The Serpent Was Right

Genesis 5:5 says that Adam lived nine hundred thirty years and then he died. The longevity of the patriarchs has been a matter of debate. The many different interpretations about the age of the patriarchs demonstrate that scholars have not yet found a good explanation for the longevity of the antediluvian population.

The statement that Adam died at the ripe old-age of nine hundred thirty years is surprising in light of God’s words to Adam in Genesis 2:17.

After God made man and placed him in the garden of Eden, God gave Adam the following command: “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Genesis 2:16-17).

When Adam told Eve of God’s prohibition, he probably also told her that they were forbidden even to touch the fruit of the tree, for when the serpent enticed Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree, Eve said to the serpent: “God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die’” (Genesis 3:3).

In response to Eve’s reluctance to eat of the fruit, the serpent said to the woman: “You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:4-5).

The serpent was right. The serpent did not lie, for everything the serpent said to Eve happened. This is what happened:

1. Eve touched the fruit (Genesis 3:6) and nothing happened.
2. Eve ate the fruit and gave it to Adam who was by her side (Genesis 3:6) and neither of them died.
3. Adam and Eve became like God, knowing good and evil. God himself said that, after Adam and Eve ate of the tree: “Then the LORD God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil’” (Genesis 3:22).

If the serpent was right and Adam and Eve did not die when they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, what then did God mean when he told Adam that “in the day that you eat of it you shall die?”

The Hebrew construction of the verb in Genesis 2:17 includes two forms of the verb מות (to die): the infinitive absolute and the imperfect. In Hebrew, the infinitive absolute emphasizes an action when it immediately precedes the finite verb.

Gesenius, in his Hebrew Grammar (113n) wrote:

“The infinitive absolute used before the verb to strengthen the verbal idea, I. e. to emphasize in this way either the certainty (especially in the case to threats) or the forcibleness and completeness of an occurrence.” He translates môth tāmûth (מ֥וֹת תָּמֽוּת) thou shalt surely die.

Thus, the full implication of God’s threat to Adam is clear: Adam must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for the moment he would eat from it he would die. But Adam ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and he did not die. So, how must one understand God’s prohibition in Genesis 2:17?

One way to interpret the divine prohibition is to say that since one day with God is like a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8), then Adam died before “the Lord’s day” was over.

Another way of interpreting the prohibition is by taking the infinitive form of the verb and translating it as a verbal noun: “dying you shall die.” Thus, God’s threat means that if Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil then, he would eventually die. The Septuagint translates 2:17 as “you shall die by death.”

Another interpretation is that if Adam disobeyed God’s command, he would become mortal. However, this interpretation contradicts Genesis because the book seems to imply that humans were already mortal. The book of Genesis says that man would only live forever after eating from the tree of life: “Then the LORD God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever’” (Genesis 3:22).

In his commentary on Genesis 1-11 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1984), p. 224, Claus Westermann cites Th. C. Vriezen’s study of the expression “in the day” (Genesis 2:17) to explain that death would not occur the day Adam violated the command. According to Vriezen, the expression “in the day” has a general meaning in the Old Testament and that the expression must not be understood literally, inferring that death would occur immediately after the transgression.

According to Westermann, God’s words to Adam, “in the day that you eat of it you shall die,” “is not a threat of death, but rather the clear expression of the limit which is the necessary accompaniment of the freedom entrusted to humanity in the command. To say no to God–and this is what freedom allows–is ultimately to say no to life; for life comes from God” (p. 224).

I believe that the divine threat should be taken literally, that Adam and Eve should have died on the day they violated the prohibition not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I disagree with Gordon J. Wenham’s interpretation of this threat as “death before death,” an interpretation that appears in his commentary on Genesis, Word Bible Commentary (Waco: Word Books, Publisher, 1987), p. 74. He wrote: “If to be expelled from the camp of Israel [as lepers were] was to ‘die,’ expulsion from the garden was an even more drastic kind of death. In this sense they did die on the day they ate of the tree: they were no longer able to have daily conversation with God, enjoy his bounteous provision, and eat of the tree of life; instead they had to toil for food, suffer, and eventually return to the dust from which they were taken.”

