Eve: The Unbearable Flaming Fire 9781463201609, 1463201605

Table of contents :
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement
Prolegomenon
The Mother of Life and the Infertility of Eden
The Polarity of Wisdom and Fear of God in the Eden Narrative and in the Book of Proverbs
Did Eve Know What was Hidden in the Apple?
The Whore and the Wife
The Death and Resurrection(s) of Eve: Reversing the Misfortunes of the Theios Aner and Other Dying and Rising Gods and Goddesses
Eve in Eden

Citation preview

Eve: The Unbearable Flaming Fire

Eve: The Unbearable Flaming Fire

Edited by

Mishael M. Caspi John T. Greene

9

34 2013

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2013 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2013

‫ܒ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0160-9

ISSN 1943-9377 Second Printing

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is Available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgement..................................................................................vii Prolegomenon...........................................................................................1 Mishael M. Caspi and John T. Greene The Mother of Life and the Infertility of Eden.................................17 Rachel S. Havrelock The Polarity of Wisdom and Fear of God in the Eden Narrative and in the Book of Proverbs .......................................................25 Tova Forti Did Eve Know What was Hidden in the Apple?..............................39 Irit Aharony The Whore and the Wife.......................................................................65 Mishael M. Caspi The Death and Resurrection(s) of Eve: Reversing the Misfortunes of the Theios Aner and Other Dying and Rising Gods and Goddesses...............105 John T. Greene Eve in Eden...........................................................................................165 Herb Hain

v

Biblical Intersections

10

This series explores biblical literature as a product and a reflection of the world in which it was produced. In addition to studies that take an historical approach, monographs and edited collections also examine the biblical text from alternative perspectives, including social-scientific, theological, literary, and cultural studies approaches.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT In a very real sense, this book/anthology is the result of advice and encouragement from Dr. Matthew Collins, Ph.D., Former Director of Congresses for the Society of Biblical Literature. Once the proposal for a seminar in the Biblical Characters in the Three Traditions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) was presented to him, he recognized immediately the importance of such an enterprise. He worked tirelessly to promote and facilitate it becoming a reality. These efforts came to fruition at the first annual SBL International Conference to be held in South Asia in Singapore (June 26—July 1, 2005). Perhaps the fathers need to rethink their dictum: “sonay mattanot yihyweh.” Paralleling the facilitating efforts and constant encouragement rendered by Dr. Collins were those of Ms. Trista Krock, now Director of International Congresses, and the “strong arm on which the leader leans.” She took our “theory” of a seminar and put it into concrete form by producing a “physical plant” in which it could take place. Without her organizational skills and sharp eye for detail, the needed technical and electronic support that complemented our presentations would not have been so readily at hand. We say with the fathers therefore: “’asay lexha rav u qenay lexha xhaver.” Without the joint support of Dr. Collins and Ms. Krock, neither the Seminar nor this volume would have been possible. “ha’amidu talmidim harbeh.” The co-editors are blessed by their gimilut xhasadim and their professional example.

vii

PROLEGOMENON MISHAEL M. CASPI JOHN T. GREENE Rise, My Lord, and do away with me; That I might depart from you and from the Presence of God and from the angels; So that they will cease to be angry with you on my account. (Apocalypse of Adam 29:8–9)

A. When Eve was born, the storyteller does not mention her cry for life. Eve’s first cry in the world is not heard; she does not present herself to God with the requisite phrase “Here I am!” She does not cry out against injustice, evil, or discrimination. She enters quietly the garden; her voice lost among the branches of trees and swallowed by the murmuring river waters. Because the storyteller left this part of Eve’s life a mystery, we come to understand the importance of Eve’s birth through her act of transgression, resulting in death in life and pain in birth. One must ask, then, what is the woman’s voice in the story? Is it simply that silence informs presence? Or is she to be understood as a passive person? Is she responsible for actions? Is she supposed to be accountable to her husband? Does she not have any redeeming qualities? Is her wisdom hidden beneath her servitude? These questions are addressed by many literary, religious and scholarly works written throughout history. Across the three traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, there are stories told that reveal a different Eve from the one presented in canonized texts. From cry to voice, to voice of God, to the voice of Adam 1

2

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

naming and the voice of God creating image and likeness, ’All about Eve’ hinges on the style of her creation, and the divine spark she holds within. This style is formulated by taking a look at two very important phases about image and likeness. When God created ’Adam’, the divine voice declared, “Let us make Adam (humankind) in our “image, according to our likenesses.”(Gen. 1:26) At this point the reader questions the meaning behind “our image,” and “our likeness.” One can think back to the Greeks and see that their notions of image and likeness were quite different from the human biped we are. Theirs and other cultures embraced an image and likeness closer to androgyny, with male and female created together as one; neither male nor female, but possibly possessing four arms and four legs, along with two heads. However, following the verse about image and likeness comes another phase that attempts to explain the concept of image. “So God created ’Adam’ in his image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1:27) Unfortunately, the complementary phrase of “our likeness,” is missing; once again left to the imagination of the reader. Of course, as we well know, these gaps in the text allowed over the years interpretations that have literally destroyed certain freedoms of women throughout social, political and religious arenas. One must ask what is the significance of this deletion? It indicates that in the creation, humankind was created in the image of God, but not necessarily given the likeness of God. The ’Godly’ image, YHWH, is the divine presence beyond human perception. It is the ’Being’ which is beyond the grasp of any human. “Our likeness” is an expression about divine existence, the source of divine energy everywhere for which humanity ought to be searching and discovering. In the stage of Post-Creation, we understand that ’Adam’, or humanity, lacks the likeness of Elohim, God. Thus, he was created and blessed, but the blessing implies a future situation in which ’Adam’/humanity will find the likeness of God within him/herself. At this stage humanity will be able to recognize its creativity and spirituality. In the first creation story (Gen. 1:1–2:4a), there is no distinction made between the sexes and the androgynous ’Adam’ is the full image of God and is touched with the likeness of God.

PROLEGOMENON

3

This connection provides growth and vitality in his life, completes him as a human being, and allows him to hear all the voices in the Garden and enter into dialogue with his environment. However, the state of androgyny is both everything and nothing. This creates a condition of uncertainty, a lack of identity, and leaves ’Adam’ in a condition of immaturity. In the second creation story, (Gen. 2:4b– 25), God creates Eve; the androgyny of ’Adam’ is split into the female Eve and the male Adam. This story does not tell of the androgyny, but in the contrast marks Adam as solely male from the first moment “then the Lord formed a man from the dust of the ground…and the man became a living being” (2:7) referring to him as “man” two times. When no suitable partner can be found for Adam in all of the animal kingdom, God creates Eve, and in so doing establishes the female in distinct contrast to the male. This gives them both identity and greater maturity. It is very possible to suggest, though, that between the two, Eve was of greater wisdom and maturity than her husband. This can be drawn from the way in which Eve was created. It is very significant that she was not formed from the dust as was Adam, but was formed from a rib of Adam. In the Hebrew text there is a verb that is not present in the English, va-yi-ben, which means to construct, to erect, or to create. This suggests that the rib from which Eve was made gave her a special wisdom and creativity in the very matter of her being. In addition to being a part of the image of God, Eve is given a special link to the likeness of God as a result of her formation from the rib. It is not surprising, then, that it is she who first enters into dialogue with her environment. The first time the reader hears of Eve speaking, it is when she converses with the serpent. Eve sees that the tree [is] good for food, and that it [is] a delight to the eyes, and that the tree [is] to be desired to make one wise (3:6), qualities which Adam, apparently, had failed to notice during his time in the Garden. Eve’s ability to discern these things and Adam’s lack thereof are glossed over by the storyteller, but are remnants of the original narrative, which undoubtedly delved more deeply into this issue. This gloss allows the reader to ignore that question and skip directly to Eve sharing the fruit with Adam, and the eyes of both being opened. Traditionally, this scene is interpreted to place Eve in the role of the “scarlet woman”, the seducer who brought

4

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

suffering to the world. There is nothing in the actual text, however, that suggests this. What we do find in the text is: She took of the fruit thereof and did eat and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat. (3:6)

Here the storyteller points out the mutual joy in eating the fruit. The man and the woman, both together, eat of the fruit. The use of the preposition “with” accentuates the festivity in the event and the sense of desire. At this level we may offer an interpretation that Eve presents Adam with the fruit of creativity and wisdom. In this, she is offering him everything that he was lacking, acting not as a malicious temptress, but instead as a type of mentor to her husband, endeavoring to increase his wisdom by sharing with him what she had found using the special gifts God had bestowed upon her. The reader has some difficulty in discerning the opinion that the storyteller has of Eve. It often seems belittling, yet there are some nuances of appreciation and respect, especially in the scene of Adam hiding from God. In that scene the storyteller paints Adam as a coward who blames everything and everyone at whom he can point his finger because he is incapable of taking responsibility for his own actions. Let us consider carefully the following narrative. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves…And they heard the voice of the Lord…and Adam (and his wife) hid (themselves) . . . (3:7–8)

All the verbs in the narrative up to the act of hiding are in the plural third person, but with the act of hiding the storyteller changes to the singular third person: “and Adam . . . hid ”, meaning that Adam was the instigator of that particular action, and possibly the only one carrying it out. One can hypothesize that a biblical redactor added the ending ve-ish-to (and his wife), but did not change the singular form of the preceding verb. It may be, then, that Eve did not hide at all from the Lord but only Adam. This is further supported by the fact that God does not ask both Adam and Eve why they are hiding; He only asks Adam. Adam replies,

PROLEGOMENON

5

“I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

It is also important to note that following the transgression, both the terms YHWH (Lord) and Elohim (God) appear in the text. YHWH, as you recall, is the deity who is beyond human comprehension, yet, requires humanity to always strive for it. Elohim, in contrast, is the personal deity, close to humanity and He blesses Adam and Eve with wisdom, creativity and vitality. The “image” (tse-lem) of YHWH and the “likeness” (d’mut) in Elohim present a contrast in deific roles which happens to be mirrored in Adam and Eve. For example, YHWH is passive while Elohim is active; Adam is passive while Eve is active. Eve demonstrates how active she is when she sees the beauty in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, eats the forbidden fruit from it, offers some to Adam, and he passively takes what is given to him—no questions asked! “Likeness” offers humanity the desire to search out and find this source. Once a person achieves this “likeness”, he or she has created an image of God, and in the same moment has recreated themselves in God’s likeness as well. If we also examine how the word image is presented in parallel with the verse describing creation: “…in the image of God he created him: male and female He created them,” (Gen. 1:27) we can see the phrase “in the image of God,” and “male and female,” are used in immediate succession with the ending of “he created them.” This suggests very strongly that the two phrases could be interchangeable; that is, that the image of God encompasses both male and female, and is incomplete without both elements.

B. Historically and scholarly, there are many interpretations of Eve’s behavior in the garden. Feminist scholarship ranges in view from Eve introducing evil into the life of all humanity to Eve being set

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

6

up as an example for the sexuality of the human1. In Milton’s Paradise Lost, Eve is transformed from a childish and irresponsible person to a vicious and jealous woman who violates God’s command and offers Adam the forbidden fruit so that he won’t marry another woman once Eve dies. There are many interpretations to the role of the serpent. “Now the serpent was more subtle than any other animal.” (3:11) But where did he come from? No one really knows, but for the most part, he has been presented as evil with the intention to make Eve a shameful woman. The post-biblical literature is in accord with this idea. The serpent went and said to the woman: Behold, I touched it, but I did not die. Thou mayest touch it and thou will not die. The woman went and touched the tree, and she saw the angel of death coming towards her; she said: Woe is me! I shall now die, and the Holy One, blessed be he, will make another woman and give her to Adam, but behold I will cause him to eat with me; if we shall die, we shall both die, and if we should live, we shall both live, and she took of the fruit of the tree, and ate thereof, and also gave (of the fruit) to her husband, so that he should eat with her…When Adam had eaten of the fruit of the tree, he saw that he was naked, and his eyes were opened, and his teeth set on edge. He said to her: What is this that thou hast given me to eat, that my eyes are open and my teeth set on edge? Just as my teeth were set on edge, so shall the teeth of all generations be set on edge.2

For more information see Nina Auerbach, Communities of Women: An Idea of Fiction, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1978) and Letty M. Russell, ed., Feminist Interpretation of the Bible, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985). 2 Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 13 1

PROLEGOMENON

7

In some literary works we find descriptions of the events in the Garden. The serpent did not just beguile the woman but also made her realize that all Adam had commanded her to do was a lie. Yet, at the same time, she did not want to bring herself to defile his commands totally. So instead of offering the fruit to him alone, she offered it to all living beings. Not yet satisfied, she gave of the fruit to all other living beings that they, too, might be subject to death.3 Eve is not only active in the physical sense, but in a metaphorical one, too, as she works to further the wisdom of humanity in the eating of the fruit. She understands the power to be gained in this action and does what is necessary to gain it. In the aftermath of this event, both God and Adam act in ways that show their new understanding of Eve’s inexorable vitality and power. Adam does so in his naming of her. The text says, “The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” (3:20) God’s punishment to Eve centers around curbing her, reining her in and trying to control her. He says, “I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing” (3:16), trying to subdue her fecundity and creative potency. God also says, “yet your desire shall be for your husband” (3:16), circumscribing her sexuality and limiting it. Finally, God says, “and he shall rule over you” (3:16), as if to say that Eve is too strong, too intelligent, and too apt to use that intelligence for God to leave as free-willed as Adam. He feels the need to enlist Adam’s help in restraining her. One must, ask, then, why God feels so keenly this need to impose passivity on Eve and restrain her from undertaking any more actions like eating of the Tree. Could it be that God fears the power Eve could gain if left unchecked? Was she moving humanity towards gaining the wisdom of the deity? Indeed, it was as the serpent said, once Adam and Eve ate, their eyes were opened and they were “like God, knowing good and evil.” (3:5) We suggest that God feared losing his position of supremacy to his own creation. His dread was so great that he knew that the only way to prevent this was to cast both Adam and Eve out of the Garden to ensure

Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909–38), (1933) Vol. 1, 74. 3

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

8

that they did not eat of the Tree of Life, and complete the journey towards the deific realm. God, in fact, says this: “Then the Lord God said, ’See, the man has become like us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever’— therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden…and] placed the cherubim and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.” (3:22–24)

In this, we see how Eve is really a source of worry for God. The fire of activity, creative power, and wisdom within her make her continued presence a challenge to God. She understands her power and sets it in motion. When God was aware of these powers, the speaking voice tells us that God clothed her and Adam with a coat. This was a coat that she did not design, va-yal-bi-shem. There is a change in the narrative, a change from activity to passivity. Clothing the woman with a new coat points out that God “sewed” them anew and reshaped them. This deity was not happy with the woman’s activity nor with the power she now holds, to act as God. Thus, he “clothed” her with a new coat, imposing passivity on her and simultaneously expelling her from the Garden. For this deity, the best way to remain in control was to let this soprano sing outside of the Garden, outside of his realm.

C. Wir Würden aus dem Paradies vertrieben, aber Würde es nicht. Die Vertreibung aus dem Paradies war in einem Sinne ein Glück, denn waren wir nicht vertrieben worden, hätte das Paradies zerstoert worden müssen.4 We were expelled from the Garden of Eden, but it was not destroyed. The expulsion from the garden was in one sense good luck, for if we had not been expelled, the garden would have had to be destroyed. Franz Kafka, “Die Acht Oktavhefte” 18 January, in: Hochzeitsvorbereitungen auf dem Lande, (Frankfurt am Main: S. Fisher Verlag, 1980), p. 75. 4

PROLEGOMENON

9

Eve ate from the tree of knowledge so she gets blamed for the loss of eternal life for all of humanity, while Mary brings back the hope of eternal life. Mary is elevated to the vessel for the seed of God. She is the mother of the infant Jesus. Scripture describes her as being involved in two very important stages of the historical Jesus. She is the mother, the agent who gave birth to him, thus she was present at his birth. Apparently, she also was present at his death, the crucifixion. She becomes a symbol for connecting heaven and earth, humanity and the divine. Christianity views Jesus as the second Adam and Mary as the second Eve. In this sense we have an attempt to establish two doctrines, one of man and the other of woman. Here we are introduced to the first dialogue between two humanities. The word within us is connected with humanity. It is a witnessing of the primary function of language.5 Eve, the mother of all living, is not only the womb for all of humanity; she is also the nurturing one with an initial interest in morality. She is regarded as the one who first knew the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. She was a daring person, not only to eat from the tree of knowledge, but also to realize that “the tree was pleasant to the eyes.” (3:6) She discovered its beauty before eating from it. It was, for her, a blessing, since she used her new form then used her sensitivity as a powerful means to establish harmonious relationships in the world. After all, the nakedness presented here is pure and innocent. In many ways the sexuality in this story is like the one in the Song of Songs. Both Judaism and Christianity interpret this work allegorically. Judaism sees it as the love between God, the groom, and the congregation of Israel, as the bride. The Church views it as the union between Christ and his bride, the Church. Both traditions create a pure and innocent description of sexuality, a state of coming back to Eden, to the primal relationship between God and Adam and Eve. The image of the woman as bride and the return to Paradise and to the tree of life is strongly presented in Revelation:

See Paul Ricoeur, The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics, (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1974). 5

10

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE Let us be glad and rejoice and give honor to him, for the marriage of the Lamb is come and his wife hath made herself ready. (19:7)

The biblical narrative tells about the creation of woman out of man’s rib. But man is never described in the Bible. So we have to wonder what the “original” human looked like. In Greek literature we find the myth ascribed to Aristophanes which told that the original human had four arms, two heads and four legs. But because of disobedience, the gods decided to separate them, and by dividing them they made them incomplete. In this myth the separation of the original human is understood as the punishment for their disobedience. In early Christianity, the separation introduced death into the world, whereas, the Greek myth views it as a punishment, and in Jewish tradition there is a separation of the body but a union of the two. The story of the Garden can be thought of as a male adventure which violently ended because of the sinful act by a woman. The woman is blamed for their being kicked out of Paradise. For many generations it was viewed that the ultimate role of the woman is to restore the fall and to accept the fact that the Garden, Paradise, was given to man, or, to the Patriarch of the human race. Some even expanded this perception and included the three Patriarchs’ of the Hebrew nation, stating that this Garden was given to them and the role of the woman is to restore it as such. While both traditions, Judaism and Christianity, emphasize this aspect, they also maintain the idea that what ever happened in the Garden happened because of the special relationship Eve established with the serpent/devil/instructor/Satan. In the Western Church, the terms sermon and homily were used interchangeably. In the collections of the Church Fathers we find them sometimes called sermo, which means discourse, sermons and sometimes homilia, homily. These terms are used as early as the 3rd Century, since the time of Origen. Yet, during this time there was a distinction between these two terms, the sermon was used to ascribe an artistic work, while the homily was a form of informal discourse. Both traditions, Judaism and Christianity, were attempting to find ways of interpreting the events that happened in the Garden,

PROLEGOMENON

11

yet neither tradition paid attention to the very important fact that during the whole story of Creation there is no dialogue between God and His creation. All that we have here is presented in the third person pronoun, “God said…”, “God saw…”, and “…it was so.” Even when there is an attempt to present a dialogue, “Let us make man in our image” it is indirect speech. In the Book of Proverbs we hear that the Wisdom was with God in the early stages of creation: The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way, before His work of old… Then I was by Him as one brought up with Him and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before Him. (8:22–30)

And still, there is no dialogue with Wisdom found in the story of the Creation. Indeed, the first dialogue with Wisdom found in the story of the Creation is not between God and Adam or Eve, or any other creature, but one between Eve and the serpent. This dialogue is not about the importance of Creation, or about the role of humanity in it, but about God’s Commandment. This dialogue appears to be a remnant where the beginning of the dialogue was deleted by a certain redactor before the canonization was made. It was possible that the narrator did not view the beginning of the dialogue as important. The text suggests that the dialogue began in the middle of it Wa-yo-mer, “and he (the serpent) said to the woman.” (3:1) We are not told what was said earlier. The reader can only surmise or imagine what happened. The woman interrupts the serpent in the middle of its talk. The dialogue appears to be an exchange of ideas on a particular issue with neither reaching an agreement. Then, what we witness in this first biblical dialogue is that the serpent presents in a careless manner the Commandment of Good. The woman increases the tension in this dialogue by cutting the serpent’s statement in the middle, making sure there are no discrepancies between what is said and God’s Command. Yet, at the same time, she adds something of which the readers were not aware. She adds: “neither shall you touch it…” (3:3) When God commanded Adam about the tree of knowledge, He said:

12

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of good and evil thou shalt not eat. (2:16–17)

There is no statement here against touching the tree. So it is either the woman, in the heat of the dialogue, adding the element of touching the tree as God’s command, or that Adam, when he stated this command, mentions the touching, but the narrator failed to inform the reader. Eve, as goddess of wisdom, seems to be trying to pin the serpent down, make it say what it truly means. There is much giving space in this episode to suggest that the narrator’s emphasis on the craftiness of the serpent can be shown in the dialogue itself. The serpent tricked the woman to add another aspect into God’s Commandment, the touching aspect, which was not known to the audience. The Jewish Sages suggest that at this point the serpent pushed her and she touched the tree, but no harm came to her.

D. And O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in Paradise, and eat thereof as you both wish, but approach not this tree, otherwise you both will be of al-za-li-mi-na. Then al-shai-ta-nu whispered suggestions to them both in order to uncover that which was hidden from them of their private parts; he said: ’Your Lord did not forbid you this tree save you should become angels or become of the immortals’. (QU. 7:19–20)

Islamic tradition accentuates that Allah created the first human innocent, thus all the generations of those who were born and who will be born in the future are innocent in matters material as well as spiritual. At the moment they were given the faculty of choice, with it they acquired the characteristic of evil too. Indeed, humanity was placed in the Spiritual Garden, a place of innocence and bliss, but Allah’s plan was not to let humanity dwell there forever, but to give him the faculty of choice by forbidding him to “Approach not this tree”. (2:17) The Muslim sages tell us that Adam was instructed to pray three times a day, in addition to mentioning the name of the Prophet Muhammad. It was from this tradition that they established the teaching that Adam became cognizant that the Prophet Muhammad was the last of the prophets and his offspring.

PROLEGOMENON

13

Arabic literature tends to expound upon the economical text and tales present within the Qur’an. In an intriguing phenomenon, the concise verses and singular appearances of names instigated the conception of post-Quranic literature. In similar fashion to Jewish tradition, Muslim scholars expressed the need to bridge the significant gaps between the written text and audience comprehension. In addition, these scholars adopted stories from their contemporary Jewish and Christian sages. Al-Thalabi (11th Century) notes that the first generation interpreters expounded on the extreme loneliness of Adam in the Garden. According to this first generation of interpreters, Allah sensed Adam’s isolation, thus he put him in a deep sleep, took a rib from his ribs, thereby creating Eve. Then Allah clothed her with the most beautiful clothing and jewels. Upon Adam’s waking from his slumber, he perceived the beauty of the woman. Another Muslim scholar, Kisa’i, suggested that Adam first saw the woman in his dream and immediately fell deeply in love with her. Describing her beauty, Kisa’i held that she boasted seven hundred curly locks that were covered with gems and scented with musk. In one of the post-Quranic stories, we find a story in the name of Ali b Abu Talib, the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad, and the fourth khalif, who said that Adam saw Eve in his dream and she consequently responded: I am the maid servant of Allah and you are his servant. Ask him to let you take me as your wife.

Muslim scholars teach us that Adam and Eve lived for five hundred years in the Garden. This period was a period of extreme happiness. They walked from one place to another, showered by the angels with coins of Paradise. Adam’s horse was created five hundred years before this owner. This horse was created from the musk of the Garden and he was dubbed Maymun, ’happy’. But in another story, the horse was created from camphor, musk and saffron, and there did not exist a beast in heaven, save al Buraq, that was more beautiful than Maymun. Kisa’i describes the morning call for prayer in the following manner:

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

14

Ka’ab said: Whenever a cock crows at dawn a voice cries from Paradise, saying: Where are the humble? Where are those who kneel down? Where are those who praise Allah humbly… The first to hear this is an angel in heaven, himself in the form of a cock with white feathers and down, whose head is beneath the gates of mercy on the Sublime Throne and whose feet are in the roots of the Seventh Lower Earth and whose wings are always spread.6

The interpreters of the three traditions read the story of the Garden and accentuate that the story presents the female voice as being seductive. But, indeed, her voice is not as such nor is it the voice of a temptress, but rather the voice of a guide and instructor, or even a trainer whose role is to show his trainee the first steps in his role. Thus, this female gets out of the chains of passivity and becomes an active person. Only by her active duty does Adam cease to be a passive character. For this reason, probably, the biblical narrator begins the life of Adam and Eve outside the Garden by stating: “And Adam knew Eve his wife”. (Gen. 4:1) There is no place in the biblical story to suggest, as Ibn ’Arabi argued, that Adam was created in the image of God and thus became greater than the angels. The Quranic verse “and he taught Adam all the names” (2:31), meaning that Adam was taught the inner meaning of nature and its qualities, suggests that we can accept the notion of Ibn ’Arabi that Adam was taught to possess the qualities of the angels. To justify their reading, some of the Fathers of the Church suggested that the fall of Satan occurred one week after the creation of Adam. Satan declared war against God (or the host of Almighty God). Twice the angels tried to fight him but they failed. Then God gave them the Cross of Light which bore the writings; In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost; only then the Satan became faint. Three traditions, each one reads the biblical text, kneads, and shapes it to strengthen its religious institution. Yet, for us the reading of this story is like a parable. Kisai’s, The Legends of the Prophets, M. Thacksten, tr., (Chicago: Kazi Publications, 1997). 6

PROLEGOMENON

15

God wants humanity to come to Him in perfect freedom, ready to form a dialogue between them. Humanity has everlasting power to act upon creation, and with his creation God has freed the world from the void.

THE MOTHER OF LIFE AND THE INFERTILITY OF EDEN RACHEL S. HAVRELOCK UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO I begin with the premise that there is an identifiable female hero pattern in the Hebrew Bible that involves the negotiation between barrenness and fertility. Barrenness or difficulty in conception is the Proppian lack that serves as a catalyst for this variety of female tale and likewise causes the biblical plot to divert from its usual focus on the male quest to secure a place in the land and the protection of God to the female imperative to secure a name and a form of longevity. Female infertility indicates a breakdown of God’s promise to the patriarchs that “a nation, an assembly of nations, shall stem from you, and kings shall come forth from your loins” (Gen. 35:11), as well as an impediment to the fulfillment of the command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 35:11).1 The paradigm includes the tales of Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Leah, Hannah, the Mother of Samson and the Great Woman of Shunem, all biblical women who overcome barrenness through a combination of articulation and initiative. The steps of this journey are:

“Abram is promised land, seed, and blessing in 12:1–3 and this is echoed for Isaac in 26:3 and Jacob in 28:13. What is of added interest is that these elements are also repeated for each father after the successful completion of his tasks at the end of each patriarchal unit (22:17, 26:24, 35:12)…Sarah, Rebecca and Rachel are initially barren; all three fathers go outside the land because of famine and drought,” Michael Fishbane, “Composition and Structure in the Jacob Cycle (Gen. 25:19–35:22),” Journal of Jewish Studies 26 (1975): 36–7. 1

17

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

18

1. Barrenness 2. Statement of Protest 3. Direct Action 4. Encounter with God 5. Conception 6. Birth 7. Naming Our focus here is on the degree to which the story of the first woman, later named Eve, conforms to the pattern and informs the variations of the female hero pattern.

THE INFERTILITY OF EDEN Barrenness, which can be read from one perspective as a crisis of the male covenant, from another, highlights a missing relationship between a particular woman and God. The measures she takes to reverse the situation are simultaneously the means through which she forges such a relationship. Despite the desperation the women feel when confronting their inability to conceive, the difficulty is the opportunity for initiation. The fact that most of the great mothers of Israel confront infertility draws our attention to the experience of the “mother of all life,” chavah or Eve. Indeed, aspects of the female hero pattern are evident in the story of the first woman. The Eden of Genesis 2 & 3 is a lush garden that produces many fruits; however Adam and the Woman, who has no name until after she is cursed,2 do not reproduce as long as they inhabit the garden. In this sense, Eden is a fertile place where the first woman experiences infertility. No explicit notice is made of the Woman’s barrenness, but the pair’s nakedness without embarrassment signals that no union and therefore no conception occur.

For the stakes of this name and its differentiation from others assigned this primordial being, see Mieke Bal, Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), 125–130. 2

THE MOTHER OF LIFE AND THE INFERTILITY OF EDEN

19

STATEMENT OF PROTEST There is no reported dialogue between the Woman and anyone else until the snake addresses her. By posing a question, the snake initiates a dialogic relationship at the same time that his rhetoric operates as a form of entrapment. Furthermore, by seeking to clarify a divine commandment, “Did God really say: Do not eat from any tree of the garden,” the snake highlights the distance between God, the source of prohibition and permission, and the Woman (Gen. 3:1). That the Woman knows of what the snake speaks shows that at some point Adam conveyed the prohibition directed to him (Gen. 2:16–17). The vulnerability of transmitted speech begins to be exposed, however, as Eve supplements the initial command. “As for the fruit of the tree at the center of the garden, God said, ’do not eat of it or touch it, lest you die’” (Gen. 3:3). The reader does not know whether Adam appended the rule not to touch the fruit or whether Eve adds this detail as an additional boundary between her and the fruit. It is rare that commentators acknowledge the relative correctness of the snake’s promise to the Woman. True to his words, the Woman and her mate do not immediately die upon consuming the fruit, although their action introduces a limited life span. As the snake says, after they eat the fruit their eyes are opened and, whether or not this renders them more like divine beings, they are able to distinguish between good and bad. During the course of her conversation with the snake, the absolute nature of God’s command becomes more subjective and the Woman notices entirely new dimensions of the tree’s fruit.

DIRECT ACTION As she regards the fruit of the tree, the woman notices that it would make for fine repast, that it pleases the eyes and that it is desirable as a mode of enlightenment. Despite the fact that all of the verbs about eating, touching and dying used in the conversation were plural, thereby involving both Adam and the Woman, her actions of taking and eating the fruit are singular. She takes a fruit, eats and then gives some to her husband. By taking the fruit, the Woman disobeys the rule against touching the tree that she had quoted to the snake. By eating, she transgresses the cardinal rule of the garden. By involving her husband, she insures their shared fate. It is clear that the Woman defies the hierarchy of God and Adam

20

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

when she breaks their rules, but to what degree can her actions be seen as a rebellion against the barrenness which she experiences in the garden? In accordance with the snake’s words, the Woman lacks the ability to emulate God until she eats of the fruit of the Tree of (the) Knowledge of Good and Evil. The snake promises increased awareness and, as it turns out, part of this awareness involves recognition of nakedness and sexuality (Gen. 3:7). Following her actions, the Woman also gains the ability to create life and thereby to resemble God as a creator. Indeed, her ability to give birth is mentioned only as she is cursed with pain in childbirth and enacted only outside the garden. In this sense, her act of eating the fruit can be seen as a rebellion against the sterile dimension of Eden.

ENCOUNTER WITH GOD The Woman and Adam share the initial encounter with the presence of God in the garden. Both hear the sound of God moving through the garden at the most pleasant hour, and both conceal themselves among the garden’s trees (Gen. 3:8). However, when God addresses the transgression, He speaks to Adam alone. Again, the Woman is left out of dialogue with the Divine. Never addressed directly, she is implicated by Adam who equates God’s action of giving the Woman to him, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, . . .” [ha iyshah ’asher natatah imadiy] with her act of giving him the fruit, “she gave me fruit of the tree.” [hiy natnah liy min ha’eytz] (Gen. 3:12). By identifying these two acts of giving, Adam seeks to absolve himself as the passive recipient of bad fortune. In turn, when God addresses the Woman, she blames her decision on the snake. God curses all three. Yet, embedded in the Woman’s curse of pain in childbirth is the promise that she will give birth (Gen. 3:16). In other words, Eve’s transformation outside of the garden involves becoming increasingly subjected to Adam’s rule at the same time that it involves becoming more like the Creator. That this resemblance entails another sort of encounter between the Woman and God becomes apparent as she names her first son.

CONCEPTION, BIRTH, AND NAMING Outside of Eden, Adam and Eve cohabitate and Eve conceives, gives birth and names her son Cain, “because I have created a man with

THE MOTHER OF LIFE AND THE INFERTILITY OF EDEN

21

Yahweh” (Gen. 4:1).3 The fashioning of this second man is the shared enterprise of Eve and God, a collaboration that she memorializes in the name of the child. While her sexual congress with her husband is stated explicitly, the resulting conception and birth involves the partnership of the female and the Divine. While every birth in the Hebrew Bible results from a sexual union between a man and woman, the conception of several heroic figures involves the double union of woman-man/woman-God. The accounts of the virgin birth in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke follow in this vein by stressing the union between a woman and God, but innovate by omitting the sexual union between a man and a woman.4 When Eve employs the verb qaniytiy which means to create,5 she recalls the epithet of the ancient Near Eastern goddess, Asherah (Athirat), qnyt ’ilm/creatrix of the gods.6 Eve’s naming speech indicates a thematic shift from Near Eastern epic in which a fertility goddess births a pantheon to biblical narrative where human mothers build a nation one generation at a time.7 The Ilana Pardes describes the thematic tapestry in which the birth of Cain signals the manifestation of the knowledge gained in Eden while inaugurating the discourse of genealogy. It is also the event where Eve shifts from object to subject. Cf. Pardes, “Beyond Genesis 3: The Politics of Maternal Naming,” in Athalya Brenner, ed., A Feminist Companion to Genesis, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), p. 174. 4 I thus qualify the observation that “there is no Old Testament precedent for a virginal conception,” David T. Landry, “Narrative Logic in the Annunciation to Mary (Luke 1:26–38),” Journal of Biblical Literature 114: (1995): 75–83 (76). 5 See U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961), p. 201. 6 “This title occurs five times in the Baal-cycle (CTA 4.III.26+30+35–4.IV.32 –8.2)…It can be supposed that it was she, not El, who created the gods and thus made possible the creation of the world in the as yet unfound Ugaritic myth of creation,” Tilde Binger, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament, (Sheffield: JSOT, 1997), p. 50. 7 Similarly, “in Egypt, the Pharaoh was perceived as being born through the union of his mother, the queen, with a god…J takes this royal motif and applies it to 3

22

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

parallel is further reinforced by Asherah’s title, ’um ’il[m]/the mother of the gods (PRU II.2.43),8 and the first woman’s name, “Havah, because she is the mother of all who live.”9 Assuming the role of Divine mother on the terrestrial plane is not automatically or easily conferred on Eve. Instead, her actions wrest it from God and come with the price of pain in childbirth and social subservience (Gen. 3:16). Ilana Pardes fronts another semantic dimension of the naming speech by observing that Eve not only excludes Adam from the naming speech, but also retorts his naming of woman. Where Adam called the creature who emerged from his body “ ’iyshah (woman) because she was taken from an iysh (man),” Eve boasts that she has created an iysh (man) and has secured the power of generation for her gender. In Pardes’ words, Eve “responds in the medium he chose to use: naming-speeches. It is not you who created woman out of man (with divine help), she seems to claim, but it is I who created you iysh together with YHWH!”10 After Cain kills Abel, Eve answers death with life and gives birth to her third son. Engaging in her second naming ceremony, Eve counters another pronouncement from her recent past. She calls her child Seth, “because God has given me another seed in place of Abel whom Cain killed” (Gen. 4:25). Eve intends for this “other seed” to be free from the curse of eternal enmity between human and serpentine offspring. Where God places enmity, (ayvah ashiyt), between the snake’s and the woman’s seed (Gen. 3:15), Eve declares, “God gave me, (kiy) shat liy elohim), another seed” (4:25). With the name Eve attempts to ward off murderous desires described in the firstborn human child, who, in a sense, becomes paradigmatic for all future children,” Israel Knohl, The Divine Symphony: The Bible’s Many Voices, (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2003), pp. 43–44. 8 J. Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature,” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986): 385–408 (387). 9 “After all, hawwa (Eve) is an attested epithet of Tannit/Asherah in the first millennium BCE,” (KAI 89.1), Saul M. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel, (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 71. On the possibility of an old Asherah myth behind the Genesis Eden story, see H. Wallace, The Eden Narrative, (HSM 32; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985), p. 158. 10 Pardes, p. 182.

