Another look at the Adam and Eve story
The creation of woman in the Bible has been the topic of much debate in Biblical Archaeology Review. In “Was Eve Made from Adam’s Rib—or His Baculum?” from the September/October 2015 issue, Ziony Zevit makes a shocking claim about the Adam and Eve story in the Bible. The Biblical text says that Eve was created from Adam’s tsela‘. Although tsela‘ has traditionally been translated as “rib,” Zevit argues that it is better translated as Adam’s os baculum. This controversial conversation continues in Mary Joan Winn Leith’s article “Creating Woman,” published in the March/April 2016 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
In her article, Leith examines the creation of woman in the Bible. She looks at the etiological and euphemistic support for Zevit’s interpretation, and she considers how this would have fit into ancient views of biology. Then Leith focuses on an interesting part of the Adam and Eve story in the Bible: the “punishment poem” in Genesis 3:14–19.
This poem occurs after Adam and Eve have eaten the forbidden fruit. Because of their disobedience, God curses them. As Leith explains, this curse takes positive relationships, including childbirth, and turns them negative:
[T]he “punishment poem” in Genesis 3:14–19 reverses to negative effect all the positive relationships that prevailed before the humans disobeyed God. Humans and God, man and woman, humans and animals, humans and the earth now become alienated from each other where before all was harmonious. The most famous negative effect of the human disobedience is the woman’s pain in childbirth. At least theoretically then, before the punishment, childbirth in Eden should have been painless. If the father-as-child-bearer principle is hovering in the background of the creation of the woman, then the difficult childbirth promised to the woman in Genesis 3:16 reverses the painless “birth” in Genesis 2, where not only does a man—rather than a woman—give birth, but thanks to the anaesthetic “deep sleep” (tardemah), the man suffers no pain.
Thus, the creation of woman in the Bible from man—the first birth, according to Leith—is painless, but, as the “punishment poem” illustrates, all subsequent births are painful. Further, not only was the first birth painless, but it was a man—not a woman—who shockingly gives birth, setting it apart from all others.
Leith then examines Christian symbolism related to the Adam and Eve story in the Bible. Early Christians believed that Eve was created from Adam’s rib or side, and they found parallels between Adam’s side and Jesus’ side that was pierced during his crucifixion. John 19:34 records, “Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his (Jesus’) side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.” Early Christians believed that the blood represented the holy Eucharist, and the water represented baptism—two sacraments given by Jesus to the Church. Therefore, the Church was birthed from the side of Jesus, just as Eve was birthed from Adam’s side.
This interpretation is illustrated well in an 11th-century mosaic from the Church of the Dormition in Daphne, Greece. In this mosaic, blood and water flow from the pierced side of Jesus in the direction of his mother, Mary. Leith explains that Mary is often referred to as the “new Eve” and “considered to personify the Church.” The birth of the Church is visually depicted by the blood and water (sacraments) flowing toward Mary (the Church). Adam also makes an appearance in this scene. Jesus’ blood drips onto Adam’s skull at the foot of the cross. This symbolizes 1 Corinthians 15:21–22: “For since death came through a human being (Adam), the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being (Christ); for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.”
To learn more about the creation of woman in the Bible, read the full article by Mary Joan Winn Leith—“Creating Woman”—in the March/April 2016 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on March 14, 2016.
The world of the Bible is knowable. We can learn about the society where the ancient Israelites, and later Jesus and the Apostles, lived through the modern discoveries that provide us clues.
Biblical Archaeology Review is the guide on that fascinating journey. Here is your ticket to join us as we discover more and more about the biblical world and its people.
Each issue of Biblical Archaeology Review features lavishly illustrated and easy-to-understand articles such as:
• Fascinating finds from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament periods
• The latest scholarship by the world's greatest archaeologists and distinguished scholars
• Stunning color photographs, informative maps, and diagrams
• BAR's unique departments
• Reviews of the latest books on biblical archaeology
The BAS Digital Library includes:
• 45+ years of Biblical Archaeology Review
• 20+ years of Bible Review online, providing critical interpretations of biblical texts
• 8 years of Archaeology Odyssey online, exploring the ancient roots of the Western world in a scholarly and entertaining way,
• The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land
• Video lectures from world-renowned experts.
