chapteR 4

The Development of the Adamic Myth in

Genesis Rabbah

Alberdina Houtman1

4.1 Introduction

The Hebrew Bible, as the Holy Scriptures of the first great monotheistic reli-
gion, has often been considered to be outspokenly nonmythical, a character
trait that became even stronger in the early rabbinic literature.2 This is, how-
ever, not unchallenged. Firstly, the Bible is not as devoid of mythology as the
monotheistic ideology would have liked, and secondly, quite a lot of mythic
material can be found in rabbinic literature.3 Assorted details now known
from ancient Ugarit resurfaced in rabbinic sources long after their eclipse in
the intervening biblical tradition.4
In this paper I will consider the reoccurrence of some traces of the so-called
adamic myth as recently reconstructed by Marjo Korpel and Johannes de
Moor.5 I will discuss how some ancient Canaanite mythological concepts6 also
occur in later rabbinic literature, although in somewhat different form, fitting
to their new theological context. I will thereby concentrate on the midrashic
collection Genesis Rabbah7 and focus on the two main actors of the story,
namely Adam / Adammu and his antagonist the serpent / Ḥôrānu.

1  I thank Robin ten Hoope and the co-editors of this volume for their critical reading and use-
ful remarks.
2  See the short overview in Yair Lorberbaum, In God’s Image: Myth, Theology, and Law in
Classical Judaism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 43–45.
3  See e.g. the abundance of material collected by Howard Schwarz, Tree of Souls: The Mythology
of Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).
4  M. Fishbane, The Exegetical Imagination: On Jewish Thought and Theology (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1998), 22.
5  M.C.A. Korpel and J.C. de Moor, Adam, Eve, and the Devil: A New Beginning, 2nd enlarged ed.
(Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015); see also Korpel’s paper in this book.
6  From approximately the late thirteenth century BCE.
7  According to the critical edition J. Theodor and Chanoch Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabba
(Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1965).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/9789004334816_005

36-51_Houtman_ch04.indd 36 8/18/2016 4:10:44 PM

 Adamic Myth in Genesis Rabbah 37

4.2 Adam as an Androgynous Divine Being

In the ancient Canaanite adamic myth, Adam was originally an androgynous

divine being, who was sent to the earth to rescue the world from the harm done
by Ḥôrānu.8 Although the Genesis accounts do not in fact contradict either his
divine origin or his androgyny, the general monotheistic line in the Tanakh
gave rise to our modern perceptions of him as a male of flesh and blood. For
the early rabbinic exegetes, however, some puzzling details of the Genesis
accounts, as well as some texts in other parts of the Tanakh,9 gave rise to the
idea that the first human was originally quite different from the fragile mortals
of their own days. Let us take a look at a few interpretations from the midrashic
compilation known as Genesis Rabbah, redacted in the land of Israel in the
beginning of the fifth century CE.10 According to rabbinic traditions in this col-
lection, Adam was androgynous and at least semidivine, if not divine. On his
androgyny we read in Genesis Rabbah 8:1:11

R. Jeremiah ben Leazar said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created
the first human/Adam, He created him androgynous, for it is said “male
and female He created them” (Gen 5:2). Said R. Shmuel bar Naḥman:
When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first human/Adam, he
created him two-faced. Then he split him and made him two backs, one
for this side and one for that. They answered him: has it not been written
“He took one of his ribs” (‫מצלעתיו‬, Gen 2:21)? He said to them: [one] of
his sides, as you say “and for the other side of the Tabernacle etc.” (‫ולצלע‬,
Exod 26:20).

R. Shmuel bar Naḥman uses the second meaning of the word ‫ צלע‬as support
for his bold statement.12 The interpretation is cleverly connected to the petiḥah
verse Ps 139:5 “You hedge me before and behind; You lay Your hand upon me.”
The noticeable point here is that there seems to be no awkwardness at all

8  Korpel and De Moor, Adam, Eve, and the Devil, 26, 57; see also Korpel’s paper in this book.
9  E.g. Ps 8:5–6.
10  Edited probably in the first half of the fifth century in Palestine. See G. Stemberger,
Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 279–80.
11  The same tradition occurs in LevR 14:1. Shorter forms and allusions are found in MidrPs
139:5; Tan Tazria 1; TanB Tazria 2; b.Ber 61a; b.Erub 18a; Midrash Aggada Buber 5:12; Leqaḥ
Tob Bereshit 1; Yalqut Bereshit 20; Yalqut Psalms 887.
12  The idea behind the interpretation is that human individuals in themselves are incom-
plete, being only half of an original whole, yearning for their lost consort.

