The contents of the major section Gen 1–3 sequentially, in a hypertextual way illustrate the contents of the Deuteronomic major section Deut 1:1–2:1.
The opening section Gen 1:1–2:3 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding opening section Deut 1:1–5.
The opening thought that (a) in the beginning (c) God (b) created (d) the heaven and (e) the earth/land, so that the latter was a space of cultically inferior value (Gen 1:1; cf. 1:14–15), conceptually, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) these beginning (cf. Deut 1:5) words, which (c) Moses, and in fact Yahweh through him (cf. Deut 1:3), (b) spoke (d) to all Israel, presumably with the heaven-related (שמים: Deut 33:13; cf. Gen 49:25), sanctuary-related, and consecrated tribe of Joseph (cf. Deut 11:29–12:28; 27:4–8; 33:16), (e) beyond the Jordan, so in the cultically inferior part of the land (הארץ) given by Yahweh God (אלהים) to the Israelites (Deut 1:1ab; cf. 2:31–3:18; 4:47–49; Josh 22:10–34). Therefore, the bipartite division of space between the heaven and the earth (Gen 1:1), which is at variance with the tripartite cosmology of the narrative Gen 1:2–31 (cf. Exod 20:11),1 illustrates the Deuteronomic bipartite division of space between the land of Israel proper (Canaan) and the territory beyond the Jordan (Deut 1:1).2
The particular motif3 of God creating the heaven and the earth (ברא + אלהים + השמים + הארץ: Gen 1:1) was borrowed from Isa ←37 | 38→45:18.4 Therefore, probably under the influence of Isa 45:18–19, which connects Yahweh God’s creating activity with Yahweh’s speaking, the verb ברא (‘create’) was used in Genesis, apart from the retrospective statement of Gen 6:7, in the places which illustrate the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh speaking to the Israelites through Moses: Gen 1:1 (cf. Deut 1:1ab); Gen 1:21 (cf. Deut 1:3b); Gen 1:27 (cf. Deut 1:3c); Gen 2:3–4b (cf. Deut 1:5–6a); and Gen 5:1–2 (cf. Deut 2:17–18).
The subsequent idea of the earth/land being (a) wasteland (תהו: cf. Deut 32:10: מדבר *תהו) and (b) emptiness (Gen 1:2ab)5 conceptually, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the territory beyond the Jordan being (a) wilderness (מדבר) and (b) desert (Deut 1:1b). The particular motif of the earth/land being wasteland and emptiness, as well as remaining in darkness (הארץ + תהו ובהו: Gen 1:2ab) was borrowed from Jer 4:23.6
The subsequent, quite surprising idea of the S/spirit of God7 hovering like a bird over the surface of the water (Gen 1:2c)8 in a graphic way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of being in front of Suph, which means ‘water reeds’ (סוף: Deut 1:1; cf. Deut 1:40; Exod 2:3; etc.). It is worth noting that the motif of the Spirit of God (רוח אלהים), which was borrowed from Ezek 11:24, in Num 24:1–2 appears in the context of the wilderness (מדבר) in Transjordan, ←38 | 39→and the Deuteronomic Suph was also located in the wilderness in Transjordan (Deut 1:1). The particular motif of God hovering like a bird over something (רחף + על: Gen 1:2c) was borrowed from Deut 32:11 (cf. the earlier use of Deut 32:10 in Gen 1:2a).9
The subsequent idea of separating (a) between (בין) the good light (b) and (ובין) the presumably bad darkness (Gen 1:3–4)10 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of being (a) between the presumably good Paran (b) and the presumably bad Tophel (Deut 1:1). The name of Paran (פארן) has positive connotations related to light because it refers in Deuteronomy to the place of Yahweh shining forth (Deut 33:2; cf. Hab 3:3–4: פארן + אור), whereas the name of Tophel (תפל) has negative connotations related to darkness because it elsewhere refers to smearing sinfully whitewash before the presumably dark hailstorm of Yahweh’s anger (cf. Ezek 13:10–15; 22:28).
The subsequent motifs of (a) day, (b) night, and (c) sunset and sunrise (Gen 1:5a–d)11 graphically,12 in a sequential way illustrate the subsequent Deuteronomic remarks concerning (a) the etymologically ‘white,’ so day-like Laban, (b) the presumably night-time ‘courtyards, settlements’ Hazeroth, and (c) the ‘golden’ Di-zahab (Deut 1:1).
The subsequent, quite surprising idea of counting time in terms of one (diff. Gen 1:8 etc.: first) day (יום + אחד: Gen 1:5d),13 an idea which is additionally ←39 | 40→surprising in view of the fact that the sun, measuring the days, has not yet been created (cf. Gen 1:14),14 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of counting time in terms of one and ten days (אחד + יום: Deut 1:2).
The subsequent idea of the firmament (Gen 1:6–8) with the use of Ezekiel’s motif of a firmament (רקיע) as God’s theophanic place, reaching heaven, outside Israel (cf. Ezek 1:22–26),15 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Horeb as God’s initial theophanic place, reaching heaven, outside Israel (Deut 1:2; cf. 1:6; 4:10–11; etc.). The somewhat surprising absence of the typical statement that it was good (Gen 1:7–8; diff. 1:4 etc.)16 reflects the Deuteronomic idea of Horeb as the negative background to Israel’s journey to Canaan (Deut 1:2; cf. 1:6). The particular motif of a speaker saying that something should happen, and the narrator confirming that it was so, thus confirming the reliability of God’s word (ויאמר + אלהים + ויהי־כן: Gen 1:6–7 etc.), was borrowed from Judg 6:36–38.
The subsequent idea of good dry land as opposed to the waters of the sea gathered, quite surprisingly, in one place somewhere aside (Gen 1:9–10) with the use of the motif also known from the account of going from Egypt to Israel on dry land in the midst of the waters of the sea (המים + יבשה + ים: Exod 14:21–22;17 cf. Josh 4:22–23)18 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a way, presumably from Horeb, through the dry Sinai peninsula sided by the waters of the sea (cf. Exod 23:31), to Canaan (Deut 1:2).
