Misunderstanding or lazy scholarship? Who knows? Let’s ask Ziony Zevit who is Distinguished Professor of Biblical Literature and Northeast Semitic Languages at the American Jewish University in Los Angeles!
He says “The expression mowt tuwmat would have indicated almost unambiguously that the human could expect to be put to death almost immediately (Gen 26:11; Exod 19:22). The author did not use it, opting instead for mowt tamuwt, which could be interpreted in more than one way. In most contexts where the mowt tamuwt occurs, it refers to death by natural causes at some undetermined point in the future (Gen 20:7; 1 Sam 14:44; 2 Kings 1:4, 6, 16; Ezek 3:18, 33:8, 14). Such a death was understood to be a divine curtailing of what might have been a longer life span. In no way could it be taken as referring to a summary execution. (Zevit, “What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden?” p. 124.)
He says “The expression mowt tuwmat would have indicated almost unambiguously that the human could expect to be put to death almost immediately (Gen 26:11; Exod 19:22). The author did not use it, opting instead for mowt tamuwt, which could be interpreted in more than one way. In most contexts where the mowt tamuwt occurs, it refers to death by natural causes at some undetermined point in the future (Gen 20:7; 1 Sam 14:44; 2 Kings 1:4, 6, 16; Ezek 3:18, 33:8, 14). Such a death was understood to be a divine curtailing of what might have been a longer life span. In no way could it be taken as referring to a summary execution. (Zevit, “What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden?” p. 124.)
Fascinating.
I recall you mentioning this book before. It’s time I got it!
I’m not being nasty, the English translation does not match the Greek. I’m staying true to the original text.
The verse is actually talking about a pagan god called Θάνατος, Death. Jesus talks about this god of death in Mark 12:27. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
The verse implies a future action with simultaneous consequences.
αν + present subjunctive = simultaneity, αν + φαγητε
ᾗ δ᾽ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγητε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε
but whenever, the day ya’ll eat from it ya’ll will die by death.
(a natural cause of death by being given over the god of death called Θανατος)
This is where the concept of natural sin comes from. Natural Death=Natural Sin, Death=Sin, Natural=Natural.
Genesis 2:17,
ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ξύλου τοῦ γινώσκειν καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν οὐ φάγεσθε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ
ᾗ δ᾽ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγητε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε.
η δε αν: introduces a conditional clause in the Dative case, dative case used to express time.
“prospective conditions” also called a “future more vivid” or future open”. (page 552,553 Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek) αν + present subjunctive = simultaneity, αν + φαγητε
ητε is present subjunctive 2nd person plural active voice verb suffix , root verb is εσθιω
(Why is God speaking, to Adam as a second person plural when only Adam exists at that time?)
ᾗ δ᾽ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγητε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ,
but whenever, the day ya’ll eat from it (conditional, subjunctive mood)
θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε, (idiom)
ya’ll will die by death (dative of instrument, indicative mood)
θανατω: dative case noun meaning natural death or violent death, ie. death by natural causes or to be murdered, also the name of a pagan god called Death. They are being handed over to the god Death, the god of the dead as a consequence of disobedience.
αποθανεισθε: verb, εισθε is the Liquid Indicative future middle 2nd person plural. Future tense, Indicative mood.
Why is God speaking, to Adam as a second person plural when only Adam exists at that time?
I can only say concerning this question given my limited learning, In the Hebrew ‘you’ is second m. sg. In the Greek, if you are correct, my guess would be that God was planning to make a second person in the form of a woman and he was giving Adam a ‘heads up’ on the possible danger ahead for the two of them.
also the name of a pagan god called Death
The root word for ‘death’ in Hebrew is Mot. Which indeed, is a god in the Canaanite creation stories literature. Real danger ahead for ya’ll Adam. Good idea to act accordingly. I don’t know too much more about it except that it is a deep existential question that the ancients were trying to come to grips with.
The word in Genesis 2:17 that implies the death will occur the same day is 3117, and not the phrase 4191. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
The Greek text is still accurate to an accurate reading of the Hebrew but the Hebrew philosophers are taking the verse out of context by ignoring phrase 3117 because they cannot honestly explain the contradiction without using Paul’s explanation of it.
“in the day” implies the same day. Paul thousands of years later addressed this contradiction by describing it as a spiritual death and not a literal death.
ᾗ δ᾽ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγητε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ,
but whenever, the day ya’ll eat from it (conditional, subjunctive mood)
The uncertainty of when exactly the death will occur is when that day will be in the future. But a same day death is most certain to occur during that day.
The suffix “-ine” generally means “of or relating to,” “of the nature of,” “made of,” or “like”. It’s often used to form adjectives from nouns, indicating a connection or resemblance to the root word. For example, “equine” means “of or relating to horses”,
but Pauline is not yet understood.
The suffix “-ity” generally indicates a quality, state, or degree of something. It’s often used to transform adjectives into nouns, signifying the abstract concept of that quality. For example, “sanity” (from “sane”) represents the quality of being sane, and “stupidity” (from “stupid”) represents the state of being stupid,
but Christianity is not yet understood.
Combined together as an adjective+noun:Pauline Christianity as a descriptive phrase belongs in the Genitive case.
Video: Was Paul a 2nd-Century Invention? The Shocking Case for a Later Origin
YouTube Channel: Glen & Grace | Faith Uncovered
as of 2/17/2026, it was uploaded 9 months ago
Rethinking the Dating of Paul’s Letters
Glen:
The Pauline letters have a raw intensity but the Paul of Acts is sanitized.
Traditional dating of the Pauline letters comes before the Gospel of Luke and Luke’s Acts of the Apostles.
Even if Paul is pushed into the 2nd century, Luke’s Acts still comes after them. “If we consider Acts as a response to a Marcion-influenced Paul, that’s another tick in the second century hypothesis.”
Grace:
That Paul is a literary construct or a theological mouthpiece rather than an historic figure is a bold position. It’s a radical departure from centuries of scholarship.
Steefen:
Made by Nina Livesey and another scholar. They were scheduled to speak at SBL.
Glen:
The argument does have merit.
Steefen:
You mentioned earlier that the letters could have been influenced by Marcion. I’ll note that Josephus as a Christian persona could have written the first draft and the second century interpolations could have been added in the second century.
Glen:
Paul is a composite voice.
Steefen:
I’m familiar with composite characters, or, as you say, composite voices–if you were to add what I say about King Saul, King David, King Solomon, and Jesus.
Earlier you linked Paul to a post-Bar Kokhba revolt reality. I must not stop at Josephus and the Jewish Revolt.
Grace:
If this is accepted, what else changes?
Steefen:
It changes when Paul fell of the horse. … Paul never met Peter.
Grace:
Is the value of the Pauline epistles lessened by moving them from the 1st to the 2nd century?
Steefen:
I think there was a 1st century Paul persona of Josephus, but the thesis paper of Romans was not just a letter to a first century Christian community in Rome.
Take away Paul and move him to the second century takes away a pillar of the biblical Jesus of the late 20s/early 30s.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert