BR Summer05 FINAL

OfTime&ImmortalityOfTime&Immortality

33

BIBLE REVIEW © Summer 2005

The first chapter of the first book of the Biblecan be read as a treatise for measuring (orcalibrating) time; the next two chapters as

offering insight into the birth of death. But let’s begin at the beginning: “In the begin-

ning ...” For centuries, that is how English readerswere taught that the Bible begins, for those are theopening words of the King James Version of 1611.They are indeed a fair translation of St. Jerome’sLatin Vulgate of the fourth century and of theGreek version of the Bible we call the Septuagint(often abbreviated LXX) produced half a millenniumearlier. But this famous opening line does not quitematch what we find in the received Hebrew text, asgiven vowels and punctuations by rabbis around1,500 years ago, and since labeled the Masoretic Text(or MT).

The King James Version’s “In the beginning Godcreated the heaven and the earth” implies a creatio

ex nihilo, God creating everything from nothing. Inthis locution, the verse is telling of the first act ofcreation. But that is not what the Hebrew text says.

J A C K M . S A S S O N

AL

I NA

RI /

AR

T

RE

SO

UR

CE

, N

Y

How Genesis Created Them&Immortality&Immortality

The way the vowels are set with the consonants ofthe first Hebrew word in this first verse of Genesisrequires that this word, b’reshit, link with and dependon the word that follows it, in this case the verbal formbara, “he created.” A literal translation would yieldnothing like the customary “In the beginning God cre-ated ...”; instead, it suggests an awkward English phrase,“In the beginning of He [God] created ...” The NewJewish Publication Society translation offers a moreelegant version of the same: “When God began to cre-ate ...” What God was beginning to create is detailedin the remaining words of this verse: God was begin-ning to create “the heavens and the earth,” polar oppo-sites used to denote the entire universe.

So, we are to understand the opening phrase to read,“When God began to create the universe …” Once wedo so, we realize that the next two verses actuallydescribe what existed before God decided to give thempurpose and shape: There was an earth that was tohuv’vohu, which is variously translated as “a formless void”(New Revised Standard Version), “a vast waste” (NewEnglish Bible), “a formless wasteland” (New AmericanBible) and “a formless void” (New Jerusalem Bible).There was also darkness, water and a wind that sweptover the water (Genesis 1:2). In essence, then, whenGod began to give shape to our universe, the four con-stitutive elements—earth, darkness, water and wind—already existed. But none had any function or futureon its own. (Already in antiquity, it was noticed thatthese four elements were highly reminiscent of Greeknotions regarding the four material elements, water,air, earth and fire, the last manifested primarily as thebrightness in the sky, so the opposite of darkness.)

At this point, through sheer will, God actuallydoes create something from nothing: light. By itself,however, light also has no future, until God contrasts

it with the pre-existing darkness. And in the diurnaloscillation between what there was (darkness, soevening) and what has been created (light, so day),there came to be “one day,” thus a measure for time.The Hebrew is clear; we are dealing with the cardinalnumber “one.” (Only subsequently does the text useordinal numbers, for the second day, the third day,etc.) The Hebrew text is therefore emphasizing that inthis first creative impulse, God forged a unit for mea-suring time. Or, if one prefers, God initiated time.

This exposition of the first verses of Genesis 1 asinaugurating time, as well as offering a basic unit forcalibrating it, sets the Hebrew creation account radi-cally apart in goal and purpose from other Near Easterncreation narratives, in which the origin of time is beyondexplanation. Moreover, Hebrew theologians, by mak-ing the history of their world begin on a unit by whichtime is reckoned, neatly skirted the difficult issue ofhow anything could exist before God. But there wasanother goal as well.

Among Israel’s neighbors, myths of creation werecrafted first as a theogony, a narrative that explainedthe birth and the kinship of the gods. In making theshaping of time a cosmological feature of God’s owndevice, however, the Hebrews can claim that as longas God antedated any mechanism for gauging chronol-ogy—for charting what was, what is and what willcome—human beings cannot effectively discuss howGod came to be, let alone what was before Him. Creditedwith the invention of time, Israel’s God can then claim:“Before me no god was formed, nor will be after me”(Isaiah 43:10-11).

