Session 2.2: October 6, 2023

Scripture Reading (for the next three weeks): Genesis 1:1-3:24

Last week I attempted to make three simple points:

(1)  Simply assuming that a text should be read literally is not a “safer” approach than being open to figurative understandings—that is, that assumption runs the “risk” of forcing a wrong interpretation of the text.

(2)  Texts that are meant to be understood non-literally can convey information—they are not so open to interpretation that they can mean anything at all. Even in cases when the message lacks specificity or clarity, the message still has a limited semantic range. Put simply, non-literal text can have meaning, be interpreted correctly, and be interpreted incorrectly.

(3)  Finally, the early chapters of Genesis have been interpreted non-literally since the dawn of the church (and before). The accusation that only modern Christians, yielding to the pressure of modern science, have conveniently interpreted the text figuratively is simply false. To interpret the text non-literally is not a departure from established church (or Jewish) tradition.

All three points can be summarized as follows: genre is key to reading a text. Reading poetry like historiography or historiography as poetry is dangerous. Neither approach is likely to reach truth.

I am well aware that, so far, I have not offered a shred of evidence that the early chapters of Genesis should be read literally or otherwise. That has been intentional. All I have attempted to show is that considering a non-literal interpretation is not offensive in itself and foreclosing that interpretation a priori may force a reader to reach the wrong conclusions.

So, with all that in mind, the time has come to read the text.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! 4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.

6 God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” There was evening, and there was morning, a second day.

9 God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” It was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” God saw that it was good.

11 God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” It was so. 12 The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.

14 God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years, 15 and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” It was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. 17 God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, 18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.

20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 God created the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.

24 God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” It was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the cattle according to their kinds, and all the creatures that creep along the ground according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”

27 God created humankind in his own image,

in the image of God he created them,

male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I now give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has living breath in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so.

31 God saw all that he had made—and it was very good! There was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.

1 The heavens and the earth were completed with everything that was in them. 2 By the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, and he ceased on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he ceased all the work that he had been doing in creation.

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created—when the Lord God made the earth and heavens.

5 Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8 The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)

10 Now a river flows from Eden to water the orchard, and from there it divides into four headstreams. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it runs through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is pure; pearls and lapis lazuli are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it runs through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.” 19 The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man’s side and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,

“This one at last is bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

this one will be called ‘woman,’

for she was taken out of man.”

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become one family. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.

1 Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; 3 but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “Surely you will not die, 5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 The man replied, “I heard you moving about in the orchard, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” 11 And the Lord God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it.” 13 So the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman replied, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.”

14 The Lord God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this,

cursed are you above all the cattle

and all the living creatures of the field!

On your belly you will crawl

and dust you will eat all the days of your life.

15 And I will put hostility between you and the woman

and between your offspring and her offspring;

he will strike your head,

and you will strike his heel.”

16 To the woman he said,

“I will greatly increase your labor pains;

with pain you will give birth to children.

You will want to control your husband,

but he will dominate you.”

17 But to Adam he said,

“Because you obeyed your wife

and ate from the tree about which I commanded you,

‘You must not eat from it,’

the ground is cursed because of you;

in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,

but you will eat the grain of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat food

until you return to the ground,

for out of it you were taken;

for you are dust, and to dust you will return.”

20 The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21 The Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God expelled him from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24 When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life.

Does Genesis Belong to the Literary Genre of Myth?

We must face the million-dollar question: are there clues in the text of Genesis that would lead the reader to believe that it is not to be taken literally? Notice that the question focuses and begins with the text itself. The endeavor is to read the text the way it “wants” to be read. This interpretive exercise is not starting out with modern beliefs and reading the text the way a modern reader may want to read it.

However, before we start this conversation, I want to address why we are having this conversation at all. Spoiler alert—the ending of the story is this: when we focus on the potential concordance between science and Genesis we are asking the wrong questions. Not only will this result in wrong answers, it will keep us from asking the right questions! Ultimately, that is what I want. I want to take Genesis seriously—dead seriously. I believe in Genesis. I believe it is scripture. I believe it is true. My view of everything is shaped by it. So I am eager to discuss the truths that Genesis truly means to convey. An yes, I believe Genesis is historical just not historiography. It conveys real world truths in figurative language.

Ok, back to the myth discussion. (Most of the discussion in this week’s blog comes from William Lane Craig’s In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration. Sometimes the discussion is a summary of his work, sometimes it is a straight copy. I would certainly fail for plagiarism if this blog were a paper.)

