The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (NIDB) will ship on 7/17/2014.
Has the NIDB anything new or extra to offer, if you already have the Anchor-Yale Bible Dictionary and the ISBE?
I think the primary value will be that the NIDB is about 18 years more recent than the AYBD and about 22 years more recent than ISBE, Rev.
Yes, if you want an academic-level Bible dictionary with articles reflecting the state of biblical scholarship in the early 21st century. For the most part, Revised ISBE reflects biblical scholarship of the mid 20th century up to the 70s while Anchor reflects the scholarship of the late 80s and early 90s. The challenge with these sorts of reference works is they take time to produce and are rarely revised, especially ones like ABD and NIDB that are made for print. On the one hand, they all provide core introductory info that likely won't change, but on the other hand, they often include discussions of contemporary interpretive debates and those do change and develop over time. If you want intro information, you probably don't need a new dictionary. If you like getting a look inside (relatively) current academic debates, you may want to have a more current resource like NIDB.
It is a good work and is somewhat more up to date than Anchor or ISBE.... That being said it is not nearly in depth as the previous two. Anchor is hands done the best in my mind. ISBE coming 2nd... that being said I tend to go to NIDB first and then jump on to the others if i feel i need more, but I would not call it one to have by itself. Examples of the three are somewhere here....
http://community.logos.com/forums/p/74212/518346.aspx#518346 is one with an example from Anchor/NIDB
Here is EDEN from all 3 below ISBE then NIDB and finally Anchor...
EDEN [Heb. ʿēḏen; Gk. Edem].
1. The area where God planted a garden of trees to form the first dwelling place of Adam and Eve. The etymology of the word is uncertain, although some scholars have attempted to explain it in terms of the Sum. edinu, “plain,” “wilderness.” The meaning “delight” conveyed by the LXX resulted from the assumed derivation of Eden from ʿēḏen, “loveliness,” “delight,” while the rendering parádeisos tḗs tryphḗs (“garden of delight”) as the equivalent of “garden of Eden” not unnaturally led to the association of the latter with Paradise.
Aside from those in Gen. 2 and 3, other references to Eden in the OT are: Gen. 4:16; 2 K. 19:12; Isa. 37:12; 51:3; Ezk. 28:13; 31:9, 16, 18; 36:35; Joel 2:3. The name occurs thirteen times in the singular to designate a location. In Gen. 2:8 the garden was said to be “in Eden, in the east” (NEB “in Eden, away to the east”; cf. 4:16), where the vegetation was luxurious (2:9), where the fig tree, among others, was indigenous (3:7), and where irrigation canals supplied water. As distinct from a geographical locale in which a garden was situated, Gen. 2:15; 3:23f. refer to “the garden of Eden” as a separate topographical entity. In a metaphorical sense Eden paralleled “the garden of the Lord” (Isa. 51:3), an image which also appears in Ezk. 28:13; 31:9. The splendor of the trees in Eden is alluded to in Ezk. 31:16, 18; cf. 36:35; Joel 2:3. See also BETH-EDEN.
The location of Eden can be partially determined from the description already given. It must obviously be situated where the climate was suitable for the growth of fruit trees and where animals capable of domestication could live alongside the earliest members of the species homo sapiens. In particular the location of Eden must be considered by reference to the river from which the garden was watered. Before this is attempted, however, it is necessary to examine the nature of the source material containing the description of the area. Most modern scholars dismiss the passage in question as either legend or myth, having no significant basis in historical reality. However, the present writer views the bulk of Genesis as having been transmitted in a readily recognizable tablet form from a very early period of Mesopotamian history (see R. K. Harrison, Intro. to the OT [1969], pp. 543–553); thus this kind of material represents early attempts at the writing of history. The source in question is therefore taken as being fundamentally historical in nature, so that it is the responsibility of the exegete to interpret what the ancient author was endeavoring to describe.
While there must always be a certain amount of conjecture in any reconstruction, it seems at least possible to make the following observations. The principal river (nāhār) of Gen. 2:10 parted and became four “heads” (MT rāʾšı̂m; RSV “rivers”; NEB “streams”), a word that in Jgs. 7:16; Job 1:17 denotes the main detachments into which an army was divided, and therefore would more properly signify “branches” than “heads” of a river. Such branches were named respectively Pishon, which flowed round the whole land of Havilah; Gihon, which encompassed the land of Cush; Hiddekel, the river Tigris flowing E of Assyria; and the Euphrates.
