the Week of Proper 2 / Ordinary 7
free while helping to build churches and support pastors in Uganda.
Click here to learn more!
Read the Bible
J.B. Rotherham Emphasized Bible
Genesis 2:8
Bible Study Resources
Concordances:
- Nave'sDictionaries:
- AmericanEncyclopedias:
- CondensedParallel Translations
The Lord made a garden in a place called Eden, which was in the east, and he put the man there.
Adonai , God, planted a garden toward the east, in ‘Eden, and there he put the person whom he had formed.
And Jehovah Elohim planted a garden in Eden eastward, and there put Man whom he had formed.
Then the Lord God planted a garden in the East, in a place named Eden. He put the man he made in that garden.
And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
And the Lord God made a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had made.
And the Lord God planted a garden eastwarde in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had shapen.
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Then the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the East, and there he put the man he had formed.
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed.
The Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there He placed the man He had formed.
The LORD God planted a garden eastward, in `Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.
And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
And the LORD God planted a garden (oasis) in the east, in Eden (delight, land of happiness); and He put the man whom He had formed (created) there.
And Jehovah God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Yahweh God planted a garden eastward, in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
And Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
And Jehovah God planted a garden in Eden to the east; and He put the man whom He had formed there.
The LORDE God also planted a garde of pleasure in Eden, towarde ye east, and set man therin whom he had made.
Then the Lord God planted a garden in the east, in a place called Eden, and put the man he had formed into it.
The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed.
Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.
Then the Lord God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and there he placed the man he had made.
Forsothe the Lord God plauntide at the bigynnyng paradis of likyng, wherynne he settide man whom he hadde formed.
And Jehovah God planteth a garden in Eden, at the east, and He setteth there the man whom He hath formed;
And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed.
And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
And Yahweh God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Then God planted a garden in Eden, in the east. He put the Man he had just made in it. God made all kinds of trees grow from the ground, trees beautiful to look at and good to eat. The Tree-of-Life was in the middle of the garden, also the Tree-of-Knowledge-of-Good-and-Evil.
And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, where He placed the man He had formed.
And the LORD God planted a garden Eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
And God planted a garden eastward in Edem, and placed there the man whom he had formed.
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
And the Lord God planted a garden Eastward in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had made.
Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
The Lord God planted a garden to the east in Eden. He put the man there whom He had made.
The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.
Contextual Overview
Bible Verse Review
from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge
a garden: Genesis 13:10, Ezekiel 28:13, Ezekiel 31:8, Ezekiel 31:9, Joel 2:3
eastward: Genesis 3:24, Genesis 4:16, 2 Kings 19:12, Ezekiel 27:23, Ezekiel 31:16, Ezekiel 31:18
put the: Genesis 2:15
Reciprocal: Numbers 24:6 - as gardens Ecclesiastes 2:5 - I planted Isaiah 37:12 - Eden Isaiah 51:3 - like the Ezekiel 36:35 - like the
Cross-References
And Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden, on the east, - and put there the man whom he had formed.
And Yahweh God, caused to spring up, out of the ground, every tree pleasant to the sight and good for food, - and the tree of life, in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
So he expelled the man, - and caused to dwell - in front of the garden of Eden - cherubim and a brandishing sword - flame, to keep the way to the tree of life.
So Cain went forth from the presence of Yahweh, - and dwelt in the land of Nod, eastward of Eden.
So Lot lifted up his eyes and beheld all the circuit of the Jordan, that the whole of it, was well-watered, - before Yahweh destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the Garden of Yahweh, like the land of Egypt, as thou enterest into Zoar.
Did the gods of the nations, deliver them, whom my fathers destroyed, Gozan, and Haran, - and Rezeph, and the sons of Eden, who were in Telassar?
For Yahweh hath comforted Zion, He hath comforted all her waste places, And hath made her wilderness like Eden, And her waste plain like the garden of Yahweh, - Joy and gladness, shall be found in her, Thanksgiving, and the voice of melody.