The subsequent idea of good vegetation, consisting of herbs and fruit trees (Gen 1:11–13), but not agricultural plants (diff. Gen 2:5), illustrates the ←40 | 41→subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh’s Mount Seir (cf. Deut 33:2), whose name probably means ‘hairy,’ that is, ‘covered with plants’ (שעיר: Deut 1:2). The particular motif of herbal vegetation (דשא + עשב: Gen 1:11–12), related to שעיר (seir: cf. Deut 1:2), was borrowed from Deut 32:2. The motif of vegetation consisting of fruit trees of various kinds (דשא + עץ + פרי: Gen 1:11–12) may have been borrowed from Joel 2:22.
The subsequent idea of good ‘lamps’: the sun, the moon, and the stars, functioning as signs for liturgical festivals (מועד),19 days, and years (שנה), as well as giving light over the earth continually, including the time from evening to morning (Gen 1:14–19), with the use of the motif of the lamp (מאור) in God’s place of liturgical meeting (מועד),20 giving light continually,21 from evening (ערב) to morning (בקר), thus spiritually shining over the whole land of Israel (cf. Exod 27:20–21; Lev 24:2–3), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic ideas of a ‘sanctuary’22 at Kadesh (‘holy place’) Barnea, as well as a particular year, month, and day (Deut 1:2–3a). The particular motif of luminaries in the heaven, giving light upon the earth/land (מאורת + שמים + אור + על + ארץ: Gen 1:14–16), was borrowed from Ezek 32:8.
The subsequent idea of God blessing the good swarming living creatures by speaking to them, so that they might become fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:20–25),23 with the use of the motif known from the account of the sons of Israel (בני ישראל) being fruitful, prolific, and multiplying (פרה + שרץ + רבה: Exod 1:7)24 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses speaking to the presumably numerous and blessed (cf. Deut 1:10–11) sons of Israel (Deut 1:3b). The particular motif of waters swarming with all living creatures in their kinds, being numerous in the sea (שרץ + המים + כל־נפש *חיה + למינה* + רבה + ים: Gen 1:20–22), was borrowed from Ezek 47:9–10.25
←41 | 42→The subsequent idea of God creating the humans in his image, creating male and female, and commanding them to subdue and have dominion26 over the cattle, birds in the sky, and anything that creeps (Gen 1:26–31) with the use of the motif of Yahweh’s fundamental commandment which prohibits making an image of male and female, cattle, birds of the sky, and anything that creeps, presumably to worship them (זכר + נקבה + בהמה + עוף + שמים + כל + רמש: Deut 4:16–18), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh through Moses commanding the sons of Israel (Deut 1:3c).
The particular motif of a man being as the likeness of God (אדם + כ + דמות: Gen 1:26ab) was borrowed from Ezek 1:26.2827 in order to illustrate the aniconic28 ideology of Deut 4:16–18.29 The motif of image and likeness (צלם + דמות: Gen 1:26b) was borrowed from Ezek 23:14–15 in order to illustrate the Deuteronomic idea of a particular relationship between Yahweh and the sons of Israel (Deut 1:3c), which was reinterpreted in Deuteronomic terms of the Israelites being sons of Yahweh God (cf. Deut 1:31; 14:1), so presumably being similar to him like a son is similar to his father, as his likeness and his image (cf. Gen 5:3).30 The motif of the fish of the sea (דגת הים: Gen 1:26.28) was borrowed from Ezek 47:10 (cf. the earlier use of Ezek 47:9–10 in Gen 1:20–22). The motif of God creating the man on a certain day (ברא + אלהים + אדם + יום: Gen 1:27.31) was borrowed from Deut 4:32. Likewise, the motif of the presumably human male and female (זכר + נקבה: Gen 1:27) was borrowed from Deut 4:16. The motif of humans being fruitful and multiplying in the land (אדם + פרו + ורבו: Gen 1:26.28) ←42 | 43→was borrowed from Ezek 36:11.31 The military motif of subduing the earth/land (הארץ + כבשה: Gen 1:28ef; cf. Num 32:22.29)32 was borrowed from Josh 18:1.33
The subsequent, ambiguous34 statement concerning a bipartite army (צבא), a heavenly and an earthly one,35 being brought to an end (כלה pual: Gen 2:1; cf. piel in Deut 7:22; Exod 32:10; etc.: destroy; diff. Exod 39:32: ותכל כל־עבדת) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of having defeated two enemy kings with their armies (Deut 1:4). The particular motif of heavens and their army (שמים + וכל־צבאם: Gen 2:1) was borrowed from Isa 34:4; 45:12 and supplemented with the idea of an earthly army (Gen 2:1) to illustrate the idea of defeating earthly enemies (Deut 1:4).
The concluding, somewhat surprisingly repeated idea of God finishing his work (cf. Gen 2:1), resting on the seventh day, and sanctifying it, thus showing himself as sanctifying the day of the Sabbath (Gen 2:2–3; cf. Exod 20:8–11),36 illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Moses enacting the law, presumably with its Sabbath commandment (Deut 1:5). The particular motif of resting on the seventh day after doing all one’s work, and sanctifying the day of the Sabbath (יום השביעי + כל־מלאכת* + עשה + את־יום + קדש + שבת: Gen 2:2–3) was borrowed from Deut 5:12–15 and reworked by universalizing its justification from a historical-national one to a more developed, cosmic-anthropological one.
←43 | 44→The section Gen 2:4–25 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 1:6–18.
The opening37 idea of the heaven and the earth being created in the day in which Yahweh God (יהוה אלהים) was making (Gen 2:4a–c; cf. 5:1; Num 3:1: demon. pron. + תולדות + N + ביום + inf. const. + div. name + N)38 illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh our God (יהוה אלהינו) speaking (Deut 1:6a).
The subsequent idea of earth and heaven, oriented upwards (Gen 2:4c; diff. 1:1; 2:1.4a: the heaven and the earth),39 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the mountain of Horeb (Deut 1:6b), whose fire reached the heaven (cf. Deut 4:11).
The subsequent idea of the field in the earth/land being without shrubs and herbs because of the lack of rain and a human not tilling the ground,40 so that only mist repeatedly rose up from the land and watered the ground (Gen ←44 | 45→2:5–6),41 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites staying at the literally ‘dry’ (חרב: cf. Deut 1:6b) and desert mountain of Horeb (Deut 1:6c).
The subsequent idea of Yahweh God forming the human, dust from the ground (Gen 2:7a),42 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God calling the Israelites to turn (so reveal) their faces (פנה), presumably from the dry and desert mountain (Deut 1:7a).43 The particular motif of forming humans from the ground (יצר + אדמה: Gen 2:7a) was borrowed from Isa 45:9.