The fact that two of the four branches are historic and familiar rivers suggests that, at the time of the original writer, the other two were also. Attempts to identify the latter have depended to some extent upon [Vol. 2, p. 17] the location of Havilah and Cush. Havilah is mentioned in Gen. 10:29 as the name of one of the sons of Joktan, while in Gen. 25:18 it occurs as a place, perhaps located in the area of Sinai and northwestern Arabia. In Gen. 10:7 the name Havilah is found again to describe a descendant of Ham through Cush. These could represent quite distinct persons and places or could perhaps indicate that some area of settlement in South Arabia was associated with the two persons named Havilah, along with their descendants. This, however, throws no light upon a Mesopotamian location for Havilah, unless those scholars are right who relate the name to the Heb. ḥôl, “sand,” to designate a desert area. The mention of the presence of “gold” in the land (Gen. 2:10) is certainly a questionable translation, and the NEB margin quite properly draws attention to the alternative rendering “frankincense.” Similarly the meaning of the word “bdellium” is open to some doubt, and the most satisfactory translation is “gum resin,” as also in the NEB margin. Aromatic resins and gums are a typical product of Arabia, which would again suggest that Havilah was located somewhere in that area. However, the šōham stone (RSV “onyx stone”; NEB “cornelians”) is most probably a form of onyx, which occurs primarily in South America and India, suggesting a location E rather than W of Mesopotamia. If Havilah can be placed in some part of Arabia, this need only mean that it was a western colony of an original Havilah in Mesopotamia, though certainty in this matter is lacking.
Cush, the land encircled by the river branch known as Gihon, usually signifies Ethiopia in the OT, although not uniformly so (cf. Gen. 10:8). Those who postulate an Egyptian location for Cush think of the Ethiopia mentioned by classical authors, i.e., some region S of Egypt proper, such as the northern Sudan or Nubia. In the late 3rd millennium B.C. “Kush” was a district located somewhere between the second and third cataracts of the Nile. The area encompassed by the Gihon, however, was most probably in western Asia, and as such entirely unrelated to the region in Egypt. In the 2nd millennium B.C. a district E of the Tigris bore the name “Kush,” and it was from this area that the Kassites came. Since the Garden of Eden narrative clearly implies a Mesopotamian location, the original home of the Kassites would suit the topography better than some area of Egypt.
The names of the two branches mentioned above unfortunately throw little light upon their location, since the etymology of both is uncertain. Pishon has been seen as a derivation of pûš, “leap,” “spring forth,” but this is doubtful as best and in any event does not help to elucidate the problem. Gihon has been viewed as an appellative from gû(a)ḥ, “break forth,” “burst out,” though this too is far from convincing and again does not resolve the difficulty. Probably the most suitable answer concerning the actual location of the Garden of Eden is to think of the river that watered the garden and thereafter became four “branches” as actually comprising the beginning or junction of tributaries going upstream from a point in southern Mesopotamia. Less probably the word rôʾš (“head,” “beginning,” “top”) means the root of a branch going downstream, as in a delta formation. If the original author was in an area close to the Persian Gulf that was being watered by the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates, the branching of the river might well have referred to the upstream bifurcation of the rivers. Since from Gen. 2:6 it appears that a river (AV, RSV, “mist”; NEB “flood”) overflowed in the garden to provide irrigation, it is probable that the inhabitants of Eden were living in an irrigation culture. Thus it is very likely that Pishon and Gihon were the names, not of rivers as commonly understood, but of major irrigation canals, which because of their nature have disappeared over the millennia. The narrative makes it clear that the author regarded these two waterways as equally renowned in his day with the Tigris and Euphrates, and that he was also describing an actual geographical location in rather primitive terminology. The location of the Garden could thus be placed with considerable assurance in ancient Sumer. The phrase “in Eden, in the east” (Gen. 2:8; NEB “away to the east”) is literally “in Eden from in front,” and indicates that perhaps the garden was located to the east of the author or that it was in the eastern part of the general area known as Eden. Nevertheless, it is impossible in the light of current information to be absolutely specific about the area’s location.
By assuming the author’s ignorance of geography, numerous fanciful identifications for Eden have been proposed. When Columbus passed the mouth of the Orinoco river, he supposed that its waters came down from the Garden of Eden. At that time, however, he imagined himself to be on the east coast of Asia. Those anthropologists who support a Near Eastern, rather than an African, home for earliest man, have located Eden somewhere in central Asia. Some in particular have placed it in that area stretching E from the Pamir, from which flow four rivers — the Indus, the Tarim, the Jaxartes, and the Oxus. One nineteenth-century author, W. F. Warren, went so far as to locate the original Eden at the North Pole, adducing as evidence the contention that in northern Greenland and in Spitzbergen abundant remains of fossil plants show that during the middle of the Tertiary period the whole circumpolar region manifested a climate similar to that occurring at present in southern Europe. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no evidence whatever that Adamic man (homo sapiens) goes back to the middle Tertiary period. A more realistic identification of Eden is with Armenia, where the Tigris and Euphrates have their origin. The Pishon and Gihon branches have been supposed to be the Choruk (thought by some to be the Phasis) and the Aras (Araxes), which empty into the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea respectively. On this identification Havilah would represent the area around Colchis; it is impossible, however, to place Cush in that region. Furthermore, these four rivers could not possibly be regarded as branches of one parent stream.