THE MOTHER OF LIFE AND THE INFERTILITY OF EDEN

23

animalistic terms to Cain (Gen. 4:7) as well as the potentially grave intervention of tricksters like her own snake. For my purposes, it is important that she speaks of God rather than of her husband as providing her with the seed that grows into a son and later into a genealogical line.11 Consistent with other birth stories, Eve emphasizes that she is the recipient of the divine gift by saying “God has given me another line.”12 The female hero pattern in regards to Eve is something of a truncated example because her barrenness is implied rather than stated, and the steps of verbal protest and direct action are entwined in the dialogue with the snake and the eating of the fruit. Indeed, the complete paradigm becomes most apparent in the stories of the matriarchs, Sarah and Rachel. However, by applying the female hero pattern to Eve, several aspects of the Eden story become illuminated. For example, the Woman’s desire to be like God may well mean that she subjects herself to eventual death in order to win the ability to create life. This, indeed, is commemorated in the name she receives outside of Eden, “the mother of all life.” In this sense, humanity is enabled rather than scarred by the loss of the garden. In Eve’s story, we also see the nascent theme that conception involves a manner of intimacy between a woman and God. In order to conceive, the women of the Bible must go to great lengths to alert God to their imperative. This aspect can be seen as the female parallel to male covenant. Where God calls upon male heroes and stipulates clear covenantal terms, the heroines employ language as well as action in order to be recognized and improvise a kind of covenant never sanctified as such that nonetheless is marked in their bodies and secures their memory. A relationship of Here I diverge from Ilana Pardes who reads the second naming speech as a concession on Eve’s part that God is not her co-creator, but rather the Creator. Where she understands Eve’s words to “convey respect for the boundaries between the human and divine realms,” I take them to affirm that conception requires a form of encounter between a woman and God. Pardes, p. 187. 12 The word zara’ that I have translated here as “line” also means “offspring” or, more literally, seed. 11

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

24

inversion is evident in that the male covenant is ritually enacted through the shedding of blood and the female covenant becomes manifest at conception through the absence of menstrual blood.13 In other words, the movement from barrenness to fertility parallels the plot of the hero pattern as presented in Genesis while interrupting the construction of uniquely male genealogy and legacy. Finally, Eve’s story illustrates that the naming of children is marked as an important ritual event in the lives of biblical women. Always attributed to a maternal speaker, the women encode their journey from barrenness to fertility in the names of the children. Thus, a name is a uniquely maternal inheritance. In addition, children’s names safeguard the memory of their mother’s struggle and character. Such securing of memory and longevity indicates the realization of a female covenant.

This is a variation of a proposal by the medieval exegete, Bekhor Shor, who proposed “that the blood of menstruation…within the context of the observance of the Jewish rules of menstrual purity and impurity, is the female analogue to male circumcision,” Shaye J.D. Cohen, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised? Gender and Covenant in Judaism, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), p. 196. In the barren mother stories, it is not menstruation but its absence that points to a covenantal agreement. Furthermore, conception, like circumcision, requires devotional action. 13

THE POLARITY OF WISDOM AND FEAR OF GOD IN THE EDEN NARRATIVE AND IN THE BOOK OF PROVERBS TOVA FORTI BEN-GURION UNIVERSITY ABSTRACT Wisdom’s presence throughout creation, giving pleasure to her divine Father/guardian (Prov. 8:30) in primordial time, puts her in a preeminent position between man and God (Prov. 8–9:12; cf. Job 28:12–28; Ben Sira 24; Wisdom of Solomon 6–11:1). Her close proximity to the Creator grants her comprehensive knowledge, and hence didactic authority, to conduct humans’ lives. Proverbs maintains a certain tension between seeking wisdom and fear of God. The Garden of Eden, too, can be regarded as a microcosm of the theological-philosophical dilemma of the relationship between wisdom and faith. The biblical story of Eden suggests that Eve’s transgression of God’s command “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat” (Gen. 2:17a), undermines God’s exclusive patronage of wisdom, hence Eve opens a vista for humans’ use of intelligence and keenness in handling their personal lives. The narrative of Eden presents the dogmatic view of a binary conception of loyalty and faith versus human wisdom and heresy; Eve, as well as the shrewd (or cunning) serpent, threatens this dogmatic equilibrium by offering an experiential, existential perspective that provides the mental, intellectual ability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil. Scholars have demonstrated that Genesis, Chapters 2–3, contain a number of independent units, such as the geographic description of 25

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

26

the rivers of Paradise (2:10–14) and the creation of the woman (2:18–24).1 The various literary traditions and motifs have been woven together into one story that narrates the creation of humankind. Whereas many of the etiological stories deal with the universal subject matter of the formation of human society and its first steps toward civilization, the story of the Tree of Knowledge raises the theological issue of human obedience to the commands of God. It is a story of transgression and punishment, but also a story of the development of human consciousness and awareness. Herman Gunkel already pointed out in his commentary to Genesis 3:7a “Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived that they were naked” that “The first humans experienced the passage from ignorance to knowledge just as each of us does”.2 I would like to put special emphasis upon the theme of knowledge in the Eden narrative from the perspective of wisdom in the Book of Proverbs. This perspective touches not only upon the story of the creation of humanity, but also upon the “beginnings” of theological reflection concerning the existential meaning of human in a world created by God. My essay does not strive to examine the Eden narrative as an etiological story of the primordial drive of temptation and seduction, nor to analyze the narrative as a paradigm of “human attraction to what is forbidden”, but rather to focus upon the motif of divine prohibition “but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it” (Gen. 2:17a), from the perspective of biblical wisdom and in particular, as a polemic which sees human wisdom as a threat to the fear of God. The Eden narrative suggests, through the motif of “eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge”, a parable of conceptual contradiction between human intellectual Gunkel traces in Gen. 2–3 two main individual stories in their oral stages of formation: a story about Paradise and the expulsion from it, and a story about Creation. See H. Gunkel, Genesis, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1/1, (Goettingen, 1963), p. 27. For an in-depth discussion of the isolated layers in the process of formation of Chapters 2–3, see C. Westermann, Genesis 1–11 (Trans. by J.J. Scullion; Minneapolis, 1984), pp. 190–196. 2 See Gunkel, op. cit., pp. 17–18, 27. 1

THE POLARITY OF WISDOM AND FEAR OF GOD

27

curiosity and obedience to the command of God. Eve, as well as the cunning serpent, paves the way for the humans’ use of intelligence and keenness in handling his/her personal life. This perspective is embedded in the teaching of the Book of Proverbs which recommends applying hokh-mah, “wisdom”, ’or-ma, “cunning”, me-zim-moth, “shrewdness”, and toch-niy-yah, “planning”, in choosing the correct way of life in both the ethical and pragmatic sense. 3 I would like to view the tree of knowledge as representing the broadest meaning of wisdom. Human wisdom in Proverbs designates not only practical and pragmatic thinking, it includes the intellectual faculty applied in solving problems and deducing truth and, thus, the ability to ask questions. This same mental faculty is the one that speculates about existential matters.4 It seems, thus, that the prohibition to acquire wisdom is limited to the “borders” of Eden, and the reason for the expulsion is the intimidating power of human wisdom and its opposite counterpart “the fear of God”. The Eden narrative is in agreement with the primeval polemic announcement of Proverbs “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7). Although the Book of Proverbs approves of man’s use of mental abilities, discernment, or The connotations of me-zim-moth, “shrewdness”, in Proverbs can be both negative (12:2; 14:17; 24:8) and positive (2:11; 5:2; 8:12). M-ezim-moth appears in parallelism with te-bx-nah, “good sense, discernment”, both implying practical faculties that are valuable in withstanding temptation: “Shrewdness will protect you, and discernment will guard you” (2:11). ’Or-ma “cunning” in Proverbs also carries the meaning of mental faculty to devise and use strategies in attaining one’s goals (1:4; 8:5, 12). For an in-depth conceptual discussion of synonyms of wisdom, see M. V. Fox, Proverbs 1– 9 (AB 18A; New York, 2000), pp. 29–38. 4 Bostroem states concerning wisdom, “we believe that such a definition will necessarily be broad because wisdom has to do with a particular approach to reality which takes within its scope a bewildering variety of life’s possibilities and problems”. See Lennart Bostroem, The God of the Sages: The Portrayal of God in the Book of Proverbs, (Coniectanea Biblica; Old Testament Series 29; Stockholm, 1990), p. 17. 3

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

28

prudence for understanding practical matters and for making beneficial decisions, it nevertheless maintains the same conceptual tension of human search for wisdom and the fear of God as in the paradise narrative.5 In this regard, I shall trace some conceptual and linguistic affinities between the Genesis story and Proverbs in order to demonstrate that the impressive accumulation of wisdom vocabulary employed in the story of the Tree of Eden serves to highlight the theological tension between human intellectual curiosity and the fear of God, over and above the surface issue of sin and punishment.

I. INTERRELATION BETWEEN THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE TREE OF LIFE IN GENESIS 2–3 AND PROVERBS

The tree of life is mentioned twice in juxtaposition to the tree of knowledge in the introduction (2:9) and conclusion (3:22–24) of the Paradise Narrative. The tree of knowledge is mentioned separately one more time in the command of God “but as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die"(2:17). The fact that the notation “of the fruit of the trees of the garden” appears within the framework of the narrative has Waltke claims that the key idiom in Proverbs, “fear of the Lord”, can not be understood by studying ’fear’ and ’the Lord’ in isolation from each other. The expression is compound. “Fear of the Lord” (yir-’at YHWH) involves both rational and non-rational aspects at the same time”, i.e., a referential term to moral conduct and to emotional response of fear, love and trust. See B. K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs Chapters 1–15, (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, MI., 2004), pp. 100–101. Although wisdom and fear of the Lord are closely correlated in Proverbs (1:7; 2:5; 9:10), they are not precisely equated. Fox (op. cit., pp. 69–71) interprets “fear of God” in relation to wisdom as a progressive stage of conscience from unreflective fear to a cognitive awareness of the meaning of “fear of God,” “If you seek it [wisdom] like silver…then you will understand the fear of the Lord; and knowledge of God you will find” (2:4–5). 5

THE POLARITY OF WISDOM AND FEAR OF GOD

29

given rise to discussions about the number of forbidden trees in the garden; one or two?6 The juxtaposition of the tree of life with the tree of knowledge solely in the introduction and conclusion has generated a literary-critical argument of one tree in the middle of the garden in the original story that has been expanded at the beginning and at the end by a motif that belonged to another independent story.7 Similarly, God’s reflection “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!” (3:22) has been interpreted as a proof for an independent narrative that deals mainly with the motif of the search for eternal youth, or of eating the fruit of the tree of life as a guarantee against death—a familiar motif embedded in the Epic of Gilgamesh (XI, 266–295).8 In my view, even if we accept the literary-critical approach of separate traditions, or of a pre-literary stage of independent oral traditions,9 the question still remains: Why did the later editor juxtapose both kinds of trees and even fuse them into one selfcontained story? The answer is provided by God’s retrospective reflection expressing the idea that eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge might uncover the secret of long life and even Budde has demonstrated that there is only one tree in the body of the narrative (3: 2, 3, 5, 11, 2) and that it is qualified in two ways―the tree in the middle of the garden, 3:3, and the forbidden tree, 3:11. See K. Budde, Biblische Urgeschichte, (Giessen, 1883), Part II, pp. 46–88. 7 For an in-depth discussion with accompanying literature about the two trees in Paradise, see C. Westermann, op. cit., pp. 211–214. 8 See ANET, p. 96. Westermann (op. cit., p. 214) argues for a magical meaning of the plant of life which derives from a magical (and hence nonmythical) understanding of human eagerness to prolong life, common to primitive cultures. See also V. P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1– 17, (Grand Rapids, MI, 1990), pp. 162–163; Wenham mentions other trees in the Bible as a symbol of life (e.g., Gen. 21:33; Ps. 1:3; Jer. 17:8). See G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary, (Nashville, TN, 1987), p. 62. 9 See, e.g., Von Rad’s explanation of a duality of trees in the midst of the garden as a result of the combination of two traditions in G. Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, (Muenster/London: LIT Verlag, 2004), pp. 78–79. 6

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

30

eternity. Although the expulsion from Eden is justified by the threat of the human attaining eternal life, still the dependency between knowledge and long life remains in place. A solution to this enigmatic motif is suggested by the ideational linkage between wisdom and long life in the Book of Proverbs. Long life, riches, and reputation are the three benefits of wisdom mentioned in Proverbs 3:16 “In her right hand is length of days, In her left, riches and honor.” The tree of life, which is mentioned in Proverbs four times (3:18; 11:30; 13:12; and 15:4),10 is described as an invigorating source of life, providing physical vitality and happiness to the one who seeks wisdom. Although scholars have associated “tree of life” with the one in Genesis,11 they still considered it a mythological reminiscence, a metaphor, or “a pale figure of speech”,12 and, in fact, the phrase “tree of life” in Proverbs lacks any epic background or cosmological allusions. Still in all, connecting the The tree of life is also mentioned in apocryphal literature (1 Enoch 24:4; 2 Enoch 8:3, 5, 8; 9:1; T. Levi 18:10–11; 2 Esd. 8:52; 4 Esd.; 4 Macc. 16:18), and in the NT (Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). 11 See, e.g., A. Barucq, Le livre des Proverbes, (Paris, 1964), p. 63; Ploeger associates only the first reference to the tree of life in Proverbs 3:18 with the one in Genesis 2. See O. Ploeger, Sprueche Salomos (BKAT 17), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1984), pp. 37–38. 12 G. Von Rad, op. cit., p. 78. See also W. McKane, Proverbs, A New Approach, (London: OTL, 1970), p. 296; R. E. Murphy, Proverbs , (WBC 22; Nashville, 1998), p. 22; R. J. Clifford, Proverbs, (London-Leiden: OTL, 1999), pp. 54–55; Fox, op. cit., p. 159; Vattioni ignores any reference of the “tree of life” in Proverbs to Gen. 2–3 and opts for a clear connection between texts of later Judaism (e.g., Test.-Levi 18:10–11; 4 Esr. 8:52; Macc. 16:18 and the NT, Rev. 2:7; 22:1–2, 14, 19. See F. Vattioni, “L’albero della vita,” Aug. 7 (1967): 133–144. Marcus equates all four references with the later Hebrew idiomatic expression śam aym, which is a “drug” or “remedy”. See R. Marcus, “The Tree of Life in the Book of Proverbs, JBL 62 (1943): 117–20. On the general background, see H. N. Wallace, “Tree of Knowledge and Tree of Life,” ABD 6: 658–60, and V. A. Hurowitz, “Paradise Regained: Proverbs 3:13–20 Reconsidered,” Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume (edited by C. Cohen, A. Hurvitz, S. M. Paul: Winona Lake, Ind., 2004), p. 50, n. 2. 10

THE POLARITY OF WISDOM AND FEAR OF GOD

31

key term de-rech, “way”, related to wisdom in Proverbs 3:17 with the following verse “the Tree of Life” in v.18a, yields the phrase “Her ways are the ways toward the Tree of Life”, thereby echoing significantly the concluding phrase of the Eden story “the path to the Tree of Life” (Gen. 3:24). The concept of the tree of life in Proverbs attaches to the personified figure of Wisdom the idea of granting longevity to those who internalize her benefits: “She is a tree of life to those who grasp her, And whoever holds on to her is happy,“me-u-shar” (3:18). The adjective me-u-shar, “happy”, is playfully connected to the homonym root A.Sh.R. denoting “happiness” and “path” mentioned in the previous verse: “Her ways are pleasant ways, And all her paths, peaceful” (v. 17), thus expressing the confidence and stability that benefit those who take hold of wisdom. 13 Keeping in mind the reflection of God in the Paradise Narrative “And the LORD God said, ’Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever?!’” (3:22), the expression “knowing good and bad”, with relation to the concept of knowledge, needs clarification. Scholars have attributed the expression to the sexual sphere, hence restricting this knowledge to procreation or to the primeval human consciousness of differences between the sexes.14 However, the emphasis on the words “like one of us” puts the distinction of good and bad on a broader sphere, namely practical wisdom, i.e., “good sense” that enables the human being to master one’s own life by making the right decision and the just choice.15 The hymn of wisdom is framed by a chiastic inclusion of the root A.Sh.R., (happy), using ash-re, “Happy is,” in v. 13a and me-u-shar, “is happy,” in v. 18. 14 A sexual connotation for “the knowledge of good and evil” was already assigned by Ibn Ezra. The discovery of Adam and Eve, after eating the forbidden fruit, that they were naked (3:7) supported the identification of knowledge with sex. Among modern scholars, see, e.g. R. Gordis, “The Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Old Testament and Qumran Scrolls,” JBL 76 (1957): 130–138. 15 The conception of Adam as a paragon of wisdom before the fall is echoed in ancient mythological references as in Ugaritic and Akkadian 13

32

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

II. WISDOM VOCABULARY IN GEN. 3:61 The tree of the knowledge of good and bad is first introduced in 2:9, along with other trees bearing normal botanical characteristics “pleasing to the sight and good for food”. By contrast, the later scene in 3:6 that describes Eve’s attraction to the same tree of knowledge incorporates vocabulary with distinctive wisdom overtones “When the woman saw that the tree was good for eating and a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave some to her husband, and he ate.” (3:6). The qualities of the tree of knowledge are described more in terms of visual perception and intellectual discernment than simply through the senses of smell and taste. The Book of Proverbs, like much of Biblical Hebrew, uses verbs related to visual experience in order to describe a cognitive process of observation, reflection and finally practical conclusion. For example, the wise person draws a conclusion from the picture s/he experienced of a neglected field belonging to a sluggard “I passed by the field of a lazy man, By the vineyard of a man lacking sense. It was all overgrown with thorns; Its surface was covered with chickweed, And its stone fence lay in ruins. I observed and took it to heart; I saw it and learned a lesson.” (24:30–32; cf. Ps. 37:35–36). A parallel process of learning is traced in the scene of Eve’s attraction to the tree of knowledge “When the woman saw that the tree was good for eating (observation) and a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom (reflection), she took of its fruit and ate” (practical conclusion). This verse contains two key terms ta-a-wa and le-has-kil, which cement the relationship between the wisdom tradition and the Eden narrative. a. Ta-a-wa ,"Desire,” in Proverbs and in Gen. 3:6 The term ta-a-wa principally refers to the basic survival instincts, such as appetite. Yet, in Proverbs ta-a-wa can also connote the will to live that is driven by one’s quest for a meaningful life. The linking epics, and in poetical passages in the OT such as the prophecy against Tyre in Ezekiel 28:12ff (cf. Ps. 82:6). See. Gordis, op. cit., pp. 127–129.

THE POLARITY OF WISDOM AND FEAR OF GOD

33

of ta-a-wa specifically with the righteous person, in opposition to the wicked person’s aspirations, sets up morally antithetical inclinations (cf. Prov. 10:24; 11:23; 19:22 against Ps. 112: 16). In general, the Book of Proverbs presents the positive associations of the abstract term of ta-a-wa, “desire”, describing its fulfillment as a positive experience.16 The saying of chapter 13:19 reads “Desire realized is sweet to the palate, to turn away from evil is abhorrent to the stupid”, thus shaping a contradiction between realized desires and fools who feel revulsion at the idea of failing to commit evil acts. The sensation of realized desire is compared to the taste of appetizing food to the palate. 17 Proverbs uses the similar metaphor of “sweet taste upon the palate” to express the process of internalization of wisdom as a precondition for attaining long life: “My son, eat honey, for it is good; Let its sweet drops be on your palate. Know: such is wisdom for your soul; If you attain it, there is a future; Your hope will not be cut off.” (24:13–14). Intellectual virtues of the wise person are figuratively associated with the sweet sense of taste: “The wise-hearted is called discerning; One whose speech is pleasing (me-teq se-fa-ta-yim), literally “sweetness of lips” (Prov. 16:21).

The phrase ta-a-wat ’a-tzel “the craving of the lazy” once mentioned in Prov. 21:25, “The craving of a lazy man kills him, For his hands refuse to work” (21:25), conveys a contradiction in terms. Clifford (op. cit., p. 193) comments on ta-a-wa, “appetite, desire”, in association with the sluggard as following: “What keeps normal people alive kills sluggards”. For more sarcastic allusions to the sluggard, see Prov. 24:25. cf. 6:9; 19:15; 19:24; 22:13; 26:13–15. 17 LXX Prov. 13:19 sets up an explicit contradiction between the two clauses of the parallelism, i.e., between the “godly” and “ungodly”, thus creating an ideational-ethical linkage between the two parts (cf. Prov. 8:7). See P. de Lagarde, Anmerkungen zur griechischen Übersetzung der Proverbien, (Leipzig, 1863), p. 45; M. V. Fox, “LXX-Proverbs as a Text-Critical Resource,” Textus 22 (2005): 101; T. Forti, “Conceptual Stratification in LXX Prov. 26, 11: Toward Identifying the Tradents Behind the Aphorism,” ZAW 119 (2007): 247–248. 16

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

34

Words of wisdom are equated with the therapeutic quality of honey “Pleasant words are like a honeycomb, Sweet to the palate and a cure for the body” (16:24).18 The preceding exhortation and sayings all serve as corroborating evidence that the ta-a-wa associated with the sweet palate in 13:19 likewise refers to the search for wisdom and ultimate meaning. Furthermore, one finds an explicit association between ta-a-wa, “a fulfilled desire,” and the tree of life as reflected in the saying, “Hope deferred sickens the heart, But desire realized is a tree of life” (Prov. 13:12).19 This saying evidently refers to “the tree of life” as a metaphor for desire realized on a cognitive, value-laden level, as befits the wise person. Similarly, God’s statement in Genesis 3:22, “And the LORD God said, ‘Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!’ ”— refers to the humans’ partaking of the tree of knowledge, explaining that act, rooted in ta-a-wa as leading to the humans’ attainment of a superior level of knowledge, rivaling that of the divine realm itself. Returning, then, to Eve’s stage of reflection as described in Genesis 3:6, it thus seems that ta-a-wa la-’e-na-yim, “desirable to the eyes”, expresses the eagerness to attain the divine faculty of wisdom as already foreshadowed by the cunning serpent “but God knows that as soon as you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like divine beings who know good and bad.” (3:5) b. le-has-kil, “to become wise” The ability to understand and internalize knowledge is linked semantically in the Bible with the verbs of seeing.20 The serpent uses See T. Forti, “Bee’s Honey—From Realia to Metaphor in Biblical Wisdom Literature,” VT 56 (2006): 333–336. 19 On the displaced lines and the original parallel line of each “Desire accomplished is sweet to the soul, but it is an abomination to fools to depart from evil”, see C. H. Toy, The Book of Proverbs, (Edinburgh: ICC, 1959), p. 274. 20 See I. L. Seeligmann, “Knowledge of God and Historical Consciousness in Ancient Israel,” Studies in Biblical Literature, (edited by A. Hurvitz, S. Japhet, E. Tov; Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 141–149. [in Hebrew] 18

THE POLARITY OF WISDOM AND FEAR OF GOD

35

a figure of speech of “opening of the eyes” for gaining the insight and mental ability to discern between good and bad. The same semantic linkage between the verb R.A.H., “to see”, and B.Y.N., “to discern”, and Y.D.’A., “to know”, is used by Isaiah in a negative formulation: “They do not know, nor do they comprehend; for their eyes are shut, so that they cannot see, and their minds as well, so that they cannot understand."(44:18) Here, in Genesis, Eve describes the tree of knowledge as not only tasty but as “a delight to the eyes, and desirable as a source of wisdom”. The story employs the Hiphil infinitive le-has-kil which in nominal form carries the substantive meaning “insight” (cf. Jer. 3:15; Ps. 36:4). This form occurs in Prov. 1:3 in the compound phrase mu-sar has-kel, where it is stated that the book was written to give the young man “insight” into wise instruction. The distinct meaning of se-khel is “regard”, that is, the way others see you. Wisdom grants her possessors favor and high regard by God and man alike “And you will find favor and high regard in the eyes of God and man"(3:4). The phrase se-khel tob,,“high regard”, literally “good view”, indicates the perspective or attitude of others, or the way one is perceived by others.21 It seems that the term sekhel implies both directions: the perception from the standpoint of the perceiver, i.e., the discerning view of the possessor of se-khel, and the perception from the standpoint of the object, i.e., the way others see a person (cf. 1 Sam. 25:3). This two-way perspective puts Eve and the tree of knowledge on comparable footing: just as the tree itself embodies wisdom, so Eve’s ability to grasp the tree’s significance reflects on her own intellectual faculties. However, it is precisely Eve’s natural human eagerness to gain divine-like wisdom that clashes with the ideal of fearing God, thereby putting Eve in the position of a transgressor.

III. WISDOM AND FEAR OF GOD Proverbs warns any person who considers him-/herself wise to fear God, “Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and shun evil” (1:7). The call to trust God and not to rely on human insight puts 21

See Fox, op. cit., p. 147.

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

36

human cognitive abilities within the boundaries of faith and trust, thus fear and knowledge of God (da-’at e-lo-him) are considered to be prerequisites for acquiring wisdom. What stands behind the nominal phrase da-’at e-lo-him? The phrase da-’at ke-do-shim appears in Proverbs 9:10, “The beginning of wisdom is fear of the LORD, and knowledge of the Holy One [ke-do-shim] is understanding” (cf. 30:3) If we refer back to the prohibition of eating from the tree of knowledge the question arises as to what kind of knowledge is being forbidden to the human: cosmological, practical or speculative thinking? The word da-’at encompasses a wide range of knowledge, both erudition and wisdom. Human knowledge can refer to practical awareness as in the wise man’s exhortation against the lack of awareness of the seductive woman: “She does not chart a path of life; Her course meanders for lack of knowledge.” (5:6). It can also describe unconsciousness, characteristic of the drunkard’s state of mind, “They struck me, but I felt no hurt; They beat me, but I was unaware [bal ya-d’a-ti"] As often as I wake, I go after it again” (23:35). Proverbs 3:1–12 insists upon the exclusiveness of God’s discerning as the true wisdom and warns against overconfidence in one’s intelligence (v.5), or of being arrogant about one’s wisdom (v.7). Fox clarifies, “the warning against depending on one’s own intellect does not deny human’s intellectual ability to analyze and comprehend the ways of the world”, but rather warns against mankind’s presumption that s/he can predict and control the outcome of his/her deeds as expressed in Deuteronomy, “Do not say to yourself, “My power and the might of my own hand have gotten me this wealth.” (8:17).22 Proverbs designates the verb ya-da’ to express the essence of the relationship between man and God as mental cognition, “In all your ways [de-’ah] acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths."[3:6) Or, as the commentator Hameiri explicates da-’e-hu, “To know God in all your ways means giving constant attention to the divine will and presence”.23 Fox, op. cit., p. 149. McKane (op. cit., p. 292) claims that this pietistic thinking is a “Yahwistic” reinterpretation of an old practical wisdom. 23 Hameiri, R. Menachem ben Shelomo, A Commentary on Proverbs, (ed. by Menachem Mendel Meshi-Zahav; Jerusalem, 1969), p. 33. 22

THE POLARITY OF WISDOM AND FEAR OF GOD

37

Proverbs presents the conceptual conflict between the teaching of the sage and the fear of God in two almost equal sayings: The first credits human wisdom, “The instruction of a wise man is a fountain of life, Enabling one to avoid deadly snares” and the second, the fear of God, “Fear of the LORD is a fountain of life, Enabling one to avoid deadly snares.” (14:27). Although the interchange between both values manifests this dilemma, it may also reflect the tendency to regard both spheres of wisdom: human and divine, as complementary. Eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge in the Eden Narrative presents the dogmatic view of a binary conception of loyalty and faith versus human wisdom and heresy. Eve, as well as the cunning serpent, threatens this dogmatic equilibrium by offering an experiential, existential perspective that provides the mental, intellectual ability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil. Wisdom, fear, and the knowledge of God are three virtues that are linked in a vicious circle, but it seems that the ultimate force is the “fear of God”. The ethical dependency of these three values upon one another elevates religious awareness and the exclusivity of God’s authority as a teacher.

DID EVE KNOW WHAT WAS HIDDEN IN THE APPLE? IRIT AHARONY HARVARD UNIVERSITY ABSTRACT The story of Eve in the Bible leaves many open questions that need to be answered. Eve in Israeli poetry deals with some of the hard to take questions, but leaves the reader with many open ones. It is obvious, though, that the poets felt as if they had to give Eve a stage to open her heart and state her objections, her demands and her point of view. Eve, in Israeli poetry, is a woman of awareness and knowledge. Not only does she demand to know and understand the circumstances of her life, but she also tries to recreate it and change it. The verb “la’da’at” (to know) regarding Eve has expanded its meaning and it contains the physical and the spiritual, the place and the time and even life and death. “Eve knew what was hidden in the apple. / It was good, it was good, and again it was good”. (T. Carmi)

The poet Yehudah Amichai writes about his relationships with the Bible: “From the Book of Esther, I filtered the sediment of vulgar joy, and from the Book of Jeremiah The howl of pain in the guts. And from The Song of Songs the endless Search for love, and from Genesis the dreams And Cain, and from Ecclesiastes, The despair, and from the Book of Job, Job.

39

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

40

And with what was left, I pasted myself a new Bible. Now I live censored and cut and pasted and limited and in peace.”1

Amichai describes here the personalization of the biblical text by the reader, and the beauty of the personal approach to this text. His poem summarizes the ways poetry molds the biblical text and kneads it to create the poet’s own voice. Modern Hebrew Literature, which conducts long and fruitful relationships with the biblical text and other essential Jewish texts, does the same. Poets relate to the text and use it in many ways. And since major parts of the Modern Hebrew language spring from the Bible, every literary text is also grounded on biblical bedding that provides it not only with the linguistic patterns, but with the thematic ones as well. Hebrew poetry about Eve is a profound example of the above. Some times this poetry relies on the biblical text and its facts; in other cases, it offers an original and new view of Eve, and even creates an alternative story to the well-known one from the Bible. In other cases, the poetry gives a new interpretation to the biblical story or to the stories presented by the traditional commentators. Usually, the biblical story minimizes the amount of detail needed to fully understand the text, and creates a place for the commentary to enter. There are almost unlimited explanations and commentaries to each one of the stories of the creation and to their characters, and Israeli poetry is an additionally meaningful one. In this essay, I shall show the ways Hebrew poetry deals with the character of Eve and with the elements of her story as presented both in the Bible and in Jewish scripts. Moreover, I shall show the multifaceted contribution that this poetry has made to the traditional literature about Eve, and the ways it has created new images of the biblical character.

Yehudah Amichai, 1996, p. 124. All translations, including poetry, were made (freely) by me, unless mentioned otherwise. 1

DID EVE KNOW WHAT WAS HIDDEN IN THE APPLE?

41

THEMATIC ELEMENTS IN THE STORY OF EVE IN THE BIBLE

Women characters in the Bible usually take only a marginal part in the story, and they appear as an aid to define the masculine characters. Women in the Bible have center stage in two cases: In giving birth and in rescuing people.2 In Eve’s case, her role in the first story of creation is similar to that of Adam, but her part in the second creation story is wider than his, and she is the main character of the story. The narrator tells her story beginning with a detailed version of her creation, her part in the act of temptation and afterwards, inside and outside the Garden of Eden, and in different stages of her life and existences. The story of Eve in the Bible and the traditional commentaries focused on the following subjects: * The act of creation—Adam and Eve as created together and at the same time, and Eve as created of Adam’s rib. * The characters of Adam and Eve as designated by their acts and by their speech. * The role Adam and Eve take and should take in the world as promised to them by God before they had performed the sin. * The Garden of Eden. * The act of temptation and Eve’s and Adam’s part(s) in it. * The breaking of God’s word. * The results of the deed and the different outcome for each one of the participants in the scene. * The punishment and the expulsion from the garden. * Life outside the Garden of Eden—parenthood, work and suffering.

THEMES IN ISRAELI POETRY ABOUT EVE Although Israeli poetry relates to most of the above, in poems written about Eve it deals especially with aspects of her womanhood, presenting the following major themes: * Eve as a rebel. * Eve as a sinner and the essence of her sin and punishment. 2

Shaked, 2005, Anthology, p. 508, quoting Uriel Simon, 2002.

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

42

* Eve as the universal woman and mother. It must be said that in almost all cases checked, these three elements become mixed, and it is possible to find more than one in a poem. In this essay there is an attempt to isolate one element at a time in order to give each one of them its significance. The most important contribution that Israeli poetry gave the biblical text is furnishing the biblical characters with a stage and a voice. Eve, who in the Bible is heard only through her very short dialogs with the serpent, Adam and God, is given now a space to present her feelings and emotions, her ideas and her objections. In places where the biblical voice is quieted, poetry enters and creates a new presence, while filling in a major lacuna in the biblical text. Giving Eve a personality and a volume relies, first of all, on giving her the ability to feel, to think and to be able to express her self, or, if we may use the multiple meanings of the biblical verb, “to Know”. By doing so, Israeli poetry creates a whole human being out of the outlines of the biblical text.3 Eve as a Rebel This theme is usually used as a part of an alternative story to the biblical one. It is not hard to find the reasons for an uprising from Eve’s perspective. The way she was created, according to the second story, as secondary to Adam, the strict rules of the place (that were given only to Adam but that she was obliged to fulfill), the cruelty of the punishment that made her suffer as a woman and as a mother, and the loss of her son, are all enough reasons to protest or to mourn. But the worst punishment of all, that by itself is a sufficient reason to rebel, is her being enslaved to another person for all of her life:4 “your craving shall be for your husband and On this point it is important to mention that this essay does not check the differences in approaches shown by women writing about women’s characters, against the masculine approach shown by men writers. There is a need for such a research that will focus only on the biblical figures as described by men and women. Malka Shaked started to check this point in her book (Shaked, 2005, Readings), but she does not provide a profound examination of the question. 4 Shulamit Aloni, in Ravitzki, 1999, pp. 47–54. 3

DID EVE KNOW WHAT WAS HIDDEN IN THE APPLE?