36-51_Houtman_ch04.indd 37 8/18/2016 4:10:44 PM

 38 Houtman

concerning the consequences of this interpretation, neither regarding the

relation between the sexes nor with respect to the implications for the gen-
der specifics of God. This well-known tradition has in the past rightfully been
connected with Greek mythology, for example by my Dutch colleague Lieve
Teugels.13 Yet another Dutch colleague, Johannes de Moor, has shown that
the concept may have been familiar also through sources from Ugarit and
Mesopotamia.14
Next, we are interested in what the Amoraic rabbis thought about a possibly
divine status of Adam. The first creation account in Genesis gave rise to specu-
lations about a probably divine—or at least semidivine—status of Adam, on
the basis of for instance Genesis 1:26, where God said,15

Let us make man/Adam in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule
the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all
the creeping things that creep on earth.

In the first place there are the image and the likeness, which seem to depict
Adam as an offspring of God. In the second place there is the assignment to
rule, which was generally considered a prerogative of the gods. In an expo-
sition of this verse we read the following about Adam’s likeness to God
(GenR 8:10):

Said R. Hoshaiah, “When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first
human/Adam, the ministering angels mistook him [for God, since Man
was in God’s image], and wanted to proclaim his sanctity.” To what may
the matter be compared? To a king and a governor who sat in a chariot,
and the provincials wished to say to the king, “Domine!16” But they did not

13  L. Teugels, “The Creation of the Human in Rabbinic Literature,” in The Creation of Man
and Woman: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions,
ed. G.P. Luttikhuizen (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 107–27, esp. 108–13. See also D. Boyarin, Carnal
Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Literature, Berkeley 1993, 35–37 and the references given
there.
14  E.g. J.C. de Moor, “The duality of God and Man: Gen. 1:26–27 as P’s Interpretation of the
Yahwistic Account,” in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel, ed. J.C. de Moor (Leiden: Brill,
1998), 112–25.
15  Biblical citations are according to the JPS translation of 1985.
16  Vocative of Dominus “Lord,” used in the Latin Bible translations for God as well as for
Jesus. The choice of this Latin word is probably meant to direct the mind of the read-
ers into this specific direction. Although there are lots of Greek and Latin loanwords in
rabbinic literature, the word domine is rare. The only other occasions are in LamR 1:5

36-51_Houtman_ch04.indd 38 8/18/2016 4:10:44 PM

 Adamic Myth in Genesis Rabbah 39

know which one of them was which. What did the king do? He pushed
the governor and threw him out of the chariot, so that people would know
who was king. So too when the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first
man/Adam, the angels mistook him [for God]. What did the Holy One,
blessed be He, do? He put him to sleep, so that everyone would know
that he was a human. As it is written “Oh cease to glorify man, [who has
only breath in his nostrils! For by what does he merit esteem?]” (Isa 2:22)

This midrash apparently wants to teach two things. In the first place it confirms
the great resemblance of God and man. In second instance, however, it wants
to make quite clear that appearances are deceptive: man may look like God,
but that does not necessarily make him divine. In order to prove the difference,
God put Adam to sleep, so that everyone would know that he was human,
because in the understanding of that time gods do not sleep (e.g. Ps 121:4: “The
guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps!”). The use of the term domine
and the connection with Isa 2:22, where it says “Oh, cease to glorify man,” may
possibly refer to a polemic against Christianity, mocking the Christians who do
not know who the real King is.17
The complex character of mankind, which is assuredly created in the like-
ness of God but is also carnal, is further elaborated in GenR 8:11:

