That the planting of the garden was subsequent to the creation of man is the undoubted meaning of the writer; the rendering plantaverat (Vulgate: so Abraham Ibn Ezra) is grammatically impossible, and is connected with a misconception of מקדם below.—a garden in Eden] This is perhaps the only place where Eden (as a geographical designation) is distinguished from the garden (compare 210. 15 323. 24 4¹⁶, Isaiah 51³, Ezekiel 28¹³ 319. 16. 18 36³⁵, Joel 2³, Sirach 40²⁷). The common phrase גַּן עֵדֶן would suggest to a Hebrew the idea ‘garden of delight,’ as it is rendered by LXX (often) and Vulgate (v.i.). There is no probability that the proper name was actually coined in this sense. It is derived by the younger Delitzsch and Schrader from Babylonian edinu, ‘plain,’ ‘steppe,’ or ‘desert’ (Delitzsch Wo lag das Paradies? 80; Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament², 26 f.; Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 539); but it is a somewhat precarious inference that the garden was conceived as an oasis in the midst of a desert (Holzinger).—מִקֶּדֶם] ‘in the (far) East’; i.e. from the Palestinian standpoint of the author; not, of course, to be identified with any other עֶדֶן within the geographical horizon of the Israelites (see 2 Kings 19¹² [= Isaiah 37¹²], Ezekiel 27²³, Amos 1⁵).
Besides the passages cited above, the idea of a divine garden appears also in Genesis 13¹⁰, Ezekiel 31⁸. Usually it is a mere symbol of luxuriant fertility, especially in respect of its lordly trees (Ezekiel 318 f. 16. 18); but in Ezekiel 28¹³ it is mentioned as the residence of a semi-divine being. Most of the allusions are explicable as based on Genesis 2 f.; but the imagery of Ezekiel 28 reveals a highly mythological conception of which few traces remain in the present narrative. If the idea be primitive Semitic (and גַּן is common to all the leading dialects), it may originate in the sacred grove (Hima) “where water and verdure are united, where the fruits of the sacred trees are taboo, and the wild animals are ’anīs, i.e. on good terms with man, because they may not be frightened away” (Wellhausen Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels⁶ 303²; compare Reste arabischen Heidentums 141; Barton, A Sketch of Semitic Origins¹, 96). In early times such spots of natural fertility were the haunts of the gods or supernatural beings (Lectures on the Religion of the Semites², 102 ff.). But from the wide diffusion of the myth, and the facts pointed out on page 93 f. below, it is plain that the conception has been enriched by material from different quarters, and had passed through a mythological phase before it came into the hands of the biblical writers. Such sacred groves were common in Babylonia, and mythological idealisations of them enter largely into the religious literature (see Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 195 ff.).
8. גן] LXX παράδεισος (compare פרדס, Canticles 4¹³, Ecclesiastes 2⁵, Nehemiah 2⁸: probably from Persian), and so Vulgate, Peshiṭtå.—עֵדֶן] is regularly treated as a proper noun by TargumOnkelos, Peshiṭtå, by Vulgate only 4¹⁶ (everywhere else as appellative: voluptas, deliciæ). LXX has Ἐδεμ only in 28. 10 4¹⁶; elsewhere τρυφή[ς], except Isaiah 51³ (παράδεισος).—מקדם] Literally ‘in front’ (on the מן see König Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache ii. page 318; Brown-Driver-Briggs, 578ᵇ): in the history books it always means ‘east’ or ‘eastward’; but in prophets and Psalms it usually has temporal sense (‘of old’); and so it is misunderstood here by all versions except LXX (Vulgate in principio, etc.).—9. כל־עץ] Gesenius-Kautzsch § 127 b.—הדעת] The use of article with infitive construct is very rare (Davidson § 19), but is explained by the frequent use of דעת as abstract noun. Otherwise the construction is regular, טוב ורע being accusative, not genitive of object.—Budde (Die biblische Urgeschichte 51 f.) objects to the splitting up of the compound object by the secondary predicate בתוך הגן, and thinks the original text must have been ובתוך הגן עץ הדעח וגו׳; thus finding a confirmation of the theory that the primary narrative knew of only one tree, and that the tree of knowledge (page 52; so Ball, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). In view of the instances examined by Driver in Hebraica, ii. 33, it is doubtful if the grammatical argument can be sustained; but if it had any force it ought certainly to lead to the excision of the second member rather than of the first (Kuenen Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1884, 136; van Doorninck, ib., 1905, 225 f.; Eerdmans, ib. 494 ff.). A more important point is the absence of את before the definite object. The writer’s use of this participle is very discriminating; and its omission suggests that 9b is really a nominal clause, as rendered above. If we were to indulge in analysis of sources, we might put 9b (in whole or in part) after 8a, and assign it to that secondary stratum of narrative which undoubtedly spoke of a tree of life (3²²).
