A basic question that arises with this account is from where did Jehovah derive the "coats of skins." Were animals slain in order for Adam and Eve to be given these coats?
Expositor's Bible Commentary--Old Testament (Abridged Edition): "The mention of the type of clothing that God made—'garments of skin,' i.e., tunics—is perhaps intended to recall the state of the man and the woman before the Fall: 'naked' and 'no shame' (2:25). The author may also be anticipating the notion of sacrifice in the animals slain for the making of the skin garments (cf. Ex 28:42)."
Victor Hamilton, The Book of Genesis 1-17: "It is probably reading too much into this verse to see in the coats of skin a hint of the use of animals and blood in the sacrificial system of the OT cultus.¹² The word we have translated coats is the one that is used to describe the garment Jacob made for Joseph (e.g., 37:3). It is true that the word skin here refers to animal skins, and we do have in Genesis itself the idea of animal skins as coverings. See 27:16, where Rebekah 'put on' (same verb as here) the hands and neck of Jacob 'the skins of the kids' so that Jacob would feel like and smell like Esau to Isaac. But keṯōneṯ is more than simply a covering. It is an actual robelike garment worn next to one's skin. Both men (2 Sam. 15:32) and women (2 Sam. 13:18, 19; Cant. 5:3) could wear it (cf. Gen. 3:21). A keṯōneṯ was also one of the garments worn by the priests, and it was made from linen (Exod. 28:39; 39:27)."
While conducting research on this question, I read that Augustine of Hippo believed God used "dead cattle" to provide skins for Adam and Eve. One source also quotes another view of interest:
THEODORET OF CYRUS. How are we to understand the clothing of skins? Allegorizing commentators (Origen, Didymus, and Theodore) have claimed that the skins were mortal flesh, others that they were made from the bark of trees. But I adopt neither of these views; the latter is merely inquisitive, the former too much of a mythological fable. Since holy Scripture says that the body was formed even before the soul, how can this claim that the man and woman took mortal flesh only after the transgression of the commandment amount to anything but a fable? And it strikes me as futile to pry into the way God came by skins and to imagine a novel form of clothing. We should be content with the text, acknowledge that there is no task beyond the Creator of the universe, and admire the unlimited goodness of God who, taking care for sinners, did not overlook their need for clothing when they were naked. [Theodoret of Cyrus, Question 39 on Genesis]
See https://litteraldotorg.wordpress.com/genesis-3/
54 comments:
http://chamar-today.blogspot.com/2011/08/chamar-history.html
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.3.21?lang=bi&with=Radak&lang2=en
Rashi and Radak on gen 3:21.
Radak gives a lengthy commentary.
Regarding Joseph's coat:-
"Rashi translates כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים k'tōnĕt passim by the phrase כְּלִי מִילָת k'li milat (“something made of wool”), connecting it with כַּרְפַּס karpas in Ĕstér 1:6, which the Talmud explains (M'gillah 12a) as being a combination of the words כַּרְ kar (a cushion) and פַּס pas (wool). Rosenbaum and Silberman translated כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים as “a long-sleeved garment”, while JPT has “a fine woolen coat” and the Artscroll Stone Edition T'nach has “a fine woolen tunic” (actually, the word is spelt woollen, with a double-L)."
This paper also looks at many issues brought to the fore in Gen. 3. See http://www.dbts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/E.-Snoeberger-2.2-Final.pdf
We cannot be dogmatic about whether animals were killed in the making of these "coats of skin," but should we try to explain away the fact that "skins" are apparently mentioned in the narrative?
Compare https://biblehub.com/hebrew/or_5785.htm
Some argue that skin and from skin are the same so wool or hair. But as you say we do not have the evidence to make such claims. It does say skin. But compare Leviticus 25:1.
From the paper you linked.
"21 It is possible that the Hebrew could read garments for the skin, leaving the
material unspecified, but this understanding is improbable (Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis,
JPS Torah Commentary [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989], 29)."
Why improbable? I would say it is as probable as any of the other solutions and the grammar allows for it.
Leviticus 25:1?
"The Lord spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai:" (Lev. 25:1 NET)
Maybe the explanation you mention is probable, but when I look at how the word is used in the Hebrew Bible, that makes me think the suggestion is improbable. It seems to be clear that Genesis meant to say the material was skin. However, someone may try to explain the occurrence os skins different ways, but it seems fairly uncontroversial that "skins" is meant.