The reason the divine threat was not fulfilled was because the grace of God intervened and the penalty was not carried out. Probably the best commentary on this verse is found in 2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his word, as he seems to some, but he is waiting in mercy for you, not desiring the destruction of any, but that all may be turned from their evil ways.”

This was the same position taken by John Skinner in his commentary on Genesis: The International Critical Commentary (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), p. 67. According to Skinner, the simple explanation why the punishment was not carried out “is that God, having regard to the circumstances of the temptation, changed His purpose and modified the penalty.”

Westermann also intimates a change in God’s decision to carry out the punishment. He wrote: “After the man and the woman have eaten from the tree, a new situation arises in which God acts differently from the way he had indicated.” God’s failure to carry out the punishment “shows that God’s dealing with his creatures cannot be pinned down, not even by what God has said previously” (p. 225).

Westermann concludes his study of Genesis 2:17 by saying: “And so even God’s acts and words are open to misinterpretation and the serpent makes use of this.” I believe it was Westermann who misinterpreted God’s word to Adam when he said that the words in Genesis 2;17 are not a threat but only a warning.

I do not think the serpent misunderstood God. The serpent knew that Eve would not die because it knew the true nature of God, that he was a compassionate God who is gracious to whom he wants to be gracious and who shows mercy on whom he wants to show mercy (Exodus 33:19).

As the Lord said to Moses at the time he had decided to consume Israel because of their great sin (Exodus 32:10): “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (Exodus 34:6-7).

So, when it comes to understanding God’s acts and words, Westermann was wrong and the serpent was right.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Adam, Eve, Genesis 2:17, Serpent

Congenital Human Baculum Deficiency, Adam’s Rib, and the Formation of Eve

In our English Bibles, the word “rib” appears only in Genesis 2:21-22, a text which says that when Yahweh created the first woman, he took a şēlā‛ “rib” from Adam and used it to build (bānâ) a woman (Genesis 2:21-22).

The meaning of the word “rib” in this context is disputed. Scholars have used mythology, comparative religion, anthropology, and sociology to explain its meaning.

This text has also been used by feminist theologians to describe the lesser, equal, or higher value of women in relation to men.

There are several possible meanings for the word “rib” in this context. What follows is taken from H.-J. Fabry’s article on şēlā‛ in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 12:400-403:

1. The etiological interpretation. This view suggests that the words of Genesis 2:21-22 explain the origin of the navel in the first human being, the absence of ribs in the stomach area, or the sexual urge that exists between men and women.

2. The mythological interpretation. This view says that the words of Genesis 2:21-22 explain how the crescent moon became a symbol of fertility. Another view is that these words contain echoes of the Sumerian Dilmum myth according to which the healing goddess Ninti, “mistress of the rib/of life” (cf. Genesis 3:20), was formed from the rib of Enki.

3. The anthropological interpretation. This view says that the rib is a reference to the ape tail of early human beings.

4. The associative interpretation. This view emphasizes that the “rib” stands for the slender female figure, the crescent moon, the procreative organ, a “side” for the female breast, or, because the rib is close to the heart, that the word “rib” means “human inwardness.”

5. The linguistic association interpretation. This view asserts that the Hebrew word şēlā‛ is similar to the Sumerian word TI, a word which means “life,” “rib.” Another view asserts that the word comes from the Akkadian selu, “life.” Thus, the word “rib” explains the meaning of the name Eve, “mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20). H.-J. Fabry says that the Hebrew does not support this word association. In addition, the use of şēlā‛ in Genesis 2:21-22 has no relationship with the Dilmun myth.

6. The metaphorical interpretation. This view suggests “that because the rib is not an essential body part, creating the woman from a rib did not disfigure the human person or change human nature.” However, H.-J. Fabry says that describing the rib as a nonessential part of the body reveals the antifemale component of this interpretation.