9. all sorts of trees ... food] The primitive vegetation is conceived as consisting solely of trees, on whose fruit man was to subsist; the appearance of herbs is a result of the curse pronounced on the ground (317 f.).—and the tree of life (was) in the midst] On Budde’s strictures on the form of the sentence, v.i. The intricate question of the two trees must be reserved for separate discussion (pages 52 f., 94); for the present form of the story both are indispensable. The tree of life, whose fruit confers immortality (3²²; compare Proverbs 3¹⁸ 11³⁰ 13¹² 15⁴; further, Ezekiel 47¹², Revelation 22²), is a widely diffused idea (see Dillmann 49; Wünsche, Die Sagen vom Lebensbaum und Lebenswasser). The tree of knowledge is a more refined conception; its property of communicating knowledge of good and evil is, however, magical, like that of the other; a connexion with oracular trees (Lenormant, Les Origines de l’histoire i. 85 f.; Baudissin, Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte ii. 227) is not so probable. As to what is meant by ‘knowing good and evil,’ see page 95 ff.
The primitive Semitic tree of life is plausibly supposed by Barton (A Sketch of Semitic Origins¹, 92 f.) to have been the date-palm; and this corresponds to the sacred palm in the sanctuary of Ea at Eridu (IV R. 15*), and also to the conventionalised sacred tree of the seals and palace-reliefs, which is considered to be a palm combined with some species of conifer. Compare also the sacred cedar in the cedar forest of Gilgamesh, Tablets IV. V. For these and other Babylonian parallels, see Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 195 ff.
10. a river issued (or issues) from Eden] The language does not necessarily imply that the fountain-head was outside the garden (Driver, Bennett); the verb יָצָא is used of the rise of a stream at its source (Exodus 17⁶, Numbers 20¹¹, Judges 15¹⁹, Ezekiel 47¹, Zechariah 14⁸, Joel 4¹⁸). Whether the participle expresses past or present time cannot be determined.—from thence it divides itself] The river issues from the garden as a single stream, then divides into four branches, which are the four great rivers of the world. The site of Paradise, therefore, is at the common source of the four rivers in question (page 62–66 below). That is the plain meaning of the verse, however inconsistent it may be with physical geography.—11. Pîšôn] The name occurs (along with Tigris, Euphrates, Jordan, and Gihon) in Sirach 24²⁵, but nowhere else in Old Testament. That it was not a familiar name to the Hebrews is shown by the topographical description which follows. On the various speculative identifications, see Delitzsch and Dillmann, and page 64 f. below.—the whole land of Ḥăvîlāh] The phraseology indicates that the name is used with some vagueness, and considerable latitude. In 107. 29 25¹⁸ etc., Ḥavilah seems to be a district of Arabia (see page 202); but we cannot be sure that it bears the same meaning in the mythically coloured geography of this passage.—12. Two other products of the region are specified; but neither helps to an identification of the locality.—bĕdōlaḥ] a substance well known to the Israelites (Numbers 11⁷), is undoubtedly the fragrant but bitter gum called by the Greeks βδέλλιον or βδέλλα. Pliny (Naturalis Historia, xii. 35 f.) says the best kind grew in Bactriana, but adds that it was found also in Arabia, India, Media, and Babylonia.