Book of Genesis

The biblical portrayal of the cosmos (both its size and age) is significantly different from how we today understand the expanding universe over deep time. How might we go about interpreting the cosmology of the Bible in order to understand its normative theological claims? This blog post for BioLogos explores the biblical idea of the cosmic temple and how it might relate to our contemporary cosmology.

It is hard to think of an area of Christian theology that provides more scope for interdisciplinary conversation than the doctrine of creation. This doctrine not only invites reflection on an intellectual concept: it calls for contemplation of the endlessly complex, dynamic, and fascinating world that human being inhabit. But the possibilities for wide-ranging discussion are such that scholars sometimes end up talking past one another. Productive conversation requires mutual understanding of insights across disciplinary boundaries. Knowing Creation offers an essential resource for helping scholars from a range of fields to appreciate one another's concerns and perspectives. In so doing, it offers an important step forward in establishing a mutually-enriching dialogue that addresses, amongst others, the following key questions:

- Who is the God who creates?
- Why does God create?
- What is "creation"?
- What does it mean to recognize that a theology of creation speaks of a natural world that is subject to the observation of the natural sciences? What does it mean to talk about both a "natural" order and a "created" order?
- What are the major tensions that have arisen between the natural sciences and Christian thinking historically, and why? How can we move beyond such tensions to a positive and constructive conversation, while also avoiding facile notions such as a "god of the gaps"?
- Is it feasible for a natural scientist to maintain a belief in God's continuing creative activity?
- In what ways might a naturalistic understanding of the natural world be said to be limited?
- How can biblical studies, theology, philosophy, history, and science talk better together about these questions?

At a time when the doctrine of creation - and even a mention of "creation" - has been disparaged due to its supposed associations with anti-scientific dogma, and theological offerings sometimes risk appearing a little more than reactionary exercises in naive apologetics, ill-informed by science or distinctly wary of engagement with it, it is more important than ever to offer a cross-disciplinary resource that can voice a positive account of a Christian theology of creation, and do so as a genuinely broad-ranging conversation about science and faith.

This book focuses on the overall structure of the Book of Genesis and the function of its genealogies. After reviewing the status quaestionis and the reader-oriented method, the study uses form-criticism to examine and describe the genealogical information in Genesis. The detailed analysis demonstrate that the genealogies provide the basic structure for Genesis and interrelate closely with the surrounding narrative passages. Genesis thus can be read as one book with a preface (1:1–2:3) followed by ten chapters (each introduced by the tôldôt formula). The genealogies serve literary, social, and theological functions, including that of drawing attention to themes, e.g., the role of women. The genealogical system interprets Israel’s origin, and theologically defines the chain of descent. The unbroken line leads from creation to the twelve sons of Jacob/Israel—and continues in two later strands: the priests (Levi, Exod 6:16-25) and the kings (Judah/David, Ruth 4:18-22). Both texts apply the same formulaic language as in Genesis.

The primary concern of this study is to understand how curse affects the power of blessing in Genesis 1–11. First, we examine the semantics of blessing and curse in light of their history of interpretation. Second, each blessing (1:22, 28; 9:1–3, 7, 26, 27) and curse (3:14–15, 16, 17–19; 4:11–12; 9:25) that occurs within reported speech in Genesis 1–11 is categorized and examined according to its linguistic pattern and performative character. Third, the role of blessing and/or curse is determined in the development of narrative tension in the various discourse units of Genesis 1–11.
Blessing and curse are shown to be intimately connected to Creation theology: blessing is given to drive Creation toward its intended telos, while curse is pronounced when that telos is threatened. Both are a central part of Yahweh's upholding of the Order of Creation. Curse affects the power of blessing both negatively and positively in Genesis 1–11. Negatively, curse causes hostility and alienation, and can also be held partially responsible for the epidemic of death. But curse does not have the final word. Positively, curse mitigates rebellion by imposing restrictions on the transgressor. Furthermore, curse carries with it a way for life to continue.
The narrative of Genesis 1–11 bespeaks of the power words have in the world. Some create, some commission, some empower; while others punish, others alienate, and others cause death. From the beginning God has intended good for his Creation. Blessings and curses are one way of achieving that end.

