In the image of Elohim

Wm. Clay Poe, Ph.D., RPA

Professor of Archaeology Emeritus
Sonoma State University
Abbreviations
MT Masoretic Text
JPS Jewish Publication Society 1985
JSB Jewish Study Bible
LXX Septuagint
KJV King James Version
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
ONK Targums Onkelos
PAL Jonathan Ben Uzziel/Palestinian Targums
JER Jerusalem Fragments Palestinian Targums
If a translation source is not indicated by one of these abbreviations, the translation is that of the
present author.
Creation accounts in Genesis
When analyzing a work of literature, it is important to identify, as well as one can, the author’s
intended message and the author’s audience within the appropriate temporal and cultural context.
Most scholars, academic and clerical, Jewish and Christian, regard the creation accounts in the
first two chapters of Genesis as separate stories placed side by side by one or more redactors. The
literary style and vocabulary point to different authors and the content of the stories is quite
different. It is generally thought that the story in Genesis 2 and 3 is earlier than that in Genesis 1.
However, there have been those who wanted to regard the stories as a single unit and have sought
interpretations to make that possible.
The creation of humans is Genesis 1 is recounted very briefly.
‫ַויְִּבָרא ֱאֹלִהים ֶאת־ָהאָָדם ְבַּצְלמוֹ ְבֶּצֶלם ֱאֹלִהים ָבַּרא א ֹתוֹ זָָכר וְּנֵקָבה ָבָּרא א ָֹתם‬
And Elohim created the ’ādām in his image; in the image of Elohim he created him; male and
female he created them. (Gn 1:27)
The creation of humans in Genesis 2 is more detailed.
‫שַׁמת ַחיִּים ַויְִהי ָהאָָדם ְלֶנֶפשׁ ַחיָּה‬
ְ ‫ַויִּיֶצר יְהָוה ֱאֹלִהים ֱאת־ָהאָָדם ָעָפר ִמן־ָהֲאָדָמה ַויִַּפּח ְבַּאָפּיו ִנ‬
‘And YHWH Elohim fashioned the ’ādām from the dirt of the land and blew into his nostrils the
breath of life and the ’ādām became a living person.’
‫שׁר־ָלַקח ִמן־ָהאָָדם ְלִאָּשׁה ַויְִבֶאָה ֶאל־ָהאָָדם ַויּ ֶֹמר ָהאָָדם‬ ֶ ‫שׂר ַתְּחֶתָּנּה ַויִֶּבן יְהָוה ֱאֹלִהים ַהֵצָּלע ֲא‬
ָ ‫ַויִַּקּה אַַחת ִמצְּלע ָֹתיו ַויְִסגּ ֹר ָבּ‬
‫שׁה ִכּי ֵמִאישׁ ֻלֳקָחה־זּ ֹאת‬ ָ ּ ‫שִׂרי ְלז ֹאת יִקֵּרא ִא‬
ָ ‫שִׂרי ִמבּ‬
ָ ‫ז ֹאת ַהַפַּעם ֶעֶצם ֵמֲעֶצַמי וָּב‬
‘And he took one of his sides and closed up the flesh in its place. And Yahweh Elohim made the
side which he had taken from the ’ādām into a woman. And the ’ādām said, “Now this one is
bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called ’iššāh, ‘woman,’ because from
’iš, ‘man,’ this one was taken.’ (Gn 2:21-23)1 2
The word ‫ֵצָלע‬, ṣala‘, is nowhere else in the Tanakh translated as ‘rib.’ The word is most commonly
found in descriptions of architectural detail where it typically is translated as ‘side.’ It can refer to
the walls of a building, planks that form the walls of the building, the planks in the hull of the ark.
In one location it is used to describe the slope on one side of a valley. The “bone of my bones and
flesh of my flesh” statement supports the notion that it was not a rib.
’iššah and’iš are the grammatically feminine and masculine forms of the same word and typically
translated as ‘man’ and ‘woman.’ The English translations of Genesis 2:24 always translate the
Hebrew as ‘his wife.’ There is no biblical Hebrew word that means ‘wife.’ The expression is
correctly translated as ‘his woman.’
Marriage is a civil contract that is well documented in the Egyptian and Semitic speaking parts of
the Ancient Near East. It serves to regulate the transfer of property from one generation to another.
It is meaningless among people who have little or no property. Among those who do it establishes
rights and obligations. The groom presents to the father of the bride material that is usually
described as ‘bride price.’ When I worked in Jordan it was defined as money that the groom had
earned on his own, not family money. This explained why most men were in their late 20’s and
had worked for years to save sufficient funds. The father of the bride provided a dower. This was
property to which the bride retained title but the groom acquired usufruct for the duration of the
marriage. This was her security in the event of divorce. Both the bride price and the dower were
traditionally typically in the form of livestock but could be in the form of labor as in the case of
Jacob.
The children of a marriage inherit from their mother and their father. The children of a concubinage
inherit only from their mother.
The exchange of property was a publicly witnessed event followed by a feast that was the wedding
celebration. Habitation was patrilocal with the bride moving into the household or compound of
the groom.