The subsequent idea of Yahweh God blowing into human nostrils the breath of life, so that the human became a living being (Gen 2:7bc), with the use of the motif of animate life (נפש חיה) as characterized by movement (cf. Gen 1:20–25)44 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God calling the Israelites to set out on a journey (Deut 1:7b). The particular motif of blowing to make humans alive (*חי + נפח: Gen 2:7bc) was borrowed from Ezek 37:9.
The subsequent idea of Yahweh God putting the man in a paradisiacal garden in Eden from the east (cf. Gen 11:2: מקדם),45 with the symbolic tree of life in the midst of it (Gen 2:8–9; diff. 3:3: the woman locating the tree of the knowledge of good and bad in the midst of the garden),46 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God calling the Israelites to go to their ←45 | 46→promised land,47 described from the east to the west (from the mountains of the Amorites, presumably in Transjordan: cf. Deut 1:4, to the Shephelah) and from the south to the north (from the Negeb to Lebanon), with the land of the Canaanites, presumably including the sanctuary in the region of Shechem (cf. Deut 11:29–12:28; esp. 11:30: in the land of the Canaanites),48 in the midst of it (Deut 1:7cd).
The particular motif of comparing Israel (cf. Deut 1:7) to a planted divine garden in Eden (Gen 2:8–9) was borrowed from Ezek 36:35–36 (נטע + גן + עדן; cf. also Ezek 28:13; Isa 51:3)49 and conflated with that of the trees of Eden (עדן + עץ: Ezek 31:9.16.18).50 The motif of the tree of life (עץ + חיים: Gen 2:9) may have been borrowed from Prov 3:18; 11:30; 13:12; 15:4.51 The motif of knowing good and bad,52 regarded as disobeying God’s command and autonomously deciding whether the fruit is good or bad (ידע + טוב ורע: Gen 2:9; cf. 3:5–6), was borrowed from Deut 1:39 (cf. 1:25–28).
The subsequent idea of a mighty river (נהר) going out of Eden and being divided into great rivers, which are enumerated apparently northward and which constitute the borders of various lands of diminishing mythical and geological ←46 | 47→value (Gen 2:10–14b),53 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the promised land extending northward as far as the great river, which constitutes its most distant border (Deut 1:7d). The particular motif of being surrounded in Eden by gold and onyx stone (עדן + זהב + אבן + שהם: Gen 2:10.12) was borrowed from Ezek 28:13.
The subsequent, surprisingly short remark (diff. Gen 2:11–14b) concerning the River Euphrates (נהר + פרת: Gen 2:14c)54 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic short remark concerning the River Euphrates (Deut 1:7d).
The subsequent idea of Yahweh God taking the man and putting him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it (Gen 2:15) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God setting the land before the Israelites (Deut 1:8ab). The particular motif of a human living in God’s garden of Eden (עדן + גן + אלהים: Gen 2:15) was borrowed from Ezek 28:13.55
The subsequent idea of Yahweh God commanding the man to eat freely of every tree of the garden (Gen 2:16)56 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God commanding the Israelites to come and take possession of the land (Deut 1:8cd).
The subsequent idea of Yahweh God commanding the man not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad (Gen 2:17) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God persuading the Israelites to regard the land as given to them by Yahweh (Deut 1:8ef), so that they should not autonomously decide whether it is good or bad (cf. Deut 1:25–28.39).
The subsequent idea of Yahweh God saying (ויאמר) that it is not (לא) good for a man to be alone (לבד), without a helper (Gen 2:18), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses saying (ואמר) that it is not possible for him alone to bear the Israelites (Deut 1:9).
The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh God (יהוה אלהים) forming all animals, including those of the heaven (השמים), and (b) the man calling them by a name (Gen 2:19–20a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God multiplying the Israelites as stars of the heaven, and (b) blessing them, as he spoke to them (Deut 1:10–11).
←47 | 48→The subsequent idea of the man finding no helper for himself (Gen 2:20b) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses bearing the burden and the load alone (Deut 1:12).
The subsequent idea of (a) God-given, visionary sleep (תרדמה: cf. Gen 15:12–13; Job 4:13; 33:15)57 falling upon the man, (b) who yielded to this influence (Gen 2:21ab), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) wise, understanding, and knowing men being set at the heads of the Israelites, (b) who yielded to this persuasion (Deut 1:13–14).
The subsequent idea of Yahweh God (a) taking (לקח) (b) one of (c) the sides58 of the man (יו*), (d) making it into a man-like ‘wo-man’ (אשה),59 and (e) bringing her to the man (f) as this (counted) time being from the body of the man, (g) being taken out of the man (איש: Gen 2:21c–23), by means of the hypertextual procedure of transsexuation (in this case, feminization)60 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses (a) taking (b) the heads of (c) the tribes/staffs of the Israelites (יכם*), (d) wise and knowing men (איש), and (e) giving them (f) as heads over their counted groups, (g) officials for their tribes (Deut 1:15). The particular motif of being one’s relative’s bone and flesh (עצם + ובשר: Gen 2:23) was borrowed from Judg 9:1.
The subsequent idea of (a) a man (איש) leaving his parents, thus severing the natural ties with his close relatives,61 and (b) clinging to his wife (Gen 2:24) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) righteously judging between a man and his presumably Israelite brother, as well as (b) his resident alien (Deut 1:16), presumably by loving the resident alien (גר: cf. Deut 10:18–19).
←48 | 49→The subsequent idea of (a) the two being naked, (b) both the man and his woman (Gen 2:25a), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) not showing undue respect to anyone’s person, (b) both the small and the great one (Deut 1:17ab).
The concluding idea of not (לא) being ashamed of the man and the woman (אשה: Gen 2:25b; cf. 2:25a)62 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of not being afraid of any man (איש: Deut 1:17c–18).
The section Gen 3:1–19 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 1:19–40.
The opening idea of the cunning, so dangerous serpent (Gen 3:1a)63 with the use of the motif of the serpent (נחש) as an animal typical of the great and terrible wilderness through which the Israelites went (הלך + מדבר הגדול והנורא: cf. Deut 8:15) illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites going through the great and terrible wilderness (Deut 1:19a–c).
The subsequent idea of the living beings of the field which (אשר) Yahweh God (יהוה אלהים) made (Gen 3:1b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites moving on the way according to what (אשר) Yahweh God commanded (Deut 1:19d).
