David E. Bokovoy - Did Eve Acquire, Create, or Procreate with Yahweh - A Grammatical and Contextual Reassessment Of קנה in Genesis 4.1

Uploaded by

Lulo Gpe

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

71 views17 pages

Did Eve Acquire, Create, or Procreate with Yahweh - A Grammatical and Contextual Reassessment Of קנה in Genesis 4.1

Copyright

Available Formats

PDF or read online from Scribd

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Report this Document

Did Eve Acquire, Create, or Procreate with Yahweh - A Grammatical and Contextual Reassessment Of קנה in Genesis 4.1

Copyright:

Available Formats

Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

Flag for inappropriate content

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

71 views17 pages

David E. Bokovoy - Did Eve Acquire, Create, or Procreate with Yahweh - A Grammatical and Contextual Reassessment Of קנה in Genesis 4.1

Uploaded by

Lulo Gpe

Did Eve Acquire, Create, or Procreate with Yahweh - A Grammatical and Contextual Reassessment Of קנה in Genesis 4.1

Copyright:

Available Formats

Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

Flag for inappropriate content

Jump to Page

You are on page 1of 17

Search inside document

Vers Vetus Testament 6 (201) 19:35 bataeme Eve Acquire, Create, or Procreate with Yahweh? A Grammatical and Contextual Reassessment Of mxp in Genesis 42 David F. Bokovoy Brandeis University bokorey@brandeseda Absuract Eve'sstatemenc that she had 739 8 man in Genes 1 has ben the subject of considerable aca demic debate A grammatical reassessment of the Semitic root gnh/any, as well sa contextual analysis of Eve's expression MTN OPN supports areing for Genes qnh = “acquire,” by far the most commonin the Hebrew Bible, and the second Ugaritic/Canaanite *qny > qnh = “create. However, the distinction between these hypothetical roots proposed by Zimmern and Humbert remains uncertain? Historically, whatever conceptual distinction did exist between creating versus owning, the evidence suggests that in terms of “creation,” this was not nearly as rigidly defined as many scholars have previously assumed. A deity, for instance, would naturally take up ownership/lordship or “acquire” the world organized via “creation,” meaning the physical act of providing structure to primordial chaos, Ultimately, therefore, the debate regarding the disconnect between creation versus acquisition appears to reflect the popular theological assumption of creation as a divine act that somehow derives ex nihilo or “out of nothing” This widely attested contemporary view, however, does not accord with ancient ‘Near Eastern conceptions. As witnessed in the Bible's opening chapter, ancient Israelite creation reflected a process whereby deity assumed ownership or became in a sense “master” of preexistent material, providing that chaotic sub- © Paul Humbert, “Qénd ‘en hébreu biblique,” in Festehrft Alfied Bertholer (ed. Baumgartner, ‘Tbingen: Mohr, 1950), 251-266. © id, 262, 266. 19) ‘The editors of the HALOT, for instance, note the improbability of the proposal “because the verb in Uzaritic has already come to mean both to acquire and to possess as well as to create; in vol 2:3DE Bokovay /Vtus Testamentum 63 (2013) 9-35 27 stance with cosmic order. As Marc Brettler has explained, Priestly creation in Genesis 1, forinstance, “does not describe creation out of nothing (Latin creatio exnihilo); primeval stuff already exists in verses 1-2, and the text shows no con- cern for how it originated,"*S The same observation can be said in terms of the non-P material in Genesis 2, which represents creation as an act whereby the deity Yahweh assumes a position of lordship over the primordial earth prior to its production of plants (Gen 2:4b-6). For these biblical authors, creation con- sisted of a grand cosmic event whereby deity acquired ownership over the unorganized primordial earth by providing the originally chaotic base with structure. Biblical statements linking the “creation” of the House of israel with a divine act of “establishing” the Israelite clan as Yahweh's covenant people illustrate this relationship. Though as the most powerful deity among the gods, Yahweh hed presumably “created” all humanity in a generative sense (Exodus 15:n), the s0 called Song of Moses specifically sets Israel apart from her Canaanite neigh- bors