1
In Genesis 2:7 ‫ָהאָָדם‬, hāʾāḏām, is created. The translation is not difficult. The initial hā is the definite article. Proper
names in Hebrew never have the definite article as a prefix, so, it is not the proper name, Adam. It means ‘the human.’
This is probably word play. The ’ādām is created from earth and ‫ ֲאָדָמה‬,‘adāmāh is Hebrew for ‘earth,’ and that
probably from ‫אָדוּם‬, ‘adōm, meaning ‘red.’ ‫ָהאָָדם‬, hāʾāḏām is not specifically gender marked although it is
grammatically masculine. The word hāʾāḏām is used to refer to this person until verse 22 when this person is separated
into an ‫שׁה‬ָ ּ ‫א‬, īššah, ‘woman,’ and an ‫ ִאישׁ‬, īš ‘man.’ In one Egyptian creation story the god Khnum creates human
children from clay and places them in the mother’s womb.
2
... Said R’ Yirmiyah ben Elazar: In the hour when the Holy One created the first human, He created him [as] an
androgyne/androginos, as it is said, “male and female He created them”. Said R’ Shmuel bar Nachmani: In the hour
when the Holy One created the first human, He created [for] him a double-face/di-prosopon/ du-par’tsufin, and sawed
him and made him backs, a back here and a back [t]here, as it is said, “Back/achor and before/qedem You formed me”
[Ps 139:5]. They objected to him: But it says, “He took one of his ribs/ts’la`ot . . . ” [Gn 2:21]! He said to them: [It
means] “[one] of his sides/sit’rohi”, just as you would say, “And for the side/tsela` of the Tabernacle/ mishkan” [Ex
26:20], which they translate [in Aramaic] “for the side/seter”. (Bereishit Rabba 8:1)

2
 ָ ‫ ְלָב‬3 (‫שֵׁניֶהם‬
‫שׂר ֶאָחד‬ ְ ) ‫שׁתּוֹ וָהיוּ‬
ְ ‫ַעל־ֵכּן יֲַעזָב־ִאישׁ ֶאת־אִָביו ְוֶאת־ִאמּוֹ ְוָדַבק ְבִּא‬
Therefore, a man leaves his father and his mother and is joined to his woman and they (or the two
of them) become one flesh. (Gn 2:24)
This verse is generally taken to be a gloss. It is a generalization that interrupts the flow of the
account of the creation of humans and the transition to the account of the garden of Eden. The
speaker in verse 23 is the īš ‘man;’ in verse 24 it is the narrator. It is a commentary on the story of
the separation of the ’ādām into male and female and the reunion through marriage. It is an
interesting commentary since the ’ādām had no father or mother and Hebrew marriage practice
was patrilocal so a man did not leave his father and his mother, the woman did.4
Lilith
An interesting way to regard the two stories as one is the approach taken in the Babylonian Talmud.
The women of the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 stories are regarded as two different persons, giving
the female component of the Genesis 1 creation the name Lilith.
The author of the Alphabet of Ben Sira, (ca. 700-1000 CE), writes,
When God created the first man Adam alone, God said, “It is not good for man to be alone.”
[So] God created a woman for him, from the earth like him, and called her Lilith. They
[Adam and Lilith] promptly began to argue with each other: She said, “I will not lie below,”
and he said, “I will not lie below, but above, since you are fit for being below and I for
being above.” She said to him, “The two of us are equal, since we are both from the earth.”
And they would not listen to each other. Since Lilith saw [how it was], she uttered God's
ineffable name and flew away into the air. Adam stood in prayer before his Maker and said,
“Master of the Universe, the woman you gave me fled from me!
The Holy Blessed one immediately dispatched the three angels Sanoy, Sansenoy, and
Samangelof after her, to bring her back. God said, “If she wants to return, well and good.
And if not, she must accept that a hundred of her children will die every day.” The angels
pursued her and overtook her in the sea, in raging waters, (the same waters in which the
Egyptians would one day drown), and told her God's orders. And yet she did not want to
return. They told her they would drown her in the sea, and she replied. “Leave me alone! I
was only created in order to sicken babies: if they are boys, from birth to day eight I will
have power over them; if they are girls, from birth to day twenty.” When they heard her
reply, they pleaded with her to come back. She swore to them in the name of the living
God that whenever she would see them or their names or their images on an amulet, she
would not overpower that baby, and she accepted that a hundred of her children would die
every day. Therefore, a hundred of the demons die every day, and therefore, we write the
names [of the three angels] on amulets of young children. When Lilith sees them, she
remembers her oath and the child is [protected and] healed.5