For this reason, the many parallels that are sug-gested between the verses of the Hebrew text and thosedrawn from sundry Mesopotamian (and, to a lesserextent, Egyptian) creation narratives prove to be super-ficial and remarkably inappropriate. For, as we shallsee, with Genesis 1 the Hebrews went beyond chart-ing the cosmos to advancing a distinctive account: thatthe fashioning of the entire cosmos was just prepara-tory for the selection of Israel as God’s favored nation.In this exposition, time and its measurement will remaina major focus in Genesis 1.

On the second day, God creates, also out of noth-ing, an expanse, later labeled “sky,” that splits the pri-mordial water, thereby creating a total universe with

34


C R E A T I O N

PRECEDING PAGES: God creates not only the worldbut also the astrological calendar, in this 14th-centuryfresco from the baptistery of the Cathedral of Padua byartist Giusto de Menabuoi. In the accompanying article,Jack M. Sasson notes that God’s first task was to createlight, in contrast to pre-existing darkness. “And therewas evening and there was morning, one day,” Genesis1:5 records. Thus, God initiates time itself, and gives usthe unit, the day (and, on day seven, the week), withwhich to calibrate it. In this way, the biblical authorscleverly stifle any questions about what existed beforeGod: Nothing could, for there was no time, no history,before God.

In this fresco, the Earth is surrounded by rings ofwater, blue air and red fire. The white ring representsthe moon, with the subsequent rings showing the orderof the planets (according to Ptolemy’s system): Mercury,Venus, the sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, followed by theoutermost ring of the fixed stars of the zodiac. The sun(appearing at 10 o’clock in the red ring) is aligned withthe sign of Aries, following one traditional view (reflectedin the writings of Virgil and Dante) that God created theworld in March, at the spring equinox.

“WIND FROM GOD swept over the face of the waters”(Genesis 1:2), as shown in this 19th-century painting“Chaos,” by Russian seascape artist Ivan Konstantin-ovich Aivazovsky. As author Jack Sasson suggests, theHebrew phrase b’reshit bara, popularly translated “In the beginning, God created,” is more accurately ren-dered “When He [God] began to create.” Genesis is notdescribing creatio ex nihilo—creation out of nothing;when God began to work, the earth, darkness, waterand wind already existed.

35


MU

SE

O

AR

ME

NO

, V

EN

ICE

, IT

AL

Y/

BR

IDG

EM

AN

A

RT

L

IBR

AR

Y

water on either side of this sky, so explaining the ori-gin of rain and of subterranean waters. On the thirdday, the planet Earth is made hospitable by isolating aground that was capable of sustaining plants from theoceanic waters within which it was mingled. So far, weare dealing with a cosmogony, an explanation of howthe major components of the universe were first formed.

The fourth day is crucial to a bridge from cosmogonyto cosmography, a description of how the componentsof the universe functioned, as well as to a shift froman inanimate to an animate phase of that construc-tion. On this fourth day, God delegates his manage-ment of time, installing the sun as pulse for the yearand the moon as control for the month. Fully func-tioning, these orbs regulate everything that lives.Henceforth, fish and birds, created on the fifth day,and land animals and human beings, created on thesixth day, will cycle their lives according to the peri-odic intervals of dark and light, cold and heat, sum-mer and winter, as generated by these celestial bod-ies. For human beings, moreover, these intervals willspecifically establish a rhythm for agriculture and aset-time for festivals.

The Hebrew text continues to elaborate on the

invention of calendric units, offering a unique expla-nation for the institution of the last major measurefor time: the week. Having generated all that there wascosmically to be in six days, the Hebrew God is saidto have selected the seventh and last day on which tocelebrate the cessation of the creative process. The ver-bal form yishbot, “he [God] ceased” (Genesis 2:2), sharesthe same root with Shabbat, or Sabbath, a word thatdoes not appear here. This notice about the seventhday was by no means an afterthought, for it had beenanticipated throughout the text of Genesis 1, wherecrucial sentences and words had been couched in

36


C R E A T I O N

“AND GOD BLESSED THE SEVENTH DAY,” reads theLatin text on this mosaic from the atrium of thecathedral of San Marco in Venice, Italy. God is wearinga crossed halo and carrying a processional cross.Seated in the middle of what seems to be his royalcourt, he lays his right hand upon the brow of theseventh day, personified as one of seven angels.

In the Hebrew text, Genesis states that God ceasedupon the seventh day. The seven-day week concludingon the Sabbath is an invention unique to Israel. Indescribing the Creation in terms of a seven-day week,the biblical authors establish a special connectionbetween themselves and the work of God.

