I am reading the Sibylline Oracles in my Charlesworth
Pseudepigrapha. The Sibylline Oracles were female prophetesses at
various points in history, and Jews and Christians produced editions of
their prophecies. I am currently reading Book 1 of the Sibylline
Oracles, and, according to John Collins’ discussion of its date,
scholars have dated the Jewish stage of this book to the second-third
centuries C.E. (while debating which century works better: the second or
the third).
What stood out to me in my reading a couple of days ago was this
book’s treatment of Genesis 3:3. In Genesis 3:3, Eve encounters the
serpent, who will tempt her to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of
Good and Evil, in violation of God’s command. In telling the serpent
her understanding of what God’s command is, Eve states: “We may eat of
the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which
is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it,
neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die” (KJV). More than one reader has
noted that what Eve says about God’s command does not match up
identically with what God actually commanded Adam. God’s command to
Adam appears in Genesis 2:16-17, and God says: “Of every tree of the
garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die” (KJV). God told Adam that he was not to
eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Eve, however,
understood the command to be, not just that she could not eat the fruit
from that tree, but also that she could not touch it.
I have heard various things about this point. My high school Bible
literature teacher said that this was an example of a fence around the
law. Jews, she said, did not want to get to the point where they were
close to disobeying God’s commands, and so they set up a fence that
would keep them a few steps removed from a tempting situation. Eve, in
this case, could not eat from the tree, but she also felt that she could
not touch it, and the prohibition on her touching the forbidden fruit
would supposedly keep her from eating it.
Some people have had a negative reaction to Eve’s statement of
“neither shall ye touch it.” These were evangelical Christians, and they
accused Eve of adding to God’s command, with disastrous results. Her
addition of “neither shall ye touch it” meant that she saw God and God’s
command as overly strict. Moreover, by adding to God’s command, Eve
was setting herself up to sin. She said that she would die if she
touched the forbidden fruit? But she did touch it, and she did not
die. She could then easily conclude that eating the fruit would not be
fatal, since touching it apparently was not!
In Sibylline Oracles, Book 1, lines 38-39, we read: “To these [Adam
and Eve] did God then address commands and instruct them not to touch
the tree” (John Collins’ translation). According to this passage, Eve
was not adding to God’s command when she said “neither shall ye touch
it,” but rather was being faithful to God’s command, for God himself
told Adam and Eve not to touch the forbidden fruit.
I decided to do a quick study of how various ancient interpreters
have understood Genesis 3:3, specifically what they have thought about
Eve’s statement of “neither shall ye touch it.” I looked at my Judaic
Classics Library, and I also did a search on the Scripture index of
Phillip Schaff’s compilation of the works of the Ante-Nicene and
Post-Nicene church fathers. There are a lot more sources out
there—-there are patristic sermons about Genesis that I cannot find
online! But I worked with what I had. And, even then, there is more
out there!
I looked at how Midrash Rabbah handled Genesis 3:3, and, essentially,
it said the same thing that evangelical critics of Eve would say
centuries later. In the Soncino English translation of Genesis Rabbah
19:3, we read: “SHALL NOT EAT OF IT, NEITHER SHALL YE TOUCH IT, LEST YE
DIE (III, 3). Thus it is written, Add not unto His words, lest He
reprove thee, and thou be found a liar (Prov. XXX, 6). R. Hiyya taught:
That means that you must not make the fence more than the principal
thing, lest it fall and destroy the plants. Thus, the Holy One, blessed
be He, had said, For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die (Gen. II,17); whereas she did not say thus, but, GOD HATH
SAID: YE SHALL NOT EAT OF IT, NEITHER SHALL YE TOUCH IT; when he [the
serpent] saw her thus lying, he took and thrust her against it. ‘ Have
you then died?’ he said to her; ‘just as you were not stricken through
touching it, so will you not die when you eat it, but For God doth know
that in the day ye eat thereof,’ etc. (ib. 5).”
According to this rabbinic passage, Eve was wrong to add to God’s
command. The passage quotes Proverbs 30:6, which warns people against
adding to God’s command, for then they may be found to be liars. In the
case of Eve, Eve thought that she would die by touching the forbidden
fruit, and so the serpent made her touch it and showed her that she was
still alive. That made her more open to disobeying God’s actual
prohibition on eating the fruit.
