Trible’s arguments, while not perfect, are some of the most rational and valid arguments we’ve seen so far. She ventures just far enough outside “the box” to make a controversial point, but doesn’t carry it to an extremist notion. Her first argument is perhaps not the best to start with, since it violates our golden rule of separating Genesis 1 and 2. Trible attempts to link the structures of Genesis 1 and 2 to demolish the thought that woman’s creation in genesis 2 is an “afterthought.” Speaking with an obvious agenda, she does what countless feminists before her do: join Genesis 1 and 2 as if one implies something about the other. If Genesis 1 and 2 showed obvious connection in authorship, her argument would be flawless, but unfortunately this is not so.
Her next attack is at the word “helper” which we have seen interpreted many ways. The most credible interpretations of controversial words are the ones which look at its usage in other contexts, and attempt to remove the contemporary connotation. Trible does just this, as she explains that “In some passages, it characterizes Deity” (E&A 432). Given the multiple usages in the animal, human, and divine spheres, Trible devises an interpretation of “helper” as a “beneficial relationship,” one that “does not imply inferiority.” To supplement her argument concerning the word “helper,” Trible points out how man assumes no authority over the woman based on his nonexistent role in her creation. Woman may be made from man, but she is creation by god, as was man, making them equal . She deconstructs the popular argument that woman is merely a subset of man, as people tend to view the woman as only a “talking rib”, and not a fully formed person. Critics who take this view ignore the “building” that takes place from Adam’s rib to arrive at the woman. Trible equates this process with the creation of Adam from the dust.
Her next discussion of androgyny is hard to comment on when I’ve only read the story in English. To really get a true sense of whether or not the first creation in genesis 2 is sex specific, I think it’s necessary to read the story in Hebrew and have a full understanding of the tenses. However, if her claim is true that no sex specific words were used before the creation of woman, then it seems fitting that the creation of woman accompanies the creation of sexuality. Her argument is based on textual evidence, giving it merit above those which stand on loosely interpreted events.
Finally, Trible tackles the naming episode in full detail. When I was first reading her essay, I made a gigantic star mark next to the line “Adham names [the animals] and thereby exercises power over them” (E&A 432), saying to myself “she really dug a hole for herself there.” Thankfully she fully explains her view on the naming episode, which is somewhat awkward. Trible draws a textual distinction between the “calling” of the woman and several other “namings” that occur elsewhere. By recognizing a textual distinction, she asserts that this is evidence of a different meaning removed from authority. To Trible, something about saying the proper name signifies authority, as seen in the animal naming episode and the naming of children. It is important to recognize this distinction, but the interpretation beyond that must be looked at carefully. The notion that the absence of a “name” for the woman implies that no authority exists relies on the assumption that there is authority in the use of a proper name. In the case of the animals, authority is already granted to Adam by God, so it is not clear that the naming episode is responsible for Adam’s authority over the animals. There must be further textual evidence to support Trible’s claim about the naming episode.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Modern Christianity I
By now I have realized that approaching an essay from our modern viewpoint is useless in analyzing its legitamacy. For people who take the word of the old testament as the word of god, there is no getting around the fact that the bible supports male superiority. Every argument we have seen so far that espouses equality of the sexes has left out crucial passages saying otherwise, as if they were hoping they would dissapear if not dealt with. Foh's approach to Genesis allows her to make use of the entire text, and play both sides of the equality fence. The backbone of her argument requires grouping the two creations as creations of different spheres of life. The first creation describes ontological equality, while the second describes the "god given roles" (E&A 389) of male and female with regards to church and marriage only. Apparently there was just too much to say about men and women for there to be only one creation, so naturally there are two to make sure all the bases are covered.
We've seen many ways to reconcile Genesis 1 and 2, including blunt denial and claims of different authorship, but this is by far the most unique. Foh, in most her interpretation, mostly stays close to the text and doesnt take much liberty. However, the one gigantic liberty her argument rests on is that creation in genesis 2 is limited to the church and home, and creation in Genesis 1 is limited to ontological equality. These divisions are not made in the text. Yes, there are different tones in the two stories, but this is because they are. . . two separate stories.
Aside from this flaw, Foh is pretty tasteful in how she portrays female subjection. She covers the blunt words subjection and authority with more neutral words such as "difference in function" and "sinless heirarchy." Some of her evidence for male superiority is clearly supported in the text, such as the naming argument. It is clear that Adam was exhibiting dominion over the world's animals by naming them. Why then, should the naming of woman be any different; she is after all just another "attempted partner" for Adam that happens to be successful.
Foh's stance on the Fall is a bit confusing. She claims that the fall upsets the balance of the "sinless heirarchy" of which the woman is happy "helping" the man. She then recalls the punishment of the woman desiring the husband, and the move to his more harsh rule over her. Then, she counters this by saying that "many wives have no desire -sexual, psychological or otherwise- for their husbands" (E&A 393). Was god's prediction of male-female relationship wrong? Nevertheless, Foh favors a return to the pre-Fall relationship of man and woman.