as a people whom Yahweh had 7p, meaning “established” or perhaps “acquired”: cinay rina omy bon oh TROT mnie oy apy maz yap 7ay 1p (Ex. 1526) ‘Terror and dread fell upon thet, By the greatness of your arm. ‘They became silent like a rock until your people, 0 Yahweh, passed by, until the people whom you acquired passed by. 30 For arecent analysis of the issue of creation via providing chaos with order, see Klaus Berger, “Creatio Non ex nihilo und die Theodizeetrage” in Stet nicht geschrieben? (Regensburg: Pustet, 2001), 9-25 for a detailed consideration ofthe literary structure used to compose Genesie 24a asa symbol of deity providing order to chaos, see Bemhard W. Anderson. “The Priestly Creation Story: Stylistic Study" in OB7 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994), 4255. 38) Mare 2vi Breitler, How to Read the Bible (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2005), 4128 DE Bokovay / Vetus Testamentum 63 (2082) 19-55 ‘The meaning of mup in this passage is made clear by the parallel conception of Yahweh in the subsequent verse, performing the act of ND in the sense of “establishing” his sanctuary as the place of his sacred abode: vayom woRan romana mim rbpp gnaw) pon sre win rm (Bx.1587) ‘You brought them and planted them, on the mountain of your possession ‘The fixed place you made for your abode, 0 Yahweh, sanctuary, 0 Lord, that your hands have established, Inother words, Yahweh had taken a preexisting group (Israel) and “created” it (map) as his people, meaning“acquired," or ‘established’ in a mannerreflective of the way Yahweh had taken ownership of a preexisting structure, creating (N2) the sanctuary as his own divine abode. The use of 737 and 12 in these biblical verses reminds one of their use in the previously cited KTU 110 III 6, where the dwn verb is presumably also an L (pélél ) verb stem. Drawing upon this same motif, Psalm 74 describes deity's act of “establishing/creating” the congregation of Israel in connection with Yahweh acquiring his temple: ay op mp now arora ow mre mw (Ps. 742) Remember your congregation that you acquired anciently that you purchased the tribe of your inheritance, [Remember] this mount Zion wherein you dwell,DE Bokovey / Vetus Testamentum 6 (2013) 19-35. 29 Here, the meaning of 3p is made clear by its connection with the Hebrew verb 583 mesning, ‘to purchase,” and the Hebrow noun nbn} meaning “inheritance.” In terms of divine action, 4p describes an act of taking ownership over preexisting entities, such as a tribe of people, or even primordial earth, and then organizing that entity into a personal possession (ns). From an ancient perspective, this process constituted an act of “creation.” With a reference to Yah- web anciently performing an act of M4 in the sense of “acquiring” Israel as his, ‘inheritance’ (nn), Psalm 74:2 parallels the imagery in Ex. 1517 which depicts Yahweh planting Israel upon the mountain the god had established (119) as his ‘inheritance’ (79n3). Similar imagery appears in the book of Deuteronomy, which depicts primordial creation as an act whereby the high deity El Elyon divided up the nations of the earth according to the number of the gods in the divine council. The MT for Deut 32:8 presents El Elyon establishing these divisions in accor- dance with the number of the ‘Sons of Israel” (87W? "33). However, a restora- tion of the account's original form would most likely read: pow moron cena may wa TI Pax Sew noe pit own roy brana © Drs 93 BA ony nba an mmdaaaa 19607 way rir pon 13 anbm ban apy (Deut. 32:7-9) © Remember the days of old, consider the years of ages past; ask your father, he will inform you, your elders, they will tell you: ‘© When ElElyon gave nations their homes and set the divisions of man, he fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to the number of the gods. ¢© For Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob his own inheritance.30 D.E Bokovoy /Vetus Testamentum €3 (2013) 19-35 Significantly, the toxt states that as part of “creation,” Jacob and his family had been given to Yahweh as his “inheritance/possession’ (nbn), the same term used to define Yahweh's primordial mountain in Exodus 15:17, and his people in Psalm 74:2. Scholarly consensus holds that the MT's reference in Deuteronomy 32:8 to the 5x7wr “33 reflects a later theological correction?