Quite clearly no theory, ancient or modern, of the location of Eden and its celebrated garden is entirely free from difficulties. On the basis of currently available information it would appear that the one that locates Eden near the head of the Persian Gulf combines the greatest number of probabilities of every kind.
Bibliography.—F. Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies? (1881); W. F. Albright, AJSL, 39 (1922/23), 15–31; T. C. Vriezen, Onderzoek naar de Paradijsvoortstelling bij de oude semietische Volken (1937); E. A. Speiser, Festschrift Johannes Friedrich (1959), pp. 473–485; M. G. Kline, WTJ, 20 (1957/58), 146–49.
R. K. HARRISON
2. (Ezk. 27:23). See BETH-EDEN.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Revised), s.v. “E,” 2:16-17.
EDEN, GARDEN OF ee´duhn [גַּן־בְּעֵדֶן gan-beʿedhen]. Most readers of the Bible associate Eden with Gen 2–3, yet it is important to note that the word occurs in several other places in the OT: Isa 51:3; Ezek 31:9, 16, 18; 36:25; and Joel 2:3. From these texts one can see that Eden is a location abundantly blessed with fertility. Sterility and death have no place there.
The etymology of Eden has been the subject of considerable discussion. A common approach in the modern era has been to derive the Hebrew word from the Akkadian edinu (which, in turn, derives from Sumerian) meaning, “plain, steppe.” Some have gone further and located Eden in an especially fertile area within the vicinity of the Persian Gulf. Given the deep Mesopotamian roots of much of the material in Gen 1–11, this perspective has had much to recommend it. On the other hand, there is a root ʿdn (עדן) that means, “to be fertile, luxuriant,” and some believe the nominal form derives from this verbal root that is native to the Hebrew language. Those who are partial to the Akkadian etymology have argued that this particular verbal stem is denominative (i.e., a secondary formation from a pre-existing noun) and therefore sheds no light on the origin of the root itself. A bilingual Aramaic-Akkadian inscription from Tel Fekherye has provided new philological data in support of the Hebrew root with a meaning of “making luxuriant [through water]. ” The LXX and the Vulgate translate the phrase ganʿedhen as “garden of fertile luxuriance” (paradeisos tēs tryphēs [παραδείσος τῆς τρυφῆς] or in Latin, paradisus voluptatis).
One key to understanding the symbolic nature of Eden is the description of its location in Gen 2:10–14. The Garden is characterized by four rivers that flow from it: the Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates. Though the latter two are clearly identifiable with the great rivers of classical Mesopotamia, the first two are not so easy to pin down. Given that the Gihon is said to flow around the land of Cush—which in turn is frequently identified with Nubia—it may be a reference to the origins of the Nile. If so, Eden would have been the source of all the great freshwater sources known to the ancient Israelite. Because the Gihon Spring flows beneath Jerusalem (and Eden was associated with Jerusalem, see below), the Gihon River may also have been associated with this spring.
It is significant that no single geographic location can be identified as the origin of all these rivers. The function of this text is more theological than topological. The fact that the rivers are four in number points to the universal reach of Eden, for classical Mesopotamian sources frequently divide the world into four quadrants and the living waters of the earth are thought to emerge from a sacred center. And because the sources of rivers tend to be found in mountainous regions (and are so depicted in ANE art), it is likely that Eden was thought of as a cosmic mountain. The mountainous character of the Garden of God is made explicit in another Eden tradition found in the Bible: Ezekiel’s famous oracle against the king of Tyre (28:11–19, esp. v. 14). We also know from Ps 24:2–3 that there was an intimate connection between the founding of the world on top of mythic waters and the establishment of the Temple: “God has founded [the world] on the seas, and established it on the rivers. Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place?” For an Israelite reader, it must have been a commonplace to associate Eden with the sacred center of Jerusalem.
It is striking to note that kings in Mesopotamia often described themselves as great gardeners. One relief from the palace of Ashurbanipal shows a garden built on a mountaintop with irrigation channels crisscrossing its slopes and a number of different flora growing upon its slopes. This calls to mind the garden that God plants in Eden with its abundant flora (Gen 2:9) and the appointment of Adam as its steward (2:15). Given the symbolic lineage between Zion and Eden it is not surprising that recent excavations in Jerusalem have revealed that tremendous care was put into its irrigation systems such that it could be a location of an abundant variety of trees and other ornamental vegetation. The lushness of the Zion was meant to conjure the primordial abundance of Eden.