Haran and Canneh and Eden, the merchants of Sheba, - Asshur. Chilmad, Were merchants of thine:
In Eden the garden of God, thou wast. Of every precious stone, was thy covering-Sardius. topaz, and diamond, Chrysolite beryl, and jasper, Sapphire carbuncle and emerald,- And of gold, was the work of thy timbrels and thy flutes within thee, In the day thou wast created, were they prepared:
At the sound of his fall, I made nations tremble, When I caused him to descend into hades, with them who descend into the pit, - Then were grieved in the earth below-All the trees of Eden, The choicest and best of Lebanon All who had drunk the waters.
Gill's Notes on the Bible
And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden,.... Or "had planted" m, for this was not now done after the formation of man, but before; and so the word translated "eastward" may be rendered, as it is by some, "before" n: for the plain meaning is, that God had planted a garden before he made man, even on the third day, when all herbs, and plants, and trees were produced out of the earth. The whole world was as a garden, in comparison of what it is now since the fall: what then must this spot of ground, this garden be, which was separated and distinguished from the rest, and the more immediate plantation of God, and therefore is called the garden of the Lord, Genesis 13:10 and which Plato o calls διος
κηπος, "Jove's garden?" This garden was planted in the country of Eden, so called very probably from its being a very pleasant and delightful country; and though it is not certain, and cannot be said exactly where it was, yet it seems to be a part of Mesopotamia, since it is more than once mentioned with Haran, which was in that country,
2 Kings 19:12 and since it was by the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, when they were become one stream, which ran through this country, and parted again at this garden; and the country there, as Herodotus p says, is the most fruitful he ever saw; and it seems to be much better to place it here than in Armenia, where the fountain of these rivers is said to be: so Tournefort q thinks it lay in the country, or plain of the three churches (or Ejmiadzit), in Armenia, about twenty French leagues distant from the heads of Euphrates and Araxes, and near as many from the Phasis, a country exceeding pleasant and fruitful. A very learned man r is of opinion, that the garden of Eden was in the land of Judea to the east, by the lake of Gennesaret or Tiberias, and the lake of Asphaltites, called the Dead sea, and takes in, in its compass, the famous valley, or the great plain, and the plains of Jericho, and great part of Galilee, and all that tract which Jordan flows by, from Gennesaret to the country of Sodom; and he takes the river Jordan to be יאר עדן, "the river of Eden", from whence it has its name of Jordan; and Gennesaret he interprets as if it was גן שר, "Gansar", the garden of the prince, that is, of Adam, the prince of all mankind. He argues from the situation of the place, and the pleasantness and fruitfulness of it, the balsam of Jericho, and other odoriferous plants that grew there, and what are called the apples of paradise: and it must be owned, that this country abounded with gardens and orchards: it is mentioned in the Jewish Misnah, where the commentators s say, it was a country in the land of Israel, in which were many gardens and orchards, that produced excellent fruit; and the fruits of Gennesaret are spoken of in the Talmud t as exceeding sweet: and with this agrees the account Josephus u gives of it, that it is
"wonderful in nature and goodness, and through its fertility refuses no plant; everything is set here; the temper of the air suits with different things; here grow nuts, and more winter fruit; and there palms, which are nourished with heat, and near them figs and olives, which require a softer air--not only it produces apples of different sorts, beyond belief, but long preserves them; and indeed the most excellent of fruit; grapes and figs it furnishes with for ten months, without intermission, and other fruit throughout the whole year, growing old, with them.''