We've seen many ways to reconcile Genesis 1 and 2, including blunt denial and claims of different authorship, but this is by far the most unique. Foh, in most her interpretation, mostly stays close to the text and doesnt take much liberty. However, the one gigantic liberty her argument rests on is that creation in genesis 2 is limited to the church and home, and creation in Genesis 1 is limited to ontological equality. These divisions are not made in the text. Yes, there are different tones in the two stories, but this is because they are. . . two separate stories.
Aside from this flaw, Foh is pretty tasteful in how she portrays female subjection. She covers the blunt words subjection and authority with more neutral words such as "difference in function" and "sinless heirarchy." Some of her evidence for male superiority is clearly supported in the text, such as the naming argument. It is clear that Adam was exhibiting dominion over the world's animals by naming them. Why then, should the naming of woman be any different; she is after all just another "attempted partner" for Adam that happens to be successful.
Foh's stance on the Fall is a bit confusing. She claims that the fall upsets the balance of the "sinless heirarchy" of which the woman is happy "helping" the man. She then recalls the punishment of the woman desiring the husband, and the move to his more harsh rule over her. Then, she counters this by saying that "many wives have no desire -sexual, psychological or otherwise- for their husbands" (E&A 393). Was god's prediction of male-female relationship wrong? Nevertheless, Foh favors a return to the pre-Fall relationship of man and woman.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Since Adam and Eve
Studying human sexuality from an evolutionary standpoint reveals fascinating truths and origins about behaviors deeply entrenched in human thought. Marriage and monogamy, at least in America, have evolved into an almost instinctual practice, as every child is conditioned to long for her/his "night in shining armour" and "perfect princess." Behavioral studies of related animal species shed light that monogamy is a state preferred only under certain conditions, and has pros and cons. For humans, monogamy is favored because competition for food is not an issue, and dual parental care for an incompetent human child is a huge advantage. The Jewish religion seeks to explain heterosexual monogamy as the plan of God for the human race. Are religious standpoints on monogamy really only concerned with moral and social structure, or are they really etiologies for the more complex biological roots of monogamy?
The same ten or so scattered lines in Genesis 1-3 have been used to support such varied arguments that I start to seriously question if there was any "real meaning" intended for these lines. Here we see quotes from the creation, naming, and flood stories that are interpreted as statements about monogamy and kinship. As always, simple statements are elaborated and given connotations that bolster the sense of utter completeness in marriage. "A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife" is used to support that marriage is the only way to achieve the highest fulfillment of human personality, a clear stretch from the text.
Now that marriage is the topic of discussion, suddenly male writers start to use creation in Genesis 1 to support female equality. Given the agenda of proving that companionship is one of the two primary functions of marriage, women now need to be seen as more than maids with uterus's. They are elevated to "equals of their husbands" (E&A 403). The process of obtaining a mate to achieve a divine relationship is glorified, so the status of women is heightened to prize worthy. .
Something i found very interesting to note is the parallel between puberty and the "Fall." Here I am talking about the gaining of knowledge, not the disobediance. Before puberty, it is acceptable for a child to be seen naked, correlating to the innocent nature of Adam and Eve before the fall. Puberty, a time of physical and emotional development, carries with it the shameful feelings of nudity. This transition is similar to the fall, where an acquired knowledge and development causes Adam and Eve to be aware and ashamed of their nudity. This ties into previous notions of Genesis 2-3 as an etiology for our biologically rooted tendancy to hide nudity past a certain age.
Another biological theory is that the monogamous sexual relationship is responsible for hidden genitalia. I was going to say that this doesnt jive well with Genesis 2-3, since there was no one else around to have sex with before the fall, in their state of nudity. However, I am reminded that Adam "had sex with all the animals" before the fall, supporting the notion that the monogamy of Adam and Eve may have had something to do with their bashfulness. This is just a thought though, because obviously they were monogamous and happily naked before the fall.
The same ten or so scattered lines in Genesis 1-3 have been used to support such varied arguments that I start to seriously question if there was any "real meaning" intended for these lines. Here we see quotes from the creation, naming, and flood stories that are interpreted as statements about monogamy and kinship. As always, simple statements are elaborated and given connotations that bolster the sense of utter completeness in marriage. "A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife" is used to support that marriage is the only way to achieve the highest fulfillment of human personality, a clear stretch from the text.
Now that marriage is the topic of discussion, suddenly male writers start to use creation in Genesis 1 to support female equality. Given the agenda of proving that companionship is one of the two primary functions of marriage, women now need to be seen as more than maids with uterus's. They are elevated to "equals of their husbands" (E&A 403). The process of obtaining a mate to achieve a divine relationship is glorified, so the status of women is heightened to prize worthy. .
Something i found very interesting to note is the parallel between puberty and the "Fall." Here I am talking about the gaining of knowledge, not the disobediance. Before puberty, it is acceptable for a child to be seen naked, correlating to the innocent nature of Adam and Eve before the fall. Puberty, a time of physical and emotional development, carries with it the shameful feelings of nudity. This transition is similar to the fall, where an acquired knowledge and development causes Adam and Eve to be aware and ashamed of their nudity. This ties into previous notions of Genesis 2-3 as an etiology for our biologically rooted tendancy to hide nudity past a certain age.