7. The sociological interpretation. This view suggests that since man was alone, the woman was created to stand at a man’s side and fill a void in his life.

8. The psychological interpretation. This view, which has been accepted by many feminist theologians, says that Genesis 2:21-22 reflects the splitting of the androgynous primal human being and its sexual differentiation.

All these different methods of interpretation presuppose that the word şēlā‛ literally means “rib.” However, of all the instances of the use of this word in the Old Testament, this is the only place where the word means a human rib.

This unique meaning of the word has led many scholars to look for a different solution to the meaning of “rib” in Genesis 2:21-22.

The most common solution is to relate the word şēlā‛ (rib) to the verb bānâ. Since the Hebrew word bānâ does not refer to the creation of human beings but carries the idea of building and the word şēlā‛ is associated with the sides of the temple in Jerusalem that are essential to the stability of the building, most scholars believe that the words şēlā‛ and bānâ in Genesis 2:21-22 are related to sacred architecture, primarily the construction of the sanctuary. Thus, the author of Genesis 2 may be suggesting that man and woman were created as God’s temple.

In light of this interpretation, H.-J. Fabry says:

Some interpreters understand şēlā‛ here too as a term from sacral architecture. The relationship formula in v. 23a, also to be ascribed to J, suggests on the one hand that şēlā‛ refers to a (bony) human part, while on the other hand J himself sensed that this particular semantic component was not necessarily comprehensible to all readers, which is why in v. 23 he speaks about ‘esem, “bones,” suggesting that even during the early monarchy, şēlā‛ was understood primarily as a term from sacred architecture (p. 402).

In light of the possible meaning of şēlā‛ as a bony human part, two scholars have proposed a unique interpretation for the meaning of şēlā‛ in Genesis 2:21-22.

Scott F. Gilbert, Professor of Biology at the Martin Biological Laboratories, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania and Ziony Zevit, Professor of Biblical Literature at the University of Judaism, Los Angeles, California, wrote an article, “Congenital human baculum deficiency: The generative bone of Genesis 2:21-23,” published in the American Journal of Medical Genetics, Part A, Volume 101, Issue 3 , Pages 284 - 285, in which they propose that this bony human part, the şēlā‛ , was the male baculum.

Gilbert and Zevit argue that every human male lacks a baculum, an os penis or penile bone, which is common to most mammals and most primates. After explaining the presence of bacula in mammals and its absence in human males, the authors relate the male baculum to the formation of Eve:

One of the creation stories in Genesis may be an explanatory myth wherein the Bible attempts to find a cause for why human males lack this particular bone. Our opinion is that Adam did not lose a rib in the creation of Eve. Any ancient Israelite (or for that matter, any American child) would be expected to know that there is an equal (and even) number of ribs in both men and women. Moreover, ribs lack any intrinsic generative capacity. We think it is far more probable that it was Adam’s baculum that was removed in order to make Eve. That would explain why human males, of all the primates and most other mammals, did not have one. The Hebrew noun translated as "rib", tzela (tzade, lamed, ayin), can indeed mean a costal rib. It can also mean the rib of a hill (2 Samuel 16:13), the side chambers (enclosing the temple like ribs, as in 1 Kings 6:5,6), or the supporting columns of trees, like cedars or firs, or the planks in buildings and doors (l Kings 6:15,16). So the word could be used to indicate a structural support beam. Interestingly, Biblical Hebrew, unlike later rabbinic Hebrew, had no technical term for the penis and referred to it through many circumlocutions. When rendered into Greek, sometime in the second century BCE, the translators used the word pleura, which means side, and would connote a body rib (as the medical term pleura still does). This translation, enshrined in the Septuagint, the Greek Bible of the early church, fixed the meaning for most of western civilization, even though the Hebrew was not so specific.