DU

MB

AR

TO

N

OA

KS

/D

EP

AR

TM

EN

T

OF

A

RT

&

A

RC

HA

EO

LO

GY

, P

RIN

CE

TO

N

UN

IVE

RS

ITY

sevens or in multiples of seven. For example, the firstverse of the chapter has seven words. The second versehas 14 words, a multiple of seven. There are manyother such examples in this chapter.1

However, unlike the year, the month and the day,each of which had births in some celestial motion,the week is a very artificial construct. Like the hourand the second, the week is based on no recurring stel-lar or planetary interval. Not surprisingly, there is muchdebate on why the Hebrews had become so attachedto the week that the seventh day of every week hadbecome a special day of worship for them (or viceversa). Some commentators looked to Mesopotamia,where Israel developed many institutions duringtheir Exile in Babylon. Some scholars focused on aBabylonian word, shab/pattum, deciding that it hadbeen the inspiration for the Hebrew Sabbath. Eventually,this equation was discarded when it was shown thatshab/pattum was nothing like the Sabbath in its func-tion, regularity and pervasiveness. Others have arguedfor the existence of the week in Old Assyrian texts;2

but such a time-span was regional, limited to record-ing the length of debts and loans. In my view, as aninstitution the seven-day unit that ends on the Sabbathhas remained unique to Israel.

The Hebrews themselves may not have known thereal origin of the week or why they observed theSabbath. In Scripture we find diverse explanations,embedded in the two versions of the “Ten Command-ments.” The Fourth Commandment in Deuteronomy5 urges us to “observe” the Sabbath as a periodic recallof the Exodus miracle: “You were a slave in the landof Egypt and the Lord your God freed you from therewith a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; there-fore the Lord your God has commanded you to observethe Sabbath day.” In Exodus 20, however, the FourthCommandment is specifically linked to the cessationof God’s work after creation. Here, we are commandedto “remember” the Sabbath day, keeping it holy, for“In six days the Lord made heaven and earth and sea,and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventhday; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day andhallowed it.”

But this is not all. The prophet Isaiah, rejectingany insinuation that God needed rest, suggests thatthe Sabbath was indicative of God’s sovereignty overhis people: “If you refrain from trampling the Sabbath,from pursuing your affairs on my holy day ... then youcan seek the favor of the Lord. I will set you astridethe heights of the earth, and let you enjoy the heritageof your father Jacob” (Isaiah 58:13-14).

We can now admire Genesis 1 as a meticulouslyconstructed contribution to a theological argument.By opening the history of the world, as well as thestory of Israel, with a creation that was complete within

a seven-day week, a calendric unit known only amongthem, Hebrews could not find a more appropriate wayto glory in the Sabbath as a special link between them-selves and God, a rapport that is a principal theme inHebraic historiography.3

If Genesis 1 gained authority by attributing an insti-tution uniquely Israelite to God’s earliest creative urge,Genesis 2-3 deals with the origins of human mortal-ity. Many generations of scholars have labeled themas two separate creation stories. This is not quite sat-isfactory, for whereas Genesis 1 accords well with cre-ation narratives from the ancient world in that it detailsthe shaping of major components in the cosmos

37


C R E A T I O N

DRAPED IN ROYAL RED, God creates Adam in the14th-century Grabow Altarpiece by Master Bertram ofMinden. According to Genesis 2:7, “God formed manfrom the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nos-trils the breath of life.” In this tempera on panelaltarpiece, Adam appears to slowly rise out of the earthfrom which he is made. His name reflects his origins;Hebrew adamah means “ground.” This symbolism,Sasson argues, is important: The Earthling Adam willlater be forced to toil upon the ground for sustenanceand, as punishment for his sins, he will return to dustwhen life ends.

HA

MB

UR

G

KU

NS

TH

AL

LE

, H

AM

BU

RG

, G

ER

MA

NY

/B

RID

GE

MA

N

AR

T

LIB

RA

RY

(sun, moon, constellations, etc.) as well as the majorelements of our planet (earth, seas, plants and ani-mals), Genesis 2-3 hardly worries about fulfilling sucha program and only incidentally talks about the shap-ing of crucial cosmological ingredients. Rather, whatwe find in Genesis 2-3 is a series of etiologies, expla-nations of origins, about how we came to be what,who and where we are. Most important among theseis the explanation of why human beings die althoughthey are God’s special creation.

