“A Portrait of Eve in Genesis”
People in antiquity often believed that to know the name of someone was in many ways to know the essence of that one, to perceive into the soul, to know that one’s purpose or role in society. Names in ancient Semitic cultures were profoundly meaningful in the life of the people. This can be seen in Enuma Elish, a Babylonian myth of creation, which told of a world that came into existence only when things were named. In the older Hebrew account of creation, the first woman in creation is Eve in Hebrew Havvah. Very few references are made of her in the Bible, yet this name and figure has been one of the most widely used if not the most used name and figure among the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures in forming the basis for various theologies, especially the moral and social norms handed down for women both in the Jewish and Christian traditions.
Eve is the topic of this paper in all her complexity, as she stands in the Bible in the book of Genesis. The figure of Eve has been handled by a patriarchal androcentric faith community often times making her the source of blame in a world experiencing evils. Yet the power of her name denies such labels of her, for she was created with a unique beauty highly reflective of her creator. This paper will present a feminist perspective of the figure of Eve in the book of Genesis using the literary, historical-critical method with special treatment given to the name of Eve, both directly where the name appears and indirectly when referring to the first woman, and naming in the text. An anthropological lens will be applied when possible to shed new insights into the biblical passages, and all Scripture passages will be taken from the New American Bible, unless other wise indicated.
Therefore to begin this portrait of Eve the best place to start will be her name. חוה is her name as it appears in the original Hebrew, and it only appears five times in the entire Catholic Bible, three times in the Protestant Bible and only two times in the Hebrew Bible. חוה is a proper feminine noun meaning “life.” Τhe Septuagint also renders her name in Greek as “life” Ζωη,. Eve, חוה is most often thought to come from the Hebrew root חיה, a verb which simply means “live,” “exist,” or “to be alive.” Interestingly, unlike her partner, Adam אדם whose proper name is associated with “earth” אדמה something below from a theological point of view; Eve חוה “life” shares a similarity in name with what is above, God, the giver of life, whose highly revered name Yahweh, was given to Moses (Exod 3:16), both חוה “Eve” and יחוה “Yahweh” are derived from similar Hebrew roots חיה for hW”x meaning “to live” “to be alive” or “to exist,” and hyh for hw”hy meaning “to be” “to become” or “to exist.” The similarity in meaning is significant because names in antiquity not only identified the person, but it was believed in many ways that the name held the essence of that person’s inner life. A name was largely thought to be connected to the soul or the life and being of the person. Yahweh then gives an understanding of God as the One who holds all things in existence, and one who remains forever. If Eve shares a name from the same root verb “to live, exist, be alive” as well as the word play of sound relating the two to each other then what can be concluded of her identity based on her name?
Eve, Mother of All the Living
Many significant insights can be gleaned from the name of Eve חוה “life” in regards to her biblical nature. Life in a biblical context is associated with the activity of God. The dating of the story of creation and so-called fall in Genesis 2-3 where the name of Eve appears is believed to have been written during the late monarchy putting it after the experience of Moses receiving the divine name. The Israelite community then would have known of the name of Yahweh יחוה at the writing of Gen 2- 3. Therefore, while looking at the names of the first man and the first woman in the second creation account, it appears that the Israelites choose to give the woman a unique likeness to God in her ability to bring forth life. Adam whose name maintains the play on words for earth in his proper name is a reminder that humanity will return to the earth, and eventually experience death. Where as new life springs from the woman, even though death is in the world. She is the bearer of life as her name expresses.
Furthermore, Eve receives this name after death enters into the world. It is after “the fall” that she is endowed with the title of life-bearer to all the living. Life for the ancient Hebrew peoples was difficult and particularly for them they experienced life as something mysterious, transcendent, and numinous. Especially in Genesis God is portrayed as the giver of life, creating through the Spirit of God (Gen 2:7; 6:17) imparting life to all of creation, thus revealing life as part of the very nature of God. God’s life-giving nature is particularly relevant in the identity of Eve as it reflects the nurturing, life bearing qualities of women found in the archetype of Eve reflective of the divine nature. Further, with a similarity between the “Mother” of all the living and Yahweh, the LORD God, a feminine aspect to God’s character may be seen. Moreover, in the origin stories death and life are two main themes sought to be understood. The first woman being given a name meaning life is a significant assertion as to her importance in the order of creation, which is associating her role with that of the creator.