Links to Publication:

(Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): https://www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com/detail/index/sArticle/56116/sCategory/1487

(Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): Contents Page - https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666564994.toc

(Google Books Limited Preview): https://books.google.com/books?id=LO0dEAAAQBAJ&newbks=0&lpg=PA150&dq=A%20theocentric%20interpretation&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=A%20theocentric%20interpretation&f=false

(Amazon.com): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/3525564996?pf_rd_r=7VDWXZJQ1H9NNSM9RK41&pf_rd_p=5ae2c7f8-e0c6-4f35-9071-dc3240e894a8&pd_rd_r=4b809007-f23f-4fd9-a706-3b38c6079bbd&pd_rd_w=6hWGA&pd_rd_wg=YObc9&ref_=pd_gw_unk

(Hebrew Bible Insights Podcast): https://youtu.be/_NplFHw_mkA

Abstract:
On a primary level, the author seeks to answer the question, what is the best interpretation of הדעת טוב ורע, “The Knowledge of Good and Evil,” in Gen 2:9, 17; 3:5, and 3:22? In Gen 3:5 and 3:22, this knowledge is said to be possessed by YHWH and the divine beings. This study analyzes the permutations of טוב (“good”) and רע (“evil/bad”) in the Hebrew Bible, with a majority focus in Genesis and the Deuteronomistic History and with a focus upon those textual instances in which YHWH has influence over ‘good’ and ‘bad/evil.’ Due to the results of the data, the author brings in a second level of discussion that focuses upon the hermeneutical principle of divine retribution as a structuring element for ancient Near Eastern historiography. On a third level, the author turns to divine blessing and cursing, and its association with good and evil in ancient Near Eastern texts and in the Hebrew Bible. Due to this specific theocentric analysis of the lexemes juxtaposed with the author’s wider study of ancient Near Eastern history and culture, the answer to the guiding question of this study is therefore proposed by the author as, ‘The Divine Knowledge for Administering Reward and Punishment.’ Ergo, the Eden Narrative tells a story of how humans partly attain divinity becoming like YHWH and the divine beings (Gen 3:5; 3:22; Ps 82) in having acquired the forbidden divine knowledge for wielding ultimate power.

This paper addresses the question of whether Gen 18:22 should be considered a genuine scribal emendation (tiqqun sopherim) and then outlines some significant theological repercussions of such an understanding.
Source: “YHWH Standing Before Abraham: Genesis 18:22 and Its Theological Force.” In Inicios, paradigmas y fundamentos: estudios teológicos y exegéticos en el Pentateuco, ed. Gerald A. Klingbeil. Serie monográfica de estudios bíblicos y teológicos de la Universidad Adventista del Plata, 1, 169–189. Libertador San Martín, Entre Ríos, Argentina: Editorial Universidad del Plata, 2004.

Genesis 18.17-33, Abraham’s dialogue with Yhwh over the number of righteous people in Sodom, is a difficulty in exegesis and interpretation.  What the passage means has long been debated.  At a literary level, there has also been no agreement on the nature of Abraham’s language.  It is common to interpret Abraham as bargaining with God in similar fashion to haggling over the price of goods in a bazaar; but proposals have been made that Abraham uses legal-like language, ‘socratic dialogue’ and midrash.  There is also no agreement on the purpose of Abraham’s dialogue.  An analysis of Gen 18.17-33 using politeness theory proposes that Abraham, as portrayed in the narrative, wants to reduce the number of people as the basis for God’s forgiveness of Sodom and Gomorrah.  This is an audacious request and so considerable forms of polite language are used to assist the request.  However, this request is not Abraham’s real intention.  His intention is to have Lot spared from Yhwh’s destruction of the cities. This request is ‘off-record’; that is, the politest strategy that could be used.