3
The Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and references in the New Testament such as 1 Corinthians 6:16 suggest
an underlying Hebrew text that includes the phrase
4
Angelo Tosato, ‘On Genesis 2:24,’ The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 3 (July, 1990), pp. 389-409.
5
Jewish Women’s Archive, Alphabet of Ben Sira 78: Lilith

3
Contemporary dialog regarding this often refers to Lilith as ‘ādām’s first wife. However, the word
‘wife’ has cultural implications and there is no word in Biblical Hebrew that appropriately
translates as ‘wife.’ She is not ’ādām’s first wife; she is the first woman; created, in the image of
Elohim, simultaneously with the first man as a part of a hermaphroditic being.
Among other things, the Ben Sira account serves as an etiology of the amulet that protects the boy
until the day of his circumcision and the girl for her first twenty days. The notion of the
vulnerability of infants is pervasive in Mediterranean cultures and spreads with them into Europe.
When I was in Hebron it was common to see children wearing a Hebron evil eye bead, locally
made beads that protected against the evil eye. It was also a practice never to praise the beauty of
an infant since that would attract the attention of Shaitan. Instead one remarked on the ugliness of
the baby to the proud mother. In Christianity the father gave the name to the child but it was not
uttered until, at the baptism, the priest asked the name and immediately upon the father uttering it
the priest pronounced the baptismal formula, protecting the infant.
The term ‘lilith’ only appears once in the Tanakh, in Isaiah 34:14.
‫שׁם ִהְרגִּיָעה ִלּיִלית וָּמְצאָה ָלהּ ָמְנוַֹח‬
ָ ‫שִׂעיר ַעל־ֵרֵעהוּ יְִקָרא ַאְך־‬
ָ ‫וָּפגְשׁוּ ִציִּים את־ִאיִּים ְו‬
Wildcats shall meet hyenas, Goat-demons shall greet each other; There too the lilith shall
repose and find herself a resting place. (JPS)
The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr
shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of
rest. (KJV)
και σuναντήσουσι δαιµόνια ονοκενταύροις και βοήσονται έτερος προς τον έτερον εκεί
αναπαύσονται ονοκένταθροι εύρον γαρ αυτοίς ανάπαθσιν. (LXX)
And demons will meet with onocentaurs6 and they will cry to the other. There will
onocentaurs rest, for they found for themselves a resting place.
This passage is part of a general prophecy of the destruction of nations hostile to Judah, particularly
Edom. That, in itself, along with linguistic analysis marks the passage as belonging to the period
of the Babylonian captivity or afterwards. When Judah rebelled against Babylon, Edom remained
loyal and was part of the forces that captured Jerusalem. Judaic law prohibited Jews from making
slaves of other Jews. Edom accused Judah of slave raids to capture Edomites. The passage
describes Edom as having become a wilderness. There are words that clearly refer to animals that
live in the wilderness but it is not clear what the specific animals are.

6
"There is a certain creature which they call an Onokentaura (Donkey-Centaur)…. But this creature of which my
discourse set out to speak, I have heard described as follows. Its face is like that of a man and is surrounded by thick
hair. Its neck below its face, and its chest are also those of a man, but its teats are swelling and stand out on the breast;
its shoulders, arms, and forearms, its hands too, and chest down to the waist are also those of a man. But its spine,
ribs, belly and hind legs closely resemble those of an ass; likewise its colour is ashen, although beneath the flanks it
inclines to white. The hands of this creature serve a double purpose, for when speed is necessary they run in front of
the hind legs, and it can move quite as fast as other quadrapeds [sic]. Again, if it needs to pluck something, or to put
it down, or to seize and hold it tight, what were feet become hands; it no longer walks but sits down. The creature has
a violent temper. At any rate if captured it will not endure servitude and in its yearning for freedom declines all food
and dies of starvation. This also is the account given by Pythagoras (3rd CBCE) and attested by Crates of Pergamon
(2nd CBCE) in Mysia." Aelian, On Animals 17. 9 (trans. Scholfield)