Another biological theory is that the monogamous sexual relationship is responsible for hidden genitalia. I was going to say that this doesnt jive well with Genesis 2-3, since there was no one else around to have sex with before the fall, in their state of nudity. However, I am reminded that Adam "had sex with all the animals" before the fall, supporting the notion that the monogamy of Adam and Eve may have had something to do with their bashfulness. This is just a thought though, because obviously they were monogamous and happily naked before the fall.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Muslim Viewpoints
What an evil prompt you've given us this week! If there's one thing I've learned from this class it's that there is no "correct" when interpreting ancient texts. I've seen opinion, irrational opinion, textually supported opinion, and outright absurdity, but no "correctness." I have learned to respect the argument that places a text in context, and looks at it as more than just words. Language structure, attitudes of the time, and translation errors all must be analyzed to truly understand the meaning of a text.
Mawdudi draws many interpretations about various Surahs based on the way they sound, what they seem to imply, without really diving into the language and structure of the text. The argument about menstruation references lines that merely state that "it is a state of impurity, so keep away from them and do not approach them till they are cleansed" (E&A 414). Mawdudi then talk about how the "explanation of this injunction by the Prophet makes it clear . . . " that the impurity only refers to sexual intercourse. Unless he is referring to uncited textual evidence, his notion of a clear explanation is completely unrepresented in the text. The terms "keep away" and "do not approach" are completely neutral and justify no inferences about the spheres in which they apply. While Mawdudi's interpretation is perhaps more uplifting than some, and favors women being treated the "normal way," whatever that is, his delusions of clear and concise textual explanations are merely reflections of his own conviction regarding an ambiguous passage.
Even when Mawdudi attempts to incorporate language structure into his argument, his speculations are purely interprative and not factually based. In his interpretation of female equality he references the definition of a verb, "a derivative of the root fdl", [that] is not used to mean . . . . Rather it means . . . " (E&A 418). Where is the credability in his statements? His interpretations for all we know are based on what he feels something means, and does not merit credability.
Hassan is the polar opposite in her arguments for female equality, elagently weaving language usage and meaning with exposing misconceptions and false incoporations. However, she too, in her grace of argument, ignores key texts that refute her cause, as most feminist authors seem to do. The clear statements that Mawdudi refers to in Surah 4:34 are not touched upon by Hassan, who only discusses misconceptions and instances of equal creation. Her assumption that if man and woman were created equally, they could not become unequal, does little to provide insight into the later references of women as subordinate and obedient to men.
Mawdudi draws many interpretations about various Surahs based on the way they sound, what they seem to imply, without really diving into the language and structure of the text. The argument about menstruation references lines that merely state that "it is a state of impurity, so keep away from them and do not approach them till they are cleansed" (E&A 414). Mawdudi then talk about how the "explanation of this injunction by the Prophet makes it clear . . . " that the impurity only refers to sexual intercourse. Unless he is referring to uncited textual evidence, his notion of a clear explanation is completely unrepresented in the text. The terms "keep away" and "do not approach" are completely neutral and justify no inferences about the spheres in which they apply. While Mawdudi's interpretation is perhaps more uplifting than some, and favors women being treated the "normal way," whatever that is, his delusions of clear and concise textual explanations are merely reflections of his own conviction regarding an ambiguous passage.
Even when Mawdudi attempts to incorporate language structure into his argument, his speculations are purely interprative and not factually based. In his interpretation of female equality he references the definition of a verb, "a derivative of the root fdl", [that] is not used to mean . . . . Rather it means . . . " (E&A 418). Where is the credability in his statements? His interpretations for all we know are based on what he feels something means, and does not merit credability.
Hassan is the polar opposite in her arguments for female equality, elagently weaving language usage and meaning with exposing misconceptions and false incoporations. However, she too, in her grace of argument, ignores key texts that refute her cause, as most feminist authors seem to do. The clear statements that Mawdudi refers to in Surah 4:34 are not touched upon by Hassan, who only discusses misconceptions and instances of equal creation. Her assumption that if man and woman were created equally, they could not become unequal, does little to provide insight into the later references of women as subordinate and obedient to men.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Qur'an
Creation in the Qur'an is certainly influenced by previous creation stories, but contains radical differences and clarifications that mark its separation from the old testament. The question of sex before sin in Genesis is a long debated argument with little textual reconciliation. The Qur'an, however, clearly sanctions sex, although whether this is before or after the "fall" is not clear due to the jumbled nature of the verses. When speaking of menstruation, it is said that men should "go not in unto them till they are cleansed. . . then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you" (E&A 180.) This clear sanctioning of sex is not seen in Genesis, and contributes heavily to the debate about what life was like before the "fall." Life before the fall is thought by some to embody god's intentions for humankind. The ambiguity regarding "pre-sin" sex in genesis leads to theories such as celibacy, sex on occasion, sex all the time without lust, and sex all the time with reproduction only sometimes. The Qur'an avoids this mess by clearly stating that sex is sanctioned by Allah.
