Gary A. Anderson, The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian Imagination. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Pp. xx + 257. Cloth, $24.95. ISBN: 0-664-22403-2.
Robert A.
Kitchen
Knox-Metropolitan United Church
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
html2TEI.xsl
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
January 2003
Vol. 6, No. 1
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv6n1prkitchen
Robert A. KITCHEN
Gary A. Anderson, The Genesis of Perfection: Adam and Eve in Jewish and Christian Imagination. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Pp. xx + 257. Cloth, $24.95. ISBN: 0-664-22403-2.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol6/HV6N1PRKitchen.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2003
vol 6
issue 1
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal dedicated to the study
of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in January and July) by Beth
Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998, Hugoye seeks to offer the
best scholarship available in the field of Syriac studies.
Syriac Studies
Adam and Eve
Genesis
File created by XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
[1] Opposite
the title page of Gary Anderson’s monograph, The
Genesis of Perfection, the author lists “Three
Theses,” each with a supporting citation:
Thesis One states, “In Judaism, creation is
understood through the revelation at Mount Sinai.”
The supporting reference is from the rabbinic midrashic text
Genesis Rabbah.
Thesis Two offers the other tradition, “In
Christianity, creation is understood through the advent and
passion of Christ.” The Martyrology of
Jerome provides the text.
Thesis Three gives Anderson’s conclusion,
“Adam and Eve did not thwart the designs of God but,
paradoxically, advanced them.” Adam’s words
after the fall from John Milton’s Paradise Lost
poetically declare the assurance of the ultimate triumph.
[2]
Considering the richness and depth of Anderson’s
exposition of the interpretation of the Genesis 1:26-4:2
narrative in rabbinic, patristic, literary, liturgical, and
artistic sources, it is remarkable how he is able to
encapsulate the argument so succinctly. Anderson could
stop here, mission accomplished. Fortunately, Anderson
has invited his readers to delight in the diverse and
entertaining details of the argument.
[3]
Anderson, professor of Old Testament at Harvard Divinity
School, notes in his Preface that his scholarship has been both
in the history of composition, primarily the
historical-critical method; and in the history of reception or
interpretation. Most Old Testament scholarship has been
weighted towards the former, but in this work Anderson shifts
the balance to interpretation. This is not simply to
balance matters for the sake of equanimity and objectivity, but
because he believes that it is in interpretation by the
religious communities we understand what is most important in
the text. Anderson does provide the balancing concerns of
historical-criticism, but consigns them to Appendix A
(“Biblical Origins and the Fall”). Perhaps
form reveals preference, for the body of his monograph is
clearly focused on the history of reception and how the story
is retold in a variety of genres.
[4] The
tension between these two disciplines is real. The Bible,
while relating the adventures of Adam and Eve in the Garden of
Eden in terse but provocative fashion, seemingly dispenses with
the tale and its typologies in Genesis, not mentioning the
scene again until Paul’s 5th chapter of the Letter to the
Romans. So much for the critical influence of Eden upon
the Biblical message. Nevertheless, for synagogue and
church the story of the beginnings directs us to the last and
perfect fulfillment of the human-divine relationship.
Judaism and Christianity, having lived and still living the
story, have found no problem contributing to and filling out
its details.
[5] Knowing
how the story will end helps to determine where it should be
going: such is Anderson’s basic principle for how Jewish
and Christian readers modify and endow the Biblical text with
more meaning.
[6]
Anderson’s method is to listen to all sorts of voices
that reflect the traditions about Adam and Eve. To
determine his favorite voice would be difficult. Probably
the apocryphal Life of Adam and Eve ranks foremost
(an English translation of the Armenian version by Michael
Stone and Anderson is Appendix C). Genesis Rabbah
and several other witnesses to rabbinic commentary are utilized
frequently. The most numerous citations come from the
Puritan John Milton’s poem Paradise Lost, which
Anderson believes owes much to Milton possibly being familiar
with the Life of Adam and Eve or at least its
scenario. Dante receives some air time as well.