43

he shall rule over you” (Genesis 4:16). This existential punishment prevents her from being free—no matter what—physically and spiritually through all the stages of her life, while aware of the tragic circumstances of her being. Shin Shifra, who believes that Eve is the center of the story of creation, describes Eve’s life after the punishment as follows: “Eve, the mother of all the living, by being the provider of life has become also the grave.”5 According to her, every time Eve creates a new life she also gives it its death. She says that in contradiction to Albert Camus, who considered Cain as the first rebel, she believes Eve to be the first one—she rises up against the decree to preserve man in his innocence, but also in his immaturity and even in his bestial phase. Eve wants to know the truth regarding her femininity and her humanity no matter how painful it is, and as a courageous protest and rebellion, she succeeds in exposing the injustice of the human condition in general and the feminine one in particular. Bracha Rosenfeld’s poem is an example of Eve as a brutal fighter who stands against God in a new version of creation: She Will Grow Nails, She Will Grow Horses’ Shoes She will grow nails; she will grow horses’ shoes and long canine teeth She will protect her soft belly with the armor of a knight She will cover her back with spur’s horns She will gallop and kick and roar Forget all the manners She will make herself a carved image and a mask She will worship the golden calf And turn it into a heifer Then she will worship another God—a female God And she will turn the One God into a woman And she will give her one of her ribs The essence of her bones Milk of her breasts 5

Shin Shifra, in ibid. p. 5.

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

44

And blood of her blood And she will want To create help for her And it will not be against her In the East they planted a Garden for her, And for love, for love.6

This poem can be read both as a human declaration or a feminist one. It shows a creation of a mythical god or goddess who can fight successfully any god because of his/her determination. In particular, it describes a path of feminine transformation that moves from violence to love. The alternative story that unfolds in the poem shows Eve who, instead of fig’s leaves or garments of skins, dresses herself with sharp horny nails and teeth, and covers her nudity with metal. This Eve is dressed up as a combination of a male warrior and a mythological monster. She is not soft and submissive, and she doesn’t follow anybody’s steps or orders. On the contrary—she is by herself (Adam is not mentioned here at all), fighting for her own good and her own goals and making her own choices. The poem starts with the rebellious act of preparing for war, moving on towards the battle and adopting new ways of living by forgetting all the old feminine conventions. The second step is changing the sex of God into feminine, and the poet emphasizes that by the hyphen, before she says “a feminine one”. Not like the people of Israel who were sorry for their rebellion in the desert, Eve in the poem creates her own golden calf and transforms it into a female calf (in Hebrew this transformation is very simple—it is made by just adding the letter hei) without any regrets and sorrows. She is not punished for that, and she moves to the third step— reconstructing God.7 She transforms the original God into a woman, and instead of the rib Adam gave her, this time, the poetic Eve gives her own rib. Rosenfeld uses Rashi’s commentary about a Rosenfeld, 2000, p. 13. In Hebrew, God is always in plural so it is not always clear whether the writer refers to the transcendental one God or the many pagan gods, meaning—“Other Gods”. 6 7

DID EVE KNOW WHAT WAS HIDDEN IN THE APPLE?

45

“helper corresponding to him” (ezer ce’negdo),8 and recreates a woman helper. This stage demands a painful sacrifice from the woman who needs to carve it out of her body and to spare it from her body fluids. It responds to a midrash9 told by R. Yehudah in the name of Rabbi who said: “In the beginning he created her for himself and saw her full of mucosa and blood, and he sent her away from him and recreated her”. By adopting the first form of Eve, the one God rejected, the protest is stronger. In a way it describes the same path a woman goes through while in labor, but this time there is no outside intervention—she impregnates herself and creates new life without masculine help— human or divine. Only now comes the time for the final step— planting the new Garden of Eden—for love. The transformation that is done in the poem is a total one, and it does not stop before a utopian world is created, a feminine dominated world, in which the change of sex of both God and Man is the foundation for a better world.10 In the poem “hava yadha” (Eve Knew) by Tet Carmi, the alternative story of creation shows Eve as being there from the beginning, fighting for knowledge against Man and God: “Eve knew what was hidden in the apple. / She was not born yesterday. / Within Adam’s ribs/ She watched the deeds of the beginning, / she listened to the murmur of grasses and reptiles."11 Eve existed long before she officially joined the scene; and from her hidden place within Adam’s body she watched the world. She had known the whole story even before it started to unfold, she was prepared for the worst, and had thought ironically about it: Eve knew what was hidden in the apple./ It was good, it was good, and again it was good,/ An ejaculation of delights,/ An exemplary garden, watered, saturated,/ A shiny example mother, fortunate of all living. If Adam gained—she will be his helper, lost—she will be against him. Rashi on Genesis 2:20. 9 Breshit Rabbah, 18:4. 10 Eran, Rimon, Shavit, 1999, p. 112. 11 Carmi, at Shaked, 2005, p. 3. 8

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

46

From this hidden place Eve had planned her war against God and his creation—Adam. She was critical about his promises regarding the Garden of Eden, and she didn’t believe that all was going to be so good in there. Maybe she did not want all that “good”, because while God said “Good”, she saw other things: “The water was angry, the moon blackened, / the beasts devoured the names/…”. Relying on her intuition, focusing on her mission, and with clear mind, while knowing for sure what was hidden in the apple, she “frees the big worm” and sends it “to nibble the trees’ roots”.12 In the Garden of Eden God cannot be trusted, Adam does not have the ability to see it, and that is why God should be fought against as her rival in dominating Adam. This negative God demands that Adam will give names, will follow his commands. The animals protest against God and his messenger—Adam, even the letters themselves do not want to be used by Adam while giving names. So Eve declares war and fights God by weakening Adam. She does it by exhausting Adam by sex until “there are no names left within him”, especially not the name of God. She castrates Adam and takes away from him the most precious gift he received from God: the freedom to choose names and to give them, or in other words—the ability to define and to be identified. Adam loses his identity and Eve wins the war against God, and remains the only one who knows, the only one to experience knowledge. The poem “Va’Ani Otcha” (And I You) by Esther Izen presents the rebellious Eve as she tries to do the opposite move to God’s action, and to push Adam back into the garden, to break God’s order: And I You And I will escort you To the entrance of the garden, I will say In Carmi’s poem there is an additional meaningful level of understanding the place the serpent takes in the narrative. In Aramaic hivya or hevya means a serpent or a snake. When Eve says that she “frees the big worm” or the snake, she means she frees this part of her—the serpent’s part, the destructive and the devious part of her self. And look at Dim, at Ravitzki, 1999, pp. 38–46. 12

DID EVE KNOW WHAT WAS HIDDEN IN THE APPLE?

47

To the porter, the gardener Here is that That was deposited in my hands And I in his hands as a guarantee. And now I will return him to the field that an inexperienced Boy and a girl Were exiled from. Explained incorrectly use directions, The meaning of deportation Out, or from the inside of netherworld labyrinth. If you will ask Who is that I will say: My ancient lover. And Adam. That for ever Loves apples. Come and see through the fence—apples of knowledge fell. And in the tree of life—only one Wrinkled and full of summer wind, Thinned by testing wind.13

In this poem, matured Eve talks to Adam. She takes him back to the Garden of Eden—to the field (which in Hebrew can be understood both as a playground and a battlefield, in addition to the common meaning of a growing field) and delivers him to the porter. Adam does not show any sign of understanding what is going on with him or around him, he lets himself be led by Eve, totally passive, and his voice is not heard through the whole event. Eve accuses God of mistreating young Adam and Eve: He took advantage of two inexperienced children who were misled by him. These children didn’t understand the meaning of life inside the garden, and misinterpreted the use directions for life there. They also didn’t understand the meaning of exile and of life outside the field. They ate the apple only because Adam loved apples all his life (in this case Adam is the one who eats the fruit and not Eve), meaning he committed his sin because of a trivial habit, not 13

Izen, Gutman, p. 3.

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

48

because of Eve. In her alternative story, the rebellious Eve wants to push her companion back to the garden, while remaining unclear what she is going to do—she is going back with him to the garden or she is staying out. Trying to conduct the opposite action from the opposite direction (returning instead of being sent away, moving from the outside inside and not vice versa) and taking the power of action into her hands, Eve protests against God and his cynical usage of humans’ lives. The question of knowledge is again in the center, and God’s strength is achieved by leaving Adam and Eve in ignorance. Conducting the move God made before, but in the opposite direction, are a manifestation of knowledge for Eve and a declaration of independence for her. The next poems are examples of hidden rebellions. They show an alternative story in which the details are so changed from the original story that even though there is not a clear rebellion— the different story by itself is a manifest of standing against. Esther Etinger’s poem “sipur” (A Story) is an alternative story of the creation of man that is based on commentaries from Breshit Rabbah.14 The first commentary is given by Rabbi Jeremiah, son of Eleazar, who said that when God created the first man, he created him androgynous. The second interpretation is given by Rabbi Shmuel Bar Nachman who said that God created the first man with two faces, and then cut him into two and attached them back to back.15 Based on the combination of these two commentaries, Etinger creates a new narrative. A Story And afterwards: The walking in all worlds The search, the meeting or the mistake A fruit instead of contagion. Raising eyes to all directions And a fig’s leaf.

Breshit Rabbah, 8:1. For an analogy between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Platonic point of view see Eran, Rimon, Shavit, 1999, pp. 50–60. 14 15

DID EVE KNOW WHAT WAS HIDDEN IN THE APPLE?

49

And that is how it was: The slowly sawing Or the quick cut like a taken off bandage And a man and a woman, The turning apart back to back and the pain As the beginning was the departure.16

According to Etinger the story begins not by a smooth creation or while Adam was asleep, but by a violent act. More than that—the story never had a harmonious phase or a primal peaceful stage. It starts with an invasive penetrating act—man and woman that probably were at first one body and one existent, were brutally cut off, sawed by a painful act, remaining back to back for the rest of the story. The act of creation was an act of a tearing apart, and that designed the human life as a constant painful longing to a primal phase of unity, of being one body, when this phase is not even remembered.17 Only one word in the poem describes a possibility of comfort: “meeting” (pgisha), but this word is lost in the poem amongst all the words that describe departing. There is a kind of compensation—“a fruit instead of contagion”, temptation and sex come in place of the cut—but the pain still exists. The order of creation is changed in the poem. It starts with the “afterwards” who describes the life as an endless process of wandering and searching, and it continues with the words: “that’s the way it was”. This change creates a protest by emphasizing the awful pain of the creation and the heavy burden of the present, and it calls for a new order in the life of humankind. Another poem that describes the negative role God has in the world and the role he had planned for Eve in the world is “ezer ce’negdo” (A Helper Corresponding to Him) by Yaakov Cohen.18 This poem also suggests a new creation narrative, and by that tries to show the harmful part of God in human lives. In the beginning, everything looks so peaceful and calm, but there is a catch that is Etinger, 1986, p. 25. Look at Steinsaltz, Adin, Women in the Bible, 1983, misrad ha’bitachon, Tel Aviv—the chapter “Eve: Looking for a Lost” pp. 9–14. 18 Cohen, at Shaked 2005, p. 381. 16 17

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

50

going to be reviled. In the poem the whole universe, including God, is happy to find Adam lying down in the grass. But God is not satisfied with the resting “wonder”, and he has a demonic plan— he wants to create for him: a creature that will be seven times prettier than he,/ will be seven times softer and easier, and with it I will stimulate him:/ And they will hold each other, with love and loathing they will fight, / and the love will grow and the loathing will grow more than that. “/ and they will become fire consuming-fire one to the other and they will burn together, / burning each other and refining each other…

This poem relies on a midrash19 that describes the way God created Eve, and his decision to create her from the rib and not from another organ. Since God wants Adam and Eve to play for him, to entertain him, to amuse him, he creates the woman “in the game of fingers and the brightness of his eye’s smile”. By manipulating Adam and Eve to play to his hands, God makes fun of them, uses them. Adam and Eve are not more than marionettes in God’s amusement park, the Garden of Eden. Yehudah Karny in his poem “bechi ha’em” (Cry of the Mother)20 brings Eve’s manifest against God to new extremes: And look my motherhood, that blossomed and grew; / my womanhood longed/ for a fruit of the womb with every cell//… I conceived both my sons to my husband Adam/ but you brought them / in the field alone// and I bereaved both of them, the sweet pupils of my eyes; / the murder cut off my motherhood to my Cain/ and death separated between my Abel and me.

Breshit Rabbah 18:2 Rabbi Yehoshua from Sichnin in the name of Rabbi Levi said: “and he created her—he was looking where from to create her, he said: I will not create her from the head so she will not be raising her head, not from the eye so she will not be curious, not from the ear so she will not be obedient, not from the mouth so she will not be talkative, not from the heart so she will not be jealous. . .” 20 Karny, at Zemorah, ed. 1964, p. 313. 19

DID EVE KNOW WHAT WAS HIDDEN IN THE APPLE?

51

The mother blames God for causing the terrible murder of one brother by the other. According to her, God had a diabolical plan to incite the brothers against each other by bringing them together to the field and letting the evil blood between them rise until death. In the poems that present Eve as a rebel, she fights for knowledge and for the ability to master her own life. Adam is not shown as a companion or a source of comfort or strength, and God is a harming power that should be fought against. The Awareness of the Sin and Punishment The awareness of the sin is part of the punishment, but at the same time it might be an opening for comfort. While Adam’s punishment contains three curses—“accursed is the ground”, “through suffering shall you eat” and “thorns and thistles shall it sprout for you” (Genesis 3:17), Eve’s punishment in the Bible contains four curses: “I will greatly increase your suffering and your childbearing; in pain shall you bear children. Yet your craving shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16).21 In Israeli poetry there are two main punishments which are actually one. The first hits motherhood and the second hits femininity and sexuality. Some of the poems deal with Eve who is losing her sons to wars and death and to their hatred towards each other. Other poems focus on the feminine side of Eve, describing her as being dependent on her sexual charm(s), or getting old and losing her feminine power of attraction. Eve is also shown as feeling jealousy as strong as death towards her husband. In all cases, Eve insists on knowing (and in this case the usage of the word “knowing” is preferred over “understanding”) or being aware of both the sin and the punishment. One of the poems that shows the consequences of the punishment is “Hava” (Eve) by Ain Hillel. In this poem, her sons are doomed to fight and kill each other, and she remains a bereaved mother. Rashi says: the suffering is that of growing children—tzaar gidul banim, the pregnancy—this is the sorrow of conceiving, the pain is that of giving birth, the cravings are for intercourse, and everything will come from him. Rashi on Genesis 3:16. 21

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

52 Eve

In pain shall you bear children and in blood Like sun on a purple stage To the end of the night wrapped with a scream The fruit of your husband, your desire Adam, In the morning will suck your breast. In pain shall you bear children for they will slake sun And like the noon sun—to war! Blood with blood will irritate And flesh to flesh will be close To the earth the red will drop And until evening the battle will be decided. For time Of the coming sun Your sons Will all be dwelling in dirt.22

Written in the second person as a prophecy to Eve, this poem sounds like a curse to the whole female sex. According to the poem, the pregnancy and the birth, even the permanent desire for man and being ruled by him, are not the real punishment. The real punishment is the fact that Eve is doomed to loose her sons to the Moloch of war. They fight each other, and at the end of the day, all of them are gone. This loss is a part of a Sisyphean life cycle—like the woman’s biological cycle—giving birth at the end of the night, breast feeding in the morning, watching your sons fighting the war at noon, being part of their death in the evening, burying them in the sunset, and restarting the cycle from the beginning again. This is a well known, constant cycle of life and death, and the woman is forced to live it and to accept it, while man is absent and his voice is not heard. This poem has a significant meaning for the Israeli society that for years praised the sacrifice of the sons by their fathers as a modern sacrifice of Isaac, and considered the mother’s 22

Hillel, 1980, p. 6.

DID EVE KNOW WHAT WAS HIDDEN IN THE APPLE?

53

sacrifice as marginal.23 By starting the cycle of sons’ death with Eve and Adam and not with Sarah and Abraham, the sacrifice and its universal meaning become stronger. In Avraham Hoss’s poem “hava” (Eve),24 Eve describes her sin as being sexually aroused and tempted by the serpent. In this case, the serpent is “Standing strong, tall and erect” and he deceives her: Eat from this tree’s fruit, the fruit/ of knowledge of good and evil, and then thanks to your/ knowledge—know me. And when I will be gone/ call him, call man, your partner, and give him too/ to taste the fruit of knowledge.

When the first part of the poem ends with the serpent’s words, Eve summarizes what had happened in few words: “and that’s how it was” (cach achen hava). In Hebrew, the middle letter of the root of the verb “to be” is yod or vav. By using both options, Hoss is creating more than one meaning to Eve’s name—Hava (chava): “life” (haim, chaim), “being” (haya), “existence” (havaya), “experience” (chavaya) and “God” (yehova) 25.26 The second part of the poem is as long as the first one, and it describes the results of the sin and its meaning: the hard labor of her husband, her painful pregnancy and the act of labor (giving birth), and the most difficult thing of all: I watch both my sons, as they quarrel as usual/ and their faces are distorted, / and the hand of one brother—the oldest one—/ is tearing out the hair of the youngest.

While remembering giving birth in vain, Eve cannot understand how such a painful internal act of sacrifice becomes an external pain source that she cannot control, a punishment that she

Aharony, in Caspi, ed. 2007, pp. 211–257. Hoss, 1998, p. 49. 25 It is important to mention here that Eve is the only woman in the Bible whose name is explained. 26 Rashi says that Adam was the one who gave name to Eve in order to teach us that by that she became his match and they had united. He says the name means that she gives life to her newborns. Rashi on Genesis 3:20. 23 24

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

54

is at the same time part of (by giving birth), and distant from (because her sons don’t belong to her any more). The second punishment for Eve, according to Israeli poetry, is being dependent on her feminine power in her youth, and later on, losing her feminine charm, her power to seduce, her sexual appeal. In the poem “hava bi’yemey blota” (Eve in her Menopause) by K. A. Bertini,27 Eve is described as an old woman: My bosom had declined, / My falling breasts go down to my knees/ like two empty water skins./ The last spark extinguished in the pupil of my eye/ …

She is grotesque, she looks like a witch, she is frightening, and she has lost her charm and her ability to tempt. She is dry, wrinkled and dark, and she says in pure irony: “So spare is the flame of the ever-turning sword/ on the gates of the orphaned garden!”, because she is not a threat to God or to man any more. She feels that, for her, life is over, because she has lost her desire and her appeal. There is only one way for her: “only one path is left, / and it is short, / to the palm of my painful falling foot—/ to my son, to Abel”. In the poem, Adam, the tree of knowledge, and that of life, are all old and tired like her, but the poet describes their physical situation in short, while the collapsing body of Eve is detailed. The physical aspect of the feminine life, according to God, was pregnancy and labor, but for Eve in the poem it is her beauty and attraction. In the poem “hava” (Eve) by Aharon Meirovitz,28 Eve is a young woman who talks to Adam on their way of agony (suffering outside the garden like Jesus on his way of agony) and asks him: Where will we go, my man? / Behind us is the ever turning sword/ In front of us is evening/ and the serpent on the ways…/ Thorns, not flower beds/ And my tender feet/ Blood drops from my wound/ Where will we go, my man, And God warns me down? /… On my shoulders a sin hangs/ and a curse with sadness, / and with pain to bear sons/ A big anxiety

27 28

Bertini, p. 138. Meirovitz, in Shaked, 2005, p. 386.

DID EVE KNOW WHAT WAS HIDDEN IN THE APPLE?

55

falls on me/ but deeper than that/ my man, is my desire for you, / stronger than that and heavier.

In a hostile world, desire is at the same time a punishment and a comfort. As a way to forget the burden of life and to hide from the punishing God, Eve says to her husband: My soul is so anxious/ That God will punish me for my crime/ And will take you, my man/ And I will remain alone…/ Be one flesh with me, / I will forget my sorrow within it/ and with it—- to grow.

Eve wants Adam and desires him as a way to escape; a way to create an alternative world to the existing one, but at the same time desire brings the punishment of bearing children in pain and losing Adam for the sake of the children. This problem is solved by the midrash which says that when a woman is going through labor she says: “I don’t need my husband anymore for sex”, but God tells her: “You will acquire your desire again; you will feel desire for your husband again.”29 For Eve in the poem this desire is a curse because she can never free herself of it. Jealousy as deep as death towards Adam is another side of being a woman. The poem “kina rishona” (First Eulogy) by Yehuda Karni30 shows the results of the sin as described in the traditional commentary by Rashi. Rashi says that Eve gave Adam the fruit because she didn’t want to leave him alive behind her when she died, so he could marry another woman. In the poem she says: The serpent tempted me to taste/ from good to bad—and he pushed me/ to the mouth of abyss// the fruit is tasty, sweet, cute/ But I rebelled against God/ and I will die in my youth.// Here towards me death arrives/ he will take my soul/ and while I’ll be drowned in the darkness// God will create another woman/ for the man, and in the shadow of the hill/ and on the sound of the spring// will sleep with her and will implant a seed with her/ and me my flesh will rotten/ in my womb will swarm larva … And even though there was no 29 30

Breshit Rabah 20:7. Karni, in Zmorah, 1964, pp. 313–314.

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

56

other woman except her—from now/ Eve ambushed to the foot steps of Adam/ because her zeal is hard as the grave.

Karni combines in his poem two ideas: Rashi’s commentary that Eve is terrified that she will die and Adam will take another woman, and the midrash about Lilith31 that was created before Eve. Karni changes the second midrash, and in his version Lilith, or the other woman, is created after Eve and replaces her, which means that Eve becomes the evil one. The poems shown above emphasize the feminine side as connected to knowledge and awareness. Eve is aware of her sin and her punishment (even if it is not parallel to the ones in the Bible), and these three elements: sin, punishment, and awareness, symbolize the tragic existence of her being. Eve as the Universal Woman and Mother It is said that “The man called his wife’s name Eve because she had become the mother of all the living” (Genesis, 4:20). Eve is a universal human symbol of womanhood and motherhood. She brings with her the experience of life as described in the Bible, and in her name she carries her designation both in mythical and religious ways: Eve is related by her name to humanity’s earliest attempts to articulate the nature of Woman, the Feminine as a religious concept, and the very origins of human consciousness of the sacred.32

In the background of the creation of Eve stand the theme and the myth of the Goddess—Woman who appears in all of the texts of the ancient world, and later found their way into many texts of the western culture.33 One of the archetypes of Eve as the Grand Woman is that of the combination of Lilith and Eve. The name Lilith is derived from Gintzburg, 1966, p. 43. Philips, 1984, p. 3. 33 Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung saw Eve as the projection of the image of the human mother, as the Great Mother archetype and as a wholeness of contradictions, see Philips 1984, p. 85. 31 32

DID EVE KNOW WHAT WAS HIDDEN IN THE APPLE?

57

the word “night” in Hebrew—layla. According to the midrash, Eve was not Adam’s first wife, but the second one after Lilith, who was formed “of dust from the ground”, like Adam, and not created from his rib.34 It has roots in other Near Eastern cultures, and a later version of Lilith appears in the Greek mythology and in Christianity. Lilith is related in the commentary to the evil side, the night, the demonic powers and the sexual threat. This idea appears in Israeli poetry, but it is obviously not a central one.35 As we said before, Eve in Israeli poetry masters knowledge that humankind does not have. Her knowledge contains the ability to see far and above time and place, and in a way she has the awareness of a prophet. The following poem by Dan Pagis connects two narratives that are far away from each other: the story of Eve and the creation of man and family and the indescribable, horrifying events of the Holocaust and the distraction of man— morally and physically. It connects death and life, past and future, family ties with family hatred—all by using Eve as the speaker and the universal mother of all humans—good and evil. Written with a Pencil in the Sealed Car Here in this transport I Eve With my son Abel If you see my oldest son Cain son of Adam Tell him that I …36

The biblical story is present in the poem in the well known names of its heroes and their genealogy— most of the poem is dedicated to the genealogical facts and, as in the Bible, it provides the reader with the information needed to know the family ties. The Abarbanel, 1994, pp. 23–46. For example—Pinchas Sade wrote a poem called “layla ve’hava” in which Moses falls in love with both of them, and Asher Reich wrote “mizmor le’Hava shel layla”, Shaked, 2005, p. 391 because the woman described in the poem already “knew Eden”. 36 Pagis, in Shaked, 2005, p. 39. 34 35

58

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

Holocaust is present in the title (which is longer than the lines of the poem) and in the word “transport”. Eve’s words are quoted by the person who reports about what was found in the sealed car (the poet, perhaps). By creating the analogy between the biblical story and the historical events, the Holocaust becomes a huge mythological event. Eve becomes at the same time mother of Cain and Abel, and mother of all human beings in the Holocaust—both murderers and victims. The poem has an open ending which means that this situation is cyclic—the primal phenomenon of brother killing his brother did not end with the Holocaust and will continue for ever and ever. Eve, as the mother of all beings, is the one to talk (or the one who asks to leave her note for the future), while Adam is absent from the scene. It is important to mention that Eve in the poem is mother of both the killer and the victim and she is not judgmental. Galit Hazan Rokem’s poem “ve’ha’adam yadah et hava ishto” (And Man Knew His Wife Eve) brings a totally different point of view. In this case, every thing concerning Eve looks at first so personal, because Eve is speaking only in first person and the poem contains only verbs, but the impact the poem creates is of totality and of a universal motherhood and womanhood. And Man Knew his Wife Eve I was born I grew I was orphaned I exiled I went up I adapted I loved I widowed I was comforted I was loved I conceived I gave birth I breast fed I grew I created I researched I studied I wrote I demonstrated I rebelled I betrayed I went away I committed adultery I miscarried I stood up I dreamt I cooked I was sexually aroused I tempted I enjoyed I whispered I screamed I was silent I was held I was hanged I was abandoned

DID EVE KNOW WHAT WAS HIDDEN IN THE APPLE?

59

I bereaved I mourned I survived I knew37

The title of the poem focuses on knowledge. If man had really known his wife he should have known everything about her. “Everything” in this case means knowing all this list of activities, of verbs. The poem ends with the word “I knew”, and the impression the reader gets is that man didn’t really know it all, and the only one who knew was the woman. Her knowledge contains all aspects of life, and her ability to summarize all her knowledge in such an effective and efficient way gives it an additional power. The quoted verse from Genesis in the topic becomes ironic, because it is clear that the act of knowing according to the Bible is limited, and the full knowledge does not belong to man but to the woman as a symbol of wholeness. In the following poem “sof breshit” (End of Genesis) by Galit Hazan Rokem, Eve again holds knowledge that Adam does not have; the knowledge of time and death that she gained with the death of her son. Her knowledge expands far beyond the personal experience, and she becomes a universal symbol of motherhood. She can see generations into the future and she knows that “knowing” contains the knowledge of death more than the knowledge of life. The End of Genesis What did Eve know when Adam knew her. The approaching death of her son And of hers after him and of all the generations Even though she didn’t hear that we-shall-all-die was said exactly Before it-is-not-good-that-man-be-alone. Man and Woman38

In some of the poems that show Eve as mother of all living, she is described as a mystery or a secret for the man. The enigmatic woman is another version of the universal woman, and again it is 37 38

Rokem Hazan, 1998, p. 15. Rokem Hazan, 1998, p. 14.

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

60

connected to knowledge. Man feels threatened by the woman and her hidden knowledge. In Rimona Di Nur’s song “hava” (Eve) she says: Every man has his own Eve/ And she is his for love/ If only he would take away from her belly/ all the fig’s leaves// But until today she is a puzzle for him/ And until today he will not know/ Is Eve his since then, / Is she the tree of knowledge or a serpent? //.39

The enigmatic Eve is the center of Israel Efrat’s poem “hava” (Eve). He brings the feelings of a painful Adam and the dissonance in which he lives. On the one hand, he is willing to give Eve everything—much more than just a rib; on the other hand, he feels that even though she was created from his body, she is an enigma for him, and he will never be able to fill in the hole she left. Eve Only one of my ribs? All my life I would have given to shape your life, And the light of my eyes to your eyes. But sometimes I stand across from your figure, wondering: Mine, mine, My rib! And never the less, who are you, what? And a cold blows on my wound, And you are so small To fill The hole you opened in me with the rise.40

Yonathan Ratosh’s poem “hava” (Eve) presents the relationships between man and woman in very few words as a mythological scale in which every act done by one side influences the other side. When man is an owner (ba’al in Hebrew is both husband and 39 40

Di Nur, http://www.mp3music.co.il/lyrics/7492.html. Efrat, in Shaked, 2005, p. 341.

DID EVE KNOW WHAT WAS HIDDEN IN THE APPLE?

61

owner), the woman is a slave, and after three actions done by the woman—cry, fear and love—he becomes enslaved by her and she becomes a goddess. This rocking situation continues for ever and ever. The poem ends with unfinished sentences: “and he—” “and she—” in two separated lines, and emphasizes the fact that there are two different and separate powers in the world, but they are connected in a permanent tie. The zigzag pattern of the poem adds to its message—man and woman’s relationships create a permanent movement in the world—up and down, right and left. The conjunction “and” (ve) means that this situation is endless and will continue as long as there are men and women in the world. And so the burning flame of the ever-turning sword has been positioned in the real world, outside the Garden of Eden, between man and woman, and it affects both of them for ever and ever. Eve And he is a husband And she is a slave. And he is a husband And she is a slave. And she cried And was afraid And loved – * And he is a slave And she is tempting. And he is a slave for life And she is a naked temptation. And she was scared And she waved And tempted— * And he kneels And she is a goddess. And he kneels

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

62

And she agrees And he— And she—41

The theme of the universal woman, the universal mother holds two major elements: her knowledge that expands beyond and over time and place, and her enigma that makes her difficult to be understood.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abarbanel, Nitza. Hava ve’Lilith (Eve and Lilith). Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1994. Aharony, Irit. “The Outcry, The Question and the Silence: Sarah and the Aqedah in the Midrash and in Contemporary Israeli Literature,” in Mishael M. Caspi and John T. Greene, Eds. In Unbinding the Binding of Isaac. East Richland Hills, Texas: Bibal Press, 2007, pp. 211–256. Ain, Hillel, Dabri. Tel Aviv: Ha’kibbutz Ha’meuchad, 1980. Amichai, Yehuda. The Selected Poetry. Chanah Bloch and Mitchel Stephen, Eds. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Bertini, K. A. Shevil Cachol. Tel Aviv: Dvir. (Year not mentioned.) Breshit Rabbah. Ha’levi Edition. Tel Aviv: Machberot Le’sifrut, 1956. Eran, Amira, Rimon Ainat, Shavit Tlalit. Ha’tzelah Ha’shlishit. Tel Aviv: Machon Mofet, 1999. Etinger, Esther. Lifnei ha’Muzika. Tel Aviv: Shirim, Ha’kibbutz Ha’meuchad, 1986. Ginzburg, Levi Louis. Agadot ha’Yehudim (The Legends of the Jews). Ramat Gan: Masada, 1966. Hazan, Rokem Galit. Shiur be’Fituach Kol. Tel Aviv: Ha’kibbutz Ha’meuchad, 1998. Hoss, Avraham. Achshav, Az. Jerusalem: Carmel, 1998. Izen, Esther. Va’Ani Otcha. In Shefi Har, Avisar Cohen Eliaz, Shur Antabi. Eds. Ad Petach ha’Gan. Jerusalem: Even Hoshen, 2006, p. 3.

41

Ratosh, in Shaked, 2005 p. 388.

DID EVE KNOW WHAT WAS HIDDEN IN THE APPLE?

63

Philips, John A. Eve: The History of an Idea. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984. Ravitzki, Ruthi. Ed. Korot Mi’Breshti. Yediot Achronot, 2005. Rimona, Di Nur. hava (Eve), http://www.shiron.net/song View.aspx. Rosenfeld, Bracha. “She Will Grow Nails, She Will Grow Horses’ Shoes” Iton 77, November 2000. Shaked, Malka. La’netzach Anagnech (I’ll Play You For Ever): An Anthology. Tel Aviv: Yediot Achronot, 2005. Shaked, Malka. La’netzach Anagnech (I’ll Play You For Ever): Readings. Tel Aviv: Yediot Achronot, 2005. Zmora, Israel. Ed. Nashim Ba’Tanach. Tel Aviv: Machberot Le’sifrut, 1964.

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE MISHAEL M. CASPI BATES COLLEGE And behold, we said to the angels: ’Bow down to Adam’, and they bowed down; not so Iblis, he refused and was haughty. He was of those who reject Faith. We said: ’O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the garden. And eat of the bountiful things therein. As ye will, but approach not this tree. Or ye run into harm and transgression.1

Qur’anic Texts Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: I will create a vicegerent on earth. They said: Wilt thou place therein one who will make Mischief therein and shed blood?... We said: O Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden And eat of the bountiful thing therein As ye will; but approach not this tree, Or ye run into harm and transgression Then did Satan make them slip From the [Garden] and get them out Of the state [of felicity] in which They had been. (2:30–36) So by deceit he brought about their fall: When they Tested of the tree, their shame became manifest To them, and they began to sew together the leaves Of the Garden over their bodies... (7:11–25) 1

Qur’an sura 2:34–35.

65

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

66

But Satan whispered evil to him: he said, O Adam Shall I lead thee to the Tree of Eternity And to a kingdom that never decays... (20:119–123)

A. REST MY BELOVED Simbolo allor d’affetto, or Pegno di dolor. Torna posarti in Petto questo appassito fior. E avrai nel cor Scolpito, se duro il cor non è, come ti fu rapito come retorna a te.2 A Symbol then of affection, now a token of grief. This faded flower returns to rest in your breast. And you will have engraved on your heart, if your heart is not hardened, how it was stolen from you and how it returns to you.

Laden with parables and Biblical references, Arabic literature tends to expound upon the economical text and tales present within the Qur’an. In an intriguing phenomenon, the concise verses and singular appearances of names instigated the conception of postQur’anic Literature. The first generation of Qur’anic interpreters busied themselves with an explication of the difficulties found in the Qur’an. In a similar fashion to Jewish tradition, Islamic scholars expressed the need to bridge the significant gaps between the written text and audience comprehension. Thus interpreters imaginatively expanded the stories to include moral perceptions. In addition, Muslim sages adopted stories from their contemporary Jewish and Christian Sages. This phenomenon accentuates the

2

Gaetano Donizetti, Amore e morte.

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE

67

theory that the Prophet himself was cognizant of these legendary works and utilized them in his teaching. Post-Qur’anic Literature details accounts of the prophets and the fathers of the Jews in addition to tales regarding several highly respected women. In particular, Eve, the mother of all living garners exceptional consideration. Al-Tha’alabi (11th Century) notes that the first generation of interpreters expounds upon Adam’s extreme loneliness in the garden. They contend that when God perceived Adam’s sense of isolation, He put him in a deep sleep and took a rib from his ribs, thereby creating Eve.3 God clothed her with the best of the clothing and Jewels of the garden. Upon waking from his slumber, Adam perceived the beauty of the woman. The angels examined his reaction and inquired about Eve. He responded that Eve was created from a living part; moreover, “she is to dwell beside me and I shall dwell beside her.”4 Several literary works reveal a close relationship to postbiblical literature. The Hadith, for example, claims, in the name of the Prophet, “the woman was created from a crooked rib; if you try to straighten it you may break it.” This statement mirrors the opinion of the Rabbis; with the conception of the woman, Satan, too, was created. Another comparison can be seen about the man and the woman in their old age.5 According to Kisa’i, Adam first saw the woman in his dream and immediately fell deeply in love with her. With regards to her beauty, Kisa’i states that she boasted seven hundred curly locks, covered with gems and scented with musk. Eve’s soft skin, tinted palms, large dark eyes, a curved nose, white teeth, and beautiful voice revealed a woman in her prime. Upon sight Adam declared her would take her in marriage. Thus God gave Eve to Adam in marriage prior to their entrance in the garden. Ali ibn Abi Talib, the son-in-law of the Prophet and the fourth Khalif, introduces another story. ’Ali explains that Adam Comp. Gen. Rab. 17:8. Comp. Qur. 4:1, 39:6. 5 Comp. Gen. Rab. 17:9, 13 BNidah 31b. 3 4

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

68

saw Eve in his dream and she consequently responded, “I am the maid-servant of God and you are His servant. Ask Him to let you take me as your wife.” In his monograph about Ka’ab al Ahbar, Ben-Zeév states the following:6 Adam saw Eve in his sleep. When he woke up he said, O Master of the world, who was this One sitting beside me? God replied she is my maidservant and you are my servant. I have never created as noble a creature as you are. If you obey me and worship me your place is in Paradise and anyone who will come into it is a righteous one, but the wicked one will not.