Before You Stone Me—A Definition of Myth

The word myth is nowadays used to refer to a false fact, statement, or story. If I told you that chewing bread while chopping an onion will prevent teary eyes, you might respond, “That’s just a myth.” If I were calling Genesis a myth in that sense—well, go ahead and stone me. It would be well deserved.

When I use the term myth in this discussion, I mean something else entirely. I am using the term as another element in the set containing poetry, epic, biography, and historiography. I am not using myth as a synonym for lie, fiction, wives’ tale, or falsity. Explained differently, I am using myth the way a folklorist would.

In the field of folklore, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and man came to be in their present form. Let’s break down this brief definition. First, a myth is a linguistic composition, either oral or literary. Second, it is a narrative; that is to say, it is a story, which involves characters and a plotline. Third, it is a sacred narrative—it has religious significance in the culture in which it is embraced. This implies that it will have something to do with a deity as one of its principal figures. Fourth, (and this is implied) it is a traditional narrative, one that is handed down over the generations, not a recent, free composition.

Myths are narratives that, in the society in which they are told, are considered to be truthful accounts of what happened in the remote past. They are to be believed and may be cited as authoritative. They are the embodiment of dogma and are often associated with theology and ritual. Their main characters are not usually human beings but deities, heroes, or animals, whose activities are set in an earlier age, when the earth was different than it is today, or in another realm such as the sky or underworld. Compare this to, for example, legends. Legends are similar to myths, but they take place in the current era, not in the remote past, and are not considered sacred. Compare myths also to folktales. Folktales are narratives that, in the society in which they are told, are regarded as fiction. The events they relate may or may not have happened. They are not to be taken seriously as dogma or history.

Finally, myths are often highly metaphorical rather than literal. Let’s focus on Ancient Near Eastern myths to provide evidence of this point. The first example we can examine is the Mesopotamian myth Enuma elish. As a scholar put it, “[n]o one but a lunatic . . . could ever arrive at the theory that [the earth and sky] were originally formed by splitting the body of a dragon in half.” We can be confident that no ancient Babylonian looking to the sky expected to see the desiccated flesh and bones of Tiamat overhead, nor did he expect to find the Tigris and Euphrates flowing out of Tiamat’s eye sockets. These are figurative images. The same could be said for Egyptians and their myths. In Egyptian mythology, for example, the sky could be depicted as the goddess Nut arched over the earth with hands and feet touching the ground. No Egyptian looking at the sky expected to see the body of a naked woman arched above him. Sadly, when we refer to ancient peoples as believing these things literally, it is us who do not understand and impose an overly literalistic interpretation of their myths.

So, are the early chapters of Genesis a myth? To determine what is a myth, one can look for certain elements that are shared by most myths (i.e., “family resemblances”). We can summarize these family resemblances as follows:

(1)  Myths are narratives, whether oral or literary.

(2)  Myths are traditional stories handed down from generation to generation.

(3)  Myths are sacred for the society that embraces them.

(4)  Myths are objects of belief by members of the society that embraces them.

(5)  Myths are set in a primaeval age or another realm.

(6)  Myths are stories in which deities are important characters.

(7)  Myths seek to anchor present realities such as the world, mankind, natural phenomena, cultural practices, and the prevailing cult in a primordial time.

(8)  Myths are associated with rituals.

(9)  Myths express correspondences between the deities and nature.

(10)        Myths exhibit fantastic elements and are not troubled by logical contradiction or incoherence.

By the way, these characteristics of myth come from folklorist, scholars who study myths of many different cultures and religions—not from biblical scholars. In other words, this is not an attempt to draft a definition of myth that will conveniently fit the Genesis account.

Application to Genesis 1-11

Let us apply the list of elements above to the early chapters of Genesis and see if Genesis might belong to the genre of myth.

(1)  Myths are narratives, whether oral or literary.

Not only the individual units of Genesis 1-11 work as narratives, but the first 11 chapters as a whole constitute a narrative as well. These chapters tell the story of primaeval events in roughly chronological succession. For example, the fall of mankind occurred after the creation of mankind, the flood occurred after the fall, and the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel occurred after the flood.

(2)  Myths are traditional stories handed down from generation to generation.

Genesis 1-11 is universally recognized as comprising traditional stories. That is to say, the author of Genesis (traditionally held to be Moses), wrote down the traditions passed down to him. Most scholars adopt what is termed the “documentary hypothesis,” which explores the potential sources upon which the Genesis author relied.

(3)  Myths are sacred for the society that embraces them.