The subsequent idea of God allegedly telling the humans not to eat of any tree of the paradisiacal garden (Gen 3:1c–e), in contrast to Yahweh God’s earlier command (Gen 2:16–17), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites only coming as far as Kadesh Barnea, thus not entering the promised land (Deut 1:19de), in contrast to Yahweh God’s earlier command (Deut 1:7–8).
The subsequent idea of the woman saying (אמר) that the humans are allowed to eat of the paradisiacal garden (Gen 3:2) by means of the hypertextual procedure of transsexuation (in this case, feminization)64 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses saying that the Israelites should go up and possess the promised land which was given to them (Deut 1:20–21e).
←49 | 50→The subsequent idea of the humans wrongly locating the tree of knowledge in the middle of the garden and being afraid of even touching it, thus exaggerating God’s prohibition (Gen 3:3; diff. 2:9.17: located somewhere, only not eating of it),65 in a negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites being called not to be afraid or terrified (Deut 1:21fg).
The subsequent idea of (a) the deceiving serpent speaking (אמר), (b) thus tempting the humans to eat of the tree and open the eyes (c) to be like God (אלהים) by knowing themselves good and bad (Gen 3:4–5), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the disbelieving Israelites speaking, (b) thus tempting Moses and the Israelites to spy out the land (c) to know themselves the good and the bad features (cf. Deut 1:25.28; cf. also 1:39: ידע + טוב ורע) of the land which Yahweh God promised them (Deut 1:22; cf. 1:21).
The subsequent idea of the tempting tree being seen as good (טוב) and desirable66 to the woman’s eyes (עינים: Gen 3:6a–c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the tempting utterance being regarded as good/pleasing (יטב) in Moses’ eyes (Deut 1:23a).
The subsequent idea of (a) the woman desiring the tree67 to (b) have insight (Gen 3:6de) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the testing Israelites coming to the valley of grapes (Eshcol) and (b) spying it out (Deut 1:23b–24).
The subsequent idea of the woman taking of the fruit (לקח + מפרי) of the tree and eating it (Gen 3:6fg) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the testing Israelites taking of the fruit of the land in their hands (Deut 1:25a).
←50 | 51→The subsequent idea of (a) the woman giving the fruit to the man who was with her,68 (b) who ate it (Gen 3:6hi), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the testing Israelites bringing the fruit of the land to other Israelites, (b) who received the message concerning the land (Deut 1:25b–f).
The subsequent image of being naked (Gen 3:7) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of not having the will to go up (Deut 1:26ab). The image of the ashamed humans making themselves military-style girdles (חגרת)69 of fig leaves (Gen 3:7)70 in an ironic way additionally illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites being shamefully afraid and powerless (Deut 1:26ab; cf. 1:27–28), in contrast to their later girding themselves (חגר) with weapons (Deut 1:41). The motif of being shamefully naked (עירם: Gen 3:7c) was borrowed from Ezek 16:39; 23:29; Deut 28:48; etc.
The subsequent idea of the humans hearing the voice of Yahweh God (יהוה אלהים) but hiding from it (Gen 3:8a–c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites being recalcitrant against the utterance of Yahweh their God (Deut 1:26c). The particular motif of hearing the voice of Yahweh, spoken in the Spirit (שמע + קול + רוח: Gen 3:8ab), evokes the motif of the prophetic speech (cf. Ezek 1:28–2:2; 3:10–17; etc.). The motif of Yahweh God walking within the holy territory (יהוה אלהים + מתהלך: Gen 3:8b) was borrowed from Deut 23:15.
The subsequent idea of the humans keeping themselves hidden from the face of Yahweh God in the midst of the trees (Gen 3:8c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites sullenly grumbling in their tents (Deut 1:27a).
The subsequent idea of (a) the man saying (אמר) that (b) he was afraid of Yahweh (יהוה) God because (c) he was naked, so he hid himself (Gen 3:9–10), ←51 | 52→conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites saying that (b) they regarded Yahweh as hating them and (c) bringing them out to destroy them (Deut 1:27b–e).
The subsequent idea of the man being truly naked because of having eaten of the forbidden tree (Gen 3:11) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites despairfully asking where they could go (Deut 1:28a).
The subsequent idea of the man blaming the woman by saying that she gave him of the tree (Gen 3:12) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites blaming their brothers (who gave them of the fruit: cf. Deut 1:25) by saying that they caused their hearts to melt (Deut 1:28b).
The subsequent idea of the woman saying (אמר) that she was deceived by the presumably frightening serpent (Gen 3:13; cf. Deut 8:15) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the testing Israelites saying exaggerated, frightening things concerning the Canaanites (Deut 1:28c–f).
The subsequent idea of Yahweh God saying (אמר) that the presumably frightening serpent will be cursed and tamed (Gen 3:14) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses saying that the Israelites should not be terrified or afraid of the Canaanites (Deut 1:29).
The subsequent idea of Yahweh God (יהוה אלהים: cf. 3:14) putting enmity between the humans and the serpent with his offspring (Gen 3:15a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic statement that Yahweh God will fight for the Israelites, as he did against the Egyptians (Deut 1:30).
The subsequent image of (a) the woman’s descendant bruising the serpent’s head, (b) who will only bruise the descendant’s heel (Gen 3:15bc),71 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic image of (a) Yahweh God protectively carrying Israel in the wilderness, presumably full of serpents (cf. Deut 8:15), (b) as a man carries his son, in all the way that they went, presumably through the wilderness (Deut 1:31).
The subsequent ideas of (a) the woman conceiving and bearing children in pain, presumably instead of joy and love,72 as well as (b) her heading73 being to ←52 | 53→her husband, and (c) his ruling over her (Gen 3:16) sequentially illustrate the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites not trusting Yahweh God, (b) who goes before them on the way, (c) to seek out for them a place for their camping, thus guiding them (Deut 1:32–33).
The subsequent idea of Yahweh (יהוה) God (cf. Gen 3:14) being angry because the man listened to the sinful voice (שמע + קול) of his wife (Gen 3:17a–f) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh being angry because he listened to the sinful voice of the Israelites’ words (Deut 1:34ab).
The subsequent idea of Yahweh (יהוה) God (cf. Gen 3:14) cursing the ground and the man on it for all his life (Gen 3:17gh) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh swearing that the Israelites will not see the good land in their generation (Deut 1:34c–36).