Striking confirmation of the strong affinities between the Garden of Eden and the Temple Mount in the city of Jerusalem can be found in late Biblical and Second Temple literature. In Ezek 47:1–12, the prophet is taken in a vision to the entrance of the Temple. There he is witness to an extraordinary miracle: waters issue from the threshold of the building and begin to make their way out of the city of Jerusalem. As they head toward the region of the Dead Sea and the vast desert that surrounds it, the waters gradually grow in strength and slowly turn this barren desert into a luxuriant garden. On the banks of this river “grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither nor their fruit fail, but they will bear fresh fruit every month, because the water for them flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for healing” (47:12). This return of the wilderness to an Edenic state is picked up by the author of Revelation in the very last chapter of the Christian Bible (Rev 22:1–2). In this vision, all of creation will be returned to the paradisiacal state in which it was made through the mediation of God’s appointed dwelling place in Jerusalem.
Bibliography: Gary A. Anderson. “The Cosmic Mountain: Eden and Its Early Interpretation in Syriac Christianity.” Genesis 1–3 in the History of Exegesis. G. Robbins, ed. (1988) 187–224; Richard J. Clifford. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (1971); Jonas Greenfield. “A Touch of Eden.” Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata (1984) 219–24; Jon Levenson. Sinai and Zion: An Enquiry into the Jewish Bible (1985); Lawrence Stager. “Jerusalem and the Garden of Eden.” EI 26 (1999) 183–94.
GARY A. ANDERSON
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN
NIDB, s.v. “EDEN, GARDEN OF ,” n.p.
EDEN, GARDEN OF (PLACE) [Heb gan-ʿēden גַּנ־עֵדֶן]. The place where the first humans are placed by Yahweh and from which they are later expelled. In Genesis 2–3 it is described as a place of beauty and abundance. Elsewhere it is designated as Yahweh’s own garden (e.g. Isa 51:3; see GARDEN OF GOD) and even in Genesis 2–3 it is probably meant to be understood primarily as a dwelling place of Yahweh rather than simply a place of human habitation. Scholarly debate over Eden has concerned the etymology of the name, the various biblical references, and the location of Eden. See also BETH-EDEN (PLACE).
A. Etymology
Two explanations have been proposed for the origin of the name ʿēden, “Eden”: (a) that it derives from the Akkadian word edinu, “plain, steppe,” which in turn is a loan word from Sumerian eden; (b) that it is connected with the West Semitic stem ʿdn occurring in several languages, having to do with “luxury, abundance, delight, or lushness.”
Explanation (a) was first proposed after the discovery of parts of a cuneiform tablet from Nineveh containing a syllabary of Sumerian logograms and Akkadian equivalents. It has been adopted with varying degrees of caution by scholars such as H. Zimmern, H. Gunkel, J. Skinner, and S. R. Driver. The attractions of such a derivation are obvious. There is phonological similarity and the possible Eastern origins of the word coincide with the traditional placement of Eden “in the East.” However, several objections have been raised. First, Genesis 2–3 refers to Eden in terms of a fertile garden or oasis. The transference to this meaning from a Sumerian word for “plain” or “steppe” is obscure. Secondly, while the word eden is common in Sumerian, the Akkadian equivalent edinu is attested only once on the syllabary referred to above. The usual Akkadian equivalent to Sumerian eden is ṣĕru. Several synonyms also exist for ṣĕru. From available evidence it seems that edinu was an extremely rare word in Akkadian and it is not a likely candidate for further borrowing into biblical Hebrew. The craft of a narrator or scribe in adopting such a word would be lost to nearly all hearers or readers. Thirdly, there is the problem that the Sumerian word begins with /e/, while biblical Hebrew ʿēden begins with the guttural ʿayin. Some scholars would argue that the initial phoneme /e/ in Sumerian corresponds to Heb ʾalep. This is the basis for the proposed correspondence between Sum ı́d, Akk id, “river,” and biblical Hebrew ʾēd (Gen 2:6). However this argument is not conclusive. One should compare also Sum idiglat, “Tigris,” with the Heb ḥiddeqel, where the initial /i/ in Sumerian corresponds to another Hebrew guttural, ḥet.
Explanation (b) has been the traditional etymology. The LXX translates gan-ʿēden by ho paradeisos tēs truphēs, “the garden of luxuries,” in Gen 3:23, 24 and elsewhere. This is clearly based on the connection of the name of the garden with the biblical Hebrew, ʿēden, “luxury, delight.” This connection would have been missed neither by those who narrated the story nor by those who read or heard it. After all, the garden contained every tree which was “delightful to look at and good for food” (Gen 2:9). The question remains, however, whether or not the garden’s name arose in this connection.
