p>\n
Intimacy and Alienation<\/b><\/p>\n
Hauser aims to analyze the \u201cwriter\u2019s development of the two-dimensional theme of intimacy and alienation,\u201d for he thinks that \u201cthey clearly express a major motif the writer has used to focus and integrate his narrative.\u201d In Genesis 2<\/p>\n
the writer weaves several components into an intimate picture of harmony, with all revolving around man, the first and central element in the created order (1994:383\u201384).<\/p>\n
However, in Genesis 3, Hauser explains, the \u201cworld of harmony and intimacy becomes a world of disruption and alienation.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sanctuary Symbolism<\/b><\/p>\n
Wenham, in his recent article, contends that:<\/p>\n
The garden of Eden is not viewed by the author of Genesis simply as a piece of Mesopotamian farmland, but as an archetypal sanctuary, that is a place where God dwells and where man should worship him. Many of the features of the garden may also be found in later sanctuaries particularly the tabernacle or Jerusalem temple. These parallels suggest that the garden itself is understood as a sort of sanctuary (1994).<\/p>\n
There are certainly many other aspects of the creation stories in Genesis. The above are just samples in the areas of comparative study and literary analysis, but they are basic and significant materials for the theological understanding of the earliest chapters of the Bible.<\/p>\n
To be continued<\/i>.<\/p>\n
(Reprinted by permission from I Studied Inscriptions From Before the Flood,<\/i> ed. R.S. Hess and D.T, Tsumura. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994, pp. 34\u201344.)<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 9:2 (Spring 1996) p. 41<\/p>\n
References<\/b><\/p>\n
Albright, W.F.<\/p>\n
1939 The Babylonian Matter in the Predeuteronomic Primeva History (JE) in Gen 1\u201311. Journal of Biblical Literature<\/i> 58.<\/p>\n
Andreasen, N. -E.<\/p>\n
1981 Adam and Adapa: Two Anthropological Characters. Andrews University Seminary Studies<\/i> 19.<\/p>\n
Attinger, P.<\/p>\n
1984 Enki et Ninḫursaḡa. Zeitschrift<\/i> f\u00fcr<\/i> Assyriologie<\/i> 74: 1\u201352.<\/p>\n
Bird, P.A.<\/p>\n
1994 \u201cMale and Female He Created Them\u201d: Genesis 1:27b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation. Pp. 329\u201361 in I Studied Inscriptions Before the Flood,<\/i> ed. R.S. Hess and D.T. Tsumura. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.<\/p>\n
Clifford, R.J.<\/p>\n
1972 The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament<\/i>, Harvard Semitic Monographs 4. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.<\/p>\n
Clines, D.J.A.<\/p>\n
1968 The Image of God in Man. Tyndale Bulletin<\/i> 19: 53\u2013103.<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 9:2 (Spring 1996) p. 42<\/p>\n
Cross, F.M.<\/p>\n
1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic:<\/i> Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel<\/i>. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.<\/p>\n
Dalley, S.<\/p>\n
1991 Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others<\/i>. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n
Delitzsch, F.<\/p>\n
1881 Wo lag das Paradies?<\/i> Leipzig.<\/p>\n
Greenfield, J.C.<\/p>\n
1984 A Touch of Eden. Pp. 219\u201324 in Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin Emerito Oblata,<\/i> Hommages et Opera Minora 9. Leiden: Brill.<\/p>\n
Hauser, A.J.<\/p>\n
1994 Genesis 2\u20133: The Theme of Intimacy and Alienation. Pp. 383\u201398 in I Studied Inscriptions Before the Flood,<\/i> ed. R.S. Hess and D.T. Tsumura. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.<\/p>\n
Hess, R.S.<\/p>\n
1990 Splitting the Adam: The Usage of \u2018ādām in Genesis i-v. Pp. 1\u201315 in Studies in the Pentateuch,<\/i> Vetus Testamentum Supplement Series 41, ed. J.A. Emerton. Leiden: E.J. Brill.<\/p>\n
1993 Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis 1\u201311,<\/i> Alter Orient und Altes Testament 234. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.<\/p>\n
Hvidberg, F.F.<\/p>\n
1960 The Canaanite Background of Gen. I-III. Vetus Testamentum<\/i> 10: 285\u201394.<\/p>\n
Jacobsen, T.<\/p>\n
1984 The Harab Myth,<\/i> Sources from the Ancient Near East 2\/3. Malibu: Undena.<\/p>\n
Kikawada, I.M<\/p>\n
1972 Two Notes on Eve. Journal of Biblical Literature<\/i> 91: 33\u201337.<\/p>\n
Kramer, S.N.<\/p>\n
1969 Enki and Ninhursag: A Paradise Myth. Pp. 37\u201341 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament,<\/i> ed. J.B. Pritchard. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.<\/p>\n
1963 The Sumerians:<\/i> Their History, Culture, and Character<\/i>. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n
Lambert, W.G.<\/p>\n
1980 Babylonien und Israel. Theologische Re\u00e4lenzyklopdie<\/i> 5: 71\u201373.<\/p>\n
Lambert, W.G., and Millard, A.R.<\/p>\n