Again, there is universal agreement that the narratives of Genesis 1-11 are sacred for Israelite society. Not only do these stories tell the acts of the God of creation, but more particularly they tell the acts of Israel’s covenantal God, Yahweh. Sabbath observance and animal sacrifice, so central to Israel’s cult, are already grounded in the early chapters of Genesis. Moreover, Genesis 1-11 provides the prehistory and foundation for Yahweh’s call of Abraham to establish the nation of Israel in order to achieve the blessing of all mankind that was forfeited by Adam and Eve.

(4)  Myths are objects of belief by members of the society that embraces them.

We see this fact clearly when later passages in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) reaffirm statements in the primaeval narrative. For example, in Exodus 20:8-11 we have a recapitulation of the creation week: “Remember the Sabbath day to set it apart as holy. For six days you may labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, . . . . For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.”

(5)  Myths are set in a primaeval age or another realm.

The stories of Gen 1-11 are set in a primaeval age. The primaeval age in Genesis runs right back to God’s creation of the world “in the beginning” (Gen 1:1). Moreover, the Genesis account narrates the creation of humankind as well as of plant and animal life. The origin of civilization and several of its inventions, such as metallurgy and music, are related. The origin of the world’s languages is described. The period described is thus truly the primal age of mankind and the world.

(6)  Myths are stories in which deities are important characters.

This element is controversial, but not for the reason you might think. Many folklorist do not consider the Genesis account to be myth because it does not involve many gods. In their view, monotheism is antithetical to myth. This seems to be a mistake, however. There is no reason that a monotheistic society could not use the genre of myth.

(7)  Myths seek to anchor present realities such as the world, mankind, natural phenomena, cultural practices, and the prevailing cult in a primordial time.

This is the very heart of myth. In grounding present realities in the primordial past, the narrative functions to establish Israel’s worldview. Notice, it does not ground the founding of Israel as a nation, at least not merely that. More fundamentally, the Genesis myth is universal in that it explains the origin of the world, the origin of humanity, and natural phenomena. All three of these ideas will be explored later.

(8)  Myths are associated with rituals.

The narratives of Gen 1-11 do not seem to be associated with rituals, despite the motif of animal sacrifice. But inclusion of this eighth family resemblance probably reflects the influence of the so-called myth and ritual school, which is now widely rejected. While some myths have ritual associations, such a connection is missing from many myths.

(9)  Myths express correspondences between the deities and nature.

The primaeval narratives of Genesis likewise do not express correspondences between deities and nature. But the absence of such correspondences from Genesis 1-11 is due to Israel’s monotheism, in contrast to the polytheism of its neighbors.

(10)      Myths exhibit fantastic elements and are not troubled by logical contradiction or incoherence.

Does the Genesis narrative exhibit fantastic elements? Is it untroubled by logical contradiction or incoherence? It seems that on both counts the primaeval narrative shares this family resemblance of myths, even if to several orders of magnitude less in comparison to Ancient Near Eastern polytheistic myths.

(a)  Anthropomorphisms. Despite God’s transcendence so dramatically declared in Genesis 1, God is portrayed in the story of man’s creation in Genesis 2 as a humanoid deity worthy of polytheistic myths, as he forms man from the dirt and breathes the breath of life into his nostrils. The same is true of the story of the fall in Genesis 3, where God strolls in the cool of the day and searches for the man and woman hiding among the trees. One must wonder whether the author meant these anthropomorphic descriptions of God to be just part of the storyteller’s art or serious theology.

(b)  Narrative Inconsistencies. The author of Genesis seems untroubled by the apparent inconsistencies that occur in his narratives. It would have been easy for him to bring the account of the creation of man in Genesis 2 into accord with Genesis 1, rather than leave the apparent inconsistencies concerning the order of creation of man, the vegetation, and the animals. In Genesis 1, vegetation is created in the third day (Genesis 1:11-13):

God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” It was so. 12 The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.

Also, in Genesis 1 man is created after vegetation.

Man is not made until the sixth day (see Genesis 1:28-30).

 However, in Genesis 2 we read the following (Genesis 2:5-7):

Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

(c)  Fantastic Elements. Before we can determine whether Genesis contains fantastic elements, we must explain that term. Miracles and fantastic elements are not the same. I believe in miracles! Fantastic means events that are so extraordinary or odd that, on their face, seem palpably false to the audience. I am not saying these events seem palpably false to us in light of increased knowledge of the world. Fantastic means palpably false to the original audience. Put another way, these are elements that both the original author and original audience understand to be figurative. Allow me to provide modern examples. If I told you I was diagnosed with cancer but after my church prayed for me I received a healthy diagnosis, I have not narrated a “fantastic element.” I have narrated a miracle which, even if you disbelieve it, you and I both understand that I mean for you to believe it. On the other hand, imagine that before you announce your wife’s pregnancy I somehow find out, and when you ask me how I learned of it, I respond, “A little birdy told me.” That is much closer to a fantastic element. Both you and I, the speaker and the audience, understand that the statement is too odd to be taken as anything other than a literary device.