The stem ʿdn is known in Syriac and Talmudic Aramaic, and the cognate ǵdn occurs in Arabic. In languages contemporary with biblical Hebrew only two examples of possible cognates exist. The first is in Ugaritic. In the mythological text, CTA 12.2.53–54, the phrase bʿdn ʿdnm can be connected with a stem ʿdn, indicating “delight” or “abundance,” although some scholars would disagree. In CTA 3.3.30; 4.2.17; 4.5.68–69 and elsewhere other meanings or explanations must be given to ʿdn.
The second example is in Old Aramaic, in an inscription on a statue of Haddu-yisʿı̄, King of Guzan. The statue is from Tell Fekheriyeh in N Syria. The bilingual inscription contains the Aramaic phrase mʿdn mt kln, which is parallel to the Assyrian expression muṭaḫḫidu kibrāti, “the provider of the regions,” also inscribed on the statue. It would seem that the Aramaic expression is to be translated “one who provides for all the land,” but whether the participle mʿdn is meant to carry the implication of “abundance” and “great delight” as the Hebrew ʿēden might suggest, or whether it is meant to indicate provision in general as the Assyrian parallel muṭaḫḫidu suggests, is a matter for debate. Since, however, both expressions occur in a list of epithets of the deity Hadad (Adad) who is described as the giver of plenty to both heaven and earth, including pasture and watering places, the use of mʿdn cannot be separated from the notion of earthly abundance and delight.
The etymology of ʿēden is therefore still a matter for debate. The derivation from Akk edinu remains problematic. The second derivation from West Semitic ʿdn, indicating “abundance” or “luxury,” remains tenuous. Connection with this stem could just be secondary and late. The Ugaritic and especially the Old Aramaic evidence strengthens the case for this more traditional explanation.
B. Usage
The term ʿēden occurs thirteen times in the OT, although not always in the same context. Even within Genesis 2–3 it changes in meaning. In 2:8 and 10 (cf. also 4:16) ʿēden is used unqualified as a place name. In 2:15; 3:23 and 24 it occurs in the phrase gan-ʿēden, “Garden of Eden.” Gen 3:23 and 24 seem to indicate that Eden refers just to the garden and not to some larger region in which the garden is located. Even the LXX reflects this change in sense. In 2:8, 10 and 4:16 it renders Edem for ʿēden. In 3:23 and 24 it translates gan-ʿēden as ho paradeisos tēs truphēs, while in 2:15 it renders it simply as ho paradeisos. The variation has been seen by some scholars as evidence for different sources within Gen 2:4b–3:24. Attempts to delineate these sources have not met with general acceptance and the unity of the present narrative is now widely stressed. Moreover, while inconsistencies or irregularities within the story can be attributed to a complicated history of tradition, they should not be seen solely as the result of development within the written form of the narrative. The story is an ancient one and the influence of oral narrative techniques (open to inconsistencies and parataxis) on its early written forms should not be ignored.
Outside the early chapters of Genesis, reference to ʿēden occurs most often in Ezekiel (28:13; 31:9, 16, 18; 36:35). Elsewhere it is mentioned in Isa 51:3 and Joel 2:3. In the case of Isa 51:3, Ezek 36:35, and Joel 2:3, ʿēden or the gan-ʿēden appears as a symbol of fertility. The first two references are set within oracles directed to Israelites in exile. In each, Yahweh’s promise to restore his people involves the restoration of the land of Israel from a desolate waste to a fertile place. It will be like (the garden of) Eden. In Joel 2:3 the opposite is the case with the threat of judgment in which the land, now like the garden of Eden, will be stripped bare by locusts.
Isa 51:3 places ʿēden in parallelism with gan-yhwh. It would appear that at least by the time of the Exile Eden was associated wth the mythic concept of the garden of God (or Yahweh). This association possibly lies behind the reference to Eden in Ezekiel 36:35, although some scholars would regard vv 33–36 as a later addition. Direct equation of Eden with the garden of God (gan-ʾĕlōhı̂m) is found in Ezek 28:13. Here the king of Tyre is described residing in Eden, the garden of God, enjoying its privileges, and exhibiting a life commensurate with that until iniquity is found in him (v 15). He is then driven out to die without dignity on earth (vv 17–19). Equation of Eden with the garden of God is also found in Ezek 31:8–9 in an oracle describing the pharaoh of Egypt as a mighty and splendid tree with its top in the clouds and its roots watered by subterranean springs. It was luxuriant and provided shelter for animals and birds (vv 3–7). The trees of Eden which were “in the garden of God” were jealous of it (v 9). Further reference is made to the trees of Eden in the subsequent oracles speaking of the downfall of the pharaoh (vv 16–18).