See BDB here: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5785.htm
Compare Gesenius here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5785&t=LXX
Leviticus speaks of shaving skin not hair & job 2:4,5 using the phrase skin for skin but then the reply is flesh and bones. The term is clearly not so straight foreward.
I'm not suggesting that Genesis 3:21 mentions hair, but rather, animal skins. We have to contextualize the expression, however, even Job speaks of skins although not animal skins. Yet his next words do not refute the idea that "skin" is under consideration in 2:4; flesh and bones (or bones and flesh) are not necessarily being identified with one another, but they are related to each other. See Luke 24:39. Compare Job 30:17, 30.
In the Leviticus texts, in every one of them, the writer is discussing either animal/human skin, leather or animal "hide." If there's some aambiguity in Leviticus about "skin," I'd like to see it. Which passage speaks of shaving skin?
Even so, it might be a different word than the Genesis verse uses.
One reference source also mentions Hebrews 11:37, which most likely speaks of animal skins.
Here's an older discussion from BHebrew: https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-January/027616.html
Exodus 21:23-25.
The BHebrew is circular reasoning with no support.
Just like skin of his teeth. Or as the Geneva puts it - skin with his teeth.
For this :-
"The explanations for the last metaphor are multiple and unconvincing. Its meaning eludes us."
The Book of Job, by John Hartley, 1988.
Neither Luke 24:39 nor job 30 illuminate the phrase "skin for skin".
Job 18:13 is also interesting.
Skin of his teeth might be a different expression. Luke 24:39 illuminates Job 2:5, and it's hard to deny, at any rate, that the skins of Genesis were animal skins, even if one wants to spiritualize the interpretation. Furthermore, let's not forget Abel's sacrifice that involved animals or ignore Hebrews 11:37 and all the scholarly works that explain Genesis 3:21 as animal skins. Job 30 also illuminates the word, skin.
From the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (edited by Ryken):
"When we move from human skin to animal skins, the
picture becomes more positive, beginning with God's making
'garments of skins' to clothe Adam and Eve after
pronouncing the curse following the Fall (Gen 3:21 RSV [RSV
RSV. Revised Standard Version] ). Negatively, the goats' skins
that Rebekah placed on Jacob's arms and neck (Gen 27:16)
become an image of deception in a story of trickery. The
greatest number of references to animal skins, however,
have to do with the material from which the dyed cloth for
the tabernacle was made. Here skin becomes an image of
richness and color."
From the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Vol. 6:317):
2. skin, hide of animals (Gn 27i6 4QJubh 3720
[DT]U] 4QMMT Bi8.21.22 [naimnmu] B22 (T[U]) 11QT
477), for clothing (Gn 321 2 K ls), constructing tabernacle (Ex 255.s||357.7 26i4||36i9 3523 3934.34), covering
ark and utensils of tabernacle (Nm 46.8.10.11.12.14),
carrying wine, oil and food (11QT 47n.i7); as item of
leather (Lv II32 15i7 Nm 312o 4QDd 8.23 [[T]U] 11QT
49ié 50i6 51o5 [PIÙ]]), having disease (Lv 1348+llt); skin
of sacrificial animai (Ex 29h||Lv 817 Lv 4n 7s 9n I627
11QT 13i3 [[TU]] I611 268 349 47i3.is), heifer used for
purification (Nm 19s), Leviathan (Jb 4O31), unclean
animals (11QT 5I4)
Robert Alter translates Gen. 3:21, "And the LORD God made skin coats for the human and his woman, and He clothed them."
Isnt וַיַּעַשׂ֩ (made) the same term as used in gen 1:7 & 1:25? Are we going to start claiming we know what he made these from or how he made them?
It does not say coat.
There are no connections here only very big assumptions. Have you read https://www.studylight.org/commentary/genesis/3-21.html#ebc .
Some huge leaps and assumptions are being made here, in favour of western cultural bias IMO.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rl8qDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT245&lpg=PT245&dq=2+Samuel+15:32+tunic&source=bl&ots=q2YViK-9Ag&sig=inY-6Lp3fFBpiRqrkidvWI0xpr8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwsNjC1IfdAhVOQcAKHawgAxk4ChDoATACegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=2%20Samuel%2015%3A32%20tunic&f=false
Note the term used here at 2 Samuel 15:32, the tunic or inner garment also note the BDB definition for kethoneth.
Yet many translation use "coat" even here.