* Interpretive challenges for the passage dissipate by adopting the reading suggested above featured in other ancient manuscripts, including the Qumran scrolls and the Septuagint" Hence, as Emanuel Tov explained in his important study, in its probably original wording, reconstructed from 4QDeut and [the Septuagint], the Song of Moses referred to an assembly of the gods (c.f. Psalm 82; 1 Kgs 22:19), in which ‘the Most High, ‘Elyon, fixed the boundaries of peoples according to the number of the sons of the God El”°* According to this emendation, the biblical passage states that when El Elyon allotted various nations to the gods in his assembly, this deity made the same number of nations and territories as there were divine beings. “Each of these gods was thought to have one of these nations as his personal property (noni 93n apy"); YHWH’s property was Jacob (see v. 9).”®® Therefore, this view of “creation” as an act of “establishing! acquiring” or “putting into order’ preexisting entities (whether people or even sacred space) illustrates why 7p carries two seemingly separate nuances in biblical semantics. Retuming to Genesis 42, we sce that a survey of the biblical and general Semitic evidence for the root qny allows for three possible translations of Eve's expression WN "TN: 1. “Vhave acquired a man” 2. “Lhave created aman.” 3. “Lhave procreated a man.” ‘© Fora recent overview ofthe scholarship on the Song of Moses, see Paul Sanders, The Prove nance of Deuteronomy 32 (vol.37; Leen; New York: Bil g96);see also Frank Moore Gross and David Noel Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yakwistic Poetry (Grand Rapids, Mi Eerdmans, 19¢7); \Waliam Foxwell Albright, ‘Some Rematks on the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy XXXU," VI'¢ (0959): 399-346: David A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (vol no. 3 Missoula, Mont: Society of Biblical Literature forthe Seminar on Form Criticism, 1972). ® In addition to the reading ‘Sons of God, see Joosten's recent analysis which argues for an cemendation of the text to “the numberof thesons of Bull EI (OX “W5793)" Jan Joosten, "A Note on the Text of Deuteronomy xaxil 8 W757 (2007):548-585- Emanuel Tor, Textual Criticism ofthe Hebrew Bible Minneapolis Fortress Prt 2003) 289. 2 Sanders. 157DLE Bokovoy / Vetus Testamentur 63 (2013) 9-35 3 Since Eve's act of n3p occurred with Yahweh, the specific nuance of acquire” or ‘obtain’ often associated with the Semitic root isin this specific instance to be rejected. Despite the fact that as illustrated, such actions appear directly linked with creative acts in ancient Semitic thought, Eve's statement would make lit- tle sense if conceptualized as “I have obtained acquired aman with Yahweh.” Hence, as a result of this important interpretive issue, a proper understand ing of the prepositional phrase TIT" i proves essential in an effort to define Bve's use of xp. Unfortunately, however, determining the precise meaning of the preposition NX in biblical phrases can prove a somewhat complicated task. Inthe words of Bruce Waitke and Michael O'Conner, for both “morphological” and “syntactic” reasons, as a comitative /instrumental preposition, “the particle AK is one of the most difficult grammatical morphemes in Biblical Hebrew."*° Asnoted by Gerhard van Red, this interpretive challenge proves especially true interms of the particle's meaning in Genesis 43: But completely unexplainable is et-yhwh..., which cannot be understood as accusative, but is stil best taken prepositionally, even though one must remember that otherwise ‘¢ never means ‘with the help of? The passage can no longer be clarified." Despite van Rad's apprehension that scholars cannot hope to explain the original meaning of M7" NN, a careful grammatical consideration of the passage does, in reality, provide some clarity. Since technically, the preposition NX can carry either a comitative or instrumental nuance, it is essential to specify the conceptual distinction between these two cases. A comitative use of with in Genesis 421 would conceptualize ‘Yahweh as a subject “in company with,” or as an actor who performed 737 along with Eve. In contrast, taking the MX in Genesis 41 as denoting an instra- ‘mental case of MN would conceptually place Cain in the position of the direct object with Yahweh camying merely an ‘instrumental function,” ie. “with the help of..." ‘Two English