Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015) 1-13

Vetus
Testamentum

brill.com/vt

When God Abandoned the Garden of Eden:

A Forgotten Reading of Genesis 3:24
Raanan Eichler

Hebrew University of Jerusalem

raanan.eichler@mail.huji.ac.il

Abstract
Genesis 3:24, the final verse in the Eden Narrative, states that God stationed the cherubim and the spinning-sword-flame east of the garden of Eden, from which he had
recently expelled Man. Or so it does in its masoretic version. Four Targumim, however,
reflect an ancient, divergent vocalization of the verses fourth word. In this vocalization, the verse must be read as stating that God himself settled east of the garden. This
divergence profoundly affects the meaning of the entire Eden Narrative. The targumic
reading is grammatically and stylistically sound, and, conceptually, it fits well in the
verses textual setting. Moreover, a deliberate alteration from it to the masoretic reading would fall squarely into an independently identified pattern of theologically-driven
changes in vocalization. The targumic reading may therefore be closest to the original
authorial intent.

Keywords
textual criticism Targumim vocalization Genesis Eden cherubim

Genesis 3:24, the final verse in the Eden Narrative that begins in Gen 2:4,
continues 3:23 in recounting the expulsion of Man from the garden of Eden
*

I thank my teachers, Emanuel Tov and Baruch J. Schwartz, and my colleagues, Shira Golani
and Idan Dershowitz, for their helpful comments. This study is a product of the time that
I have been privileged to spend at the Mandel Scholion Interdisciplinary Research Center
in the Humanities and Jewish Studies.

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 5|doi 10.1163/15685330-12341186

Eichler

by , the God Yhwh. It reads in the Masoretic Text as follows:

. The verse may be translated into English as, Having driven Man out,1

he stationed east of the garden of Eden the cherubim and the spinning-swordflame, to guard the way to the tree of life.
It has long been recognized that the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic
Text with regard to the words
, he stationed east
of the garden of Eden the cherubim.2 Here the Septuagint reads
, translated in
NETS as, and [he] caused him to dwell opposite the orchard of delight, and he
stationed the cheroubim. Some scholars maintain that the Septuagint reflects
a variant reading here, which they reconstruct as

, i.e., he stationed him east of the garden of Eden, and he placed the
cherubim.3 Others characterize the Greek text as an idiosyncratic translation
with no text-critical import.4
In what follows, I wish to present an additional, overlooked reading of these
words reflected in the ancient textual witnesses. While this reading differs from
the Masoretic Text only in the vocalization of a single word, it is theologically
significant, changing the meaning of the verse and, indeed, of the entire Eden
Narrative. I will further argue that this reading may be closest to the original
authorial intent.

The Witnesses

Four Targumim present a midrashically expanded version of Gen 3:24. Before

drifting off into their expansions, however, all four provide an almost word-for1 For this understanding of the opening clause, see Saadiah b. Joseph Gaon, Abraham ibn Ezra,
David Kimhi and Hezekiah b. Manoah, in M. L. Katzenelnbogen (ed.) Torat Chaim: Genesis
(Jerusalem, 1986), vol. 1, p. 67.
2 Targum Onqelos, the Peshitta and the Vulgate all reflect the Masoretic Text in their translations of this segment.
3 H. Gunkel, Genesis (Macon, Ga., 1997 [1901]), p. 24, citing C. J. Ball, Book of Genesis in Hebrew
(Leipzig, 1896); A. Dillmann, Genesis: Critically and Exegetically Expounded (Eugene, Oreg.,
2005 [1897]), p. 170 (83); BHS. BHK reconstructs but not . Conversely, M. A. Zipor
(The Septuagint Version of the Book of Genesis [Ramat Gan, 2005], p. 100) reconstructs
(sic) but wavers on . It should be noted that is graphically similar to .
4 J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (Atlanta, 1993), p. 49; S. A. Brayford, Genesis
(Septuagint Commentary Series; Leiden, 2007), p. 247; E. Tov, personal communication,
January 2014.

Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015) 1-13

When God Abandoned the Garden of Eden

word translation of the beginning of the verse, up until the word . These
translations are reproduced below and followed by a literal translation of each
into English.5 For convenience, the more significant ways in which the second
through fourth Targumim differ from the first (Targum Neofiti) are in bold in
the Aramaic texts and italicized in the English translations.
Targum Neofiti: // '
. . . /'/
Translation: And he drove Man out, and he caused the glory of his
Immanence to dwell of old to the east of the garden of Eden between
the two cherubim...
Fragmentary Targum V:
. . .
Translation: And he drove Man out, and he caused the glory of his
Immanence to dwell of old to the east of the garden of Eden above the
two cherubim...
Fragmentary Targum P:
. . .
Translation: And he drove Man out, and he caused the glory of his
Immanence to dwell of old above (?) the garden of Eden between the
two cherubim...
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:
. . .
Translation: And he drove Man out from the place where he caused the
glory of his Immanence to dwell of old between the two cherubim...
(to the east of the garden of Eden is absent).
Analysis

...

In all four Targumim, the object of the verb , he caused to dwell, is not
the cherubim as in the Masoretic Text, but [] , the glory of his
Immanence. The cherubim occupy an adverbial position, and their function
in the sentence is to specify where the divine Immanence was caused to dwell.
This indicates that the word preceding was understood by these
5 The targumic texts are taken from the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, n.p. [cited 26
January 2014]. Online: http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/. In the text of Tg. Neof., enclosing slashes are
used here to signify marginal glosses.

Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015) 1-13

Eichler

translators not as the accusative particle, as it must be in the masoretic reading, but as its common homonym, a preposition meaning with.6
The wording , between the two cherubim, employed by
Tg. Neof., Frg. Tg. P and Tg. Ps.-J. with minor variations, differs somewhat
from the expected , with the cherubim. It is obviously inspired by
Exod 25:22 and Num 7:89, in which Yhwh is said to speak with Moses
, from between the two cherubim, over the ark in the tabernacle. Indeed, Tg. Neof. and Tg. Ps.-J. translate this phrase, in both of its occurrences, in a manner that is identical to the wording they use in our verse.
Note also Targum of Psalms, which translates []in Ps 80:2 and
99:1 as [ ] , whose Immanence dwells between
the cherubim, again influenced by the two verses in the tabernacle narrative.
The slightly different , above the two cherubim, used by
Frg. Tg. V in our verse, is probably inspired by 2 Sam 22:11 and Ps 18:11, in which
Yhwh is said to ride upon ( )cherubim, according to the Targumim on both
verses, as well as the Septuagint and the Vulgate.7
The wording [] , literally, he caused the glory of his
Immanence to dwell, is simply the way in which the Targumim, which tend
to avoid applying anthropomorphic language to the Deity, render dwell
when the subject of the verb is God. Thus, in Exod 25:8, , so
that I may dwell in their midst, is translated by Tg. Neof. and Tg. Ps.-J., as well
as Tg. Onq., as [] , literally, so that I may cause [the
glory of] my Immanence to dwell among them. Again, in Exod 29:45,
, And I will dwell in the midst of the Israelites, is translated by
these three Targumim as , literally, And I will cause
my Immanence to dwell in the midst of the Israelites. A third time, in Exod
29:46, , that I might dwell in their midst, is translated by the three
Targumim as [] [] /, that I might cause [the
glory of] my Immanence to dwell among them. The same pattern is seen in
Tg. Neof. on Gen 9:27, Lev 16:16, Num 35:34 and Deut 33:16; in Targum Jonathan
on 1 Kgs 6:13, 8:12, Isa 33:5, Ezek 43:7, 9, Joel 4:17, 21 and Zech 2:14, 15, 8:3; in
Targum of Psalms on Ps 135:21; and in Targum of Chronicles on 1 Chr 23:25 and
2 Chr 6:1.8
Thus, the four Targumim examined here understood our verse as stating
that Yhwh dwelled somewhere, rather than that Yhwh stationed separate
6 BDB and HALOT list the accusative particle and the preposition as I and II respectively.
7 In the Masoretic Text, both verses speak of Yhwh riding upon a single cherub.
8 See also M. L. Klein, Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim of the
Pentateuch (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1978), esp. pp. 105-107.

Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015) 1-13

When God Abandoned the Garden of Eden

entities somewhere. This shows that the vocalization of the verses fourth word
underlying their translations was , a qal form meaning he dwelled or he
settled (in an ingressive sense), rather than the masoretic , a hipil form
meaning he caused to dwell or he stationed.
The precise text-critical phenomenon identified here, namely followed by a noun being vocalized and understood variously as cause <noun>
to dwell and dwell with <noun>, recurs in Jer 7:3 and 7:7. In 7:3, the Masoretic
Text has ,9 and I will let you dwell, and this understanding is
reflected in the Septuagint ( ), Symmachus (attested in Latin as
et confirmabo vos), Targum Jonathan ( ) and the Peshitta (wrykwn).
However, the vocalization reflected in Aquila ( ) and the
Vulgate (et habitabo vobiscum) is , and I will dwell with you. In
7:7, the words that appear in the Aleppo and Leningrad codices as ,
And I will let you dwell, are actually pointed in some masoretic manuscripts
as , And I will dwell with you. The ancient translations fall into
the same pattern as before, except that Symmachus, on the one hand, and
Aquila, on the other, are not represented.
In Gen 3:24, Tg. Neof., Frg. Tg. V and Frg. Tg. P prefix to [] ,
implying that Yhwh expelled Man from the garden, following which he went
off to dwell somewhere.10 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, on the other hand, prefixes , from the place where, to these words. In this Targums understanding, the verse does not state that Yhwh went off to settle somewhere else, but
merely specifies that the location from which Man was driven out was the
place where Yhwh had dwelled at some earlier point in time.11 This reading
of the verse must be regarded as strictly midrashic: besides the fact that the
9

10

11

The word , according to the masoretic pointing, is a piel form, whereas the word
in Gen 3:24 is a hipil form; but the piel and hipil stems of are identical in meaning (see Josh 18:1, Ezek 32:4; HALOT). Both words could be pointed as forms of the other
stem ()* ;* . The pointing in Jer 7:7 (see below) is that of a piel form,
and that word could not be pointed as hipil.
In agreement are the modern translations of A. Dez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum
Palestinense, MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana (Madrid, 1968-1979), vol. 1, p. 18; M. McNamara
and M. Maher in ibid., p. 505; R. le Daut in ibid., p. 361; idem, Targum du Pentateuque
(Paris, 1978-1981), vol. 1, p. 98 (Tg. Neof.); M. L. Klein, The Fragment Targums of the
Pentateuch According to Their Extant Sources (AnBib 76; Rome, 1980), vol. 2, p. 8 (Frg. Tg. P),
p. 91 (Frg. Tg. V). There is no justification for rendering the dwelling clause in the pluperfect, as done by M. McNamara in The Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis (ArBib; Collegeville, Minn.,
1992), p. 63, presumably influenced by Tg. Ps.-J. (see below).
Thus le Daut, Targum., p. 99; M. Maher, The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (ArBib;
Collegeville, Minn., 1992), p. 30.

Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015) 1-13

Eichler

Hebrew cannot mean from the place where he had dwelled, this translation leaves no apparent way to explain the words , (of) the garden of
Eden, or , to guard the way to the tree of life, in the
continuation of the verse, as we shall see below.

A final point requiring explanation is the rendering by these Targumim of the

words . The equivalent in Tg. Neof. to these Hebrew words is
/'/ // ' . Similar is Frg. Tg. V, which has
. As noted by several scholars, the juxtaposition of []and
] [constitutes a double translation of Hebrew .12 The former term
seems to mean from the beginning13 and is used unaccompanied in Tg. Onq.
( )and Tg. Ps.-J. ( ; see below), while the latter term means to
the east and is used unaccompanied in the Peshitta (mn mdn). The Vulgate
preserves both the temporal and spatial possibilities in the word ante, before.
Hebrew , when it is not followed by the prefix , can indeed mean both
of old (Isa 45:21; Mic 5:1; Hab 1:12; Ps 74:12, 77:6, 12, 143:5; Neh 12:46) and to the
east (Gen 12:8b, 13:1; Isa 9:11; Zech 14:4), and in some occurrences it is ambiguous (Gen 2:8, 11:26; Isa 2:6). However, when is followed by the prefix , as
it is here, it always means to the east (Gen 12:8a; Num 34:11; Josh 7:2; Judg 8:11;
Ezek 11:23; Jon 4:5). Thus, only the translation to the east can be regarded as
literally correct.
The equivalent to the words in Frg. Tg. P is
. The preposition can mean above, as in Gen 1:7,
, and the water above the sky-plate, rendered in Frg. Tg. P as
. It can also mean upon, as in Gen 11:4, ,
12

