Question: I have come across a scholar and her name is Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou and she made some very interesting claims that I hadn’t ever heard before so I thought I’d ask for an opinion. She was being interviewed by a channel called MythVision Podcast and she makes a variety of claims but the main ones I want to focus on are her claims that in Genesis 4:1 the Hebrew implies that it was Yahweh himself who impregnated Eve, that Yahweh was a fertility god taken out of a pantheon, that when Yahweh is described anthropomorphically that in its original context should be taken as literal descriptions because apparently that’s how the authors and audiences in the Ancient Near East would have read it her main example is to claim in Ezekiel 1:27 that the word waist is a poor translation and should be loins and is apparently referring to the literal genitals of Yahweh since like she said he is a fertility god taken from a pantheon. I would normally laugh off her words but she has a PhD in Theology.
Answer: Greetings, and thank you for your question.
Let me first say that I have a great respect for anyone who earns a PhD, regardless of discipline. The amount of research and work that goes into that type of degree is commendable. Having said that, can we agree that not all PhDs are "created equal?" For example, a PhD in Physics or Mathematics or Chemistry is not the same as a PhD in Literature or Philosophy or Theology. Prof. Stavrakopoulou's degree is in Theology from the University of Oxford in the discipline of biblical studies. Her specialty is in Hebrew Bible and OT studies. However, looking at her work, it's obvious she comes from an unbelieving background, and all her study hasn't changed that perspective.
Now it's interesting that you say "Normally I would laugh off her words, but she has a PhD in Theology and seems authoritative." I get it, it's intimidating to "laugh off" the words of a PhD in a chosen field. However, even people with PhDs can be mistaken. To believe something just because a person with a PhD says it is a logical fallacy called The Argument from Authority. What if I presented to you a PhD from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA, or a PhD from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, who refuted the claims of Prof. Stavrakopoulou? You see the problem? Just because someone with a PhD makes a claim (even if it's in the field of their expertise) doesn't make it correct; especially if I can cite equally qualified experts who refute her claim.
Prof. Stavrakopoulou is clearly biased against Christianity and Judaism. She is a self-described atheist and her research focuses on making claims contrary to the stated claims of orthodox, biblical Christianity. In particular, her research has focused denying the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and promoting this corporeal version of God that you mention in your question.
Okay, let's look at your question. The first part looks at Genesis 4:1 and suggests that it was Yahweh who impregnated Eve. Let's look at Genesis 4:1 in several translations to see if there is any nuance in translation.
- [1] Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD." (Genesis 4:1 NKJV)
- [1] Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man." (Genesis 4:1 NIV)
- [1] Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD." (Genesis 4:1 ESV)
- [1] Now Adam had sexual relations with his wife, Eve, and she became pregnant. When she gave birth to Cain, she said, "With the LORD's help, I have produced a man!" (Genesis 4:1 NLT)
- [1] Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD." (Genesis 4:1 NASB95)
- [1] The man was intimate with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. She said, "I have had a male child with the LORD's help." (Genesis 4:1 CSB)
When you look at these various translations, you can see where the interpretive differences are:
- Some translations say "Adam," others say "the man." The word is the Hebrew word adam, which can mean "man, mankind, human being, humanity, or Adam."
- Some translations say "knew his wife," others have variations of "make love." The word there is yada, which means "to know," but also is used euphemistically to refer to sexual relations.
- Some translations say "she conceived," others say "she became pregnant." The word is hara, which simply means "conceived, became pregnant."
So far, so good. All the English translations referenced seem to suggest that in the course of time, Adam (the man created by God) had sexual relations with Eve (the woman taken from his side) and she conceived and bore a child. Nothing out of the ordinary. Now, the only thing that could even hint or suggest any validity to Prof. Stavrakopoulou's thesis is the last portion of the verse (from the NKJV), where Eve says: I have acquired a man from the LORD. Again, let's looks at the syntax. The Hebrew literally says, "I have gotten a man from Yahweh." This is reflected above in the NKJV. All the other translations indicate that it is with the LORD's help Eve acquired a son.
Now, I have to ask a serious question: Reading this verse at face value, would one conclude that Eve was impregnated by Yahweh? I submit to you that you only come to this conclusion if you already have a prior bias to rejecting the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and believing in a corporeal God. In other words, her conclusion is assumed in her premise. There are plenty of passages in Genesis that teach God is the one who opens and closes the womb (i.e., who allows women to conceive and bear children). Consider how God closed the wombs of the women of Gerar (Genesis 20:18), or how God opened the wombs of Leah and Rachel (Genesis 29:31; 30:22). Clearly, in Genesis 4:1, Adam impregnated Eve and God opened her womb so she could conceive.
One of the things you need to understand when it comes to these odd theories regarding the Bible and theology, you're starting point determines your conclusions. Prof. Stavrakopoulou and others like her, are unbelievers. They reject the claims of Scripture. Why? As the apostle Paul says:
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, [19] because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. [20] For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, [21] because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Professing to be wise, they became fools, [23] and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23 NKJV)
One of the "theories" regarding the evolution of religion is that man has progressed from animism to polytheism to henotheism to monotheism. Monotheism (the belief in only one God) is seen at the pinnacle of the evolution. Mankind went from worshipping nature and animal spirits to multiple gods to one god among other gods to only one god. However, the Bible paints a very different picture, one that is the complete opposite of the one believed by many secular scholars on religion.
People like Prof. Stavrakopoulou will continue to spout their unbelieving views because they are at enmity with God and reject the truth of God in unrighteousness. They refuse to acknowledge they have sinned against a holy God and need to amend their ways. Our response to them is to reject their false conclusions and continue to love them and take every opportunity to give a reason for the hope that lies within us.
I hope this helps.