The relation of the garden of Eden to the general theme of the garden of God must be seen in light of a full discussion of the latter. See GARDEN OF GOD. The issue has to do with the question of whether Eden was understood as a human paradise or a divine dwelling. It ultimately bears on the meaning of the narrative. The argument that the garden was created after the first human and therefore could not have been Yahweh’s dwelling misses the subtlety of the situation. Many of the motifs of Eden are also those of the divine dwelling described in Mesopotamian and Canaanite myth. These include the unmediated presence of the deity, the council of the heavenly beings, the issuing of divine decrees, the source of subterranean life-giving waters which supply the whole earth, abundant fertility, and trees of supernatural qualities and great beauty.
The proliferation of such motifs in the ANE cannot be ignored. The description of Eden in Gen 2:46–3:24 draws heavily on the mythic garden-of-God theme but as is the case elsewhere in the Yahwistic narrative, there is a blend of mythic and historical elements. The mythic elements break through the narrative sufficiently to suggest that Eden was not simply a human paradise which had been lost through disobedience. Rather it portrays a divine dwelling within the human, historical context. It is certainly a place set apart from the world as humans have experienced it, but it nevertheless is meant to be understood as an historical entity. The garden of Eden serves as the setting for a drama which explores the relationship between the divine and human worlds, a relationship which in Israelite experience was played out in the context of history.
Some scholars have argued that the oracles of Ezekiel 28 and 31 show direct literary dependence on the Eden narrative of Genesis 2–3. Certainly some motifs are held in common (the magnificent trees, the rebellion against God and subsequent expulsion, wisdom, precious stones, cherubim, and fire) and the oracles reveal some knowledge of the Eden tradition, but the stories also show marked differences. It is easier to assume that the Ezekiel passages come from a fluid oral tradition, and while they have drawn on the same theme and used some of the same motifs, they nevertheless have been composed independently of Genesis 2–3.
In pseudepigraphal literature the garden of Eden is frequently mentioned. In 4 Ezra 3:6 and Jub. 3:9–35 there is direct reference to the Genesis 2–3 account and the garden. In this context Eden is an earthly concept (of Jub. 423–25; and 8:18–19 where Eden is one of the abodes of God on earth). However, we can detect a shift in meaning, for in 4 Ezra 3:6 we have the first reference to Eden as a garden planted before the earth appeared. In Jub. 4:23–25, Enoch is taken in honor from among sinful humans in the garden of Eden where he writes condemnation and judgment on the world.
In other works Eden is clearly associated with Paradise, a heavenly dwelling set aside for the righteous and faithful (e.g., T. Dan 5:12). Elsewhere we see certain elements of the garden in Genesis 2 associated with Paradise, for example the trees of Life and Wisdom in 1 Enoch 24–25; 28–32 and 4 Ezra 8:52. In T. Levi 18:1–14 we have a description of a new anointed priest bringing redemption to God’s saints. Verses 10–14 describe the opening of the gates of Paradise and the blessing of the saints as a reversal of the events of Eden in Genesis 3.
C. The Site of Eden
The location of the garden of Eden has intrigued biblical commentators from the time of Josephus (Ant 1.3.38–39). Interest has focused on the reference in Gen 2:10–14 where there is mention of the four headwaters which emerge from the river that flows out of Eden. Some commentators have questioned whether these verses are secondary. They interrupt the flow of the narrative and v 15 repeats the notice of v 8 that Yahweh put the human being he had created in the garden. This is not the only possible explanation. If the Eden story of Genesis 2–3 is a written version of a formerly oral traditional narrative and the description of Eden has been based on the theme of the garden of God, then it is possible that vv 10–14, with the description of the four rivers and reference to the jewels and produce of the lands through which they flow, could be the remnant of an embellishment of the theme at that point. The motifs of the rivers and precious jewels are elsewhere related to the garden of God (e.g., Gilgamesh [ANET, 89]; Ezek 28:12b–19). We should note that the description of the rivers decreases in length but the first three rivers show a part parallel structure. These features indicate the possibility of a longer, poetic basis for the verses.
The names of the rivers are important. The rivers ḥiddeqel and pĕrat are undoubtedly the Tigris and the Euphrates. The identities of the first two rivers, the pı̂šôn (usually taken to be formed from pûš, “to spring up”) and the gı̂ḥôn (from gûaḥ or gı̂aḥ, “to burst forth”) are disputed. For the pı̂šôn, suggestions have included the Indus or the Ganges. The land of ḥăwı̂lâ, around which the pı̂šôn flows, is thus associated with India, although elsewhere it is connected with Arabia (cf. Gen 10:29; 25:18). The gı̂ḥôn is frequently identified as the Nile through the connection with kûš, an ancient name for the south of Egypt. Others have connected the two rivers with canals in the Euphrates-Tigris plain or with the great oceans that encircled the known inhabited lands of Arabia and Africa. W. F. Albright argued in 1922 that Eden lay in the far west and that the pı̂šôn and gı̂ḥôn were the Blue and White Niles.