1969 Atra-H\u00e3asis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood<\/i>. Oxford: Clarendon.<\/p>\n
Longacre, R.E.<\/p>\n
1989 Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence<\/i>. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.<\/p>\n
Millard, A.R.<\/p>\n
1984 The Etymology of Eden. Vetus Testamentum<\/i> 34:103\u2013106.<\/p>\n
1994 A New Babylonian \u201cGenesis\u201d Story. Pp. 114\u201328 in I Studied Inscriptions Before the Flood,<\/i> ed. R.S. Hess and D.T. Tsumura. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.<\/p>\n
Miller, P.D., Jr.<\/p>\n
1994 Eridu, Dunnu, and Babel: A Study in Comparative Mythology. Pp. 143\u201368 in I Studied Inscriptions Before the Flood,<\/i> ed. R.S. Hess and D.T. Tsumura. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.<\/p>\n
Moor, J.C. de<\/p>\n
1987 An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit<\/i>. Leiden: Brill.<\/p>\n
1988 East of Eden. Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft<\/i> 100.<\/p>\n
Moran, W.L.<\/p>\n
1970 The Creation of Man in Atrahasis I 192\u2013248. Bulletin of the American<\/i> <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 9:2 (Spring 1996) p. 43<\/p>\n
can Schools of Oriental Research<\/i> 200.<\/p>\n
Mullen, E.T., Jr.<\/p>\n
1980 The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature<\/i>, Harvard Semitic Monographs 24. Chico CA: Scholars Press.<\/p>\n
Oden, R.A.<\/p>\n
1981 Divine Aspirations in Atrahasis and in Genesis 1\u201311. Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft<\/i> 93.<\/p>\n
Patte, D., ed.<\/p>\n
1980 Genesis 2 and 3: Kaleidoscopic Structural Readings<\/i>, Semeia 18. Chico CA: Scholars Press.<\/p>\n
Shea, W.H.<\/p>\n
1977 Adam in Ancient Mesopotamian Traditions. Andrews University Seminary Studies<\/i> 15: 28\u201341. Reprinted in Bible and Spade<\/i>, Summer 1977: 65\u201376.<\/p>\n
Sj\u00f6berg, A.W.<\/p>\n
1984 Eve and the Chameleon. In In The Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G. W. Ahlstr\u00f6m<\/i>. Sheffield: JSOT Press.<\/p>\n
Soggin, J.A.<\/p>\n
1975 The Fall of Man in the Third Chapter of Genesis. Pp. 88\u2013111 in Old Testament and Oriental Studies<\/i>, Biblica et orientalia 29. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.<\/p>\n
Speiser, E.A.<\/p>\n
1955 \u2018Ed in the Story of Creation. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research<\/i> 140.<\/p>\n
1969 Adapa. Pp. 101\u2013103 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament<\/i>, ed. J.B. Pritchard. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.<\/p>\n
1994 The Rivers of Paradise. Pp. 175\u201382 in I Studied Inscriptions Before the Flood,<\/i> ed. R.S. Hess and D.T. Tsumura. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.<\/p>\n
Tsumura, D.T.<\/p>\n
1989 The Earth and Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A Linguistic Investigation<\/i>, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 83. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.<\/p>\n
Wallace, H.N.<\/p>\n
1985 The Eden Narrative<\/i>, Harvard Semitic Monographs 32. Atlanta: Scholars Press.<\/p>\n
Walsh, J.T.<\/p>\n
1994 Genesis 2:4b\u20133:24: A Synchronic Approach. Pp. 362\u201382 in I Studied Inscriptions Before the Flood<\/i>, ed. R.S. Hess and D.T. Tsumura. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.<\/p>\n
Wenham, G.J.<\/p>\n
1987 Genesis 1\u201315<\/i>. Waco: Word.<\/p>\n
1994 Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story. Pp. 399\u2013404 in I Studied Inscriptions Before the Flood<\/i>, ed. R.S. Hess and D.T. Tsumura. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.<\/p>\n
Westermann, C.<\/p>\n
1984 Genesis 1\u201311:A Commentary<\/i>, trans. from German by J.J. Scullion. London: SPCK.<\/p>\n
Wyatt, N.<\/p>\n
1981 Interpreting the Creation and Fall Story in Genesis 2\u20133. Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft<\/i> 93.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
David T. Tsumura This is the second in a series of articles on the relationship between the early chapters of Genesis and creation and flood stories from ancient Mesopotamia. \u2014 Ed. David T. Tsumura is Professor of Old Testament at Japan Bible Seminary, Tokyo. He is author of The Earth and the Waters in Genesis … Continue reading “GENESIS
\nAND ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STORIES OF CREATION AND FLOOD: AN
\nINTRODUCTION
\nPART 2”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15206","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15206","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15206"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15206\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15206"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15206"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15206"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}