Stories found in the Tafsir and amongst literary works of the Qusas illustrate the Muslim sages’ amalgamation of teachings of the Prophet in addition to the inclusion of moral viewpoints of the time. For instance, the Sages purport that God respects marriage and hates divorce. He who keeps this command purifies himself from all sins. When Adam beheld Eve and desired her, the angels first asked him to pay her dowry. Adam was instructed to pray three times a day, in addition to mentioning the name of the Prophet. Gradually Adam became cognizant that the Prophet was the last of the prophets and his offspring. God, as portrayed in the post-biblical literature and in this literature, was the best man, whereas the angel Gabriel is the khatib, or matchmaker. When the marriage concluded, the angels, as witnesses, flung flowers and sweets in the air. Eve, however, did not feel the equal of Adam. Approaching God, she complained that her crooked rib rendered her deficient of the religious duties to bear witness and to assemble on Yaum al-Jum’ah (Friday). God replied that she would be rewarded with mercy and kindness; moreover, if she died in childbirth, she would congregate with the martyrs. Adam laid with his wife on Friday night and she conceived male and female twins, but she had a miscarriage. The second time she again had a miscarriage, and at the third time, her pregnancy “Y. Ben-Ze’ev, ka’ab al-Ahbar Ve-Emdato ba-Hadith ub-Safrut haAggada ha-muslimit” 1983. 6

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE

69

became very heavy and she cried to God.7 Iblis (Satan) appeared and revealed that the life in her womb would live only if she named it Abdul Harith, or his name.8 Because she named him this, and not Abdullah or Abdul-Rahman, God caused the child to die. Finally, at the fourth time she conceived and named her male and female children Abdulillah and Amatuallh. The Muslim sages document the five hundred years that Adam and Eve lived in Paradise as a period of extreme happiness in which they walked from one place to another, showered by the angels with the coins of Paradise. Adam’s horse, created five hundred years before his owner from the musk of the Garden, was dubbed Maymun, or “happy.” In another tradition this horse was created from camphor, musk and saffron, and there did not exist a beast in heaven, save al Buraq, that was more beautiful than Maymun. Buraq excels all the beasts of the Garden. Adam mounted the horse and Eve followed behind on the camel. Meanwhile, the heavenly hosts were lined up with their spears and banners at the gate.

B. WE ARE ALL ONLY FOR TRIAL After this discourse, Allah presented him, through Gabriel, with a bunch of grapes from Paradise, and when he had eaten them he fell into a deep sleep.9

It is known that the masjad (mosque) of the Prophet in al-Madina was the center of Islamic teaching in its early time. Like the Jewish synagogue or the church it was a place where “religious education” was conducted. There, in the mosque, not only were the teachings of the Prophet transmitted and expanded but possibly some of his teachings were written down. At this point the mosque became a religious institution, and wherever the Muslim troops arrived, the mosque became the central place for the new Muslim communities. When the military camps expanded and became towns and cities, these mosques were renovated and they functioned as places for Comp. Qur. 7:185. Harith killer. 9 G. Weil, Biblical legends of the Musselmans, (New York 1846), 21. 7 8

70

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

community worship. Moreover, some of these mosques became religious academies, courts and gathering places for scholars. ’Ulama and Fuqaha were sent to teach Islamic faith in the new conquered areas. They were responsible for teaching the ’ilm, knowledge, of the new faith. The first scholars were Arabs. But before long, the mawali, the natives who converted to Islam, rose to power within the new faith and became the leading scholars. Well known among them is Makhulal Shani (d.115h). In the beginning the genre of the ’ilm drew from the Qur’an, the hadith and the law and tradition, Sunna. However, on this stage, there existed no difference between the three genres. The first Masters had a very keen interest in the hadith, and taught it to the younger generation. Most likely, some of these individuals recorded what they had heard from the companions of the Prophet, or even from the Prophet himself. In this instance one must differentiate between two kinds of teaching: the preacher, Wa’iz and the storyteller, qass. The first accentuates the moral advice and the punishment in the Day of Judgment, while the latter instructed his moral advice through biblical and Qur’anic stories. The community welcomed these stories, mainly due to their informal nature. In their teaching these instructors used the Isnad and the Mutn; these two elements appear to be in their stories or their hadith. The Isnad presents the chain of authority, dating from the first one back to the Prophet or to his companions, whereas ten Mutn contain the substance of the teaching. Quite possibly, some of the storytellers (Qussas) were consequently inspired to collect and record these teachings. The literary genre of Qisas consisted of a folk literature told by Qussas who elaborated upon the original biblical stories in a creative and imaginative fashion. This literary genre maintains its links with the beginning of the Qur’an and later reflects the hadith and the Qur’anic interpretation. In fact, upon examination of several Qur’anic texts, one discovers the origin of the genre Qisas. In the post-Qur’anic literature, however, this genre was expanded. The development of this literary genre after the canonization of the Qur’an uncovers the expansion of Quranic stories in addition to offering several interpretations of ubiquitous passages. These supplementary details of the Qur’anic story, as well as the passages’ religious connotations (relating them to the Prophet or to his companions) reveal a natural relationship between this literature and the Qur’an.

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE

71

The genre of Qisas, extant within the Islamic literary canon since the Ninth Century, attracted immediate respect, mainly due to its relations to the early masters and to the Prophet. Grammarians rightly depicted it as part of the Islamic culture in the Middle Ages. Whereas the Quasas preached the tales of Qisas to warriors in the early period of Islam, preachers in the mosques eventually adopted and reinterpreted this work, thereby strengthening religious sentiments. Typically, the Imams in the mosques were more intricately bound to their interpretations and preaching than their storytelling counterparts. Many stories exist within these interpretations as part of the genre of the Israiliyat. For many centuries, there was a deliberate attempt to hide the Jewish origin of this work. Whereas one may postulate that Jewish legends and teaching had direct influence on the work of the Fathers of the Church, Islamic Masters and Sages attempted to ignore and sometimes refuted any correlation with Jewish literature. Not only do Islamic legends draw bountifully from the Jewish Aggadah, but they also borrow from a variety of texts: e.g., Pirke De Rabbi Eliezer, Midrash ha-Gadol, Midrash Tanhuma and others. The most prominent characters in these legends are Adam, Abraham, Joseph and Solomon. Amongst the converted Muslims in the time of the Prophet were Jews such as Ka’ab al-Ahbar and Abdallah Ibn Salem. ka’ab al-Ahbar commented: When God wished to create the Land he commanded the wind to jostle the water... in two days God created the dry land of the face of the waters.10

In a lengthy expansion of the story given by al-Qisa’i, we are introduced to the creation of seven earths: Ramaka, khalada, Arka, Haroba, Maltham, Sijjin and Ajiba. In addition, the bull (al-Rayyan) with forty thousand heads, eyes, ears, nostrils, mouths, tongues and legs, the fish (Behemoth), and the Leviathan (Lawatya) were created. In his teaching al-Qisa’i contends that the first thing God created was the Preserved Tablet “on which everything that has been and

10

al-kisa’i, Qisas.

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

72

ever shall be is preserved.” To accompany this pearl Tablet, God created a Pen that takes five hundred years to traverse. The Qur’an contends that the angels of God objected to the creation of humanity: Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: I will create a vicegerent on earth. They said Wilt thou place therein one who will make Mischief therein and shed blood? Whilst we do celebrate thy praises And glorify thy holy (name)? He said, I know what you know not.11

In another instance the Prophet teaches the following: ...The evil ones, teaching men Magic, and such things As came down at Babylon To the angels Harut and Marut But neither of these taught anyone without saying: “We are only for trial; So do not blaspheme.” They learned from them The means to sow discord Between man and wife.12

In the Qur’anic literature, the Harut and Marut teach magic to humanity. Similarly, Jewish texts detail the legend of Azazel, who taught man how to make slaughtering knives, arms shields and coats of mail: He showed them metals and how to work them, and armlets and all sorts of trinkets, and the use of rouge for the eyes, and how to beautify the eyelids, and how to ornament themselves.13 Q. 2:30. Q. 2:102. 13 Ginzberg, Legends, “The Ten Generations,” 125. 11 12

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE

73

The Chief of the angels, Shemhazai, taught humanity how to conduct exorcisms and how to cut root. Armaros instructed humanity as to how to raise a spell.14 According to the Qur’an, all the angels were opposed to the creation of Adam, but only Harut and Marut were chosen to go down to earth and they sinned. The text explains: And God knew from this that they were jealous of Adam. They continued to speak evil of him until God afflicted them and punished them on Adam’s account, as has been mentioned in the Word of God...15

According to Kisa’i, Harut and Marut were placed in the well in the land of Babylon, upside down until the coming of the Day of Judgment. Although unclear, the basis for their punishment may have derived from their continuously reproachful attitude toward Adam. Tabari, however, explains that Harut and Marut could not overcome a beautiful woman’s seduction and moreover, the two had spilled the blood of a little boy.16 In spite of the angels’ objection to Adam’s creation, Kisa’i reveals that the angels nevertheless wept out of compassion when they saw what had befallen Adam and his wife. In contrast, Tha’labi does not mention the objection of the angels with regards to the creation of Adam. The Qisasu ‘lAnbiya’ of Ibn Kathir offers the following teaching: Interpreters had disagreed with the kind of tree Allah warned Adam and Eve not to approach. Ibn Athas and others said it was a grape. Ibn Abbas said that some Jews had told that it was a wheat plant. Abu Malik said it was a date Palm tree. Mujahid said it was a fig tree. Abu al-’Aliya said it was a tree the fruit of which would make anyone who ate it able to

For further details see Ginzberg, Legends vol. 1, 124–127. Kisa’i Qisas. 16 See Kisa’i, Qisas; Tabari, Ta’awil al Qur’an Cairo (1906), 456–458. 14 15

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

74

provoke, and provocation was not allowed in the Garden. Allah had made the land of that tree ambiguous.17

In the Midrash the Sages also attempt to categorize the tree. According to R. Me’ir, it was a wheat tree. R. Judah suggests that the tree was a grape vine; R. Abba claims it was the golden apple and R. Jose alleges it was a fig tree for the following reason: the fruit-bearing tree is the same tree that provided them with leaves to cover their nakedness. Kisa’i explains that God created the ’Aql: When (the Prophet) was asked how the sin affects the beauty of the ’Aql he said, ’God forgives its sins, and the excellence of the soul remains. It certainly enters Paradise.’18

The Jewish Sages reject the notion of the ’Aql the Rational, a theory aligned with the concept of logos in Greek philosophy. However, upon careful reading of the text of PDR, we find the following statement: Some say by ten sayings was the world created and in three are these comprised as it is said: The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens, by knowledge the depths were broken down. By these three attributes was the tabernacle made.19

Present within several other Jewish sources,20 one may easily compare these three attributes to the meaning of ’Aql. Before the soul was placed in Adam, God commanded the soul to enter the lifeless body. The soul, created a thousand years before the body, argued that she did not want to exchange the “[b]oundless heavens for this narrow home.” Yet Allah contested her:

Ibn Kathir, Qisas 5–56. Kisa’i Qisas. 19 PRE, ch. 2. 20 See BBera. 55a; Shoher Tov Ps. 1. 17 18

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE

75

Thou must animate Adam even against thy will; and as a punishment of thy disobedience, thou shalt one day separate from him also against thy will.21

In the tradition of Kisa’i, the ’Aql was created before the creation of the angels, as demonstrated in PRE. Thus, Kisa’i may have been influenced from either the author of PRE or the author of the Jewish legend. In the work of al-Tabari we find the following story: Iblis wanted to meet Adam and Eve in heaven. The guards stopped him. Iblis came to the serpent which was one of the beautiful four-legged animals. It looked like a camel. Iblis asked it if he could enter into the serpent’s mouth so that it would help him pass through the guards of heaven’s gate. And so it did.22

A similar version of this story appears in several Jewish works.23 PRE offers the following story: What did Samuel do? He took his band and descended and saw all the creatures which the Holy One, blessed be He, had created in this world and he found among them none so skilled to do evil as the serpent, as it is said, ’Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field.’ Its appearance was something like that of the camel.24

Likewise, Ginzberg provides the following description of the serpent: Of all of them he had the most excellent qualities, in some of which he resembled man. Like man he stood upright upon two feet, and in height he was equal to the camel.25

G. Weil, Biblical Legends of the Mussulmans, New York. Harper and Brothers Pub. 1846, 20. 22 al-Tabari op. cit. 23 See BSan. 596; Zohar Ex. 136a; Gen. Rab. 19:1. 24 PRE. 13. 25 Ginzberg, Legends. 21

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

76

Is it possible to suggest that the description of the serpent in Jewish legends is taken from the oral tradition of the Arabs? In contrast, this description does not exist in the Christian teaching. However, in the Book of Adam and Eve, Satan uses the serpent to deceive Eve. The author of PRE ends its description of the serpent by stating: Its appearance was something like that of the camel. And he mounted and rode upon it.26

If this passage were the only source, this might suggest its origin in Islamic tradition, considering that the Midrash is dated in the Eighth Century C.E. However, the camel appears as an animal in the Garden in several other Jewish sources prior to the Islamic tradition. In Genesis Rabbah we find the following story: Now the serpent was subtler than any beast of the field. R. Hoshaya the elder said: He stood out distinguished (erect) like a reed, and he had feet. R. Simon b. Eleazar said: He was like a camel. He deprived the world of much good, for had this not happened, one could have sent his merchandise through him, and he would have gone and returned.27

In The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan we find the following theory: ...[H]ad the serpent not been reduced to this disgrace everyone in Israel might have had two serpents in his home, one to send toward the west and another toward the east and they could have brought back costly sardonyx, precious stones, pearls and every kind of precious object in the world. No creature could have been used instead of camels and donkeys or mules, to carry out fertilizer to the orchards and gardens.28

PRE, 13. Gen. Rab. 19:1. 28 The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan. Judah Goldin tr. Yale University Press, New Haven (1955), 10. 26 27

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE

77

In a much later and rather eclectic work, the Midrash ha-Gadol, the camel exists, yet there lacks a reference to the Chajjoth. An examination of these stories, particularly in light of the Book of Adam and Eve’s representation of Satan using the serpent to deceive Eve, may suggest that the early motif of the camel transmigrated over time to Adi b. Zayd and to Arabic exegesis. The description of his beauty could be considered as that which was told in the Arabic milieu. Wahab Ibn Munabbih offers the following story: When Iblis wanted to trick Adam and Eve he entered inside the serpent who was one of the most beautiful four-legged creatures.29

Versions of this teaching appear myriad times throughout postQur’anic literature. In his Qisas, Tha’labi reveals that Satan prayed for three hundred years while waiting for someone to come to the gates of heaven. He also presents a beautiful story about the peacock where Satan engaged in a dialogue with it. In the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, we find a teaching given by Abu Hurairah. He states of the Prophet, saying, “The best day is Friday. It is the day on which Adam entered heaven.” Tabari in his Ta’arikh remarks: The Prophet peace be upon him said: Friday is the mother of all days and it is greater for God than the day of ’id al Fitr and the day of ’id al-Adha.

Searching for an explanation for the importance of Friday, Muslim scholars gravitated towards the origin of this day as the designated time for communal prayer. Kisa’i described this day as related to many events. According to Kisa’s tradition, Joseph has his dream of the Sun and the Stars on this day. In addition, the death of Moses and Elijah’s ascent to heaven occurred on Friday. However, in the tradition of other Muslim scholars, Friday remains related to Adam and the Creation alone. Tabari claims that Adam was born, descended to Earth and died in the same day. This was also a period wherein whatever man asked from God was 29

Al-Tabari, op. cit.

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

78

granted, as long as he didn’t request a sin or cutting of the blood ties. In essence, Friday was anticipated as the day that the end of the world would take place. In his teaching we also find the Ibn Kathir’s aforementioned teaching regarding the importance of Yaum al Jum’ah, Friday.30 In different stories we find the following: In it (Friday) there are five qualities: God created Adam, He inspirited a soul in Adam, on Friday Adam was married. On Friday God took Adam’s life and on this day there is a moment whether man’s (servant of God) requests from God are granted to him. And another story, as long as what he requests is not prophane and it is on this day that the end of the world will take place.

In the following stories we find a praise for Yaum al Jum’ah, Friday: a. The best day in which the sun rises is Friday. On it He created Adam, on it he entered Paradise, on it he was expelled from it and on it the end of the world will take place. b. The best day the sun rises is on Friday. On it He created Adam, on it he entered Paradise and on it he was expelled from it. c. On it (Friday) he created Adam, on it he entered Paradise, and on it he was expelled from it. And the end of the world will not take place except on Friday ... On this day there is also a moment which is quite unique and when the person requests something from God while praying God grants it to him. d. No star did ever appear better than the one on Friday. e. God has chosen from everything something and from among the days, He has chosen Friday.31

Moreover, Muslim tradition strongly emphasizes Friday as the day for community gatherings in the mosque. It should be noted that Allah grants everything to the one who prays on Friday. See Tabari, Ta’arikh 1, 111–115. These hadiths are taken from different sources, Ibn Kathir, Ta’arikkh, from the Sahih 17, 18, and from Kalini al-kafi 413. 30 31

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE

79

Kisa’i presents a tradition in which he suggests that when the spirit entered Adam, it was a special one: Ka’ab al-Ahbar said: Adam’s spirit is not like the spirit of the angels of any other creature, for it is a spirit preferred by God over all his creation, as He said: ’When I have fashioned (in due preparation) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obedience unto him’ (15:29).

Kisa’i continues his description of Adam’s wisdom: And He taught Adam the nature of all things, (2:31) so that he knew all languages, even the language of the snake and frogs and all things that were on land and in the sea. Ibn Abbas said: Adam spoke seven hundred languages the best of which was Arabic.32

This story does not appear in any other source of Islamic tradition apart from the tradition of Kisa’i. Moreover, the presentation of his work reflects the tradition of preaching in the mosque, or Khutbah. According to Kisa’i: Adam stood on the pulpit (manbar) in all that radiance and God taught him all names and gave him a staff of light ... Adam ascended the pulpit and greeted the angels saying: Peace be upon you, O angels of my Lord, the mercy of God and his blessing, and they answered: And peace with you O chosen of God and the wonder of his creation.33

Kisai’s presentation of “the staff of light” was most probably influenced by the verses in the Qur’an: God is the Light, of the heavens and the earth The parable of His Light, is as if there were a niche And within it a Lamp, the Lamp enclosed in Glass The glass as it were, a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the East Nor of the West, Whole Oil is well-nigh 32 33

Kisa’i, Oisas. Ibid.

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

80

Luminous, Though fire scarce touched it Light upon Light, God doth guide, Whom he will To his Light; God doth set forth Parables For men and God doth know all things (24:35)

Lit by the spiritual truth of the lamp, the Qur’an stands as the revelation that only spiritual eyes can see and comprehend. This is also the unseen world that has its own light, far from us in the celestial realm. The Prophet, thus, is the Lamp illuminated by God, and his role is to illuminate us. Rubin suggests that at the time of Adam’s creation, the light of the Prophet was engraved on his forehead. This prophetic light then passed throughout all the generations, reaching the famously handsome father of the Prophet, Abdallah, and from him to his wife and finally to the Prophet.34 This light that shone upon the Prophet is the light that also shone upon Adam. In the tradition of Kisa’i, two teachings contribute to the understanding of the many legends regarding this special light.35 When the angels gathered before Adam in order for him to address them, Kisa’i said: That day Adam was wearing a robe of silk brocade as delicate as air, and he had two tresses with jewels and scented with musk... On his head was a bejeweled crown of gold with four points, on each one was a great pearl so radiant that the light of the sun and the moon was extinguished.36

Kisa’i also maintained that when Adam descended from the manbar, God increased his beauty and radiance. At the same time, a cluster of grapes drew near him and he ate it. This was the first food that Adam had eaten in the garden. At the moment Iblis heard that Adam had eaten food, he remarked contentedly, “I shall lead him astray.” The light that the Prophet’s father possessed was the “light of prophetland.” In many different traditions attempts were made to See Rubin, U. “Pre-existence and Light: Aspects of the Concept of Nûr Muhammad” IOS (1975), 62–119. 35 Ibid. 36 Kisa’i, Qisas. 34

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE

81

comprehend the significance of this light. Many scholars refer to its physical beauty and sexual attraction. In Rubin’s work, the following tradition mirrors this position. I have seen the light that was with you yesterday, and I wanted it to be within me. However, Allah was determined to put it only where He wanted it to be.37

The moment the prophetic Light, or sperm, was transmitted to Amina, the Prophet’s mother, all the idols of Quraysh, and those of the world were turned upside down, and the beasts of Quraysh spoke, conveying to each other the good tidings of Amina’s pregnancy.38 This light appears within countless traditions. In one such tradition, the grandfather of the Prophet, ’Abu al-Muttalib, had a dream while sleeping in the ka’aba. In this dream he noticed a pure chain protruding from his back with four edges reaching the ends of heaven and earth. In another tradition, God wanted to make the Prophet manifest in the world and He drew a drop from His throne and threw it into one of the earthly fruits. The Prophet’s father ate it and thereby transferred it to the womb of his wife.39 This light came to the Prophet from Adam, the primogenitor of the Prophet, and the first to have the light on his forehead. A similar tradition exists in the Jewish canon: while in paradise, Adam and Eve were clad with clothes of heaven (in Muslim tradition, “clothes of light”). These clothes were as light as the nails, therefore explaining the tradition of looking at one’s nails by the light of the candle in the recitation of havdalah, the concluding Sabbath ceremony. In comparison, a Muslim tradition suggests that Allah coated Adam with “very beautiful nail substance that shone like the sun. After Adam committed his sin this coating was reduced, surviving only on his fingertips.”40 Once again, a number of Jewish literary works refer to Adam’s splendor. According to several sources, Adam’s grandeur eclipsed the sun Rubin, 86. Ibid., 87. 39 Ibid., 111. 40 Ibid., 96. 37 38

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

82

and his spiritual qualities kept pace with his personal charm. God had fashioned Adam’s soul with particular care and thus, his soul reflects the image of God. This particular beauty likewise has been conferred upon several others with this characteristic: Adam, Jacob, Joseph, Saul, Absalom, R. Ishmael and R. Abahu. In contrast to Islamic tradition, in which Muslims refer to Nadi as having the Light, (beauty), Jewish tradition does not include him.41 As noted in Rubin’s work, the Prophet was born with the “prophetic light”: The actual appearance of the light on Muhammad’s birth is described in detail in traditions frequently related in the name of Amina. She said that Muhammad left her body with light that illuminated the castles of Syria and its markets, until she saw the necks of the camels in the markets of Busra.42

On the other hand, Hebrew tradition asserts that upon God’s creation of Adam, he bore the sign of the covenant.43 A rare Jewish literary source presents the following story: And when the earth heard this expression (help-meet) thereupon it trembled and quaked, crying before its Creator: Sovereign of all worlds! I have not the power to feed the multitude of mankind. The Holy One, blessed be He, replied: I and thou will (together) feed the multitude of mankind. They agreed to divide (the task) between themselves: the night was for the Holy One, blessed be He, and the day (was appointed) to the earth. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He created a sleep of life, so that man lies down and sleeps whilst He sustains him and heals him and gives him life and repose, as it is said: ’I should have slept: then had I been at rest’ (Job 3:13).44

See Pesiqta Rab. 14, 629, BBaba Bat. 58A. Rubin, 88–89. 43 See ARN 2,2. 44 PRE. 12. 41 42

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE

83

In several midrashic literary works the angels notice Adam’s resemblance to God, remarking: “Are there two powers in this world, whereupon God reduced Adam’s size, which had formerly filled the entire universe.” Similarly, the gnostic tradition suggests the notion that Adam was created as a gigantic monster with no intelligence. This presentation of Adam’s lack of intellect also surfaces in Jewish literature.45 In Islamic tradition we find the following hadith: Wahab bnu Munabbih said: One of the signs of death is sleep and one of the signs of the end of the world is the state of usefulness. The children of Israel asked Moses: Does our God sleep? God revealed to Moses: If I sleep the skies will fall on the earth and the universe will be vanished entirely.46

Another hadith in the work of Kisa’i reveals the following: Ibnu Abbas had once said: The Jews once asked our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) about that, God thus revealed to him the verse: Nothing put Him to sleep... They therefore said: Do the people in the Garden sleep? He replied: They do not because sleep is the brother of death and they do not die and so are those in Hell, they do not sleep or age, they are tortured.47

Quite possibly, Kisa’i was not only familiar with the tradition of PRE but also followed its order. In PRE, sleep is designated for the sake of rest and then the sleep for the sake of the creation of Eve. ...So that man lies down and sleeps whilst He sustains him and heals him and (gives) him life and repose... He casts upon him the sleep of deep slumber, and He made him sleep whilst He took one of his bones from his side and flesh from his heart and made it into a help-meet and placed her opposite to him.48

The order of the events in Qisa’i occurs as follows: BSanh. 38b ARN 1, 5. Kisa’i Qisas. 47 Ibid. 48 PRE, 12. 45 46

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

84

Then slumber overcame Adam and he fell asleep for there is no rest for the body without sleep... While Adam was sleeping, God created Eve from a rib of his left side which was crooked. She was called Hawa (Eve) because she was made out of a living being.49

Unlike the biblical story, al-Tabari presents the following events: when God initiated His inquiries, he first turned to Adam and then to Eve. Adam blamed the woman; Eve blamed the serpent. The biblical storyteller ends the inquiries here and consequently commences the curses and the punishment. He starts with the serpent: “And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou are cursed above all cattle...” (3:14). Al-Tabari adds another inquiry with the serpent: Allah turned to the serpent and asked: Why did you order her? The serpent said: Iblis ordered me.

At the same time, in the al-Tabari account, we find the following hadith in the name of Ibn Zaid, asserting that Adam, opposed to Eve, ate from the fruit of the tree: Adam desired her and asked her. She said she would not unless he came with her to the tree. He came but she still said no, and asked him to eat from the tree first. He did eat, and immediately their genitals were exposed.

This hadith, however, is contradicted by another hadith in which he says: If it were not for the misfortune that fell upon Eve, women would not have menstruation, would be wiser, and would bear and give birth with ease.

The hadith describing Adam as the sinner who first ate of the fruit does not appear in any other tradition. It is in this text, however, that Eve is described as the ultimate sinner: With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with her flattery of her lips she forced him. He goeth after her 49

Kisa’i.

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE

85

straightaway as an ox to the slaughter or as a fool to the correction of the stocks, till an arrow strike through his liver as a bird hasteneth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life.50

In the hadith of Ibn al Musayyib, Adam was offered alcohol and thereby experienced the temptation to taste the fruit. This reference to Adam’s inebriation also surfaces within Jewish tradition. In response to the verse, “She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat,” R Aibu remarked, “She squeezed grapes and gave him.” In his Qisas, Ibn Kathir presents us with a hadith echoing the discussion found amongst Jewish sages: Interpreters had disagreed about the kind of tree Allah warned Adam and Eve not to approach. Ibn Abbas and others said it was a grape tree. Ibn Abbas said that some Jews had told that it was a wheat plant. Abu Halik said it was a date palm tree. Mujahid said it was a fig tree. Abu al-Aliya said it was a tree the fruit of which would make anyone who ate it able to provoke, and provocation was not allowed in the Garden.

The midrashic literature offers the following discussion: What was the tree whereof Adam and Eve ate? R. Meir said: It was wheat, for when a person lacks knowledge people say that man has never eaten bread of wheat... R. Judah b. R. Ila’i said It was grapes, for it says, Their grapes are grapes of gall, they have clusters of bitterness (Deut. 32:32); those clusters brought bitterness (sorrow) into the world. R. Abba of Acco said: It was the ethrog (citron), as it is written, and when the woman saw that the tree was good for food (Gen. 3:6). Consider; go forth and see, what tree is it whose wood can be eaten just like its fruit? And you find none but the ethrog. R. Jose said: They were figs...51

50 51

Prov. 7:21–23. Gen. R. 15:7.

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

86

The grapes are mentioned in the Qisas of Ibn Kathir in the following hadith. Abu Ka’ab was quoted as saying that when Adam was on his deathbed he asked his sons to get him some grapes from the garden.

In the Vita we find the following story: And Adam said to Eve, Rise and go with my son Seth to the regions of Paradise and put dust on your heads and prostrate yourselves to the ground and mourn in the sight of God. Perhaps he will have mercy and send his angel to the tree of his mercy, from which flows the oil of life, and will give you a little of it with which to anoint me, that I might have some rest from this pain by which I am wasting away.52

In Al-Tabari’s Tafsir, a hadith of Ibn Ishaq states the following: Ibn Ishaq was quoted as saying that the first twins, Cain and his sister, were born in heaven. Eve did not crave nor feel sick when she was pregnant. She neither labored nor bled in childbirth.

In his magnum opus, Ta’rikh al-rusul wal muluk, al-Tabari (839– 923) presents the history of the world, recounting the life of peoples, kings and prophets in the biblical times. The story of creation begins with an invocation that God is One and He was before everything existed. Following this invocation, he asserts that Ubadah b. al Samit heard the Prophet state that the first thing created by God was the pen, whose role was to write down the events of the creation. al-Tabri also introduces a dialogue between the pen and God. When God commanded the pen to write, the pen asked: What shall I write? God responded that he should write the al-qadar, the destiny of the universe. At that point the pen began to write everything that was going to happen in all times. In his work Qisas ‘lAnbiya, Kisa’i adds that the pen trembled and then wrote on the tablet until it ran dry. In addition to the notion of the pen as the first creation, he also offers contrasting 52

Vita, 36.

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE

87

traditions that do not hail the pen as the initial Divine creation. In these traditions God existed before all and His throne was upon the waters. Some traditions assert that God created the water and then placed His throne upon the water. Al-Tabari presents different traditions of the creation of the world. According to AlTabari, God created the heavens on Thursday and on Friday He created the stars, the sun, the moon and the angels. In the three remaining hours he created man, the creature who was destined to live and to die. God then placed Adam in the Janna, commanded Iblis to prostrate himself before Adam, and then cast him out of the garden. This particular tradition has its teaching in the Jewish tradition; the Sages taught that twelve hours passed between the creation of Adam and his expulsion from the garden.53 In Al-Tabari’s account of the creation of Adam, he tells that earth refused to give its soil to Gabriel and to Michael. God commanded them to take soil from different places of three colors: red, white and black. Then he made it into wet clay. The refusal of earth to give its soil for the creation of Adam appears in Jewish tradition. This occurs in the Palestinian Targun and in the Talmud, although there is no reference to the different colors. Al-Tabari adds that the refusal of Iblis to prostate himself before Adam occurs as a response to Adam’s creation from clay. Here we find that both Jewish and Islamic traditions emphasize the relationship between Adam and the earth. In Hebrew, the name Adam shares its roots with the word adamah (earth), and similarly in Arabic, Adam stems from adim, the skin (or crest) of the earth. Tabari’s familiarity with the Jewish tradition surfaces in a number of his accounts. According to Tabari, Adam was much more knowledgeable than the angels; he presented the names God taught him to the angels. In comparison, Jewish tradition teaches that Adam proved his superiority by naming the animals. The creation of the woman is told in a simple, straightforward manner. According to Tabari’s account, the unattached Adam used to go alone. On one occasion he fell asleep and upon awakening, he spotted a woman sitting at his head. Asking her for the purpose of her creation she replied, “To live with you.” At this point he was 53

See ch. 1.

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

88

asked by the angels to name her and he called her Hawwa, or Eve, because she was created from a living thing. In Kisa’i’s Qisas he offers a description of Eve’s beauty. She was tall and beautiful with large dark eyes, pure skin, and a lovely voice. Adam and his mate dwelt in the garden, where they were permitted to eat from every tree save for one. The reason for this prohibition was in order to afflict them with God’s punishment. In Jewish tradition, in additions to the works of Muslim Sages, Iblis, or Satan, was the cause for the fall. Tabari states that Iblis wished to see Adam and Eve in the garden. He tried to get access to the garden but the keepers of the garden refused him entrance. Consequently, he approached the snake, an extremely beautiful animal resembling a camel. The snake let him pass by the keepers (according to God’s wish) and Iblis spoke to Adam and Eve through the mouth of the snake. He took a vow in the name of God that his purpose was to give them good advice. He wanted to show them their private parts; he knew of them but Adam and Eve did not. Here we find Tabari’s account of their clothes, which were al Zhufr: beautiful as the pearls and bright like the fingernails. This stands as a direct reference to the description in Jewish traditions,54 in which the Jewish Sages compare the clothing (skin) of Adam and Eve to the characteristics of fingernails. In another tradition Tabari introduces the story by saying that when Eve picked the fruit, the tree bled. Next the feathers that covered their bodies fell off, and the two covered themselves with leaves. When God started questioning them Adam immediately blamed Eve. Eve claimed that the snake had commanded her; the snake asserted that Iblis had commanded him. God then cursed Eve (for causing the tree to bleed, she was punished with blood every new moon), the snake (his feet were cut off), and Iblis. Adam, however, received no punishment. A tradition in the account of al-Tabari given in the authority of Abu al ’Aliyah claims that everything in the Garden was allowed for Adam to touch except one tree, as noted in the Qur’an:

54

See Gen. Rab. 196 Pal. Tar. for Gen. 3:7 and ch. 1 above.

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE

89

Both you and your spouse live in the Garden Eat freely to your fill Whenever you like, but approach not the tree Or you will become transgressors.55

The text says ’aduwu lakun, or “an enemy to you.” Next Satan approached Eve and she told him that they were forbidden to eat from the tree. His reply was that the Lord forbade them to eat from it, thereby preventing them from becoming angels. Eve ate first and then commanded Adam to eat from it. In many traditions offered by al-Tabari we find different approaches to the transgression of Adam and Eve in the garden, but all of them emphasize the acts of Iblis as the cause of the fall. Tabari introduces a tradition in the authority of Yunus b.Wahb b. Zayd that Iblis successfully lured Eve to his side. When Adam felt the need to cohabit with Eve, she refused unless Adam would approach to the tree. After approaching the tree, he asked for her again and she presented a subsequent condition: he must eat the fruit. The moment that they ate from the tree, the two became aware of their private parts. Ibn Zayd ended his tradition by stating that if Eve had not been swayed by this ordeal, women of the world would be more intelligent, would not menstruate, and would give birth without pain. In some traditions Tabari discusses the events after the expulsion from the garden. According to these traditions God cast Adam out of the garden and placed him in the Land of India. Others expand that perception to suggest that the Land of India carries some of the fragrance of the garden. Some say that Adam was in India while Eve was in Jiddah and only found Eve after a long search. At this point Adam’s size was reduced, as in paradise Adam’s feet were on earth and his head in heaven. With his newly decreased size, Adam could hear the angels. Thus God sent him to Mecca. Any place Adam has his foot print became a populated place, with the area between his footsteps forming a desert. God sent a ram from the Jannah and Adam slaughtered it. Eve spun the

55

A different translation, Al Qur’an by Ahmed Ali.

