Thread by @JamesBejon

THREAD: Genesis 1 and Onwards...

A few scattered thoughts on the Hebrew of Genesis as I work my through it.

First a textual note.

It’s neat to see the oddities of the Masoretic Text present in our earliest copy of Genesis (the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q Gen B).

In the MT, Day Two is the only day on which God doesn’t look at what he’s made and say it’s good.

And here in 4Q Gen B, the same thing’s true.

V. 7’s ‘And it was thus’ (ויהי כן) continues straight into v. 8’s ‘And God called the firmament’ (ויקרא אלהים לרקיע).

And v. 8 concludes on the next line, with no room for ‘And God saw it was good’.

Later in the MT, v. 11 refers to fruit which brings forth ‘after its kind’ (למינו),

and v. 21 refers to the bird which bring forth ‘after its kind’ (למינהו).

That is to say, the MT employs two different forms of the suffix ‘its’ in order to convey the same idea,

which is also true of 4Q Gen B.

Here’s v. 11’s למינו (just about visible; you can at least make out the absence of a ה):

And here’s v. 21b’s למינהו (before וירא אלהים כי טוב)

The whole thing’s available here:

deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-ar…

More to come in a bit (I hope)...

Continuing...

Gen. 1 contains 10 commandments, i.e., 10 declarations of the form ‘And God said’ (ויאמר...אלהים).

Meanwhile, ch. 2 contains history’s first prohibition (לֹא תֹאכַל cp. 2.17).

Grammatically, the consequences of disobedience resonate with the privilege/freedom which man has been given;

that is to say, ‘You may surely eat’ (אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל) resonates with ‘You will surely die’ (מוֹת תָּמוּת).

2.25 describes the man and woman as ‘naked’ (ערום), which reflects their innocence,

while 3.1 describes the serpent as ‘subtle’ (ערום),

which echoes the word ‘naked’ (ערום), and anticipates the way the serpent will remove the man and woman’s innocence.

And the serpent is indeed subtle.

He plays off what Eve has heard directly from God (permission to eat from every plant and tree: 1.29) with what Eve heard second-hand from Adam (‘You may not eat...’: 2.17).

He even mirrors the grammar of God’s speech (לא מות תמתון).

And his claim (והייתם כאלהים = ‘You will be like אלהים’) contains a germ of truth (cp. 3.5 w. 22).

Ultimately, however, the serpent’s claim is false.

The man and woman are *already* like אלהים (made in God’s image),

and will become significantly *less* like אלהים when they disobey God.

As such, the serpent has nothing to offer the woman, though makes it seem as if he has.

The order of 3.5 and 3.6 is noteworthy.

Only once Satan has tempted the woman to eat from the tree in the midst of the garden (3.5) does it start to look enticing to her (3.6).

More subtlely at work.

The singular verbal form in 3.8 (ויתחבא האדם ואשתו = ‘The man and the woman hid themselves’) is noteworthy.

Does it imply leadership (of a kind) on Adam’s behalf?

If so, it is too little too late.

Also noteworthy is the word employed in 3.10 to describe Adam’s ‘nakedness’ (עֵירֹם),

which looks similar to ערום, but is (I take it) differently derived (i.e., from עור = ‘to be exposed’ + /-ōm/ suffix),

possibly in anticipation of how the man and woman’s ‘nakedness’ (עור) will be hidden,

i.e., by means of ‘garments of skin (עור)’.

Either way, the story ends sadly.

What began with a command to ‘multiply’ ends with ‘multiplied’ pains.

And what began with ‘blessing’ (ברך cp. 1.28) and a command to ‘tend’ (שמר) the garden ends with a cherub (כרב = ‘to bless’ spelt backwards) who is commanded to ‘prevent access’ (שמר) to the garden.

More in a bit.