The Lost World of Adam and Eve (32 page)

5
Bašmu
is sometimes portrayed as having two front legs (Joan Goodnick Westenholz,
Dragons
,
Monsters and Fabulous Beasts
[Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum, 2004], p. 190). See a picture of the seal of Gudea showing Ningishzida introducing him to Enki, in Black and Green,
Gods
,
Demons and Symbols,
p. 139.

6
“May your poison fangs be in the earth, your ribs in the hole” (no. 230); “spittle in the dust” (no. 237).

7
The Context of Scripture,
ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr. (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 1:108 (line 8). This is a stock description also found in the
Gilgamesh Epic
and
Nergal and Ereshkigal
.

8
Ancient Egyptian texts list thirty-seven types of snakes along with the symptoms of bites and believed remedies. See Hansen, “Snakes,” 3:296. Cf. Heinz-Josef Fabry, “
nahaš
,”
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1998), 9:359.

9
Faulkner,
Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts.

10
Full discussion in James H. Charlesworth,
The Good and Evil Serpent: How a Universal Symbol Became Christianized
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010).

11
See full discussion in John H. Walton,
Job,
NIV
Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), pp. 74-86.

12
Michael V. Fox,
Proverbs 1–9,
Anchor Bible (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), pp. 35-36. Note that the Greek translation of the Septuagint used a Greek term that means “most intelligent” (
phronimōtatos
).

13
Ziony Zevit,
What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden?
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013), p. 163.

14
Ibid.

15
In the Bible such composite creatures are identified as cherubim and seraphim, though they are not chaos creatures per se. Chaos creatures would be ones such as Leviathan and Rahab. For extensive treatment of such creatures, see Westenholz,
Dragons, Monsters and Fabulous Beasts.

16
For discussion of these see John H. Walton, “Demons in Mesopotamia and Israel: Exploring the Category of Non-Divine but Supernatural Entities,” in
Windows to the Ancient World of the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of Samuel Greengus,
ed. Bill T. Arnold, Nancy Erickson and John H. Walton (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), pp. 229-46.

17
Charlesworth,
Good and Evil Serpent,
p. 438; note, however, that he rejects the idea that the serpent in Genesis 3 should be considered a chaos creature, p. 294.

18
It is interesting that many interpreters insist that since Revelation identifies the serpent as Satan that we have to accept that as biblical truth (not just an associative picture); yet I have encountered few who view the serpent as a dragon based on the information from the same verses in Revelation (though Augustine did view the serpent that way in his
Sermon 36
. Augustine,
Sermons
, trans. Edmund Hill, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century III/2 [Brooklyn, NY: New City Press, 1990], p. 281).

19
This would also offer a ready explanation of the serpent speaking without leading to an anatomical analysis of the larynxes of serpent species.

20
Richard E. Averbeck, “Ancient Near Eastern Mythography as It Relates to Historiography in the Hebrew Bible: Genesis 3 and the Cosmic Battle,” in
The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions,
ed. James Karl Hoffmeier and Alan R. Millard (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 328-56, esp. 352-53.

21
See grammatical, syntactical discussion in John H. Walton,
Genesis,
NIV
Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), pp. 204-5.

22
Zevit,
What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden?,
pp. 202-3.

23
See this suggestion in Ronald Veenker, “Do Deities Deceive?,” in
Windows to the Ancient World of the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of Samuel Greengus,
ed. Bill T. Arnold, Nancy Erickson and John H. Walton (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), pp. 201-14.

24
Walton,
Genesis
, pp. 174-75; Zevit,
What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden?,
pp. 124-26.

25
For further discussion of the anachronism embedded in some of our genre labels, see John H. Walton and D. Brent Sandy,
Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013), pp. 199-215.

26
This use of imagination and imagery is even evident in John 1 as Jesus is described as the
logos,
“word.” John 1 is not mythological in genre, nor is Jesus a character of mythology. But the form of thinking being expressed is dependent on image.

27
Not to be confused with the term that exists already as a technical description of a movement in modern poetry from the early twentieth century.

28
Lutherans might even say that the trees are sacramental, representing mystical realities.

29
Those familiar with anthropology will recognize this as an attempt to think in emic categories (indigenous criteria) rather than etic ones (our categories superimposed on another culture).

30
Nicolas Wyatt, “The Mythic Mind,” in
The Mythic Mind: Essays on Cosmology and Religion in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature
(London: Equinox, 2005), p. 160, refers to this as the “narrative-paradigmatic polarity.”

Proposition 15: Adam and Eve Chose to Make Themselves the Center of Order and Source of Wisdom, Thereby Admitting Disorder into the Cosmos

1
Mark E. Biddle,
Missing the Mark: Sin and Its Consequences in Biblical Theology
(Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), pp. vii-viii.

2
Gary A. Anderson,
Sin: A History
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009).

3
Ibid., pp. 27-28.

4
See discussion in Alex Luc, “
חטא
(
ḥṭʾ
),” in
New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis,
ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 2:87-93.

5
This latter, however, uses the Hiphil form of the verb, where other occurrences indicate misdirection. It is the Qal forms that mean “to sin.”

