All Kinds of Trouble
Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the Lord.” Genesis 4:1 NASB
The man– We’ve looked at this Genesis story many, many times. Perhaps you’ve read my book[1]about it. In the book, I didn’t spend time looking at this verse, but perhaps I should have. It is full of trouble—not simply with translations, but also with implications. David Fohrman has a powerful analysis of the mistaken translation “with the help of the Lord” in his wonderful volume, The Beast That Crouches at the Door. Read it! He clearly demonstrates that the linguistic marker, et, is in the wrong place in this verse, and because it is in the wrong place, the whole intention of the last part of the verse (Havvah’s statement) must be read differently. I wrote about this some time ago.
Today I want to look at the anonymous use of the Hebrew adam, translated “the man” in this verse. At least the NASB does not make the mistake of the NIV, NLT, ESV and KJV by translating this as “Adam.” Of course, Adam is the only man available, so it could be inferred that he is “the man,” but does the verse say this? In fact, the Hebrew deliberately uses ha- ʾādām, with the definite article, so that the reader will not make the mistake of thinking that this reference is to the person named Adam. The Hebrew text never places a definite article before a proper name, so we should not translate this verse as if the proper name, Adam, is intended.
Why does this matter? Ah, that leads us down a very scary, and distressing, path. In the ancient pagan world, sex was woven into the entire creative process of Nature (with a capital N) in all kinds of ways. The persistent presence of the Great Earth Mother in ancient cultures is evidence that female fecundity was one of the most powerful elements of ancient thought. According to these fertility religions (for that is what they were), it is the woman, not the man, who is the true center of life, the great mystery of being. In fact, the narrator of the Genesis account tips his hat to this ancient thought when he writes that the meaning of the woman’s name is “the mother of all living.” What matters most is the fact that the woman is the source of life. All of us, male and female, come through her.
The implication of the mother goddess religious view is this: the male contribution to the process can be provided by any male. Neumann calls this “the anonymous power of the fertilizing agent.”[2] As this verse suggests, “the man” is the anonymous sperm donor. It is the woman who has a name (Havvah). She is a person. He is a tool. When English translations give us a name, Adam, they unintentionally convert the text to a Western, modern point of view. The ancient relationship to pagan ideas disappears, as if the original audience were people sitting in the pews of the church on the corner.
Perhaps this Genesis account is much closer to those ancient pagan fertility religions than we would want to believe. Notice, furthermore, that the only other male in this short story is also a person, her son whom she names (there is a lot more going on here too). She described this event as a cooperative effort between her and God, not between her and the donor. Neumann seems to be correct. Males are swallowed up (literally and metaphorically) in this process of providing the female what is needed for her ascendency. By the way, the cult of Mary as the eternal, virgin Mother is simply an extension of this ancient mythology. In the birth of the son, the male is not only anonymous, he is unnecessary.
Perhaps we need to take another look at the historical event idea of Genesis 2-3.
Topical Index: female, earth mother, man, ha-ʾādām, Mary, Genesis 4:1
[1]Guardian Angel, available here.
[2]Erich Neumann, The Origins and History of Consciousness, p. 52.
Skip, the Genesis account of creation as been of deep interest to me for many years. I am familiar with most of the pagan views as I was deeply entrenched in seeking answers in Eastern philosophies for 20+ yrs. While I haven’t read your books nor Neumann’s, I must admit I am a bit ‘burned out’ investing time and money to find it’s ‘repackaged goods’. (Do not be offended as I am ‘eyeing’ your dissertation at this time, and of course, Guardian Angel).
I find it thought provoking, according to Neumann, the underpinnings of ancient mythology intertwined with Hebrew translations. It especially struck me how obsessed Western Christianity is with a ‘rigid’ form of interpreting the scriptures. They are most certainly ‘repelled’ by ancient philosophies and label most as heretic/satanic or the ‘occult’. Frankly the notion of ‘wiping’ history (or making the narrative fit) from mainstream biblical thought prevents a ‘connection’ back to God (my opinion). And that’s what I am seeking… the rope which creates the net.
Neumann’s thoughts, in this post, are not a paradigm shift (as I see it), rather another interesting piece to further examine… adventure into ‘never-never land’. Appreciate this post!
Need to clarify… I am not a proponent of the entanglement of pagan practices with authentic creation, or truth in scripture. It’s always tempting to read into someone else’s stream of consciousness… we call that “whack-a-mole” here in the heart of Texas. Merely suggesting it’s important to ‘examine’ before we pull out the weeds from the wheat. (I couldn’t edit… have a new system/computer and it’s painful to unlearn the old one and learn this one!)… and so it goes…
Lucille, you are right. I was taught black and white thinking: ‘we’ are ‘right’ and ‘they’ are ‘wrong’. I sallied forth into the world to check that out. I got creamed! Decades later, I learned to take a sifter.