90

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

wool and both of them wove it. Adam made clothing for himself and he made a veil for Eve. Next Adam was commanded to build a house for God. He was taught to perform the same rituals that he had seen, and hence the angels crowded around God’s throne. Both Adam and Eve journeyed toward Mecca. When they reached a place that Adam liked along the way, he asked the angels permission to sojourn there, and the place then became a fertile land. Adam built the House of God by collecting material from five different mountains. From the material taken from Mount Hira near Mecca, he laid the foundation of the House. From materials taken from Mount Sinai, Mount Lebanon, Mount Olive and Mount al-Judi (the location where Noah’s Ark rested), he built the House. On the Mount of Arafat, Adam learned the rituals. From paradise Adam brought an array of fruits and perfumes from the trees and the rivers of India. He also brought with him the Black Stone (originally whiter and purer than snow), and the Staff of Moses, a branch of the myrtle as tall as Moses (ten cubits). Al-Tabari’s account also lends itself to the Promethean motif. Gabriel taught Adam to sow the grain of wheat in the soil, to harvest and to make sheaves. Then Gabriel brought two stones and taught Adam how to grind the wheat. Finally he brought Adam stones and iron and taught him how to strike them together to produce a fire. Thus Adam produced the first bread. This legend affirms the theory that the forbidden fruit tree was wheat, and when they ate of it, they became cognizant of their nudity. Currently, there is no Jewish source for this hadith. Most likely, however, Ibn Ishaq was aware of an interpretation of the verse, “I have gotten a man from the Lord” (4:1), Qa-ni-ti ish et yhwh, as interpreted in Genesis Chapter One. Furthermore, he may have vaguely elaborated on this verse to suggest that Cain and his twin sister were born in heaven. Sura 2 offers the following verses: We said: O Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden and eat of the beautiful things therein as ye will; but approach not this tree or ye run into harm and transgression. then did Satan make them slip from the (Garden) and get them out

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE

91

of the state in which they had been. We said: Get ye down all with enmity between yourselves on earth will be your dwelling place and your means of livelihood for a time. (35–36)

The garden was not a place on this earth. The Prophet marked this perception by asserting that after Adam transgressed, God told him “On earth will be your dwelling place.” Thus one may contend that before the infamous “Fall,” Adam lived in the Garden located in heaven. Another possibility exists that a certain place may not even exist; rather, the garden is a place of spirituality and felicity, completely repugnant to evil. With regards to this theory, the garden and tree may be understood in an allegorical sense. Let us examine the following sura: “And he taught Adam the nature of all things then He placed them before the angels, and said, Tell me the nature of these if ye are right” (2:31). The text says, “Wa’aluma adama-l isma’ kulaha,” or “and he taught Adam all the names.” In this instance, the Muslim sages purport that Adam was taught the inner meaning of nature and its qualities. In this respect we can suggest that Adam (humanity) was taught to possess the qualities that angels could not have. Humans love and understand love; humans plan and initiate their plans, yet angels cannot possess these qualities. Rather, they live as messengers who carry their mission according to the divine plan. Thus the forbidden tree was not the tree of knowledge, for man possessed wisdom before he ate of the fruit of the tree. Instead, the tree was one of evil and therefore God forbade Adam from both eating from it and approaching it. In Sura 82 we read the following verses: When the sky is cleft asunder. When the stars are scattered. When the oceans are suffered to burst forth. and when the Graves are turned upside down.

92

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE (Then) shall each soul know what it hath sent forward and kept back. (1–5)

These verses trace both divine unity and the destiny of humanity. In contrast, however, philosophers and theologians stress the dissolution of the intellect, or ’Aql. In this respect one may proffer that the mystic sees the divine union here. Thus this description is of the Day of Judgment, yaum ad-din, the time at which all secrets of nature will be revealed and all the hidden things within the heart of human beings or those on the earth and in the oceans will be made obvious. This image leads to a dispute found amongst Muslim sages regarding the creation of Adam. A certain hadith notes that Adam was created in his image, bi Subratihi, or literally, “in his form.” The following question arises: how could it be that Adam was created in the form (Sura) of Allah? A possible explanation is that the possessive pronoun ’his’ does not refer to Allah but rather to Adam. Therefore Adam was formed in his own image. The creatures obeyed Adam and prostrated themselves before him, whereas Iblis who refused to do so. Thus, as a result of his rebelliousness, Iblis was exiled from the celestial world. The punishment that Iblis receives for refusing to prostrate himself before Adam mimics the punishment associated with the refusal to worship an image of the Divine. Moreover, when God announced His plan to create a human who would control the earth, the angels responded, why create one who will corrupt the land by spilling blood? The angels, however, merely stated their objection regarding the creation of human beings, whereas Iblis purposely disobeyed the created one. In his work Fusus al Hikam, Ibn ’Arabi suggests that Adam was created in the image of God. In Ibn ’Arabi’s teaching, Adam becomes greater than the angels. He has proven his wisdom by naming the beasts and by teaching the angels their names. Thus the prevailing motif of humanity’s fall within the other two traditions dominates the Islamic tradition as well.

C. ADAM, APOSTLE OF HIS PROGENY Ka’ab said: Whenever a cock crows at dawn, a voice cries from Paradise, saying: Where are the humble? Where are those who kneel down? Where

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE

93

are those who praised God humbly... The first to hear this is an angel in heaven, himself in the form of a cock with white feathers and down, whose head is beneath the gates of mercy on the Sublime Throne and whose feet are in the roots of the Seventh Lower Earth and whose wings are always spread...56

To adequately comprehend the creation of Adam in the Islamic tradition, one first should become cognizant the traditions, symbols and the ideas of the pre-Islamic society in Arabia and its culture. Occasionally, statements negating the pre-Islamic culture (Pagan Arabia) surface in the Qur’an, thereby introducing elements of disagreement to the world creation myth. Simultaneously, however, some of these cosmogonic myths are included in the Qur’an. In the works of D. Bakkar and Izutzu57 the authors purport the existence of Qur’anic ideas connected to the creation of man. Contrary to this, however, there has never been an Arabic myth dealing with the origin of mankind. In one source, there are several references to the story of creation and consequently Adam’s creation but this source does not ultimately contend with primal man. It should be noted that Jews and Christians dwelt in Arabia for a number of centuries and were thoroughly familiar with the Old Testament and its ideas. In all probability, these groups imparted a sense of Biblical familiarity to their Arab neighbors of the Jahiliyya. Among the poets in this period, the possibly Christian ’Adi b. Zayd58 manifested a strong presence. In his Qasida corresponding with Gen. 3:1, the verse presents the serpent in the following way: “Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.” The term ’subtle’ represents the

Kisa’i, Qisas, M. Thackston tr., Kazi Pub., Chicago 1997. Bakkar, D. Man in the Qur’an, Amsterdam 1965; O. Izutzu, God and Man in the Koran, 1964. 58 ’Adi b. Zayd al-’Ibadi, Diwan, Muhammad Khabbar ed. Baghdad 1965. 56 57

94

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

Hebrew noun ’Arum. However, in the work of ’Adi b. Zayd, he presents the serpent in the following way: And the serpent was spotted when it was created. Like you see the image of a camel or a she-camel.

The Arabic word raqsha’ (’spotted’) technically translates as “spotted black and white.” ’Adi b. Zayd renders the word ’arum as raqsha’. Quite possibly, the poet interprets ’Arum in Hebrew as close to the word a’ramu, a synonym for raqsha’. Nonetheless, there may have been a prevailing tradition that the serpent was spotted in this part of the world. The following lines read: And He called him in a loud voice, Adam And he answered him, Because into the body created by Allah, the breath of life has been placed. Then He gave him paradise, for him to live there and made a wife for him created from his rib.

The Prophet speaks about the creation of Adam and God’s covenant with him: ... but pray, “O Lord, give me greater knowledge.” We had commanded Adam before, but he disregarded it. We found him lacking of resolution (20:114–115).

Indeed, the Qur’an indicates that Adam, tempted by Iblis, was thereby expelled from Jannah (Paradise): But then Iblis (Satan) tempted him by saying: “O Adam, should I show you the tree of immortality and a kingdom that will never know any wane?” (20:120–121)

The Prophet speaks about the danger of temptation coming from the evil power, Satan. Iblis was the only one who refused to prostrate himself before Adam saying: When we asked the angels to bow before Adam they all bowed but Iblis who said: Can I bow before him whom you created from clay ...If you defer (my term) till the Day of Resurrection, I will bring his progeny into complete subjugation, barring a few. (17:61–62)

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE

95

According to the tradition of Ibn Abbas, the following verses read: The prostration before Adam was on Friday at midday and the angels remained prostrate until dusk, wherefore God made that day a holy day for Adam and his descendants until the Day of Resurrection. God answers prayers on that day and at eve, a period of twenty-four hours. Every hour, God releases seventythousand prisoners from hell.59

This tradition offers an etiological explanation of the importance of the assembly in yaum al Jum’ah (Friday prayer). In the pre-Islamic tradition of ’Adi b. Zayd, the serpent existed in the image of “a camel or a she- camel.” This image remained in the Islamic tradition in addition to the Hebrew oral tradition. This particular story underscores the thesis that Arabia was not an uncivilized region. On the contrary, it was surrounded by highly developed areas and was connected and influenced by them to a certain degree. Moreover, Nabatea, Palmyra, and the kingdoms of Kinda and Ghassan existed at this point. During the Sixth and Seventh centuries, Southern Arabia fell under the administration of the Ethiopians and later under the Persians. Colonies of commerce linked the Gulf and the Red Sea. In these areas, and in particular, Syria, Arabs on the Peninsula preserved legends of early times. In this instance, acknowledgement must be given to the importance of orality, as and people of this time frequently transmitted stories from one area to another by the word of mouth. ’Adi b. Zayd did not invent the aforementioned tradition; in all probability, the story of the camel existed at his time. Whereas he mentioned it in two verses, others later added more details. Thus, when theologians and interpreters present the story of the garden, it does not only stand as an interpretation of the Qur’an by the Medieval Muslim authorities. Rather, it also serves as a literary tradition created among highly educated people who have preserved their oral tradition for many centuries.

59

Kisa’i Qisas, 11.

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

96

Similarly, other literary phenomena have occurred in Arabia. For example, poetry originally served the needs of the tribe by calling for battle or praising a hero. The most respected person in the tribe was the poet Sha’ir, who was also known as a master of magic art with worldly connections. This innovative poetry cultivated a new tradition that influenced both Hebrew and European poetry. In many ways, poetic legends serve as a preservation of the collective memory and convey the historical experiences of their forefathers. One may approach similarly the collections of the Ayyam al-’Arab, the Days of the Arabs, as a pure phenomenon, preserving the core of the tribes. Yet it should be noted that this work belonging to the pre-Islamic time was only recorded at the Second Century of the Hijrah (the 9th century C.E.). One finds echoes of these Arabian battle-oriented narratives in the following verses: Man will fly from his brother, mother and father, as well as his wife and children. Each man will have enough cares that day (80:34–34).

In this Sura, the Prophet speaks about the Last Day of Judgment. The narrative in the Ayyam al-’Arab reads: And the one among you who flies, from his wife and the one who is under his protection, he will fly (even) from his friend.60

The genre of Amthal, the proverbs, also exists amongst these oral literary traditions.61 In particular, this genre testifies to the relationship between the Arabians and the people of Najran, Yathrib and Ethiopia, or Jews, Christians and Greeks whose Biblical stories and themes circulated in Arabia. The camel in ’Adi b. Zayd Qasidah is one of the few diverted elements from the story of the creation as it See, Ayyam al-’Arab fi’l jahiliyya, Ta’lif Muhammad Ahmad Jad al-mawalá bak et. al. al Qahira 1942, 32–33. 61 It is notin in our intention to examine this genre to its didactic and general ethics. 60

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE

97

appears in the Bible (Gen. 1–3). This tradition, developed by Kisa’i reads as follows: Ka’ab said that at the time the serpent was shaped like a camel, and like a camel, could stand erect. She had multicolored tail, red, yellow, green, white and black, a mane of a pearl, hair of topaz, eyes like the planet Venus and Jupiter and aroma like musk blended with ambergris. Her dwelling was in the watery paradise and her pond was on the shore of the river Cawthar. Her food was saffron, and she drank from that river, and her speech was exaltation of God, Allah of the universe. He created her (the camel) two thousand years before he created Adam, and she had told Adam and Eve of every tree in paradise.

In the tradition of Ibn ’Abbas, according to Kisa’i, Iblis sat between the fangs of the serpent/camel and spoke to Eve. Thus, the fangs of the serpent became poisonous for all of eternity. This particular tradition easily serves as an etiological story to explain the presence of poisonous snakes. Here Iblis presents the idea that God prohibited Adam and Eve from eating from the tree of immortality because he planned to make them slaves and place them under it. This passage also offers a description of the fruit: Eve came near the tree which had innumerable branches. On each one, there were ears containing seeds like Tell Jujar (or like the eggs of the Ostrich). They had fragrance like musk and were whiter than the milk and sweeter than honey. Eve plucked seven of them. One she ate, one she hid, and the other five she delivered to Adam.62

The following is another tradition in the name of Ka’ab al Ahbar: Adam came down to India on top of a mountain called Serendip, which surrounds India. Eve came down to Jiddah, Iblis to the land of Maysan, the peacock 62

Kisa’i Qisas, 12.

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

98

to Egypt, and the serpent to Isphahan. God separated them so they were unable to see each other ... Thereupon Adam wept day and night for a hundred years. He did not raise his head toward heaven until God had caused ...all types of scent to grow from his tears ... Eve also wept, and from her tears God caused carnations and herbs to grow. The wind carried his voice to Eve and her voice to Adam and each one thought that he was near the other.63

Some of the legends about the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden seem to be transformed in the Islamic time. In the work of Kisa’i we read: Gabriel said to the angels: Leave Adam alone, rebuke him no more. God erased his sins...[t]hen Gabriel struck the earth with his wings and a spring flew further odorous than musk and sweeter than honey...Adam bathed himself in the water and said: Praised be Allah...To Eve God sent Michael and he gave her the good tidings... and when she learned that her repentance had been accepted, she removed herself to the seashore and bathed herself...64

There is some possibility that the traditions found in Kisa’i’s work have a relationship to the story found in the book of Adam and Eve (Vita), dated between 100 B.C.E. to 200 C.E. or “toward the end of the first Christian Century.” The motif of repentance surfaces in the Vita. While Adam spent forty years fasting, Eve bathed in the Tigris River and remained speechless: And Eve walked to the Tigris River and did just as Adam told her. Similarly, Adam walked to the Jordan River and stood on a stone up to his neck in water.65

Kisa’i Qisas, 25. Ibid., 28. 65 Vita, 7:1. 63 64

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE

99

The motif of the fragrances, appearing myriad times in Arabian legends, reappears in the Vita and in the Apocalypse: And they came to God and said Jael (yah-el), Eternal King command that fragrant incenses from Paradise be given to Adam. And God ordered Adam to come that he might take aromatic fragrances out of Paradise for his sustenance.66

In the early tradition of Arabia, we find some stories about a Yemenite couple, Isaf and Na’ilah, that made a pilgrimage to Mecca. 67 When the two were alone, passion overcame them and they sinned in the sanctuary. Immediately, they turned into stone. Carried out of the ka’abah, the two were placed by the sanctuary. In a similar sense, Islamic tradition teaches that Adam and Eve met each other by the mountain of Arafat. There, they dwelled for some time and bore their first child.68 In the tradition of Ka’ab, we find the following story: Eve did not conceive until after she had menstruated. When she first had it, she was very worried, but Adam said: It is Allah’s wish to afflict you with impurity, but Eve, where is your beauty and comeliness? You have been transformed. It is on the account of my transgression. So Adam denied her the right to pray during the days of menstruation ...Then there came unto her an angel who stood before the well of Zam Zam and said to Adam, “Run in this place.” And when he ran, the earth with God’s permission gushed forth a spring of water, colder than

Apo. 29:4–5 this particular motif appears also in the Qisas. There he blames Eve of taking leaves from the garden without permission and accused her of stealing. 67 See: Kitab al Asman ’an Abi’l Mundhir Hisham b. Muhammad b. al-sa’ib al-kalbi bi tahqiq al ustadh Ahmad Zaki (al-Qahira 1963), 16. 68 See: Fahd, T. La panthéon de l’Arabie Centrale á la Veilde de L’Hégire, (Paris 1968), 106–108. 66

100

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE ice, sweeter than honey, and more odorous than musk ... Eve bathed in it and from her braids of hair, the musk spread throughout the earth.69

The paltry amount of information given makes it difficult to ascertain the level of ’Adi’s poetic originality. The prominent motifs of death, vanity and happiness prevailed in pre-Islamic poetry. Nevertheless, Adi’s poetry has a special spiritual formation, the restorer of al-Hira, who was influenced not only by the Semitic motif “canitas canitatum,” but also by the literature of Eastern Christianity, such as Cyrill of Alexandria and St. Ephrem. His refined, civil and occasionally religious vision of life distinguished him from the cruder representatives of the Jahiliyyah and drew him closer to more contemporary ages and cultures. He led his life on the borders of the true Jazirat al-Arab where he witnessed the full glory of Anusharwan. Adi’s poetry relays the ruler Himyar’s destruction by the “angry demon of Abyssinia” or the “force of destiny.” Another motif, ubi sunt qui ante nos in mundo fuere (“where are these who were in the world before us”), reflects the melancholic affirmation of human transience universally found in literature. In Adi’s poetry exists a work most likely composed in prison: O, evil one, who deals the blows of destiny to others, Are you immune and honest? Have you a secret pad with days? In fact, you are ignorant and you have been fooled. Who was ever allowed to live eternally, and who has a protector who guarantees no trouble?

We are not interested in focusing on his prison poetry; furthermore, we do not wish to emphasize the linguistic or lyrical aspects of his poetry. Despite knowledge of his existence as a Christian, Jesus Christ fails to grace his poetry. However, the following phrase occurs in his writing: “He who gave us the Gospel (as-subar).” Praised creator (’aql mussabah al hallaq). But one can very

69

Qisa’i, 29.

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE

101

well argue that all of this coincides with the general pre-Islamic concept of ethics. As aforementioned, we are interested in the Qasidas which are connected to the biblical narrative. The following two poems present versions of the temptation and the fall of humanity. They are not connected to his poetry that focuses on love, wine and other worldly joys that he composed while in prison under the king of al Hira, Nu’man III. Version I “Listen to this story, so that you can one day repeat it by heart, when someone asks you: How God the Creator manifested His grace unto us and let us know His first miracles. There were winds and a mass of water, and darkness without a crack or a glimmer. And He spoke unto the dark shadow, and it vanished, and [He] moved the water from where it used to be. 5 And He spread out the land, and shaped it so that it fit together with the sky, as He had previously done. And He put the Sun in its own place, separating day from night. In six days He completed his creation and the last thing He shaped was Man. He called him by the name of Adam and made him a good person, planting a spirit in the body He had shaped. And thus He had him inhabit Paradise, and He gave him a partner, whom He skillfully crafted from his rib. 10 His Lord did not prohibit him from smelling or eating out of any delicious tree but one. Both dared to lay their hands on what was prohibited to them, at the invitation of Eve, who did not see the ruse. Until then, they were clothed in their innocence, but they both sewed garments made of fig leaves. 15 When it was first created, the many-colored snake had the shape that you see in a male-camel or a female-camel. And God cursed him forever, when he seduced his creature, without giving a term to his punishment. It moves by crawling on its abdomen as long as it lives, and eats the soil, whether hard or soft.

102

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE Thus our ancestors were tormented during their lives, and experience hunger, sickness and diseases. They had the kingdom (of the Earth?) and the Gospel that we read has often cured with its wisdom our vain dreams. 20 And this without any necessity (on the part of God) but to make masters of Creation, as He indeed made us.70

Version II The Devil tempted Eve, and she sinned. And with her sinned the father of mankind. God created two creatures: one made of fire, the other of dust and mud. He made them so they obeyed Him, and the Devil disobeyed His will, as fate would have it. And God reduced the Devil to desperation, and Man dwelt in Paradise among orchards and trees. 5 Out of envy and malevolence, the Devil resorted to the multicolored snake and the peacock. And these two introduced him into Paradise, after the perfidious liar made false promises unto them. There, he went to Eve with a temptation, and so with her negligence she ruined the father of mankind along with herself. And men were made to fall into their errors, all far away from the place (of previous beatitude) and all trace was lost of them. And God threw down the Devil, and confined him to the fire that burns with great flames and sparks. 10 And unto the peacock he gave (as punishment) the melodic sweetness of its voice, and struck its legs with preposterous ugliness. And unto the serpent he gave the transformation of its limbs, as before he walked (on all fours) like the cow.

In this verse we, probably, have a Christian perception that God wants us to come back to the primordial sinless state, living according to the teaching of the Gospel. 70

THE WHORE AND THE WIFE

103

And unto Eve, for her guilt, God gave menstrual pains and anguish, and worries.71

The topic of this passage could be compared to the creation’s narrative and the narratives of Noah and Abraham. As well we have here some versification found later in the Qisasu ‘lAnbiya and the Qur’anic exegesis. 71

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE: REVERSING THE MISFORTUNES OF THE THEIOS ANER AND OTHER DYING AND RISING GODS AND GODDESSES JOHN T. GREENE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PROLEGOMENON The Son of God died; this is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. After being buried, he rose again: this is certain, because it is impossible. Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ, v.)

A famous piece of literature from ancient Sumer holds that the goddess Inanna (Ishtar) descended into the Netherworld,1 Once Inanna, Queen of Heaven, left her realm, she descended through seven stages of the underworld to visit her twin sister, Eres[h]kigal, Queen of the Netherworld. At each gate, Inanna was divested of a piece of her royal regalia until she stood naked before her (twin) sister and seven judges. They looked upon her with the look of death, and then hung her lifeless corpse up on a hook like a side of beef. Prior to leaving Heaven, Inanna had taken precautions: she had instructed her minister, Ninshubur, to ask the greater gods for help should she not return in three days. Failing to return, her minister executed her instructions only to find that the chief god and the moon god proved unsympathetic to Inanna’s plight. Only the god of wisdom 1

105

106

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

underwent a number of vicissitudes while attempting to visit with her sister, Ereshkigal, ruler of the Underworld, then returned to the surface of the earth, and from there returned to Heaven. (Wolkstein 1983) The myth is one of the earliest—but not the only—‘resurrection’ myths involving a female. The Semitic, ancient Near Easterner, because of his/her sensibilities, was most preoccupied with this idea of resurrecting—not a hero but—a worthy. This resurrection, however, applied only to deities, not to humans. The era of the belief of ’personal’ resurrection was a long way off. Much would have to evolve in the ancient Middle East— whether in the Semitic/Hamitic-dominated portion, or in the IndoAryan-oriented/dominated portion—before the personal resurrecttion idea would surface for the general masses. But the seed had devised a stratagem to retrieve Inanna: he artificed gruesome, demonlooking entities to move easily between levels of the Underworld until they had found Inanna. They were then instructed to revive her by sprinkling her with life-giving water and feeding her a life-giving plant. Once performed, Inanna was resurrected. Before Inanna was allowed to depart, however, the judges required a substitute/hostage. Designated demons/envoys accompanied Inanna back to Heaven to return to the Netherworld with her proxy. She chose her fiancé, Dummuzi, because she learned that he had not mourned her absence properly. Once he had been taken, however, she desired his return. He was required to still provide a substitute for himself. He chose his sister. By these actions, Inanna and Dummuzi became the first in a long series of Eastern Mediterranean deities who died and then were revived or resurrected. As ancient Near Eastern mythology developed, Inanna was replaced by other female (Ishtar) and male (Dummuzi, Tammuz, Marduk, Ba’al, Osiris) deities, depending on which culture “recycled” this basic myth. Consult Diane Wolkstein and Samuel Noah Kramer, Inanna, Queen of Heaven and Earth: Her Stories and Hymns from Sumer, (N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1983); http://.piney.com/InanasDescNether.html; and Johanna Stuckey, “Inanna’s Descent to the Underworld,” MatriFocus, Cross-Quarterly for the Goddess Woman, Beltane 2005, Vol. 4–3. http://www.matrifocus.com/ BEL05/spotlight.htm

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

107

been planted with Inanna’s descent; (Black 2006) and the masses were waiting in the wings of Zoroastrianism and later faiths, including Christianity. In their struggles to understand the nature of humans and deities, those intellectuals and artists who depicted figures in ancient Near Eastern art presented numerous figures as part human and part deity, or part human and part animal or fowl. Herein, I want to focus on the part human and part deity category. One thinks immediately of Mesopotamian literary characters such as Gilgamesh and his brother Enkidu of the Gilgamesh Epic. Cast as part deity and part human, Gilgamesh and his brother share macho, male-bonding adventures that ultimately result in the death of Enkidu. After Enkidu’s (totally unexpected) death, a depressed and anxious Gilgamesh goes on a quest to discover how to stave off death. After finding Utnapishtim, an immortal, he almost succeeds in acquiring and retaining a miraculous plant that regenerates one’s youth. Alas! He loses it, and, like his brother, he eventually dies. These partial gods/humans and immortals: godmen, are part of a famous etiological myth that addresses the question raised by humans: “Why must we die?” Oddly, the popularity of this myth did not lead the average Mesopotamian to rush out and attempt to do better than Gilgamesh any more than the average contemporaneous Egyptian became preoccupied with acquiring a place in the ’West,’ and began saving for an embalming geared toward mummification and a later resurrection. Instead, dying and rising deities tended to become male instead of daughters of Inanna and Ishtar, and became venerated by corporate societies where the idea of individualism was either foreign or shunned. The “tragic triangle”, as I term it, was a generic myth about two male deities who were adversaries, and (usually) one female deity. Found over millennia from the Persian Gulf to the cataracts of the Nile along the Fertile Crescent, the myth narrated the death of the hero by his male adversary, who then took his corpse to his underground lair as something of a trophy (which he oftentimes disassembled). The significant, female other of the hero searched for him once he had disappeared, with little to no success for a protracted period of ’time.’ Eventually, after having made numerous inquiries, she finally succeeded in discovering his whereabouts, and proceeded to that locus. Angered at her hero’s predicament and treatment, she engaged his

108

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

adversary/captor in mortal combat, defeated him, rescued her hero, and returned with him to the surface of the earth where she restored him to life and limb. After this, they engaged in renewal, ritual ceremonies that were designed to refructify/revivify all of creation: cosmos, time, family, field, and herd. Resurrection, then, served the purpose of renewal in all aspects. Yet, nonindividualists—i.e., corporate societies—were the destined audiences for this myth—approached under the various headings “Ba’al and ’Anat”; “Inanna and Dummuzi”; “Hadad and Ishtar”; “Tammuz and Ishtar”; and “Osiris and Isis.” These pairs correspond to loci along the Fertile Crescent, a crescent populated by corporate societies and not societies of individuals. With the emergence of the idea of the individual and selfconsciousness during the Achaemenid Persian Period, the tendency toward the desire for immortality burgeoned among all classes of societies. Organized around a concept/figure that/who came to be known by Hellenistic times as a theios aner, (Hadas/Smith 1965) a god-man, numerous systems designed to ’guarantee’ survival of an individual, not just a god, beyond death sprang up, as it were. While there are numerous controversies concerning this concept/figure (Blackburn 1991; Holladay 1977), a basic description of the theios aner phenomenon is both possible and helpful. Without making a foray into the disputes between classicists and New Testament scholars (especially those who study the canonical Gospels) on even the meaning of the term, theios aner may be rendered ’divine man,’ ’god-man,’ or ’divinized man/hero.’ Jesus in the Gospels of the N.T. appears to have been presented as such a man/hero. (Miller 2002/4) (Harris 2005) The healer, Asclepius, has been presented as having the same characteristics as Jesus, or vice versa. But closer analysis of the expression reveals that ’theios’ is an adjective and not a noun as many presume when using the expression: it is best rendered ’god-like,’ and refers to and describes a person—male or female—who performs god-like, high-quality, unusual acts such as acquisition of great knowledge, charity, bravery, oration, healing, and so on. Looking closer at the rendering ’god-man,’ grave mistakes in understanding can and have occurred; one has sought and/or assumed a Gilgamesh/Enkidulike person, part deity, part human. Theios aner does not assume prima facie divinity being present in a given person. As examples, let us consider Moses and St. Francis of Assisi. The former, at

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

109

Exodus 7:1, is appointed a ’god’ unto Pharaoh; his acts and oratory—and their results—attest to this. A literal reading of ’god’ as claiming that Moses was divine would fly in the face of the comprehensive picture that a biography of Moses would provide. ((Kirsch 1998) Francis prayed for an entire city, and it is said that all of the evil spirits departed that city en masse: it was cleansed. Both of these figures participated in the aretae of God. Thus Hellenistic-era writers, such as Philo of Alexandria and Josephus Flavius (Josephus 2004), could employ the term theios aner in their writings some five times, four times referring to Moses, and once referring to the ancient Israelite prophets as theioi because of their participation in the theion pneuma that channeled communication praxis through them. One scholar, Louis Feldman, maintained that Josephus employed theios aner in reference to Moses to mean simply ’man of God,’ and thus imparting to Moses no divinity at all. (Miller www) Like Gilgamesh and Enkidu, the figure Shaoshyant of Zoroaster’s mythology is also partially human and partially divine. (Moore www) He is a divine warrior. Unlike the former two, Shaoshyant makes provisions for his ’return’ whenever necessary (supposedly in the year 2398 C.E.). That is, should his followers need him in the future—even though he be dead— he will ’return’ to aid them in their quest to maintain the world-spirit of Ahura Mazda. How he would accomplish this is quite ingenious and interesting, but it need not detain us here. Shaoshyant provides the ’theios aner’ and dying/resurrected entity connection of which we speak. All of the dying and rising gods of ancient Near Eastern mythology (Dummuzi, Tammuz, Marduk, Hadad, Asshur, Ba’al, Osiris, etc.) and Shaoshyant tended to become syncretized before, but certainly during, the Hellenistic Age. Once brought forth, this syncretized entity was put to work frequently. Comprehensive studies of most theioi aner appear to agree that in order to have been referenced as such they had been humans at one point in their careers; that status remained throughout their lives, or it may have been altered by (specific) events. The sum of these studies also suggests that an ordinary god could not have been counted among them. They may be grouped into four broad categories: seers/diviners (some 13 figures), healers (also some 13 figures), other types of miracle workers (about 15 figures), and astrologers/sorcerers/magicians. Three of the most famous and

110

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

credible theioi aner by Feldman’s use of the term—and we let them stand as paradigms—were Asclepius, Pythagoras, and Empedocles. For Blackburn, Holladay—referenced above—and others, controversy and interpretive battle commences when scholars attempt to add Jesus to this small list. Although he is certainly presented as a (son of a) god who dies—and with good cause within the scheme of salvation!—and rises, many would bristle at the maintenance of a view that Jesus’ miracle-working activity provides evidence that he be counted among the theioi aner. Yet, with Jesus, theios aner, dying and rising/resurrecting son of a god have complicated the basic meaning of the term. (Swinburne 2003) By my now factoring Eve into this mix, I have intentionally complicated the idea of resurrection even more.

THE SEARCH FOR A CULPRIT: THE BLAME GAME BEGINS If there was a woman who has traditionally received bad press concerning guilt and sin, it has been the biblical character Eve. In this, she has been made to compete, perhaps, with other biblical characters: Queen Jezebel of Israel (by way of Tyre), and Mary Magdalene of the New Testament Gospels. Recent scholarship, however, (and happily) has deemed all of these women to have been much maligned.2 Judaism and Islam have wrestled, in their Consult Sondra Frish, “Eve: Framed and Defamed”, in The Biblical Historian: Journal of the Biblical Colloquium West, Vol. 1, No. 1 (August 2004): 43–53. (A discussion of just how uncritically unread are the four first chapters of Genesis, and how, thereby, Eve has also been misunderstood), and see also Cynthia Ho, “Eve, Mary, and the Desire for Paradigms Lost”, Presented May 7, 1992 at the 27th International Congress on Medieval Studies at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan. (Her paper links Eve and Mary and their functions refracted through Christian eyes). Allied to these studies are Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978); Carol Meyers, Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988 (Provides a different translation and interpretation of God’s sentencing of Adam and Eve before the expulsion from the Garden.); and Nehama Aschkenasy, Eve’s Journey: Feminine Images in Hebraic Literary 2

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

111

Middle Eastern mindsets, with these figures for centuries; their results are for the interested reader to study. Christianity, too, has tasked itself to understand the role of Eve as mother of all living, and to explain her role and significance both for Christ, as well as for those “in Christ.” Fortunately, a Hellenistic mindset has been at work helping Christianity cope with this seeming dilemma. Associated with ejection, pain-at-childbirth, and curiosity- generated guile leading to death in the Genesis account, the early Church began to view her in a more favorable and less fatalistic light. Some of its greatest and most brilliant problem-solvers were assigned the task to elevate Eve above her blemish (es) and former state; to make of her a debutante (as opposed to a debutramp!) and ’savior’ in her own unique right. This has been an interesting development that we shall study herein. But for a religion obsessed with anthropology, sin, evil, ethics, transcendence, the place of women, salvation, and delineating the differences between Heaven and Earth (and attending value judgments), Christianity produced a woman, the first woman!— only later did it consider the myths about Lilith/Lilitu—with the traditional credentials of Eve.3 She appeared, initially at least, to have been the arch contributor to the fallen, human condition. Yet, Eve in one view is far more important than we have heretofore studied: she provides the seed of one of the two seed lines since the ’fall’: the seed of woman and the seed of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). Humans are descended from the one, what is descended from the other? This latter is like a bag that can at any time be filled with whatever one wants to toss into it.

Tradition, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986). (Provides a most complimenting description of Eve and the purpose(s) of her actions.) 3 For a work that does not consider the stories in Genesis myth, legend, saga, etc, but history that occurred in real space and time, consult Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time: The Flow of Biblical History, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1972), pp. 41–52.