4
‫ ִציִּים‬, ṣīyīm, is translated as ‘wildcats,’ or ‘wild beasts of the desert.’ It is perhaps a denominative
from ‫ִציָּה‬, ṣīyah, ‘parched ground’ and thus a desert dweller. Three of the six instances of this word
are in Isaiah, one in Jeremiah in a similar diatribe against Judah’s enemies, and two in Psalms 72
and 74 where the word clearly refers to humans who live in the wilderness.
‫ִאיִּים‬, ’īyīm, is translated as ‘hyenas,’ or ‘wild beasts of the island.’ Most translations assume the
root to be ‫אוי‬, ‘cry, howl’ and thus ’īyīm are ‘howlers.’ The KJV translators, surely wrongly,
assumed the root to be ‫אוה‬, ‘coastlands, islands.’ There are only three instances of this word, two
in Isaiah and one in Jeremiah.
‫שִׂעיר‬
ָ , śā‘īr, is the masculine noun derived from the adjective ‫שִׂער‬ ָ , śā‘ir, that means ‘hairy’ and
refers to a male goat. In two of the three references in Genesis it describes the hairiness of Esau;
in the other it refers to the goat kid that Joseph’s brothers kill to stain his robe. Almost all of the
more than fifty remaining references are in the context of sacrifice, forty-eight in Leviticus and
Numbers. In Leviticus 17:7 one finds the following ‫שׁר זנֹ ִים אֲַחֵריֶהם‬ ְ ּ ‫ְוֹלא־יִזְְבּחוּ עוֹד ֶאת־זְִבֵחיֶהם ֵל‬,
ֶ ‫שִׂעיִרם ֲא‬
‘And they will not offer again their sacrifices to śĕ‘īrim to whom they prostituted themselves.’
Both the JPS and the NRSV translate śĕ‘īrim as ‘goat-demons.’ There is no other reference in the
Tanakh to these goat-demons. It is possible that this reference is not specifically to goats but rather
to hairy ones as a pejorative reference to other deities.
‫ִלּיִלית‬, līlīt, The Great Isaiah Scroll (1Q1Isa), ca. 100 BCE, has the plural ‫ ִלּיִליּוֹת‬, līlīyōt rather than
the singular. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra (1089 - 1164) interpreted this word as meaning "the screech
owl"7 and the KJV translators followed this interpretation. The Hebrew word for ‘night’ is ‫ַליְָלה‬,
laylāh and so līlīt easily became a creature of the night. All of the creatures identifiable in this
verse are creatures of the night or of the twilight and all vocalize. The screech owls migrate through
the middle east in the mating season and cry loudly all night long.
Demonization of Lilith
In the Septuagint we have ‘demons’ for ṣīyīm and ‘onocentaurs’ for ’īyīm, śĕ‘īrim, and līlīt. So,
while the Hebrew can be read as ordinary desert animals, the Greek identifies them as demonic
and mythic.
Among the Qumran scrolls, 4Q510-511 are fragments of a magical text of incantation and
exorcism.
And I, Maskil, declare His glorious splendor in order to frighten and terr[ify] all the spirits
of the ravaging angels and the bastard spirits, demons, Lilith, howlers and [. . .] and those
who strike without warning to lead (people) astray (from) the spirit of understanding and
to make their heart desolate (4Q510 1 4–6 par 4Q511 10 1–3)8

7
A. J. Rosenberg, Isaiah: A New English Translation, Vol. 2, (The Judaica Press Inc. : New York, 1989), p. 281
8
Joseph L. Angel, ‘Maskil, Community, and Religious Experience in the Songs of the Sage (4Q510–511)’ in Dead
Sea Discoveries 19 (2012) 1–27

5
In Mesopotamia there are references to lilu, masculine, and lilit
and lili in Sumerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian texts some of
which date to as early as the second millennium BCE. From the
middle of the first millennium CE there are numerous examples
of incantation bowls found. The incantation bowl has a spiral
inscription on the interior of the bowl beginning near the bottom
center and spiraling to the rim. Some of the bowls also have a
figure in the center often depicted bound in chains, a
representation of the demon from whom relief is sought. These
bowls are buried upside down in the floors of rooms or outside
of buildings. Several different religious traditions are
represented. A large number of these bowls were recovered in the archaeological excavations at
Nippur in southeast Iraq, a place where Judeans were settled by the Babylonians.
One bowl reads,
You liliths, male lili and female lilith, hag and ghool [sic], I adjure you by the Strong One
of Abraham, by the Rock of Isaac, by the Shaddai of Jacob, by Yah Ha-Shem by Yah his
memorial, to turn away from this Rashnoi b. M. and from Geyonai b. M. her husband.
[Here is] your divorce and writ and letter of separation, sent through holy angels. Amen,
Amen, Selah, Halleluyah [sic]!9
This is the tradition that most likely is the foundation of the Talmudic period focus on Lilith. By
the middle of the first millennium CE rabbinic commentators routinely regard śĕ‘īrim as demons.
One even writes that Esau was described as hairy because he was demonic. And līlīt has become
a creature of the night responsible for many evil things.
The Talmud Niddah describes the lilith as a female demon with wings and a human face.
Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: In the case of a woman who discharges a fetus that has
the form of a lilith, a female demon with wings and a human face, its mother is impure
with the impurity of a woman after childbirth, as it is a viable offspring, only it has wings.
This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: An incident occurred in Simoni involving
a certain woman who discharged a fetus that had the form of a lilith, and the incident was
brought before the Sages; and they said that it is a viable offspring, only it has wings.10
The Kabbalah
Kabbalah gave new life to Lilith in a number of interpretations. Lilith and liliths are an explanation
of a great variety of events. For women they explain pain in childbirth, miscarriage, and infant
mortality. For men they explain nocturnal emissions and the consequence existence of demons.
Jewish, as well as Greek, understanding of reproduction was that the sperm contained a
homunculus, a fully formed microscopic human, that was simply nurtured in the womb to become
a fetus and infant. If liliths mated with men and a nocturnal emission was the result then the liliths
bore demons.