[7] Of
course, the reason we are here with this book review is
Anderson’s reliance upon Ephrem the Syrian for an
interpretation of Adam and Eve in Eden from a Semitic Christian
perspective. Ephrem is not the only Eastern Church voice,
as Anderson calls upon Bar Hebraeus, Narsai, and Theodore of
Mopsuestia to offer witness to the development of the Adam and
Eve story.
[8] Anderson
begins the journey uniquely by exegeting Michelangelo’s
painting of the temptation of Adam and Eve on the ceiling of
the Sistine Chapel. Somebody got to Michelangelo’s
theology; Anderson surmises it could well have been Egidio da
Viterbo, a contemporary intellectual at the papal court who
helped revive interest and research into Augustine. Adam
and the serpent are depicted straining towards each other,
muscles tensed. Eve remains reclining and relaxed between
the two, her right middle finger pointing directly at her
genitalia. Anderson sees a double meaning or symbolism in
the gesture - Eve points to the cause of the Fall (sexuality),
as well as the cause of salvation (the birth of Christ).
Eve has now become Mary. One knows where one is going
when one begins at the end.
[9] The
beginning, however, takes place at creation, or even before
it. “Let us make man in our own image,” God
addressed the angelic host. This is an act of elevation
by God of human beings over the angels, an enthronement, at
which some angels, especially Satan, took umbrage.
Another instance of the younger-superseding-the-elder theme is
before us: Adam who was created after the angels now has
primacy. Psalm 8:4 – “What is man that thou
art mindful of him?” - is interpreted in rabbinic
tradition as the outraged cry of the rebel angels.
Desiring to put the interloper in his place, Satan plots to
entrap Adam with the help of the serpent.
[10]
Israel too is elevated and elected above the older nations as
God’s very own people and the recipients of God’s
Torah, just as Christian tradition perceives that God elevated
and elected Jesus as God’s Messiah. To be the
beloved son is to be elected to die, but when the Son
volunteers to empty himself and go to earth for the sake of the
fallen Adam, he receives the greatest of honours.
[11]
Where Adam knew Eve is essential spiritual geography, which
finds rabbinic and Christian interpreters at odds with one
another. Sexuality is not condemned as sinful per
se, but where it happens is critical for its
interpretation. Christian interpreters—Anderson
relies heavily here upon Ephrem—understand Eden as sacred
space, similar to the Jerusalem Temple. As a holy place,
one can only be in it if one is in a state of purity befitting
the image of God. Christians, therefore, read that Adam
and Eve could have had sexual relations only outside the
Garden. Jewish commentators believed, on the other hand,
that Adam and Eve did know one another inside the Garden, and
that Eden was not a sacred space.
[12]
Anderson turns to Augustine who argued against the Pelagian
position that the gospel could transform human nature as an
exercise of the freedom of the human will. Sainthood and
perfection were possible for all, according to Pelagius, but
Augustine knew that if perfection were possible, it would be
obligatory for all. Complete human freedom would be
oppressive, making the human being responsible for every action
taken—and severely punishable as well. The dilemma
with sexuality, Augustine presses, is that the harmonious
relationship between erotic desire and bodily obedience -
bodies behaving in perfect concord with their will—had
been disrupted. The imbalances of lust and impotence are
proof of this discontinuity.
[13] Sex
in Eden? God was making the arrangements for the
connubial bed in the Garden, but Adam and Eve were too quick to
sin and did not have time to consummate their marriage.
Now the sexual organs themselves are seen as the culprits,
operating independently of the will of the
individual. Eden being no sacred space, Augustine
places the struggle for sexual self-control back into the arena
of monastic life, for even the greatest monks are not immune
from the impetuosity of the sexual organs. This was a
radical, uncomfortable, and unwelcome idea for the defenders of
the monastic life.
[14] The
focus shifts to Eve’s role in sin and salvation.
Eve knows of the prohibition regarding the tree of knowledge,
but in response to the serpent seemingly makes an addition that
one should not touch, as well as not eat from the tree.
The rabbis believed that it was Adam who added touching to the
list as one would do to protect a small child from harm.