Another hotly debated topic in Genesis that the Qur'an deals with straightforwardly is the issue of immortality. When Satan talks to Adam and his mate, he explains the consequences of eating the fruit as"lest ye should become angels or become of the immortals" (E&A181.) This implies that Adam and the woman (hard not to call here Eve here) were not made immortal if Satan speaks the truth. Genesis deals with this issue with confusion and ambiguity, like most others. God states that Adam and Eve "will certainly die" if they eat from the fruit, with no counter action to explain what would happen if they did not eat.
Adam and the woman's reaction to their own sin is by far the most drastically different facet of the story. We have seen the pride and relentlessness that accompanies the human's excuses to God in Genesis. In the Qur'an, the two humans immediately admit their wrongdoing by saying "We have wronged ourselves" (E&A 181.) This is part of the Islamic view that there was no "fall," and that the first humans are not to blame for introducing evil into the world. Their acknowledgement of their wrongdoing leads only to a "punishment" of banishment, not comparable to that in Genesis.
Despite the differences noted above, some contradictions seen in Genesis are also observed in the Qur'an. It is stated many times that men are superior to women. However, just as in Genesis 1, a phrase exists that seems to support equality: "We have created you male and female" (E&A 184). This is strikingly similar to the statement "male and female he did create them" (Gen 1:27). The similarity of these two statements support a direct influence of Genesis on the Qur'an.
Another hotly debated topic in Genesis that the Qur'an deals with straightforwardly is the issue of immortality. When Satan talks to Adam and his mate, he explains the consequences of eating the fruit as"lest ye should become angels or become of the immortals" (E&A181.) This implies that Adam and the woman (hard not to call here Eve here) were not made immortal if Satan speaks the truth. Genesis deals with this issue with confusion and ambiguity, like most others. God states that Adam and Eve "will certainly die" if they eat from the fruit, with no counter action to explain what would happen if they did not eat.
Adam and the woman's reaction to their own sin is by far the most drastically different facet of the story. We have seen the pride and relentlessness that accompanies the human's excuses to God in Genesis. In the Qur'an, the two humans immediately admit their wrongdoing by saying "We have wronged ourselves" (E&A 181.) This is part of the Islamic view that there was no "fall," and that the first humans are not to blame for introducing evil into the world. Their acknowledgement of their wrongdoing leads only to a "punishment" of banishment, not comparable to that in Genesis.
Despite the differences noted above, some contradictions seen in Genesis are also observed in the Qur'an. It is stated many times that men are superior to women. However, just as in Genesis 1, a phrase exists that seems to support equality: "We have created you male and female" (E&A 184). This is strikingly similar to the statement "male and female he did create them" (Gen 1:27). The similarity of these two statements support a direct influence of Genesis on the Qur'an.
Monday, November 10, 2008
The Shakers and the Oneida Community
The argument of Noyes regarding the function of women, like most other arguments we've seen, relies on selective picking of textual references to reach an agenda. To support the claim that amative sexuality is superior to reproductive sexuality, Noyes cites Gen 2:18, "he saw it was not good for man to be alone," to reason that companionship came before reproduction. However, just as the feminists hail Genesis 1 and abandon Genesis 2, Noyes does the opposite. The constant repetition in Genesis 1 of "after their kind" (Gen 1:14) and "bear fruit and be many and fill the earth" (Gen 1:28) clearly supports reproductive sexuality that Noyes does not touch upon. In stead, Noyes focuses on Genesis 2, where his claim can be better supported. As per most writers we've seen with agendas, Noyes picks and chooses what will strengthen his argument and leaves out contradictions.
The Oneida community values seem to be a conscious reversal of God's punishment. Both punishments, labor pains for women and a hard working struggle for men, are mitigated by the practice of shabby "birth control." The view of the Fall as an etiology for the modern American marriage seems supportable, as the modern link between reproduction, female inferiority, and male work is undeniable. Classifying the punishment as an etiology, rather than God's will allows its reversal to be tolerated. Once again, we see how different interpreters utilize different parts of the text to support their claims. Previous interpretations referred to the punishment as God's will to validate female subordination. Here, Noyes takes the word of God as the intention of amative love with only occasional reproduction, and attempts to reproduce it.
The entire claim that Adam and Eve enjoyed non-reproductive sex before the fall is founded on a translation of Genesis that improves this argument. Noyes references the King James version of Gen 3:16, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception," suggesting that sorrow and conception and independantly increased. Our Fox translation has genesis 3:16 as "I will multiply, multiply your pain (from) your pregnancy." This translation clearly does not support an increase in conception, and just refers to pain upon conception. A quick search on "biblegateway.com" of Genesis 3:16 in all versions shows that most link the pains with pregnancy, while few consider them separately like that of the King James bible. Standing an interpretation on a controversial clause of Genesis makes it easier to claim something without much direct opposing evidence, since many translations exist.
The Oneida community values seem to be a conscious reversal of God's punishment. Both punishments, labor pains for women and a hard working struggle for men, are mitigated by the practice of shabby "birth control." The view of the Fall as an etiology for the modern American marriage seems supportable, as the modern link between reproduction, female inferiority, and male work is undeniable. Classifying the punishment as an etiology, rather than God's will allows its reversal to be tolerated. Once again, we see how different interpreters utilize different parts of the text to support their claims. Previous interpretations referred to the punishment as God's will to validate female subordination. Here, Noyes takes the word of God as the intention of amative love with only occasional reproduction, and attempts to reproduce it.
The entire claim that Adam and Eve enjoyed non-reproductive sex before the fall is founded on a translation of Genesis that improves this argument. Noyes references the King James version of Gen 3:16, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception," suggesting that sorrow and conception and independantly increased. Our Fox translation has genesis 3:16 as "I will multiply, multiply your pain (from) your pregnancy." This translation clearly does not support an increase in conception, and just refers to pain upon conception. A quick search on "biblegateway.com" of Genesis 3:16 in all versions shows that most link the pains with pregnancy, while few consider them separately like that of the King James bible. Standing an interpretation on a controversial clause of Genesis makes it easier to claim something without much direct opposing evidence, since many translations exist.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Slavery Ordained of God
Fred A. Ross puts strong emphasis on a definition of right that is "made by God" (E&A 324). God's word is so strong it is mentioned as "world wide law" (E&A 325). This sanctity of God's word is repeated multiple times for effect, and sets a tone for absolute acceptance for whatever is even implied by God's word. Ross lists the relations ordained by god, including master and slave. A little research shows that slavery is indeed mentioned in the old testament:
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Clearly, slavery is ordained by god through the bible. As Ross states, these relationships are "directly commanded" (E&A 325) as seen by the verses above. However, to give more credibility to his argument beyond a few sporadic mentions of slavery that few people have heard of, Ross draws a huge parallel between the relationship of master/slave and husband/wife. Ross asserts that the wife is the slave, a notion that obviously stem's from Eve's punishment of being ruled over. In doing this, Ross links slavery to one of the most recognizable Christian religious events: the fall of man. He clearly references the punishment when he discusses how the role of women "is made for her, and not by her" (E&A 325). Ross compares the horrors of slavery to the even worse horrors of female subjugation. Further so, he compares the "command" of a husband to wife to that of a master to slave.
The Problem in Ross' argument is that, while there may be mention of slavery elsewhere, his paramount parallel of slavery to marriage is unfounded in the text. God clearly punishes women and only the woman: "To the woman he said" (Gen 3:15). Ross also makes no mention of how that command of subjugation is in unison with one of labor pains, which certainly do not fit into his parallel of slavery. With an agenda of likening the relationships of slavery and marriage, Ross focuses on the more advantageous of the two punishments, the one about ruling. Ross cleverly constructs his argument, first laying down the sanctity of God's word, then making the reader believe God's word about Eve's punishment is a command of slavery.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Clearly, slavery is ordained by god through the bible. As Ross states, these relationships are "directly commanded" (E&A 325) as seen by the verses above. However, to give more credibility to his argument beyond a few sporadic mentions of slavery that few people have heard of, Ross draws a huge parallel between the relationship of master/slave and husband/wife. Ross asserts that the wife is the slave, a notion that obviously stem's from Eve's punishment of being ruled over. In doing this, Ross links slavery to one of the most recognizable Christian religious events: the fall of man. He clearly references the punishment when he discusses how the role of women "is made for her, and not by her" (E&A 325). Ross compares the horrors of slavery to the even worse horrors of female subjugation. Further so, he compares the "command" of a husband to wife to that of a master to slave.
The Problem in Ross' argument is that, while there may be mention of slavery elsewhere, his paramount parallel of slavery to marriage is unfounded in the text. God clearly punishes women and only the woman: "To the woman he said" (Gen 3:15). Ross also makes no mention of how that command of subjugation is in unison with one of labor pains, which certainly do not fit into his parallel of slavery. With an agenda of likening the relationships of slavery and marriage, Ross focuses on the more advantageous of the two punishments, the one about ruling. Ross cleverly constructs his argument, first laying down the sanctity of God's word, then making the reader believe God's word about Eve's punishment is a command of slavery.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The Woman's Bible
Like we would predict, Stanton heavily relies on the first creation to bolster her point of complete equality of men and women. Tactfully, rather than entirely ignoring the creation in Genesis 2, Stanton meticulously explains its discountability. In one of the most fact based arguments I've seen so far, Stanton outlines the history of the modern old testament and develops a theory that the second creation is a creation itself by men to justify female subjugation.
Stanton continues to make very compelling points to shake readers from accepting the plotline of the story as a reflection of truth. One argument I liked was her proposal that after Eve's creation, all further life comes from woman, which is to say that woman would have subject over her sons (men). This sharp contradiction from the notion that female creation from man makes her inferior reveals the insanity of the latter argument. Stanton also counter attacks the notion of the woman as the source of evil, citing the snake's existance as the root of evil. Here she tries to absolve women of their blame. Stanton realy focuses on attacking the socially integrated notions that predispose genesis interpreters to lean towards female subjugation. For example, the common notion that women were always in subjection is swiftly overturned.