112

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

A legitimate question became “What does one do with “honor thy father and thy mother” when thy Father and thy Mother have—by means of their personal deportment—sentenced one to death?” Are they still deserving of veneration, respect, being cared for in their waning years? And if, thinking with Martin Luther now, “no one is free of sin, no not one”, how can one be thankful to one’s parents? How is all of this to be effected in good conscience? Western T.V. commercials advertise frequently products touted to remove harsh, deeply-ingrained stains in one’s clothing, fabric-covered furniture, or in carpets. Early on, nascent, Mediterranean Christianity (distinguished from Middle Eastern, Egyptian, and Ethiopian Christianity) attempted to solve the problem in reverse order. That is, first the “stain removers” focused on the male parent. Led by Paul, a rhetorical argument was proffered that (Jesus) Christ was the Second Adam. Furthermore, all that J.C. accomplished left the door ajar to the complete absolution of the sin stain, first for Jesus as man, then for all men that accomplishment was a bequest. (Davis, et al. 1997) Paul, at least, formulated his arguments prior to ca. 67/8 C.E. By comparison, Eve is a more complex (and probably betterlooking) character than Adam. The Church’s need to extend the arguments offered by Paul (and now applied to her) took on, therefore, a complex character also. One of the results was that Eve was sentenced to (a second) death (without having been resurrected from the first one!). But the second time she was resurrected as Mary, mother of Jesus. (Shoemaker 2003) And therein lies the complexity of her resurrection. She, remember, as a result of this Mediterranean hermeneutic, became the mother of the New Adam, not his etzer kenegdo, i.e., a helper as opposite him, as in the Genesis account concerning Eve. Eve is, in essence, a personification of human life which is perpetuated by women. Her (Mary’s) role would be expanded to include the title ’Theotokos’, ’god bearer’, and she would ultimately become the recipient of prayers— once she had also been translated to Heaven (Shoemaker 2003)— many of which would implore her to intercede on behalf of someone else.

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

113

INTRODUCTION The bliss of souls in heaven and their torments in hell are not the final state of mankind. When the appointed time comes, Shaoshyant, the Saviour, will appear, and the dead will be raised, beginning with Gayomard, the archetypal man, and Mashya and Mashoi, the first pair of human beings. All, righteous and wicked, will rise in the places where they died, . . . From a Zoroastrian Myth (Moore www)

Thus, Eve/Mashoi, according to this view, was predestined to become resurrected; she really had no choice. It is merely how Christianity interpreted this Zoroastrian myth and adjusted it to a Christo-centric world view that concerns us here. Note, too, that there is much to be compared between the figure Gayomard (referenced in the quote above) and both Lilith and Adam Qadmon, i.e., Primordial Adam, of Jewish mystical interpretation. According to Western Christianity, the sentence of death pronounced on Eve resulted in her being resurrected as mother of God, and like it was said of the Prophet Elijah and the resurrected Christ Jesus, she was translated to Heaven also. The history of how she has been interpreted hovers between damnation and exaltation. The space between these two extremes has been filled with fascinating hermeneutical “gymnastics” designed ultimately to explain completely the salvation of (hu)man(kind) and her role in affecting that salvation. Here is how this study will proceed; I’ve divided it into five essential parts. A. As we plot episodes in this historical hermeneutic, we shall begin with views of Eve gleaned from the very creative period known as the Second Temple Period (ca. 520 B.C.E.–70 C.E.).4 Michael E. Stone, ed. 1984, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press). (Various summaries of writings on Adam and/or Eve). 4

114

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

During this period scholars of the ’Judaism of the Five Books of Moses’,5 i.e. the sages and rabbis, exercised themselves and brought their skills to bear on making sense of what had preceded their time. Biblical literature was not only formed during this period, many of the stories told in it were either enlarged, recast, or syncretized with contemporaneous themes from surrounding or dominant cultures. The Achaemenid Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman cultures provided streams of such themes for Jewish interpretive consumption. During this period, Eve, as we shall learn, was not an ignored woman. B. Once the trajectory of nascent Christianity began to extend itself into subsequent history, its ardent and strident leaders, spokespersons, and champions—the Church Fathers—took up the issue of Eve and her significance for humanity, especially Christian humanity. They had significant interpretations of her importance to provide. Surprisingly, both the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity agree to a large extent on how and why Eve was to have been resurrected as Mary. Only a few dogmatic statements separate them prior to the Reformation Period. Simultaneously, what we may term the contributors to the New Testament Apocrypha6 were—and had long been—active in pondering the significance of the Scriptures—both Old and budding New—on the significance of their contents. We want to assess their contributions to our study of Eve also. C. While the Reformation Period7 provides numerous reasons and examples of its significant departure from the Roman Catholic world view, the reader is in store for a surprise should she hold the view that the earliest reformers were so radically different in view on Eve than their Catholic and Orthodox opponents with whom they had serious issues. Nevertheless, Eve gets batted about like a ball during the hermeneutical debates that animated Catholic/ Orthodox versus Reformer(s). Eve’s Catholic resurrection as Mary Jacob Neusner, in private conversations about the Judaism of the Five Books of Moses. 6 Wilhelm Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha. 7 Harold J. Grimm, The Reformation Era, 1500–1650, (New York: The Macmillan Publishing Company, 1973). 5

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

115

was doubted by many subsequent Reformers. The validity of her resurrection, as well as its necessity, had come into doubt/question. D. When we consider Eve, Mary mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene, we want to examine closely how various traditions have associated or ignored them. E. Oftentimes, the public reacts so strongly and acutely to the literary-historical sojourn of interpretation of the Eve character that it forgets to consult artistic interpretations of her also. Many of artistic bent have reacted to their understanding of the Eve event/phenomenon. Herein, we shall sample the fruit of their inspiration, as well, to see what it has contributed to comprehensive studies of Eve.

A. EVE CONSIDERED DURING THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD (CA. 520 B.C.E.–70 C.E.): SINKING THE ROOTS FOR (VARIOUS) CHRISTIANIT(Y)IES Introductory Whatever earliest Christianity (in any of the forms in which it emerged—Jewish-Christian, Gnostic, Hellenistic, Coptic, ProtoOrthodox, Uniate, Orthodox [Western and Eastern], etc.) turned out to maintain in terms of general Weltanschauung, it emerged out of the challenged “ooze” of the Judaism of the Five Books of Moses8 and its general conclusions. Its scriptures and canon would be initially the same as contemporaneous Jewish canons. But this would change. Hellenistic Christianity, its most well-known form, responded to numerous challenges and entered numerous currents of world-building activity prevalent in the early Roman Empire. Concerning the relationship between men and women, for instance, there were numerous changes; one could even say positive changes, that involved the general woman’s lot. In many ways, therefore, this study of Eve, like the Hellenistic Era itself, mirrored many developments currently underway, especially in the Western world, being experienced by women. 8

Jacob Neusner. The Judaism of the Five Books of Moses.

116

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

Numerous times both Jewish and Christian writers felt it either necessary or desirable to comment on the story of Eve and Adam (Kugel 1997) contained in either Genesis or in oral tradition.9 Earliest Christianity was most at ease with the contents of some of this basic literature for its inherited world-view. Nickelsburg10 observes, for instance, that “The Vita Adae et Evae and the Apocalypse of Moses are two major recensions of one such work (that express this worldview.” (Stone, 10) Since the ’Apocalypse of Moses’, written in Greek, is the shorter of the two recensions, we shall explore its contents first. 1. The Apocalypse of Moses While the “Apocalypse” focuses on Adam’s death, Eve functions within the author’s ’testament’ as well. Once Adam’s illness is assured, she and her third son, Seth, (because the other surviving son had caused the death of his younger brother and was therefore unqualified to engage in this activity) go in search of the oil of mercy that is reputed to flow from a tree in Paradise; this oil was designed to ease the suffering Adam’s pain. The Angel Michael denies them this oil, stating that all men must die, but that there would be a general resurrection at the end of time. It is then that all Helpful in this regard are Louis Ginsburg, The Legends of the Jews, (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1918), Robert Graves and Raphael Patai, Hebrew Myths, (New York: Doubleday, 1963), pp. 65–69. (These pages contain the story of Lilith (Lilitu) and other variations on the Eve theme.) On other pre-Eve themes, consult Harold Black, “Lilith, The Biography of a Myth,” in Digging for the Truth: Archaeology and the Bible, Colloquium ’05 Highlights, Volume XXXIV Number III , (Farmington Hills, MI: Society for Humanistic Judaism, 2006): 37–40; Nitzah Abarbanel, Eve and Lilith [Havah ve Lilit], (Bne-Brak: Bar Ilan University Press, 1994); Siegmund Hurvitz, Lilith, the First Eve: Historical and Psychological Aspects of the Dark Feminine, Gela Jacobson, trans., (Einsiedeln, Switzerland: Daimon Verlag, 1992); and Howard Schwartz, Lilith’s Cave: Jewish Tales of the Supernatural, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991). 10 George Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, Michael E. Stone, ed., (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). 9

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

117

men, including Adam, would enjoy the fruits of salvation. It is left to Eve to rehearse for her family the causative agents as to why humans must die. (Stone, 111) This is an unusual role for women in post-biblical literature. Eve serves as an intercessor for Adam in this work and lessens his guilt, while accepting much of it for herself and her actions with the serpent. Once Adam is lying on his deathbed (a scene very familiar to those who are familiar with “testament” literature (Stone, 325–355), Eve intercedes on her husband’s behalf to have his suffering lessened. Seth, serving as a sort of entrepreneur, assures his mother that her prayer has indeed been answered. After having been purified in the Acherusian Lake11 (a lake in Hellenistic cosmology), Adam’s soul is transported to the heavenly Paradise by the Angel Michael. With Eve’s and the angels’ intercession on his behalf, Adam has been victorious over Satan. The narrative ends when Eve herself dies. Seth has the responsibility to attend to her burial. It is assumed that she, like her husband, will be resurrected on the “last day.” Both (and of course their progeny) are condemned to physical death because of their rebellion against God’s word and command. But there is hope of the reward of divine justice at the end of time; Adam and Eve will be part of a general resurrection involving all of the deceased offspring and progeny of the primordial pair. Proper burial, therefore, receives an emphasis throughout the author’s crafting of this “apocalypse.” One notices much here that smacks of early Christian thought as refracted through the undisputed writings of the Apostle Paul and his Christology/Soteriology. 2. The Life of Adam and Eve (Stone 2007) The “Life” (Vita) shares much with the “Apocalypse” just considered.12 Nickelsburg provides this common material on page 113 of Stone. What they don’t share may be divided into three blocks of concerns. A vision vouchsafed to Eve about a lake found in Hellenistic mythology. 12 Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha. 2 Vols. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1959). 11

118

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

In the first block, which deals with the acquisition of food after the expulsion from Paradise, a strange ritual is observed. As an act of penitence, Adam, for instance, fasts for forty days and then spends forty more days standing in the Jordan River (an act of penitence involving the significance of ablution). In a complementary move, Eve stands in the Tigris River (for the same reason) for thirty-seven days. While there, she is visited by Satan (in disguise as an angel) who deceives her yet again, then provides something of a rationale for why he has done so; it involves his having been expelled from heaven where at one time he had held a position of honor. While Eve’s reputation languishes in water, Adam receives seed in order to grow food. Value judgment-wise, Tigris loses to a Jordan trump. In related literature (the Armenian Penitence of Adam) one notices a special relationship between the Penitence, Vita, and the Apocalypse, although a similar or the same theme is located in different places in the three writings. What is still being debated among scholars is whether the Apocalypse and the Vita belong to Jewish or to Christian literature. There exist good arguments for both views, and a good compromise may be that these works are cherished by both camps. One possible key to unlocking this problem may be the focus on ablutions mentioned in the previous paragraph. While there were Jewish ablution-oriented circles, there were also Christian and related circles with a similar focus. The John-the-Baptist movement and Gospel texts depicting John as baptizing Jesus would serve as proto-Christian foci. Moreover, the themes of sin, death as punishment, God’s mercy, mediated through a heavenly agent (the angel Michael), God’s repenting of his harsh sentence, and a general resurrection of the dead, whether originally “Jewish” or not, would have had sympathetic recipients in some of the early Hellenistic Christian camps. As the reader would expect, there is no paucity of writing/ commentary on Adam and/or Eve in Hellenistic, Jewish literature. Philo of Alexandria (On the Creation of the World, XLVII, LII, LIII, LV) and (On the Allegories of the Sacred Laws, XXVIII–XXXIII) plus Paul the apostle (Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:42–50), no less than the authors of II Baruch (54:15) and IV Ezra (3:20–27; 4:30–32; 7:116ff.), famous apocalypses, weighed in on the subject during the late 1st Century B.C.E. (Philo) and most of the 1st Century of the Common Era (Paul, IV Ez., II Bar.). The Gnostics, (King 2004)

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

119

too, would apply their hermeneutics to the subject of the primeval pair with works such as the Apocryphon of John and the Hypostasis of the Archons. 3. The Apocryphon (Secret Book/Revelation) of John (Wisse www) When the Gnostics get their hands (perhaps better “quills and styluses”) on Eve, she really becomes a “fall gal.” Obsessed as they were with the figure of Sophia=Wisdom, they traced Eve’s fall, repentance, and later role in the history of salvation. Sophia/Wisdom was certainly understandable within contemporaneous Judaism by considering her in light of how she (i.e., Wisdom) was depicted, especially in Proverbs 8ff. Central to Gnostic cosmological thought was the creator of the physical, the Demiurgos/Demiurge, i.e., Yaldabaoth-Saklas-Samael; he was said to have been one of Sophia’s abortions, (derived by a play on the Hebrew words ’nephilim’ giants/fallen ones and ’nepalim,’ abortions) something gone very wrong at birth. Lurking behind this Jewishrooted thinking is an interpretation of the ’fall of Eve’ contained in the Septuagintal Genesis (3:4–6) account. 4. The Hypostasis (Nature, Essence) of the Archons In its present form, this work is unmistakably Christian. Like the Apocryphon of John above, the Hypostasis offers an interpretation of the acts of the primeval pair and points to their consequences. (Stone, 118) The work is quite complicated because, editorially considered, it is made up of numerous pieces. These are discussed at length in Stone, Jewish Writings, pp. 464–470. Divided into two large sections that have been skillfully joined, Part C. of Section One discusses Adam in Paradise. There are four subsections of C; 2, 3, and 4 deal with Eve in various ways. Stone reminds the reader that a female character, Norea, was understood as the fourth child of Adam and Eve (Cain, Abel, Seth, and Norea) in this work. However, Biblical Antiquities lists the children of Adam and Eve as Cain, Naamah, Abel and Seth. They both agree that the primordial pair had a daughter. The names Naamah-Norea have been studied incessantly by scholars to determine subtle meanings in these words. The figures have been studied as being lewd women who tempted even the ’Sons of God’ and the Archons. They have also been exalted for their associations

120

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

with Seth. The name game continued, for “. . . Eve became pregnant, and she bore [Norea]. And she said, he (i.e., the Supreme Father, not Adam) has begotten on [me a] virgin as an assistance for many generations of mankind. She is the virgin whom the Forces did not defile.” (Stone, 468) In other words, Norea’s role opposite humankind is that of Eve’s role opposite Adam in Genesis 2:18. Ultimately, Naamah and Norea are viewed by the Jewish haggadic traditions and the Gnostic traditions in quite different ways, especially regarding the issue of chastity. Stone states that “Norea’s reputation as the ’undefiled virgin’ is vindicated in the passage that follows ”. . . wherein the Archons attempt to seduce the hapless Norea, as they claim they had done with her mother Eve: ’You must render service to (i.e., sleep with) us, [as did] also your mother Eve . . ’.” (Stone, 468) There is a note to the foregoing paragraph that is worth citing: There is an ambiguity in the story of the rape of Eve: on the one hand she turns into a tree in their clutches, yet on the other hand leaves a shadowy reflection of herself (i.e. her body) which the Archons defile (89, 25–30).

On Eve’s becoming a tree cf. Pearson, ‘She Became a Tree’; cf. also Stroumsa, ‘Another Seed,’ 60, n. 85. (Stone 468) Before leaving this text one more observation needs to be made. Eve has also been identified with Zoe daughter of Sophia. In this role, Eve/Zoe upbraids the Demiurge, Samael-SaklasYaldabaoth, who claims to be the only God or God of the All. Zoe/Eve sends a fiery angel who binds him and throws him down to Tartaros, below the Abyss. This action recalls the fate of the fallen angels in 1 Enoch 21:7–10. Beginning with a work that was originally Gnostic Jewish, the Hypostasis was Christianized by the addition of an introduction by the ’great apostle’, i.e., Paul (Ephesians 6:12 is quoted). The work concludes with a number of allusions to Johannine literature of the New Testament. Moreover, Christian redaction is evident throughout the Hypostasis as well. (Stone, 464) 5. Summary The Apocalypse of Moses, the Life of Adam and Eve, the Apocryphon of John, and the Hypostasis of the Archons are Second Temple era works

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

121

that discussed Adam and especially Eve in ways that augmented the account of them contained in Genesis. The Apocalypse of Moses presented Eve as an intercessor for her mate, Adam, to lessen his guilt, while accepting much of it for herself and her actions with the serpent: a type of ’suffering servant’. By accomplishing this, and though guilty as charged, she engineered Satan’s defeat and ensured both her and Adam’s future resurrections. The Life of Adam and Eve is related thematically to the Apocalypse just summarized. What is different, however, is that both Adam and Eve, after they have rebelled, engaged in penitent behavior: they stood in bodies of water (and perhaps made ablutions), Eve in the Tigris and Adam in the Jordan. He received seed in order to grow food and survive. Eve really was presented as a ’fall girl’ in the Apocryphon of John. As we shall see here and below, in the hands of the Gnostic writers, Eve is both praised and castigated; she also undergoes identity changes (Zoe, Naamah, Sophia, etc.). The Apocryphon’s view of Eve, however, is negative: her fall left vulnerable the chances of her future progeny for salvation and immortality. Of the four Second Temple era works studied, the Hypostasis was the most blatantly Christian overworked text. Beginning with added material from the Pauline corpus, and ending with material from the Revelation, the Christian “thumbprint” was visible to the critical reader. Some of the earliest interpretations of the Eve character were woven together in this text. Depending on which Gnostic writer had ’Eve’ before him or her, Eve fared as honorable mother of a Gnostic ancestor, or was trounced as the causative agent for why evil was able to advance. Eve’s character would undergo further evolutions as the ages and Christianity progressed. She would become ever increasingly important as a ’sounding board’ for the role and importance of women in Christianity. Let us discover how.

122

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

B. THE ANNUNCIATION AND A NEW ERA OF RESURRECTION: EVE IN THE WRITINGS OF SOME CHURCH FATHERS AND THEIR CONTEMPORARIES “Jesus Christ is the New Adam, the Lord of the New Creation (1 Corinthians 15:45–49) and Mary the New Eve who undid what the first Eve had done. The first Eve disobeyed God and thereby brought sin and death into the world. The New Eve, Mary, obeyed and believed God’s message which was given to her at the Annunciation (Luke 1:26–38), and brought salvation and life to the world in her son, Jesus, who crushes the head of the serpent. Mary, like us, shares in this victory.” (Mauriello www) “At the beginning and in the middle of history, there stand two women, Eve and Mary. Eve is the mother of fallen and sinning mankind. Mary is the mother of a new, reborn mankind which is being saved. In the first there was the cause of universal evil; in the second, the cause of universal good.” (Polsky www)

Introductory Surprisingly, Eve is referenced in the 27 works of the New Testament only twice: once in 2 Corinthians 11:3 and in 1 Timothy 2:13–15. For these writers, the former Pauline, the latter a deutero-Pauline author concerned with class organization, she was just not an important figure. In Corinthians, Paul frets “But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.”13 As far as Paul was concerned, Eve was easily beguiled. The Arabic language root habw, according to J.M. Cowan, means to crawl or to creep. The Hebrew name hawa is not only related to this Arabic root, but also to the root from which the name YHWH (the god of Israel) is derived. (Cf. Beck 2005 & Schwesig 2006) Clever linguistic gymnastics allowed the statement of Eve’s name to be understood as mother of all living. Because of the root similarities, therefore, some are 13

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

123

Early Christianity–as read in the Early Church Fathers—does not appear to have been too affected by the machinations and writings of Jews, early Jewish-Christians, and various groups of Gnostics that we’ve examined during the waning years of the Second Temple period. Along with what we may discover in the Church Fathers, we shall review the New Testament Apocrypha as well to see what contributions they make to this study. 1. The Fathers Hail holy Queen, mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. —Salve Regina—(part of praying the rosary)

Following a parallel that can be traced to the Apostle Paul that Christ was the New Adam (and concomitant contrast to Adam), and that while Adam had participated in the initial sin which led to death, that Christ redeemed humankind from that sin and death as the New Adam, several Church Fathers reasoned (and theologized) something similar for Eve also. Since Eve had collaborated with Adam in the commission of first rebellion against God’s command(s), she had been equally culpable. That being the case, Jesus secured humankind’s redemption and was partnered in this by his Immaculate Mother, Mary the New Eve. Inspiration for the New Eve parallel may be traced to a work known as the Protoevangelium—also spelled Protevangelium—which refers to the passage in Genesis 3:15 wherein God promises to the fallen Adam and Eve a Redeemer who will be born of a woman. Adopting this idea, certain of the Fathers maintained that Mary-Eve was of necessity Queen, Advocate, Intercessor, Co-Redemptrix, and Mediatrix of graces.14 The New Eve would be quite busy—and prepared to connect Eve in Hebrew with an Arabic word for serpent. This fits well with word play exercised throughout Genesis. 14 Although it developed into a full-blown movement not until the late th 17 and early 18th centuries C.E., the Marianist Movement was grounded and found its roots in the thinking of several ante-Nicene Fathers to be reviewed presently. Alfonsus de Liguori (1696–1787 C.E.) was a principle

124

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

therefore relevant for them. Few Fathers commented extensively on Eve, but the combined weight of their commentary is significant.

a. Justin (the) Martyr An overview of the Church Fathers’ view of Eve is best expressed by the 2nd Century C.E. Father, Justin (the) Martyr (ca. 165): her role had been revivified in Mary who had become the new Eve. In his famous Dialogue with (a Jewish opponent) Trypho, he wrote “Christ became a man by a virgin to overcome the disobedience caused by the serpent . . . in the same way it had originated.” (Mauriello www) It is argued that Eve was a virgin at the time she was beguiled by the serpent. From that, the argument proceeds that since she had conceived disobedience and death, Mary, also a virgin, conceived the Word in obedience and brought forth Life. (Mauriello www)

b. Irenaeus (of Lyons) Bishop of Lyons (ca. 202 C.E.), Irenaeus agreed with Justin that Mary was Eve, but that she, i.e., Mary-Eve, was the beginning of a second creation of humanity through redemption.”The knot of Eve’s disobedience,” he wrote, “was loosened by Mary’s obedience. The bonds fastened by the virgin Eve through disbelief were untied by the virgin Mary through faith.” (Adversus Haereses, 3:22) (Mauriello www) (Unger 2005)

c. Tertullian (of Carthage) Tertullian is honored as the first Western or Roman Father. Bishop of the North African city of Carthage (ca. 220), he, too, agreed with Justin’s view that Mary was the New Eve. Moreover, he stressed, proponent of the Movement which glorifies Mary. He authored a famous and influential book entitled The Glories of Mary. Therein, he claimed that Mary had been granted ruler ship over one half of the Kingdom of God: she ruled over the kingdom of mercy, while Jesus, her son, ruled over the kingdom of justice. He maintained that there was no salvation outside of Mary as mediator. This caused his considerable readership to perceive Mary as Co-Redemtrix.

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

125

more than Justin and Irenaeus, the virginal conception of Jesus Christ and stressed the significance of the act of faith that had to have been involved. (LeSaint, Waszink 2005)

d. Post Nicea (325 C.E.) After the famous Church Council of Nicea held in 325 C.E. and convened by Emperor Constantine himself, (Neusner 1987) ( Seitz 2001) the Eve-Mary parallel continued to remain prominent in the thought and theology of several Church Fathers. Ambrose of Milan (ca. 397 C.E.), Jerome (ca. 420 C.E.), and Peter Chrysologus (ca. 450 C.E.), among others, also weighed in on this theme. Ambrose wrote ”. . . it was through a man and woman that flesh was cast from paradise; it was through a virgin that flesh was linked to God.” Jerome wrote: “Death through Eve, Life through Mary.” (Epist. 22, 21) And Chrysologus maintained: “Christ was born of a woman so that just as death came through a woman, so through Mary, life might return.” 2. New Testament Apocrypha (Schneemelcher 1964)

Introductory While the Fathers were tending to issues of organization, administration, and the suppression of heretical thought, other Christians, especially Gnostic Christians, were expressing themselves concerning the interpretation of scriptural texts, and creating explanations of their world-view through the production of canons of scripture other than those countenanced by the Fathers. Throughout the New Testament Apocrypha are a number of Gospels written under the name of a woman. Thus, one discovers a Gospel of Eve, a Gospel of Mary, Questions of Mary, and the “Genna Marias.” Others, written under the name of a reputed disciple of Jesus, were also produced. These would have titles such as the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Bartholomew. Let us see what relevant ones of them tell us about Eve.

a. Gospel of Eve: Resurrected Witness to the Birth of Jesus The Church produced ultimately some 34-plus Gospels. Most–the Gospel of the Egyptians would be an exception—were written under the name of some New Testament character. (Hedrick www) The

126

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

Gospel of Eve (written in the 2nd Century C.E.) is the only one written under the name of an Old Testament figure. Having acknowledged that, the work is not alone extant, but is quoted in the Father Epiphanius (ca. 315–402 C.E.) as being a Gnostic work (Panerion. 26. 2. 6; I, p. 277, 17–278, 6 K. Holl). While the beginning of the work is quoted therein, it presents more questions than answers. Epiphanius quotes ’Eve’: I stood upon a high mountain and saw a tall man, and another of short stature. And heard, as it were, a sound of thunder and went nearer in order to hear. Then he spoke to me and said: I am thou and thou art I, and where thou art there am I, and I am sown in all things; and whence thou wilt, thou gatherest me, but when thou gatherest me, then gatherest thou thyself. (Schneemelcher, 241)

Is Eve speaking, or is it an anonymous speaker/visionary? We really don’t know. According to Schneemelcher, there are a plethora of possibilities. (p. 242) While this question will not be settled, Epiphanius does suggest, by way of several sentences he isolated, that during Eve’s encounter with the serpent (a Gnostic character here) that she received from him an important revelation, the ’food’ or ’fruit’ of Gnosis, the saving knowledge. Thus, by eating the ’fruit’ Eve became a sort of female Prometheus, a gift giver to humanity of something essential for its continuation and possessing knowledge to survive as a species. Schneemelcher relates, using another Gospel entitled the Armenian Infancy Gospel (Cha. IX), how “Eve was present with Joseph at the first suckling of Jesus, and testified to the virgin birth. . .” (Schneemelcher, 243) Here the “resurrected Eve” meets the one who is to be the figure of the ultimate resurrection.

b. The Questions of Mary: A New Eve The Questions characterized the typical Gnostic Gospel, i.e., it contained what was purported to be a revelation of Jesus Christ. In this particular text, however, “Jesus is represented as the revealer of the obscene practices which constituted the rites of redemption peculiar to the sect.” (Schneemelcher, 338) By Mary is meant Mary Magdalene, not Mary the virgin, for concerning the woman, Jesus took her:

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

127

Aside to the mountain and praying; and he brought forth from his side a woman and began to unite with her, and so, forsooth, taking his effluent, he showed that ’we must so do, that we may live’; and how when Mary fell to the ground abashed, he raised her up again and said to her: “Why didst thou doubt, O thou of little faith?” (Schneemelcher here quotes Epiphanius, Pan. 26.8. 2–3 of Holl, p. 339)

The connection with the account found in Genesis 2:21ff., where Eve is created out of Adam’s side, is unmistakable; passive Adam had succumbed to a tardemah, i.e., deep sleep, but Jesus was conscious and very proactive. Schneemelcher is quick to remind, however, that: The following actions (sexual union, gathering and offering the seed, etc.) are intended to serve as the model and first example, the prototype for the eucharistic rites actually in use among the Nicolaitans, the Borborians, and other licentious Gnostics in Egypt. . . Later the Manicheans also were accused of practicing them. (Schneemelcher, 339)

c. The Gospel of Bartholomew: Mary Magdalene as Equal to Peter-the Apostle/Disciple The questioning theme (student posing questions to the master) that characterized the Questions of Mary and other texts continued in the Gospel of Bartholomew. This work belongs also to the Gospels named after a disciple of Jesus. The question motif is apparent at the very beginning of the document ”In the time before the passion of our Lord Christ all the apostles were gathered together. And they asked and besought him: Lord show us the secret of the heavens.” (Schneemelcher, 488) Chapter Four of this Gospel references Eve. In a manner similar to brothers and sisters coaxing each other to ask Mom or Dad some question important to all of them, Peter attempts to get Mary to inquire of the Lord: “You are favored, ask the Lord to reveal to us all that is in the heavens.” Thereupon is followed an exchange

128

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

between these two disciples. In 4:5, Mary gives her rationale why Peter, not she, should pose the question to Jesus: You are the image of Adam. Was not he formed first then Eve? . . . God placed Adam in the east and Eve in the west, and he commanded the two lights to shine, so that the sun ... should shine on Adam in the east, and the moon in the west should shed on Eve its milkwhite light. But she defiled the commandment of the Lord. . . But in me the Lord took up his abode, that I may restore the dignity of women. (Schneemelcher, 495)

Herein, Eve is held as the object of derision and guilt, while Mary (Magdalene) is not only acknowledged as a disciple on a level with Peter, she is also the disciple in whom the Lord has taken up his abode; she thereby restores the dignity of women. Giving Eve one last bit of bad press, Bartholomew 4:59 has Satan explain the why of Eve’s rebellion: I took a bowl in my hand, and scraped the sweat from my breast and my armpits, and washed myself in the spring of water from which the four rivers flow. And Eve drank of it, and desire came upon her. For if she had not drunk of that water, I should not have been able to deceive her. (Schneemelcher, 500–1)

d. Acts of Thomas: An Eve-Friendly Novel The Acts of Thomas purport to be the act(tivitie)s of Judas Didymus Thomas, i.e., of Judas the twin brother of Jesus. He also received visions like all other revelators. Much may be learned of him when Acts of Thomas are studied in light of the Gospel of Thomas. According to Schneemelcher, the Acts of Thomas: “are a Christian-Gnostic variety of the Hellenistic-Oriental romance.” (p. 428) In other words, acts are one form of the early novel genre. The work consists of thirteen acts, but it is the third act that will detain us: it discusses the serpent. Thomas traveled to where the Lord sent him. In one place he encountered a dead, youthful body on a road. Out of a nearby hole

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

129

slithered a large serpent who engaged him in conversation. Thomas learned that the dead youth had earlier fornicated with a beautiful woman of the nearby village. The serpent admitted that it had been he who had killed the youth, for he had committed fornication on the Lord’s day. When Thomas queried of what seed and race was the serpent, he replied that he was a reptile of reptile nature. (p. 460) After stating this, the serpent enumerated a number of his own acts in order to make it clear to Thomas just who he was and had been in history. He stated that “I am son of him who is outside the ocean, whose tail is set in his own mouth; . . . I am he who kindled and inflamed Cain to slay his own brother, . . . I am he who kindled Judas and bribed him to betray Christ to death, . . .” and he also admits that “I am the he who entered through the fence into Paradise and said to Eve all the things my father charged me to say to her; . . .” (Genesis 3:1 ff.) (Schneemelcher 460) Thomas, like Bartholomew, provides reasons why Eve should be taken off the hook, and should not be judged as harshly as subsequent history has indeed done to her.

e. Summary Eve can be said to have received only dishonorable mention in two references in the New Testament. She could be deceived just as early Pauline Christians could be deceived to abandon the Christ of his gospel (2 Corinthians). Or she, not Adam, was deceived and became a transgressor (1 Timothy). Either way, it was bad press, either from Paul or from one of his admirers who wrote in his name. Several of the Church Fathers were not as concerned with Eve as an object of accusation and derision. For some of them, she served a more useful and rhetorical purpose. By their calculus, she became resurrected as Mary, the New Eve. This hermeneutic, articulated early by Justin Martyr, was accepted and promoted by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and several of the post-Nicene fathers as well. Mary, as a type of Eve redivivus, had significance in light of the greater salvific significance of Jesus her son and Son of God. Eve was rehabilitated in her descendant Mary the Theotokos. The New Testament Apocrypha provided an opportunity to learn what heterodox Christians were thinking concerning Eve. While most of the Gospels produced were written in the name of some New Testament personality, the Gnostics honored Eve by assigning a Gospel to her, the only Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures character so honored.

130

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

Of chief importance for the Gnostic Gospel writers was that Eve’s encounter with the serpent was positive, both for her and for humankind seeking gnosis; he imparted to her a knowledge necessary to human salvation and not destruction. In fact, the Armenian Infancy Gospel depicted Eve present and bearing witness with Joseph and testifying to the virgin birth. The Questions of Mary (Magdalene) called forth the imagery of the creation of Eve from Adam’s tzelah, “side/rib”. But here Jesus brought forth a woman from his own side and began to mate with her in full view of Mary as witness to this event. Jesus had created a new Eve and it was most certainly not his mother! It is obvious that several of the Fathers and the author of Questions had radically different views of the identity and origin of the ’New Eve.’ Continuing the “ask the professor” theme noticed in the Questions of Mary, the assembled apostles posed questions of the Lord Christ, desiring to learn the secrets of heaven in the Gospel of Bartholomew. Eve is placed in this Gospel in second place in the scheme of human creation, and she was placed in the west (with Adam, created first, having been placed in the [primary] east). Thus, while she “defiled the commandment of the Lord”—by wanting to be informed, Mary Magdalene—Eve’s presumed replacement— became the ’vessel’ in which the Lord Christ came to dwell. Through her, this female apostle, equal to all other disciples and apostles including Peter, was able to restore the dignity of all women. Acts are an early form of the novel genre. Acts of Thomas is such a novel consisting of thirteen episodes. Act Three involved a serpent who engaged Thomas in conversation during which Thomas learned how much the serpent (empowered to do so) had influenced/affected history, including having influenced Eve in Paradise. The suggestion of the novel is that the traditional guilt assigned to Eve has been undeserved of her.