9
 Excerpt from translation in Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur, James Alan Montgomery 2011 p 156.
10
https://www.sefaria.org/Niddah.24b.10?lang=bi

6
Lilith also became the female component of the creation of Elohim in Genesis 1. And in the
Kabbalah, in various interpretations, was everything from the spouse of Samael, the king of the
demons to the spouse of Elohim.
In Spain, in the second half of the thirteenth century, R. Isaac ben Jacob ha-Kohen’s “A Treatise
on the Left Emanation” is the first dated Jewish work that describes Samael and Lilith as husband
and wife in the realm of the Satanic power.
“Samael is in the form of Adam and Lilith in the form of Eve. Both of them were born in a spiritual
birth as one, similar to the form of Adam and Eve, like two pairs of twins, one above and one
below.”11
In Kabbalah, the ‫ְסִפירוֹת‬, sĕpīrōt, ‘enumerations,’ are the emanations
through which the ’ayin sōp manifests itself in the metaphysical realm.
The sĕpīrōt are most commonly identified as a tree with ten elements and
connecting links or paths.
In the Kabbalah ḥokmāh and šĕkīnāh are clearly distinct. ‫ׇחְכָמה‬, ḥokmāh on
the tree of life is one level below ‫ֶכֶתר‬, keter, ‘crown,’ that which has no
limit and is unknowable. It appears on the right side of the diagram but it
is on the left side of the tree since the tree is facing out. The lowest element
on the tree is ‫ַמלכוּת‬, malkūt, ‘kingdom.’ It is this level that is responsible
for the manifestations that we can witness. And although keter and malkūt
are distant on the tree it is said that keter is in malkūt and malkūt is in keter.
‫ִביָנה‬, bīnāh, ‘understanding,’ is one level below keter parallel to ḥokmāh
on the opposite side of the tree. ‫ִתְּפֶאֶרת‬, tip’eret, ‘glory’ is the second
element in the central column.
Do not lose her (ḥokmāh), and she will keep watch over you; love her, and she will guard
you.
The beginning of ḥokmāh is this: Get ḥokmāh; and in all of your acquisition, get ‫ִביָנה‬,
bīnāh, ‘understanding.’
Exalt her, and she will raise you up; and she will honor you when you embrace her.
She will place on your head a wreath of favor; a ‫ֲעֶתֶרת ִתְּפֶאֶרת‬, ‘ăteret tip’eret, crown of
glory she will deliver to you. (Proverbs 4:6-9)
Kabbalah in the Renaissance
There was significant interest in the Kabbalah among Christians and humanists in Italy in the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, particularly in Florence. Lorenzo de' Medici (1449 – 1492) was
in control of the city from the death of his father in 1469. Although the city was nominally a
republic governed by representatives of guilds, the Medici family was effectively in charge and
were patrons of artists and intelligentsia.
Flavius Mithridates was a sobriquet of, apparently, Samuel b. Nissim Bulfarag of Sicily, a
humanist and Orientalist. He was a convert to Christianity, taking the name Guglielmo Raimondo
de Moncada. He taught Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic in what is now France, Germany, and Italy.

11
Dan, Joseph. “Samael, Lilith, and the Concept of Evil in Early Kabbalah.” AJS Review, vol. 5, 1980, pp. 17–40.
JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486451. (p. 18)