Any firm identification of these rivers or the lands associated with them must remain tentative. There is probably little hope of moving beyond speculation. The possibility that pı̂šôn and gı̂ḥôn were not river names in current use at the time of the composition of the Eden narrative ought not to be overlooked. They could even be a traditional rhyming pair of names without specific geographical reference.
The connection of gı̂ḥôn with the name of the spring in Jerusalem cannot be neglected. The reference to the Tigris and Euphrates suggests a possible Mesopotamian origin for the Eden story. It therefore would seem unlikely that the Jerusalem spring is the origin for the gı̂ḥôn of Gen 2:13, but the possibility of the identification of the two must be considered. The gı̂ḥôn spring of Jerusalem is mentioned as the place of Solomon’s anointing (1 Kgs 1:33, 38) and so was known at the time of the Yahwist. The name could even form a bridge between the motifs of the mountain dwelling and the life-giving springs associated with the theme of the garden of God. See GARDEN OF GOD. This would be particularly important when Jerusalem-Zion was being promoted as the dwelling place of Yahweh in David’s time and especially Solomon’s reign.
The site of the garden is referred to in Gen 2:8 as miqqedem, usually translated “in the East.” This has been used to support the idea of a Mesopotamian location for the story. The phrase could also be translated “from of old” (cf. Pss 77:6, 12; 78:12; 143:5; Prov 8:22–23, etc.) and possibly in earlier forms of the narrative it had a temporal rather than a geographic reference. If the Yahwist understood the phrase to indicate “in the East” then the precise location still remains uncertain. In Genesis 2–11 the Yahwist depicts the movement of primeval humanity in an easterly direction from the garden (Gen 3:24; 4:16; 11:2). This movement is reversed in Gen 12:4 when Abraham begins his journey westward from Haran to Canaan. It is possible that the Yahwist does not place Eden in Mesopotamia but somewhere W of that land, allowing for an easterly migration after the expulsion. In such a case the rivers of Gen 2:10–14 need not form an interconnected system but could be simply independent, traditional, or famous waterways which in the writer’s cosmology are fed from the source that rises in the dwelling place of God. See also Driver Genesis WC; and Skinner Genesis ICC.
Bibliography
Albright, W. F. 1922. The Location of the Garden of Eden. AJSL 39: 15–31.
Cassuto, U. 1961. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Pt 1, From Adam to Noah (Genesis I–IV,8). Jerusalem.
Millard, A. R. 1984. The Etymology of Eden. VI 34: 103–6.
Neiman, D. 1973. Giḥon and Pishon: Mythological Antecedents of the Two Enigmatic Rivers of Eden. PWCJS 6: 321–28. Jerusalem.
Speiser, E. A. The Rivers of Paradise. Pp. 23–34 in Oriental and Biblical Studies, ed. J. J. Finkelstein and M. Greenberg. Philadelphia.
Wallace, H. N. 1985. The Eden Narrative. HSM 32. Atlanta.
Westermann, C. 1984. Genesis 1–11: A Commentary. Trans. J. Scullion. London.
HOWARD N. WALLACE
AYBD, s.v. “EDEN, GARDEN OF (PLACE),” 2:281-283.
they all provide core introductory info that likely won't change...If you want intro information, you probably don't need a new dictionary...
This is the main reason I cancelled my pre-pub order for the NIDB. All the Bible Dictionaries/Encyclopedias that I have supplement one another and give me the information I need and then some. Having AYBD, IVP Black Dictionaries OT/NT, Encyclopedia of Christianity, and several one volume Bible dictionaries, I'm pretty much well served and covered. The only Bible Dictionary I may add (only because I used to own it before) is Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible and the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible since I've heard so many good things about it and it seems to be unique in category. Then again, it's up to you if you want to pre order and try it for 30 days and if you don't think you need it, then you can always return it before the 30 day trial period is over.
DAL
PS. Here are 80 pages worth of articles from the NIBD courtesy of Abingdon Press. You can compare the articles to the AYBD and others that you might own and you will see for yourself if they provide enough new information to justify spending money on another Bible dictionary.
Where do you feel that The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible fits into this?
Introductory? mainly for a general audience? Or what?
I see that it was revised in 2009.
I was never overly found of ZPEB... A lot of it did seem unrevised from what i compared but I had limited access to samples of revision. Here is eden from the original.... It always seemed to me to be such a step down from ISBE, but I am sure it has it's fans.
EDEN (GARDEN OF) (including Pishon, Phison, Pison) עֵ֔דֶן; LXX, Ἐδεμ, the first habitation of our first parents.