In addition, Genesis 2:21 contains another etiological detail: “The Lord God closed up the flesh”. This detail would explain the peculiar visible sign on the penis and scrotum of human males-the raphé. In the human penis and scrotum, the edges of the urogenital folds come together over the urogenital sinus (urethral groove) to form a seam, the raphé. If this seam does not form, hypospadias of the glans, penis, and scrotum can result. The origin of this seam on the external genitalia was “explained” by the story of the closing of Adam's flesh. Again, the wound associated with the generation of Eve is connected to Adam’s penis and not this rib (p. 284).

If Gilbert’s and Zevit’s interpretation of tzela is correct, then the words Adam spoke when he saw Eve for the first time make a lot of sense:

“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Genesis 2:23).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Adam, Baculum, Eve, Genesis 2:21-22, Rib

I Will Make of Thee a Great Nation: A Book Review

This post is a review of the book I Will Make of Thee a Great Nation (Salt Lake City, UT: American University & Colleges Press, 2008) by Val D. Greenwood.

The subtitle of the book says that the book contains “Old Testament stories as told by Val D. Greenwood.” In the preface of his book, the author says that the purpose of his book is to make the great stories of the Bible “available for adult study in a simple, straightforward style” (p. ix). His goal is to help readers of these stories gain a deeper appreciation for the Old Testament. He said: “I hope . . . that the stories you read here will introduce you to the Old Testament, enhance your scriptural experience, and help you find deeper meaning in the Old Testament canon.”

After reading several stories from the book, I found many problems of interpretation and a large amount of eisegesis which take away the pleasure of reading and enjoying these Old Testament stories.

Since my time and space are limited, I chose to select two stories from the book in order to highlight some of the problems I have with the way Greenwood tells his stories. I have posted these two selections here. If you have not read them I suggest that you read the two selections before reading my review.

These are only some of the problems I found; I could mention several others. Take, for instance, story number 2, “The Serpant [sic] Deceived Me.” In Greenwood’s story Adam said: “I now know that she is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man, and the two of us together shall be one flesh. And for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife.” This is a paraphrase of Genesis 2:23-24.

There are two problems with Greenwood’s interpretation. First, the addition of “and the two of us together shall be one flesh,” is not in the text and reflects a modern day effort to emphasize the sanctity of marriage. There is nothing wrong in emphasizing the sanctity of marriage, but this emphasis is not present in the story.

Second, Adam did not say “And for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife.” This statement was said by the author of Genesis in order to explain what Adam said about Eve.

Greenwood wrote: “God told Adam and Eve that they could eat the fruit of every tree, except that which came from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” This is a paraphrase of Genesis 2:16-17. Greenwood’s statement is false. The problem with his interpretation is that God spoke these words only to Adam, not to Adam and Eve since Eve was not yet in existence.

Greenwood wrote: “Adam and Eve enjoyed their lives in the garden and were kept busy caring for it. They were also busy naming the animals.” This statement is also false, since in Genesis 2:19-20, Adam names the animals before Eve was created. In fact, it is during the naming of the animals that Adam realized that there was no one who could be his partner.

As for story number 6, “In You and In Your Seed,” the story as told by Greenwood is filled with inaccuracies and misstatements. As most Bible students know, the word “Chaldeans” in Genesis 11:28 is an anachronism since the Chaldeans did not come into prominence until the seventh century B.C. But since Genesis 11:28 mentions the Chaldeans, the presence of the Chaldeans in Greenwood’s story is acceptable. What is not acceptable is to say that “The Egyptians had great influence among the Chaldeans.” I do not know where the author found this information; the statement is historically inaccurate.

It is also inaccurate to say that “Abram's father and most of his family, worshipped the false Egyptian gods.” This is not true. At Shechem Joshua told the Israelites: “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Long ago your ancestors -- Terah and his sons Abraham and Nahor -- lived beyond the Euphrates and served other gods” (Joshua 24:2). If Terah and his family worshiped other gods, and they did, these gods were Mesopotamian gods, not Egyptian gods.