He created in him four traits applicable to beings of the upper world and
four of the lower world. As to traits applicable to creatures of the upper
world, he stands up straight like ministering angels, he speaks as do min-
istering angels, he has the power of understanding as do ministering
angels, and he sees as do ministering angels. . . . As to the four traits appli-
cable to creatures of the lower world, he eats and drinks like a beast, he
has sexual relations like a beast, he defecates like a beast, and he dies like
a beast. . . . R. Tifdai said in the name of R. Aḥa: The Holy One blessed be
He said, “If I create him solely with traits of creatures of the upper world,
he will live and never die, and if I do so solely with the traits of creatures
of the lower world, he will die and not live. Instead, I shall create him with

and ARN B 6 in the expression vive domine imperator. See Samuel Krauss, Griechische und
Lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum (Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1964),
155–56; Saul Lieberman, “Keles Kilusin,” in Studies in Palestinian Talmudic Literature, ed.
David Rosenthal (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1991), 434.
17  In rabbinic literature, sleep is considered a “small death.” Just as sleep proves the first
Adam to be human, so death proves the second Adam (i.e. Jesus) to be human.

36-51_Houtman_ch04.indd 39 8/18/2016 4:10:44 PM

 40 Houtman

the traits of creatures of the upper world and with traits of the creatures
of the lower world. If he sins, he will die, and if not, he will live.”

A distinction is drawn between the physical death and the eternal death. As a
physical being, man dies just like the animals. But this concerns only the body.
For the soul it depends on a person’s lifestyle: if he sins, he will die, and if not,
he will live. Eternal life awaits the souls of the righteous. One might consider
this a potential divinity, immortality being a characteristic of divine beings.
Also in GenR 12:8, the mixed nature of humankind is described. There, how-
ever, another reason is given as we shall shortly see:

Everything you see is offspring (‫ )תולדות‬of heaven and earth, as it is said

“In the beginning God created [the heaven and the earth]” (Gen 1:1). On
the second [day] He created some of the creatures above “And God said,
Let there be a firmament etc.” (Gen 1:6). On the third [day] He created
some of the creatures below “And God said, Let the earth bring forth
grass” etc. (Gen 1:11). On the fourth [day], He created some of the crea-
tures above, “Let there be lights” (Gen 1:14). On the fifth [day] He created
some of the creatures below, “Let the waters swarm” (Gen 1:20). On the
sixth [day] He came to create the human. He said, “If I create him from
the creatures on high, the creatures on high will be more than the crea-
tures below by one formation, and there will not be peace in the world.
But if I create him from the creatures below, then also. Yet I shall create
him out of the creatures on high and the creatures below, so that there
will be peace.” That is in line with this verse, “The LORD God formed the
human from the dust of the earth. He blew into his nostrils the breath
of life.” (Gen 2:7) [That breath derives] from the creatures above. As
R. Simeon b. Laqish said, “Dominion and dread are His; [He imposes
peace in His heights.]” (Job 25:2)

This midrash has some interesting elements. It starts with the description of
heaven and earth as the progenitors of the visible creation. Although here
Genesis 1:1 is given as proof text, the exposition is on the opening of the sec-
ond creation story, namely Genesis 2:4, which opens with the statement: ‫אלה‬
‫תולדות השמים והארץ‬. This formula is generally translated as “Such is the story
of heaven and earth.” Normally, however, the formula ‫ אלה תולדות‬introduces
lists of generations, and not inanimate entities.18 This is only logical, since it

18  Noah and his sons, Shem, Terach, Yishmael, Yitschaq, Esau, Jacob, Aaron and Moses, Peretz.

36-51_Houtman_ch04.indd 40 8/18/2016 4:10:44 PM

 Adamic Myth in Genesis Rabbah 41

is based on the root ‫ילד‬, “giving birth.” The formulation may therefore be a
remnant from the Canaanite myth where heaven and earth were seen as the
first pair of divine beings that were created by God their father,19 hence the
connection with the word bereshit of Genesis 1:1. The word pair “heaven and
earth” moreover occurs in the Tanakh in combination with the participles ‫עשה‬
“maker” and ‫“ קנה‬creator” as an epithet for the almighty God.20 Also at places
in Genesis Rabbah we see the concept of heaven and earth as animated divine
entities resurface. For example, in the discussion of the phrase “let us make
man/Adam” (Gen 1:26), the question comes up as to who is speaking here.
Does God speak about himself in the majestic plural, or does the plural indi-
cate that he was not alone when he planned the creation of mankind?21 One of
the options offered is that he took counsel with Heaven and Earth. In Genesis
Rabbah 8:3 this is worded as follows:

And God said: “Let us make man/Adam.” With whom did He take coun-
sel? R. Joshua b. Levi said, “With the work of Heaven and Earth He took
counsel. The matter may be compared to a king who had two advisers,
and he would do nothing without their consent.”