After attempting to heal the wounds of ingrained dogmatic thought, Stanton elevates women to superior in her actions with the snake. During this ever controversial scene, Stanton places Adam off to the side drooling as Eve accepts the fruit. I found it very interesting how Stanton makes use of the fact that Eve hears the command from Adam rather than god, as this argument is usually just the opposite to say that Eve knows the words of god because of her recalling of them. Stanton takes a different twist on this to say that Eve merely hears a "whisper" from Adam, as if this prohibition was not correctly conveyed to her. This image attempts again to absolve Eve from intentional misdoing by taking a stance of ignorance.
Stanton's writing was beautifully clear and took very new and interesting views towards the events of Genesis to bolster women in new ways. We see the first attempts here to reverse the societal standards that plague modern thought.
Stanton continues to make very compelling points to shake readers from accepting the plotline of the story as a reflection of truth. One argument I liked was her proposal that after Eve's creation, all further life comes from woman, which is to say that woman would have subject over her sons (men). This sharp contradiction from the notion that female creation from man makes her inferior reveals the insanity of the latter argument. Stanton also counter attacks the notion of the woman as the source of evil, citing the snake's existance as the root of evil. Here she tries to absolve women of their blame. Stanton realy focuses on attacking the socially integrated notions that predispose genesis interpreters to lean towards female subjugation. For example, the common notion that women were always in subjection is swiftly overturned.
After attempting to heal the wounds of ingrained dogmatic thought, Stanton elevates women to superior in her actions with the snake. During this ever controversial scene, Stanton places Adam off to the side drooling as Eve accepts the fruit. I found it very interesting how Stanton makes use of the fact that Eve hears the command from Adam rather than god, as this argument is usually just the opposite to say that Eve knows the words of god because of her recalling of them. Stanton takes a different twist on this to say that Eve merely hears a "whisper" from Adam, as if this prohibition was not correctly conveyed to her. This image attempts again to absolve Eve from intentional misdoing by taking a stance of ignorance.
Stanton's writing was beautifully clear and took very new and interesting views towards the events of Genesis to bolster women in new ways. We see the first attempts here to reverse the societal standards that plague modern thought.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Counter-Voices
It is absolutely fascinating how woman use the same textual evidence to support their claims for equality as men do to support female submission. The construct of weakness rooted in the snake's decision to approach the woman is taken from a different angle by these women. While men obsess over Eve's use of "lest" in her argument with the snake, these women note the strength that Eve has an argument, as opposed to Adam who "submissively" takes the fruit from Eve. We see how paradise lost focused on such an important, unexplained facet of our story: Adam's presence and motive in eating the fruit. So paramount is this to understanding the story that Milton creates a motive in light of the absence of one. When looking at the text, it seems as though the women here are correct. Adam does not even mention the prohibition and God's word before he eats. Women are usually said to be more distant from god than men, both in their creation and how God does not speak directly to women. However, Eve demonstrates a much closer tie to God's word than Adam does.
Grimke adopts many of the themes we have seen so far in male interpretations and takes them a step further. The strong theme of companionship we saw in the protestant readings emerges here when she claims Eve's creation "was to give [Adam] a companion, in all respects his equal" (E&A 341.) Of course Grimke takes it one step further and advocates complete equality in Adam and Eve's life partnership, but drawing on previous notions is a good way to persuay a male reader. The previous thought that only man was given power over the earth and Garden of Eden is reexamined here by taking the word "man" as generic term for the ambiguous "mankind." Again most of the content used to support female submission is the exact content used to support their equality.
The "letter of the God of Love" was a very confusing text, as it seemed to try and elevate the position of the woman by relying on the very characteristics men use to subdue them. The initial argument of punishing all women for the deeds of one is compelling. However, multiple characterizations of women as gentile, plain, afraid, and weak filled the text. Hopefully we can clarify this issue in class.
Grimke adopts many of the themes we have seen so far in male interpretations and takes them a step further. The strong theme of companionship we saw in the protestant readings emerges here when she claims Eve's creation "was to give [Adam] a companion, in all respects his equal" (E&A 341.) Of course Grimke takes it one step further and advocates complete equality in Adam and Eve's life partnership, but drawing on previous notions is a good way to persuay a male reader. The previous thought that only man was given power over the earth and Garden of Eden is reexamined here by taking the word "man" as generic term for the ambiguous "mankind." Again most of the content used to support female submission is the exact content used to support their equality.