• Access to 50+ curated Special Collections,
• Four highly acclaimed books, published in conjunction with the Smithsonian Institution: Aspects of Monotheism, Feminist Approaches to the Bible, The Rise of Ancient Israel and The Search for Jesus.
The All-Access membership pass is the way to get to know the Bible through biblical archaeology.
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
Dig into the illuminating world of the Bible with a BAS All-Access membership. Combine a one-year tablet and print subscription to BAR with membership in the BAS Library to start your journey into the ancient past today!Subscribe Today
[…] and Christian answers that contend that the wife of Cain was another daughter of Adam and Eve. According to this reasoning, Cain would have married his sister—one of Abel’s twin sisters no […]
[…] and Christian answers that contend that the wife of Cain was another daughter of Adam and Eve. According to this reasoning, Cain would have married his sister—one of Abel’s twin sisters no […]
It amazes me that people can’t see it. Adam and Eve were not the first humans created. Genesis 1:26-29 details the sixth day creation of man and woman. Unlike Adam and Eve, these beings had no dietary restrictions. Genesis 1:30 Every beast, every bird, every creeping thing, every green plant is food for them.
Genesis 2:5 There was no man to til the ground. So Adam was created and later Eve, his helper would be created. They had dietary restrictions, such as the tree of knowledge of good and evil and later only the clean beasts.
Hebrew l translate:
“And Yahweh Elohim produced a deep trance to envelop Adam and he remained asleep;And He opened up his entire side and reached inside and firmly grasped [ stem of force] the feminine one [ rib means a structure or a form the fem.gender is used!] and swiftly removed her while sealing up the entire side- head to foot- of his flesh.
And Yahweh cleaned up the feminine one or woman [feminine male] whom He had firmly grasped within the man and conducted her to the man.
Adam knew it wasn’t a ‘bloody rib’ taken from inside him as he was inspired to say -without correction from Yahweh – This finally is now a skeletal frame from the inside of my skeletal frame and flesh body from inside my flesh body she will be proclaimed a woman [ esha not a rib] because she was taken from the inside of man. “
Adam himself in the very presence of God said ‘she or a woman’ was removed from within his body. The rib is used as a figure of speech. In the literal Hebrew it says- and l left it out of my translation -Adam exclaimed this is one who makes foot prints like mine. He had seen many animals making hoof and paw prints but none made human foot prints. Let’s lay aside old notions.
Issa is female…pronounced esha
For those not familiar with the Epic of Gilgamesh, Enkidu (recast as Adam) is portrayed as being created of clay by a goddess in a location called Edin. He lives in Edin in a state of naked barbarism and ignorance. His companions are herbivore wild animals, wild bulls and antelope, with whom he eats grass and laps water at watering holes in the desert-like Edin (modern day Iraq). A hunter from the city of Uruk (Genesis’ Erech) attempts to trap Edin’s wild animals for a living. Enkidu sets free these animals. The hunter fears him as he is powerful and strong. Gilgamesh, king of Uruk, tells the hunter take a beautiful temple prostitute to Edin’s watering hole and await Enkidu’s arrival with his wild animal companions. She will strip naked and he will forsake his beasts to mate with her. When he attempts to return to his beasts they will flee from him and he will turn to the prostitute for companionship. She will then persuade him to leave Edin with her for the city of Uruk. No more beasts will be set free of the hunter’s traps. Edin’s naked man, Enkidu, learned in Edin, it was wrong to be naked, when he accepts the prostitute as his new companion, as she gives him some of her clothing to wear, and he dons them, before leaving Edin. They encounter a shepherds’ camp in Edin, they offer him wine and bread, he refuses to consume these items, he knows only to drink water and grass. Shamhat intervenes and tells him to consume the wine and bread and he obeys her. He thereupon is awarded a change of clothes by the shepherds and declared to be a civilized man and not a beast anymore, for civilized men, like gods, wear clothing and consume wine and bread, man-processed foods, denied to Edin’s wild animals. On his death bed Enkidu asks his patron god to curse the prostitute on his behalf, blaming her for his imminent death. His god upbraids him, saying she did you only good! she gave you a robe fit for a king to cover your nakedness, she fed you food fit for a god to consume (wine and bread), she introduced you to your beloved companion Gilgamesh! A contrite Enkidu withdraws the curse and blesses the prostitute. Enkidu’s curse of Shamhat was recast as God cursing Eve. Enkidu’s blaming the prostitute for his immenent death was recast as Adam balming Eve for God’s curse of Adam. The events which took place in Edin were recast as taking place a monotheistic ‘Eden.