And it may be further observed, that it is asked by the Jewish Rabbins, why it is called Genesar? and the answer is, because
גניסרים, "the gardens of princes"; these are the kings who have gardens in the midst of it: another reason is given, because it belonged to Naphtali, a portion in the midst of it, as it is said, and of "Naphtali a thousand princes", 1 Chronicles 12:34. w And it is worthy of remark, that Strabo calls Jericho, which was within this tract, "the paradise of balsam" x; and there, and hereabout, as Diodorus Siculus y, and Justin z relate, grew this aromatic plant, and nowhere else; it was not to be found in any other part of the world. And it appears from Scripture, that if the plain of Jordan was not the garden of Eden, it is said to be, "as the garden of the Lord", Genesis 13:10 and if the "caph" or "as" is not a note of similitude, but of reality, as it sometimes is, it proves it to be the very place; and the above learned writer takes it to be not comparative, but illative, as giving a reason why it was so well watered, because it was the garden of the Lord: and the Jews have some notion of this, for they say, if that the garden of Eden is in the land of Israel, Bethshean is the door of it, or entrance into it; the gloss gives this reason, because the fruits were sweeter than any other a; and this was near, at the entrance of the great plain before mentioned; and before which was this place, as Josephus says b: and if the garden of Eden was in those parts, it may be observed, that where the first Adam first dwelt, and where he sinned and fell, Christ the second Adam frequently was; here he conversed much, taught his doctrines, wrought his miracles; and even here he appeared after his resurrection from the dead. But the opinions of men about this place are very many, and there is scarce any country in the whole world but one or another has placed the garden of Eden in it; nay, some have assigned a place for it out of the earth, in the eighth sphere. Such a garden undoubtedly there was somewhere, and it is said to be placed "eastward", either in the eastern part of the country of Eden, see Genesis 4:16 or to the east of the desert where Moses was when he wrote; or to the east of Judea, as Mesopotamia was: and if this garden was in Judea, the place assigned for it by the above learned person, it was in the eastern part of that country; see
Numbers 32:19. This garden was an emblem either of the church of Christ on earth, which is a garden enclosed, surrounded with divine power, and distinguished with divine grace; a small spot in comparison of the world; is of Jehovah's planting, and is his property; and is an Eden to his people, where they enjoy much spiritual pleasure and delight: or however of the place and state of the happiness of the saints in the other world, often called a paradise in allusion to this, Luke 23:43 and which is of God's planting, and therefore called the paradise of God, and is an Eden, where are pleasures for evermore: and this seems to be what the Jews mean when they say c, that the garden of Eden, or paradise, was created before the world was; which is no other than what Christ says of it in other words, Matthew 25:34
and there he put the man whom he had formed; not as soon as he had planted the garden, but as soon as he had made man; and from hence it is generally concluded, that man was made without the garden, and brought from the place where he was formed, and put into it; and which some say was near Damascus: but be it where it will, it is most probable that it was not far from the garden; though there seems no necessity for supposing him to be made out of it; for the putting him into it may signify the appointing and ordering him to be there, and fixing and settling him in it, for the ends and uses mentioned, see Genesis 2:15.
(After the global destruction of Noah's flood, it is doubtful that the location of the Garden of Eden could be determined with any degree of certainty today. Ed.)
m ויטע "plantaverat", V. L. Vatablus, Piscator, Pareus, Drusius, Cartwright; "ornaverat plantis", Junius Tremellius. n מקדם "a principio", V. L. so Onkelos "antes vel antequam", same in Fagius, Cartwright. o In Symposio, apud Euseb. praepar. Evangel. l. 12. c. 11. p. 584. p Clio sive, l. 1. c. 193. q Voyage to the Levant, vol. 3. p. 161, 162. r Nichol. Abrami Pharus Vet. Test. l. 2. c. 16. p. 56. So Texelius (Phoenix, l. 3. c. 7. sect. 7.) takes it to be in the land of Promise, not far from the Dead sea, or sea of Sodom, and in the country about Jordan; and of the same opinion is Heidegger (Hist. Patriarch. Exerc. 4. sect. 42. p. 15.) s Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Maaserot, c. 3. sect. 7. t T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 44. 1. Erubin, fol. 30. 1. & Pesachim, fol. 8. 2. u De Bello Jud. l. 3. c. 9. sect. 8. w Aruch in voce גנסר, fol. 37. 1. x Geograph. l. 16. p. 525. y Bibliothec. l. 19. p. 734. z E Trogo, l. 36. c. 3. a T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 19. 1. b Antiqu. l. 12. c. 8. sect. 5. 1 Maccab. v. 52. c T. Bab. Pesachim, fol. 54. 1. Nedarim, fol. 39. 2.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
- XI. The Garden
8. גן gan “garden, park,” παράδεισος paradeisos, “an enclosed piece of ground.” עדן ‛ēden “Eden, delight.” קדם qedem “fore-place, east; foretime.”