Yes, I have read Ellicott, and I'm not endorsing everything he says there although much of his commentary seems reasonable to me. You're focusing on "coat," but my comments actually pertained to "skins" ע֖וֹר
Both dictionaries I quoted back this understanding, a coat of skins, and Gen. 27:16 makes no sense unless we take the word that way. Again, I'm not referring to kethoneth, but to the word for "skins" and that is what the dictionaries are talking about, Duncan. Of course, "coat" would be kethoneth, but what about the other term?
I'm wondering if you also checked out the earlier link I had posted which had all occurences in the Hebrew Bible for owr. Those made it clear that hide, skin of an animal/human is being discussed. On the Job reference of "skin for skin," I think we have to remember the idiomatic nature of the utterance.
Note the BDB definition for owr: https://www.studylight.org/interlinear-bible/genesis/3-21.html
It is funny how God can create everyone and everything, but he doesn't appear to be able to whip up skin(s) by means of his holy spirit.
Philip, Tertullian once wrote that we have to distinguish between the divine "could" and the divine "would."
So, to your point: God "could" whip up skins by means of the holy spirit (maybe); but "would" he? One reason we might say he would not is because God rested on the 7th day from all his creative labors toward his physical creation. Of course, Christ said Jehovah has been working and keeps at it, but he likely did not mean that God created new physical things after his rest day began.
Then again, I could be wrong. :)
One more comment, this time from Umberto Cassuto and his commentary on Genesis:
"Tunics of skins] Various fanciful interpretations have been advanced regarding the tunics of skin, but the term simply denotes tunics made of the skins of domestic or wild animals, enduring tunics in contrast to aprons of leaves (v. 7), which do not last a long time. There is no contradiction here to the principle of vegetarianism implied both in the previous section (i 29) and the present (iii 17–19), for there is no necessity to suppose that the verse refers specifically to skins of cattle that had been slaughtered for the purpose of eating their flesh."
See https://books.google.com/books/about/A_commentary_on_the_book_of_Genesis.html?id=xZkNAQAAMAAJ
In reference to the creative day issue I refer you back to the Radak commentary. Would this be a creation of significance?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160401144507.htm
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Dictionary/ay/ay-y-r.html#.W4KDn3rTU1I
Note the term for "blind" possibly being linked directly to skin in terms of a cateract understood as skin over the eye which it is not literally. But it could be perceived as a covering.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/preventing-cataracts-with-diet/
I just put this link in for good measure 😀
With all due respect, Radak criticizes speculation before he himself advances numerous speculative ideas. And this is all to avoid believing that God might have killed an animal to use for clothing? Why all this resistance since more animals reportedly were slain in the Hebrew Bible to offer sacrifices on the divine altar than were slain in the case of Adam and Eve. So I don't see the harm in using one or two animals to make skin garments for Adam and Eve.
When God creates a material object, many sources say, he creates without any preexisting material which is something that humans cannot do.
Radak writes:
"There is no point in asking how G’d made these coats. Surely, by comparison to the entire universe which G’d had created, making leather coats was a very insignificant accomplishment by comparison."
But I don't consider the making of "leather coats" to be hard for God; the problem is when men reject the simplest explanation and then offer tenuous and strained ones instead.
Radak insists:
"There is no need for all these fancy explanations, i.e. speculations. G’d simply issued a directive and the tunics came into existence, just as the material from which the first set of Tablets was made by G’d had to come into existence by miraculous means."
Where does the Tanakh say that the material for the first set of Tablets had a miraculous origin? How do we know that God just spoke the skins into existence? We don't. A word comes to mind . . . speculation. :)
So it's easier to believe that YHWH speaks skins into existence? And he possibly did this act on the 7th day. Radak speculates that the skins could have been made on the 6th day of creation. Evidence, please.
But that is the very point. There is no evidence, including preparing animal skins. I was hoping to might respond to my point on some translations saying skin and some saying skins?
Duncan, did you also notice these words from abarim?
"The root עור ('wr III) doesn't occur in the Bible and its meaning is unknown. Still, it doesn't stray far from the previous root. Its sole extant derivative is the masculine noun עור ('or), meaning skin. This word is used 44 times to indicate the skin of an animal (Genesis 3:21, Leviticus 13:51), and a telling 55 times the skin of a human (Exodus 34:29, Job 10:11, Micah 3:2)."
Now the Hebrew word referring to blindness is not the same term.
