There was no sin in the Garden. Through eating the forbidden fruit, Eve became life's
channel-bringing within the sphere of the human all that, for good and for ill, life
Biblical interpretation has often connected Eve's transgression with sin and death. In
the second century B.C.E., Ben Sirach commented:
From a woman sin had its beginning and
because of her we all die" (Sir. 25:24).
From Paul onward, Christian theology has enlarged on this theme: "Adam was not
deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor" (1 Tim. 2:14) and the
accusations aimed at a malignant Eve have not stopped since....
Today, however, feminists are trying to check or challenge this interpretation;
claiming that Eve has been maligned, they are opening up new perspectives for discussion.
As a feminist scholar who has spent many years with the Hebrew text of Genesis in an
attempt to produce a faithful word-for-word rendering in English, I wish to draw attention
to several textual implications concerning Eve that might be worth consideration. This
article will highlight certain words, their etymology and context, to propose an unbiased
portrait of Eve.
The purpose of my work with the Hebrew text of Genesis, devoting days or weeks to the
translation of each word, was to produce as exact a translation as possible, an English
version, entitled "At the Start. .. Genesis Made New." Listening to commentaries
on Genesis, after plunging into the text in this way, sometimes proves perplexing.
This past year, for instance, I attended two lectures on Adam and Eve by Hebrew
scholars, both university-level teachers, who on these two occasions were addressing
public audiences. The first lecturer spent a great deal of time talking about the apple
that was not there. The nonexistent apple was an illustration of how ill-founded textual
interpretation can survive and flourish independently of the original text. It served as a
light introduction to another absentee: the same lecturer also said that there was no sin
in the garden of Eden. Personally, I heartily agreed with him, but most of the audience
reacted differently. People got up and claimed their faith was being attacked, that the
"felix culpa" was a necessary precursor of the redeemer and so on.... Feeling
ran high, and the lecturer got a bit left out, while members of the audience made public
declarations about their beliefs.
The second lecturer, on the other hand, dwelt at length on the nature of sin in the
garden. The analysis of Ricoeur was invoked to develop a picture of sin in three
dimensions. The sin of the woman was said to be stupidity; in this she represents all
humankind (not only womankind). The sin of the man lay in his bad decision-making. The
serpent was said to symbolize that part of the human being which escapes our control. In
the summary, the serpent, the man, and the woman were seen to represent three
relationships to sin: the serpent that part of us which is victim, the man that part of us
which is responsible, the woman that part of us which is guilty.
The declared subject of my article is Eve and the accusation leveled at her of having
brought sin and death into the world. Has she been maligned? The freeing of the garden
from sin, effected by my first speaker, would seem to suggest so. Is she guilty, though
not alone in her responsibility, of introducing the evil of sin into the world? The second
speaker defended this interpretation. To clarify the matter, I wish to turn to the early
chapters of Genesis, where Eve is to be found.
I invite you to broach the text as you would a literary masterpiece, rather than as an
object for historical analysis, to listen to it, as you might listen to a piece of music,
to be aware of its wholeness and to be receptive to its suggestiveness; I will allot
myself the role of music lover, who wishes to share what she hears. If, in the end, you
feel that there is a possible shift of emphasis from the importance of being to the
importance of becoming, from an absorption with right and wrong to a celebration of
growth, our time will not have been wasted. My concern will be to follow Eve, observing
her as she comes to be, and so setting her free of judgmental definitions that lock her
into a given position.
I wish to explore the first five chapters of Genesis, from divine creation (Gen. 1 and
2) to human procreation, as recorded of Adam's breed (Gen. 5). Repetitions and
reminiscences lead the listener backward and forward through the text as the different
parts relate to the whole; the movements of this piece of music do not follow on one
another in an unbroken line of continuity. Each movement has a new beginning and an ending
of its own. Each movement has a different center of interest, a different context, a
different tonality. And Eve, if I may steal a march on the text by giving her this name,
appears in one form or another in each of the first three movements.
The first movement is a grand overture. The days of creation crescendo to a climax on
the sixth day before falling away to stillness on the seventh. There are two left-motifs
here. Elohim creates by separating, "light" from "darkness," heavenly
"waters" from earth's "waters," "earth" from
"seas," "day" from "night." In the second motif all forms of
life created by Elohim are fertile: plants, trees, water creatures, flying things. On the
sixth day, Elohim makes a human, adam, different from other living creatures: it is
specifically described as being in Elohim's "image" and "likeness."
The sexual nature of ha-adam, "the human" is explicitly mentioned: "the
human" is zachar u neqeva, "male and female." Male and female are
potentially fertile but at this stage they do not appear to be separated. Referring to the
human couple, the text switches from "them" to "it" and back to
"them" again. Some commentators conclude that ha-adam is androgynous. The human,
male and female, is, are instructed to be fruitful, to subdue the earth, to govern other
creatures and to enjoy a vegetarian diet. Here is a first glimpse of a future Eve. She is
the female side of ha-adam.