The scene opens on a world that lacked vegetationbecause there was not yet rain and because humanswere not yet formed to work the soil (Genesis 2:5).Although we are soon told that Lord God shapes acreature, Earthling (Adam, shaped out of earth, adamah),this negatively phrased display of conditions (therewas no rain yet) charges an etiology that will not becomplete until these elements are reversed, whenhumans are forced to work on a grudgingly yieldingsoil (Genesis 3:17-20). As it unfolds, another etiologyis released within it, this one to explain the originand nature of human mortality.

Earthling needs a mate (“a helper like him” and not“a helper for him”*—the Hebrew is ezer k’negdo [Genesis2:18]). When Earthling does not select that mate fromany of the animals the Lord God had created andparaded seriatim before him (Genesis 2:18-19), theLord God sculpts Woman from one of the Earthling’sribs. Why “ribs” is debated endlessly; but the idea hereis that the two genders of the human beings are shapedfrom a single species and do not result from the join-ing of two separate species. This creation of Woman,we might observe, is a concession to Adam, who waswise enough not to accept a potentially ludicrous match.Note, however, that Woman is not given a name atthis point; that is, she has not yet developed the func-tions or goals a name would imply. How this mate forthe Earthling became a vessel for the continuity ofhumankind is told, as we shall see, in Genesis 3.

We already know (from Genesis 2:9) that the “LordGod made grow from the ground every tree that wasappealing to the sight and good for eating, with theTree of Life in the center of the garden, and the Tree ofKnowledge of Good and Bad.” (As opposites, “Good andBad” convey totality, so we may be speaking of the“Tree of Full Knowledge.”) The phrasing in the Hebrewtext syntactically detaches the Tree of Life from the othertrees, including the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad.The Tree of Life, and the Tree of Life alone, is said tostand in “the center of the garden.” This becomes cru-cial for deciphering what follows.

After creating the Earthling and placing him in thegarden, the Lord God tells him that he may eat of any

tree in the garden, except the Tree of Knowledge ofGood and Bad: “As for the Tree of Knowledge ofGood and Bad, you must not eat of it; for as soon asyou eat of it, you shall die” (Genesis 2:17). Some well-known translations, for reasons detailed below, sim-ply relax the clear warning in the command withsuch renderings for Genesis 2:17 as “the day that youeat from it, you are doomed to die.” This is too flaccid,and the Hebrew is best rendered as predicting aninstantaneous death. At this point, let us keep in mindthat the Earthling is forbidden to eat of the Tree ofKnowledge, but not of the tree at the center of the gar-den, the Tree of Life.

After the Woman is created from the Earthling’s rib,the serpent attempts to beguile her: “He said to theWoman, ‘Did God really say: “You shall not eat of anytree in the garden?”’” (Genesis 3:1). We know that theprohibition was not anywhere near so broad. It is onlythe Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad that was for-bidden, on pain of death.

When the Woman replies to the serpent, however,she does not repeat the precise prohibition that Godhad spoken to the Earthling; rather she expands on itand even misquotes it. The woman replies to the ser-pent: “We may eat of the fruit of the other trees of thegarden. It is only about fruit of the tree in the centerof the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat of it ortouch it, lest you die’” (Genesis 3:2-3).

Her reply to the serpent raises several questions. Wemay wonder how the Woman learned about a prohi-bition made before her own creation. And why doesshe add the business about not touching? As all com-mentators have noted, God said nothing about touch-ing the fruit; only eating it was forbidden. Either theWoman doesn’t know what God had commanded—orshe intentionally misrepresents it. Perhaps this alsoexplains why she says that she was forbidden to eat ofthe tree in the center of the garden (namely the Tree ofLife) when, in fact, God had prohibited the Earthlingfrom eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad.

On hearing the Woman identifying the wrong tree,the serpent can reassure her, “You are not going to die,but God knows that as soon as you eat of it, your eyes

38


C R E A T I O N

WITH FRUIT IN HAND, Eve and Adam stand by thetree in the center of the garden, surrounded by floraand fauna in this painting by contemporary Iraqi artistSuad Al-Attar. Eden has two famous trees: the Tree ofLife, which grows in the center of the garden, and theTree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God warns Adamthat if he eats from the Tree of Knowledge, he will die.Generations have asked why, then, Eve and Adam didnot die when they ate the fruit. According to Sasson, aclose reading suggests that Eve actually plucked thefruit from the other tree—the Tree of Life, at the centerof the Garden. Instead of dying, she and Adam gainedthe potential to become immortal.