It is fascinating how this puts the monotheistic ideal into perspective. Not only
is God not alone, he is not even omnipotent, seeking approval for everything
he does.
The second point that strikes the eye in the discussion about the com-
ponents from which Adam was created is the concern for balance between
“above” and “below.” Although the reasoning is labored, the point the author
wants to make is quite clear: in order to maintain peace, there should be a
careful balance between the upper worlds and the lower worlds. This point
is underlined by the quote from Job “He imposes peace in His heights.” One
could say that their being “two-natured” makes human beings fit as mediators
between heaven and earth. The question may be raised whether this is prob-
ably a reaction to the doctrine of the two natures of Christ that was developed

19  Korpel and De Moor, Adam, Eve, and the Devil, 7.

20  Gen 14:19, 22 (‫)קנה‬, Psalm 115:15, 121:2, 124:8, 134:3, 146:5–6 (‫)עשה‬.
21  For a detailed discussion of the problem, see Patrick D. Miller, Genesis 1–11: Studies
in Structure & Theme, Supplement Series (Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament, 1978), 9–20.

36-51_Houtman_ch04.indd 41 8/18/2016 4:10:45 PM

 42 Houtman

around the same time as our midrash.22 Pointing out that every human had
two natures would then serve as a rebuttal to the Christian claim of the unic-
ity of Jesus as being truly God and truly man, and thus being the mediator par
excellence.
Apart from the characteristics mentioned already, there are two more traits
that are typical of celestials as opposed to earthlings, and that is their size and
their wisdom. There are many traditions about the extraordinary dimensions
of Adam before the fall, in Judaism as well as in Islam later on.23 In Genesis
Rabbah 8:1 his dimensions are described as reaching from heaven to earth or
from north to south or from east to west. We also learn that his size was dimin-
ished after the fall. In an exposé on the defective reading of toledot in Genesis
2:4, the missing waw—as numerical number six—is used to point out six fea-
tures that Adam lost after he succumbed to sin. These features are: his splen-
dor, his [immortal] life, his stature, the fruit of the earth, the fruit of the tree,
and the primordial lights. On the stature it says in Genesis Rabbah 12:6:

His stature? As it says “And the man [and his wife] hid [from the LORD]
(Gen 3:8). Said R. Aibu, “his stature bent down and became hundred
cubits”

Compared to us, that is still a respectable height of about 45 meters, but it is

nothing compared to his original height, which reached from earth to heaven.24
It is clear that a man that size could not hide anywhere, which proves that he
must have shrunk.
Finally, in this section a few words on the wisdom of Adam. In many rab-
binic sources the ability of Adam to give names to the animals is seen as a sign
of his sublime wisdom,25 and so also Genesis Rabbah. In GenR 17:4, when God
expressed his intention to create man, the angels asked Him what his character
would be. God then answered,

22  Dyophysitism understands Christ as having two natures that exist in one person. This is
the position of the council of Chalcedon (451), the Roman Catholic Church and many
Protestant churches.
23  In Judaism e.g. in Sifra beḥuqqotay 3:9, GenR 8:1, 21:3, 24:2, LevR 18:2, b.Hag 12a, ARN B 8
(Schechter 11b–12a). In Islam e.g. Sahih Bukhari, Book 55 Hadith 543. See also the paper by
Adiel Kadari in this volume.
24  A parallel to this shrinkage may be found in the A/adamic myth as interpreted by Korpel
and De Moor, Adam, Eve, and the Devil, 72 (KTU 1.107:8–9, 10–12).
25  See the sources mentioned in H.M. Patmore, Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre (Leiden:
Brill, 2012), 18–19.