It is also inaccurate to say that “Abram, however, because of his righteousness, did not turn to idolatry,” since as Joshua 24:2 clearly says that Abraham worshiped other gods. The truth is that Abraham abandoned the gods of his father after he came to the knowledge of Yahweh.

To say that “A great famine swept the land of Chaldea and Abram's family suffered greatly. As the famine reached its peak, Terah left Ur” is just a guess because the Bible does not say that Terah and his family left Ur because of a great famine. Personally, I believe that this is not true. If one would guess a reason for their migration, probably the wars in Mesopotamia at the beginning of the second millennium would be a better reason.

The statement, “Terah eventually died at the age of 205 years. After Terah's death, when Abram was 75 years old, Jehovah appeared to him in answer to his prayers and told him to take Lot and go to the land of Canaan,” is not true. Genesis 11:26 says: “When Terah had lived seventy years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran.” If Abraham was born when his father was 70 years old and he left to Canaan when he was 75 years old, then he could not have left after Terah’s death, since Terah died at the age of 205.

The statement, “Abram left Haran as Jehovah commanded him, taking his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, the people they had converted in Haran, and . . . arrived at a place called Jershon,” is not Biblical since the place called “Jershon” does not appear in the Bible but in The Book of Mormon. According to The Book of Mormon, the land of Jershon was located “on the east by the sea, which joins the land Bountiful, which is on the south of the land Bountiful.”

Another statement that is full of inaccuracies and eisegesis is the statement about Abraham and Sarah in Egypt. Greenwood wrote:

The Pharaoh was pleased with Sarai because of her beauty, and he pleaded with Abram because of her–offering many gifts if Abram would give Sarai to him for a wife. But, though Abram declined, Jehovah brought great plagues upon the Pharaoh and his house because of Sarai.

The Pharaoh became very angry when he finally learned that Sarai was Abram's wife. "Look at the trouble you have caused me," he said to Abram, accusing him. "Why did you tell me she is your sister and not your wife? Do you not know that I might have taken her as my wife? You must take her now and leave my country."

Greenwood said that Abraham declined Pharaoh’s offer, but he did not: “Therefore he [Pharaoh] treated Abram well for her sake; and gave him sheep and oxen and donkeys and male and female servants and female donkeys and camels” (Genesis 12:16).

Greenwood put these words in Pharaoh’s mouth: “Do you not know that I might have taken her as my wife?” But this is not correct. Genesis 12:19 says: “Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her for my wife?”

I could go on and on pointing to problems of interpretation in Greenwood’s stories. Anyone who reads this book will not gain a better understanding of the Old Testament. To the contrary, the many inaccuracies that I found in only two stories, the faulty exegesis of the text, and the incorporation of Mormon geography into the stories of the Old Testament demonstrate that those who read this book will get a distorted view of the Old Testament.

Although I wish Greenwood well, I cannot recommend his book to anyone. As an Old Testament teacher, I am very jealous about the correct teaching of the Old Testament and I feel that this book does not present a good overview of the true teachings of the Old Testament.

Anyone who wants to read the stories of the Old Testament in “a simple, straightforward style” should get a copy of the Good News Bible, or the New Living Bible, or even The Message and enjoy God’s word in a style that is easy to understand.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Abraham, Adam, Eve, Sarah

A Book To Be Reviewed

Once in while I receive requests from authors asking me to review their books on my blog. Generally, these people are authors who are seeking an audience for their books. Since my blog has a large audience both nationally and internationally, some authors believe that a review by me can expose their book to a large audience.

Recently, I received an email from Val Greenwood, asking me if I would be interested in reviewing his book. The following is an excerpt from his email:

Dear Dr. Mariottini,

I hope you will forgive me for contacting you this way, but I admire the work you do at the Northern Baptist Seminary and have also appreciated your informative blog.

The reason for this contact is to invite you to review my forthcoming book of Old Testament stories on your blog (though I know that it is extremely rare for you to do such reviews).