—the šōham stone] A highly esteemed gem (Job 28¹⁶), suitable for engraving (Exodus 28⁹ etc.), one of the precious stones of Eden (Ezekiel 28¹³), and apparently used in architecture (1 Chronicles 29²). From the Greek equivalents it is generally supposed to be either the onyx or the beryl (v.i.). According to Pliny, the latter was obtained from India, the former from India and Arabia (Naturalis Historia, xxxvii. 76, 86).—13. Gîḥôn] The name of a well on the East of Jerusalem (the Virgin’s spring: 1 Kings 1³³ etc.), which Abraham Ibn Ezra strangely takes to be meant here. In Jewish and Christian tradition it was persistently identified with the Nile (Sirach 24²⁷; LXX of Jeremiah 2¹⁸ [where שִׁחוֹר is translated Γηών]; Josephus Antiquities of the Jews i. 39, and the Fathers generally). The great difficulty of that view is that the Nile was as well known to the Hebrews as the Euphrates, and no reason appears either for the mysterious designation, or the vague description appended to the name.—land of Kûš] Usually Ethiopia; but see on 10⁶.—14. Ḥiddeḳel] is certainly the Tigris, though the name occurs only once again (Daniel 10⁴).—in front of ’Aššûr] Either between it and the spectator, or to the east of it: the latter view is adopted by nearly all commentaries; but the parallels are indecisive, and the point is not absolutely settled. Geographically the former would be more correct, since the centre of the Assyrian Empire lay East of the Tigris. The second view can be maintained only if אַשּׁוּר be the city which was the ancient capital of the Empire, now Ḳal‛at Šerḳāt on the West bank of the river. But that city was replaced as capital by Kalḫi as early as 1300 B.C., and is never mentioned in Old Testament. It is at least premature to find in this circumstance a conclusive proof that the Paradise legend had wandered to Palestine before 1300 B.C. (Gressmann, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft., x. 347).—Euphrates] The name (פְּרָת) needed no explanation to a Hebrew reader: it is the נָהָר par excellence of the Old Testament (Isaiah 8⁷ and often).
The site of Eden.—If the explanation given above of verse ¹⁰ be correct,—and it is the only sense which the words will naturally bear,—it is obvious that a real locality answering to the description of Eden exists and has existed nowhere on the face of the earth. The Euphrates and Tigris are not and never were branches of a single stream; and the idea that two other great rivers sprang from the same source places the whole representation outside the sphere of real geographical knowledge. In 10–14, in short, we have to do with a semi-mythical geography, which the Hebrews no doubt believed to correspond with fact, but which is based neither on accurate knowledge of the region in question, nor on authentic tradition handed down from the ancestors of the human race. Nevertheless, the question where the Hebrew imagination located Paradise is one of great interest; and many of the proposed solutions are of value, not only for the light they have thrown on the details of 10–14, but also for the questions they raise as to the origin and character of the Paradise-myth. This is true both of those which deny, and of those which admit, the presence of a mythical element in the geography of 10–14.