36-51_Houtman_ch04.indd 42 8/18/2016 4:10:45 PM

 Adamic Myth in Genesis Rabbah 43

“His wisdom will be greater than yours.” What did the Holy one, blessed
be He, do [in order to make his point]? He brought before them domes-
ticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl. He said to them, “As to this crea-
ture, what is its name?”, but they did not know. “And this one, what is
its name?”, and they did not know. Then He brought them before Adam,
and said to him, “What is its name?” “Ox.” “And this, what is its name?”
“Camel.” “And this, what is its name?” “Ass.” “And this, what is its name?”
“Horse.” As it is written “And the man gave names to all the cattle [etc.]”
(Gen 2:20)

This naming act is not only proof of Adam’s wisdom, it also makes him part of
the creative act. As God gave names to his major works of creation in Genesis
1, so now Adam further refines the order by naming the animals,26 which may
serve as another sign of his divine character.27

4.3 The Identification of Ḥôrānu

In the ancient Canaanite adamic myth, Ḥôrānu rebelled against El and was
punished by expulsion from the abode of the gods. According to the recon-
struction of Korpel and De Moor, his revenge seems to have been that he made
the Tree of Life inaccessible to the gods by positing himself as a huge poisonous
serpent in the tree.28 Thereupon the great gods decided to send one of them,
Adammu, to the earth with the assignment to undo this deplorable situation.
Because of the restrictions of this paper, I will limit myself here to the identifi-
cation of the rebel. For the biblical version we will look at the Genesis account
of the fall and compare that to the story in Ezekiel 28 about the prince of Tyre.
We will first compare these stories with each other and with the Canaanite
myth, and then see how the exposers in Genesis Rabbah chose to use the mate-
rial for their own goals.

26  Further on in the midrash he also names himself and even God.
27  See e.g. G.A. Klingbeil, “He Spoke and It Was: Human Language, Divine Creation, and the
Imago Dei,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 36, no. 1 (2014): 42–59.
28  Korpel and De Moor, Adam, Eve, and the Devil, 17. The extant texts do not mention a Tree
of Life, but they do mention a Tree of Death, referring to the deadly poison that issued
from the serpent (KTU 1.100:65).

36-51_Houtman_ch04.indd 43 8/18/2016 4:10:45 PM

 44 Houtman

In Genesis 2:8–9 it says:

8The LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and placed there
the man whom He had formed. 9And from the ground the LORD God
caused to grow every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for food,
with the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowl-
edge of good and bad.

After Eve and Adam yielded to the temptation of eating from the tree of knowl-
edge of good and bad (Gen 3:6), God drove man out of Paradise. This is worded
as follows (Gen 3:22–24):

22And the LORD God said, “Now that man has become like one of us,
knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take
also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!” 23So the LORD God
banished him out of the garden of Eden, to till the soil from which he was
taken. 24He drove the man out, and stationed east of the garden of Eden
the cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword, to guard the way to the
tree of life.

We will now read some verses from the dirge over the king of Tyre as found in
Ezekiel 28:11–19:

12O mortal, intone a dirge over the king of Tyre and say to him: Thus said
the LORD God: You were a seal of perfection, full of wisdom and flawless
in beauty. 13You were in Eden, the garden of God; . . . 14I created you as
a cherub, with outstretched shielding wings; and you resided on God’s
holy mountain; You walked among stones of fire. 15You were blameless
in your ways, from the day you were created until wrongdoing was found in
you. 16By your far-flung commerce you were filled with lawlessness
and you sinned. So I have struck you down from the mountain of
God, and I have destroyed you, o shielding cherub, from among the stones
of fire. 17You grew haughty because of your beauty, you debased your
wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I have cast you to the ground; I have
made you an object of kings to stare at.

There are similarities and differences to be noted, as in shown in the following

table:

36-51_Houtman_ch04.indd 44 8/18/2016 4:10:45 PM

 Adamic Myth in Genesis Rabbah 45

Genesis Ezekiel

place of action Eden Eden

rebel the human / Adam King of Tyre / Ḥiram?
sin disobedience triggered by sin / hubris
the wish to be like God
punishment / consequence expulsion from the garden expulsion from the
of Eden / mortality mountain of G/god /
destruction
Tree of Life made inaccessible by God
guard cherubs and the fiery
ever-turning sword

Similar are the paradisiacal setting, the sin, and the expulsion. On the other
hand, the main characters differ. Whereas in Genesis the first man is the main
character, in Ezekiel it is the King of Tyre. The sin in Genesis is the neglect of
a command given by God, whereas in this part of Ezekiel it seems to be greed
and vanity. Moreover, in Ezekiel there is no apparent role for the Tree of Life.
Both stories contain elements that also occur in the Canaanite myth, yet
the storyline is different. The three narratives can be schematized in the
following way:

Canaanite myth Genesis Ezekiel

place of action vineyard of the Eden Eden

great gods
rebel Ḥôrānu the human / Adam King of Tyre / Ḥiram?
sin hubris disobedience triggered hubris
by the wish to be like
God / hubris
punishment / expulsion from the expulsion from the expulsion from the
consequence abode of the gods garden of Eden / mountain of god /
mortality destruction
Tree of Life made inaccessible made inaccessible by
by Ḥôrānu God
guard Ḥôrānu / serpent cherubs and the fiery
ever-turning sword

36-51_Houtman_ch04.indd 45 8/18/2016 4:10:45 PM

 46 Houtman

Whereas the adamic myth describes the fall of a god, the biblical stories seem
to describe the sin and downfall of a human. Or do they? In the case of Genesis,
the answer depends on what status Adam originally had. We have seen some
of the rabbinical discussion on his nature in the first part of this paper. For
Ezekiel it depends on the identification of the King of Tyre, or Prince of Tyre,
as he is called earlier in the same chapter. Is he a historical person, or does
he function as a symbol for a mythical character? Elsewhere in the Tanakh
a king of Tyre occurs in historical settings, and the commercial offenses that
are ascribed to him seem to point to a person of flesh and blood. On the other
hand, the setting in Eden and his description as a cherub are arguments for a
mythical character.
In the books of Kings and Chronicles we learn about a Ḥiram (also Ḥuram /
Ḥoram), King of Tyre, who entered into an alliance with David and aided him
in building his palace.29 After the death of David he entered into a similar alli-
ance with Solomon and assisted him greatly in building the Temple.30 He is
generally referred to in an outspokenly positive way. This is hardly compatible
with the harsh words spoken in Ezekiel 28, not only in the verses cited, but
also at the beginning of the chapter, where the Prince of Tyre is accused of
blasphemy, declaring himself a god. This may be considered an argument not
to identify him with the historical Ḥiram of the books of Kings and Chronicles.
Who might he be then? In my opinion the designation in Ezekiel may be
related to the ancient myth. The opening words of Ezekiel 28 are: “Ben Adam,
say to the Prince of Tyre (Tsor) . . .”. In other words, it is the Adamite who
rebukes the Prince of Tsor. In the word tsor we may hear a resonance of tsar
“adversary, foe.”31 The designation “Prince” might be an echo of the Evil Prince
of the Ugaritic pantheon.32 Given the historical background of Ezekiel, who
lived in exile in Babylonia,33 a connection with the Persian destructive spirit

29  By sending him able workmen, and also cedar trees and fir trees from Lebanon (2 Sam 5:11;
1 Chron 14:1).
30  1 Kgs 5:11, 9:11; 2 Chron 2:3. He also took part in Solomon’s traffic to the Eastern Seas (1 Kgs
9:27, 10:11; 2 Chron 8:18, 9:10).
31  Another possibility is to connect it to Tyran Astarte, which was probably a meteorite that
was taken to Tyre and consecrated there. See A.I. Baumgarten, The Phoenician History of
Philo of Byblos (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 220; Korpel and De Moor, Adam, Eve, and the Devil, 56.
The text of Isa 14:12, “How are you fallen from heaven, O shining One, son of Dawn,” may
also be a remnant of this tradition.
32  Although the word used here is ‫נגיד‬, and not ‫שר‬, the word that is generally used in this
context.
33  6th century BCE.

36-51_Houtman_ch04.indd 46 8/18/2016 4:10:45 PM

 Adamic Myth in Genesis Rabbah 47

Ahriman is also possible. So probably we have here a merger of a historical

person with mythical characters who were known from the Umwelt.34
Let us now finally look at how Genesis Rabbah refers to this story. In GenR
9:5 we read the following:

R. Ḥama b. R. Ḥanina said: Adam was predestined not to taste death,

so why then was the penalty of death sentenced on him? Because the
Holy One, blessed be He, foresaw that in the future Nebuchadnezzar and
Ḥiram would make themselves gods. Therefore, death was sentenced on
him. As it is written, “You were in Eden, the garden of God [etc.]” (Ezek
28:12). Was then Ḥiram in Eden? Surely not! Rather, he said to him, “You
are the one who caused him that was in Eden to die.” R. Ḥiyya, the son
of Berekiah’s daughter in the name of R. Berekiah, “a cherub (‫)כרוב‬, with
outstretched [shielding wings]” (Ezek 28:14). He said to him, “You are the
one who caused that young man (‫ )הרובה‬to die.”