My book, entitled I Will Make of Thee a Great Nation, will be released on Feb. 2, 2009. The publisher is American Book Publishing (under the imprint "American University & Colleges Press"). Perhaps you have already heard of this unique book.

The book is a collection of more than 200 Old Testament stories written for Christian adults and young adults in modern English. It is not a scholarly tome and does not pretend to be so. Rather, it is an easy to read book that is intended to help the typical Christian understand and appreciate the Old Testament. You will find it to be simple but not simplistic. A review on the Christian Book Reviews website gives it 5 stars as an essential tool for those involved in religious education.

My son read one of the stories on the publisher’s web page and encouraged me to review the book. After I received the review copy, I read several of the stories in preparation to review the book.

Before I publish my review of the book, I have decided to give you, the reader, an opportunity to read excerpts from the book so that you can make your own judgment. Below are two excerpts, taken from story # 2 and story # 6. Read these two excerpts, evaluate what you read, and then come back tomorrow and read my review of the book.

What follows are the two excerpts from the book:

2-THE SERPANT (sic) DECEIVED ME
(Genesis 2-3)

After God created the first man, he gave him the breath of life and named him Adam. Then God planted a beautiful garden in a place called Eden and put Adam in the garden to tend and cultivate it.
God, understanding that it was not good for man to be alone, took a rib from Adam's side and created from it a woman to be Adam's wife and his help. The woman was essential to God's plan because his full purposes for his children could never be accomplished by man alone. Adam called the woman Eve because she was the mother of all living, and Adam and Eve lived together in the Garden. Adam understood that man was not complete without woman and that Eve, as his wife, was part of him. Said he, "I now know that she is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man, and the two of us together shall be one flesh. And for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife."

The garden was filled with trees, and the trees bore much fruit. Among those many trees were two of special significance-the tree of life and, standing in the middle of the garden, the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God told Adam and Eve that they could eat the fruit of every tree, except that which came from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. "You are free to choose for yourself," God said to them, "but remember that I forbid it. And you will surely die in the day you eat the fruit of that tree."

Adam and Eve enjoyed their lives in the garden and were kept busy caring for it. They were also busy naming the animals, for God had told Adam that whatever he called an animal, that would be its name.

6-IN YOU AND IN YOUR SEED
(Genesis 11-13)

About 200 years after the Tower of Babel," a young man named Abram-a descendant of Shem-lived with his family in a place called Ur, among a people known as Chaldeans." Included in Abram's family were his father Terah, his brothers Nahor and Haran, and his wife Sarai.
The Egyptians had great influence among the Chaldeans, and many of the people, including Abram's father and most of his family, worshipped the false Egyptian gods. Abram, however, because of his righteousness, did not turn to idolatry. Rather, he sought to have the blessings of God in his life
A great famine swept the land of Chaldea and Abram's family suffered greatly. As the famine reached its peak, Terah left Ur, taking with him Abram, Sarai, and Haran's son Lot. They traveled to a place that they named Haran after Abram's late brother who had died at Ur. They settled for several years in Haran, and it was there that Terah eventually died at the age of 205 years.
After Terah's death, when Abram was 75 years old, Jehovah appeared to him in answer to his prayers and told him to take Lot and go to the land of Canaan. He also made great promises to Abram, what we call the Abrahamic covenant. "You will be a minister to bear God's name in a strange land," Jehovah declared, "and I will give this land to you and your seed forever if they will obey my voice. Indeed, I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you. I will make you a great nation, and in you and in your seed shall all families of the earth be blessed."