Elohim said We will make a groundling (Adam) in our image, after our likeness Let them
govern the fish of the sea the fowl of the skies, the cattle, all the earth every creeper
that creeps on the earth Elohim created the groundling in his image created it in the
image of Elohim male and female created them Elohim blessed them Elohim said to them Be
fruitful, increase, fill the earth, subject it Govern the fish of the sea, the fowl of the
skies every beast that creeps on the earth Elohim said, Here I give you all plants seeding
seed upon the face of all the earth and every tree with tree-fruit in it seeding seed It
shall be for you for eating And for every beast of the earth for every fowl of the skies
for all that creeps on the earth with living soul in it all green of plants for eating It
was so Elohim saw all he had made Here! it was very good It was evening, it was morning
The sixth day (Gen. 1:26-31).
It is noteworthy that, until it is given as a proper name to the father of Seth and his
descendants in chapter 4, verse 25,
Adam knew his woman again
She bred a son
She called his name Seth (Gen. 4:25),
ha-adam remains a generic term. It applies to the human couple. That is why in 3:23,
for instance, I translate the pronoun for ha-adam by "it" and not
YHWH Elohim sent it away from the garden of Eden to serve the ground from which it was
taken (Gen. 3:23).
In cases where ha-adam refers to the male alone, careful observation shows that
"the woman" is always mentioned. The expression ha-adam v ishto," the
groundling and his woman" in 2:25, to quote one instance, is comparable to the phrase
"the bear and its mate," in which the female is as fully "bear" as the
The two of them were naked the groundling and his woman they were not ashamed (Gen.
The second movement of my so-called symphony begins with the second account of creation
in chapter 2, verse 4, and ends with chapter 3, verse 24, when ha-adam is expelled from
the garden. The central theme of this movement is the garden of Eden and what occurs
Verses 21-23 of chapter 2 describe how Elohim takes a side from ha-adam and builds it
into woman. Though the creative act is not explicitly described as an act of separation,
(the verb badal, "to separate," which appeared five times in chapter 1, is not
used), there is a reminiscence here of the separation of light from darkness, earth from
seas, day from night. The zachar u neqeva, male and female, of chapter 1; 26-28, appeared
to be united. Now they are separated from one another and receive new names, ish and
ishah, man and woman:
YHWH Elohim made a swoon fall upon the groundling it slept He took one of its sides and
closed up the flesh in its place YHWH Elohim built the side he had taken from the
groundling into woman He brought her to the groundling The groundling said This one this
time is bone from my bone flesh from my flesh This one shall be called wo-man for from man
she has been taken this one (Gen. 2:21-23).
As in chapter 1, when the couples "light and darkness, etc...." were created,
no witness is present. In chapter 1, Elohim was alone. In chapter 2, ha-adam is in a
comatose state, tardema, "torpor" or "swoon": it is asleep. Like the
separated couples of chapter 1, ish and ishah, man and woman, are similar and dissimilar.
Like them, they are close to one another and, at the same time, they strain apart in a
state of tension that is characteristic of life in general and of the human couple in
At the level of language, the sameness of the couple is expressed in the common
syllable ish, found in ish and ishah, "man" and "wo-man." The odd
syllable in ishah, "wo-man," expresses their difference. "Woman" is
also said to be negdo, "the counterpart" of ha-adam (Gen. 2:18, 20). The root
neged expresses proximity and opposition. Here, in the differentiated form of a
"woman" confronting her partner "man" is a second glimpse of Eve.
Thanks to her appearance, ish, man, recognizes his own identity. Although tradition has
often taught otherwise, there is no mention of "man" as a potentially
independent human being before this point in the text.
Presented first as the female aspect of the human being, second as "wo-man,"
the counterpart of "man," Eve emerges from anonymous womanhood as a complete
human being in chapter 3. She speaks (albeit with a serpent), she invents (by adding the
words "you shall not touch" to Elohim's injunction: "you shall not
eat"), she desires (the fruit of the tree), she chooses (between the serpent's
suggestion and Elohim's command), she acts on her choice (by taking and eating) and then
gives the fruit to her man:
The woman said to the serpent We will eat the fruit of the trees of the garden but of
the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, Elohim said You shall not eat of it,
you shall not touch it lest you die The serpent said to the woman Die! you shall not die
No, Elohim knows that the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be as
Elohim knowing good and bad
The woman saw that the tree was good for eating yes, an allurement to the eyes and that
the tree was attractive to get insight She took of its fruit and ate She also gave to her
man with her and he ate (Gen. 3:2-6).
Her giving of food recalls the giving of food by Elohim to ha-adam in 1:29: "Here
I give you . . . all plants. . . and every tree. It shall be for you for eating."