Although most scholars generally agree that Eve’s name חוה is derived from the Hebrew root word חיה “to live” some scholars have connected her name with the root for אחוי serpent. Explanations for this interpretation are influenced with a belief that life originated from a serpent as found in the Babylonian cosmology. The connection of the name חוה Eve to the name of חויא serpent did not find much support among scholars. However, the fact that the tempter in the Hebrew story is a serpent and a connection was trying to be made with Eve in this way is suspect of reading into the text an evil image of the first woman, which has too often been done.
Eve as Helpmate
Still, in the second creation account a more common appearance for referring to Eve is that of woman, or wife, written in Hebrew as אשה. As mentioned before the Hebrew language, has a large capacity for conveying multiple meanings with very few words. This is done not only by the construction of the words themselves, but very often by the sound of the words when spoken if they are very similar in sound this will give a connective meaning to the words. The Hebrew word for man אישand woman אשה have just this kind of an effect. Even though אש and אשה are derived from two completely different root words there is a conceptual relationship in their sound, creating an association between the two. אשה (issa) paralleled to אש (is) looks and sounds like a feminine counterpart of the masculine noun for man or husband. It could appear to be taking away the unique identity of Eve and making her into a feminine form of the one true human being, the male. However, with an understanding of the original Hebrew language one will see that the woman is not being given an identity from the male, rather it is to show that although אשand אשה are uniquely different words, as are the man and woman uniquely different persons, they play off of the other in their intrinsic nature. Their existence co-mingles one with the other. This further relays the message that the two are partners male and female, co-caretakers of the earth.
A further analysis of the building effect of God’s creating will help to see Eve’s autonomy as a woman in the story, and who the man is to her. The characters in this creation myth develops as the story unfolds, building new layers of meaning and identity for the characters. Phyllis Trible, in her book God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality explains the passage in Genesis chapter 2 as the sexual emergence of the man and the woman. Trible sees in the term האדם the generic term for human being or as she uniquely translates it, “the earth creature.” Since God creates the earth creature and offers to the earth creature animals to be companions, which none of which proved to be suitable to the human. God then builds something new from the flesh of the first earth creature. It is from this point on that a sexual identity can be found in the earth creature, and that the first human becomes man in contrast to the woman who is now a suitable partner. She writes, “For both of them sexuality originates in the one flesh of humanity.” The Hebrew text illustrates the sexual differentiation of man and woman. האדם becomes אyש and אשה, a multiplication of humanity. An emerging relationship in humanity is developing between the woman and the man. They are made for each other as companions. One can see the inter-relational dynamics between the man and the woman in the word play between אשה and אyש.
Furthermore, the dynamics of the Hebrew play on words would be understood more clearly in a reading of the second creation story within a historical-critical analysis of the time in which the text was written. What was the author trying to convey? This is always a burning question in the mind of the reader of an ancient text. Understanding the times in which the author wrote can assist in answering this question. More often than not Eve is referred to as issa אשה, her first identification. She only really acquires her second identifying name after their expulsion from the Garden, where at this point death has entered the world, and she becomes the mother of all the living. She is mother of all the living in ordinary history one might say. Therefore what would the life of a woman look like at the time in Israel’s history when this story was told that would make such a creation myth meaningful? The Garden of Eden story is dated to the early Iron Age II. This places the story within Israel’s history during the time of the Israelite and Judean monarchies, between 1000 to 587 BCE. Hence, a greater understanding of “the woman” within the primeval history literature is possible through an anthropological lens. Much of the story is an etiology about life during the time of the monarchies, when viewed anthropologically. How can this help one to understand the image of Eve, and what women have received as their identity based on various interpretations of the text? An anthropological understanding is helpful to see the author in context and then to hold the values of that society up to new values of today. In some ways it takes away some of the mystery of the story to see it more humanly, however this is really essential if one is determined to find the truth which the story contains, and reflect on how it has been used to shape modern cultures.
Therefore, significant features of the life of the people of Israel at that time will cast a certain light on the story in the garden and the words used to describe the relationship between the man and the woman, that are quite enlightening. Eve was woman, wife, and mother, as were the women at the time of this stories writing. Life for the people in the early Iron Age II was arranged in small agricultural towns or villages where families provided for themselves by producing their own food and clothing. Survival was hard and required full participation from all of the family to succeed and children were a great and necessary blessing to the work force. The women were largely responsible for making from the raw goods of the land edible food and wearable clothes items. Women, too, brought forth children who not only increased the work force, but secured the future. However, despite the interdependence of the man and woman Israel was a patriarchal system. The patriarchal lens of the Israelite community also could account for some of the seemingly male dominant portrayal in the earliest story of creation such as, “your urge shall be for you husband, and he shall be your master” (Gen 3:16).