Human skin also, so why do you discount it? I can only say again that there is no evidence.
I don't know that there's great significance in "skins" versus "skin." That is like the "sandals" and "sandal" issue.
I agree that we cannot be dogmatic about the origin of the skins. However, I find it odd to forbid speculation before jumping into speculative ideas oneself. And not only speculating, but speculating about the speculation.
On the other hand, the word owr refers to animal skin/skins in other verses and it's more natural/simple to believe that animal skins derive from animals. But the Genesis writer is silent on how these skins came into existence.
There are terms that can be misleading. Like sackcloth which was probably not cloth at all but more likely goat skin sack. So I am not to concerned about the way terms like this are generally translated.
After all, I've heard no response yet to Gen. 27:16 or Lev. 4:11-12 and so forth.
My problem is the use and re use of quotes that reinforce a particular preference that is not based on evidence. When evidence is lacking one cannot apply Occam's razor.
Not sure what response you are looking for.
Doesn't Gen. 27:16 say goat, bull etc. Etc.
Here's translations of Gen. 3:21: https://biblehub.com/genesis/3-21.htm
However, I submit that the "skin/skins" distinction is more about English than Hebrew: saying "garments of skins" sounds kinda awkward in English. Isn't the Hebrew plural?
See lxx of exodus 26:7.
The Hebrew is plural the difference in translation is important it could imply a thousand mouse skins or on elephant skin. I thought the difference in translation may have been based on other witness factors in Aramaic Greek etc.
In think the difference between sandal and sandals is not the same unless we are concluding a one legged man.
I don't discount that over can mean human skin, but that usage is unlikely for Genesis 3:21. This is not about translating owr as skins: it clearly bears that meaning.
Genesis 27:16 mentions goats in connection with skins, but we don't always need such qualifiers to know when animal skin is being discussed like the Leviticus examples. There is plenty of evidence that over can be used of animal skins. Very unlikely that God utilized human skins for Adam and Eve.
I might be wrong, but the Hebrew for 3:21 seems unambiguously plural. English considerations might be a factor. Some translations use a singular noun in Joshua 5:15; others use a plural noun, but not for textual reasons.
One can still employ Occam's razor in this situation. Instead of speculating that God made skins pop out of thin air, one might not for a simpler explanation.
Opt instead of not.
An interesting and related quote - "A Mbuti ceremonial bark cloth shirt from the rain forest of N.E. Zaire. The Mbuti people fashion clothing from the bark of fig trees (Ficus) that grow in the local rain forest. The man makes two horizontal cuts around the trunk and then slices vertically between the cuts. He peels away the rough out bark, and then peels off the inner layer between the sapwood and the bark. Although this layer includes phloem tissue, it usually does not kill the tree. He wets this inner layer with water and hammers it with a mallet made of ivory or wood. After allowing it to dry, he repeats the wetting, pounding and drying process until the bark cloth is pliable and the correct thickness. When the bark cloth is ready, a women paints her unique designs using twig brushes and natural plant dyes from the forest."
Contextually simpler in the early part of genesis?
Why not contextually simpler in the early part of Genesis. Abel offers Jehovah the firstlings of his flocks and fatty pieces in 4:4, and we're told he was a "keeper of flocks" (NASB). Gen. 3:15 enigmatically foretells the coming "seed" of God, who will set things right. The verse likely hints at the shedding of blood with the striking language. Either way, based on Abel and other verses in Genesis, slaying an animal would not be out of place in the early part of Genesis. Look at Noah also: he offers sacrifice to Jehovah and is told he may eat flesh, but not blood. My point is that all of these things require taking animal life. Yet I will not dogmatically assert that 3:21 goes that far.
The quote concerning the Mbuti is interesting although I think we'd agree it's a different cultural setting than the one we find in Genesis.
When I say the early part of genesis, at this point they haven't left the garden.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101974034
"4 It was still the sixth creative “day,” and so God was not violating any sabbath arrangement by continuing to work at further earthly creation."
http://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/402/jbq_402_kotnotohr.pdf
But isn't the WT speaking about the 6th day of creation? However, Adam and Eve sinned on the 7th day (the day of God's rest), correct? :)
Maybe, if you think the Hebrew history uses time lines with hard partitions.
I wonder how big a time divide we have between the creation of Eve and the fall? Is the fall the act or the expulsion?