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

131

C. EVE CONSIDERED BY THE MAIN PROTESTANT REVOLUTIONARIES: THE DEMOTION OF MARY? (KREITZER 2004) Most Protestants are unconcerned about claims of the perpetual virginity of Mary, or even her having been born as a result of an immaculate conception of her mother. In their scriptures, Protestants read that Jesus had brothers and sisters (Matthew 12:46; 13:55–56 [most telling!]). While Mary was for them not unimportant, they certainly considered her human and normal as a woman and mother, even of a tremendous son and figure such as Jesus. Catholics, of course, find this attitude abhorrent.—Editorial Observation

Introductory The great Protestant leaders such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, (Naphy 2004), Huldreich (Ulrich) Zwingli (Armstrong www), Martin Bucer, (Greschat/Buckwalter 2004) Heinrich Bullinger (Gordon, Campi 2005), and John Wesley (Armstrong www) were not the most popular Christians in the eyes of Roman Catholics during the early years of the Reformation. They acted out of an attitude that we associate nowadays with madness or total conviction. Luther and Calvin operated out in the open—the bull’s eye was always painted on their backs. Others were less visible and operated more behind the scenes.15 Yet, before them all were a number of sensitive and thoughtful men who took issue with much that was dogmatically Roman Catholic. They decided rather than break with the Church, however, to attempt to reform it from within. Men such as Erasmus of Rotterdam and Jacques Lefevre d’Etaples (Jacobus Faber Stapulensis) (Weber/Herman www) chose to fight from within. Both, however, deserve mention as precursors of the Reformation. Of these two, Faber Stapulensis is herein relevant, for he wrote two famous—and controversial— treatises on biblical Maries that must be considered when considering the Mary-as-second-Eve touted by the general Church: David C. Steinmetz, Reformers in the Wings: From Geiler Von Keyserberg to Theodore Beza (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). 15

132

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

“De Mari Magdalena,” and “De tribus et unica Magdalena disceptatio secunda.” In these works, he attempted to demonstrate that Mary, sister of Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, and the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet in Luke 7:37, were three different women. The works became controversial and led to their being condemned by the Sorbonne (where he professed for a time) in 1521. They show, however, that the subject of ’Mary’ was not a settled issue among churchmen as late as the first quarter of the 16th Century of this era. 1. Martin Luther (1483–1546 C.E.) on Eve The Reformer Martin Luther opined that Paul’s Letter to the Romans was extremely important. In fact, in Luther’s preface to this letter16 he stated “This letter is truly the most important piece in the New Testament. It is purest Gospel. It is well worth a Christian’s while not only to memorize it word for word but also to occupy himself with it daily, as though it were the daily bread of the soul.” (Thornton www) He maintained—and correctly so—that in order to understand Romans one had to understand its vocabulary thoroughly, especially the terms law, grace, faith, justice, flesh, spirit, and of course, sin. Commenting on the term sin, as used by Paul, Luther wrote: Sin in the Scriptures means not only the external works of the body but also all those movements within us which bestir themselves and move us to do the external works, namely, the depth of the heart with all its powers . . . Thus, even as faith alone makes just and brings the Spirit and the desire to do good external works, so it is only unbelief which sins and exalts the flesh and brings desire to do evil external works. That’s what happened to Adam and Eve in Paradise. (Thornton www)

Kirsi Stjerna (Stjerna www) focuses on Luther’s attitude toward not only Eve but Tamar (Genesis 38) in his commentary on Genesis, Martin Luther, “Vorrede auf die Epistel S. Paul: an die Romer” in D. Martin Luther: Die Gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch 1545 aufs new zurericht, Hans Volz and Heinz Blanke, eds., vol. 2, (Munich: Roger & Bernhard, 1972), pp. 2254–2268. 16

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

133

written toward the end of his life. Employing Eve and Tamar, she attempted to explain the status of Christian women in particular in his day in relation to his understanding of sin and grace. Stjerna found one key to Luther’s logic and intentions, as well as his anthropology and theology, by scrutinizing his Genesis texts in context. She writes “Examining the stories of Eve and Tamar in Genesis helps us to appreciate the ways Luther tried to do theology that was apparently gender-blind, while he took gender into account and paid attention to the importance of gender relations theologically and in daily life.” (Stjerna www) The daily life refers to Luther’s personal, married and family life (He had several sons and daughters and adopted others.) In fact, his wife, Katarina (Catherine) von Bora, a former nun, is considered the first Reformed wife. She was for him a Vorbild for female kind. Luther on women, sin, and grace must be approached by understanding his hermeneutic of Bible, his observations on human life and its meaning, and his personal life and relationship with his wife. 2. John Calvin (1509–1564 C.E.) on Eve Luther’s contemporary, John Calvin, like Paul, saw human sin as inherited from Adam and Eve; sin produced in each person an idol factory. As a result, all persons deserved to be destroyed; however Jesus Christ served as prophet, priest, and king to call the elect to eternal life with God. Christ summons the chosen into a new life, interceding for them in his atonement, and he reigns at God’s right hand. Calvin took great pains to emphasize the continuity of his doctrines with Christian orthodoxy as expressed in the Nicene and Chalcedon creeds. (Calvin www) He, like Moses and Ezra, organized an ecclesiastical government. Allow me to state at the outset; reading the Bible, especially Genesis, with Calvin was an exhaustive experience. (J.T.G.) In his commentary on Genesis 3, he shared his conviction that Satan and the Serpent were not the same entity. He held instead, “the innate subtlety of the serpent did not prevent Satan from making use of the animal for the purpose of effecting the destruction of man . . . finally, he carefully contrived the method by which the snares he was preparing might the more easily take the mind of Eve by surprise.” (Calvin www) Thus, although created by God, and endowed with subtlety, Satan used this aroom (=subtle) animal for his own purposes. The serpent was not acting on his own initiative according to Calvin. Yet, this subtlety would not be

134

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

forgotten, nor viewed as a negative paradigm, for Jesus, according to the evangelist Matthew (10:16), directed his disciples to be ’prudent as serpents’ before he sent them on their way. The forensic-minded Calvin was quite insistent about whom it was who had deceived Eve, “it is plainly asserted that the serpent was only the mouth of the devil; for not the serpent but the devil is declared to be ’the father of lies,’ the fabricator of imposture, and the author of death.” (Calvin www) As sympathetic as this seems—and sounds—Calvin was willing to let neither Adam nor Eve off the hook for having been deceived by Satan/devil-through-the-serpent, for “. . . Adam and Eve knew that all animals were given, by the hand of God, into subjection to them, they yet suffered themselves to be led away by one of their own slaves into rebellion against God.” (Calvin www)

After this, however, Calvin, in typical male fashion of his day, focused on Adam, not on Eve (who had the encounter with the serpent!). He maintained that Eve would not have necessarily been surprised that a serpent addressed her; precedents concerning humans and animals like Balaam and his ass, Francis-the-talkingmule and Donald O’Conner, or Mr. Ed-the-talking-horse had not come into vogue. But Calvin pitied Eve not when she had decided to hearken to the serpent’s words. Verse 6 of Calvin’s commentary on Genesis holds: This impure look of Eve (And the woman saw . . .) infected with the poison of concupiscence, was both the messenger and witness of an impure heart . . . But now, after the heart had declined from faith, and from obedience to the word, she corrupted both herself and all her senses, and depravity was diffused through all parts of her soul as well as her body.

As to the question of who really brought rebellion against God into the world, Calvin references one pseudo-Pauline text (1 Timothy 2:14) “Adam was not deceived, but the woman.”, and one authentic Pauline text, Romans 5:12. Here Paul holds that sin came not by Eve, but by Adam himself. It is difficult to determine whether Calvin solved this dilemma within his hermeneutic intellectually, or whether he just fell back on staid tradition, for the two statements are contradictory.

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

135

3. The Protestant Fathers on Mary in Light of ’Ex fidei sola’ (by faith alone) and ‘sola scriptura’ (by scripture alone) We remind ourselves that the Fathers Justin (the) Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and several post-Nicene Fathers—among whom were Ambrose of Milan, Jerome, and Peter Chrysologus—promoted the theology of Mary as the New Eve. Due to numerous differences of opinion held between the Reformers and Catholic leaders, such as ’scripture only’ and ’by faith alone,’ one would assume that the early Reformers would not have promoted the idea of venerating (not worshipping!) Mary-the-New-Eve. We shall test this assumption looking at writings by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger, and Wesley. 4. Luther on the New Eve and on her Perpetual Virginity In his sermon during the Feast of the Visitation in 1537 C.E., Luther praised Mary by stating “No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity.” On the perpetual virginity of Mary Luther held “Christ, our Saviour, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.” (Armstrong quoting Pelikan www) The “bone of contention” would be whether Luther had overstepped the bounds of Scripture when he held “and she remained a virgin after that.” 5. Calvin on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity John Calvin also weighed in on this issue of the perpetual virginity of Mary while harmonizing the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Countering the arguments of one Servetus, Calvin wrote “Servetus displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ’brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.” And from his commentary on the Gospel of John he states “Under the word ’brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.” (Armstrong www) 6. Zwingli on the ’Mother of Salvation’ Huldreich (Ulrich) Zwingli, father of the Swiss Reformation, proclaimed proudly:

136

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonorable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity. (Potter Quoted in Armstrong www)

7. Bullinger on Mary in Heaven Heinrich Bullinger (Gordon and Campi 2005) was essentially in lock step with Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli when he wrote: The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God. (Graef 1965, 15) (Armstrong www)

8. Wesley on the Pure and Unspotted Virgin John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, maintained in his “Letter to a Roman Catholic” (Armstrong www) that “The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.” The full text is available at http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/letters/1739.htm.

D. EVE VERSUS MARY VERSUS MARY MAGDALENE:17 SOME BRIEF CONSIDERATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS “In the Orthodox tradition, Eve, the woman had fallen from grace and had taken man with her through her sexuality. [I would remind you that this is not in the story in the Bible, but

There are several Maries in the Gospels: Mary, mother of Jesus; Martha and Mary of Bethany; Mary (Magdalene) of Magdala; and Mary of Clopas (John 19:25). 17

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

137

this is what was primarily understood in early Christian tradition].” Charles Rush (www)

Before I proceed to discuss how Eve has stimulated artists and the history of (biblical) art (Section E. infra), it is well to pause and consider more in detail the hermeneutical relationship between Eve, Mary mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene. (Brock 2002) Concerning the latter, we shall steer a sober path between the quote from Rush above, on the one hand, and the view of her popularized in the novel/movie The DaVinci Code, (Ehrman 2004) on the other, for both are extreme and unsupportable outside of tradition and popular opinion. We should also bear in mind the studies of Faber Stapulensis mentioned in the previous section’s Introductory concerning the three Maries. Mary, mother of Jesus (hence MMJ), comes down to us in various traditions as an obedient virgin who submits to the will of God; she makes a good Muslim! (Luke 1:38) It is understood and accepted in some circles that MMJ undid Eve’s (supposed) acts of disobedience to God and sexual promiscuity by giving birth to the Savior, and she accomplished this without having sex (remember, we’re still looking at this through traditional eyes). But aside from what the New Testament Gospels provide, what do we really learn about her? Her CV is brief, almost anorexic: 1. She was married and gave birth to Jesus and to other children. 2. She took him to the Temple. 3. She suspected that her son’s attitude toward life was troubled. 4. She attended her son’s execution in silence and sadness. 5. She went to his tomb to minister unto the dead in the Jewish manner. While the name Mary signals traditional piety, compassion, self-and soul-control, on the one hand, tradition has not forgotten Eve, on the other; she has been resurrected in the vessels of both MMJ and of Mary Magdalene (hence MM). The latter must constitute yet a second resurrection, for she already exists as the (renewed or) New Eve in MMJ. It is to this that we refer in the title

138

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

of our essay. With this second resurrection, Eve gets a time and name “lift,” but provides simultaneously the necessary “negative woman.” All of this, of course, makes MMJ look all the better. But instead of being viewed as an unrepentant, irretrievably fallen woman, MM is depicted as rehabilitated, a reformed prostitute.18 MM indeed plays an important role in the resurrection of Eve, as well as in her rehabilitation. Eve rebelled (in search and desire of being God-like). The Virgin Mary birthed the Savior (and thereby serves as Co-Redemtrix). MM became understood as a converted prostitute (perhaps understood by those who created this idea to be the nature of most, if not all, women [excepting MMJ and her mother]). MM became of the “first fruits” of those who were the opposite of the daughters of the first Eve (who brought both men and women down) by bringing women up (by example) and away from sexual temptations. MM’s presence suggests that even with Eve overturned by MMJ’s birthing of the Savior, the negative side of pious attributes toward sex still remained. What the New Testament Gospels support concerning MM is more meager (by three points) than the information they supply about MMJ: 1. She (and some other women) supported Jesus (probably financially). 2. She shows up in the final segment of the Jesus story (perhaps as an assistant to MMJ, they both attend his execution). 3. She is the first to notice that the tomb is empty and speaks with the Risen Christ (John 20) or his (cf. Mark 16; Luke 24]) “press secretary” or “secretaries”. Just as Eve was sexually maligned by later tradition, so was MM. Treatments of them reflect the age of the interpreters (Roman and

It was Pope Gregory the Great (ca. 591 C.E.) who decreed that the anonymous woman of Luke 7 was Mary Magdalene. The Gospel text, however, does not support this. 18

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

139

Middle Ages), for the biblical texts support no such conclusions.19 Yet, many cling tenaciously to these in-antiquity-spun traditions. As one would expect, once the scheme was evolved where MMJ replaced Eve as the New Eve, and supposedly rehabilitated her, the question quite naturally arose as to which Mary?; the canonical Gospels are awash with a plethora of them.20 Two, Mary mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene, associate of Jesus and firstfinder of Jesus’ empty tomb, were at the forefront. Something of a “pecking order” developed among the disciples/apostles concerning their position in the scheme of things leading to salvation and the role of the Church. This development has engendered several inescapable questions. If Mary, mother of Jesus/God, was so important in the scheme of things, why wasn’t she the first leader of the Church? If Mary Magdalene was the first to see the risen Christ, why does not this act alone qualify her–and not Peter—to be the leader of the Church? (DVD 2000) Other women—even one named Mary also [sister of Lazarus]—appear in the canonical Gospels to have been closer to Jesus than many of his named male followers. In other words, why do men run everything? The answer will run along the lines of the protoOrthodox view and reverence of Mary, mother of Jesus, the socalled Theotokos, and several views of other women reputed to have been close to Jesus. We have seen above in Section B. c. that the Gospel of Bartholomew praises Mary Magdalene, not Mary-mother-of-Jesus, as A similar fate was experienced by the Tyrian princess-become queen of Israel in the 9th century B.C.E. Jezebel has been presented as the skeezah-par-excellence without a shred of biblical evidence to support such an allegation 20 At Biblical Art on the WWW, under the heading “The Temptation and the Fall,” the researcher is treated to a nine-page “gallery” of art that illustrates Eve, Adam, the Serpent, and Satan accessed at: http://www.biblical-art.com/biblicalsubject.asp?id_biblicalsubject=1157 &pagenum=1. Special Collector’s Edition of U.S. News and World Report: Women of the Bible: Provocative New Insights (especially the articles “The First Woman” by Naomi Harris Rosenblatt (pp. 10–17) and “In Search of the Real Virgin Mary” by Richard Covington (pp. 54–63): 2005. 19

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

140

the woman to restore the dignity of all women. The twice“resurrected” Eve idea developed through two trajectories.

E. EVE IN CHRISTIAN ART Introductory For understandable reasons of human curiosity, Eve (and Adam) has been the subject(s) of much artistic creativity, presentation, and interpretation. Poets and other artists (painters and musicians) have set themselves to help give her expression that the Bible (and other literature and oral tradition) seemed to them to deny her. What follows may, therefore, be pursued as aspects of Eve’s own augmented “voice.” 1. Poetry

a. Ancient 1) Venantius Fortunatis (ca. 600 C.E.) Venatius was moved to produce what is almost an encomium in poetic form in praise of the Virgin Mary: Glorious among virgins, high above the stars, Thou dost nourish at thy breast As a child Him who created thee. What unhappy Eve lost thou dost restore by thy holy Child; Thou dost open the gates of heaven That sinners may rise to the stars. Thou art queen of the gates on high And of the shining halls of light. People redeemed, praise the life-given through the Virgin. Jesus, to Thee be glory who art born of the Virgin, With the Father and the Holy Ghost for ever and ever. (John O’Connell www)

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

141

b. Modern 1) The vulnerability of Eve was perceived by the poet Ralph Hodgson in a 1924 C.E. poem, but he saw her “fall” as nothing more than the loss of a few berries and plums: Picture that orchard sprite, Eve, with her body white, Supple and smooth to her Slim finger tips, Wondering, listening, Listening, wondering, Eve with a berry Half-way to her lips.

Eve, of course, capitulates to the serpent’s machinations; it prompts Hodgson to exclaim; “Oh, had our simple Eve/Seen through the makebelieve!”. And with his final stanza holds: Picture her crying, Outside in the lane, Eve, with no dish of sweet Berries and plums to eat, haunting the gate of the Orchard in vain. (Cornell www)

2) According to another poet, the Garden of Eden and its meager resources were the very reasons why Eve and Adam left it: humans did nothing so heinous as to be evicted. In Eden it was never winter, the ground Stayed wet and spongy, the sun as yellow And as overripe as a Persian melon, the streams Gummed up with honey, and the apples mushy: How things had got so soft it is hard to say. (Wilner 1984, 14)

Indeed, both Eden and God himself had a lot to do with Eve’s departure. Eve:

142

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE . . . had to be sweet As grass, the kind of stuff that’s habitForming, like all things half-conceived: For instance, Adam, Anesthetized, and God part surgeon, part Cosmic dating service. (Wilner, 14)

Nothing by way of other inducements caused Eve to remain in the Garden: So I guess the way it ended was That Eve got up and walked out On Adam, their tacky Eden—sick Of honeysuckle, of trees stuck up With signs to state their meaning, And nothing to stick to your ribs But apples—she’d had a bellyful of those (Wilner, 14)

3) Many poems about Eve spit in the face of traditional interpretations. Cinda Thompson’s poem “The Tree” (with which a pregnant Eve identifies) is such a work: Do you know of loneliness When the burden of apples is so great, the branches split And red drips into green grass . . . My breast and I am punished For knowledge Of disease or discovery Of soft sucking mouths. . . . my belly swells, the moon rises Genesis-full Cursed, he swore, I say I am Eve. Be ware. I am Your mother. (Thompson, 263)

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

143

One reviewer states of Thompson’s poem “This is an Eve who claims her connections to the ancient mother-goddess. . .” Thompson has Eve not only reject the implication that sex—and consequently pregnancy—is somehow related to Original Sin. She declares that it is in her sexuality, her ability to give birth, that the true nature of God is found. . . . Eve’s repetition of “I am” in Thompson’s poem emphasizes this connection, and denies the separation of humanity, divinity, and nature.” (Cornell www) 4) In poetry Eve is often deeply identified with her sexuality; Adam, on the other hand, is deeply engrossed in the “naming game.” This bores Eve to no end. Paula Gunn Allen’s “Eve the Fox” captures this Eve uncannily: Eve the fox swung her hips appetizingly, she sauntered over to Adam the hunk who was twiddling his toes and devising an elaborate scheme for renaming the beasts. (Allen 1993, 304)

Cornell comments: “Allen presents Adam as “bored” but Eve’s knowledge keeps her content, for she/knew the joy of swivelhips/and the taste of honey on her lips.” The fruit she offers Adam . . . is her own sweet body, and the knowledge their joining opens to both of them is complete: “let me tell you/right then they knew all/they ever wanted to know about knowing.” Here Allen accepts the interpretation of the knowledge promised in eating the forbidden fruit as sexual, but shows Adam and Eve celebrating it, with no condemnation from God, who does not appear in the poem at all.” (Cornell www)

2. Visual Art (Gallery) There is no paucity of visual art concerning (Adam and) Eve. Herein, I shall examine Eve in sculpture, paintings from several periods and styles, and as she has been celebrated in music.

144

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

a. Sculpture 1) Bronze a) One of the most beautifully executed pieces of sculpture concerning Eve may be viewed on the Internet. This work is impressive for its life-like appearance and ability to evoke in the viewer a sense of viewing a real, earthy person. There are a thousand interpretations of what she thinks as she holds the apple aloft. Cf. http://www.nataliasculpture.com/evebig.html. b) A 22-inch high bronze sculpture of “Eve Contemplating the Apple” almost draws the viewer into Eve’s absorbed thought. So masterfully has it been executed. This work by the artist Lynn Forbes may be “contemplated” at: http://www.lynnforbessculpture.com/figures/eve.html. c) Remaining with beautiful bronze (as opposed to blondes), the sculptor Dimitry Gerrman has sculpted what could be termed “Eve the Forest Nymph,” for this slender, shapely woman appears to be celebrating being both woman and alive. Appreciate Gerrman’s work at: http://www.jaggallery.com/artist2/d_gerrm3.htm. d) 1) What appears at first sight to be two people in a lover’s embrace, turns out, on closer inspection to be an almost “inert” man lying on his back with his head turned to the right on top of whom is a woman in the process of actively separating herself from him. The sculptor, Candice Raquel Lee, who named this piece “Eve’s Awakening,” writes: “Eve’s face and movement show her shock at awakening while still joined to a man, or rather a strange being, of whom she has no knowledge.” Cf. http://www.lilithgallery.com/gallery/lee/2006-CandaceRaquelLeeEves-Awakening-Viewpoint 1.jpg. (Lee www) 2) In 2005 the Canadian sculptor, Candace Raquel Lee, executed a powerful bronze piece entitled “Eve Emergent.” Located at: http://www.lilithgallery.com/gallery/lee/2005-CandaceRaquel Lee-Eve-Emergent.jpg, the work needs no commentary. e) From the Borsheim Studio in Cedar Creek, Texas comes a figurative sculpture of Adam and Eve entitled “After the Temptation.” It was executed by Kelly Borsheim. This dynamic piece (11”h x 13” x 9” depicts a nude couple, the man standing behind the woman embracing her with his left arm around her upper torso,

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

145

reaching across her to touch her right shoulder. His right arm embraces the lower torso, with his right hand resting on her abdomen. Leaning slightly backwards, the woman acknowledges his embrace by touching his left arm near the elbow with her left hand, while caressing his right upper thigh with her right hand and turning her head toward him. At their feet is the serpent. This dramatic piece may be viewed from a number of angles at: http://www.borsheimarts.com/sculpture/2005/temptation.htm. f) Reminiscent of the piece entitled “Adam and Eve” executed by Quincy Verdun (b., 5), a plaque depicting the primeval pair in neo-classical style is available at: http://www.ancientsculpturegallery.com/192.html. Standing near the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the fig leaf-wearing pair look longingly at each other while he embraces her with his left arm and she him with her right. In her left hand she holds the fruit. The artist was not identified in the site. 2) Wood (on a Limestone Base) A most fascinating sculpture was executed by Constantin Brancursi between 1916 and 1924. Entitled “Adam and Eve,” this unusual piece depicts an Adam of sculpted chestnut standing above an Eve of sculpted oak. The “couple” rest on a square, limestone base. The measurements of the piece are 94 x 18 ¾ x 17 ¼ “overall. It is housed at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. See this piece at: http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_work_1g_22_1. html. 3) What Can I Say? Probably the most unusual piece of sculpture I’ve ever seen that depicts an individual is a modern execution of “Eve” by Peter Reginato. I am not quite sure what to make of it. Decide for yourself at: http://www.peterreginato.com/eve.html.

b. Painting/Engraving20 1) Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472–1553 C.E.): This German Renaissance painter and graphic artist was a friend of Martin Luther and used some of his art in the Protestant cause. Unlike

146

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

many artists, Cranach served as mayor of the German city of Wittenberg in 1537. To show his gratitude to his electors he painted biblical and mythological scenes involving nude characters. Among these is a series on Adam and Eve which he executed over a number of years. Between 1509 and 1538 he produced seven paintings and one engraving on the famous, primordial, biblical pair. These famous nudes are viewable at: http://www.wga.hu/html/c/cranach/lucas-e/1/01adam_e.html. 2) a) The painter Tiziano Vicellio de Gregorio (aka Titian), a contemporary of Cranach (1490–1576 C.E.), was a member of the Italian School. Titian’s “Adam and Eve”, an oil on panel painted in 1550 C.E., depicts Adam attempting to dissuade his companion from accepting the forbidden fruit from a boy-faced serpent wrapped around the tree before which both are located. While hanging in Madrid, this painting was damaged by a fire in 1734. Later, adjudged lewd by Charles III, this painting, along with other nudes, were relegated to secret rooms until 1819, when they were hung on exhibit in the Prado. This work is available at: http://museoprado.mcu.es/icuadro_2002.html. b) Compare Titian’s painting with the modern photo based on it at: http://www.andremaier.com/concept/adam-eve.html. 3) A book of prayers and devotions, i.e., a missal, that belonged to Archbishop Bernhard von Rohr of Salzburg, Austria, is one of a few paintings that depicts both Eve and Mary together. Executed ca. 1481, this fascinating work is available through Verlag Boehlau, and may be viewed at: http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/meditations/neweve.html. 4) All of the frescos located in the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican vie with each other for fame. Michelangelo’s “The Creation of Eve”, a ceiling fresco, depicts Eve being created from the side of Adam; it is most dramatic, and a most famous piece of Western art. Cf. illustrations at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_%28first_woman%29 and a larger version of the same painting at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Creation-of-Eve.gif.

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

147

5) Just as the sculpture discussed above in a. is impressive for its sheer realism, the artist Quincy Verdun’s hydrostone, acrylic cast is equally impressive as modern art. Modern art that, however, draws much inspiration from classical forms and methods caused the artist to produce his “Adam and Eve.” The headless, but wellproportioned Adam, and the equally headless and one-arm-less Eve boast bodies that celebrate what naturally attracts each sex to the other; they appeal to today’s neo-classical ideal of the “body beautiful.” This pair “leaps” off of the surface at: www.GalerieVerdun.com. 6) The Northern Renaissance artist, Hieronymus Bosh of the Netherlands titled his most famous painting “The Garden of Earthly Delights.” It consists of a sequence of three panels on which a complete story is told. Standing in front of the panels, one views from left to right. In the first panel, one views Adam and Eve within a paradisiacal landscape where they are joined by either God or Jesus, as well as by a number of animals in various activities. When the eye moves to the second panel, one notices the offspring of the primordial pair, like the children of Job, enjoying all that life has to offer. Food, fun, and sex are available in abundance. But as the eye drifts to Panel # 3, the viewer sees Hell depicted therein in all of its horror. Sinners are tortured by whatever was their vice. This panel is the opposite in theme from what was noticed and viewed in the very first panel. It is a well-executed work and its tripartite message is crystal clear. “Earthly Delights” may be viewed at: http://www.artofeurope.com/bosch/bos1.htm. 7) The sculptor of the famous “Praying Hands” also executed two pieces on Adam and Eve: an engraving about 1504 and an oil on panel around 1507 C.E. Albertus Durer (Noricus Faciebat) [more commonly known as Albrecht Duerer] of Nuremberg’s works are accessed at: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/D/durer/adam_eve.jpg.html. (The engraving) and the oil on panel, located at the Museo Nacional de Prado, Madrid at: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/D/durer/adameve2.jpg.html.

148

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

CONCLUSION While I have come nowhere close to the end of the subject(s) concerning Eve, the constraints of space allotted for my essay have dictated that I conclude my study. Considered within the Christian world-view, Eve was not allowed to remain a static—and to some extent enigmatic—figure confined to the Genesis scroll and even there associated with the creation and immediately-post creation actions of the primordial humans and their offspring. She was destined by the miracle of hermeneutics to be called forth—either in the original or in hybrid form—to assist in making sense of some phenomenon or development that greatly exercised either the Church or those who would criticize it. Other colleagues have essayed on a similar phenomenon within Judaism and Islam. One of the earliest, interpretive periods during which the scholars of ancient Israel focused on the major, ancient figures from the Torah and/Septuagint(a) was during the Renaissance of the so-called Second Temple Period of Jewish development (ca. 540 B.C.E. – 70 C.E.). This can be said to have been the fermentation plant/period of analyzing the past traditions to address issues in the present of the Second Temple Period. A Jewish, revolutionary, intellectual, reconsideration of the past (traditions) in light of the newer, Hellenistic, intellectual influences was in full swing. Achaemenid Persian intellectual influences, especially from Zoroastrianism as both religion and philosophy cannot be overlooked. The meaning of many traditional characters, including patriarchs and their activities and/or vicissitudes, was expressed in an enhanced way having been refracted through the prism of Perso-Hellenism. Section A of this present study examined four significant assessments of Eve during this period, and thereby helped lay some of the foundation(s) on which later and nascent Christianity based its views on the importance and significance of Eve. Section B revealed the significance of the Eve figure and type as they were studied and interpreted as read in the writings of selected Church Fathers and some of their concerned contemporaries. Here, we mined the works of three famous fathers who set the trend for early Church interpretations of Eve, plus several post-Nicene Council contributors to Church views of her. In addition, several anonymous views concerning Eve as figure and

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

149

type were contributed by some of the New Testament apocryphal writings. While the Fathers focused on Mary, mother of Jesus, as the ’New Eve,’ and as a perpetual virgin, the contributors to the various apocryphal works included herein were intent on reinterpreting Eve in light of their interest in revising ’history’ or setting typological examples. Oddly, the major Protestant pioneers we surveyed presented us with a surprise: while they would be expected to reject most of the views presented by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches on the issues of the New Eve and the perpetual virginity of Mary—given the sentiment of ’sola scriptura,’ the Protestant ’Fathers’ affirmed her as both also. Section C suggested that on the issues of the ’sin’ of Eve and on the perpetual virginity and significance of Mary as the New Eve, the protesting ’fruit/offspring’ had not fallen far from the ’tree’ of the Roman and Orthodox Churches. We devoted Section D. to a closer examination of the hermeneutical relationship between Eve, Mary, mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene (who also figured prominently in some apocryphal interpretations involving the Eve type). Some of the most interesting interpretations of the Eve figure and type were undertaken by those of artistic bent. Section E, therefore, was devoted to Eve as hermeneuticized in ancient and modern poetry, in visual art such as sculpture (bronze, wood-onlimestone), and painting and engraving. Far from having been a tragic, yet insignificant ’rib’ from Adam’s side who served as his help meet, the mother of all living, and co-ejectee from the Garden of Eden, Eve, especially in Jewish legends and during the period of Jewish history revising, took on a much greater significance as thinkers attempted to fathom reasons for human existence and purpose; the study of anthropology had taken on serious meaning(s). In other words, the ’mother of all living’ (humans) was, of necessity, thrust to the center of 2nd Temple Period anthropological studies. Once there, all human events that preceded this period were understood to flow into this 2nd Temple Period watershed; all subsequent history flowed out of the same watershed. Were humans, including the primordial pair, “living winds” ( following Genesis 2: 7), with no separation between major elements once joined or fused by God, or, as with Hellenistic anthropology, were humans part sarx, ’flesh’ and part psyche,’spirit’?

150

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

Why were these questions important during and after the 2nd Temple Period? They were necessary in order to answer the question “What was to be or what had been resurrected?”

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Abarbanel, Nitzah. Eve and Lilith [Havah ve-Lilit]. Bne-Brak: BarIlan University Press, 1994. (Cf. the work of Hurvitz.) Akin, James. “Mary: New Eve, Immaculate, Assumed.” This Rock. Vol. 9. Issue 12. (December 1998): 26–28. ________. “The Key to Understanding Mary.” http://www.cin. org/users/james/files/key2mary.htm. Allen, Paula Gunn. “Eve the Fox.” No More Masks! An Anthology of Twentieth-Century American Women Poets. Newly Revised and Expanded. Florence Howe. Ed. New York: HarperPerennial, 1993. Almond, Philip C. Adam and Eve in Seventeenth-Century Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Anderson, Gary A. The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian Imagination. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. Anderson, Janice Capel. “Mapping Feminist Biblical Criticism: The American Scene, 1983–1990.” Critical Review of Books in Religion. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991, pp. 21–44. Ante-Nicene Fathers. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. 10 Vols. (Orig. 1885). A Roberts and J. Donaldson, Eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1981. A Painting Art Gallery of Adam and Eve. http://affiliates. art.com/get.art?T=15047339&A=283739&L=11&P=4&Y=2 1481. Apostolic Fathers. The Apostolic Fathers. Kirsopp Lake. Trans. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1912. Armstrong, Karen. The Gospel According to Woman: Christianity’s Creation of the Sex War in the West. New York: Bantam Doubleday Anchor, 1996. Aschkenasy, Nehama. Eve’s Journey: Feminine Images in Hebraic Literary Tradition. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986. Ashcroft, Mary Ellen. The Magdalene Gospel. New York: Doubleday, 1995

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

151

Augustine. “The Literal Meaning of Genesis.” Ancient Christian Writers. John H. Taylor. Tr. New York: Newman Press, 1982. Aymar, Brandt. Ed. Treasury of Snake Lore from the Garden of Eden to Snakes of Today in Mythology, Fable, Stories, Essays, Poetry, Drama, Religion, and Personal Adventures. New York: Greenberg Press, 1956. Baning, Anne and Jules Cashford. The Myth of the Goddess: Evolution of an Image. London: Penguin Press, 1993. Barth, Karl. Christ and Adam: Man and Humanity in Romans 5. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1956. Beck, Martin. Der “Tag YHWHs” im Dodekapropheton. (The “Day of YHWH” in the Dodecapropheton): Studien im Spannungsfeld von Traditions—und Redaktionsgeschichte. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fuer die altestamentliche Wissenschaft 356. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 2005. Black, Harold. “Lilith, The Biography of a Myth.” in Humanistic Judaism. Vol. XXXIV. No. III (Summer 2006): 37–40. Blackburn, Barry Lee. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Tradition: A Critique of the Theios Aner Concept as an Interpretive Background of the Miracle Traditions Used by Mark. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Tuebingen: JCB Mohr, 1991. Blancy, Alain, et al. Mary in the Plan of God and in the Communion of Saints: Toward a Common Christian Understanding. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2005. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Bosch, Hieronymus. “Garden of Earthly Delights.” A tripartite altarpiece called a triptych, ca. 1480–1500 C.E. Prado, Madrid, Spain.http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bosch/delight; http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/bosch.html and http://www. artofeurope.com/bosch/bos1.htm. Bovon, Francois. Studies in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Books, 2005. Brenner, Athalya. Ed. A Feminist Companion to Genesis. Sheffield England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Brenner, Athalya. I Am . . .: Biblical Women Tell Their Own Stories. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2004. Briffault, Robert. The Mothers: The Matriarchal Theory of Social Origins. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1931.

152

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

Bristow, John Temple. What Paul Really Said About Women. New York: Harper & Row, 1988. Brock, Ann Graham. Mary Magdalene, The First Apostle: The Struggle for Authority. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. (Cf. Epp’s work.) Bronner, Leila Leah. Stories of Biblical Mothers: Maternal Power in the Hebrew Bible. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2004. Brown, Peter. The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 1987. Burghardt, Walter J. and Thomas Cornerford Lawler. Eds. Ancient Christian Writings. New York: Paulist Press, 1991. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Henry Beveridge. Trans. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1995. Calvin, John. www.island-of-freedom.com/calvin.htm. http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/genesis/calvin/genesis3.htm. Carr, David M. The Erotic Word: Sexuality, Spirituality, and the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Carroll, Michael P. Cult of the Virgin Mary: Psychological Origins. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986. Caspi, Mishael Maswari and Sascha Benjamin Cohen. Still Waters Run Deep: Five Women of the Bible Speak. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1999. Caspi, Mishael M. Eve in Three Traditions and Literatures: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In Collaboration with Mohammed Jiyad. Lewiston, N.Y., Queenston, Ontario, Lampeter, Ceredigion, Wales: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2004. Christ, Carol P. She Who Changes: Re-Imagining the Divine in the World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Church Fathers: Revelation of Moses. www.newadvent.org/ fathers/0828.htm. Clark, Elizabeth A. Women in the Early Church. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1983. Clark, Elizabeth and Herbert Richardson. Women and Religion: A Feminist Sourcebook on Christian Thought. New York: Harper & Row, 1977. Clark, Gillian. Women in the Ancient World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Clifton, Lucille. “Adam and Eve.” Good News About the Earth. New York: Random House, 1972.