By 1898-1899 Professor Morris Jastrow Jr. of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, had argued in an article published in a leading Academic Journal of the day, that Adam and Eve were recasts of Enkidu and Shamhat (his Eabani and Ukhat) appearing the Epic of Gilgamesh (his Epic of Izdubar). He acknowledged that Professor Archibald Henry Sayce of Oxford University, circa 1892, was probably correct in proposing that Adapa of Adapa and the South Wind Myth, was also recast into Genesis’ Adam. By 1858 Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson of the British Museum, London, had identified Eden’s serpent as a recast of the Babylonian god Ea (his Hea) of Eridu in ancient Sumer. By 1881 a German Professor Friedrich Heinrich Delitzcsh of Leipzig University had identified Sumer’s Edin as has having been recast as Genesis’ ‘Eden with its garden of God. A number of scholars agreed, Polytheism’s Edin had been recast into a Monotheistic ‘Eden, in order to refute the earlier myths explanations as to why man had been created and where. My website http://www.bibleorigins.net presents the research of these scholars (1858-1898, including up to 2017). The Mesopotamian myths have life beginning in world covered in water. Land emerges from the depths and the city of Eridu is created. The uncultivated desert land surrounding Eridu is called in Sumerian the EDIN. The gods of Edin create gardens filled with fruit trees, to provide food for themselves to consume. In the early myths they have fleshly bodies and experience hunger and can die of starvation if no food is eaten. Tiring of caring for their fruit tree gardens in the midst of the desert-like Edin, they make man of Edin’s clay to care for their gardens of Edin on their behalf. The gods’ gardens were watered by the Euphrates and Tigris rivers via irrigation canals and networks. They grew dates from date-palms, figs from fig trees, pomengrantes, apples, grapes, and wheat for making bread. The Bible informs us that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was a fig, as Adam and Eve use fig leaves to clothe their nakedness. The Tree of Life was the Date-palm, as Genesis had Cherubim guarding this tree and Solomon’s temple was decorated with images of Datepalms and Cherubim. See my website for more info http://www.bibleorigins.net or by my book published in 2010, The Garden of Eden Myth: Its Pre-biblical Origin in Mesopotamian Myths. Illustrated with pictures of Edin’s Gods who were recast into Genesis’ God, Yahweh-Elohim. I show the locations of Edin’s gods’ gardens with maps. The Hebrews, denying the existence of other gods, denied that there were many gods’ city-gardens in Edin, there was only one gods’ garden in ‘Eden.
You know what Mary, by answering that particular question about the mother of Christ representing the Church of God was quite an excellent summary in great detail. I’m totally impressed with your deep insight on Biblical knowledge. I actually learnt something interesting on this topic. However in regards to Stevens post, Peter the apostle of being the rock doesn’t exactly agree with me even though his name has this definition. The rock is God and the Church is Christ and we Christians just happens to be the congregation. Peter the apostle was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven whether whosoever remains to be a royal subject or whosoever is completely excommunicated. Mind you some of those interpretations about Jesus Christ being pierced by a spear which gushed out water and blood doesn’t seem to be a symbolic representation of a sacred Baptism and Eucharist. Seriously we really shouldn’t try and complicate things by adding to the examples that’s already given in the Bible. Especially when there’s more confusion about Adam’s spare rib. He did say this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh and she shall be called woman. I’m pretty sure that God wouldn’t expect Christian publishers to write another Bible with the word Baculum. So I actually agree with Gary see above.