13

R. Kasher, Double Translations in MS Neofiti 1, HUCA 57 (1986), pp. 1-19 (Hebrew),

esp. pp. 4-5 and references; McNamara, Neofiti, ibid.; Maher, Pseudo-Jonathan, ibid.;
B. Grossfeld, Targum Neofiti 1: An Exegetical Commentary to Genesis (New York, 2000),
p. 84.
Thus Dez Macho, Neophyti, vol. 1, p. 18; McNamara and Maher, ibid., p. 505; le Daut,
Targum, vol. 1, pp. 98, 99; Klein, Fragment, vol. 2, pp. 8, 91; Kasher, ibid.; McNamara, Neofiti,
ibid.; Maher, Pseudo-Jonathan, ibid. Kasher and Grossfeld (ibid.) point to talmudic homilies that concordantly interpret here in a temporal sense (Genesis Rabbah ad loc.,
Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 1). The major Aramaic dictionaries (Jastrow, ;DJPA, ,
;CAL, ibid. [cited 5 February 2014]) define [ ]as both from the beginning, originally, in support of which they cite such instances as Tg. Neof. for
in Gen 1:1, and as eastward, for which they cite Tg. Onq. on our verse, Targum
Jonathans for in Isa 2:6, and Targum Neofitis for
in Gen 13:11.

Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015) 1-13

When God Abandoned the Garden of Eden

lest we be scattered all over (lit. upon the surface of the entirety of) the earth,
rendered in Frg. Tg. P as . It seems that the translator was influenced in this choice by Exod 25:22 and Num 7:89 (see above),
in which Yhwhs speech is said to emanate , from above/upon
the kapporeth, a phrase which is rendered by Tg. Neof. and Tg. Ps.-J., as well
as Tg. Onq., as [] . But it is not clear what the author of Frg. Tg. P
meant in our verse, and to which element in the Hebrew text the word
corresponds. Perhaps the translator intended that the reader understand
not quite as upon, but as adjacent to or opposite, like the Septuagints
, in which case we have again a double translation of , similar in
meaning to that of Tg. Neof. and Frg. Tg. V. Alternatively, he might have actually
meant above14 or upon, which would be a creative interpretation of the prefix in the Hebrew , as if it were the phonetically similar preposition .
In Tg. Ps.-J., is translated only as , and the words are
not represented. This absence seems to be a consequence of the translators
unique understanding of the place where Yhwh caused his Immanence to
dwellthat is, where Yhwh dwelledas the same location from which Man
was driven out. Since we already know that this place is the garden of Eden
(Gen 3:23), the translator could not have our verse state this fact without creating an awkward redundancy.
Conclusion
The reading of Gen 3:24 that underlies the translations of all four examined
Targumim is thus consonantally identical to the Masoretic Text but differs
from it in the vocalization of the single word . The masoretic vocalization of this word is , meaning he caused to dwell, or, more precisely, he
stationed; whereas the vocalization reflected in the targumic renderings is
, meaning he dwelled, or, more precisely, he settled.
The vocalization of reflected in the Targumim sparks an understanding of additional elements in the verse that differs from masoretic understanding, and brings about a coherent, alternative meaning for the whole verse. The
word preceding , the cherubim, is understood as prepositional
with, rather than as an accusative particle. The word preceding
, the spinning-sword-flame, is likewise understood as and with,
but this word is not represented in the four Targumim examined above, all of
which shift into midrashic expansions at this point in the verse. Finally, the
words , to guard the way to the tree of life, allude mainly
14

Thus Klein, Fragment, vol. 2, p. 8.

Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015) 1-13

Eichler

to Yhwh rather than to the cherubim and the spinning-sword-flame.15 It is

Yhwh himself who settles east of the garden of Eden in order to guard the way
to the tree of life, while the cherubim and the spinning-sword-flame appear
only to assist him in this task.
The whole verse in the targumic reading runs as follows:
.16 The
best understanding of the verse as read by the Targumim is: Having driven
Man out, he settled east of the garden of Eden with the cherubim and with the
spinning-sword-flame to guard the way to the tree of life. This is essentially the
sense in which Tg. Neof., Frg. Tg. P and Frg. Tg. V in fact took it, whereas Tg. Ps.-J.
used the alternative vocalization as a point of departure for a more fanciful
understanding of the verse.17
15

16

17

These words preclude interpreting the verse such that the subject of the verb
is Man. Guarding the way to the tree of life is a goal that can sensibly be attributed only
to God.
The targumic vocalization is also consistent with the consonantal text of the verse conjectured by some scholars to have underlain the Septuagintal rendering. The text *

would be read with vocalized as , and would be understood as
Having driven Man out, he settled with him east of the garden of Eden, but he placed
the cherubim and the spinning-sword-flame to guard the way to the Tree of Life. In this
reading, Yhwh continues to be overtly solicitous as well as wary of Man (see 3:21), going
so far as to continue living with him in order to provide him with vital protection (see
4:14). Cain later loses this privilege (4:14, 16), but even to him Yhwh gives a protective
mark before sending him away (4:15). If this reading were actually attested by any textual
witness, it would have to be regarded as plausible, but, since it is not, I prefer not to weary
the reader by considering it in detail.
Prof. Simcha Kogut has brought to my attention that the vocalization in our verse
seems to be employed in an elaborate homily in Sefer Habahir 67, excerpted in the
Zohar 2:271a; see, e.g., D. Abrams (ed.), The Book Bahir (Los Angeles, 1994), pp. 159-160;
G. Scholem (ed.), Annotated Zohar (Jerusalem, 1992), vol. 4, p. 542. Additionally, the
(implausible) understanding of the verse reflected in Tg. Ps.-J., according to which Yhwh
dwelled in the garden both before and after the expulsion of Man, may survive in the
obscure work Midrash Alfa Betot, whose fourth chapter begins as follows: ." "

' ' . ; see
S. A. Wertheimer (ed.), Midrash Otiyyot de-Rabbi Akiva with Midrash Alfa Betot (Jerusalem,
1913/4; Hebrew), p. 86. This passage can be translated as, mem, nun, samek, ayina king
( )who transported ( )his Immanence to the cherubim of his strength. For, in the
beginning, his Immanence was on the earth, inside the garden of Eden, until the members of the flood generation came into the world and violated the seven [Noahide] commandments. As it is said, etc. The passage states
(a) that the divine Immanence was located in the garden of Eden after the expulsion of

Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015) 1-13

When God Abandoned the Garden of Eden

Evaluation

Similar Instances
Concerning the similar instances in Jer 7:3 and 7:7, many scholars have maintained that the qal readings (dwell with you) are original.18 Of these, Abraham
Geiger and Emanuel Tov have classified the piel readings (let you dwell) as
theological alterations in vocalization, explaining that there would have been
uneasiness with the notion, expressed in the original reading, of God dwelling among lesser beings. Other scholars maintain that the piel readings are
original,19 while still others refrain from deciding20 or argue that qal is original
in v. 3 while piel is original in v. 7.21 To be sure, both options create a cogent
text in each of the two verses, and strong contextual arguments have been
made in favor of each.
It is also true that the Hebrew Bible exhibits several instances in which the
textual witnesses reflect divergent vocalizations of words derived from the
root and in which both readings are cogent and no motive for a conscious
alteration is evident. In Job 11:14, the Septuagint, the Peshitta, Targum of Job
and the Vulgate reflect , and let injustice not dwell in
your tent, while the Masoretic Text has , and do not
cause injustice to dwell in your tent. In Ps 7:6, Targum of Psalms reflects
, so that my dignity dwells in the dust, while the Masoretic Text, the
Peshitta and the Vulgate attest , and let him cause my dignity
to dwell in the dust. In Ps 78:55, the Peshitta reflects