The woman takes the initiative, her man follows her in eating. Together they become
aware of their nakedness, cover themselves, and hide. They hide. Where? In the tree in the
middle of the garden:
They heard the voice of YHWH Elohim walking in the garden in the breeze of the day The
groundling and his woman hid from YHWH Elohim in the middle of the tree of the garden
I will come back to the tree later.
Eve's initiative brings about a change of context from the symbolic world of the garden
to the real world as we know it, with its alienation from God, and the fear and insecurity
that accompany self-awareness and self-determination. The change that occurs is marked by
a transformation of the status of serpent, woman, and man. The talking serpent is reduced
to an ordinary serpent. The woman knows birth-pangs and her husband's ruling. Ha-adam must
toil to procure food and enters the cycle of life and death. The listener realizes that
the text so far has involved a looking backward from the vantage point of everyday reality
to the imaginary world of myth. In the symbolic world, the woman played a key role. At
this point in the story, at the brink that divides the symbolic from the real, Eve is
given her name by ha-adam. The Hebrew text reads:
The groundling called his woman's name Life (Eve) for she is the mother of all that
lives (Gen. 3:20).
The wordplay between Hawwa and hay is vital to a correct reading of the text. It is
usually understood from translations that Eve receives her name because she is the mother
of humankind. In the Revised Standard Version, for instance, Genesis 3:20 reads: "The
man called his wife's name Eve because she was the mother of all living." As the
wordplay on Hawma and hay is relegated to a footnote, the reader naturally puts the stress
on the word "mother." The text does not say, however that "she was the
mother of all living" but that "she was the mother of all that lives." The
root hava, from which Eve's name derives, is cognate with the root haya, with its
derivation hay. Both roots connote living, the first in the sense of dwelling, the second
in the sense of being alive. However, it is the sound of the words that makes an impact
here on the listener. The assonance between Hawwa and hay suggests a link at the level of
meaning. Translators of the "Buber School" convey this by calling Eve
"Leben" (Buber and Rosenzweig, 1930), "dive" (Flegg, 1946),
"Vivante" (Chouraqui, 1982), "Life-Giver" (Fox 1983), "Life"
(Korsak, 1991). The main point of verse 3:20 is Eve's connection with Life. Only
secondarily, but very suitably, can she be considered the mother of humankind.
In fact, the appellations, Hawwa, mother of hay, connect Eve with the symbolic world of
the garden, in which the central reality is the tree grown by YHWH Elohim among "all
trees attractive to see and good for eating." The tree is first presented as ets
ha-hayim, the "tree of life":
YHWH Elohim made sprout from the ground all trees attractive to see and good for eating
the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowing of good and bad
Hawwa, hay, ha-hayim: the assonance of these words points to the
It has been shown that Eve plays a key role in the scene with the serpent in chapter 3.
The central reality around which the action turns is the tree, first described in chapter
3 as "the tree in the middle of the garden." This tree is at the heart of the
woman-serpent discussion. It is also the center of the woman's activity: Eve takes and
eats of the fruit of the tree. An examination of the nature of the tree reveals the nature
of Eve's act. In Genesis 2:9, three things are said of the tree: it is the tree of life,
the tree in the middle of the garden, and the tree of the knowing of good and bad. In
Genesis 2:17, YHWH Elohim says of the tree of the knowing of good and bad:
on the day you eat of it die! you shall die (Gen. 2:17).
This tree is also the tree of death.
If the symbolic nature of the tree is decoded, the message reads as follows: by eating
of the fruit of the tree, Eve becomes life's channel bringing within the sphere of human
experience all that life represents for good and bad. The gift of life is necessarily
attended by its concomitant, death. The only aspect of life denied the human being is life
forever, again symbolized by the tree of life, this time guarded by "the Cherubim and
the scorching, turning sword":
He cast out the groundling and made dwell east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim and
the scorching, turning sword to keep the road to the tree of life (Gen. 3:24).
Here is a third picture of Eve. First female, then woman, she is here perceived as
fully human; she plays a role in human destiny and receives a personal name.
The name Eve points backward to the symbolic world; it also points forward to the real
world. In the symbolic world, Eve ate of the tree of life. In the real world she will hand
life on by giving birth to sons. This secondary implication of the name "Eve"
should not conceal its primary meaning, although she is also the "mother of
The name "Eve" appears only twice in the book of Genesis. The second mention
is in chapter 4. At the beginning of what I have called a third movement, the opening
verse tells how Eve gives birth to Cain:
The groundling knew his woman Eve She conceived and bred Acquisition (Cain) She said, I
have acquired a man with YHWH (Gen. 4:1).