I think this is just the same isogesis that gives way to so much error in Christianity today. Believing that Mary is some sort of second Eve is lunacy. Any discussion of the Creation of Eve is biblically silenced by the fact that God chose to not give the details. By believing that “Man” (Adam) was to be the birth of all man is not only ludicrous it’s warping scripture out of context completely. Using an example of some “art” as true interpretation of scripture is the highest form of heresy. I believe that the blood and water flowing from Jesus’ side after death “towards Mary” would have been so important that all the Gospels would have mentioned it. Please argue about things that have at least some scriptural basis for truth.
Orthodox Christian tradition also holds that Golgotha was the place of Adam’s burial. It is the “place of [Adam’s] skull”. Thus, Christ’s bloods drops on to Adam himself to save him (cf. the Harrowing of Hell icon where the gates of hell are broken and Christ is lifting up both Adam and Eve out of Sheol.)
I believe Mary = Church comes from the idea that the Church is Christ’s Body (cf. Colossians 1-2, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 10 and 12, Romans 12) and Christ’s human nature (including his body) came from his mother, Mary. In addition, “The Mother of God is a type of the Church in the order of faith, charity, and perfect union with Christ” [St. Ambrose] thus becoming one with his Body, the Church, in a special, most exalted way (i.e., no one else has had God literally, physically living within them, dependent on them, taking life from them.)
I thank you very much for publishing this, since the old fathers of the churches has lied to the people for long enough now. Looking at all sides with an open mind and without judgement is the only way to move forward and ultimitely getting to the truth. Ive always said. Its not that the bible is not telling the truth, the bible is incomplete.
This is some serious separation from the authority of the Bible, I am shocked that BAR would publish such nonsense without embarrassment.
Genesis 3 “punishment poem” is NOT a poem according to the Hebrew language experts/authorities, it is history.
Martha’s run down of some of the differences between Catholic and Protestant belief is your standard Protestant view. When you change words like veneration to be worship it shifts the readers reaction. Then put some Biblical language explanations in there without putting some background out there. ( the contentions about the Isaiah 7:14 is mainly from post temple Judaism re-translatation of the LXX and it’s middle-aged counter part the Masoretic text which Protestant adopted which at its heart was a attempt to derail the Christian movement) As for Tradition with a capital T means teachings of the Apostles that they received from all there experience with Jesus and what they received from the Holy Spirit, as the first generations did not yet have a written NT, and NT itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. It’s very obvious that Christian dogma has been a process of expanding knowledge of the mysteries contained in the revelation of Christ. You are completely wrong if you quote the Catholic Church as placing Mary as equal with Jesus. Thanks for keeping the fog of confusion on what the Church really believes.
God did not curse Adam and Eve, He brought down judgement on them. God told Adam that if he ate the fruit from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil he would surely die. They ate and they experienced God’s judgement; they died both physically and spiritually (spiritual death is a separation from God).
If God had made Eve from Adam’s baculum, He would have had to replace it with a totally different system involving new muscles, blood vessels, nerves, brain cells, the list goes on, to provide what men have now. However, taking part of, or a whole rib bone, no new creation was necessary as the rib is the only bone in the human body that will re-grow if removed providing the periosteum is left in tact.
I should have said that Protestants use “sola Scriptura” as the basis of their beliefs, and this belief includes the entire Christian Bible, composed of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Christian belief among Protestants is not limited to the New Testament by any means. It begins in Genesis and ends with Revelation.