1. Several recent theories seek an exact determination of the locality of Paradise, and of all the data of 10–14, at the cost of a somewhat unnatural exegesis of verse ¹⁰. That of Friedrich Delitzsch (Wo lag das Paradies?, 1881) is based partly on the fact that North of Babylon (in the vicinity of Bagdad) the Euphrates and Tigris approach within some twenty miles of each other, the Euphrates from its higher level discharging water through canals into the Tigris, which might thus be regarded as an offshoot of it. The land of Eden is the plain (edinu) between the two rivers from Tekrit (on the Tigris: nearly a hundred miles North of Bagdad) and ‛Ana (on the Euphrates) to the Persian Gulf; the garden being one specially favoured region from the so-called ‘isthmus’ to a little South of Babylon. The river of verse ¹⁰ is the Euphrates; Pishon is the Pallakopas canal, branching off from the Euphrates on the right a little above Babylon and running nearly parallel with it to the Persian Gulf; Giḥon is the Shaṭṭ en-Nil, another canal running East of the Euphrates from near Babylon and rejoining the parent river opposite Ur; Ḥiddeḳel and Euphrates are, of course, the lower courses of the Tigris and Euphrates respectively, the former regarded as replenished through the canal system from the latter. Ḥavilah is part of the great Syrian desert lying West and South of the Euphrates; and Kush is a name for northern and middle Babylonia, derived from the Kaššite dynasty that once ruled there. In spite of the learning and ingenuity with which this theory has been worked out, it cannot clear itself of an air of artificiality at variance with the simplicity of the passage it seeks to explain. That the Euphrates should be at once the undivided Paradise-stream and one of the ‘heads’ into which it breaks up is a glaring anomaly; while verse ¹⁴ shows that the narrator had distinctly before his mind the upper course of the Tigris opposite Assur, and is therefore not likely to have spoken of it as an effluent of the Euphrates. The objection that the theory confuses rivers and canals is fairly met by the argument that the Babylonian equivalent of נָהָר is used of canals, and also by the consideration that both the canals mentioned were probably ancient river-beds; but the order in which the rivers are named tells heavily against the identifications. Moreover, the expression ‘the whole land of Ḥavilah’ seems to imply a much larger tract of the earth’s surface than the small section of desert enclosed by the Pallakopas; and to speak of the whole of northern Babylonia as ‘surrounded’ by the Shaṭṭ en-Nil is an abuse of language.—According to Sayce The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments, 95 ff.; A Dictionary of the Bible, i. 643 f.), the garden of Eden is the sacred garden of Ea at Eridu; and the river which waters it is the Persian Gulf, on the shore of which Eridu formerly stood. The four branches are, in addition to Euphrates and Tigris (which in ancient times entered the Gulf separately), the Pallakopas and the Choaspes (now the Kerkha), the sacred river of the Persians, from whose waters alone their kings were allowed to drink (Herodotus i. 188). Besides the difficulty of supposing that the writer of verse ¹⁰ meant to trace the streams upwards towards their source above the garden, the theory does not account for the order in which the rivers are given; for the Pallakopas is West of Euphrates, while the Choaspes is East of the Tigris.¹ Further, although the description of the Persian Gulf as a ‘river’ is fully justified by its Babylonian designation as Nâr Marratum (‘Bitter River’), it has yet to be made probable that either Babylonians or Israelites would have thought of a garden as watered by ‘bitter’ (i.e. salt) water.—These objections apply with equal force to the theory of Hommel (Aufsätze und Abhandlungen arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts, iii. 1, page 281 ff., etc., The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 314 ff.), who agrees with Sayce in placing Paradise at Eridu, in making the single stream the Persian Gulf, and one of the four branches the Euphrates. But the three other branches, Pishon, Giḥon, and Ḥiddeḳel, he identifies with three North Arabian wādīs,—Wadi Dawāsir, Wadi Rummā, and Wadi Sirhān (the last the ‘wādī of Diḳlah’ = ḫad-deḳel [see on verse ¹⁴ above], the name having been afterwards transferred to the Tigris).