sentences borrowed from John Lyon's classic study on theoretical linguistics help to conceptualize the distinction “© Bruce K. Waltke and Michael Patrick O'Connor, An iniraduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Leke, Ind: Elsenbraus, 1990), 177. + Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: 4 Commentary (ed. Wright; Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1972}, 205104. © John Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 295-296.3 D.E Bokovoy / Vetus Testamentum €3 (2015) 19:35, CComitative:John went to town with Mary Instrumental: John killed Mary with «knife In the comitative example, John serves as the subject. “With Mary” has comitative function, Le. “in company with John.” In contrast, the instrumental example of “with” places Mary as the direct object and conceptualizes Anjfé as an object with an ‘instrumental function.” Interpreting the sentence D8 37, TYY"NR as “I (pro)ereated a man with the help of Yahweh" (as grammarians such as Waltke and O'Connor tend to do) views Yahweh as an instrument rather than an involved participant in the creative act. Yet envisioning Yahweh asa tool rather than a companion seems to reflect modern rather than ancient conceptions, especially in ight of Genesis’ non-Priestly perception of deity as an anthropomorphic being. Therefore, Eve's expression should not be understood as ‘T have acquired a man with (the help of) Yahweh.” ‘The second option, ie.“I have created a man” works much better conceptually, yet still presents interpretive problems. Linguistically, the notion of a mor- tal woman creating a man runs counter to biblical vernacular, which instead typically describes the physical act of conception as 1'7 “to bear/conceive” rather than create.** The standard usage of 7 as opposed to 713 in the context of conception appears subsequently in Genesis 4 in the context of Eve conceiving Seth: “Adam knew his wife again and she bore a son” (Tp DTN YT Ja7m nw“; v. 95). Granted, as noted at the commencment of this study, the verb 3p appears to have been chosen by the Yahwist due to its connection in an ancient sense with the name PP “Cain.” However, the editor's introductory description to U8 “IVP stating that the man knew or even “had known” (pluperfect) Eve reveals that Eve did procreate Cain through the act of referring as a euphemism to sexual intercourse. In other words, the narrator's introductory comments actually demand that nup be interpreted in a way comparable to its Ugaritic meaning in the specific sense of “procreate.” For ‘up, Genesis 4a sets up a context of intercourse with 7 (the sexual act), 17” (conception), and then finally 3p (procreation). Ifthe prepositional phrase “with Yahweh” was removed from the verse, no ‘one would fail to recognize that 74 must intrinsically be read as procreation by means of sexual intercourse. It is only with the addition of the phrase “with ‘Yahweh’ that the meaning of the word has historically proven problematic for interpreters: * See HALOT, vata.DLE Pokovoy /Vetus Testamentum 6 (2013) 97-35: 33 SOP. 7AM ines on ns pe oT wR Te ANN PP NR ‘The man knew his wife Eve. She conceived and bore Cain, So she said, “Ihave rocreated a man.” As illustrated, historically, the term qny can specifically function as “procreate* throughout general Semitic depictions. Since in Genesis 4:1, the man fnew his wife sexually in order for Eve to effectuate the act of 7up with respect to Cain, the verb should clearly be read in this same manner, ie. creation by means of sexual intercourse. Even though Yahweh himself obviously did not engage in sexual relations with Eve, from a theological perspective, the deity certainly had a mysterious, albeit direct divine role to play in the first act of human procreation. Eve's dec- Jaration in Genesis 42 may suggest that she sees herself as a link from divine creation to successive human births; she becomes progenitor of man “with Yahweh.” If correct, this reading would explain why Eve makes the unusual statement that she created VX “man” instead of the expected “child” or “son.” Therefore, the best option for translating Eve's celebratory refrain is in fact option three, “I have procreated a man.” ‘The idea conveyed in Genesis 42 that as a creator deity, Yahweh assumed a direct, participatory role in the act of human conception appears in Psalm 1392: oa map ans