18

19

20
21

Man; (b) that this fact is attested specifically by Gen 3:24; and possibly (c) that this presence was in proximity to the cherubimthough the meaning may be rather that the
Immanence was located in proximity to the cherubim after it was removed from the earth
as a result of the flood generations violations.
BHK; BHS; HALOT, ;M. Grg, ; , TDOT, vol. 14, pp. 691-702 at 694, 699-700; B.
Blayney, Jeremiah and Lamentations: A New Translation; with Notes Critical, Philological
and Explanatory (Oxford, 1784), p. 49; A. Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel
in ihrer Abhngigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums (Breslau, 1857), pp.
319-323; A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebrischen Bible: textkritisches, sprachliches und
sachliches (Leipzig, 1908-1914), vol. 4, pp. 259-260; J. Bright, Jeremiah: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary (Garden City, N.Y., 1965), pp. 55-56. E. Tov, Textual
Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd ed.; Minneapolis, 2012), pp. 246-247.
W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (ICC; Edinburgh, 19861996), vol. 1, pp. 160-161 and references; J. R. Lundbom, Jeremiah: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York, 1999-2004), vol. 1, pp. 453, 461, 464; L. C.
Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, Ky., 2008), pp. 92-93, 95-96.
R. P. Carroll, Jeremiah (OTL; Philadelphia, 1986), pp. 206-207.
W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah (Hermeneia; Philadephia, 1986-1989), vol. 1, pp. 235-238. For further bibliography, see references in HALOT, McKane, Holladay and Lundbom.

Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015) 1-13

10

Eichler

(or , understood as having a plural subject), and the tribes of Israel dwelled
in their tents, while the Masoretic Text, The Septuagint, Targum of Psalms and
the Vulgate attest , and he caused the tribes of Israel
to dwell in their tents. In Ps 85:10, the Masoretic Text, the Peshitta and the
Vulgate attest , that [his] Majesty may dwell in our land,
while the Septuagint and Targum of Psalms seem to reflect
(or perhaps ) , to cause [his] Majesty to dwell in our land.
However, there are also instances in which it seems that original qal
forms of having God as their subject were deliberately changed to piel, or
to some other form, for the very reason suggested by Geiger and Tov. Geiger
identified several of these. In Ezek 43:7, the masoretic
, where
I will dwell, is reflected in the Septuagint as , where my
name will dwell. In Ps 78:60, the Septuagint, Theodotion, the Peshitta, Targum
of Psalms and the Vulgate reflect , the tent where he dwelled
among men, while the Masoretic Text has , the tent he placed
among men. In Ps 74:2, the Masoretic Text and all other witnesses with the
exception of Symmachus attest , Mount Zion, where you
dwell, while Symmachus reflects , Mount Zion, where you
placed this [temple]. Finally, in Deut 12:5, the Septuagint and Vulgate reflect
( or -) , while the Masoretic Text has the odd form , in an
apparent attempt to make the word seem a noun.22
Thus, while in Gen 3:24 as in Jer 7:3 and 7:7 both vocalization options are
intuitively acceptable and either one could have developed unconsciously
from the other, the direction of development from qal to piel fits an identified
pattern of deliberate, theologically-motivated alterations. Although not decisive, this consideration weighs in favor of the originality of the targumic reading in Gen 3:24 and the corresponding readings in Jer 7:3, 7.

Grammar and Style
The targumic reading in Gen 3:24 makes sense grammatically and stylistically. Despite the type of alteration identified above, we see that the verb
is applied in the Hebrew Bible numerous times to the Deity.23 The precise
22

23

Geiger believed that many other biblical instances of piel with the Deity as the subject are alterations from an original qal , even when no textual witness attests to the
conjectured original. These include in Num 14:30 and the expression
in all its occurrences (Deut 12:11, 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2; Jer 7:12; Neh 1:9). He even
went so far as to argue that the piel verb was invented in order to enable this type of
alteration.
The most proximate instance is in Gen 9:27: , May
God enlarge Japheth and may he dwell in the tents of Shem. This ambiguous, oracle-like

Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015) 1-13

When God Abandoned the Garden of Eden

11

form is attested several times in the Masoretic Text carrying the ingressive sense of settle, and it is applied in this sense to Yhwh (1 Chr 23:25), his
Majesty (Exod 24:16) and his cloud (Num 10:12), as well as to others (Deut
33:28). The Deity is also often the subject of the verb ; in several of these
instances (Prov 2:8, 20; Job 13:27, 33:11), the object of the verb is a form of or
of the similar noun , path; and in two of these (Job 13:27, 33:11), the Deitys
role is prohibitive, as is his role here, rather than protective.
As for the word , it is used as a preposition meaning with in the very
next verse (Gen 4:1), which opens the sequel to the Eden Narrative, in Eves
declaration: , I have made a man with Yhwh. The precise
combination occurs, other than in Jer 7:3 and 7:7, also in Lev 16:16
(with a pronoun suffixed to the preposition ): ; this
phrase either means of the one who dwells with them in the midst of their
impurities24 and refers directly to Yhwh, or it means which dwells with them
in the midst of their impurities25 and alludes metonymically to Yhwh by
referring to the Tent of Meeting in which he is present (Exod 29:42, 30:36, 40:34;
Lev 1:1). The similar combination occurs in Ps 120:5; in this verse, the
object of the preposition is , the tents of Qedar, showing that one
can even dwell with inanimate objects, all the more so with the spinningsword-flame, which is characterized by its name as an animate object.
Most remarkably, the combination of prepositional and appears in
the Hebrew Bibles other Eden story, incorporated into Ezekiels dirge over the
statement is usually understood such that he refers to Japheth; thus Tg. Ps.-J., Tg. Neof.
marginalia, several talmudic sages (R. Yohanan and R. Hiyya bar Abba in b. Megillah 9b,
bar Kappara in y. Megillah 1:9, idem in Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:1, idem and Resh Lakish in
Genesis Rabbah ad loc., anonymous in Abot de Rabbi Nathan A 8 add. 2, Midrash Psalms
76:3), and most modern commentators (e.g., Dillmann, Genesis, pp. 309-311; Gunkel,
Genesis, p. 82). But the notion of God, or the physical marker of his presence, the ark,
dwelling in a tent among the Israelites, the descendants of Shem, is so common in the
Hebrew Bible (2 Sam 7:6 1 Chr 17:5; 1 Kgs 2:28, 29, 30; Ps 15:1, 27:5, 61:5, 78:60, 67; 1 Chr
15:1, 2 Chr 1:4; and see below) that the author must have intended (also) to conjure in
the minds of his readers the notion of God dwelling in the tents of Shem. The verse was
understood in this manner by Jubilees (7:12), Philo (Sobr. 13; but see QG 2:72), Tg. Onq.,
Tg. Neof., several talmudic sages (R. Isaac in Pesiqta Rabbati 35, anonymous in b. Yoma
10a, Genesis Rabbah ad loc., Tanhuma ad loc.), and the medieval Jewish commentators
at large (Rashi, Abraham ibn Ezra, David Kimhi and Nahmanides, in Katzenelnbogen,
Genesis, p. 131).
24 Geiger, Urschrift, p. 320; B.J. Schwartz, in A. Berlin and M. Z. Brettler (eds.), The Jewish
Study Bible (Oxford, 2004), p. 245. See also Tg. Neof., Tg. Neof. marginalia, Sifra ad loc., b.
Yoma 56b; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 (AB 3; New York, 1991), p. 1035.
25 Septuagint, Peshitta, Targumim, Vulgate. Most modern commentators accept this understanding uncritically.

Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015) 1-13

12

Eichler

King of Tyre in Ezek 28:11-19. There the speaker likens the king to a primordial creature placed by God in the garden of Eden. According to the superior26
reading reflected in the Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and the
Peshitta, v. 14 begins: , with the anointed (?), sheltering cherub I placed you.
Conceptions
Conceptually, the targumic reading fits well in its textual setting. In the sequel
to the Eden story, both the narrator and Cain consider Cains location (from
which he will depart at the storys conclusion) as being in the presence of
Yhwh (4:14, 16). This indicates, first, that Yhwh is located in a particular place
rather than being omnipresent, and, second, that he is located in the same
place as Cain. The former point is reinforced in the Eden story itself, which
speaks of Yhwh walking about in the garden and of Man and his wife hiding
from him (3:8-10);27 the latter by the fact that Yhwh speaks on two separate
occasions with Cain (4:6-7, 9-15). Since Cain, at this point, is certainly outside
the garden of Eden, and since the narrator does not see a need to relate that
Yhwh came to where Cain is, it seems that he expects it to be clear to the
reader that Yhwh too is now located outside the garden. Such an expectation
would only be justified if the targumic reading of 3:24 is original.
Indeed, it is only natural that God should abandon the garden of Eden
after driving Man out. His original plan was for Man to till and tend it (
: Gen 2:15); once Man was absent from the garden, there would be no
one to maintain it, and thus it would not be fit for habitation. The reader, therefore, expects Yhwh to relocate; our verse explains where Yhwh chooses to
settle and why. Moreover, never again in the Hebrew Bible is the garden of
Eden referred to as an extant habitation of God; yet, unless the targumic reading is original, we are never told when or even that it ceased to be so.
A final point in favor of this reading is its elegant consonance with the phrase
, an epithet of Yhwh that appears seven times in the Hebrew Bible
(1 Sam 4:4, 2 Sam 6:2 = 1 Chr 13:6; 2 Kgs 19:15 = Isa 37:16; Ps 80:2, 99:1). This
epithet is usually taken by modern scholars and English Bible translations to
26

27

BHK, BHS; G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (ICC;
Edinburgh, 1967 [1936]), p. 317; W. Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary (OTL; London, 1970),
p. 389; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters
25-48 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, 1983), p. 89; L. C. Allen, Ezekiel 20-48 (WBC 29; Dallas,
1990), p. 90.
The non-omnipresence of Yhwh continues to be assumed in other passages that are usually attributed to J, e.g., Gen 11:5, 7; 18:1-33.

Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015) 1-13

When God Abandoned the Garden of Eden

13

mean who is seated upon the cherubim;28 but, as I have argued elsewhere
on independent grammatical grounds, it should properly be rendered who
dwells among the cherubim.29 The combination of active participial qal
followed by a governed noun with no intervening preposition occurs some 238
times in the Hebrew Bible. The combination never means who is seated upon
<noun>, and almost always means who dwells in <noun>, or, when the governed noun signifies a plurality of entities, who dwells among <noun>: thus
( )means those who dwell (in tents and) among herds.
The near-synonymy of the verbs and is manifest in such passages
as ... , Yhwh decided to in a dark
cloud...a place for you to forever (1 Kgs 8:12-13 2 Chr 6:2), and
, the mountain that God desires for his -ing,
where Yhwh will indeed permanently (Ps 68:17). Genesis 3:24, which tells
of Yhwh settling with the cherubim at the dawn of the world, is the verse that
describes how he came to be the one who dwells among the cherubim.
If this reading is indeed the best reflection of the intent of the author of the
verse, it is highly significant for understanding the way in which the biblical
writer viewed the fall of Man and the ensuing relationship between humans
and the divine. When Man and his wife disobeyed Yhwh and ate the forbidden fruit, their deed led not only to their expulsion from the garden but to
Yhwhs self-expulsion as well, to the fall of God, who decided that he would
go whithersoever they went. Ostensibly, this was to keep an eye on his unruly
creations, but the continuation of the narrative hints that there were other,
more sentimental reasons as well. The serpent, incidentally, would remain free
to slink into the withered and weed-filled garden whenever it felt impelled to
sneak a bite from the tree of life.
28

29

E.g., W. F. Albright, What Were the Cherubim? BA 1 (1938), pp. 1-3 at 2; U. Cassuto,
A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem, 1967 [1951]), pp. 328-336; M. Haran, The
Ark and the Cherubim: Their Symbolic Significance in Biblical Ritual, IEJ 91 (1959), pp.
30-38, 89-94 at 31; R. de Vaux, Les chrubins et larche dalliance, les sphinx gardiens, et les
trnes divins dans lancient orient, in idem, Bible et Orient (Paris, 1967), pp. 231-259 (MUSJ
37 [1961], pp. 93-124) at 238; O. Keel and C. Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses and Images of God
in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis, 1998), pp. 157, 168.
R. Eichler, The Meaning of , forthcoming in ZAW 126/3 (2014).

Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015) 1-13