By the 11th century CE/AD, Mary the mother of Jesus was firmly established as a semi-divine figure, taking the place of the pagan Astarte-worship that had been characteristic of the middle east and in fact much of the Mediterranean basin since Sumerian times. Even the paintings of the Virgin with a suckling babe are direct heirs of the Egyptian cult of mother goddess with many breasts, suckling her infant. There is absolutely no Scriptural basis for any of this. There is no mention of Mary the mother of Jesus after Pentecost. In the Gospels, she is an ordinary young woman who was chosen by God to be the mother of His son. Arguments continue as to whether the young woman mentioned in Isaiah is a virgin or merely a young, marriageable (that is, fertile) woman, based on the words “alma” (a young woman) or “betulah,” a word which indicates virginity in many sources. The argument is muddied because sometimes these words are used interchangeably, since among Jews, an unmarried young woman was invariably a virgin. Mary was married to an artisan (“tekton in the Greek original) named Joseph, and twice in the Gospels four brothers of Jesus are mentioned by name: Simon, Jacob (James), Judah, and Joses, and an unknown, unnamed number of sisters. James the Just, the second brother, sometimes called James the Lesser (there was a chosen Apostle also named James) is mentioned as “the brother of Jesus” and one of his letters is found in the New Testament. So Joseph and Mary appear to have had a large family of children, of whom Jesus was the eldest. This Scriptural fact makes Mary’s permanent virginity another contentious issue among various Christian sects. No one knows when or how Mary died, or where she was buried. Catholics believe that she was taken bodily into Heaven– this is the “Assumption.” The Reformation sought to correct such doctrines that had crept into the western church over time– worship of relics that were supposedly saints’ bones, Mary-worship (called Mariolatry by Protestants), and any references to Mary as divine or semi-divine, and the saints replacing the Greco-Roman pantheon of gods and goddesses, each one with an assigned task. Nonetheless, the Roman church continues on in this way to this day. In the 19th century, Mary was declared “co-redemptrix of humanity” equal with Jesus, the Son of God. Jesus’ death on Calvary is believed by non-Catholic Christians to be full and complete payment for the sins of mankind, reconciling God and man at last– hence the title “Lamb of God,” in turn referring to the annual sacrifice of the Pascal lamb to atone for the sins of Jews for that year. This view of Mary is one of the big sticking-points between Roman Catholics and western Protestants as regards reconciling their differences, because Protestants in many if not most instances use only the information in the New Testament as their basis of belief– this is known, in Latin, as “sola Scriptura.” The Roman church has a long oral tradition that changes, sometimes dramatically with the publishing of a papal doctrine on any given subject, that Catholics are obliged to believe. To be “infallible” dogma, the pope must be speaking on the subject of faith and morals, and “ex cathedra”– that is, from the throne of Peter, as it is known by Catholics. Frequently such doctrine has nothing to do with Scripture– a glaring example is the Immaculate Conception, referring to Mary being born without the stain of original sin (the Fall of Adam and Eve) that the rest of mankind is born with, according to Christian doctrine. Many people think that the Immaculate Conception notion refers to the conception of Christ, but this is erroneous. It refers to Mary, whom Catholics pray to in the Rosary, and she is mentioned prominently in prayer along with and at least equal to the most important saints, Peter and Paul. Novenas and other such prayer rituals to Mary are commonplace in the Roman church. None of this has anything to do with the Gospels, the Acts, Paul’s letters to various churches, other letters from those who knew Jesus including his brother James, or the Book of Revelation, that make up the New Testament. This veneration of Mary is distinctively Catholic, and of long standing. It began in the late second century among western Christian converted from paganism, apparently seeking a replacement for their familiar and powerful mother-goddess figure, and has continued unabated to this day. Eventually it became doctrine and dogma.
Man/Adam never had a b one in his Penis. Neither do we. Many other mammals do
God did not create woman from a bone, not even bone from the rib cage.
No bone differentiates woman from man.
I have always had a great deal of difficulty understanding how Mary represents the Church. Jesus never said anything to suggest this. If anything, I would think Peter would be the representation since he was the rock on which the church was to be founded. Mary may be important insomuch as she birthed our Lord, but represent the church? Meh, not really seeing it. Her role in the gospels was minimal, and mention of her pretty much died out after. Someone please help me understand how she came to be seen as this.