The role of women in the early Iron Age II is important for an understanding of Eve in the earliest story of creation because much of the daily life experience of women at that time can be found in her image. Eve is the figure of the first woman, but she can also be said to be an archetype of “all women.” Many look to this figure to form general understandings of the “nature” of woman, and other theological conclusions are made of women based on this biblical text. A key description of Eve which is provided by the narrator on the lips of God is one of helpmate. God was concerned that ‘the’ human being, אדםה have “a suitable partner” (Gen 2:18). At first God is Adam’s only helpmate and yet God wanting to leave creation and humanity to their own resources of support and sustainability, the human becomes man and woman. Certainly valuable in the Iron Age would be a partner on both sides for the man and the woman. Life was hard if not impossible to live and sustain oneself alone.
Therefore in order to understand what “a suitable partner” is would be helpful to look at the Hebrew. The Hebrew phrase used here to describe a helpmate is עזר כנגדו, translated as God will make a help corresponding to him equal and adequate to himself. Here in this phrase is the masculine noun עזר meaning help or succor along with the verb נגד which when used with כ a preposition together they have the meaning for what is in front of, opposite, or on par with. Thus עזר כנגדו gives the interpretation of a help corresponding to him. From an anthropological point of view the sense of what God is trying to create in humanity, which the animals are inadequate to be for the human being is a life-partner, one who will be able to work with “the man” toward the common goal of survival in the difficult conditions of the land. They would be collaborators, a male – female couple able to help sustain one another through difficult times, each helping the other, thus the term “helpmate.” Eve as “helpmate” creates an image of a woman of strength, compatibility, one who is able to be united with her opposite, while both contribute to the survival of the couple’s family.
Furthermore, gender roles related to the time of the monarchy do emerge from the text if looking at the details that relate to life of the monarchy period of Israel’s life. Essential to thriving was not only to have a life partner, but also to have offspring to help keep the family line alive, serving as labor to produce products of the land. Various roles would belong to the man and the woman. Evidence within the text of one of the historical gender roles that have influenced the story is the repetition of the term “food” or “eat” especially relevant to Eve’s handling of the fruit. Wives and mothers would have the primary responsibility for serving food to the family at the time of the monarchy. It was the woman’s responsibility to examine the food to be good, prepare it and offer it to the family. Therefore, in the older story of creation it is no wonder that Eve, while examining the fruit observes, “that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom” (Gen 3:6). It would be expected for the woman of the household during the time of the monarchy to determine such things.
Eve in the Genesis Narratives
Thus far, Eve has been viewed from an anthropological/historical-critical lens with a focus on names which indicate her identity more directly. Following will be an examination of her within the narratives of the scripture passages. An examination of the text beginning first with the older creation account, where her name appears for the first time in the Bible, will help to illuminate the movement in the later creation account, Genesis 1.
Continuing then with Eve who plays a major role in the biblical narrative of Genesis 2 where the emergence of a new creature is at the heart of the passage. For what is her purpose? How does she fit in the order of the creation of the universe? What is her innate identity? Peering into the passage above a word might help to focus an understanding to these questions. God is still very much the creator of this new creature as Gen 2:21 states, “and the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man.” An important word here is the Hebrew word, תרדמה a “deep sleep” which Yahweh God caused upon the man. This is no ordinary sleep that the man is experiencing, but rather a type of sleep which makes the person unaware of the activities of God. In 1 Samuel 26:12, God put Saul and his army in this deep sleep while David took away his spear. As well as can be found in a vision to Daniel who fell into this deep sleep because of the powerful presence of God when Daniel heard God “speaking; and when I heard him speaking, overcome by תרדמה “a deep sleep,” I lay prostrate on the ground” (Dan 10:9). In the creation of Eve there is a kind of starting over that God is doing in this new creation. In one sense by God putting the former human being in an unconscious state in order to make a new creature one can see in this creating a progression, not God dependent on the former creation in creating something new. God is moving from the raw materials of dust and earth to the things of living beings to “build up” a woman. What is at issue in this text is partnership. For God says, “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Gen 2:18). This partner for the human being is, “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23).