11. פישׁון pı̂yshôn Pishon; related: “flow over, spread, leap.” חוילה chăvı̂ylâh Chavilah. חול chôl “sand.” חבל chebel “region.”
12. בדלם bedolam, ἄνθραξ anthrax, “carbuncle,” (Septuagint) Βδέλλιον bdellion, a gum of eastern countries, Arabia, India, Media (Josephus, etc.). The pearl (Kimchi). שׁהם sohām πράσινος prasinos, “leeklike,” perhaps the beryl (Septuagint), ὄνυξ onux, “onyx, sardonyx,” a precious stone of the color of the nail (Jerome).
13. גיחון gı̂ychôn Gichon; related: “break forth.” כוּשׁ kûsh Kush; r. “heap, gather?”
14. חדקל דגלא dı̂glā' chı̂ddeqel Dijlah, “Tigris.” חדק chād, “be sharp. rapidus,” פרת perat Frat, Euphrates. The “sweet or broad stream.” Old Persian, “frata,” Sanskrit, “prathu,” πλατύς platus.
This paragraph describes the planting of the garden of Eden, and determines its situation. It goes back, therefore, as we conceive, to the third day, and runs parallel with the preceding passage.
Genesis 2:8
And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden to the east. - It is evident that the order of thought is here observed. For the formation of man with special allusion to his animal nature immediately suggests the means by which his physical needs are to be supplied. The order of time is an open question so far as the mere conjunction of the sentences is concerned. It can only be determined by other considerations.
Here, then, the writer either relates a new creation of trees for the occasion, or reverts to the occurrences of the third day. But though in the previous verses he declares the field to be without timber, yet in the account of the third day the creation of trees is recorded. Now, it is unnecessary, and therefore unreasonable, to assume two creations of trees at so short an interval of time. In the former paragraph the author advanced to the sixth day, in order to lay before his readers without any interruption the means by which the two conditions of vegetative progress were satisfied. This brings man into view, and his appearance gives occasion to speak of the means by which his needs were supplied.
For this purpose, the author drops the thread of events following the creation of man, and reverts to the third day. He describes more particularly what was then done. A center of vegetation was chosen for the trees, from which they were to be propagated by seed over the land. This central spot is called a garden or park. It is situated in a region which is distinguished by its name as a land of delight. It is said, as we understand, to be in the eastern quarter of Eden. For the word מקדם mı̂qedem “on the east” is most simply explained by referring to some point indicated in the text. There are two points to which it may here refer - the place where the man was created, and the country in which the garden was placed. But the man was not created at this time, and, moreover, the place of his creation is not indicated; and hence, we must refer to the country in which the garden was placed.
And put there the man whom he had formed. - The writer has still the formation of man in thought, and therefore proceeds to state that he was thereupon placed in the garden which had been prepared for his reception, before going on to give a description of the garden. This verse, therefore, forms a transition from the field and its cultivator to the garden and its inhabitants.
Without the previous document concerning the creation, however, it could not have been certainly known that a new line of narrative was taken up in this verse. Neither could we have discovered what was the precise time of the creation of the trees. Hence, this verse furnishes a new proof that the present document was composed, not as an independent production, but as a continuation of the former.