*See R. David Freedman, “Woman, a Power Equal to Man,”BAR, January/February 1983. P

RIV

AT

E

CO

LL

EC

TIO

N/

BR

IDG

EM

AN

A

RT

L

IBR

AR

Y

40


C R E A T I O NE

RIC

H

LE

SS

ING

/A

RT

R

ES

OU

RC

E,

NY

will be opened and you will be like divine beings [thatis, immortal], knowing good and bad” (Genesis 3:4-5).

Soothed, the Woman thinks about it. Without hav-ing partaken of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad,she nevertheless reasons that the fruit on the tree inquestion could be delicious, was attractive, and (expand-ing, once again, on Genesis 2:9) might even increase hercapacity to think. She plucks the fruit, and feeling no illfrom having touched it, feels emboldened to bite in andthen share it with her mate at her side. They of coursedo not die because, in fact, they have eaten from the

tree at the “center of the garden,” the Tree of Life, andnot from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge of Good andBad. Had they eaten from the forbidden tree, none of uswould be here to debate the point. That they lived demon-strates that they have broken no divine injunction. It istrue that scholarship, fed on millennia of homiletics inwhich the fruit partaken is simply the forbidden fruit,has erroneously identified the tree from which she ateas the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad. Some haveeven suggested that the two trees were in fact one or thatthere was never more than one tree. But the Hebrew textis unequivocal.

The immediate consequence of their eating the fruitwas not death, but the “opening of their eyes.” Realiz-ing that they were naked, the pair made themselves

41


C R E A T I O N

ADAM LIES TO GOD and says, “I heard the sound ofYou in the garden, and I was afraid because I wasnaked, so I hid.” This 17th-century painting byDomenichino depicts exactly what is wrong with thatstatement: Adam and Eve are no longer naked, but havepartially clothed themselves to differentiate themselvesfrom the animals and to be more like gods. God asks,“Who told you that you were naked?” Adam blames thewoman; she blames the serpent (Genesis 3:11-13).

According to the accompanying article, God is notangry because Adam and Eve have eaten of the tree,but because they have taken the serpent’s counsel overhis own. But God has worse things to worry about.Because God could not allow Adam and Eve to live eter-nally and knowingly (like the divine), he punishes themand banishes them from Eden (Genesis 3:19).

EAST OF EDEN. Eve suckles her son while Adamgathers water from the well, in this 16th-century oilpainting by Paolo Veronese. When God expelled Adamand Eve from Eden, he bestowed upon the woman agift, albeit with painful consequence. Childbearing, inother words, the continuation of the species, was theform of immortality that God gave humankind. TheWoman, therefore, is named Eve, the Hebrew word for“life” (in Greek, Zoe, “living thing”), “because she wasthe mother of all the living” (Genesis 3:20).

ER

ICH

L

ES

SIN

G/

AR

T

RE

SO

UR

CE

, N

Y

continues on page 52

loincloths (Genesis 3:7). We should knowthat nudity in the Bible does not carry thesame cultural significance as it does today.In biblical as in Near Eastern lore, nudityis rarely metaphoric for sexual promiscu-ity and hardly conveys innocence. Theprophet Isaiah certainly is not being eitherwhen he preaches naked (Isaiah 20:2-3;see also what is said about Saul in 1 Samuel19:24). And nudity hardly ever entails guilt.More commonly, nudity attracts disrespect,as when Noah’s son Ham spies his fatherin his cups (Genesis 9:20-27), or whenpriests are warned against exposing them-selves at the altar (Exodus 20:23). On occa-sion, nudity can indicate poverty. Beingwithout clothing implies a lack of protec-tion, as in the case of someone bereft ofparents or a husband (Ezekiel 16:7). Nuditycan also reflect a loss of control of one’spersonal fate (as in the references to nudityin captivity; and possibly to Jesus on thecross). Most important for our context, how-ever, is to observe that in antiquity animalsdo not wear garments; gods and humanbeings do.