The serpent took advantage of this, demonstrating that since
touching is not fatal, so eating would not be
either. Ephrem writes that both Adam and Eve heard
the two commands together, especially that one should not come
near the tree of knowledge for it guarded the inner sanctum of
the tree of life. This two-chambered geography of Eden is
unique among Christian and Jewish interpreters.
[15] Eve
now merges into Mary and Mary is only really comprehended in
light of Eve. As the theotokos, Mary is an active
participant in the incarnation, sanctifying the womb profaned
in Eden. In The Protoevangelium of James, Joseph
despairs over Mary’s pregnancy having left her alone and
unattended, just as Eve was deceived by the serpent when she
was alone, unattended either by Adam or the angels. So
when Mary encounters Gabriel, she is reluctant to assent until
she has figured out the truth of what is to happen, lest she be
deceived like Eve. While Abraham is praised for assenting
to God’s command without hesitation and without comment,
Mary is commended for her shrewdness and caution.
[16] The
persistent issue whether Eve is the source of sin finds its
critical mass in 1 Timothy 2:14-15. Anderson enjoins
Origen, Ephrem, Augustine, and finally Milton to lift the blame
off Eve’s shoulders. Origen sees the first couple
not as types for all men and all women, but Adam is the one who
points to God’s Christ, while Eve represents all
God’s church, male and female.
[17]
Ephrem treats Adam and Eve as equally guilty, believing that
prior to transgression they were clothed in glory. At the
decisive moment, they were physically transformed in a visible
way, signified by the discovery of their own nakedness.
Ephrem not only takes the burden of full guilt from Eve, he
chastises Adam for cowardly dissembling before God.
[18]
Augustine is nearly modern in his Biblical interpretation, not
allowing 1 Timothy to usurp Paul’s verdict on Adam
(“sin came into the world through one man”) in
Romans 5:12-21, for the latter proceeds from the heart of
Paul’s theology. That Adam was not deceived did not
mean he was innocent. It simply meant that Adam’s
sin differed in manner from Eve’s, but his sin was more a
result of his free will, and thus worthy of more blame.
[19] The
act of transgression is done, and now the rest of life must be
lived. The garments of skin God fashioned for the naked
couple before they had to leave Eden has attracted much
speculation. Changing garments/robes as one moves from
one level of holiness to another is the pattern of priests in
the Temple. If Eden were sacred ground, then Adam’s
holiness would have been similar to a priest’s.
Some rabbinic writers saw the garments of skin as mortal human
flesh, not as a separate piece of clothing to be put on or
taken off. So Adam and Eve did die when they ate of the
fruit—eventually, not immediately. Exile was a kind
of protection for Adam and Eve, for to remain before God in
Eden, while defiled by sin, was to court danger and death.
[20]
Baptismal liturgies adopted the imagery of clothing and
garments of skin. The one about to be baptized is
stripped naked of the garments inherited from Adam, then
dressed in garments he or she shall wear at the
resurrection.
[21]
Exiled from Eden, were Adam and Eve punished eternally or
instead engaged in a long penance? The Christian model
for penance comes from a surprising person: King Nebuchadnezzar
(Daniel 4) who is driven out of Babylon and becomes like a
beast of the field. In the Greek versions of the story,
the evil king repents, confesses God, and is restored.
Tertullian lifts up Nebuchadnezzar’s penance as
exemplary, for if this terrible person could be saved, then no
one would be beyond God’s mercy.
[22] The
initial punishment of Adam and Eve consisted of being condemned
to eat the grass of the field normally intended for
animals. The Life of Adam and Eve records that the
couple had only the food of the animals to eat, but after
tremendous penance God took notice and gave them seed to grow
cereals.
[23]
Ephrem returns to the example of Nebuchadnezzar whom he
perceives as a second Adam, representing the entire human
condition in summary, both in his/our fall and in his/our
repentance. The fate of Adam and Nebuchadnezzar to dwell
among and eat like animals becomes a form of the ascetic life
in the Syriac church. No longer mere penance, the lives
of the holy men and women in Egypt and Syria, whether
“grazers” as above or stylites like the famous
Simeon, are described in the language of glory. Anderson
cites Sebastian Brock’s article on early Syriac
asceticism that “this style of life was in fact a return
to...the life of Adam in Paradise before the
Fall.”