An enormous amount of research and the synthesization of historical events and archaeological artifacts has led the author to verify Israelite residence in Egypt from 1876–1446 BC. This research is connected to the unexpected discovery of interconnecting archaeological, epigraphical, and iconographical evidence that attests to the presence of Israelites in Egypt over virtually the entire 430 years. By the sheer volume of verifiable evidence of complementary historical data—when comparing the biblical text and the artifactual and epigraphical record—the author attempts to demonstrate convincingly to objective readers that the biblical story of the Egyptian origins of the Israelite ‘nation’ is reliable as a factual account. Never again will students of the Bible have to listen to uniformed university professors denounce the story of Israelites in Egypt without a ready defense for its validity.

No nation has been subjected to a wider range of biblical attitudes and emotions than Edom. In some sources, Edom is perceived as Israel's brother; in many others, the animosity toward Edom is tremendous. The book of Genesis introduces Isaac, his wife Rebecca, and their twin sons, Esau and Jacob. Rivalry between the brothers emerges even before their birth and escalates over the course of their lives. The question which son should be favored also causes tension in the parents' relationship, and most of the Genesis text concerning Isaac and Rebecca revolves around this issue. The narrative describes the fraternal conflict between Jacob and Esau at length, and many hold that this description is a reflection of the hostility between Edom and Israel. However, the relationship between the brothers is not always depicted as strained. The twofold relationship between the brothers in Genesis—brotherhood and fraternity coupled with hatred and rivalry— introduces a dichotomy that is retained throughout the Hebrew Bible. In this monograph, Assis elucidates the complex relationship between Edom and Israel reflected in the Bible, to attempt to clarify the source of this complexity and the function that this relationship serves in the various biblical texts and Israel's early history. He shows how this relationship plays an important role in the formation of Israel's identity and how the historical interaction between the nations influenced the people's theological conception, as reflected in prophetic literature, poetry, and biblical narrative. Eisenbrauns, 2016. Pp. x + 214. English. Cloth. ISBN: 978-1-57506-417-8 List Price: $47.50

For about 150 years, scholars have attempted to identify the language of the world’s first alphabetic script, and to translate some of the inscriptions that use it. Until now, their attempts have accomplished little more than identifying most of the pictographic letters and translating a few of the Semitic words. With the publication of The World’s Oldest Alphabet, a new day has dawned. All of the disputed letters have been resolved, while the language has been identified conclusively as Hebrew, allowing for the translation of 16 inscriptions that date from 1842–1446 BC. These inscriptions expressly name 3 biblical figures and greatly illuminate the earliest Israelite history in a way that no other book has achieved, apart from the Bible.

Detailed arguments for dating Genesis 1-11 to the exilic era.

1. There is no reference to Moses writing any of Genesis, Exodus 1-14, 15:20-19:23; 24:1-18; 32:1-34:35; 35:30-40:37, or Leviticus 24:10-23, and only Numbers 33:3-49 is attributed to Moses (rather than the entire book).

2. People and events of Genesis 1-11 are cited rarely in the Old Testament, and virtually only by books dating to the Babylonian exile or later.

3. The text of Genesis 1-11 has a number of strong parallels with various Mesopotamian texts which were written very early, long before the birth of Moses. The level of detail in these parallels indicates strongly that they were not simply the result of a Hebrew writer demonstrating oral knowledge of stories he had heard; they indicate the writer of Genesis 1-11 had actually read these Mesopotamian texts, and was not only consciously aware of them but was writing in direct response to them.

4. Certain vocabulary in Genesis 1-3 is used elsewhere only in books written during the monarchy or later.

5. Certain names appear only in Genesis 1-11 and books written during or after the Babylonian exile; typically they appear later in 1 Chronicles 5 or later books as personal names, and in Isaiah and Ezekiel as place names.  Some names appear as personal names before the exile, but as place names only during or after the exile. A few names appear only in Genesis 10. Some verses in Genesis 1-11 use place names which help date the text. In particular, several verses in Genesis 10 indicate the chapter could not have been written until after the reign of Solomon.