Yet what does “flesh of my flesh” mean? Michael Fishbane has thought this to be an etiology of matrimonial union accompanied with a “mythic image of a male as the source of human life, … [reflecting] a male fantasy of self-sufficiency.” This is an interesting thought on the matter given that all evidence of Eve’s name indicates that she as the archetype of all women as the bringer of life in the world after creation and in the reality of history the bearer of children. More commonly the coming of Eve is seen by many scholars as the origin of sexual differentiation and equality in the garden. The story as well is an etiology for marriage.
Therefore it will be insightful to show the progression in the narrative of God’s creating of humanity, from general humanity to proper noun identifying the first man, Adam. The Hebrew, האדם “the man” has several meanings in the original Hebrew, either a male person, a human being male or female or general humanity, and it can also be the proper name for Adam. When God said, “It is not good for האדם “the man” or “the human” to be alone” (Gen 2:18), it can also be understood that it is not good for the human being male or female to be alone. This very word האדם in 2:18 is translated by St. Jerome in the Vulgate in an inclusive way meaning it is not good for the human being to be alone. The original Hebrew offers an ambiguity of text that allows for diverse meanings to emerge. Finally when the individual comes forth from the Hebrew text as the first individual male it is not until Genesis 2:20 as God begins to create the two sexes from the one האדם human being. Further evidence for the inclusivity of male and female in the Genesis 2 creation account is found in the genealogy of chapter 5, which summarizes the creation of man and woman, by writing, “When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God; he created them male and female. When they were created, he blessed them and named them “man” ”(Gen 5:2). God expresses authority over both the man and the woman as one humanity. One of the human beings is not designated as dominant rather it is God who names expressing God’s dominion. This can be found here in the text in what is known as the naming formula: the presence of the two words call and name within the same sentence.
What does this say then about the image of Eve? From the beginning of her creation it is God who with special intent built her up to be the female counterpart of the male human being that God also built up, the one belonging to the other, and not one dominating the other. As the text makes known their sexual identity, “This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken” (Gen 2:23), and it is not to say that God created male domination over women by this text. Much has been written of the “man calling the woman” as an act that is equal to the naming of the animals, which accompanied with an understanding of naming from an anthropological perspective would mean that the man dominates the woman and exercised control over her. However, there is a difference here in how the Hebrew text presents “woman” within the story. The naming of the animals which does in fact indicate a domination of the human being over the animal world in the earlier part of this story is done within a naming formula: the presence of the verb קרא “to call” with the noun שם “name” which is found in the naming of all the animals. Here we have only that “this one shall be called woman, for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.” (Gen 2:23). “Name” does not appear in the sentence. The importance of the text here is indicating the sexual difference at this point in the human being and the sense of belonging to one another, thus, the language of being taken from the other and being made of the same bone and flesh of the other. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes on the following passage (Gen 2:24) in conclusion, “This ultimate belonging to one another is undoubtedly seen here in connection with [humanity’s] sexuality. Very clearly sexuality is the expression of the two-sidedness of being both an individual and being one with the other.” Therefore, Eve’s identity developing in Genesis 2 is that of the equal but sexually different partner to Adam.
Moving then to chapter 3 of Genesis in the literary development one reads about the eating of the forbidden fruit, the expulsion from the garden, and the announcement of death in the world. The older creation account is cyclic in three scenes: the development of life, the act of disobedience, and the disintegration of life. Its over all design is cyclic, and it is a story of life and death. An etiology can be found here as well. The life of the ancient Israelite author would have experienced painful toil, death, struggle in a hostile environment, and estrangement in relationships both human and divine. All of these themes develop in Genesis 3. One thing that doesn’t occur in the text is the term “fall, used in later interpretations by Christian writers.” Yet, the term “fall” does capture a sense of loss that is found in the story.
Chapter 3 then becomes the turning point of the story. Eve faces the temptation to disobey the divine command. Yet, within her temptation much character is revealed from a human stand point. Much has been said about Eve “causing” Adam to sin by giving him the fruit. While, the text does not support her tempting or causing Adam to disobey, rather Adam is with Eve in everything and yet he fails to respond to the serpent’s cunning remarks taking place between Eve and the serpent. Throughout most of this second section, shortly after her arrival on earth, Eve demonstrates many admirable human leadership qualities. She is confident, informed about her situation and environment and aware of the laws of her lands. She is intelligent and theological as she speaks with clarity and authority about matters that pertain to the economic (what can be consumed) and political (laws limiting what can be used) situation of the garden as well as what God expects of them. It is easy to overlook her many good qualities illustrated in her lengthy dialogue with the serpent when the audience knows the seriousness of God’s commands and the outcome to the story. Yet she speaks to the serpent with faithful understanding of what God spoke and understands how to live it faithfully. She even corrects the serpent in the misinterpretation it presented to her about eating “from any of the trees” (Gen 3:1), and correctly states, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.’” (Gen 3:2). All of this she does in the presence of Adam as the text says, “to her husband who was with her” (Gen 3:6), while he remains silent. Silence on his part could be seen as a sin of omission. Eve does not seduce Adam to take the fruit, rather she simply hands the fruit to him after he listened himself to the whole theological discernment between the serpent and his companion. The text simply says, “and he ate it” (Gen 3:6) as a free choice. He does so unlike Eve who tried to defend and discern what God asked of them. They as one flesh together as they were created to be both disobey the divine command without consulting God in the matter, the deeper issue at play.