Chapter 4 is mainly taken up with Cain's murder of Abel, his banishment from before the
face of YHWH, and the violence of his line. At the end of the chapter, Eve gives birth to
a third son, Seth, who replaces Abel and whose line is said to invoke the name of YHWH:
Adam knew his woman again She bred a son She called his name Seth "for Elohim has
set another seed in Abel's place yes, Cain killed him"
A son was bred for Seth also He called his name Enosh
Then they began to call upon the name of YHWH (Gen. 4:25-26).
When Eve gives birth to Cain, she is called by her proper name. Her man
has not yet received a proper name. He is still ha-adam, "the groundling" with
the definite article: The groundling knew his woman Eve (Gen. 4:1).
At the end of the chapter, when Seth is born, the situation is reversed.
Eve is no longer called by her proper name: she is "his woman" and Adam is given
his proper name for the first time. This is signalled by the absence of the definite
article: he is Adam, not ha-adam: Adam knew his woman again (Gen. 4:26).
The naming of Adam prepares for the last movement of the "symphony" in
chapter 5, which is taken up with the record of Adam's line, descending through Seth, and
the disappearance of Eve from the Hebrew Bible. Her death is nowhere mentioned.
The Eve of chapter 4 speaks at the beginning of the chapter, when she gives birth to
Cain, and again at the end, when she gives birth to Seth. Can anything be learned from
what she says? A psychologist might well discern a certain self-absorption in her attitude
to the first birth. She situates herself at the center of this experience:
The groundling knew his woman Eve She conceived and bred Acquisition (Cain) She said, I
have acquired a man with Yhwh (Gen. 4:1).
The new-born son and YHWH are given secondary places and Eve ignores the
When Seth is born, on the contrary, Eve's words situate Elohim as subject of the
action, responsible for the birth, and Eve assumes a background position:
Adam knew his woman again She bred a son She called his name Seth "for Elohim has
set another seed in Abel's place yes, Cain killed him" (Gen. 4:25).
The murder of Abel by Cain appears to me to be nonjudgmental. Nothing indicates, as is
suggested by Cassuto, in his Commentary on the Book of Genesis (1961), that her words are
"meekly" spoken. Eve expresses the facts with stark simplicity: the tragic loss
of two sons (one dead, the other exiled) is effaced by a third birth, which ushers in a
new, God-centered beginning for humankind: Then they began to call upon the name of YHWH
In the intervening story about Cain, sin and death enter the world for the first time.
The word "sin" does not appear in the text before the fourth chapter. Indeed,
Eve is not the instigator of sin and death here: she is their victim. The death of a son
is a terrible experience. In Mary's case, Christianity has made much of this theme. It is
a more terrible experience, however, to have one son murder another. Yet no one pays
attention to Eve as mother in this context. The fourth picture of Eve is generally
I have tried to present here four images of Eve. These images do not follow one another
in a logical sequence. Rather, they are superimposed upon one another. Coexisting at
different levels, they play one against the other. Nevertheless, their sequence carries
the listener-reader forward in a dynamic movement that speaks of growth: male and female
precede man and woman, who precede Adam and Eve.
More rational commentators than I tend to develop certain aspects of the text, so that
textual interpretation concerning Eve has too often been limited to a concern for what is
good and what is bad. My approach has been different. Working with the words of Genesis
has led me to perceive it as a literary masterpiece, as poetry. In poetry, words are not
limiting. They invite the listener-reader to set out without necessarily seeing the end in
view. They open up possibilities that expose the listener-reader to the risk of
involvement. For this reason, I prefer to end this essay without coming to definitive
conclusions about Eve.
Nevertheless, I will add one comment. The current interpretation, which depreciates
woman, seems alien to Hebrew thought. It acts as an obstacle to reading the text in a
dynamic fashion, to perceiving that it is concerned with "becoming" in the
Hebrew sense, rather than with "being" in the Greek sense. The way in which
these two conceptions of reality differ may be illustrated by the following comparison. In
the Middle Ages, Rashi understood God's self-definition in Exodus 3:14 to mean "I
will be what I will be." This definition is open-ended. Translations current in
English Bibles, on the contrary, still give preference to a static formula: "I am;
that is who I am" (New English Bible, 1970).
By Mary Phil Korsak
Born in England, MARY PHIL KORSAK studied at Paris and Oxford Universities and lives in
Belgium. Her translation of the Hebrew text of Genesis, "At the Start. . . Genesis
Made New," was first published in Louvain, Belgium, in 1992 second edition,
Doubleday, 1993. This article is adapted from a paper delivered to the section
"History of Interpretation: The Hebrew Bible" of the Society of Biblical
Literature at its International Meeting in Munster, July 1993.
Copyright of Cross Currents is the property of
Association for Religion & Intellectual Life and its content may not be copied without
the copyright holder's express written permission except for the print or download
capabilities of the retrieval software used for access. This content is intended solely
for the use of the individual user. Source: Cross Currents, Winter94/95, Vol. 44 Issue 4, p453, 10p.