The subsequent idea of the ground only producing thorns and thistles, and the man having sweat on his face (Gen 3:18–19a)74 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses not entering the promised land (Deut 1:37–39), so presumably remaining in the hot wilderness (cf. Deut 1:40). The particular motif of thorns and thistles (קוץ ודרדר: Gen 3:18a) was borrowed from Hos 10:8.
The concluding idea of the man turning back to the ground out of which he was taken, that is, to dust (Gen 3:19b–e), illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites turning back to the wilderness (Deut 1:40). The particular motif of the man returning to dust (אדם + עפר + שוב: Gen 3:19b–e; cf. 3:17) was borrowed from Job 34:15 (cf. 10:9 etc.).
The section Gen 3:20–24 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 1:41–2:1.
The opening, somewhat surprising idea of the humans living thanks to the deceived Eve (Gen 3:20), although Eve conceived her offspring only later (Gen ←53 | 54→4:1),75 illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites taking the deceived decision to go up (Deut 1:41a–d).
The subsequent idea of Yahweh God (יהוה אלהים) clothing humans in protective garments of skin (Gen 3:21)76 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites wanting to fight, as Yahweh God commanded them, and girding themselves with weapons of war to go up into the mountains (Deut 1:41e–i).
The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh God saying (ויאמר יהוה) that (b) the man is like a god,77 (c) capable of knowing good and (d) bad (Gen 3:22a–c), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh saying that (b) the Israelites should not go up and fight, relying on their apparently Yahweh-given might (cf. Deut 1:41), (c) because Yahweh is no more in the midst of them, as he was before (cf. Deut 1:30–31.33), (d) so they will be defeated (Deut 1:42).
The subsequent idea of the man taking of the tree of life, eating of it, and living forever (Gen 3:22d–g) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites rebelling against the utterance of Yahweh, being presumptuous, and going up to Canaan (Deut 1:43).
The subsequent idea of the man being expelled from the paradisiacal garden to the ground from which he was taken (Gen 3:23) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites being scattered in Seir (located between Canaan and Horeb: cf. Deut 1:2) as far as Hormah (Deut 1:44).
The subsequent idea of Yahweh (יהוה) God banishing the man from the paradisiacal garden (Gen 3:24a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh not listening to the weeping of the Israelites (Deut 1:45), presumably after their being expelled from Canaan (cf. Deut 1:44).
The subsequent idea of the sanctuary-related cherubim (cf. Exod 25:18; 26:1; etc.)78 being caused to dwell in front of the garden (Gen 3:24b) illustrates the ←54 | 55→subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites remaining many days in the ‘sanctuary’ of the border town Kadesh (Deut 1:46).
The concluding idea of a turning sword blocking the way to the tree of life (Gen 3:24cd) illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites turning and skirting Mount Seir, presumably because of having been defeated there with the Amorites’ swords (cf. Deut 1:44), and consequently moving in various directions, but not to the land of Israel (Deut 2:1).
←55 | 56→1 Cf. N. Chambers, ‘Genesis 1.1 as the First Act of Creation,’ JSOT 43.3 (2019) 385–394 (esp. 390).
2 If the verb ברא (Gen 1:1) means ‘separate,’ as has recently been argued by E. van Wolde, ‘Separation and Creation in Genesis 1 and Psalm 104, A Continuation of the Discussion of the Verb ברא,’ VT 67 (2017) 611–647, then it could additionally illustrate the Deuteronomic idea of the separation between Canaan and the territory beyond the Jordan (Deut 1:1).
3 Cf. C. Edenburg, ‘Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of Readership: Some Preliminary Observations,’ JSOT 35.2 (2010) 131–148 (here: 138): ‘A motif constitutes a single image or theme that can be represented by a short phrase or a single idea. Hence, motifs can serve as compositional building blocks, in both oral and written modes, and since they are basic units, they are easily recognized and comprehended even when they take on new formulation and are incorporated into new contexts.’
4 Cf. T. L. Brodie, Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary (Oxford University: New York 2001), 444.
5 Cf. R. Routledge, ‘Did God Create Chaos? Unresolved Tension in Genesis 1:1–2,’ TynBul 61 (2010) 69–88 (esp. 74).
6 Pace S. Seiler, ‘ “Scriptura sui ipsius interpres”: Annäherungen an ein Konzept intertextueller Schriftauslegung,’ BZ, nf 63 (2019) 163–194 (esp. 173), who suggests the reverse direction of literary dependence.
7 Cf. V. P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, vol. 1, Chapters 1–17 (NICOT; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI 1990), 114; A. Schüle, ‘The Notion of Life: נפשׁ and רוח in the Anthropological Discourse of the Primeval History,’ HBAI 1 (2012) 483–501 (esp. 494); J. Lemański, ‘Standardowe i specyficzne rozumienie słowa rûaḥ w tekstach Księgi Rodzaju i Księgi Wyjścia,’ VV 37 (2020) 11–34 (esp. 24–25).
8 Cf. V. P. Hamilton, Genesis, vol. 1, 114–115; K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26 (NAC 1A; Broadman & Holman: [s.l.] 1996), 135–136; J. Day, ‘The Meaning and Background of the Priestly Creation Story (Genesis 1.1–2.4a),’ in id., From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1–11 (LHBOTS 592; Bloomsbury Academic: London · New York 2013), 1–23 (esp. 9–10).
9 Pace D. Simango, ‘The Law and the Image of God,’ OTE 26 (2013) 445–470 (esp. 448), who suggests the reverse direction of literary dependence.
10 Cf. T. Lakhmitskaya and K. Napora, ‘ “I widział Bóg, że światło było dobre…” (Rdz 1,4): Motyw światła w kapłańskim opowiadaniu o stworzeniu (Rdz 1,1–2,4a),’ VV 29 (2016) 17–40 (esp. 37–38).
11 Cf. K. Napora, ‘Czas w kapłańskim opowiadaniu o stworzeniu: dzień pierwszy (Rdz 1,3–5),’ VV 35 (2019) 13–37 (esp. 23–24).
12 It should be noted that in Israel, in which there are usually few clouds, the setting and the rising sun usually has a golden colour.