We can now extend our narrative overview as follows,

Canaanite myth Genesis Ezekiel GenR

place of action vineyard of Eden Eden Eden

the great gods
rebel Ḥôrānu the human / King of Tyre / Ḥiram /
Adam Ḥiram? Nebuchadnezzar
(in the future)
cause hubris disobedience sin / hubris blasphemy /
triggered by hubris
the wish to be
like God
punishment / expulsion expulsion from expulsion from mortality of
consequence from the the garden the mountain mankind
abode of of Eden / of god /
the gods mortality destruction

34  There may also be a pun intended on the name Ḥiram, which means “high-born.” In that
case it would stress the noble descent of the main character before he was cast to the
ground. Mind also the resemblance of the names Ḥiram—Ḥoran—Ahriman in the light
of the common Semitic nun-mem interchange.

36-51_Houtman_ch04.indd 47 8/18/2016 4:10:45 PM

 48 Houtman

Table (cont.)

Canaanite myth Genesis Ezekiel GenR

Tree of Life made made

inaccessible inaccessible
by Ḥôrānu by God
guard Ḥôrānu / cherubs and
serpent the fiery ever-
turning sword

The text in Genesis Rabbah is a complicated reworking of the constitutive ele-

ments of the stories we have discussed so far: we have Ḥiram, Adam, blasphe-
mous hubris, penalty of death, and a cherub. Ḥiram is depicted here as the
Prince of Tyre of Ezekiel 28:2 who declared himself god.35 The elements are
ordered and presented in a new way to serve a specific goal, namely to stress
the perfection of God’s creation in the light of mortality. The larger context of
the cited text is Genesis 1:31, “And God saw all that He had made, and found
it very good.” The problem to be solved is how death could have entered this
perfect world. The exposé in Genesis Rabbah 9:5 starts with a pun by read-
ing the words ‫“ טוב מאד‬very good” as ‫“ טוב מות‬death is good.” It explains why
physical death is a good thing, for the wicked as well as for the righteous.36 This
explanation may have served as a refutation of current gnostic ideas that the
physical world was the work of an imperfect demiurge. So what we see here
is that elements of different versions of an ancient myth are explained in an
entirely new way to support contemporary theological convictions and to sup-
press heretic ideas. As in the ancient myth, it is not Adam who brought death
into the world, but rather the haughty blasphemous Ḥiram / Ḥôrānu.

35  Ḥiram is condemned in rabbinic literature because he considered himself God, e.g.
b.Ḥullin 89a.
36  For the wicked: when they die they stop angering the Holy One. For the righteous: it
makes an end to their struggle against the evil impulse.

36-51_Houtman_ch04.indd 48 8/18/2016 4:10:45 PM

 Adamic Myth in Genesis Rabbah 49

4.4 Conclusions

Genesis Rabbah is not just a collection of exegetical bits and pieces. It has
been pointed out already by others that it has a clear theological agenda.37 My
contribution has been to show that in order to substantiate its beliefs and to
fight heretical views, it does not shun using ancient extrabiblical traditions.
The rabbis were probably aware of the alluring power of deviant traditions
from surrounding cultures. They sought to distil these traditions of pagan and
heterodox elements and to incorporate them into their own exegetical tradi-
tion, in order to disarm competing views and to meet the human craving for
colorful stories. Traditionally myth is defined as a total world outlook striving
for an interpretation or meaning of all that is significant;38 according to this
definition Genesis Rabbah is not a work of myth. Rather, the rabbis used and
transformed elements of the ancient stories to solve theological problems and
to fight heretic views within their own monotheistic framework. We have seen
the use of traces of ancient traditions to support rabbinic views that creation
was perfect and that man was the triumph and crown of creation.39 We have
also seen the refutation of the views of anonymous antagonists in the tradi-
tions about the two natures of man and in the mistaking of the governor for
the king. Instead of ostracizing popular mythical traditions about Adam and
Ḥôrānu, the rabbis cleverly rephrased and reframed them to serve their own
theological goals.