So, are there fantastic elements in Genesis? I think so. The best example is the snake. The snake may very well represent Satan, but notice the actual description in the text, “Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made.” In the story, the snake is a snake—just a snake. And no one is surprised by the talking snake! And the implication that the snake is shrewder than other animal is that other animals are like the snake (presumably they can also speak), just a little less clever. In fact, an ancient Jewish interpretation explains the reference to the serpent precisely in this literal manner, attributing the capacity to speak to all the animals in the orchard (Jubilee 3:28).

Other great examples of fantastical elements are the trees of life and of knowledge of good and evil. Notice that in regard to the effect of eating the fruits of these trees there is no hint of miraculous action on God’s part. The trees seem to be “magical.” God does not bestow eternal life if one eats from the tree of life. The tree does it. Man could event subvert God’s punishment if he could simply get his hands on that fruit. “And the Lord God said, ‘Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever’” (Genesis 3:22).

Conclusion and Cliffhanger

Ok, there’s my abbreviated argument that the early chapters of Genesis are myth. Now, allow me to return to the definition of myth and the entire reason I am spending time on this topic: Myths are narratives that, in the society in which they are told, are considered to be truthful accounts of what happened in the remote past. They are to be believed and may be cited as authoritative. Sure, the fact that they are truthful does not mean that they are literal—but they are truthful! So, what are these truths that story conveys? We won’t have time to explore this until next week, but let me give you a brief taste of what is to come:

Themes and Etiology

(1)  Origin of the World. Genesis 1 is obviously an etiological account of the origin of the world through God’s creative activity. As such it is spectacularly different from the cosmic etiologies of Israel’s neighbors. In contrast to Babylonian and Egyptian myths, there is neither theogony nor theomachy in Genesis; rather, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1). All of physical reality is brought into being by an unoriginate and transcendent Deity.

(2)  Origin of Humanity. In Genesis 2 we have an etiological account of the origin of humanity that supplements the brief notice of mankind’s creation in 1:26–27. In other myths in the Ancient Near East, humans are often treated as later creations of the gods for the purpose of relieving the minor deities of backbreaking labor. For example, in the Atrahasis Epic the minor deities are said to have labored for thousands of years before finally rebelling against their overseers, necessitating the creation of man to take over their labors.

Scholars have often asked why the Pentateuch does not begin with the call of Abraham and the founding of Israel in Genesis 12. Commentators seem widely agreed that the reason the author prefixes the prehistory to the patriarchal narratives is his universalizing interest. He wants to show that God’s original plan was to bless all mankind and that this aim still remains ultimately in mind through the election of Israel, which is now God’s means of fulfilling his original intent. Moreover, Ancient Near East myths share an etiological interest in telling how mankind in general came to exist. For example, as cited above, in the Atrahasis Epic, in response to protests and rebellion of the lesser gods over their burdensome labors, the mother goddess decides to create man to take over the labor for them. Humans were created basically as slave labor for the gods. Such stories seek to answer the question of human origins in general. When read against this backdrop, Genesis 2 is seen to share a similar etiological interest—but with a very different answer!

Finally, etiology comes explicitly to the fore in the closing comment on the story, “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed” (Gen 2:24–25). The man and the woman are now man and wife. Marriage is thus God’s plan for man and woman and is grounded in the primordial creation of man and of woman as his helper. The marriage relationship is taken to be the proper sphere for human sexual activity. This etiological note confirms that the author takes his story to be universal in scope, for marriage is not plausibly taken to be merely God’s special provision for this specially created couple but his intention for all humanity.

(3)  Natural Phenomena. Etiological motifs concerning natural phenomena are also evident in Genesis 1-11. Such motifs are especially obvious in the account in Genesis 3 of the primordial couple’s disobedience to God as a result of their seduction by the serpent. In the punishments pronounced by God on the serpent, the man, and the woman, etiological motifs abound. For example, the toil of farming is attributed to the fact that the land is cursed because of the man’s disobedience. Thus, natural phenomena with which later Israelites would have been all too familiar are explained in terms of our primordial parents’ fall into sin.

Next week I want to explain these ideas further. I hope you give me the chance.