Symmetry, Asymmetry, and Word Play in Genesis 3:14-19

Genesis 3:14-19 is a fascinating text. My purpose here is to demonstrate a principle of interpretation: textual symmetries and asymmetries interact with each other in the construction of meaning. It is standard procedure to note textual symmetries. But if the asymmetries go unnoticed, the sense of the whole goes unrecognized. Here is the Hebrew:

 

14וַיֹּאמֶר יהוה אֱלֹהִים אֶל־הַנָּחָשׁ

כִּי־עָשִׂיתָ זֹּאת

 

אָרוּר אַתָּה

מִכֹּל הַבְּהֵמָה

וּמִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה

 

עַל־גְּחֹנְךָ תֵלֵךְ

וְעָפָר תֹּאכַל

כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ׃

 

15 וְאֵיבָה אָשִׁית

בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה

 

וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ

וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ

 

הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ

וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב׃

 

16 אֶל־הָאִשָּׁה אָמַר

 

הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה

עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ וְהֵרֹנֵךְ

בְּעֶצֶב תֵּלְדִי בָנִים

 

וְאֶל אִישֵׁךְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ

וְהוּא יִמְשֹׁל בָּךְ׃

 

17 וּלְאָדָם אָמַר

כִּי־שָׁמַעְתָּ לְקוֹל אִשְׁתֶּךָ

וַתֹּאכַל מִן־הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִיךָ לֵאמֹר

לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ

 

אֲרוּרָה הָאֲדָמָה בַּעֲבוּרֶךָ

בְּעִצָּבוֹן תֹּאכֲלֶנָּה

כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ׃

 

18 וְקוֹץ וְדַרְדַּר

תַּצְמִיחַ לָךְ

וְאָכַלְתָּ אֶת־עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה׃

 

19 בְּזֵעַת אַפֶּיךָ

תֹּאכַל לֶחֶם

עַד־שׁוּבְךָ אֶל־הָאֲדָמָה

 

כִּי־מִמֶּנָּה לֻקָּחְתָּ

כִּי־עָפָר אַתָּה

וְאֶל־עָפָר תָּשׁוּב׃

 

Most of the speech in these verses has a poetic cast. Not without reason, it is formatted as poetry in many modern translations (e.g. NJPSV, NRSV, REB, NAB, and NJB). I break “lines” into 2 to 3 “versets” each of which contains 2 to 3 “prosodic words” that receive a primary stress. For an overview of the text model I am applying, go here. The chunking of the text into versets I offer is remarkably similar to that found in the JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh.

A series of correspondences are apparent in the original. A version that obscures them by non-concordant translation is doing a disservice to its readers. For example, the serpent is cursed with these words:

אָרוּר אַתָּה

מִכֹּל הַבְּהֵמָה

וּמִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה

 

עַל־גְּחֹנְךָ תֵלֵךְ

וְעָפָר תֹּאכַל

כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ׃

[God to the serpent]

Cursed are you

among all cattle

and all wild beasts.

 

On your belly you shall move,

and dust you shall eat

all the days of your life.

 

The ground from which the human came is cursed with these words:

 

אֲרוּרָה הָאֲדָמָה בַּעֲבוּרֶךָ

בְּעִצָּבוֹן תֹּאכֲלֶנָּה

כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיךָ׃

[God to the human]

Cursed is the dirt on your account.

It by toil you shall eat

all the days of your life.

 

Symmetries and asymmetries should be noted with care:

 

Cursed are you // Cursed is the dirt

And dust you shall eat // It by toil you shall eat

all the days of your life // all the days of your life

 

Both the serpent and the human will survive by eating dust // the dirt (a parallel pair in ancient Hebrew; the latter term’s basic sense is ‘soil, earth,’ and while it often bears a washed-out sense (just as ‘ground’ and ‘earth’ can in English), here its basic sense is in view). Syntax (verb + a direct object) and semantics (‘eat’ dust//dirt) are parallel. 

The translations ‘eat dust’ // ‘eat dirt’ have the right ring here, in that they evoke the undercurrent of humiliation the text implies. Neither serpent nor human survive, of course, by ingesting dust //dirt. The sense is that both must ‘scrape a living from // procure to eat from’ the dirt.

It goes without saying that humankind will still be able to eat of the fruit of trees and so on. But from now on, the primary food source will be the ground.

The asymmetry lies in the fact that God directly curses the serpent but the curse that relates to the human is indirect. It is deflected to the dirt. This is God’s first act of grace after the disobedience of the woman and the man.

A last example:

הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה

עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ וְהֵרֹנֵךְ

בְּעֶצֶב תֵּלְדִי בָנִים

[God to the woman]

I will greatly multiply

your pains and your pregnancies;

in pain you will bear children.
 

בְּעִצָּבוֹן תֹּאכֲלֶנָּה

 

בְּזֵעַת אַפֶּיךָ

תֹּאכַל לֶחֶם

עַד־שׁוּבְךָ אֶל־הָאֲדָמָה

[God to the man]

By pain you shall procure food from it.

 

By the sweat of your brow

you shall procure bread

until you revert to dirt.

 

The translation I offer of the account of God’s punishment of the woman agrees with that of Gordon Wenham (Genesis 1-15 [WBC 1; Dallas: Word Books, 1987] ad loc). On this view, both the amount of pain and the number of pregnancies are increased in the wake of the broken relationship between God and the woman. In the same way, the man must endure both aching bones (‘pain,’ more literally ‘pains’) and tremendous exertion (‘sweat’) in order to eke out a living following his faithless act. אכל ‘eat’ in the sense of ‘procure to eat’ is a well-attested sense of the verb. ‘Eat’ in English may also have this sense, as in “how are you going to eat?” In English, two different translations are necessary (‘eat the dirt’ with an undertone of humiliation, and eat the dirt = procure to eat from the dirt) in order to render the global sense of the original.