6
So in English,
awful
does not mean “inspiring,” and
sinister
does not mean “left-handed.”

7
Similar observations could be made about the Greek terminology.

8
See for example Mark J. Boda,
A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), p. 515; Luc, “
חטא
(
ḥṭʾ
),” p. 89. This concept is represented in the later development of the theological concept of “spiritual death” first introduced by Origen (though there is no textual reason to think that the punishment was spiritual death rather than physical death).

9
Biddle,
Missing the Mark,
pp. xii-xiii.

10
Salvation is certainly an important trajectory, but that can be understood as what God has done to vouchsafe our access to his presence. Relationship in his presence is the objective; salvation is the instrument by which it is achieved.

11
For that matter, neither does the New Testament. As Ziony Zevit points out, the prophets had ample opportunity to relate Israel’s sin to the sin in the garden, and they never do so (
What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden?
[New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013], pp. 19-22). When Isaiah 43:27 makes reference to Israel’s first father who sinned, it is talking about Jacob, not Adam.

12
Translation from James H. Charlesworth,
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 1:541. The work is dated to about
A.D.
100. Note that this portion also affirms human participation in the sin. See also
2 Baruch
48:42-43. The expression “the fall” was popularized by the early church fathers but is little evidenced in the Greek fathers. Even as late as the fourth century (Gregory of Nyssa) it is not being used as a technical noun representing a theological construct. It was earlier in the Latin fathers where the concept took on more prominence. I am grateful to my colleague George Kalantzis for this historical information.

13
I. Provan sees it as inherently a denial that God is good in
Seriously Dangerous Religion
(Waco: Baylor University Press, 2014), p. 174.

14
This is similar to the idea expressed in Romans 8:17, that we are coheirs with Christ. It would not be appropriate for us to think of ourselves as autonomous heirs
instead of
Christ; we join him as heirs and are heirs through him. In the same way it was not appropriate for people to think of attaining wisdom apart from God. The only acceptable wisdom is found in participation with God.

15
James Gaffney,
Sin Reconsidered
(New York: Paulist Press, 1983), pp. 48-49.

16
F. A. M. Wiggermann, “Agriculture as Civilization: Sages, Farmers, and Barbarians,” in
The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture,
ed. Karen Radner and Eleanor Robson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 674.

17
More detail is given about the ancient Near Eastern situation in John H. Walton,
Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006).

18
Developed at length in Karel van der Toorn,
Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: A Comparative Study
(Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985).

19
Much of Protestant understanding of sin is more indebted to Augustine even than to Paul. For more about Augustine and the fall, see Willemien Otten, “The Long Shadow of Human Sin: Augustine on Adam, Eve and the Fall,” in
Out of Paradise: Eve and Adam and Their Interpreters,
ed. Bob Becking and Susan Hennecke (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010), pp. 29-49. Augustine was heavily influenced by neoplatonism, asceticism and the desire to refute Gnosticism, Pelagianism and Donatism.

20
See further discussion in Walton,
Ancient Near Eastern Thought,
pp. 210-14.

Proposition 16: We Currently Live in a World with Non-order, Order and Disorder

1
For further discussion see John H. Walton, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Spirit of the Lord in the Old Testament,” in
Presence, Power and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament,
ed. David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), pp. 38-67, esp. pp. 39-44.

2
Mark Smith,
On the Primaeval Ocean: Carlsberg Papyri 5,
CNI Publications 26 (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, University of Copenhagen, 2002), pp. 53-63; see also p. 194. In earlier texts, the air god Shu uses a blast from his mouth in creation.

3
See further discussion in John H. Walton,
Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), pp. 37-62.

4
Mark Harris,
The Nature of Creation: Examining the Bible and Science
(Durham, NC: Acumen, 2013), p. 147. He contends that “suffering and death are not unmitigated evils; there are subtleties to account for”—note the praise to God for providing prey for carnivorous animals (Job 38:39-41; Ps 104:21; 147:9).

5
Of course we acknowledge that sin
can
cause some of these. Someone can experience disease because of sin (e.g., STDs), and natural disasters can be indirectly linked to irresponsible behavior by humans (whether oil spills, defoliation or greenhouse gases).

Proposition 17: All People Are Subject to Sin and Death Because of the Disorder in the World, Not Because of Genetics

1
I am grateful to Jonathan Walton for these helpful categories.

2
I am grateful to Jonathan Walton for this insight.

3
Mark Harris,
The Nature of Creation: Examining the Bible and Science
(Durham, NC: Acumen, 2013), pp. 145-46.

4
Patricia A. Williams,
Doing Without Adam and Eve: Sociobiology and Original Sin
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), p. 42. This synopsis draws widely from a number of Augustine’s works, including his early work
On Genesis Against the Manichees
and his
Confessions
(books 11 and 12), but mainly reflected in his
Literal Commentary on Genesis
and finally refined in book 11 of his
City of God.
Selected excerpts from the church fathers are conveniently gathered in Andrew Louth, with Marco Conti, eds.,
Genesis 1–11,
Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001).

5
This is not to imply that the creation is no longer “good” or that relationship with God is no longer possible. For helpful clarification and distinctions see I. Provan,
Seriously Dangerous Religion
(Waco: Baylor University Press, 2014), pp. 134-37.