7
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494) was a Renaissance scholar who had studied Greek,
Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. Mithradates translated some Kabbalistic texts for Pico who
became known as the first Christian Kabbalist. Pico’s introduction to Kabbalah had been through
Rabbi Johannan Alemanno (1435/8 - c. 1510). Pico thought that there were elements of truth in all
of the ancient wisdoms and sought to find the intersections.
Pico lived in the Palazzo Medici for some years and Michelangelo also lived in the Palazzo from
1490 to 1492 when he was fifteen to seventeen.
Michelangelo, like all artists, were dependent upon receiving commissions and he had received,
in 1505, the commission from Pope Julius II to create the Pope’s tomb. It was to be a three-story
tall structure that included forty statues. The project was scaled back probably because of the cost
of the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica combined with the cost of the war that Julius was waging.
Michelangelo was awarded instead a commission to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Rivals
of Michelangelo had suggested him for the job, thinking he would fail, because he regarded himself
as a sculptor, not a painter, and had no experience in fresco.
At the time of the commission the Sistine Chapel ceiling was painted blue with golden stars. The
Pope suggested a central geometric pattern and the apostles painted in the triangular pendentives
that architecturally link the walls to the ceiling. Michelangelo negotiated a more complex
arrangement and claimed to be allowed to execute the design as he liked. He had a theological
consultant who is believed to be Giles of Viterbo (1469–1532), prior general of the Augustinian
Hermits and a cardinal, a close confident of the Pope, the inaugural preacher at the Fifth Lateran
Council that convened in Rome in 1512, and a Christian Kabbalist.

8
Michelangelo painted the ceiling between 1508
and 1512. He created nine panels down the
central axis of the ceiling. The first three depict
God’s creation of the cosmos, the central three
God’s creation of Adam and Eve, and the last
three are devoted to stories of Noah.
Seven prophets and five sibyls are depicted on
the pendentives, Jonah, above the altar,
Jeremiah, Joel, Zechariah, above the main door
of the chapel, Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel. The
Delphic, Persian, Erythraean, Cumaean, and
Libyan Sibyls are intermixed with the prophets.
These twelve were people believed to have
prophesied a Messiah.
In the four pendentives that mark the corners of
the room Michelangelo painted scenes
associated with salvation of Israel through
heroes, Moses with the copper serpent, Esther
and the punishment of Haman, David and
Goliath, and Judith and Holofernes.
In lunettes above the windows Michelangelo
painted faux marble tablets containing the male
ancestors of Jesus according to the Gospel of
Matthew. Two of them were destroyed when
Michelangelo returned in 1537 to paint The Last
Judgement on the altar wall.
The prophets, sibyls, and ancestors of Jesus all
have captions to identify them. Many of the
other scenes are of stories that permit easy
identification of most of the actors. There are
many unidentified support figures to a total of
about three hundred. None of them are
identifiably Christian.

9
 The Renaissance art historian, Jane Schuyler, has
written two articles that are the basis of the
following discussion of the first six panels in the
central axis of the ceiling.12
Schuyler argues, I believe persuasively, that these
panels reflect Kabbalistic doctrines. Fundamental
concepts of the Kabbalah are often represented by
the tree of life or by a series of concentric circles
representing emmenations, sĕpīrōt, originating at
the unknowable center of the supernatural, the ‫אַיִן‬
‫סוֹף‬, ’ayin sōp ‘without end’ and extending to the
knowable supernatural and finally to the material.
The ’ayin sōp encompasses everything and
therefore is both male and female.
In the first panel light is separated from darkness
by a vaguely defined being with male and female
attributes that Schuyler argues represents the ’ayin
sōp.

In the second panel we see,

from the back, the
unknowable ’ayin sōp,
unaccompanied, moving
out of the scene as the
knowable God, wearing the
same robe and
accompanied by heavenly
beings, separates the sun
and the moon. The sun is
being pushed by his right
hand and the moon by his
left. In the Kabbalah the left
side of the tree of life and
the left side of God is
female.
In the third panel the
knowable God divides the
waters of the earth.

12
Schuyler, Jane, “The Left Side Of God: A Reflection Of Cabala In Michelangelo's Genesis Scenes,” Notes in the
History of Art, vol. 6, no. 1, 1986, pp. 12–19. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23202345 Accessed 2 Jan. 2021.
Schuyler, Jane, ‘Michelangelo's Serpent With Two Tails,’ Notes in the History of Art, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Winter 1990),
pp. 23-29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23202629

10
The first of the three central panels shows the creation of Adam. God is shown in his inner garment
with his robe spread around him and enveloping a number of other beings. In the Genesis 1 account
of the creation of the adam, no mechanism is mentioned. I the Genesis 2 account God breathes the
breath of life into the adam. In Michelangelo’s representation the moment of life will be marked
by a finger to finger touch.

11
The figures within God’s robe have been the subject of much speculation, particularly the woman
under his left arm. Most of the figures gaze vacantly but she looks at Adam intently. The body
language suggests that God is not embracing her so much as she is supporting him. Her left hand
grips his forearm, holding his arm against her shoulder and neck.
The dominant view has been that this is Eve and the other figures represent the descendants of
Adam and Eve. A minority opinion has been that it is Mary, the mother of Jesus. The latter view
can probably be dismissed because the church held that belief in the preexistence of souls was
heretical. The two most likely candidates are themselves intertwined in story and imagery. One is
‫ׇחְכָמה‬, ḥokmāh, ‘wisdom,’ Sophia in Greek. In Proverbs 8 ḥokmāh declares that she was the first
element of creation. In much of Christian thought God creates all else through Sophia.13 The other
likely candidate is ‫שִׁכיָנה‬
ְ , šĕkīnāh, the Shekhina, a word that does not occur in the Tanakh but is an
important component of Rabbinic Judaism. The word is based on a root that means to abide or
dwell. So, it is the dwelling of God and the earthly manifestation of the presence of God. Both of
these Greek and Hebrew words are all grammatically feminine and so when personified are
represented as female. Christian Gnostics and Renaissance intellectuals conflated much of the
imagery.