All three of my books--Nimrod the Empire Builder: Architect of Shock and Awe (Ancient World Publishing 2023), Origins of the Hebrews: New Evidence for Israelites in Egypt from Joseph to the Exodus (New Creation 2021), and The World's Oldest Alphabet: Hebrew as the Language of the Proto-Consonantal Script (Carta 2016)--are available to purchase. Inside the uploaded document, I have instructions for purchasing any one of them.

An early undergraduate piece dealing with the extent to which theological language is metaphorical. This draws on concepts of divine transcendence and immanence, creation, the imago dei and the incarnation. Biblical materials used to illustrate the argument are the narratives of creation and the tower of Babel, Job, Ezekiel's merkabah vision and the Johannine call to brotherly love (1 John 4:7-12)

The Abraham narratives in Genesis 12-25 have long been the focus of interest of scholars and general readers. The stories about Abraham and his family have influenced, directly or indirectly, the foundational texts of the three major monotheistic religions. This article attempts to trace the development of exegesis of Genesis 12-25 in scholarly works published since 2000. Five types of studies are introduced and briefly evaluated: (i) commentaries on the biblical pericopes in question; (ii) works discussing the historical formation of the Abraham narratives; (iii) synchronic and theological studies; (iv) reception studies; as well as (v) other detailed studies of Genesis 12-25. The article presents a wide range of methodological approaches to biblical texts, and aims to delineate current trends in the study of Genesis.

Augustine’s Sermon 4 on Esau and Jacob is long (860 lines) and consists of a complex division in 37 chapters. This division makes it difficult to identify quickly and easily the rhetorical arrangement which must have been an important factor in making this sermon a success in the context of Augustine’s struggle against Donatism. This same division has been handed down through the centuries. Once the existing, complex division into 37 chapters is relinquished, it is possible, on the basis
of linguistic and Scriptural indications, to establish the existence of a new, simple division into 3 parts. A frame exists in these three parts that runs from creation (Gen. 1) to judgement (Mt. 25), in which Augustine discusses the stories of (the blessings of) Esau and Jacob (Gen. 25 and 27) in the context of the absence or presence of love (for which he employs 1 Cor. 13). Seen from this perspective, Esau represents the bad people who consciously permit themselves to be separated from the Church through the absence of love (a reference to the Donatist schism), while Jacob stands for the good people, who highlight the unity of the Church by availing themselves of love: by not acting on their own authority and expelling sinners, but by leaving judgement to God and by accepting them lovingly. The new division clearly reveals this message.

I am currently revising and expanding the material presented in this paper in preparation for an upcoming Theopolis Explorations volume. The forthcoming book will explore some important areas that I was not able to cover at length in this paper, notably how the imago Dei relates to humanity's destiny as council as well as Enochic literature and other Pseudepigrapha.

This paper was first presented to Dr. Peter J. Leithart and Dr. James B. Jordan at Theopolis Institute on March 11, 2017.

My treatment of the Divine Council really is the exploration of a story.  In this story man was created by God as a child—an infant, really—and is steadily brought to maturity.  The fall of Adam immediately presents an obstacle to how this maturation is supposed to progress, but it does not frustrate God’s plan; instead it directs the story to an even more glorious conclusion.  This is the story of how God elevated mankind to his place in Council through Jesus Christ, the man.

Presented at SWCRS, Irving, TX, 3/11/2018. Oddities in the characterization and actions of the patriarch Isaac in the book of Genesis have long been noted by scholars, but the typical way of dealing with these oddities has been dismissive, either of the originality of authentic Isaac traditions or of Isaac as character (he is often characterized either as morally problematic or laughable). Without asserting anything about the historicity of Isaac the man, this paper proposes that the portrayal of the character Isaac seems to reflect an ancient traditional understanding of Isaac as a child and a man on the autistic spectrum, but ancient Israel and the classical Hebrew language had no resources for labeling this condition.

