The Lost World of Adam and Eve (16 page)

Dilmun, located at the mouth of the waters, is the place to which Uta-napishti was taken in the
Gilgamesh Epic
. It is of a place of cultic purity, and in that sense is sacred space, though it is not being set up as such in this myth—it is already that. Differences include the absence of the concept of a garden of God for human and divine interaction.
14
There is a garden in the myth, featuring a number of trees, which the god Enki identifies—he decrees their destinies as he eats from them. Nin
ḫ
ursag curses Enki because she had planted the trees. So, there is a garden on Dilmun, but Dilmun itself is not a garden. Furthermore, this garden is neither a site of divine-human interaction nor a place for human dwelling. Dilmun is certainly not a paradise but an inchoate scenario in which destinies have not yet been decreed (order has not yet been established).
15

As the myth closes, Nin
ḫ
ursag is asking Enki what parts of him hurt. He identifies several (head, hair, nose, mouth, throat, arm, ribs and sides), and for each one Nin
ḫ
ursag gives birth to a deity, and each of them is then assigned a different role. Scholars have paid particular attention to the one given birth because Enki’s ribs hurt: Ninti (lady of the ribs). When roles are assigned, Ninti is identified as “lady of the month.” The context, however, shows that there is no parallel here of any sort. All the characters are gods, not humans. Ninti is only one in a series of deities associated with various parts of the body, and the goddesses are given birth, not formed. Ninti has no continuing association with Enki. This is not even close enough to be considered a parallel motif. We can see that this myth provides us very little for evaluating or understanding Genesis 2–3. The inclusion of “rib” is incidental.

Jewel Garden of Gilgamesh

In the Neo-Assyrian version of the
Gilgamesh Epic
, Gilgamesh encounters a jewel garden near the end of his quest for Uta-Napishti, the Babylonian flood hero.
16
It is located where Shamash, the sun god, enters and exits each day. Scholars are divided about whether the jewels metaphorically refer to fruit or whether the trees actually grow jewels. While there is no indication of divine presence and no prohibitions or trespass, the motif of jewels in the garden of God is found in Ezekiel 28.

Trees and Fruit

We now turn our attention specifically to the trees in the garden and that which they confer. Despite some general points of contact, no direct parallel exists in the ancient world for the two special trees in the center of the garden, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (= tree of wisdom
17
). First we will summarize what information does exist in the ancient world and then proceed to a discussion of the biblical material.

Adapa.
In the tale of Adapa, we find the main character playing an archetypal role, as has been suggested for Adam and Eve. Here, however, the archetype does not concern human origins and nature but particular human roles. Adapa was one of the first antediluvian sages (the
apkallus
of whom there were seven) and the most famous. These beings were storied as having emerged from the sea and were credited with teaching the arts of civilization. This character is known as late as the Hellenistic compilation of traditions by the Babylonian priest, Berossus.

In the tale known as
Adapa and the South Wind
,
18
Adapa has an encounter with Anu in heaven, where he is offered food of life and water of life. He has been warned by another god, Ea (for whom he is a priest), that this offer is insincere and accepting it will bring his doom. But in that warning he has been deceived, and by declining the offer he, and apparently all of humanity with him, actually loses the chance for eternal life.
19
The text of the Adapa tale is not clear on this issue, but one factor that would suggest that all of humanity is affected by Adapa’s choice is Anu’s exclamation—“Alas for inferior humanity!”
20
—after Adapa refuses the food.

The most important element of the tale of Adapa for our study of Genesis 2–3 is that, by virtue of his priestly position, his actions have ramifications for all of humanity. In a further comparison to Adam, Adapa is perhaps the most famous of the ancient sages, so he already has wisdom; he nevertheless lacks immortality. In contrast, Adam and Eve in Genesis have access to immortality (tree of life) but lack wisdom (associated with the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil).

We can see that Genesis is interested in the same issues as the tale of Adapa, and both of them discuss these issues in terms of representatives of humanity. This is no reason to think that the literary pieces are related in any way or that one is derivative from another. It simply shows us how Genesis is presenting its material in the context of the conversations that occurred in the second millennium
B.C
.
21

Cosmic tree in Eridu.
In a Neo-Assyrian text from Ashurbanipal’s library that features interlinear text in Sumerian and Akkadian, CT 16.46, we encounter a number of motifs that are familiar from Genesis 2–3, as is immediately evident from this translation of the pertinent lines:
22

The
giš-kin
tree
23
here is not a tree whose fruit has special qualities, but a “cosmic tree,” an important feature of cosmology in the ancient cultures.
24
As can be seen here, it has its roots in the netherworld, it is associated with fertile waters, and it is located in a grove associated with a temple housing Shamash (sun god) and Tammuz (netherworld deity). It binds together heaven, earth and the netherworld.
25
Description of this tree can also be seen in Ezekiel 31, where it is compared to the trees of Eden (Ezek 31:18, see also Dan 4).
26
We can therefore see that the cosmic tree motif has some overlap with the trees in Genesis 2–3.