13 Cf. G. Borgonovo, ‘L’inno del Creatore per la bellezza della creazione (Gn 1,1–2,4a),’ in id. (ed.), Torah e storiografie dell’Antico Testamento (Logos: Corso di Studi Biblici 2; Elledici: Leumann 2012), 393–428 (esp. 408); J. L’Hour, Genèse 1–2,4a: Commentaire (EBib, ns 71; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Bristol, CT 2016), 107–108. The chronological remarks in Gen 1:5 etc. refer to ordinary calendar days: cf. W. Hilbrands, ‘Die Länge der Schöpfungstage: Eine exegetische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von יוֹם (“Tag”) in Gen 1,1–2,3,’ BN, nf 149 (2011) 3–12 (esp. 8–9).
14 Cf. K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, 149; A. Evans, ‘Descartes’ Error and the Growth of Consciousness: A Non-Dualistic Reading of Genesis 1:1–7,’ in R. X. Gauthier, G. R. Kotzé, and G. J. Steyn (eds.), Septuagint, Sages, and Scripture, Festschrift J. Cook (VTSup 172; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2016), 31–44 (esp. 38); C. Crawford, ‘Light and Space in Genesis 1,’ VT 68 (2018) 556–580 (esp. 557).
15 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Genesis: A Commentary (Chrysostom Bible; OCABS: St Paul, MN 2009), 33; J. C. Gertz, Das Erste Buch Mose: Genesis, vol. 1, Die Urgeschichte: Gen 1–11 (ATD 1; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2018), 48–49.
16 Cf. W. Bührer, Am Anfang… Untersuchungen zur Textgenese und zur relativ-chronologischen Einordnung von Gen 1–3 (FRLANT 256; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2014), 83–84.
17 Cf. K. Schmid, ‘Taming Egypt: The Impact of Persian Imperial Ideology and Politics on the Biblical Exodus Account,’ in M. Popović, M. Schoonover, and M. Vandenberghe (eds.), Jewish Cultural Encounters in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern World (JSJSup 178; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2017), 13–29 (esp. 18).
18 Cf. J. L’Hour, Genèse 1–2,4a, 116.
19 Cf. D. E. Gowan, From Eden to Babel: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis 1–11 (ITC; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI / Handsel: Edinburgh 1988), 25.
20 Cf. G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (WBC 1; Word Books: Waco, TX 1987), 22; J. C. Gertz, Genesis, vol. 1, 55.
21 Cf. J. L’Hour, Genèse 1–2,4a, 127, 129.
22 For a presentation of the sanctuary as the controlling metaphor of the creation account, see T. Patterson, The Plot-structure of Genesis: ‘Will the Righteous Seed Survive?’ in the Muthos-logical Movement from Complication to Dénouement (BibInt 160; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2018), 31–39.
23 Cf. B. T. Arnold, Genesis (NCBC; Cambridge University: New York 2009), 43.
24 Cf. J. L’Hour, Genèse 1–2,4a, 141, 148.
25 Pace W. Pikor, The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel (LHBOTS 667; T&T Clark: London 2018), 188, who argues for the reverse direction of literary dependence.
26 Cf. B. T. Arnold, Genesis, 47; D. Dziadosz, ‘Kapłański poemat o Bogu Stwórcy (Rdz 1,1–2,4a),’ ColT 79 (2009) no. 3, 5–37 (esp. 36); J. Lemański, Księga Rodzaju: Wstęp, przekład z oryginału, komentarz, vol. 1, Rozdziały 1 – 11 (NKBST 1/1; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2013), 172.
27 Cf. T. L. Brodie, Genesis, 437.
28 Cf. J. Middlemas, ‘The Prophets, the Priesthood, and the Image of God (Gen 1,26–27),’ Bib 97 (2016) 321–341 (esp. 339–340).
29 For the latter ideology, see N. L. DeLapp, Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch: Visions of YHWH (LHBOTS 660; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2018), 138–139.
30 Cf. C. L. Crouch, ‘Genesis 1:26–7 as a Statement of Humanity’s Divine Parentage,’ JTS, ns 61 (2010) 1–15 (esp. 10–11); D. Dziadosz, Tak było na początku… Izrael opowiada swoje dzieje: Literacka i teologiczna analiza wiodących tradycji Księgi Rodzaju (Archidiecezja Przemyska: Przemyśl 2011), 74; D. Simango, ‘The Meaning of the Imago Dei (Gen 1:26–27) in Genesis 1–11,’ OTE 25 (2012) 638–656 (esp. 648).
31 Pace W. Pikor, Land, 124, who argues for the reverse direction of literary dependence.
32 Cf. H.-J. Stipp, ‘Dominium terrae: Die Herrschaft der Menschen über die Tiere in Gen 1,26.28,’ in id., Alttestamentliche Studien: Arbeiten zu Priesterschrift, Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk und Prophetie (BZAW 442; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2013), 53–93 (esp. 60–62); M. Jørstad, ‘The Ground That Opened Its Mouth: The Ground’s Response to Human Violence in Genesis 4,’ JBL 135 (2016) 705–715 (esp. 712); S. Szymik, ‘ “Czyńcie sobie ziemię poddaną” (Rdz 1,28): Cywilizacyjny postęp ludzkości w świetle Rdz 1–11,’ VV 31 (2017) 21–44 (esp. 28).
33 Cf. G. Hepner, Legal Friction: Law, Narrative, and Identity Politics in Biblical Israel (StBibLit 78; Peter Lang: New York [et al.] 2010), 938–941.
34 Cf. V. P. Hamilton, Genesis, vol. 1, 141–142.
35 Cf. J. L’Hour, Genèse 1–2,4a, 200; G. Fischer, Genesis 1–11 (HThKAT; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2018), 161. The bipartite division of space (Gen 2:1; cf. 1:1) is again at variance with the tripartite cosmology of Gen 1:2–31 (cf. Exod 20:11); cf. N. Chambers, ‘Genesis 1.1,’ 390.
36 Cf. J. S. Synowiec, Początki świata i ludzkości według Księgi Rodzaju (3rd ed., Bratni Zew: Kraków 2001), 50; A. Grund, Die Entstehung des Sabbats: Seine Bedeutung für Israels Zeitkonzept und Erinnerungskultur (FAT 75; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 236; M. Haynes and P. P. Krüger, ‘Creation Rest: Exodus 20:8–11 and the First Creation Account,’ OTE 31 (2018) 90–113 (esp. 111).