[24] At
first glance, Anderson finds this lifestyle more like Adam
outside Eden and therefore incongruous with a redeemed Adam
living inside Eden. But then Anderson stumbled upon a
modern Hasidic story by Israeli novelist Shai Agnon about a
holy woman Tehillah who lavishes her financial resources, time
and energy on Jerusalem’s poor and destitute.
Anderson recognized that by treating such hardship and
asceticism as penance rather than punishment, the holy men and
women progressed towards deification. By imitating Adam
outside Eden, the early Christian monks were assuring
themselves of a place inside Eden.
[25] The
last chapter of the story appears initially to be outside the
realm of the Eden saga. Anderson examines the
“harrowing of hell,” with Dante’s
Inferno and the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus
(English translation of pertinent sections included as Appendix
D) as principal sources.
[26] As a
consequence of the Fall, Satan has obtained legitimate rights
over humanity. Cohort Hades or Death has the right to
bring every human being into his realm. But Death cannot
figure out Jesus, for while he performs acts of divine power,
he is most human in other respects. Yet Hades cannot
resist the temptation and takes Jesus on Good Friday. In
death Jesus’ power is revealed, one that can only be
activated by weakness. Entering the kingdom of death,
Jesus raises up Adam and Eve. The point Anderson stresses
is that the kingdom of Hades is lamentable but just, so God
cannot appeal on grounds of reason, but overturns the power of
Hades by an act of deception.
[27]
Satan, in some circumstances, represents the powers of justice,
so the God who is merciful has to resort to a different
tact. A thoroughly just world would leave no room for
human beings, Anderson concludes, so God must deceive
himself.
[28]
Anderson calls again upon Ephrem to interpret this narrative
through sections in Carmina Nisibena. Ephrem does
not perceive Death as a rebel angel, but as a servant who
performs justly what he has been commanded. Death opens
the door for Christ, announces him to all therein, and on
bended knee declares that he is Christ’s servant
forever. In his Commentary on the Diatessaron
Ephrem shows that it was fortunate that Abel was the first to
enter Sheol, for having been murdered by Cain he had to enter
unjustly. If Adam had been the first to enter, his
sentence would have been justly deserved and he would have been
condemned to stay there forever. Ephrem, like other
patristic writers, sees Abel as a type of Christ, who dies
unfairly and gives God the moral authority to rescue Adam, who
represents all humanity, from the bonds of Sheol.
[29] The
strength of this book lies in a number of its features.
Engagingly written in a style neither condescending to the
scholar, nor overly technical for the lay reader, the book
features attractive plates of paintings and diagrams of
concepts. The paintings are not there for mere
illustration, but lead the reader through primary insights into
the argument. Likewise, his reliance upon Dante and
especially Milton widen the intellectual field for
investigation.
[30] In
addition to attaching the appendices of the Life of Adam and
Eve and the Gospel of Nicodemus, Anderson offers a
useful Glossary of theological terms, biographical notices, and
historical references that should especially aid the
non-specialist. The same is the case for Appendix
B, an annotated text of Genesis 1-3 (actually, a few verses
from Genesis 4 and 5 are tacked on). End notes give the
appropriate references for quotations, and a General
Bibliography helps fill out the research and thought on a
particular theme.
[31]
Naturally, Anderson’s most significant contribution from
the perspective of readers of this journal is his utilization
of Ephrem and other Syriac and Eastern Christian writers as
primary witnesses to a topic of universal interest. Of
course, a plea could be heard for integrating more examples
from Syriac literature and tradition, but Anderson’s
efforts have been appropriately balanced. Other scholars
will fill in the gaps and addenda in time. Hopefully,
this work will open the gates for other monographs on Biblical,
theological, and historical themes that will introduce the
scholarly public to the wealth of the East.