Genesis 2:9
Having located the newly-formed man of whom he had spoken in the preceding paragraph, the author now returns to detail the planting and the watering of the garden. “And the Lord God made to grow out of the soil every tree likely for sight and good for food.” We look on while the ornamental trees rise to gratify the sight, and the fruit trees present their mellow fare to the craving appetite. But pre-eminent among all we contemplate with curious wonder the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. These will come under consideration at a future stage of our narrative.
Genesis 2:10
Here is a river the source of which is in Eden. It passes into the garden and waters it. “And thence it was parted and became four heads.” This statement means either that the single stream was divided into four branches, or that there was a division of the river system of the district into four principal streams, whose sources were all to be found in it, though one only passed through the garden. In the latter case the word נהר nâhār may be understood in its primary sense of a flowing of water in general. This flowing in all the parts of Eden resulted in four particular flowings or streams, which do not require to have been ever united. The subsequent land changes in this district during an interval of five or six thousand years prevent us from determining more precisely the meaning of the text.
Genesis 2:11, Genesis 2:12
The Pishon waters in its subsequent course the land of Havilah. This country is noted for the best gold, and for two other products, concerning which interpreters differ. Bedolach is, according to the Septuagint, the carbuncle or crystal; according to others, the pearl, or a particular kind of gum. The last is the more probable, if we regard the various Greek and Latin forms of the word: Βδέλλα bdella, Βδέλλιον bdellion, Josephus Ant. iii. 1, 6; οἱ δὲ μάδελκον hoi de madelkon, οἱ δὲ Βολχὸν καλοῦσι hoi de bolchon kalousi, Dioscor. i. 71; alii brochon appellant, alii malacham, alii maldacon, Pliny H. N. 12, 9. Pliny describes it as black, while the manna, which is compared with it Numbers 11:7, is white; but עין ‛ayı̂n the point of resemblance may refer not to color, but to transparence or some other visible quality. This transparent, aromatic gum is found in Arabia, Babylonia, Bactriana, Media, and India. Shoham is variously conjectured to be the beryl, onyx, sardonyx, or emerald. The first, according to Pliny, is found in India and about Pontus. As the name Pishon means the gushing or spouting current, it may have been applied to many a stream by the migratory tribes. The Halys perhaps contains the same root with Havilah; namely, הול hvl (Rawlinson’s Her. i., p. 126); and it rises in Armenia (Herod. i. 72). The Chalybes in Pontus, perhaps, contain the same root. The Pishon may have been the Halys or some other stream flowing into the Black Sea.
Genesis 2:13, Genesis 2:14
Gihon, the second river, flows by the land of Kush. It is possible that the name Kush remains in Caucasus and in the Caspian. The Gihon is the stream that breaks or bursts forth; a quality common to many rivers. The name is preserved in the Jyhoon, flowing into the sea of Aral. Here it probably designates the leading stream flowing out of Armenia into the Caspian, or in that direction. Hiddekel, the third, goes in front, or on the east of Asshur. The original Asshur embraced northern Mesopotamia, as well as the slopes of the mountain range on the other side of the Tigris. Perath, the fourth, is the well-known Frat or Euphrates.
In endeavoring to determine the situation of Eden, it is evident we can only proceed on probable grounds. The deluge, and even the distance of time, warrant us in presuming great land changes to have taken place since this geographical description applied to the country. Let us see, however, to what result the simple reading of the text will lead us. A river is said to flow out of Eden into the garden. This river is not named, and may, in a primary sense of the term, denote the running water of the district in general. This is then said to be parted into four heads - the upper courses of four great rivers. One of these rivers is known to this day as the Frat or Euphrates. A second is with almost equal unanimity allowed to be the Dijlah or Tigris. The sources of these lie not far asunder, in the mountains of Armenia, and in the neighborhood of the lakes Van and Urumiah. Somewhere in this region must have been the celebrated but unnamed stream. The Hiddekel flowed east of Asshur; the primitive portion of which seems therefore to have been in Mesopotamia. The Gihon may have flowed into the Caspian, on the banks of which was the original Kush. The Pishon may have turned towards the Euxine, and compassed the primitive Havilah, lying to the south and east of that sea.