At the same time, Judaism does have a concept of establishing a fence
around the law, which is stated in Mishnah Avot 1:1. That could mean
protecting people from getting to the point where they are in danger of
transgressing God’s commands, by adding additional rules. That may be
the understanding of it in Genesis Rabbah 19:3, for the passage quotes
R. Hiyya as saying that one should not make “the fence more than the
principal thing, lest it fall and destroy the plants.” The passage
accepts making a fence around the law, but it believes that there should
be limits on that practice. There is an alternative understanding of
making a fence around the law in rabbinic Judaism, however, and I talk
about that in my post here.
According to Louis Finkelstein, Avoth de-Rabbi Nathan believes that
making a fence around the Torah is not adding regulations, but rather
protecting the Torah itself from additional, non-Scriptural
prohibitions. Finkelstein states that the Avoth de-Rabbi Nathan appeals
to the story in Genesis 3 about Eve and the serpent to show the dangers
of adding additional prohibitions to what God has already commanded.
So we have a Jewish version of the Sibylline Oracles that says that
God actually forbade Adam and Eve to touch the forbidden fruit. And we
have rabbinic passages that say that Eve (or Adam in telling Eve the
command) was adding to God’s command, with disastrous results. Where do
the patristic sources that I searched land on this issue?
I found only two places that address the issue explicitly. The first
is Irenaeus’ Against Heresies 5.23, and the second is the section on
Procilla in Methodius’ Banquet of the Ten Virgins. Irenaeus, who dates
to the third century C.E., simply says that Eve was relaying God’s
command to the serpent. There is no hint there that Irenaeus thought
that Eve was adding to God’s command. Methodius, who dates to the
third-fourth centuries C.E., says that Adam received the command not to
touch the Tree of Knowledge. Irenaeus and Methodius, like that passage
from the Sibylline Oracles, hold that the prohibition on touching the
tree actually came from God, and, according to this interpretation, that
would mean that Eve was not adding to God’s word.
I decided to search one more source. Over a decade ago, I read Gary Anderson’s The Genesis of Perfection.
I had taken a couple of Gary Anderson’s classes at Harvard Divinity
School and thought that I would enjoy this book, and I did enjoy it. I
vaguely recall Anderson saying that, in some version of the Adam and Eve
story, God gave the command both to Adam and to Eve at the same time,
meaning that both heard God’s command from God himself: it was not like
what we see in our Bibles, where God gives the command to Adam and then
makes Eve, and then somehow Eve becomes aware of the prohibition (maybe
from Adam).
I could not find that discussion on googlebooks, but I did find
something else. Anderson refers to the view of the fourth century
Christian Ephrem of Syria that Eden was a holy place, and so Adam and
Eve needed to keep their distance, on some level. Anderson states:
“…Ephrem conceived of Eden as a mountain sanctuary. His
interpretation was grounded in the second half of the command given to
Adam and Eve: Don’t draw too close to the tree of knowledge. This
warning, Ephrem reasoned, was modeled on the warnings given to
priests.” (Anderson quotes Hymns on Paradise 3:16. Anderson’s
discussion occurs on page 56 of his book. See here to read it.)
For Ephrem, apparently, God was the source of the prohibition on
touching the tree, for God wanted Adam and Eve to keep their distance
from the holy.
It is interesting to me that the rabbinic sources that I read were
critical of Eve for adding to God’s commandment, whereas the ancient
Christian sources that I read tended to say that Eve got God’s
commandment right. A lot of the rabbis were for adding a fence around
the law, yet rabbinic literature largely appears to disapprove of what
Eve said to the serpent about God’s command. And evangelical critics of
Eve, when they criticize Eve, are probably also taking a swipe at the
Pharisees and rabbinic Judaism (at least by implication), making a point
of “You see what happens when people add commands to God’s word and
make God seem stricter than he truly is?” Yet, the rabbis were closer
to their views on Eve than were some of the ancient Christians!
I’ll leave the comments open in case someone wants to add any
information or insight. Please limit your comment to adding information
or insight, though. Don’t criticize me for writing about this topic.
Thank you.