The "letter of the God of Love" was a very confusing text, as it seemed to try and elevate the position of the woman by relying on the very characteristics men use to subdue them. The initial argument of punishing all women for the deeds of one is compelling. However, multiple characterizations of women as gentile, plain, afraid, and weak filled the text. Hopefully we can clarify this issue in class.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Paradise Lost
Milton's retelling of Genesis 2 is much more than a simple reinterpretation. Much can be derived from Milton's constant references, strong character descriptions, and underlying themes of Paradise Lost. Adam and Eve share in a relationship before sin, which until this point is not well characterized. One of the most prominent aspects of Genesis interpretation that I found throughout the story is the question of equality of creation and gender roles. The word "godlike" is used to describe Adam's creation, whereas "Manlike" is used to describe Eve's. There exists an interesting interplay between power imbalance and acceptance. While Adam clearly takes "true autoritie," and Eve embodies "softness", accept these roles without abuse in order to form a perfect union of the two. This might reflect Milton's view on marriage, that while there are irreconcilable differences between husband and wife they can be used to strengthen a relationship. Eve "Yield[s] with coy submission, modest pride" implying that she accepts her slightly depreciated role. Very important is the sense of love and kinship felt by Adam and Eve that Milton portrays. Even Satan finds "In them divine resemblance," suggesting that their unity is more divine than each separately.
Keeping with their love for one another, the Fall is almost seen as a triumph of Adam and Eve's love rather than an act of disobedience. Yes, Eve can be blamed as causing the fall, but she also provides the first true test of love for humanity. The common phrase "I would die for you" is spawned here as Adam enters his monologue about his decision. Multiple different texts come to my head when reading this, such as Romeo and Juliet when they end up dead from love, and even Hamlet's "to be or not to be" speech. When reading the bible, the thought process or Adam is not covered, as he merely takes the fruit and eats it. This explanation of love as Adam's motive for eating redeems the fall as a triumph of love.
The majority of awakening that occurs according to Milton is sexual. The first thing Adam and Eve do upon eating the fruit is have sex with an unprecidented lustfulness. This is contrary to the Biblical version where Adam and Eve immediately cover themselves after gaining knowledge. The clothing scene in Milton's work is not seen untill the morning after their awakening.
Adam's cry to god asking why Eve was created is very similar to a text we have read (which i cannot remember) that explained that if Eve's purpose was for companionship, surely another male would have been created. Milton uses this logic here when Adam asks why some other form of reproduction could have been created that does not use a female, and why the world could not have been filled with men.
Another thing I found interesting in this text was Eve's consideration of keeping the knowledge for herself. I find this as a contradiction to my previous argument of Adam and Eve's acceptance of their roles to create a strong unity. Here it seems as if Eve is resentful again, and would take the knowledge to gain an "upper hand" with Adam, to balance out their inequality. However, her reasoning for not choosing this course of action is somewhat redeeming, in that she seems more shunned by the prospect of not being with Adam than she does about death itself. Here too we see Eve's "heroine" qualities. She gives Adam the fruit to keep them equal and perpetuate their love.
Keeping with their love for one another, the Fall is almost seen as a triumph of Adam and Eve's love rather than an act of disobedience. Yes, Eve can be blamed as causing the fall, but she also provides the first true test of love for humanity. The common phrase "I would die for you" is spawned here as Adam enters his monologue about his decision. Multiple different texts come to my head when reading this, such as Romeo and Juliet when they end up dead from love, and even Hamlet's "to be or not to be" speech. When reading the bible, the thought process or Adam is not covered, as he merely takes the fruit and eats it. This explanation of love as Adam's motive for eating redeems the fall as a triumph of love.
The majority of awakening that occurs according to Milton is sexual. The first thing Adam and Eve do upon eating the fruit is have sex with an unprecidented lustfulness. This is contrary to the Biblical version where Adam and Eve immediately cover themselves after gaining knowledge. The clothing scene in Milton's work is not seen untill the morning after their awakening.
Adam's cry to god asking why Eve was created is very similar to a text we have read (which i cannot remember) that explained that if Eve's purpose was for companionship, surely another male would have been created. Milton uses this logic here when Adam asks why some other form of reproduction could have been created that does not use a female, and why the world could not have been filled with men.
Another thing I found interesting in this text was Eve's consideration of keeping the knowledge for herself. I find this as a contradiction to my previous argument of Adam and Eve's acceptance of their roles to create a strong unity. Here it seems as if Eve is resentful again, and would take the knowledge to gain an "upper hand" with Adam, to balance out their inequality. However, her reasoning for not choosing this course of action is somewhat redeeming, in that she seems more shunned by the prospect of not being with Adam than she does about death itself. Here too we see Eve's "heroine" qualities. She gives Adam the fruit to keep them equal and perpetuate their love.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Protestant Reformation
The ever perplexing question of life's purpose has so far been summed up for women with one term: reproduction. We have seen this as a way to subdue women to the status of walking uteruses that obey commands. With the protestant reformation and a change in thinking, women step up the ladder to a role of life partnership with their male counterparts. It is now recognized that women are creatures whom "God Himself took delight" (E&A 268) to create. The partnership between man and woman is now honored and called upon to characterize life in the garden before the fall.
Martin Luther, although he still recognizes an innate male superiority, goes far enough to say "the husband differs from the wife in no other respect than in sex" (E&A 270). Here, instead of superiority found in the total being of Adam, it is localized to sex, as Luther reinforces later. He draws parallels to humans and animals by saying "as in all the rest of nature the strength of the male surpasses that of the other sex" (E&A 270). The notion that male superiority is confined only to biology and not to creation and ordinance by god, is a huge step for women compared to our previous interpretations.