vax oa 3200 Indeed, you created my soul. You wove me in my mother’s womb. This often over-looked line of biblical poetry uses the same Hebrew verb that appears in Genesis 41 to depict Yahwch’s role as an agent in human procreation. In some mysterious way, incomprehensible to the Israelite poet, Yahweh had map the innermost secret part of man and asa creator god, actively “wove” the poet in his mother’s womb. The line attributed to Eve in Genesis 4:1 appears to parallel this tradition. Finally, this same view of Yahweh as an active partner in the procreation of human life assumes an important role in the biblical birth-oracles. As one such 4) Seealso the comparable statement in Jeremiah 15, which states that Yahweh 19 formed’ the prophet in his mother's womb.a4 DE Bokovoy / Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) 9-35 narrative, the story of Isaac’s conception in Genesis 212-3 shows evidence for Yahweh's direct role in human procreation through a blending of various source traditions.‘ In its present form, the passage portrays Yahweh “visiting” Abraham's wife Sarah, enabling the barren women to conceive a son: BP WB TWD MW AAPA AE pmax} aap sbm sam ate mh Orne tne IST Awe NN Mp Ta awe i) fam aa ov AR DAK IP pre my bay (Gen. 1526) ‘Yahweh visited Sarah, as he had said. Then ‘Yahweh did to Sarah as he had spoken. Sarah conceived and bore to Abraham a son to his old age, at the time about which God had spoken to him. So Abraham called the name of his son born unto him, whom Sarah had born unto him, Isaac. By representing Yahweh as an active agent “visiting” (7p) the woman and “doing” (rtp) to her what he had spoken, the story shares a clear thematic tie with Eve's statement in Genesis 4: ‘I have procreated a man with Yahweh.” Yahweb’s direct involvement in Isaac's birth appears reflected in the author’s use of the verb 7p in Genesis 2112, Making this same observation, Geo Widengren observed that “Middle Hebrew uses the verb pagad not only in the sense of ‘visit, but also with a special meaning, namely to visit a woman in © source atribution for Genesis 2:2 has historically proven problematic. Friedman identifies s1na to] and b to P. Most of verse, Friedman assigns toJ, with the phrase“at the appointed time that God had spoken," aswell as verse 3, toP. Friedman suggess, this must be recognized as one of the rare instances in which the name YHWH occurs in a passage that is identified as PI probably a result of the editing process, in which the two halves of verse 1 had extremely similar ‘content and structure to one another. The fact thatthe Redactor chose to retain both of them is farther confirmation that he was trying to retain both of hit main sources (P and J) in their ‘entirety whenever it was possible” Richard Eli Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses (San Francisce, CA: HagperSanF rancisco,2003),62.Skinne: follows the same patter, attributing abs to P and 2a to J. According to Skinner, the terms 717 and 13 inva mack the text as Jand sbisP He attributes the reference w Yahweh in ib toscribal error, see John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (Edinburgh T. & 7. Clark, 1980), 320,D.E Bokovoy / Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) 19-35 35 the sexual sense of the word.4® This statement, therefore, drawn from a matri- archal child-birth tradition would appear to reflect the theological view of Yahweh as a direct participant in the process of procreation expressed by Eve in Genesis 42. As illustrated through this study, when linked with deity, each of the tradt- tional cognates associated with the biblical root nap carries a series of distinct theological and literary ramifications. This observation proves especially truein terms of the author's view of Yahweh in Eve's statement, MAYS WN "PIP, A ‘grammatical reassessment of the Semitic root qrh/qny, as well as a careful contextual reading of Eve's statement supports the view of interpreting Genesis 4abas “I have procreated a man with Yahweh.” This observation illustrates that some biblical authors perceived their deity as an active creative agent in the mysterious process of human conception. 4) Geo Widengren, “Early Hebrew Myths and Their Interpretation,” in Myth, Ritual, and Keng- ship: Essays onthe Theory and Practice of Kingsip inthe Ancient Near East (a Hooke; Oxford: Clarension Pres, 198}, 184