In dit paper wordt onderzoek gedaan naar de betekenis van 'wandel voor mijn aangezicht’ in Genesis  17:1.1 Het  blijkt  van  belang  te  zijn  welke  methodische  keuzes er gemaakt  worden  bij dit onderzoek. Er  bestaat  namelijk  verschil  van  inzicht  over  de  interpretatie.

Le roman Nuit-d'Ambre de Sylvie Germain n'est pas la moindre des relectures artistiques du mystérieux combat de Jacob au gué du Yabboq. Ne pourrait-on pas relire cette péricope après avoir lu le roman de Sylvie Germain, pour mieux comprendre le texte biblique ? Le recours au concept des "images poémagogiques" permet d'éclairer le problème de l'identification de l'adversaire en Gn 32... Texte entier : BETL 293.

In two different treatments of the Nuzi contract HSS V 67, E. A. Speiser provided two different transliterations and translations of a key phrase without giving his reasons for the revision. It turns out that the text in question is damaged, rendering one particular cuneiform sign nearly unreadable. The significance of Speiser’s revision for biblical studies is that, depending on which reading is taken, this text provides some legal background either for the concern that a full wife might send away the children of a secondary wife (as in Genesis 21) or for the phenomenon of surrogate motherhood (i. e. the identification of the child of a secondary wife as in some way the child of the full wife; see Genesis 16 and 30). Though some biblical scholars have noted Speiser’s two translations, no one so far has engaged in a technical discussion of the primary text in order to understand the revision. Rather, scholars have sometimes simply chosen the reading that fits better with their purposes (usually Speiser’s earlier reading). This article examines the original cuneiform text of HSS V 67 in order to ascertain, using orthographical and linguistic data, which of Speiser’s two readings is the more likely. Speiser’s revised reading proves to be the correct one, meaning that HSS V 67 does not provide a background legal concern that a full wife might send away the sons of a secondary wife (e. g. Genesis 21).

From a roundtable on Joy Ladin's The Soul of the Stranger: Reading God and Torah from a Transgender Perspective (HBI Series on Jewish Women, Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2019) that consists of this excerpt, followed by commentary solicited from five respondents.

The story highlights the upright character of Joseph, as an illustration of the covenant: "When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless" (Gn 17:1). And: "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you" (Gn 12:2, 3).  This outline will focus on the structure of the narrative and give some background information on Egyptian society.  The context, form and structure, theological, technical and hermeneutical notes given in this sermon outline overlap with other sermon outlines taken from the Book of Genesis. This makes it possible to use this sermon outline as a "stand-alone". You can also fit this outline into a series of sermons. Context  An outline of the Book of Genesis. THE CREATION Genesis 1:1-2:3 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

The paper analyzes the correlation of time and creation in St. Augustine. Building upon researches of recent decades, it subdivides the issue into three topics, which facilitates the treatment of memory as a philosophical and theological problem, and thus enables to deal with the problem of time. First, it is the question about the content of memory, or rather, of its ability to keep some content, which may be called synthetic ability. This question not only clarifies psychological objectives of memory — the possibility to keep impressions, feelings, and images, to bring together and hold whatever experience of thinking — but also exposes any synthesis whatsoever as dependent on the ability of memory to constitute the duration. The second question fo-cuses on the analysis of memory as a guarantee of self-identity of the subject. The human being, taken in her spiritual existence, is viewed by St. Augustine through the Trinitarian schema of «memoria-intelligentia-voluntas», expounded in his treatise On the Trinity. Hypostatized memory is a representation of God the Father who embodies the principle of being within the Trinity. Besides the obvious influence on the further elaboration of the Trinitarian dogma and the doctrine of filioque, this idea of St. Au-gustine reveals an additional anthropological dimension, since the Trinitarian unity implicates the unity of soul, perception and thought. The third aspect conveys the ontological significance of memory, which explicates the nature of creation and its associate mutability. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of memory contains a Platonism, which is inherent in all  Augustinian epistemology. Attempting to clarify the effect of this combination of Platonism and Christianity on the dealing with the problem of time, the author also probes a modern phenomenological interpretation of the doctrine of memoryformulated by J.-L. Marion.