13
The church in Istanbul is named Hagia Sophia, ‘Holy Wisdom.’

12
The Creation of Eve
The panel following the creation of Adam
illustrates the Genesis 2 description of the creation
of Eve. Augustine’s commentary suggested that
Eve emerged from the right side of Adam
presaging Jesus wound during the crucifixion.
Michelangelo represents Eve emerging from
Adam’s left side as in the prior panel where God’s
partner is on his left side, the female side of the
sĕpīrōt.
The Tree of Knowledge
The narrative of the tale of the snake, Eve, and Adam, in the garden of Eden has proven very
difficult for commentators. Moses ben Maimon and many other rabbinic commentators simply
ignore it. Others declare it to be an accurate description of an event but decline to discuss the event.
And many simply declare it to be allegorical. Most Christian commentators treat it as allegory that
is difficult to interpret. Those who regard it literally take great pains to explain how it does not
mean what it appears to mean. The problem is that in the plain reading of the story the snake
appears to be the one who is telling the truth and the expulsion from Eden is not for disobedience
but rather to prevent humans from obtaining immortality.
‫שׁר ָעשׂה יְהָוה ֱאֹלִהים‬
ֶ ‫שֶׂדה ֲא‬
ֶ ּ ‫שׁשׁוּ ְוַהָנָּחשׁ ָהיָה ָערוּם ִמכּ ֹל ַחיַּת ַה‬
ָ ֹ ‫שׁתּוֹ ְוֹלא יְִתבּ‬
ְ ‫שֵׁניֶהם ֲערוִּמּים ָהאָָדם ְוִא‬
ְ ‫ַויְִּהיוּ‬
wayyihyū šĕnēhem ‘ărūmmīm hā’ādām wĕ’ištō wĕlō yitbošāšū wĕhannāḥāš hāyā ‘ārūm mikkol
ḥayyat haššedeh ’āšer ‘āśāh yhwh ’ĕlohīm Genesis 2:25-3:1
“The two of them were naked,' the man and his wife, yet they felt no shame. Now the serpent was
the shrewdest of all the wild beasts that the LORD God had made.” JSB
“And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Now the serpent was
more subtle14 than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.” JPS and KJV
“And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed. Now the serpent was more
crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made.” NRSV
kαι ήσαν οι δύο γυµνοί ο τε αδάµ και η γυνή αυτού και ουκ ησχύνονο. o δε όφις ην φρονιµώτατος
πάντων των θηρίων LXX
“And the two were naked, the adam and his woman and not ashamed. And the snake was the most
intelligent of all the wild animals.”
‫ַוֲהווֹ ַתְרֵוהוֹן ַעְרִטיָלִאין אָָדם ְוִאְתֵּתהּ ְוָלא ִמְתַכְּלִמינ‬
“And they were both naked, adam and his woman, and were not ashamed.” ONK
‫ַוֲהווֹ ַתְּרֵווֹיהוֹן ַחִכּיִמין אָָדם ְוִאיְנְתֵּתיהּ ְוָלא אְַמִתּינוּ ִבּיָקֵריהוֹן‬

14
subtile (adj.) c. 1300, sotil; modern form from late 14c., "clever, dexterous, crafty; not dense, thin, rarefied," from
Old French subtil (14c.), a learned Latinized reformation of earlier sotil (12c.), source of subtle (q.v.). Still used in
some Bible translations in Genesis iii.1, and it survived after 17c. as a parallel formation to subtle in some material
senses ("fine, delicate, thin"). Related: Subtilty. (Online Etymology Dictionary)