Having survived their partaking of thefruit, the pair accepted the serpent’s coun-sel and deemed themselves “like divinebeings who know good and bad” (Genesis3:5). The Earthling and his Woman wantedto distance themselves from the world ofanimals and, by threading leaves for cloth-ing, simply wished to approximate the divine.By doing so, therefore, their lapse was notso much disobeying God’s command butfavoring the serpent’s counsel over that ofGod. As it happens, their first recordedanswer to God proves how aware they wereof crossing a fearful threshold. When Godasks Earthling where he is, he lies preciselyabout the change that transformed him intothe guilty person he has become, “I heardthe sound of You in the garden, and I wasafraid because I was naked, so I hid” (Genesis3:10). The two, in fact, were no longer naked,and they knew it.

At this point, Lord God needs to confrontan unacceptable situation. Having partakenfrom the Tree of Life, the Earthling and theWomanarenowimmortal.Moreover,thepairhas proved themselves able to make choicesand to reason. To have them immortal andknowing is to have them divine, a conditionthat Lord God could not tolerate for long. InGenesis 3:14-19, we read about Lord God’ssolution.First,theserpentiscursed:“Onyourbelly shall you crawl ... and dirt shall you eat.IwillputenmitybetweenyouandtheWoman,andbetweenyouroffspringandhers.”Rather

thanacurse,however, theWoman receivesagift,albeitwithasting.Desiringherhusband,sheistobeartheirchildren:“Iwillmakemostsevere Your pangs in childbearing; in painshall you bear children” (Genesis 3:16). TheEarthlinglikewiseisnotcursed,butthegroundon which he will labor will be hostile: “By thesweatofyourbrowshallyougetbreadtoeat.”Hewillnolongerliveforever,butdie,hisbodyturning into the dirt that feeds the next gen-eration of serpents: “For dust you are, And todust you shall return” (Genesis 3:19).

We notice the brilliant way in whichthe fates of all three participants in thedrama are intertwined: The serpent’s broodfeeds on the remains of the humans whokill it. But we also notice that even as LordGod was negating the pair’s newly acquiredimmortality by introducing death as a bio-logical cessation of their lives, what theyhad achieved through their daring couldnot be fully withdrawn. Immortality under-goes transmutation and what was onceattained by just two individuals becausethey sampled from the Tree of Life can nowbe shared by the whole species throughbirth giving, the gift Lord God has bestowedon the Woman.

Only at this point, when the promise ofchildren guaranteed the immortality thatthe pair was losing individually, does theEarthling arrive at the proper name for theWoman. Thus far, she had been simply acompanion to the Earthling; but now shewill have a function. The Earthling hadnamed each of the animals (Genesis 2:19-20), giving them function and purpose, andhe is now ready to bestow on Woman aname that not only differentiated her gen-der from his, but also broadcast her uniqueachievement to succeeding generations: “TheEarthling named his wife Eve, because shewas the mother of all the living” (Genesis3:20). The etiology that was launched whenEarthling vainly sought a companion findsnow its proper resolution.

Lord God takes two additional steps.First, he clothes the pair in skins (Genesis3:21). This is not a solicitous act on his part,not to mention that it is also unfair to thebeasts. In the ancient world, ordinarily onlysandals, belts, and headgears were madeof leather. However, when King Sargon ofAgade wished to humiliate a defeated ruler,he dressed him in skins, and whenGilgamesh, haggard and grief-stricken, lostcontact with civilization, he wore skins. Soas the Earthling and his wife leave theGarden, Lord God found a way to remindthe pair of their proximity to the animalworld they had sought to escape. The secondstep Lord God takes is more consequential.In Genesis 3:22, Lord God admits: “With

Creationcontinued from page 41

C R E A T I O N

52


Protect your magazines!

BIBLEREVIEWBinders

To order: 800-221-4644 ext. 203

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

Holds12Issues

Holds12Issues

$12.95 EACH + $4.95 S/H ITEM 6BIBL

• Perfect for your library!

• Handsome red leatherette

• Elegant gold embossed title on front and spine

• Securely holds 12 issues

C R E A T I O N

54


the Earthling being like one of us in know-ing good and bad, what if he should nowstretch out his hand and also take from theTree of Life and eat—he will live for-ever?”4

Prudently, Lord God blocks access to theTree of Life (Genesis 3:24), for it must nolonger be possible for the multitudes cre-ated by the pair to have individual accessto immortality.

The couple’s transfiguration into ourancestors Adam and Eve is now complete.Our history can now begin.