It may be said that the Kush and Havilah of later times belong to different localities. This, however, is no solid objection, on two grounds:
First. Geography affords numerous examples of the transferrence of names from one place to another along the line of migration. Thus, Galatia in Asia Minor would be inexplicable or misleading, did not history inform us that tribes from Gallia had settled there and given their name to the province. We may therefore expect names to travel with the tribes that bear them or love them, until they come to their final settlements. Hence, Kush may have been among the Caucasian glens and on the Caspian shores. In the progress of his development, whether northward or southward, he may have left his mark in Kossaea and Kissia, while he sent his colonies into southern Arabia Aethiopia and probably India.
Second. Countries agreeing in name may be totally unconnected either in time or place. Thus, in the table of nations we meet with two persons called Havilah Genesis 10:7, Genesis 10:29; the one a Kushite, who settled probably in the south of Arabia, the other a Joctanite, who occupied a more northerly locality in the same peninsula. A primitive Havilah, different from both, may have given his name to the region southeast of the Euxine.
The rivers Pishon and Gihon may have been greatly altered or even effaced by the deluge and other causes. Names similar to these may be found in various places. They cannot prove much more than resemblance in language, and that may be sometimes very remote. There is one other Gihon mentioned in Scripture 1 Kings 1:33, and several like names occur in profane history. At first sight it seems to be stated that the one stream branched into four. If so, this community of origin has disappeared among the other changes of the country. But in the original text the words “and thence” come before the verb “parted.” This verb has no subject expressed, and may have its subject implied in itself. The meaning of the sentence will then be, “and thence,” after the garden had been watered by the river, “it,” the river, or the water system of the country, “was parted into four heads.” We cannot tell, and it is not material, which of these interpretations correctly represents the original fact.
According to the above view, the land and garden of Eden lay in Armenia, around the lakes Van and Urumiah, or the district where these lakes now are. The country here is to this day a land of delight, and very well suited in many respects to be the cradle of the human race. There is only one other locality that has any claim to probability from an examination of Scripture. It is the alluvial ground where the Euphrates and Tigris unite their currents, and then again separate into two branches, by which their waters are discharged into the Persian Gulf. The neck in which they are united is the river that waters the garden. The rivers, before they unite, and the branches, after they separate; are the four rivers. The claim of this position to acceptance rests on the greater contiguity to Kissia or Susiana, a country of the Kushites, on the one side and on the other to Havilah, a district of Arabia, as well as its proximity to Babel, where the confusion of tongues took place. These claims do not constrain our assent. Susiana is nearer the Tigris itself than the present eastern branch after the separation. Havilah is not very near the western branch. If Babel be near, Armenia, where the ark rested, is very far away. Against this position is the forced meaning it puts on the text by its mode of accounting for the four rivers. The garden river in the text rises in Eden, and the whole four have their upper currents in that land. All is different in the case here supposed. Again, the land of Shinar is a great wheat country, and abounds in the date palm. But it is not otherwise distinguished for trees. It is a land of the simoon, the mirage, and the drought, and its summer heat is oppressive and enfeebling. It cannot therefore claim to be a land of delight (Eden), either in point of climate or variety of produce. It is not, consequently, so well suited as the northern position, either to the description in the text or the requirements of primeval man.
It is evident that this geographical description must have been written long after the document in which it is found might have been composed. Mankind must have multiplied to some extent, have spread themselves along these rivers, and become familiar with the countries here designated. All this might have taken place in the lifetime of Adam, and so have been put on record, or handed down by tradition from an eye-witness. But it is remarkable that the three names of countries reappear as proper names among the descendants of Noah after the flood.