37 Cf. T. Gudbergsen, ‘The Unity of Gen 2,4,’ SJOT 24 (2010) 235–252 (esp. 240–241, 245); M. A. Thomas, These Are the Generations: Identity, Covenant, and the toledot Formula (LHBOTS 551; T&T Clark: New York · London 2011), 22–24, 31–42; J. S. DeRouchie, ‘The Blessing-Commission, the Promised Offspring, and the Toledot Structure of Genesis,’ JETS 56 (2013) 219–247 (esp. 222–225).
38 Cf. E. Otto, ‘Die Paradieserzählung Genesis 2–3: Eine nachpriesterschriftliche Lehrerzählung in ihrem religionshistorischen Kontext,’ in A. A. Diesel [et al.] (eds.), “Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit …” Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit, Festschrift D. Michel (BZAW 241; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 1996), 167–192 (esp. 187–188); M. Vervenne, ‘Gen 1,1–2,4: The Compositional Texture of the Priestly Overture to the Pentateuch,’ in A. Wénin (ed.), Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (BETL 155; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2001), 35–79 (esp. 47); S. Riecker and H. J. Koorevaar, ‘Die Bedeutung des Ausdrucks “am Tag …” in Genesis 2,4 im Rahmen des Pentateuch,’ OTE 33 (2020) 80–106 (esp. 93, 98, 101). Pace A. Marx, ‘La fin du récit sacerdotal de la création: Gn 2,4a ou Gn 2,3?,’ VT 67 (2017) 581–588 (esp. 583), who does not take into consideration the use of the same long formula in Gen 2:4; 5:1 and Num 3:1 (where דבר should be vocalized as inf. const.). The fact that its use in Gen 2:4 understandably refers to the heaven and the earth, and not to an ancestor, does not imply that it should not be regarded as a fixed, internally coherent, repeatedly used formula.
39 Cf. J. Lemański, Rodzaju, vol. 1, 214.
40 Cf. J. Lemański, Rodzaju, vol. 1, 216; K. Napora, ‘ “Aby służył i strzegł” (Rdz 2,15): Praca jako powołanie człowieka w świetle Rdz 1–2,’ VV 25 (2014) 17–39 (esp. 27); J. L’Hour, Genèse 2,4b–4,26: Commentaire (EBib, ns 78; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Bristol, CT 2018), 128–130.
41 Cf. M. Rogland, ‘Interpreting אד in Genesis 2.5–6: Neglected Rabbinic and Intertextual Evidence,’ JSOT 34.4 (2010) 379–393 (esp. 380–386), but taking into consideration the fact that Gen 2:5 explicitly states that the land was without rainfall, so that it could only be watered by the repeatedly rising mist (Gen 2:6).
42 Cf. C. Westermann, Genesis, vol. 1, Genesis 1–11 (BKAT 1/1; 4th ed., Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999), 281; J. Lemański, Rodzaju, vol. 1, 202, 219–220; N. Wyatt, ‘A Royal Garden: The Ideology of Eden,’ SJOT 28 (2014) 1–35 (esp. 24).
43 Cf. T. Tułodziecki, ‘Teologia i antropologia w historiografii deuteronomicznej Rdz 1,1–4,1,’ BPT 4 (2011) 11–26 (esp. 24).
44 It should be noted that the motif of a living creature (נפש חיה) occurs in both Gen 1:20.21.24.30; cf. 9:10–16 (widely regarded as Priestly) and Gen 2:7.19 (widely regarded as non-Priestly). Cf. P. J. Titus, The Second Story of Creation (Gen 2:4–3:24): A Prologue to the Concept of Enneateuch? (EUS 23/912; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 176–177; W. Bührer, ‘The Relative Dating of the Eden Narrative Gen *2–3,’ VT 65 (2015) 365–376 (esp. 367); J. L’Hour, Genèse 2,4b–4,26, 148.
45 Cf. T. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (CBET 25; Peeters: Leuven 2000), 265–268; J. Lemański, Rodzaju, vol. 1, 221–222.
46 Cf. Z. Pawłowski, Opowiadanie, Bóg i początek: Teologia narracyjna Rdz 1–3 (RSB 13; Vocatio: Warszawa 2003), 392. Pace K. Schmid, ‘The Ambivalence of Human Wisdom: Genesis 2–3 as a Sapiential Text,’ in S. C. Jones and C. Roy Yoder (eds.), “When the Morning Stars Sang,” Festschrift C. L. Seow (BZAW 500; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2018), 275–286 (esp. 281, 283).
47 Cf. T. Tułodziecki, ‘Teologia,’ 24–25.
48 Cf. D. R. Nocquet, La Samarie, la Diaspora et l’achèvement de la Torah: Territorialités et internationalités dans l’Hexateuque (OBO 284; Academic: Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2017), 99–104.
49 Cf. N. Wyatt, ‘Royal,’ 9, 17, 29. Pace W. Pikor, Land, 125–126, who argues for the reverse direction of literary dependence, although he elsewhere notes that Ezekiel’s fruit-bearing trees (Ezek 47:7.12) are somehow metamorphosed into one great tree of life in Gen 2:15–17 (ibid. 188–189).
50 Pace W. Chrostowski, Ogród Eden – zapoznane świadectwo asyryjskiej diaspory (RSB 1; Vocatio: Warszawa 1996), 194–199, 240, who suggests that there was no direct literary dependence between Gen 2:4b–3:24 and Ezek 28:11–19; 31.
51 Cf. T. N. D. Mettinger, The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-historical Study of Genesis 2–3 (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2007), 60–61. Pace D. Iwański, ‘Motyw drzewa życia w Księdze Przysłów,’ BBT 8 (2015) no. 1, 9–20 (esp. 18), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. For recent discussions concerning this relationship, see M. Bauks, ‘Erkenntnis und Leben in Gen 2–3 – Zum Wandel eines ursprünglich weisheitlich geprägten Lebensbegriffs,’ ZAW 127 (2015) 20–42 (esp. 26); W. Bührer, ‘Relative Dating,’ 370–371.
52 Cf. T. N. D. Mettinger, Eden, 5, 63; R. Gilboa, ‘On Norms and Essence: A Different Light on “Bad” (Genesis 2–8),’ BN, nf 145 (2010) 3–12 (esp. 4–5); W. Bührer, Am Anfang, 214.