I think everybody wants love, and they ‘buy’ things that promise that love. The best untruths are mostly truth! I think lots of truth that got left behind by the church got picked up by the pagan gleaners and ‘fitted’ into their paradigms. Also, I am convinced God gives truth to anybody who is searching for it. That is ANYBODY.
Truth has turned up in the strangest of places! Of course, it takes the Word and the Spirit of God to interpret it correctly and, most importantly, to apply it in the life. This is where I am finding the most success with my unbelieving acquaintances and friends. I am learning to start from their point of view (because they are stuck) and go from there. It is sad that we can usually get further along before their ‘learning’ shuts them down, as compared to my Christian friends and acquaintances who have been handed so many preemptive filters that many times the truth gets shot down before we even get started. This has been a source of huge grief for me.
Laurita, just have to say this… take it as you may (and no, you are not my cult leader!). I so appreciate you “meeting them where they are at”… it makes a world of difference and frankly ‘lightens the load’ when seeking out deeper meanings of “what is truth”. I know you understand this… just want to say, I love you for it! Shalom sister!
I find this extremely interesting but it also opens up a huge unresolved controversy. Sorry, even only the highlights makes it long.
In this TW Skip points out that the NASB correctly translates, “adam” as, “the man” instead of as the proper name, Adam. Nevertheless, as Skip says, we all assume this is the person we call Adam because, “he is the only man available”. But is he?
In Genesis one, on day six, God creates humanity, male and female, and tells them to be fruitful and multiply. We assume this is the condensed version of chapter two, but is it?
1. they are given every tree, with fruit, to eat from without exception, (no mention of “good and evil tree”)
2. a lot has to happen on day six. Adam has to name every animal and needs time to realize there is no suitable ezer for him as a compliment. And so Hawah is made. (Maybe that all happened in one day, but it seems too much)
3. Hawah is the mother of Cain, but is Adam his father? Skip mentions in this TW that he wrote of David Fohrman’s explanation of Hawah’s very mysterious statement, (see September 12, 2008). One literal translation goes, “and saying is she, “I acquire a man YHWH.”” Adam, under his personal name, is not stated to impregnate Hawah, but “the human” does. Are they the same person? Gen 4:1 states, “and the human knows Eve, HIS wife, . . .” But is, “HIS” in this case, referring to “the human” knowing his own wife, or, “the human” knowing Adam’s wife? (?)
4. Skip, in his book on the ezer, tells us how Adam gives her the insulting name, Eve, (after her impregnation with her son Cain) and then, seemingly, does not “know” her again for over a hundred years. (Was it because of another human?)
5. The old question remains, to whom were the children of Adam and Eve married? Each other? That brings up the issue of incest, but more than that, we have other problems.
6. Cain was the first son of Eve, and Able was the second, but after the murder of Able, Seth, the next son, was not born until Adam was 130 years old, but,
7. In the meantime, we are told Cain was afraid of being murdered by someone and,
8. he is building a city (presumable for a large number of people from somewhere).
Are these people all descendants of Cain through his sisters? Or, were many humans created on day six and Adam and Havah were a special created pair either on that day, or some later day? Were only these two told not to eat of the of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? (Is there a parallel to chosen Israel here?)
In recent days Skip has brought forth several allusions to sex in the garden. I quote, with [my comments]
1. “Sarai’s attempt to usurp God’s plan, [with sex], has the same consequences as Havvah’s enticement,” [Did Hawah have similar non spouse sex?].
2. “The text says that Abram “listened to the voice of Sarai. This phrase is reminiscent of the same wording in the Garden when Eve listened to the voice of the serpent.”
3. ”Here the word is edna. This word is directly linked to Eden, the garden of delight, and has strong overtones of sexual pleasure.”
4. Abraham “concurs that this fruit (Hagar) is pleasing to the eye and good for consumption.”
Are the trees in the garden used to symbolize people?
Eze 17:24 “All the trees of the field will know that I am the LORD; I bring down the high tree, exalt the low tree, dry up the green tree and make the dry tree flourish. I am the LORD; I have spoken, and I will perform it.”
And is eating their fruit symbolic of sex?
Pro 30:20 This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth, And says, “I have done no wrong.”
Why was Cain jealous of Able, and why was his sacrifice not acceptable to God? Was Cain illegitimate and Able the real first born heir (and priest) of Adam? Why did Seth replace Able as the heir instead of the first born Cain?
Genesis 5 gives us the descendants of Adam. It starts not with Cain but with Seth and, for some reason points out that (this son) was in his own likeness. Why wasn’t Cain?
Gen 5:3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.
Much to consider.
Yes, and maybe not to take the “story” to literally.