2. Since none of the above theories furnishes a satisfactory solution of the problem, we may as well go back to what appears the natural interpretation of verse ¹⁰, and take along with it the utopian conception of four great rivers issuing from a single source. The site of Paradise is then determined by the imaginary common source of the two known rivers, Euphrates and Tigris. As a matter of fact, the western arm of the Euphrates and the eastern arm of the Tigris do rise sufficiently near each other to make the supposition of a common source possible to ancient cosmography; and there is no difficulty in believing that the passage locates the garden in the unexplored mountains of Armenia. The difficulty is to find the Pishon and the Giḥon. To seek them amongst the smaller rivers of Armenia and Trans-Caucasia is a hopeless quest; for a knowledge of these rivers would imply a knowledge of the country, which must have dispelled the notion of a common source. Van Doorninck has suggested the Leontes and Orontes (Theologisch Tijdschrift, xxxix. 236), but a Hebrew writer must surely have known that these rivers rose much nearer home than the Euphrates and Tigris. There is more to be said for the opinion that they represent the two great Indian rivers, Ganges and Indus, whose sources must have been even more mysterious than those of the Euphrates and Tigris, and might very well be supposed to lie in the unknown region from Armenia to Turkestan.¹ The attraction of this view is that it embraces all rivers of the first magnitude that can have been known in western Asia (for, as we shall see, even the Nile is not absolutely excluded); and it is no valid objection to say that the Indian rivers were beyond the horizon of the Israelites, since we do not know from what quarter the myth had travelled before it reached Palestine. Yet I find no modern writer of note who accepts the theory in its completeness. Delitzsch and Dillmann identify the Pishon with the Indus, but follow the traditional identification of Giḥon with the Nile (see page 61 above). But if the biblical narrator believed the Nile to rise with Euphrates and Tigris, it is extremely likely that he regarded its upper waters as the Indus, as Alexander the Great did in his time;² and we might then fall back on the old identification of Pishon with the Ganges.³ But it must be admitted that the names Ḥavilah and Kush are a serious difficulty to this class of theories. The latter, indeed, may retain its usual Old Testament meaning if Giḥon be the upper Nile, either as a continuation of the Indus or a separate river; but if it be the Indus alone, Kush must be the country of the Kaššites, conceived as extending indefinitely East of Babylonia. Ḥavilah has to be taken as a name for India considered as an extension of North-east Arabia, an interpretation which finds no support in the Old Testament. At the same time, as Dillmann observes, the language employed (‘the whole land of Ḥavilah’) suggests some more spacious region than a limited district of Arabia; and from the nature of the passage we can have no certainty that the word is connected with the Ḥavilah of Genesis 10.—An interesting and independent theory, based on ancient Babylonian geographical documents, has been propounded by Haupt. The common source of the four rivers is supposed to have been a large (imaginary) basin of water in North Mesopotamia: the Euphrates and Tigris lose themselves in marshes; the Pishon (suggested by the Kerkha) is conceived as continued in the Nâr Marratum (Persian Gulf) and the Red Sea, and so ‘encompasses’ the whole of Ḥavilah (Arabia); beyond this there was supposed to be land, through which the Giḥon (suggested by the Karun) was supposed to reach Kush (Ethiopia), whence it flowed northwards as the Nile. The theory perhaps combines more of the biblical data in an intelligible way than any other that has been proposed; and it seems to agree with those just considered in placing the site of Eden at the common source of the rivers, to the North of Mesopotamia.⁴
3. It seems probable that the resources of philology and scientific geography are well-nigh exhausted by theories such as have been described above, and that further advance towards a solution of the problem of Paradise will be along the line of comparative mythology. Discussions precisely similar to those we have examined are maintained with regard to the Iranian cosmography—whether, e.g., the stream Ranḥa be the Oxus or the Yaxartes or the Indus; the truth being that Ranḥa is a mythical celestial stream, for which various earthly equivalents might be named (see Tiele, Geschichte der Religion im Altertum ii. 291 f.). If we knew more of the diffusion and history of cosmological ideas in ancient religions, we should probably find additional reason to believe that Genesis 210–14 is but one of many attempts to localise on earth a representation which is essentially mythical. Gunkel (¹33, ²31), adopting a suggestion of Stucken, supposes the original Paradise to have been at the North pole of the heavens (the summit of the mountain of the gods: compare Ezekiel 28¹⁴), and the river to be the Milky Way, branching out—[but does it?]—into four arms (there is some indication that the two arms between Scorpio and Capricornus were regarded in Babylonia as the heavenly counterparts of Euphrates and Tigris: see Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament³, 528). It is not meant, of course, that this was the idea in the mind of the biblical writer, but only that the conception of the mysterious river of Paradise with its four branches originated in mythological speculation of this kind. If this be the case, we need not be surprised if it should prove impossible to identify Pishon and Giḥon with any known rivers: on the other hand, the mention of the well-known Tigris and Euphrates clearly shows that the form of the myth preserved in Genesis 210–14 located the earthly Paradise in the unknown northerly region whence these rivers flowed. And the conclusion is almost inevitable that the myth took shape in a land watered by these two rivers,—in Babylonia or Mesopotamia (see Gressmann, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft., x. 346 f.).