This paper proposes the perspective that Lot is portrayed within Genesis 19 as the patriarch of the Moabites and Ammonites by using similar motifs to those which describe the patriarchs of the Israelites. Past studies of Genesis 19 even as early as Origen have alluded to some of the similarities between Lot and the patriarchs of Israel. This paper systematically demonstrates how the text of Genesis 19 uses four patriarchal motifs found elsewhere in Genesis to describe Lot as a similar ancestral figure for other nations. Following a brief history of relevant research on Genesis 19, I will examine and discuss four parallels between the patriarchs of Israel and the portrayal of Lot found in Genesis 19 in order of their appearances within the narrative: the Hospitable Patriarch Motif, the Patriarch Endangering a Matriarch Motif, the Patriarch Surviving Disaster Motif, and the Unknowing Patriarch Motif. Finally, I will discuss what the perspective of Lot as patriarch of other nations has upon our understanding of Israel’s relationship with the Moabite and Ammonite nations.

The chief aim of this essay is to posit a well-known Mesopotamian royal and divine epithet, ušumgallu "great dragon," as the source behind Ezekiel's enigmatic description of Pharaoh in 29.3, hattannīn haggādôl, "the great dragon." This relationship sheds new light and meaning on an old problem: why does Ezekiel refer to Pharaoh as a dragon? Rather than viewing this prophetic expression as a pejorative, the cognate evidence argues for the converse by rooting it in an enduring tradition of regal titles. Replicating Akkadian ušumgallu (Sumerian UŠUM.GAL) as efficiently as possible and drawing upon Israelite cosmological history (viz. Gen 1.21a), Ezekiel feigned including Pharaoh within a venerable, long line of Mesopotamian kings and deities to receive this title. Instead, and as is characteristic of Ezekiel's rhetoric, he upended the putative associations of the "great dragon," thereby exposing its true subordinate position under the hegemony of YHWH

the 2nd Book of James, to the Theophilus forum of Jerusalem and the Philadelphians, writ by Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch in Palestine AD 180

with mention of the Stoic emperor of Rome, Marcus Aurelius,
it also reviews the Genesis of the World

A 1700 word essay defending the employment of the lens of light, color, and image as a valid hermeneutic. With full respect for the historical-critical method, the essay asserts the need to move beyond its boundaries where additional insights are sure to be gleaned.

There is a general agreement among scholars that the name Lycaonia derives from Luwian *Luka-wani, i. e. "inhabitant of Lukka". This interpretation was introduced by Goetze (1954 [1]) and accepted by Laroche (1976 [2]: 17) and later put under scrutiny by Melchert (2003 [3]: 14) and Simon (2019 [4]). Also Carruba (1996 [5]), Durnford (2013 [6]: 62-63), Schürr (2016 [7]) have accepted what is reported by the chronicles of the Hittite kings: invaders from Lukka (Bryce 1992 [8]) would push towards the Konya Plain. Of course, these records (Hawkins 1995 [9]: 29) are very distant from the first mention of Lycaonia in Cyropaedia by Xenophon around 370 B.C. Another impending problem is how they might be reflected in Genesis, whose historical background is not easy to pinpoint. Paradoxically, some light might come from what seems at first most uncertain. First, because in the rarefied picture of Biblical proto‑history, Lamech is the only Cainite to deserve a full-fledged myth after Adam.