Bibliography

Alexander, P.S. “Pre-emptive Exegesis: Genesis Rabbah’s Reading of the Story of

Creation.” Journal of Jewish Studies 43 (1992): 230–45.

37  E.g. A. Altmann, “The Gnostic Background of the Rabbinic Adam Legends,” in Essays in
Jewish Intellectual History, ed. A. Altmann (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England,
1981), 1–16; J. Neusner, “Genesis Rabbah as Polemic: An Introductory Account,” Hebrew
Annual Review 9 (1985): 253–65; M.R. Niehoff, “Creatio ex Nihilo Theology in Genesis
Rabbah in Light of Christian Exegesis,” The Harvard Theological Review 99, no. 1 (2006):
37–64; P. Schäfer, “Bereshit Bara Elohim: Bereshit Rabba, Parashah 1, Reconsidered,” in
Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in Antiquity. Studies in Honour of Peter Willem van
der Horst, ed. A. Houtman et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 267–89.
38  Freely after J. Barr, “The Meaning of ‘Mythology’ in Relation to the Old Testament,” Vetus
Testamentum 9, no. 1 (1959): 1–10, at 3.
39  See also Neusner, “Genesis Rabbah as Polemic,” 253–65, at 254.

36-51_Houtman_ch04.indd 49 8/18/2016 4:10:45 PM

 50 Houtman

Altmann, A. “The Gnostic Background of the Rabbinic Adam Legends.” Jewish Quarterly
Review n.s. 35, no. 1 (1945): 371–91 (republished in Essays in Jewish Intellectual History,
Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1981, 1–16).
Barr, J. “The Meaning of ‘Mythology’ in Relation to the Old Testament.” Vetus
Testamentum 9, no. 1 (1959): 1–10.
Baumgarten, Albert I. The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary. Leiden:
Brill, 1981.
Boyarin, D. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Literature. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1993.
De Moor, J.C. “The Duality of God and Man: Gen. 1:26–27 as P’s Interpretation of the
Yahwistic Account.” In Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel, edited by J.C. de Moor,
112–25. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Fishbane, M. The Exegetical Imagination: On Jewish Thought and Theology. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.
Klingbeil, G.A. “He Spoke and It Was: Human Language, Divine Creation, and the
Imago Dei.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 36, no. 1 (2014): 42–59.
Korpel, M.C.A., and J.C. de Moor. Adam, Eve, and the Devil: A New Beginning, 2nd
enlarged ed. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014.
Krauss, Samuel. Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwörter im Talmud, Midrasch und
Targum. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1964.
Lieberman, Saul. “Keles Kilusin.” In Studies in Palestinian Talmudic Literature, edited by
David Rosenthal. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1991.
Lorberbaum, Yair. In God’s Image: Myth, Theology, and Law in Classical Judaism. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Miller, Patrick D. Genesis 1–11: Studies in Structure & Theme. Supplement Series.
Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1978.
Neusner, J. “Genesis Rabbah as Polemic: An Introductory Account.” Hebrew Annual
Review 9 (1985): 253–65.
———. ‫בראשית‬, Judaism’s Story of Creation: Scripture, Halakhah, Aggadah. Leiden:
Brill, 2000.
Niehoff, M.R. “Creatio ex Nihilo Theology in Genesis Rabbah in Light of Christian
Exegesis.” The Harvard Theological Review 99, no. 1 (2006): 37–64.
Patmore, H.M. Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre: The Interpretation of Ezekiel 28:11–19
in Late Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Schäfer, P. “Bereshit Bara Elohim: Bereshit Rabba, Parashah 1, Reconsidered.” In
Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in Antiquity; Studies in Honour of Peter
Willem van der Horst, edited by A. Houtman et al., 267–89. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Schwartz, Howard, and Caren Loebel-Fried. Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

36-51_Houtman_ch04.indd 50 8/18/2016 4:10:45 PM

 Adamic Myth in Genesis Rabbah 51

Stemberger, G. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1996.
Teugels, G.M.G. “The Creation of the Human in Rabbinic Interpretation.” In The
Creation of Man and Woman: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and
Christian Traditions, edited by G.P. Luttikhuizen, 107–27. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Theodor, J., and Chanoch Albeck. Midrash Bereshit Rabba. Jerusalem: Wahrmann
Books, 1965.

36-51_Houtman_ch04.indd 51 8/18/2016 4:10:45 PM