10. יפרד] Frequently imperfect? So Driver, A Treatise on the use of the Tenses in Hebrew §§ 30 α, 113, 4 β; Gesenius-Kautzsch § 107 d (‘always taking place afresh’), Davidson § 54 (b). That seems hardly natural. Is it possible that for once מִשָּׁם could have the effect of אָז in transporting the mind to a point whence a new development takes place? (Davidson § 45, R. 2).—רָאשִׁים] Not ‘sources’ but ‘branches’; as Arabic ra’s en-nahr (as distinct from ra’s el-‛ain) means the point of divergence of two streams (Wetzstein, quoted by Delitzsch, page 82). So Assyrian rîš nâri or rîš nâr, of the point of divergence (Ausgangsort) of a canal (Delitzsch Wo lag das Paradies? 98, 191).—11. האחד] See on 1⁵.—הוא הסבב] On the determination of predicate, Davidson § 19, R. 3; compare Gesenius-Kautzsch § 126 k (so verse 13 f.).—החוילה] If the article be genuine, it shows that the name was significant (‘sandland,’ from חוֹל?); but everywhere else it is wanting, and The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch omits it here.—12. וּֽזֲהב] On metheg and hataf-pathach, see Gesenius-Kautzsch §§ 10 g, 16 e, f; König i. § 10, 6 e δ (compare 1¹⁸).—הִוא] The first instance of this Qrê perpetuum of the Pentateuch, where the regular הִיא is found only Genesis 14² 20⁵ 38²⁵, Leviticus 2¹⁵ 11³⁹ 1310. 21 16³¹ 21⁹, Numbers 513 f.. König (Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache i. page 124 ff.) almost alone amongst modern scholars still holds to the opinion that the epicene consonantal form is genuinely archaic; but the verdict of philology and of Hexateuch criticism seems decisive against that view. It must be a graphic error of some scribe or school of scribes: whether proceeding from the original script definition הִא or not does not much matter (see Driver and White’s note on Leviticus 1¹³ in The Sacred Books of the Old Testament, page 25 f.).—טוב] The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch + מְאֹד.—הבדלח] Of the ancient versions LXX alone has misunderstood the word, rendering here ὁ ἄνθραξ (red garnet), and in Numbers 11⁷ (the only other occurrence) κρύσταλλος. Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word) can only be a clerical error. That it is not a gem is proved by the absence of אבן.—אבן השהם] LXX ὁ λίθος ὁ πράσινος (leek-green stone); other Greek versions ὄνυξ, and so Vulgate (onychinus); Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac word), TargumOnkelos בורלא. Philology has as yet thrown no light on the word, though a connexion with Babylonian sâmtu is probable. Myres (Encyclopædia Biblica, 4808 f.) makes the interesting suggestion that it originally denoted malachite, which is at once striped and green, and that after malachite ceased to be valued tradition wavered between the onyx (striped) and the beryl (green). Petrie, on the other hand (A Dictionary of the Bible, iv. 620), thinks that in early times it was green felspar, afterwards confused with the beryl. It is at least noteworthy that Jensen (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, vi. 1, 405) is led on independent grounds to identify sâmtu with malachite. But is malachite found in any region that could be plausibly identified with Ḥavilah?—13. גיחון] Probably from √ גיח (Job 38⁸ 40²³) = ‘bursting forth.’—14. שֵׁם] LXX omitted.