Consequently, in their act of disobedience the harmony and unity between them, their environment and God is destroyed. The equality and mutuality between the man and woman is now replaced with tension. None of this was God’s original purpose or plan. However, something can still be learned about the character of Eve in the act of disobedience. Choosing against God’s loving actions in the world is known to all people yet, how people respond to their own choices will also reveal their level of personal integrity. Eve shows personal integrity in claiming her own thought out action, although she disobeyed the divine command. Unlike Adam who simply blames Eve for his own actions, Eve admits she was tricked and that she ate the fruit, “The serpent tricked me into it, and so I ate it” (Gen 3:13). Eve has courage to own her choices. Eve loyal to her partner never accuses her partner for lack of support, defense or help while he watched the tempter approach and seduces his partner. Possibly because of Eve’s good intentions and sincerity she is never cursed by God, whereas Adam and the serpent are cursed. The serpent is cursed directly, “Cursed shall you be” (Gen 3:14), and Adam is cursed indirectly, “Cursed be the ground because of you!” (Gen 3:17). Eve is simply punished as are all three characters involved in the disobedience.
Moreover, in their punishment God deals equally with Adam and Eve, as there is symmetry in their punishment, for both are given pain in labor, and both experience estrangement to each other and to the source of their existence. Because both listened to the voice of another over the voice of God, they are mutually treated by God in their punishment. The mutuality of the garden is soon coming to an end as the punishments are given by God. Now Eve, will have a distorted desire for the man, as the text says, “your urge shall be for your husband” (Gen 3:16). Domination in human relationships enters in as God speaks, “he shall be your master,” (Gen 3:16) and further by the man using the same naming formula as he did with the animals he now names the woman Eve, as a gesture of control over her. Yet this was never God’s intention in her creation, and the effects of domination clearly belong to the world of sin. Dominion, control, and subordination are part of a world torn apart from God, and not to the realm of grace.
Finally in the book of Genesis, Eve is mentioned three more times after expulsion, both as wife and mother. She is mentioned when, “the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying “I have gained a male child with the help of the Lord” (Gen 4:1). The text continues with “she then bore his brother Abel” (Gen 4:2). Shortly after and “Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth” (Gen 4:25). This might take the reader back to the Iron Age II where it was beneficial to have many children and where women were expected to bear them for the good of the household. And so too, she also, is living up to her name as “life,” and that she would be “the mother” of all the living.
Lastly, to give a well rounded image of Eve in Genesis the other biblical source of woman’s creation found in the first chapter of Genesis will be examined next. Genesis 1:1-2:4 is likely written during the exile around the 6th century B.C.E., and therefore it is the later of the two creation accounts, written after the second story in the Bible in Genesis 2-3. The audience here is an exile community and the attention is given to the God of Israel creating order out of chaos. Even though Genesis 1 does not deal directly with the person of Eve as she is named in Genesis 2-3, this later creation account has the creation of woman which is also a reference to what Eve symbolizes. Therefore, because of the association of the creation of woman in both stories this story will be looked at briefly as well.