Hence, arises a question of great interest concerning the composition of the document in which they are originally found. If these names be primeval, the document in its extant form may have been composed in the time of Adam, and therefore before the deluge. In this case Moses has merely authenticated it and handed it down in its proper place in the divine record. And the sons of Noah, from some unexplained association, have adopted the three names and perpetuated them as family names. If, on the other hand, these countries are named after the descendants of Noah, the geographical description of the garden must have been composed after these men had settled in the countries to which they have given their names. At the same time, these territorial designations apply to a time earlier than Moses; hence, the whole document may have been composed in the time of Noah, who survived the deluge three hundred and fifty years, and may have witnessed the settlement and the designation of these countries. And, lastly, if not put together in its present form by any previous writer, then the document is directly from the pen of Moses, who composed it out of pre-existent memorials. And as the previous document was solely due to inspiration, we shall in this case be led to ascribe the whole of Genesis to Moses as the immediate human composer.
It must be admitted that any of these ways of accounting for the existing form of this document is within the bounds of possibility. But the question is, Which is the most probable? We are in a fair position for discussing this question in a dispassionate manner, and without any anxiety, inasmuch as on any of the three suppositions Moses, who lived long after the latest event expressed or implied, is the acknowledged voucher for the document before us. It becomes us to speak with great moderation and caution on a point of so remote antiquity. To demonstrate this may be one of the best results of this inquiry.
I. The following are some of the grounds for the theory that the names of countries in the document are original and antediluvian:
First, it was impossible to present to the postdiluvians in later terms the exact features and conditions of Eden, because many of these were obliterated. The four rivers no longer sprang from one. Two of the rivers remained, indeed, but the others had been so materially altered as to be no longer clearly distinguishable. The Euxine and the Caspian may now cover their former channels. In circumstances like these later names would not answer.
Second, though the name Asshur represents a country nearly suitable to the original conditions, Havilah and Kush cannot easily have their postdiluvian meanings in the present passage. The presumption that they have has led interpreters into vain and endless conjectures. Supposing Kush to be Aethiopia, many have concluded the Gihon to be the Nile, which in that case must have had the same fountain-head, or at least risen in the same region with the Euphrates. Others, supposing it to be a district of the Tigris, near the Persian Gulf, imagine the Gihon to be one of the mouths of the united Euphrates and Tigris, and thus, give a distorted sense to the statement that the four streams issued from one. This supposition, moreover, rests on the precarious hypothesis that the two rivers had always a common neck. The supposition that Havilah was in Arabia or on the Indian Ocean is liable to the same objections. Hence, the presumption that these names are postdiluvian embarrasses the meaning of the passage.
Third, if these names be primeval, the present document in its integrity may have been composed in the time of Adam; and this accounts in the most satisfactory manner for the preservation of these traditions of the primitive age.
Fourth, the existence of antediluvian documents containing these original names would explain in the simplest manner the difference in the localities signified by them before and after the deluge. This difference has tended to invalidate the authenticity of the book in the eyes of some; whereas the existence of antiquated names in a document, though failing to convey to us much historical information, is calculated to impress us with a sense of its antiquity and authenticity. And this is of more importance than a little geographical knowledge in a work whose paramount object is to teach moral and religious truth.
Fifth, it is the habit of the sacred writers not to neglect the old names of former writers, but to append to them or conjoin with them the later or better known equivalents, when they wish to present a knowledge of the place and its former history. Thus, “Bela, this is Zoar” Genesis 14:2, Genesis 14:8; “Kiriath-Arba, this is Hebron” Genesis 33:2; “Ephrath, this is Bethlehem” Genesis 35:19.
Sixth, these names would be orignally personal; and hence, we can see a sufficient reason why the sons of Noah renewed them in their families, as they were naturally disposed to perpetuate the memory of their distinguished ancestors.
II. The second hypothesis, that the present form of the document originated in the time of Noah, after the flood, is supported by the following considerations:
First, it accounts for the three names of countries in the easiest manner. The three descendants of Noah had by this time given their names to these countries. The supposition of a double origin or application of these names is not necessary.
Second, it accounts for the change in the localities bearing these names. The migrations and dispersions of tribes carried the names to new and various districts in the time intervening between Noah and Moses.