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

153

Clines, David J.A. What Does Eve Do to Help? And Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. 94. Sheffield, England: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1990. Clines, David J.A. and Philip R. Davies. Eds. The World of Genesis: Persons, Places, Perspectives. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series. 257. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Clooney, Francis X. S.J. Divine Mother, Blessed Mother: Hindu Goddesses and the Virgin Mary. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Coleman, Richard J. Eden’s Garden: Rethinking Sin and Evil in an Era of Scientific Promise. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006. Collins, Adela Yarbro. Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship. Biblical Scholarship in North America. 10. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1985. Conklin, Edward. Getting Back into the Garden of Eden. Lanham, M.D.: University Press of America, 1998. Coulton, G.G. The Fate of Medieval Art in the Renaissance and Reformation. New York: Harper Torchbooks. Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1985. Cousland, J.R.C. The Gospel of Adam and Eve: The Latin Life of Adam and Eve as Gospel Antetype. Society of Biblical Literature Program Unit: Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. 2004. Cornell, M. Doretta. “Mother of all the Living: Reinterpretations of Eve in Contemporary Literature.” http://www.crosscurrents. org/Cornell0404.htm. Cunneen, Sally. In Search of Mary: The Woman and the Symbol. New York: Ballantine Press, 1996. Davis, Stephen T. et al. Eds. The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Davis, Stephen T. et al. Eds. The Incarnation: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Dillenberger, John. Martin Luther. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1962.

154

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

Dillenberger, John. John Calvin. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1971. Ehrman, Bart D. Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. (Cf. with Brock’s and Epp’s works.) Epp, Eldon J. Junia: The First Woman Apostle. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2005. (Cf. Brock’s work.) Evans, Craig A. “Jewish Burial Practices and the Resurrection of Jesus.” in Jesus and His Followers: What Current Archaeology and Biblical Research are Telling Us. Biblical Archaeology Society Lecture Series. Vol. II. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2000. Fiorenza, Elizabeth Shuessler. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York: Crossroad Press, 1984. Fish, Darwin. “Early Church Fathers were Catholic.” http://atruechurch.info/earlychurchfathers.html. Frish, Sondra, “Eve: Framed and Defamed.” The Biblical Historian: Journal of the Biblical Colloquium West. Vol. 1. No. 1. (August 2004): 43–53. Gambero, Luigi. Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought. Thomas Buffer. Trans. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999. Gaventa, Beverly. Mary: Glimpses of the Mother of Jesus. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1995. Goodwater, L. Women in Antiquity: An Annotated Bibliography. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1975. Gopin, Marc. Between Eden and Armageddon: The Future of World Religions, Violence, and Peacemaking. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Graef, Hilda. Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion. 2 Vols. (combined). London: Sheed & Ward, 1965. Grassi, Joseph A. Hidden Heroes of the Gospels: Female Counterparts to Jesus. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1989. Graves, Robert and Raphael Patai. Hebrew Myths. New York: Doubleday, 1963. Graves, Robert and Raphael Patai. Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1964.

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

155

Gray, John. Near Eastern Mythology: Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine. N.Y.: The Hamlyn Publishing Group Limited, 1969. Greschat, Martin. Martin Bucer: A Reformer and His Times. Stephen E. Buckwalter. Trans. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004. Grimm, Harold J. The Reformation Era, 1500–1650. New York: The Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc., 1973. Hadas, Moses and Morton Smith. Heroes and Gods: Spiritual Biographies in Antiquity. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965. Halevi, Yossi K. At the Entrance to the Garden of Eden: A Jew’s Search for Hope with Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2002. Harkness, Georgia. John Calvin: The Man and His Ethics. New York: Abingdon Press, 1958. Harris, Murray J. Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Books, 2005. Hendel, Ronald S. The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Heyob, Sharon Kelly. The Cult of Isis among Women in the Greco-Roman World. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973. Higgins, Jean M. “The Myth of Eve: The Temptress.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 44 (1976): 639–647. Hodgson, Ralph. “Eve.” Robert Arwan and Laurance Weider. Eds. Chapters into Verse: A Selection of Poetry in English Inspired by the Bible from Genesis through Revelation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Holladay. Carl H. Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series. 40 Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1977. Holmes, Michael W. Ed. And Trans. The Apostolic Fathers in English. 3rd Ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Books, 2005. Holter, Knut. “The Serpent in Eden as a Symbol of Israel’s Political Enemies: A Yahwistic Criticism of the Solomonic Foreign Policy?” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament. 1. (1990): 106–112.

156

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

Hurvitz, Siegmund. Lilith, the First Eve: Historical and Psychological Aspects of the Dark Feminine. Gela Jacobson. Trans. Einsiedeln, Switzerland: Daimon Verlag, 1992. Hurvitz, Siegmund. Lilith, die erste Eva: eine Studie euber dunkle Aspekte des Weiblichen. Zürich: Daimon Verlag, 1993 c. 1980. Hvidberg, Fleming. “The Canaanite Background of Gen. 1-III.” Vetus Testamentum. 10. (1960): 285–294. “Inanna’s Descent”. http://www.piney.com/InanasDescNether. html Joines, Karen Randolph. Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament: A Linguistic, Archaeological, and Literary Approach. Haddonfield: NJ: Haddonfield House, 1974. Josephus. Loeb Classical Library. 13 Vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. Jurgens, William A. Ed. and Trans. The Fate of the Early Fathers. 3 Vols. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1970. Karant-Nunn, Susan and Merry Wiesner-Hanks. Luther on Women: A Sourcebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Kenney, Theresa M. “Women are not Human”: An Anonymous Treatise and Response. New York: Herder & Herder, The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2000. Kirsch, Jonathan. Moses: A Life. New York: Ballantine Books, 1998. King, Karen L. What is Gnosticism? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. Kraemer, Ross Shepard. Ed. Women’s Religions in the Greco-Roman World: A Sourcebook. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Krappe, A.H. “The Birth of Eve.” Occident and Orient: Gaster Anniversary Volume. B. Schindler. Ed.: 312–322. London: Taylor’s Foreign Press, 1936. Kreitzer, Beth. Reforming Mary: Changing Images of the Virgin Mary in Lutheran Sermons of the Sixteenth Century. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Kugel, James L. The Bible as it Was. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Kwam, Kristen E., et al. Eds. Eve and Adam: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Readings on Genesis and Gender. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999. Lambert, Wilfred G. “A New Look at the Background of Genesis” [1965]. in Richard S. Hess and David T. Tsumra. Eds. I Studied

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

157

Inscriptions From Before the Flood. Ancient Near Eastern Literary and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Lanser, Susan. “(Feminist) Criticism in the Garden: Inferring Genesis 2–3.” Semeia. 41. (1988): 67–84. Laporte, Jean. The Role of Women in Early Christianity. New York: Edward Mellen Press, 1982. LeCompte, Eduard. I, Eve. New York: Athenaeum Press, 1988. Lee, Candice Raquel. “Myth, Meaning, Movement: Eve’s Awakening” (Sculpture). http://www.candiceraquel.com/ Eve%27s%20Awakening.htm. LeSaint, William P. S.J. Trans. and Annot. Tertullian. Anglican Church Women. Nos. 13 & 28. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2005. LeSaint, William P. Tertullian. ACW. No. 13. Treatises on Marriage and Remarriage. New York: Newman Press, 1951. LeSaint, William P. Tertullian. ACW. No. 28. Treatises on Penance. New York: Newman Press, 1959. Lieberman, Sarah Roth. The Eve Motif in Ancient Near Eastern and Classical Greek Sources. Ph.D. Dissertation. Boston University, 1975. Longenecker, Dwight and David Gustafson. Mary: A CatholicEvangelical Debate. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2003. Ludemann, Gerd. Virgin Birth? The Real Story of Mary and her Son Jesus. Harrisburgh, PA: Trinity Press, 1998. Male, Emile. The Gothic Image: Religious Art in France of the 13th Century. New York: Harper Torchbooks. Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1958. Martin, F. “Feminist Hermeneutics: An Overview. Part One.” Communio/Int. Cath. Rev. 18(2) (1991): 144–163. “Mary Magdalene: The Hidden Apostle.” DVD Documentary. New York: Insight Media, 2000. (Cf. Pearson’s work.) Mauriello, Matthew R. “Mary, the New Eve.” http://campus. udayton.edu/mary/meditations/neweve.html. This work contains a Missal of Bernhard von Rohr, Archbishop of Salzburg (ca. 1481) from Eva und Maria, Verlag Boehlau. May, H.G. “Pattern and Myth in the Old Testament.” The Journal of Religion. XXI (1941): 285–299. McKenzie, John L. “Myth and the Old Testament.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. XXI (1959): 265–282.

158

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

MacKenzie, Ross. “Mariology as an Ecumenical Problem.” Marian Studies. Vol. 26 (1975): 204–20. McKim, Donald K. Ed. Calvin and the Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Meyers, Carol. Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Michelangelo. Genesis (4–5). http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ sistine/4-Genesis.html. A fresco/painting of “The Creation of Eve” on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, Rome, Italy. Milgrom, Jacob. “Some Second Thoughts About Adam’s First Wife.” Genesis 1–3 in the History of Exegesis. G. Robbins. Ed. Lewiston, ME: Edwin Mellen Press, 1988. Miller, Glenn. (December 4, 2001). http://www.christianthinktank.com/mq6.html. Miller, Monica Migliorino. “The Authority of Women.” http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap000 4.html. Miller, Robert J. Born Divine: The Births of Jesus and Other Sons of God. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 2002. Miller, Robert J. “The Births of Jesus and Other Sons of God.” DVD Set. New York: Insight Media, 2004. Milne, Pamela J. “Eve and Adam: Is a Feminist Reading Possible?” Bible Review. 4. (1988): 12–39. Milton, John. The Works of John Milton: Paradise Lost. New York: Colombia University Press, 1931. Moltmann-Wendell, Elisabeth. The Women Around Jesus. New York: Herder & Herder The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2000. (Cf. Thompson’s work.) Moore, George Foot. “Religions of Iran”. 1913. http://historyworld.org/religions_of_iran.htm. Mundkur, Balaji. The Cult of the Serpent: An Interdisciplinary Survey of its Manifestations and Origins. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983. Naphy, William G. Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004. Neusner, Jacob. Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine: History, Messiah, Israel, and the Initial Confrontation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

159

Newsome, Carol A. and Sharon H. Ringe. Eds. Women’s Bible Commentary. Expanded Edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998. Norris, Pamela. Eve: A Biography. New York: New York University Press, 1999. O’Connell, John. “The New Eve.” http://www.catholic.net/RCC/ Periodicals/Faith/0506–96/article9.html. Otto, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Patrick Lynch. Trans. Tockford, IL: TAN Books & Publishers, 1974. Pagels, Elaine. Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. New York: Vintage Books, 1989. Pagels, Elaine. Adam and Eve and the Serpent. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1988. Pearson, Birger A. “Was Mary Magdalene Jesus’ Wife?” in Jesus and His First Followers: What Current Archaeology and Biblical Research are Telling Us. Biblical Archaeology Society Lecture Series. Vol. II. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2000. (Cf. Thompson’s work.) Pelikan, Jaroslav, et al. Mary: Images of the Mother of Jesus in Jewish and Christian Perspective. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2005. Pelikan, Jaroslav and Helmut T. Lehman. Eds. Luther’s Works: An American Edition. 55 Vols. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House and Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1955– 1986. Perkins, Pheme. Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection. New York: Doubleday, 1984. (Cf. Swinburn’s work.) Peters, T. “Jesus’ Resurrection: An Historical Event without Analogy.” Dialogue 12 (1973): 112–116. (Cf. with Perkins’ and Swinburn’s works.) Phillips, John A. Eve: The History of an Idea. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, 1984. Phipps, William E. Genesis and Gender. New York: Praeger Publications, 1983. Pike, Kenneth L. “Seed Thoughts: A Spiritual Democracy-Korah.” His 35/8 (1975): 5. Polsky, Michael. “Veneration of the Virgin Mary.” http:// www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/veneration_mary.aspx. Potter, G.R. Zwingli. London: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

160

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

Quotes From the Church Fathers. http://www.mycopticchurch. com/articles/fathers.asp?r=16. Rad, Gerhard von. Genesis: A Commentary. J.H. Marks. Trans. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961. Reilly, Patricia Lynn. A God Who Looks Like Me. New York: Ballantine Books, 1995. Ricci, Carla. Mary Magdalene and the Many Others: Women Who Followed Jesus. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2005. Roberts, Don. Ed. The Diaries of Adam and Eve. San Francisco: Fairoaks Press, 1997. Rush, Charles. “What About Mary Magdalene?” http://www. christchurchsummit.org/Sermons–2003/031005-WhatAbout MaryMagdalene.html. Salisbury, Joyce E. Church Fathers, Independent Virgins. London and New York: Verso, 1991. Schaeffer, Francis A. Genesis in Space and Time: The Flow of Biblical History. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1972. Schillebeeckx, Edward with Catharina Halkes. Mary: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. New York: Herder & Herder The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2000. Scholem, Gershom G. “Lilith.” Encyclopedia Judaica. Vol. II. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1972. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm. Ed. New Testament Apocrypha. 2 Vols. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1959. Schwartz, Howard. Lilith’s Cave: Jewish Tales of the Supernatural. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. (Cf. Hurvitz’s work.) Schwehn, Mark R. Exiles from Eden: Religion and the Academic Vocation in America. New York; Oxford University Press, 2005. Schwesig, Paul-Gerhard. Die Rolle der Tag-JHWHs-Dichtungen im Dodekapropheton. (The Role of Texts on the Day of Yahweh in the Book of the Twelve). Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fuer die altestamentliche Wissenschaft 366. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 2006. Seitz, Christopher. Ed. Nicene Christianity: The Future for a New Ecumenism. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2001. Shanks, Hershel. Ed. Feminist Approaches to the Bible. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1995. Shoemaker, Stephen J. The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

161

Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark, 1910 (reprinted 1994). Solle, Dorothee and Joe H. Kirchberger. Great Women of the Bible in Art and Literature. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2006. Solle, Dorothee, Herbert Haag, et al. Great Couples of the Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2005. Solle, Dorothee. Great Women of the Bible in Art and Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994. Spencer, Aida. Beyond the Curse. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989. Spretnak, Charlene. Missing Mary: The Queen of Heaven and Her ReEmergence in the Modern Church. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Stager, Lawrence. “Jerusalem and the Garden of Eden.” Bible Fest Lecture Videos. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2000. Stjerna, Kirsi. “Grief, Grace, and Glory: Luther’s Insights on Eve and Tamar in Genesis 3 and 38.” in Seminary Ridge Review. (Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg) December 2006. http://www.ltsg.edu/db/review.htm?artid=25&issid=4. Stone, Michael E. Ed. Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. ________. Trans. Adamgirk’: The Adam Book of Arek’el of Siwnik’. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Street, Gail Carrington. The Strange Woman: Power and Sex in the Bible. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1997. Stuckey, Johanna. “Inanna’s Descent to the Underworld.” MatriFocus. Cross-Quarterly for the Goddess Woman. Beltone 2005. Vol. 4–3 at: http://www.matrifocus.com/BEL05/ spotlight.htm. Swinburne, Richard. The Resurrection of God Incarnate. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. (Cf. Perkin’s and Peters’ works.) Tavard, George. The Thousand Faces of the Virgin Mary. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996. Tennant, F.R. The Sources of the Doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin. New York: Schocken Books, 1968. The Fathers of the Church. New York: Christian Heritage, 1948. The Fathers of the Church. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1994.

162

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

Thompson, Cinda. “The Tree.” 263. in Marilyn Sewell. Ed. Cries of the Spirit: A Celebration of Women’s Spirituality. Boston: Beacon Press, 1991. Thompson, Mary. Mary of Magdala: Apostle and Leader. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1995. (Cf. Pearson’s work.) Thornton, Andrew, OSB. “Preface to the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans by Martin Luther, 1483–1546.” http://www.ccel.org/ l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html. Thurian, Max. Mary: Mother of All Christians. Neville C. Cryer. Trans. New York: Herder & Herder, 1963. Thurston, Bonnie. Women in the New Testament: Questions and Commentary. New York: Herder & Herder Crossroad Publishing Company, 1998. Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1978. ________. “Not a Jot, Not a Title: Genesis 2–3 after Twenty Years.” Kristen E. Kvam, et al. Eds. Eve and Adam: Jewish, Christian and Muslim Readings on Genesis and Gender. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999. Twain, Mark. The Private Life of Adam and Eve. Illustrated by F. Strothmann and Lester Ralph. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1905–1906. Tyson, Joseph B. A Study of Early Christianity. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1973. Unger, Dominic J. O.F.M. Cap. Trans. and Annot. St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against Heresies. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2005. Vamosh, Miriam Feinberg. Food at the Time of the Bible: From Adam’s Apple to the Last Supper. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005. Volz, Hans and Heinz Blanke. Eds. “Vorrede auff die Epistel S. Paul: an die Romer.” in D. Martin Luther: Die gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch 1545 aufs new zurericht. Vol. 2. Munich: Roger & Bernhard, 1972. Von Speyer, Adrienne. Three Women and the Lord. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986. Walker, Williston, et al. A History of the Christian Church. 4th Ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985. Warren, Charles E. Original Sin Explained?: Revelations from Human Genetic Science. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2002.

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION(S) OF EVE

163

Waszink, J.H. Trans. and Annot. Tertullian . ACW No. 24. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2005. Weber, N.A. “Jacques Lefevre d’Etaples”. http://www.newadvent. org/cathen/09114b.htm. Wehr, Hans. Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. J.M. Cowan. Ed. New York: Spoken Language Services, Inc., 1976. Wesley, John. “Letter to a Roman Catholic.” This Rock. 25. November 1990. Wilner, Eleanor. “Candied.” Shekhinah. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. Wilson, Robert McLaren. “The New Testament in the Gnostic Gospel of Mary.” New Testament Studies. III (1956–57): 233– 243. Winter, Miriam Therese. The Gospel According to Mary: A New Testament for Women. New York: Herder & Herder, The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1993. Wisse, Frederick. Trans. The Apocryphon of John. The Nag Hammadi Library. The Gnostic Society Library. http://www. gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html. Wolkstein, Diane and Samuel Noah Kramer. Inanna, Queen of Heaven and Earth: Her Stories and Hymns from Sumer. NY: Harper & Row, 1983. Woodhull, Marianna. The Epic of Paradise Lost. New York: Putman and Sons, 1907. Zachman, Randall C. John Calvin as Teacher, Pastor, and Theologian. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic Books, 2006.

EVE IN EDEN HERB HAIN SANTA MONICA, CA I have no institutional affiliation, and you might as well know that I am neither a theologian nor a professor of Bible, not even an archaeologist. In fact, until about 20 or so years ago, I had absolutely no interest in anything connected to biblical studies at all. Until then, my background had been in motion pictures, journalism, theater and drama analysis. So, you might well ask, why is Mr. Hain essaying herein? I shall provide two reasons: One, I come from Southern California, the land of deserts, floods, fires and earthquakes, all of which illuminate the biblical text. So I can claim at least a geographical affinity to this seminar. But more than that, as a writer and dramatist, I am familiar with the art of make believe, where things aren’t always what they seem, where the hero sometimes is also a villain, and where guilt and innocence are often debatable. This is also true of the Bible, and especially so in Genesis 1–3, as you will soon see. Consequently, I am delighted to essay here, but I am also a little bit puzzled because this session is entitled “Biblical Characters in the Three Faiths and in Literature Seminar” but the topic is”Eve, the Mother and the Goddess of Wisdom”. Now, to my untrained mind the three faiths are Christianity, Islam and Judaism, all of them staunch proponents of (at least a seeming) monotheism. So, where does “a goddess of wisdom” fit in? I see a contradiction. But then, on the one hand, perhaps not. Because Monotheism, Cathenotheism and Polytheism coexisted together for a long time, it was only natural that they sometimes appropriated each other’s myths. I’ll give an example soon. On the other hand, however, 165

166

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

Monotheism, because it embraced the faith in only one powerful God, had to be careful, from the very beginning, to eliminate and eradicate all references to the many gods of Polytheism. Most of the time Monotheism succeeded, but not always. This is the subject I shall tackle herein. So, whenever the authors of the Bible encountered any reference to anything polytheistic, they used a number of counter measures. Firstly, one was to simply absorb the polytheistic element/myth, as long as it didn’t conflict with monotheistic theology. An example is Genesis 2:7 wherein we read that “God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. . .” This is almost identical to a myth about Prometheus, the Greek titan, who created the first humans. He formed them out of clay and water in the likeness of gods, and the goddess Athena breathed life into them. Secondly, in those situations in which the mythological text was at odds with the Hebrew text, but had to be included to make the text plausible, the authors simply deleted the objectionable parts, and we’ll see examples of that too. Thirdly, a method of getting rid of objectionable polytheistic themes was to simply deflect whatever problem there was onto man. That was the easiest, because the biblical God, unlike the Greek gods, had (few to) no enemies, and didn’t get into trouble like other gods. Above all, this God, understood to be all-powerful and all-knowing, does not make mistakes. So, whenever there is a situation in which God seems to have done something wrong, the text blames humans instead. A useful example is the Flood story, a universal myth, including, I might add, another Greek one. Genesis 6:2 holds “It repented the Lord that he had made man.” So, it sounds like God admits to having made a mistake and He is sorry. But, the text has already qualified that admission in the preceding line when we read that mankind was wicked and had been so from the very beginning. So, it was not God’s fault, it was man’s fault; in fact, God really had no choice. We’ll see examples of that “deflecting” technique too. Now, as I look at Genesis 1–3 through the eyes of a dramatist and writer, I notice some glaring gaps in the text—examples of method 2. There are several events that are never explained. Especially troubling is the fact that the God of Genesis 2 is completely different from the God of Genesis 1. In Genesis 1, God is

EVE IN EDEN

167

always up there in the heavens, creating things by opening his mouth and pronouncing judgment on his work. That’s what a real God does. Now look at the difference in Genesis 2. Suddenly, without explanation, he is on earth, and instead of commanding events to happen, he has to do everything himself. He has to plant the Garden in which Adam is meant to work; then he has to transport Adam there; he has to collect the animals to be named; he even has to operate on Adam because something didn’t quite work out, and later he has to make clothing for him. He seems to have been reduced to a general handyman. And most disturbingly, he has temporarily a different name. He is now called Lord God (Yahweh Elohim in Hebrew), when before he was only Elohim. The word ’Yahweh’ has always been subject to many interpretations, one of them being that ’he will be what he will be’. And I called his name change temporary, because the name Lord God appears only in Gen. 2–3; In Gen. 4, the Cain and Abel story, God is again upstairs, passing judgment on Cain. So, since we already have drawn on Greek mythology once, can we perhaps now find another Greek myth, this time one that might resemble whatever happened to God? Here we mean a story of a god being banished temporarily to earth, being deprived of some of his powers and being relegated to carrying out menial tasks. We are, indeed, able to do so, and it is one of the many myths associated with Apollo. Here, briefly, is that story. It seems that some time after the famous conspiracy by some deities to dethrone Zeus, Apollo had disobeyed Zeus and had incurred his wrath on a number of occasions. In return, an angry Zeus was going to banish Apollo permanently to Tartarus, but Leto—whoever she was—-interceded for him. She promised that Apollo would mend his ways, that he would really regret what he had done, and would be a more moderate deity from now on. Consequently, Zeus relented and sentenced Apollo to merely one year of servitude in the stables of King Admetus. Now, look at the parallels between these two stories: Both gods end up on earth. Apollo serves there for only one year and, as we know, Yahweh Elohim does not spend much time in Eden either. Also, Apollo’s work in the stables parallels Yahweh Elohim’s menial labors on behalf of Adam. The parallels and analogy demonstrate our point. But we still don’t know WHY the god Yahweh Elohim was punished. So, why

168

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

not search earlier accounts in the biblical text? With any kind of luck, perhaps we’ll find more similarities to the Apollo myth! And guess what? Luck is with us! There ARE more similarities, and most clearly in Genesis1:26–28. This is what the text tells us: “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea … “ Now read to Genesis 1: 27: “So God created man in his own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” And now consult Genesis 1:28 “Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply: fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Now I can tell you this: Here, seen through the eyes of a dramatist, not a Bible scholar, are all the facts and all the reasons behind the biblical God’s sudden—and unexplained—demotion. But we have to look closely, because the biblical authors, for obvious reasons, had to stay away from anything that even slightly resembled Polytheism. Let us re-read Genesis 1: 26–28, this time very carefully. We start out with God asking for man to be “made” in “our” image, but God “creates” man in “his” image. Right here we have two glaring contradictions: ’Our image’ versus ’his image’ and ’make’ versus ’create’. So let’s be honest: What we have here are two gods disagreeing not only about what man should look like—“our image” vs. “his image”—but also on how he should be formed—“made” vs. “create”. This disagreement between our gods imitates the dispute between Zeus and Apollo. Not only that, the second god creates (hu)man(kind) “male and female”, for which the first god had never asked. More on this later. Now, for all of the skeptics, here is Genesis 1:28 “And God blessed them and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply”. Why do we need the word ’God’ twice? The answer is because one God blesses and the other God commands. Still not convinced? Read Genesis 1:22 “And God blessed them, saying be fruitful and multiply.” We read the same command as in 1:28, but this time there is only one God. So, we indeed have two gods in 1:28. Not that we need additional evidence about a disagreement between these two gods, but the second one also told his creatures to “be fruitful and multiply,” something the first god never even mentioned. So now we have established an even closer similarity between the dispute of our two gods on the one hand, and between Zeus

EVE IN EDEN

169

and Apollo on the other. But we can also see why none of this could appear in the Hebrew Scriptures. In Monotheism, there is the editorial and ideational intention and attempt to present but one deity. At this juncture it is reasonable to ask whether the Apollo analogy may be pursued even further. We answer in the affirmative. Apollo regretted what he had done, but does the god Yahweh Elohim: the one who reputedly never makes a mistake? He has, and he does. Look at Genesis 1:31 “Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.” So where is the mistake? Once more, it takes a careful reading. God is proud of everything he has made, as indeed he should be, but—and here’s the catch—he did not MAKE man, He CREATED him. Again a very convenient way of getting around a mistake by God: Ignore it. And once the text tells us that this God has made a mistake and regrets it, everything else in Genesis 2 and 3 falls into place. Now we know why Adam, for instance, who was supposed to rule and dominate the earth, suddenly ends up, again without explanation, as a laborer and watchman in “a garden to the east”. Evidently, the man the second god created “in his own image” did not live up to expectations. But to his credit, the second god regrets his mistake immediately, just as Apollo had done. Now we come to another mistake, and this time the god even admits it. But, remember the flood story? It started out as God’s mistake but ended up as man’s. And the following scene does the same. As Ecclesiastes 1:9 b maintains, “There is nothing new under the sun.” I refer you to Genesis 2:18 “And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Now if that isn’t an admission of error, what is? And how does the text extricate God from this dilemma? For the answer, we must go back to the creation of Adam and Eve as “male and female”. This had to be an unusual process, for it is not mentioned in the creation of all the other animals. For that reason, we can assume—and some commentators have also mentioned this—that Adam and Eve were created back to back. By the way, this also finds an echo in Greek mythology, which mentions several gods with two heads and unusual physical features, including sexual ones.

170

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

So let us posit the creation of an Adam and Eve back to back. Because of that, they can’t move very well. This is also mentioned in various non-biblical texts and is even supported in this chapter “God ’placed’ Adam into the Garden (Gen. 2:8 and 15)” and “God ’brought’ the animals to Adam (Gen. 2:19)”. And since they would have difficulties copulating, God himself has to look for a mate among the animals, since he had expected Adam and Eve to be “fruitful and multiply”. And the reason we know God looked, and not Adam, is in Genesis 2:20. “But for Adam there was not found a helper.” Please note the passive voice in “there was not found.” If Adam had looked, the text may well have said: “but Adam couldn’t find a helper”. So God has only one recourse: He has to split the two completely apart, and he does. This calls for major surgery. But that’s not the story we get in Genesis 2. Adam is not the monstrosity even the animals rejected. Here he is merely a lonely man looking, in vain, for a helper. So God feels sorry for him, takes a small rib out of him (or perhaps, continuing our analogy above, the “back side” of him!) and creates Eve. End of episode. This time, the biblical authors used two methods in their defense of God. They excised the polytheistic parts of the story, and the rest they blamed on Adam, as they had in the Flood story. If only he hadn’t been so picky in his search for a companion. It was his fault, and God did him a favor by creating an Eve for him. Like Apollo, he now wanted to atone for defying his God. Actually, both repentants atone, eventually, but first comes the reckoning. These gods, both Hebrew and Greek, don’t forget, and they don’t forgive, especially disobedience. And that’s how both Apollo and our second god appear suddenly on earth in Genesis 2. But again, the punishment of one god by another is impossible in our seemingly monotheistic text. So that part of the story also had to be ignored. And now, since we have an idea of what happened in Genesis 1 and 2, we get a better picture of the events in Genesis 3, especially the behavior of the posited, now-demoted god. Since we now recognize him as a repentant deity, we also understand—in hindsight—why he acted the way he did. For instance, when he told Adam and Eve not to eat of The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, He didn’t so much tell them as plead with them. His tone sounded like, “for God’s sake, please don’t eat of that tree because if you do, you will die.” He knew, having created two far-

EVE IN EDEN

171

from-perfect humans, that Adam and Eve were not capable of ruling anything and that having too much wisdom would be a detriment, not a mandate or advantage. Little does he realize what is about to take place under the “fruit” tree. But the text also recognizes that this is not the powerful god of Genesis. None of his punishments of Adam and Eve amount to anything. He warned them that they would die if they ate from the tree, but they didn’t die. He promised that their path would be full of thorns and thistles, but it never happened. He warned them that they would be eating the grass of the field, but that didn’t happen either. And at the end, just to let Adam and Eve know how really sorry he was, he made garments for them. But none of this soft side of this god is brought out in the text, and you know why. So now that we have a completely changed image of the god Yahweh Elohim, is anything else different? To begin with, let’s look at the serpent, who is traditionally seen as the evil and crafty seducer of Eve. But here he, i.e., the serpent, is the exact opposite. First, we must keep in mind that the serpent also has healing powers, as he did during the exodus, when Moses fashioned a bronze replica of one to save the Israelites after a plague. And don’t forget that the coiled serpent has always been the symbol of medicine in the West. But the important thing to keep in mind is that this serpent was there even before the creator god wanted the soon-to-becreated humans to rule and dominate the earth. He was also there when the rebellious god messed up with Adam, and being the shrewdest animal around—the text said so—he knew that this god was more bark than bite. So the serpent could honestly say to Eve “Don’t be ridiculous—you’re not going to die if you eat from that tree. In fact, if you do eat, you’ll be like a god, knowing good from evil.” It is quite possible that the serpent then told Eve why she should eat—that she was entitled to knowing good from evil, so she could rule the world as promised. But the text again can’t talk about that. All we know is that Eve, after first being afraid to eat, eventually decides to go ahead and defy this god, come what may. I’ve saved the most critical aspect of this narrative for last, because it sums up the entire story of creation. I am referring, of course, to nakedness. The interesting thing about nakedness is that it has never been mentioned before, but now it is about to dominate the entire chapter. But when and where did it start?

172

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

According to the accepted interpretation, nakedness is the direct and immediate consequence of Adam and Eve’s eating of the forbidden fruit. The text is very clear on this. Genesis 3:6–7 states “And she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.” And this point is repeated in Genesis 3:11, when the god confronts Adam and Eve after the eating episode. A shocked god cries out, deeply disappointed: “Look what happened! Now you’re naked! How could you have done this! Didn’t I warn you about eating from this tree?” I’m paraphrasing, of course, but the meaning is plain. It was all the fault of Adam and Eve. They sinned, and they are punished with nakedness and ever-lasting shame. But the following lines tell a totally different story. So is this perhaps another attempt to make a monotheistic God look good? Let’s look at the lines of Gensis 3:8 and 10, with 10 first “I heard your voice in the garden and I was afraid because I was naked, and I hid myself.” What is significant here is not what was said but what was not said. Adam never once expresses shame, nor guilt, nor remorse, nor does he ask for forgiveness. All he confesses is fear. But of what was he afraid? Now look at Genesis 3:8. “And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day . . .” But the word “sound” is also the word for “voice”, and the “voice of the lord” often indicates thunder and lightning. And the “cool of the day” is self-explanatory. It was getting towards evening and bad weather loomed on the horizon. So, why did they hide? Because they were cold! And that, as the text has just told us, is the entire story behind nakedness. Not shame, not guilt, not sin. It was the weather. In order to keep warm, they plucked fig leaves initially from a tree because they were cold, and as the weather became colder, they used animal skins to keep warm. And when you really, really think about it, there is not the slightest hint of shame or embarrassment in the story as we know it. But some early writer or interpreter connected the fig leaves with shame. “They saw they were naked. They covered themselves with fig leaves. So they must have been ashamed.” But that same person could also have concluded that “they were naked and cold, so they covered themselves with fig leaves.”

EVE IN EDEN

173

So what’s the big deal with nakedness? To the biblical writers, nakedness was too closely connected with Greek mythology. Let’s turn briefly once more to Prometheus, the titan who created the first humans out of clay. That myth proved to be no problem, since it was similar to the biblical account. Nakedness is another story. In this myth, Prometheus is again the creator of (hu)mankind. In fact, he gives fire to them. But he also angered Zeus in various ways, so Zeus had Prometheus chained naked to a pillar in the Caucasus Mountains, where a vulture tore at his liver every day. The liver grew back every night, during which Prometheus endured much pain, because he was exposed to frost and cold. What is important here are nakedness, cold and frost, and the creator of mankind is involved in all of them. But the Bible has already admitted that Adam and Eve were already naked and cold before they ate, making this another mistake of our rebellious god Yahweh Elohim. But on the one hand, this god does not make mistakes—so nakedness has to be eliminated from early creation for that reason alone. On the other hand, we also have another deity, Prometheus, who had a dispute with a superior god and was banished, in addition to being punished. So many parallels! And when we consider that Prometheus was the creator of mankind and was cold and naked, a scary thought looms. Is it possible that somebody long ago combined the two gods into one? Then we would have a naked god creating a naked human in his own image. And this is something our monotheistic authors could not handle. And so, the old deflection method was used again. Nakedness could not possibly be God’s fault. It had to be the humans, especially Eve who, being a woman, would be more apt to feel shame on being naked. Now it would be easy to call this just another Bible tale, similar to the Flood story and the Cain and Abel story. But there is a big difference. Cain, one of our ancestors, killed his brother Abel, but not all of us are murderers. Another ancestor, Noah, got drunk, but not all of us are alcoholics. The Eden story is different. It still resonates with us today. We are still naked, and we’re still cold. And as did Adam and Eve long ago, we are still in conflict with nature. They destroyed trees and killed animals to survive, and we do the same thing. We also have to cut down trees and destroy ecosystems to satisfy one of our basic needs—to keep warm. And

174

EVE: THE UNBEARABLE FLAMING FIRE

as did Adam and Eve, we don’t do this for enjoyment, but for survival. In other words, nakedness is our fate, not our fault. And this is one of the unfortunate results of the need of Monotheism to protect (a very vulnerable) God from any or all mistakes. By assigning the blame for nakedness to Eve instead of creation, Monotheism has also shifted the blame on all of Eve’s descendents. By associating nakedness with shame and guilt, instead of what it is, an evolutionary event, Monotheism has filled all of Eve’s children with guilt and shame, but especially women. After all, it was HER fault. If she had only listened to God! Just recently a therapist told me that she has observed feelings of guilt more so in Jewish and Catholic women, the two faiths that are (along with Islam) perhaps more closely connected with Monotheism than any other. So, when all is said and done, we now understand why the repentant god, when he made warm garments for Adam and Eve before he sent them into the cold world, did so without saying a word. After all, what could he possibly have said?