Therefore, to add to a biblical understanding of the creation of “woman” who has been generally identified as Eve a brief examination of Gen 1:26-28 will add to the image of Eve being presented in this paper. The order of creation in Genesis 1 follows a series of pronouncements where “God said,” and it came to be. There are two primary concerns in this creation account: 1) all creation is dependent on God and 2) a description of the order of creation. As the culmination of creation God creates אדם adam, human beings who are made in the divine image both, “male and female [God] created אתם them” (Gen 1:27). Again here the author of Genesis 1 is using the word אדם inclusively to speak of both man and woman, thus presenting the woman on mutual and equal terms. Even the Hebrew words for human being (adam) and “them” are similar in appearance, possibly being another Hebrew play of words emphasizing the plurality of humanity, showing a similarity with “humanity” and “them”. The author of this creation story is not concerned so much with social status of the couple as husband and wife as was the author of Genesis 2, rather the presentation of man and woman here is one of a biological nature. The passage when speaking of the creation of “man” male and female, relating to one another speaks of fertility, as the text explains God’s desire for them, “God blessed them, saying: “Be fertile and multiply” (Gen 1:28). By the divine command human sexuality is blessed and therefore innately good and ordained by God. When reflecting on New Testament applications of sex and Eve to women this assertion will be important to keep in mind.
Yet, to further elaborate on this account of creation it is not about sexual roles, status or relationship of the man and woman one to another, nor marriage. Yet what has been affirmed of Eve’s identity from the earlier creation account is that “she” the first woman is created as part of a whole of humanity. She is not lesser than or dominated over by the man as the animals of the world, but that she stands with the man in having “dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things” (Gen 1:28). If then both together form a unity called “אדם” humankind which reflects the divine image, Eve’s collective image in the Hebrew Scriptures is one of a mutual community member.
In conclusion, the biblical Eve of Genesis contains a rich tapestry of color and delight in the eye of the Creator. She is in many ways the culmination of God’s creating, bearing a special likeness to the Divine Creator by reflecting the feminine aspects of God as Life-Giving Mother. She is in many ways an archetype of all women who have the ability to bring life into the world to nurture and sustain it. Genesis 2-3, shows signs of an etiology reflecting aspects of the life of ancient Israel, shedding new light on the image of Eve as one who is a mutual companion, strong and able to endure difficult circumstances with her man. She regenerates the earth from the hopelessness of death, by continually renewing humanity with new life. She is articulate, intelligent, and theological in her thinking, able to dialogue and discern matters and decide for herself the best course of action. Yet, she is not perfect in her judgments; however, she is able to claim her own voice and choice in the sight of God. Eve is strong and compatible for community as she lived through the experience of the loss of a life of complete grace, falling subject to domination of a patriarchal world. Yet, she was made to be “mother of all the living” not a vessel of sin. In Genesis 1 Eve, not named, but rather the first woman is sexual counter-partner of the man, creating the whole of humanity. The two of them as one are given to be fruitful and care for the earth. As painter and artists George Frederick Watts states of her, “In her lofty majesty of innocence, Eve represents the prototype of all that all of mankind may hope for.”
Bibliography
Bennett, W.H. “Eve,” in Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Ed. George
Butterick, vol. 2; New York: Macmillan Publishing Company (1987) 181-182.
Bird, Phyllis. Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities. Women and Gender in Ancient
Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Creation & Fall. A Theological Interpretation of GENESIS 1-3.
London, Great Britain: The Camelot Press Ltd., 1962.
Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.
Cotter, David W. Genesis. Berit Olam. Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 2003.
Fishbane, Michael. “Eve,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion. Vol. 5; New York: Collier
Macmillan Publishers, 2005.
Gittins, Anthony. Forms and Meanings in the Bible and Culture. Chicago, Illinois:
Catholic Theological Union, 2007.
Illustrated Dictionary & Concordance of the Bible, ed. Geoffrey Wigoder. Jerusalem:
The Jerusalem Publishing House Ltd., 1986.
The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Keith Crim; Nashville: Abingdon,
1980.
The Living Torah. The Five Books of Moses and the Haftarot, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan.
Brooklyn, New York: Maznaim Publishing Corporation, 1981.
The New JPS Hebrew-English TANAKH. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society,
2003.
Meier, Samuel. “Linguistic Clues on the Date and Canaanite Origin of Genesis 2:13-24,”
CBQ 53/1 (1991) 18-24 [online; ALTASerials, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=24&hid=114&sid=2db17656-93bd-4500-8d55- . . . Nov. 3, 2007].
Meyers, Carol. “A New Image of Eve,” TBT 44/2 (2006) 69-75.
Park-Taylor, G.H. Yahweh: The Divine Name in the Bible. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfred
Laurier University Press, 1975.
Stratton, Beverly J. Out of Eden. Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 2-3.
Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978.
Soelle, Dorothee, “The Mother of All Living,” in Great Women of the Bible. trans. Joe
H. Kirchberger; Italy: Fortress, 2006.
Zimmerman, Anthony, The Primeval Revelation in Myths and in Genesis. Lanham,
Maryland: University Press of America, 1999.