Symmetries across the separate divine speeches include ‘pains and pregnancies // pains and sweat’ and ‘get children // get food.’ More succinctly still, as Suzanne McCarthy puts it: “the curse introduced an altogether new dynamic. Eve labours to bear children and Adam labours to grow food. No children and no farming in the garden.”

The asymmetry lies in the fact that God announces to the man that he will henceforth revert to the dirt from which he came. It goes without saying that the woman will suffer the same fate as the man. But the announcement is made to the man.

The gravest consequence of the broken relationship is prefigured last. Since the man was the last to break with his Creator in the sequence, the last and gravest consequence of the break is announced to him.

It is not clear if death came to the animal kingdom through the serpent’s disobedience. There are some questions the text does not address. We should not pretend that it does.

This post is a followup to the one in which I quote Tamara Cohn Eshkenazi. I have left much of Genesis 3:14-19 uninterpreted. In my next post, I will translate and comment on the rest.

Comments

[Simon Holloway]

I also happen to quite like the symmetry between 3:16b and 4:7b. What do you make of that?

Nice post, by the way.

[JohnFH]

Symmetry and asymmetry, Simon. The same applies to Song 7:11, which also merits discussion in this context. I hope to discuss the matter soon.

[Suzanne]

John,

I only say with some misgiving that there are no children in the garden. However, I understand that "multiply" is not the only literal translation, but it could also mean to "make plentiful". I perceive of children as our immortality. Even procreating at a slow rate would overpopulate the earth if there was no death.

That does not mean that children are not an enormous blessing and joy, but procreation is part of our mortal nature.

It is tricky - I don't really understand it. This is my best shot.

[JohnFH]

As Hermann Gunkel clearly saw, protology and eschatology mirror each other in the Bible.

Will we have children in "heaven" ("heaven" is a misleading summary of Jewish and Christian eschatology)? If so, children were meant to be in the garden as well.

I don't know the answer to the question, but if the goal is to understand the logic of the biblical affirmations, that is how it should be framed.

[Doug Chaplin]

John, can I ask whether you think the reader / hearer would be continuing to hear ongoing echoes through this part of the narrative of Gen 2:7, where the dust-dirt pairing first makes its appearance with a pun on the man's name? Or is this continuing echo one that only people like me unfamiliar with the language would read into it, not using the words in their normal way?

[JohnFH]

Hi Doug,

That's a good question. If one reads Gen 2-3 straight through, as I imagine it was meant to be heard / read, a faint echo of 2:7 may have been palpable upon reading 3:14-19.

But my point is that dust / the dirt is a standard parallel pair in ancient Hebrew literature. That being the case, one member of the pair evokes the other, and if both are used at a proximate distance, the fact has binding force across the parts.

[Suzanne]

I don't think we can have children in heaven if we don't marry, but it seems odd because children are the blessing of the entire Hebrew Bible narrative and are usually people's chief joy in life. Of course, they are also our chief sorrow.

However, it is evident from the Christian scriptures that having children is not the be all and end all. Instinctively, although I have a high value for children, I don't think they are part of the "garden" or "heaven." They are in some way a compensation for mortality.

Naturally, I write this from the point of view of looking at an empty nest very soon. It is a little bare even now. The temptation to live vicariously through one's children must be surrendered.

I hear too many women badgering their children and saying "when will you give me grand-children?"

[John Davy]

I am not a Hebrew language scholar but found this article most interesting. I have wondered if in fact there is another meaning to this passage. Is it possible that the curse on the ground did not alter it - but that it was to become despised in Adam's eyes? That the pain and frequency of childbirth to be given by God were to be by the desire of the woman?

In short, as a result of their actions the natural response was to be one of self justification. We see clearly the outworking of this in the lives of Jacob, Leah and Rachel. Jacob in trying to build his empire and Leah and Rachel desperate to have children in order to build self esteem. In fact no woman in scripture complains of too many children - and it would seem that the Sabbath rest was an imposition on the men. Is it possible that there were trees outside of the garden also?

[JohnFH]

I see what you are getting at, John.

But I think the text makes connections that go in the other direction, connections which are worth pondering.

If Gen 1-3 is read as whole (a good idea), then our habitat is thought of as a great and blessed gift bestowed upon us, whereas the difficulties we encounter in scraping a living from it is thought of as a consequence of a primordial and ongoing rupture between us and God for which we are responsible, a rupture in which God nonetheless engages damage control so as to mitigate the disaster we brought and continue to bring on ourselves.

Gen 2-3 may also be read as an expression of deep collective memory, of the transition from a (hunter-)gatherer economy (actually, the hunter part is postponed to after the Flood) to an agricultural economy. A one-to-one correspondence between those memories and the paleontological sequence does not obtain but then, neither should it be expected.

[John Davy]

Thanks for your comments John, I appreciate your response. I agree that the mood of the passage changes in the end of chapter 3 to one of where the outlook for mankind is dark an sombre compared to the brightness of Eden. I think the the transition is still in keeping with the depressed psychological state of Adam & Eve now removed from the garden that moves them to see it worse than it is and to strive for self esteem. I agree that the move to an agriculture follows - but that it does so because of their altered world view.

On a different note: I wonder if you would care to comment on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Was it a special tree in the same sense that the tree of life was a special tree (not just named specially)?

[JohnFH]

John,

Nice talking. No, I don't have anything to say about the trees that you cannot find in the standard commentaries.