The more I learn about the interdependencies in nature between different stages of creation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operation_(evolution)
I do not agree with all this link states but the cooperation cycles involve animals plants and insects. There are examples of cycles where all elements may fail if one is missing. The analogy, chicken or egg comes to mind.
I am just saying there many observable phenomenon for which we do not have answers.
Eve is "made", "built" but also "created".
https://intotheclarities.com/2018/04/09/adams-garments/
Note textual variant and alternative interpretations.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6SZoDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=severus+scroll+3:21&source=bl&ots=4S01hrwwqO&sig=sO3rkxORQoC6ZMaJjAkkifgogaw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwielr6JkY7dAhUkB8AKHbUkBf8Q6AEwB3oECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=severus%20scroll%203%3A21&f=false
I'm justr going to be brief tonight and make compact remarks. I will admit being wrong if shown otherwise, but I don't believe the variants of Genesis 3:21 account for the skin/skins distinctions in English translations. Just look at Keil-Delitzsch, they apparently use skin/skins language in the same paragraph:
"God also displayed His mercy by clothing the two with coats of skin, i.e., the skins of beasts. The words, 'God made coats,' are not to be interpreted with such bare literality, as that God sewed the coats with His own fingers; they merely affirm 'that man's first clothing was the work of God, who gave the necessary directions and ability' (Delitzsch). By this clothing, God imparted to the feeling of shame the visible sign of an awakened conscience, and to the consequent necessity for a covering to the bodily nakedness, the higher work of a suitable discipline for the sinner. By selecting the skins of beasts for the clothing of the first men, and therefore causing the death or slaughter of beasts for that purpose, He showed them how they might use the sovereignty they possessed over the animals for their own good, and even sacrifice animal life for the preservation of human; so that this act of God laid the foundation for the sacrifices, even if the first clothing did not prefigure our ultimate 'clothing upon' (2 Corinthians 5:4), nor the coats of skins the robe of righteousness."
See also https://discoverarchive.vanderbilt.edu/bitstream/.../Seminar_Time%26Mortality.pdf?
Use keyword "skins" for the find term within the document.
You might also enjoy: theses.gla.ac.uk/4871/1/1998KimPhD.pdf
Your link did not work, but I did manage to find the article:-
https://discoverarchive.vanderbilt.edu/bitstream/handle/1803/3899/Seminar_Time%26Mortality.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Interesting idea about the animal skin making them seem more like animals but it still caries the same assumptions & I could argue for them becoming hairy skinned to achieve a similar result.
What I did find fascinating is that some Jewish literature speaking of something like nails linking this "skin" to horns or horned. It is mentioned somewhere in the previous links.
Spotted something interesting about the Zohar.
"The Zohar, like the earlier treatments of Lilith, sees her as a temptress of innocent men, breeder of evil spirits and carrier of disease: “She wanders about at night time, vexing the sons of men and causing them to defile themselves [emit seed]” (Zohar 19b). The passage goes on to say that she hovers over her unsuspecting victims, inspires their lust, conceives their children and then infects them with disease. Adam is one of her victims, for he fathers “many spirits and demons, through the force of the impurity which he had absorbed” from Lilith. The promiscuity of Lilith will continue until the day God destroys all evil spirits. Lilith even attempts to seduce King Solomon. She comes in the guise of the Queen of Sheba, but when the Israelite king spies her hairy legs, he realizes she is a beastly impostor."
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/lilith/
The "skin/skins" was purely a question & I assert nothing on its basis. As you know I treat the MT like all other witnesses but in this case I did not know of any textual variation that might have accounted for. If it is just a translators choice I do not have a problem with it.
Glad you found the link. The Zohar is also interesting and some try to use ideas from that period to inform their biblical exegesis.
I have not tracked variants of the MT in order to confirm my suspicions, but I've read more than one writer say we should understand "skins" (plural) for Genesis 3:21 rather than "skin."
NIV uses "skin" but pluralizes garments:
"The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them."
ESV has "garments of skins" and YLT says, "coats of skin."
If we should understand the reference to be plural, that might limit how we can understand Gen. 3:21. On the subject of assumptions, it seems like those who want to read the account in a way that does not allow for the skins to be animal also work with their own assumptions.
I have my own thoughts about how the skins originated, but I'm trying not to go beyond the text. However, the animal explanation seems most plausible to me: it just might be the simplest explanation that requires the least quantity of assumptions, ceteris paribus.
Post a Comment