Ancient Near Eastern literature has no obvious parallel to a tree of wisdom, but scholars speak often of a “tree of life” motif. Before turning to that, we should note the plant of life (named “plant of the heart beat” and designated “Old man becomes young”) that Gilgamesh plucks from the
Apsu
(subterranean waters in the cosmological realm of the god Ea). Unfortunately, the plant was subsequently stolen by a serpent.
27
It is also a plant of life (u
₂
nam-til
₃
-la) that sustains Lugalbanda when he has been abandoned by friends in the wilderness because of his sickness.
28
We have already noted the food of life (
akal balati;
here, not specifically a plant) that is offered to Adapa. These three examples have in common that something is ingested that leads to the enhancement of life in some way (respectively, rejuvenation, healing sustenance and immortality).
29
Even though the details vary, the conversation provided by Genesis 2–3 is similar: ingestion is the mode, and enhanced life (unspecified, though presumably immortality as inferred from Gen 3:22) is the objective. The concerns represented in the texts are similar, as are the direction taken by the answers, but the literary contexts vary, as do the beliefs and assertions that emerge. Yet, we can see that it makes sense against the backdrop of the ancient world for the Israelites to formulate the literature the way that they do.
30

Besides these literary occurrences of the motif (something that one eats to gain life), much has been made of the iconography, especially from the Neo-Assyrian period, of what is commonly referred to as the “tree of life” or, preferably, the “sacred tree.”
31
The motif of a sacred tree occurs throughout the ancient Near East across the spectrum of both time and culture.
32
When the tree can be identified botanically, it is typically either a pomegranate or date palm.
33
It is often flanked by winged genies (in Assyria) or some variety of caprids (in the Levant).
34
A winged disk at times appears over the tree. In the Assyrian motif, the genies on either side are often thought to be holding date-palm flower clusters for the purpose of pollination and thus represent fertility.
35
The tree itself is generally understood to represent a god or the king (for the latter, note Dan 4 and Zech 4). No ancient Near Eastern texts offer explanation of the symbolism. If art historians, however, are on the right track, the tree represents
order
more than
life
(seen in the “cosmic tree” motif that we
do
know of in the ancient literature) and would therefore be more comparable in its properties to the tree of wisdom in the garden (given the close association of wisdom and order throughout the Old Testament and the ancient world).

The properties of this sacred tree make it the source of wisdom and order rather than the source of life. Simo Parpola suggests that the tree can represent “man as a microcosm, the ideal man created in the image of God.”
37

Genesis 2–3.
As we found in the previous discussion of the tale of Adapa
,
comparison with CT 16.46 shows that the motifs and themes used in Genesis 2–3 are hardly arbitrary. Instead, the story includes concepts familiar to people in the ancient world. In light of this observation, we have to keep in mind that Genesis 2–3 is the form that the account took in Israelite traditions. The inspired storyteller is speaking to Israel and is prompted by the Spirit to use imagery that would communicate clearly in that world dealing with issues that were current in that society. We do not have an account that is portrayed as being conveyed to Adam and Eve. It is an account about Adam and Eve being conveyed to Israelites. If it were given to Adam and Eve, we could not meaningfully talk about ancient Near Eastern backgrounds since Adam and Eve did not have such a background. In this Israelite telling, however, it is clear that the broader cognitive environment of which ancient Israel is a part is reflected in the shaping of the account (sacred garden, special trees, involvement of serpent, concerns about wisdom and immortality), even though the Israelite account is characterized by deep differences and has points to make that are unique in the ancient world.

In Genesis, the trees are understood best in the context of sacred space rather than as isolated trees that happen to be in a garden. Whether interpreters consider them real, physical, floral specimens with the ability to bestow benefits to those who partake, figurative symbols of divine gifts, mythological motifs, or anything else, we must not miss the theological and textual significance that they have. Whether they confer or represent, they provide what is only God’s to give. He is the source of life, which is given by him and found in his presence (Deut 30:11-20). He is the center of order, and wisdom is the ability to discern order. Relationship with God is the beginning of wisdom (Job 28:28; Prov 1:7). Consequently, we make a mistake to think that this is simply about magical trees in a garden paradise. It is about the presence of God on earth and what relationship with him makes available.
38

At one level, we can simply say they are whatever the Bible considers them to be (even if we cannot decide for certain), because whether they are literal or not, we know their significance. In this way, we commit to taking the Bible seriously and fulfilling the demands of our commitment to the truthfulness of Scripture. If the text chooses to use metaphorical symbols, it is free to do so, and we would be remiss to read them any other way. Alternatively, if God chose to endow fruit trees with the wherewithal to confer the life and wisdom that comes from him, we cannot say that it is impossible. God chose Samson’s hair to provide him with strength, but strength came from God, not from hair. Whether the trees are literal or figurative, the basic point remains: life is gained in the presence of God, and wisdom is his gift (not to be taken on one’s own). God is the source and center of wisdom—not us. Regardless of our literary interpretation, the theology must be maintained: life and wisdom are the gifts of God, and human representatives incurred guilt for all of us by grasping the latter illegitimately and therefore losing the former. As discussed in chapter eleven, I believe that the biblical material makes the most sense when sin’s entry is seen as punctiliar rather than the result of a gradual process.

Conclusions

As we step back to draw some conclusions from this chapter, we have to discuss whether Eden in Genesis 2–3 is central or peripheral in the cosmos. In the ancient Near East, both Dilmun and the jewel garden in Gilgamesh are peripheral. In contrast, the “sacred tree” imagery presents a cosmic tree that is central. This sacred tree is symbolic of divine presence (according to Parpola) whereas none of the peripheral garden possibilities in the ancient Near East is a place of divine presence. The central garden that contains the sacred tree in CT 16.46 does feature the presence of gods. When the fertile waters are thought of as sources, they are located in the center; the mouth of waters motif (e.g., Dilmun) is peripheral.
39
From this information we might conclude that a central location would be identified as sacred space whereas a peripheral location would be more appropriately labeled numinous space.