1. Etymology. Two possibilities are encountered on this score: (a) either the word “Eden” is derived from the Akkad. edinu, or from the Sumer. edin, i.e. “open field”; or again (b) it is the Heb. (’eden) for “delight.” Possibility (a) is less likely, because “open field” is not an apt designation of a “garden.” Besides, the LXX frequently trs. for “garden of Eden,” “park of delight.”
2. Use of the word. The word ’eden is used for garden in general; also for a territorial or geographic location; it appears as a proper name of a person; and lastly as the name of a town (Amos 1:5). See KB s.v.
3. Location. Three major possibilities are to be encountered under this head: (a) Armenia, (b) Babylonia, or near the head of the Persian Gulf, (c) near the N Pole. The last of these may be dismissed quickly, inasmuch as about all it can adduce by way of support is that evidence of tropical flora has been discovered as fossil remains in the frozen N. Babylonia also seems unlikely, because the river-pattern described in Genesis 2:10–14 does not agree with this claim. At least two of the streams mentioned in this Scripture (the Tigris and the Euphrates) are known to have been in days of old, as they are to this day, near to one another and springing from the Armenian highlands. This does not assign any proper place to the Pishon and the Gihon, with regard to which the conjecture has been offered, among others, that they are the Indus and the Nile. But positive identification of these two cannot be established. In fact, it seems that one must rest content with the identification of the Euphrates with the prath (v. 14) and of the Tigris with the hiddekel (cf. Sumer., Idigna, and the Akkad., idiqlat—KB). Since no such set of streams can be identified anywhere (one major stream dividing into four branches), there is great likelihood that they are correct who allow for the possibility that some major topographical change, such as might have been wrought by the great Flood, may have taken place. The only helpful fact left is that the Tigris and Euphrates still originate in the same general area, as well as do some minor streams (such as Araxes and Murat) that would come close to making up the original four mentioned in the text. For the claim seems irrefutable that the picture given in vv. 10–14 is that of a single strong stream issuing forth from the garden itself, and then subdividing into four branches which go off in the direction of the four points of the compass. No comparable situations that may be discovered correspond geographically to what is depicted here. The reverse often occurs that a number of streams in confluence combine to make one stream. The subdividing of a stream is, as far as is known, to be found only in deltas, which is not what is being described here. To try to make of the Pishon and the Gihon two of the canals that in days of old connected the Tigris and the Euphrates does not seem a happy solution of the problem. These canals originated at a much later date.
4. Description of the garden. The scriptural emphasis in reference to the garden seems to lie in the fact that it constituted a flawless background for human beings themselves flawless. It had many tokens of divine goodness and favor made accessible for the first parents. Among these tokens “trees” are mentioned first (2:9), all manner of them “pleasant to the sight and good for food.” Of particular moment are two special trees, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. These may well have been the center of the garden, as they certainly were as in their intrinsic importance to mankind.
Then it should be noted that as to location the garden lay “in Eden.” Eden appears as a larger territory within whose confines the garden was located. Besides, the location is specified as lying “in the east,” which must indicate: E from the point of location of the writer of the account, which does not help in this instance, for one does not know where the writer was.
In addition to many types of trees there were many animals, representatives perhaps of all major classes of the creatures that had been created on the sixth day (Gen 1:24f.). These creatures may have served man in many ways which became more and more apparent as time went on.
That the garden was well-watered has been indicated indirectly in the things that were said about the one river and the four rivers. In Biblical language almost always abundance of water is the major physical blessing. At the same time the care of the garden provided a suitable occupation for the first parents, but since nature had not been “made subject to vanity” the work assigned was neither too much nor too little. Lastly, everything points to the possibility that the climate was temperate, for clothing apparently was not a physical necessity.
5. The use of the term elsewhere in Scripture. It is not to be wondered that the Garden of Eden became the symbol or epitome of beauty and perfection, to which the following passages bear witness: Isaiah 51:3; Ezekiel 28:13; 31:9, 16, 18; Joel 2:3.
6. The later history of the garden. At first it must be remembered that cherubim were stationed to the E of the garden to prevent the entrance of man. It was also a matter of tradition that Cain’s place of dwelling lay to the E of the garden. From there on, everything is wrapped in silence. There is always the possibility that the garden continued to exist and was the place of the manifestation of the Lord’s presence to man until the time of the Flood, the cherubim involved, being in this case the ones who upheld the throne of the Almighty. The NT, basing on the term used by the LXX, uses paradise as a term descriptive of the bliss of the hereafter (Luke 23:43; 2 Cor 12:3; Rev 2:7).
BIBLIOGRAPHY Any standard commentary on Genesis; also the current run of encyclopedias of the Bible and dictionaries of the Bible.
H. C. LEUPOLD
ZPEB, s.v. “EDEN (GARDEN OF),” n.p.
-Dan
Thanks Dan