53 Cf. Z. Pawłowski, Opowiadanie, 361; W. Bührer, Am Anfang, 218–220.
54 Cf. Z. Pawłowski, Opowiadanie, 360; P. J. Titus, Second Story, 207; W. Bührer, Am Anfang, 220.
55 Cf. J. Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Westminster/John Knox: Louisville, KY 1992), 121, 124.
56 Cf. K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, 211.
57 Cf. P. J. Titus, Second Story, 273–274; J. Lemański, Rodzaju, vol. 1, 234; G. Fischer, Genesis 1–11, 210.
58 Cf. J. Baden, ‘An Unnoted Nuance in Genesis 2:21–22,’ VT 69 (2019) 167–172 (esp. 168). The side (Gen 2:21c), rather than simply a rib, is conceptually related to the staff (Deut 1:15a), which is usually held at the right side of the body.
59 Cf. P. J. Titus, Second Story, 281–282; A. Schüle, ‘The Reluctant Image: Theology and Anthropology in Gen 1–3,’ in id., Theology from the Beginning: Essays on the Primeval History and its Canonical Context (FAT 113; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2017), 27–44 (esp. 43); J. C. Gertz, Genesis, vol. 1, 81 n. 11.
60 See G. Genette, Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré (Seuil: [s.l.] 1982), 423–424.
61 Cf. C. Westermann, Genesis, vol. 1, 318; K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, 224; M. Warner, ‘ “Therefore a Man Leaves His Father and His Mother and Clings to His Wife”: Marriage and Intermarriage in Genesis 2:24,’ JBL 136 (2017) 269–288 (esp. 275–276).
62 Pace S. G. Turner-Smith, ‘Naked but not Ashamed: A Reading of Genesis 2:25 in Textual and Cultural Context,’ JTS, ns 69 (2018) 425–446 (esp. 445), who prefers the translation ‘female.’
63 Cf. Z. Pawłowski, Opowiadanie, 385; J. Lemański, ‘Wąż i jego symbolika w Biblii,’ VV 32 (2017) 13–54 (esp. 15–16, 26–27); J. L’Hour, Genèse 2,4b–4,26, 262–263.
64 See G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 423–424.
65 Cf. A. Wénin, D’Adam à Abraham ou les errances de l’humain: Lecture de Genèse 1,1–12,4 (Lire la Bible; Cerf: Paris 2007), 99–100; F. Mirguet, La représentation du divin dans les récits du Pentateuque: Médiations syntaxiques et narratives (VTSup 123; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2009), 449–450; C. Levin, ‘Genesis 2–3: A Case of Inner-Biblical Interpretation,’ in id., Re-Reading the Scriptures: Essays on the Literary History of the Old Testament (FAT 87; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 51–64 (esp. 61).
66 Cf. C. Westermann, Genesis, vol. 1, 339; M. S. Smith, ‘Before Human Sin and Evil: Desire and Fear in the Garden of God,’ CBQ 80 (2018) 215–230 (esp. 222–224); K. Matskevich, Construction of Gender and Identity in Genesis: The Subject and the Other (LHBOTS 647; T&T Clark: London [et al.] 2019), 32–33.
67 Cf. Z. Pawłowski, Opowiadanie, 395; M. S. Smith, ‘Before,’ 222–224.
68 Cf. J. F. Parker, ‘Blaming Eve Alone: Translation, Omission, and Implications of עמה in Genesis 3:6b,’ JBL 132 (2013) 729–747 (esp. 733–736); K. Matskevich, Construction, 34; C. R. Chapman, ‘The Breath of Life: Speech, Gender, and Authority in the Garden of Eden,’ JBL 138 (2019) 241–262 (esp. 255).
69 Cf. A. Tsukimoto, ‘Humor und Ironie in der jahwistischen Urgeschichte,’ in C. M. Maier (ed.), Congress Volume Munich 2013 (VTSup 163; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 333–346 (esp. 337).
70 Therefore, taking the narratives literally, whereas on the intertextual level the ‘forbidden fruit’ (Gen 2:17; 3:6) should be regarded as a grape (cf. Deut 1:24–25), on the intratextual level it was most probably a fig (Gen 3:7). Cf. J. Day, ‘Problems in the Interpretation of the Story of the Garden of Eden,’ in id., From Creation, 24–50 (esp. 42).
71 Cf. G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 80; J. S. Synowiec, Początki, 125.
72 Cf. C. Westermann, Genesis, vol. 1, 358.
73 This translation of תשוקה (Gen 3:16) reflects various nuances of the meaning of this noun (emotional and/or volitional movement towards an object) in both the Hebrew Bible (Gen 3:16; 4:7; Song 7:11) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS XI, 22; 1QM XIII, 12; XV, 10; XVII, 4); cf. J. Kiefer, ‘Verlangen oder Bestürmen – tešūqāh in der Hebräischen Bibel,’ BZ, nf 62 (2018) 300–321 (esp. 320–321). In my opinion, these Hebrew texts do not justify the translation ‘return’ (cf. Gen 3:16 LXX etc.), as is suggested by J. N. Lohr, ‘Sexual Desire? Eve, Genesis 3:16, and תשוקה,’ JBL 130 (2011) 227–246 (esp. 245–246); J. C. Condren, ‘Toward a Purge of the Battle of the Sexes and “Return” for the Original Meaning of Genesis 3:16b,’ JETS 60 (2017) 227–245.
74 Cf. C. Westermann, Genesis, vol. 1, 361.
75 Cf. V. P. Hamilton, Genesis, vol. 1, 205; L. A. Turner, Genesis (ReNBC; 2nd ed., Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2009), 25; K. Vermeulen, ‘Verbal Creation: From Linguistic Feature to Literary Motif in Genesis 1–11,’ SJOT 31 (2017) 294–313 (esp. 305).
76 Cf. L. Ruppert, Genesis: Ein kritischer und theologischer Kommentar, vol. 1, Gen 1,1–11,26 (FB 70; Echter: Würzburg 1992), 164.
77 Cf. V. P. Hamilton, Genesis, vol. 1, 208; C. R. Chapman, ‘Breath of Life,’ 260. It should be noted that the use of divine plural (נו*) in Gen 3:22b (which is widely regarded as non-Priestly) resembles its use in Gen 1:26 (which is widely regarded as Priestly). Cf. P. J. Titus, Second Story, 427.
78 Cf. J. L’Hour, Genèse 2,4b–4,26, 338.