Third, it represents with sufficient exactness the locality of the garden. The deluge may not have greatly altered the general features of the countries. It may not be intended to represent the four rivers as derived from any common head stream; it may only be meant that the water system of the country gathered into four principal rivers. The names of all these are primeval. Two of them have descended to our days, because a permanent body of natives remained on their banks. The other two names have changed with the change of the inhabitants.
Fourth, it allows for primeval documents, if such existed of so early a date. The surviving document was prepared from such preexisting writings, or from oral traditions of early days, as yet unalloyed with error in the God-fearing family of Noah.
Fifth, it is favored by the absence of explanatory proper names, which we might have expected if there had been any change known at the time of composition.
III. The hypothesis that Moses was not merely the authenticator, but the composer of this as well as the preceding and subsequent documents of Genesis, has some very strong grounds.
First, it explains the local names with the same simplicity as in the preceding case (1).
Second, it allows for primeval and successive documents equally well (4), the rivers Pishon and Gihon and the primary Havilah and Kush being still in the memory of man, though they disappeared from the records of later times.
Third, it notifies with fidelity to the attentive reader the changes in the geographical designations of the past.
Fourth, it accounts for the occurrence of comparatively late names of localities in an account of primeval times.
Fifth, it explains the extreme brevity of these ancient notices. If documents had been composed from time to time and inserted in their original state in the book of God, it must have been a very voluminous and unmanageable record at a very early period.
These presumptions might now be summed up and compared, and the balance of probability struck, as is usually done. But we feel bound not to do so. First. We have not all the possibilities before us, neither is it in the power of human imagination to enumerate them, and therefore we have not the whole data for a calculation of probabilities. Second. We have enough to do with facts, without elevating probabilities into the rank of facts, and thereby hopelessly embarrassing the whole premises of our deductive knowledge. Philosophy, and in particular the philosophy of criticism, has suffered long from this cause. Its very first principles have been overlaid with foregone conclusions, and its array of seeming facts has been impaired and enfeebled by the presence of many a sturdy probability or improbability in the solemn guise of a mock fact. Third. The supposed fact of a set of documents composed by successive authors, duly labelled and handed down to Moses to be merely collected into the book of Genesis, if it was lurking in any mind, stands detected as only a probability or improbability at best. The second document implies facts, which are possibly not recorded until the fifth. Fourth. And, lastly, there is no impossibility or improbability in Moses being not the compiler but the immediate author of the whole of Genesis, though it be morally certain that he had oral or written memoranda of the past before his mind.
Clarke's Notes on the Bible
Verse Genesis 2:8. A garden eastward in Eden — Though the word עדן Eden signifies pleasure or delight, it is certainly the name of a place. See Genesis 4:16; 2 Kings 19:12; Isaiah 37:12; Ezekiel 27:23; Amos 1:5. And such places probably received their name from their fertility, pleasant situation, c. In this light the Septuagint have viewed it, as they render the passage thus: Εφυτευσεν ὁ Θεος παραδεισον εν Εδεν, God planted a paradise in Eden. Hence the word paradise has been introduced into the New Testament, and is generally used to signify a place of exquisite pleasure and delight. From this the ancient heathens borrowed their ideas of the gardens of the Hesperides, where the trees bore golden fruit the gardens of Adonis, a word which is evidently derived from the Hebrew עדן Eden; and hence the origin of sacred gardens or enclosures dedicated to purposes of devotion, some comparatively innocent, others impure. The word paradise is not Greek; in Arabic and Persian it signifies a garden, a vineyard, and also the place of the blessed. The Mohammedans say that God created the [Arabic] Jennet al Ferdoos, the garden of paradise, from light, and the prophets and wise men ascend thither. Wilmet places it after the root [Arabic] farada, to separate, especially a person or place, for the purposes of devotion, but supposes it to be originally a Persian word, vox originis Persicae quam in sua lingua conservarunt Armeni. As it is a word of doubtful origin, its etymology is uncertain.