For millennia, both in the Bible worldand beyond, people have speculated aboutconditions that would allow mortals to graspwhat was achieved momentarily by Adamand Eve. As we continue to grapple withthis story, we remain beguiled by its con-sequence and determined to find ways toreverse our fate: theologically, by hopingfor resurrection or reincarnation; scientifi-cally, by searching for the perfect drug. Thenoted biologist George Wald, sympathiz-ing with our dilemma, tried to comfort uswith words that celebrated what wasachieved in the Garden of Eden: “Thestrange thing is that we have immortality,but in the wrong place. We have it in thegerm plasm [in the species]; we want it inthe soma, in the body.”5 In truth, we sim-ply cannot have it all. b

1 See Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary to Genesis( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), vol. 1, pp. 12-15.

2 K.R. Veenhof, “The Old Assyrian Hamustum-Period:a Seven-Day Week,” Jarbricht van Het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap, Ex Oriente Lux 34 (1995-1997),pp. 5-26.

3 It is in this sense (and not in its details) that Genesis1 evokes parallels to Mesopotamia’s Enuma Elish, the“Creation Epic,” which claimed for the Babylonians(in some versions, also for Assyrians) that their nationwas primordially selected for elevation.

4 The Revised Standard Version’s (RSV’s) translationof our passage, “Behold, the man has become like oneof us, knowing good and evil …,” implies that Lord Godis reacting to a new set of circumstances in whichhumans have come to know good and bad. But the ver-bal form in this phrase is past, not present as in theRSV, and Lord God’s apprehension does not come untilthe second portion of his statement, “what if he shouldnow stretch out his hand?” The syntax of Genesis 3:22,therefore, locates Lord God’s alarm not in the pairhaving attained knowledge (they displayed it beforethey ate from the fruit), but in their potential continu-ing access to the Tree of Life.

5 George Wald, The End of Life: A Discussion at theNobel Conference Organized by Gustavus Adolphus College,St. Peter, Minnesota, 1972, ed. J.D. Roslanski (Amsterdam,1973), p. 19.For fuller expositions of ideas developed in this arti-

cle, with ample bibliographic and textual citations, seeJack M. Sasson, “Time … to Begin,” in Michael Fishbane,Emanuel Tov and Weston W. Fields, eds., “Sha‘areiTalmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the AncientNear East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (WinonaLake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), pp. 183-194; and Sasson,“The ‘Mother of All ...’ Etiologies,” pp. 205-220, in SaulM. Olyan and Robert C. Culley, eds., “A Wise andDiscerning Mind”: Essays in Honor of Burke O. Long,Brown Judaic Studies 325 (Providence, RI: Brown JudaicStudies, 2000).

PROMOTE• books• products• conferences• clubs• Web sites

SELL• collectables• other items

REACHthousands of individu-als who share the samepassion for biblicalscholarship as you

COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIESPost your employment opportunity in Bible Reviewand reach our vast readership of academic profession-als across the country.

CONTACTTim Ryan, Advertising Director. [email protected]

RATES$5 per word. 20 word minimum. 20% discount for running classified ad in six consecutive issues.Telephone numbers count as two words each. Sendtext and graphics via e-mail to [email protected].

PAYMENTCheck, MC, Visa, or AmEx only. Payment must bereceived in full by due date or ad will not run. Formore payment information and due dates, visit ourwebsite at www.bib-arch.org, and click on “Advertise”located at the bottom of the page.

Need to REACH ATARGETED AUDIENCE?

PLACE A CLASSIFIED AD IN BIBLE REVIEW!

Subscribers to ARCHAEOLOGY ODYSSEY, BIBLE REVIEW, and BIBLICALARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW magazines have been receiving renewal notifications,subscription offers and invoices in the mail from the following companies:

• American Consumer Publishing Association• Associated Publishers• Global Publication Service• Lake Shore Publishers Service• Lake Shore Publishing Service• Magazine Billing Services, Inc.• Magazine Payment Services, Inc.• Platinum Publishing Service• Publishers Billing Services• Publishers Consolidated Subscription Service• Publishers Education Service• Publishers Marketplace of America• Publishers Processing Services, Inc.• Publishers Service Exchange• Publishers Service Network• Subscription Payment Services• United Publishers Network

These companies are not authorized representatives of ARCHAEOLOGYODYSSEY, BIBLE REVIEW, and BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW or the BiblicalArchaeology Society. Please do not send them any money as they cannotrenew your subscription. Thank you for your help in this important matter.

SUBSCRIBER ALERT!

BR Summer05 FINAL

Documents