13
“And they were both wise, adam and his woman; but they were not true to their honor.” PAL
“The two of them were ‫ֲערוִּמּים‬, ‘ărūmmīm15, the ’ādām and his woman yet, they did not ‫שׁשׁוּ‬
ָ ֹ ‫יְִתבּ‬,
yitbošāšū, ‘embarrass each other.’”
I follow Jack Sasson’s analysis of the form of the verb ‫בוּשׁ‬, bwš. It is in the relatively rare hitpolel
from which makes it both reflexive, where the subject and the object are the same, and factitive,
focusing on the state of the object following the action. It is in the plural so that both the adam and
the woman are the subjects and the objects. Sasson suggests that the most appropriate translation
is “yet, they did not embarrass each other.”16
And the snake was ‫ָערוּם‬, ‘ārūm to all living things of the land that YHWH ’ĕlohīm had
made. And he said to the woman, “Has Elohim indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree
of the garden?’” And the woman said to the snake, “We may eat the fruit of the garden.
But of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, ’ĕlohīm has said, ‘You shall
not eat from it nor touch it or you will die.’” And the snake said to the woman, “Not a death
you will die for ’ĕlohīm knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and
you will be like ’ĕlohīm knowing good and evil (‫)טוֹב ָוָרע‬.” And the woman saw that the
tree was good for food and that it was pleasant to the eyes. And the tree was desirable to
make one understand. Then she took of its fruit and ate and she gave also to her man with
her and he ate. And the eyes of the two of them were opened and they knew that they were
‘ărūmmīm. Genesis 3:1-7
And YHWH ’ĕlohīm said, “Behold, the ’ādām has become like one of us to know good and
evil.” Now, should he reach out his hand and takes also of the tree of life and eats and lives
forever, YHWH ’ĕlohīm drove him from the garden of Eden. Genesis 3:22
The masculine adjective ‘ārōm, the feminine ‘ărummāh, and the plural ‘ărūmmīm, occur once each
in Genesis, 1 Samuel, Ecclesiastes, Hosea, Amos, and Micah, four times in Isaiah, and six times
in Job. The translators have consistently rendered the word as ‘naked’ in English.
The adjective ‫ָערוּם‬, ‘ārūm and the plural, ‫ים‬.‫ָעתוּמ‬, ‘ārūmīm, occur eleven times in the MT, once in
Genesis, twice in Job, and eight times in Proverbs. Except in Proverbs it is almost always given a
pejorative translation. In Genesis, it is typically translated as ‘subtle’, nine times, ‘crafty’, eight
times, ‘cunning,’ three times, ‘clever,’ four times, and ‘shrewdest,’ ‘astute,’ ‘wiser,’ and ‘most
intelligent, once each. In Job 5:12 it is ‘crafty,’ ‘cunning,’ or ‘shrewd;’ and in 15:5 it is ‘clever,’
‘deceit,’ or ‘crafty.’ In Proverbs it is always ‘prudent,’ or ‘sensible.’

15
The adjective is pointed this way in the MT only here and in Job 22:6, ‫שׁיט‬ ִ ‫וִּבְגֵדי ֲערוִּמּים ַתְּפ‬, ūbigdē ‘ărūmmīm tapšīṭ,
‘and the clothing of the naked you stripped.’ In the remaining three occurrences in Genesis, the plural is pointed ‫ֵעיֻרִמּם‬,
‘ērummim, in Genesis 3:7 and the singular is‫ֵעיר ֹם‬, ‘ērom, in Genesis 3:10 and 3:11. The one occurrence in
Deuteronomy, at 28:48, follows the pattern of Genesis 3:10, 11. Of the six occurrences in Ezekiel, three are ‫ֵעיר ֹם‬,
‘ērom, two are ‫ֵערוֹם‬, ‘ērōm, and one is ‫ֵער ֹם‬, ‘ērom. I think that the pointing here is to highlight the homophony of the
words for ‘naked’ and ‘wise.’
16
Sasson, Jack M. “We lō’ yitbōšāšû (Gen 2,25) and Its Implications.. Biblica, vol. 66, no. 3, 1985, pp. 418–421.
JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42618250.

14
Hiding in plain sight
The central panel in the Sistine Chapel depicts the tree of knowledge and expulsion scenes from
Genesis 3. The expulsion is painted to the right and the figure in the upper right corner of this
section is the angel who is enforcing it.

The earliest representations of the scene have a snake coiled around the trunk of the tree. Early in
the Renaissance the figure was the head or upper body of a woman and the lower body of a snake.
The face on the figure was typically that of Eve or a completely different figure, regarded as the
female created in Genesis 1 and given the name Lilith.17 Michelangelo’s Lilith is represented as
the parallel to Adam; their faces are at the same level in the painting and their hair color is identical
in contrast to Eve’s. This seems to be Adam’s twin, “in the image of Elohim he created him; male
and female he created them.” (Gn 1:27)
In Genesis, “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to
the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she
also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate.” Genesis 3:6 NRSV. In
Michelangelo’s painting Lilith is handing a pair of figs, with her left hand, to Eve who is about to
receive them in her left hand. Adam, however, is about to pluck a fig for himself with his right
hand while his left hand is grasping a branch of the tree. Eating the fruit of the tree introduces into
humans both the recognition of and the inclination to evil and good.

17
Richard Nilsen, ‘Temptation of Eve.” Blog Archive, January 2018.

15