—חדקל] Babylonian Idigla, Diglat, Aramaic דִּגְלַת and (‡ Syriac word), Arabic Diǧlat; then Old Persian Tigrâ, Pehlevi Digrat, Greek Τίγρις and Τίγρης. The Persian Tigrâ was explained by a popular etymology as ‘arrow-swift’ (Strabo); and similarly it was believed that the Hebrews saw in their name a compound of חַד, ‘sharp,’ and קַל, ‘swift,’—a view given by Rashi, and mentioned with some scorn by Abraham Ibn Ezra. Hommel’s derivation (The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 315) from ḫadd, ‘wādī,’ and דִּקְלָה (= ‘wādī of Diḳlah,’ Genesis 10²⁷), is of interest only in connexion with his peculiar theory of the site of Paradise.—קדמת] Rendered ‘in front’ by LXX (κατέναντι), Peshiṭtå ((‡ Syriac word)) and Vulgate (contra); as ‘eastward’ by Aquila, Symmachus (ἐξ ἀνατολῆς) and TargumOnkelos (למדנחא). This last is also the view of Rashi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and of most moderns. But see Nöldeke Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xxxiii. 532, where the sense ‘eastward’ is decisively rejected. The other examples are 4¹⁶, 1 Samuel 13⁵, Ezekiel 39¹¹†.—פרת] Babylonian Purâtu, Old Persian Ufrâtu, whence Greek Εὐφράτης.
15. to till it and to guard it] To reject this clause (Budde), or the second member (Dillmann), as inconsistent with 317 ff. are arbitrary expedients. The ideal existence for man is not idle enjoyment, but easy and pleasant work; “the highest aspiration of the Eastern peasant” (Gunkel) being to keep a garden. The question from what the garden had to be protected is one that should not be pressed.—16 f. The belief that man lived originally on the natural fruit of trees (observe the difference from 1²⁹) was widespread in antiquity, and appears in Phœnician mythology.¹ Here, however, the point lies rather in the restriction than the permission,—in the imposition of a taboo on one particular tree.—For the words of the knowledge of good and evil it has been proposed to substitute “which is in the midst of the garden” (as 3³), on the ground that the revelation of the mysterious property of the tree was the essence of the serpent’s temptation and must not be anticipated (3⁵) (Budde, Holzinger, Gunkel, al.). But the narrative ought not to be subjected to such rigorous logical tests; and, after all, there still remained something for the serpent to disclose, viz. that such knowledge put man on an equality with God.—in the day ... die] The threat was not fulfilled; but its force is not to be weakened by such considerations as that man from that time became mortal (Jerome, al.), or that he entered on the experience of miseries and hardships which are the prelude of dissolution (Calvin, al.). The simple explanation is that God, having regard to the circumstances of the temptation, changed His purpose and modified the penalty.
15. The verse is either a resumption of 8b after the insertion of 10–14, or a duplicate from a parallel document. It is too original to be a gloss; and since there was no motive for making an interpolation at 8b, the excision of 10–14 seems to lead necessarily to the conclusion that two sources have been combined.—את־האדם] LXX + ὃν ἔπλασεν (as verse ⁸).—וינּיחהו] On the two Hiphils of נוח and their distinction in meaning, see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 72 ee, and the Lexicon.—עדן] LXXLucian and most cursives render τῆς τρυφῆς: LXXᴬ and uncials omit the word.—לעבדָהּ וגו׳] Since גן is nowhere feminine, it is better to point לעבדֹה ולשמרֹה (see Albrecht, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, xvi. 53).—16. האדם] LXX Ἀδαμ, Vulgate ei. Except in verse ¹⁸, the word is regularly, but wrongly, treated as a proper noun by these two versions from this point onwards.—17. מות תמות] Symmachus θνητὸς ἔσῃ. In LXX the verbs of this verse are all plural (as 33. 4).