Abram left Haran as Jehovah commanded him, taking his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, the people they had converted in Haran, and all the substance that they had gained there. Journeying southward toward the land of Canaan, they dwelt in tents along the way. But travel was difficult because there was a famine in the land.
When the travelers arrived at a place called Jershon, Abram built an altar and prayed to Jehovah that the famine would be turned away from his father's house so that they would not perish. When they reached Shechem, Abram felt uneasy because the land was filled with Canaanites and he did not know what to expect from them. When he prayed for guidance, his prayer was answered by a visit from Jehovah, who told him, "Behold, Abram I will give this land to your seed." And Abram built an altar at Shechem to Jehovah.
As Abram and Lot moved slowly through the land; they worshipped God and built many altars. One of these was on a mountain east of Beth-el, a place to which Abram and Lot would later return when the famine was past. But, for fear of perishing from starvation, they determined to go into Egypt, where they lived for many years. As Abram prepared to enter Egypt, he spoke to Sarai: "You are a woman very fair to look upon," he told her. "When the Egyptians see you, they will say, 'She is his wife,' and they will then kill me and save you. However, if you tell them you are my sister, we shall both live."
When the Egyptian princes saw Sarai, believing her to be Abram's sister, they spared both of their lives and took Sarai into the Pharaoh's house. Abram, at the same time, was given great honors by Pharaoh.
The Pharaoh was pleased with Sarai because of her beauty, and he pleaded with Abram because of her–offering many gifts if Abram would give Sarai to him for a wife. But, though Abram declined, Jehovah brought great plagues upon the Pharaoh and his house because of Sarai.
The Pharaoh became very angry when he finally learned that Sarai was Abram's wife. "Look at the trouble you have caused me," he said to Abram, accusing him. "Why did you tell me she is your sister and not your wife? Do you not know that I might have taken her as my wife? You must take her now and leave my country."

Read my review and evaluation tomorrow (click here).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Abraham, Adam, Eve, Sarah

The Bible and Pre-Adamic Man

Jay D. Homnick, in an article published in The Jewish Press discusses the biblical and Talmudic views of Creation. In his article Homnick deals with how the Talmud views and interprets God’s act of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. He also discusses the reluctance some people today have dealing with people such as Darwin and Dawkins and “their contention that the processes of natural development could have occurred without being set in motion and/or guided by a supreme Creator.”

In his article, Homnick also discusses how the Bible and the Talmud deals with the issue of prehistoric man. Interpreting passages such as Psalm 105:8 and 1 Chronicles 16:15, the Talmud says that there were 974 generations of prehistoric man that existed before Adam.

The following is an excerpt of Homnick’s article:

As startling as this approach must have been to the assumed orthodoxies in other religions and secular systems, nothing can compare in bombshell status to the biblically hinted, and Talmudically expounded, notion of prehistoric man.

The Talmud in Shabbos (88b) indicates there were 974 generations of prehistoric man. In Chagiga (13b) the Talmud sounds more like those generations were never actualized. The Midrash Rabba (Genesis 28) says they were wiped out.

While it remains somewhat unclear exactly what these 974 generations represent, this seems to be a matter of prime importance that is stressed in two verses (Psalms 105:8, Chronicles I 16:15). These verses point out that the Torah was given to the thousandth generation, which is explained by the Midrash to mean the 974 prehistoric generations plus the 26 from Adam until Moses.

Apparently, this highlights the high level of Torah – that it took a thousand stages in the creation of man, stages designated as “generations,” before man could receive such exalted wisdom.

The Jews traveled through history for millennia studying the Talmud and Midrash, comfortable with a unique concept of prehistoric man, a concept that gave that creature (or idea) a 974:26 edge in pre-biblical generations.

If geology and archaeology have indeed yielded specimens that are indisputably prehistoric men (I am not expert enough to be certain of this), they are substantiating one of the most mysterious parts of the Jewish intellectual tradition.

Personally, I do not believe that Psalm 105:8 is talking about prehistoric man. What amazes me is that many years before Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species and Richard Dawkins published his book The God Delusion, Jewish scholars were talking about prehistoric creatures that existed before Adam. What is also amazing is that they did not see the idea of the existence of pre-Adamic man as a threat to their faith.

Is there a lesson in the Talmud for twenty-first century Christians?

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Adam, Creation, Darwin, Dawkins, Evolution, Prehistoric Man, Talmud