The article surveys recent scholarship on the use of creation imagery in the Gospel of John, with the aim of presenting rather exhaustive register of possible references. Both the obvious and the less clear-cut allusions to Gen 1–3 are discussed, the main focus being to accumulate and assess evidence (for or against) all the apparent references to creation imagery. Included in this examination are several unconvincing and even far-fetched proposals advanced by some modern scholars, in order to give the fullest possible picture of current discourse on these issues. After discussing the creation theme in the Prologue (1:1–18), the article explores the presence of creation imagery in the Book of Signs (1:19–12:50) and the Book of Glory (13:1–21:25)

Is the "male-female" binary of Genesis 1:27 complete, or should we search for a third component in the process of creating humankind in the image, according to the likeness of God? I assert that Genesis 1:27 includes three uses of 'bara' - created, created, created - to give us pause when determining the true nature of God's image, according to God's likeness. What might the third component be?

The Hebrew Bible is one of the preeminent media that transmitted the intellectual heritage of the ancient Near East to later periods. The contributions of this workshop will investigate specific expressions of ancient Near Eastern intellectual traditions within the Hebrew Bible, which influenced, through its subsequent wide dissemination, later developments in cultural history.
The workshop includes contributions by David Vanderhooft (Boston College), Jeffrey Cooley (Boston College), Ilona Zsolnay (University of Chicago), Avi Winitzer (University of Notre Dame), Georg Fischer (University of Innsbruck), Peter Dubovský (Pontifical Biblical Insitute), Eckart Otto (LMU Munich), Dominik Markl (Pontifical Biblical Institute) and Cornelia Wunsch (Freie Universität Berlin).

"Το βιβλίο αποτελεί την έκδοση της μεταπτυχιακής μου εργασίας που είχε τίτλο "Το δέντρο στη διήγηση του Παραδείσου και στο πολιτιστικό περιβάλλον του Ισραήλ"-Τμήμα Θεολογίας, Θεολογική Σχολή Α.Π.Θ. Βλ. https://www.academia.edu/5475507/_

Σύντομη περιγραφή:

Το βιβλίο αυτό πραγματοποιεί ένα ταξίδι στον αρχαίο κόσμο και πραγματεύεται το Ιερό Δέντρο στους πολιτισμούς των Σουμερίων, Ασσυρίων, Βαβυλωνίων, Αιγυπτίων, Χαναναίων και Εβραίων. Τι ποιότητες απέδωσαν στο σύμβολο του δέντρου όλοι αυτοί οι λαοί; Με ποιο τρόπο οι μυθολογικές παραστάσεις της Εγγύς Ανατολής αποδόθηκαν στο βιβλικό κείμενο; Ποιες είναι οι ρίζες των δύο δέντρων της ιστορίας του βιβλικού Παραδείσου; Τι ακριβώς ήταν το δέντρο της γνώσης του καλού και του κακού και τί το δέντρο της ζωής στον κήπο της Εδέμ; Ποια η σχέση τους με το φυτό του Γκιλγκαμές, το ασσυριακό δέντρο της ζωής και τα υπόλοιπα ιερά δέντρα;
Όλα αυτά θα μας απασχολήσουν σε ένα ταξίδι στον χρόνο και στους μύθους του παρελθόντος, στην αναζήτηση της αθανασίας, της γνώσης και του χαμένου Παραδείσου. http://daidaleos.gr/the-sacred-tree/
******
This book is the publication of my Master’s dissertation, titled “The tree in the paradise story and in the cultural environment of Israel”.
See https://www.academia.edu/1695150/The_Tree_in_the_Garden_of_Eden_and_its_Possible_Origins

Short description:

This book makes a journey to the ancient world and discusses the Sacred Tree in the civilizations of the Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Canaanites and Jews. What qualities were attributed to the symbol of the tree in all these people? How mythological representations of the ancient Near East were attributed to the biblical text and what are the roots of the two trees in the story of biblical paradise? What exactly was the tree of knowledge of good and what evil and the tree of life in the Garden of Eden, and what was their relationship with the plant of Gilgamesh, the Assyrian tree of Life and other sacred trees?"  http://daidaleos.gr/the-sacred-tree/"