Calvin also supports the creation of women as a move towards perfection, as humans are social creatures. Our previous discussion of Eve as "defective" due to her creation from a rib is not construed as negative by Calvin. Eve's composition as part of Adam draws the two closer. The view of a rib "stolen" from Adam no longer applies, as his rib is always by his side as a faithful life partner. Calvin also agrees with Luther that the purpose of the woman is not merely reproduction, but a means for one human to combine with another on many levels. Of course, subservience is still seen, as Calvin says God perscribes the woman to help the man.
Luther and Calvin take different stances on Eve's punishments. Luther attempts to twist Eve's punishment as an almost positive sentance by highlight all the things which Eve still posesses: procreation, her sex, her husband, and "the glory of motherhood" (E&A 273). Luther goes far enough to suggest "Eve had a heart full of joy eve in an apparently sad situation" (E&A 273). This seems to be a tactic to propogate the sense of forgiveness and salvation in god, as even his punishment of sinners is not cruel and unjust.
Calvin recognizes more the punishing aspects of God's punishments, pointing out that women go from subjection to servitude. Calvin also discusses the pain that women endure during childhood, and compare it to a painless birth that might have existed in the natural state.
What's important in these readings is recognizing the new role of women as a social, intellectual, and "domestic" partner to Adam rather than merely a means of propogating seed.
Martin Luther, although he still recognizes an innate male superiority, goes far enough to say "the husband differs from the wife in no other respect than in sex" (E&A 270). Here, instead of superiority found in the total being of Adam, it is localized to sex, as Luther reinforces later. He draws parallels to humans and animals by saying "as in all the rest of nature the strength of the male surpasses that of the other sex" (E&A 270). The notion that male superiority is confined only to biology and not to creation and ordinance by god, is a huge step for women compared to our previous interpretations.
Calvin also supports the creation of women as a move towards perfection, as humans are social creatures. Our previous discussion of Eve as "defective" due to her creation from a rib is not construed as negative by Calvin. Eve's composition as part of Adam draws the two closer. The view of a rib "stolen" from Adam no longer applies, as his rib is always by his side as a faithful life partner. Calvin also agrees with Luther that the purpose of the woman is not merely reproduction, but a means for one human to combine with another on many levels. Of course, subservience is still seen, as Calvin says God perscribes the woman to help the man.
Luther and Calvin take different stances on Eve's punishments. Luther attempts to twist Eve's punishment as an almost positive sentance by highlight all the things which Eve still posesses: procreation, her sex, her husband, and "the glory of motherhood" (E&A 273). Luther goes far enough to suggest "Eve had a heart full of joy eve in an apparently sad situation" (E&A 273). This seems to be a tactic to propogate the sense of forgiveness and salvation in god, as even his punishment of sinners is not cruel and unjust.
Calvin recognizes more the punishing aspects of God's punishments, pointing out that women go from subjection to servitude. Calvin also discusses the pain that women endure during childhood, and compare it to a painless birth that might have existed in the natural state.
What's important in these readings is recognizing the new role of women as a social, intellectual, and "domestic" partner to Adam rather than merely a means of propogating seed.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Lilith
The story of Lilith has major implications for Genesis 2. Since this story is not contained in the bible, I'm not sure how it can be interpreted. Would it be appropriate to speak of the story as truth when analyzing its implications, or can one merely analyze the story as a reaction to Genesis 2?
If we take the story to be true, its implications are confusing and controversial. God had intended for man and woman to be equal, and created a female that expected equality. Man's dominance then, is not god given, but comes from somewhere else. The perfection so heavily referenced when talking about creation is shattered. Why would God create man and woman from the same material if man was going to have an innate sense of power and dominance. Did God know man was going to expect Lilith to be subservient? God's actions to bring Lilith back to Adam, by sending three angels to talk to her, seem to suggest that God's plan had gone awry. While this story does wonders for feminism, it creates many contradictions in terms of God's motives and omniscience.
Another aspect of our course that this story "clarifies" if taken as true is the question of intercourse before sin. The implications of this story are monumental. Not only are Adam and Lilith having sex before any fruit is tasted, but they have a preference of position! This almost surely corroberates the existance of lust from the beginning of creation. The fact that Adam and Lilith argue over who shall "lie below" implies a preference that could only exist with some kind of enjoyment of sex. Sex here is certainly not see here as solely a mode of reproduction comparable in emotion to shaking a hand.
The Zohar takes an interesting view on Adam's reaction to Eve's creation. The exclamations we discussed as verifying sexual intercourse and explaining kinship are taken here to support love and affection between Adam and Eve. If one thinks about the story of Lilith, it seems that Adam is so excited now to recieve his "obedient" wife after his bad experience with his first. The downward spiral of Lilith's actions lead her to become a deamon, and a prominant Jewish mythological figure. This further demonization of women, mixed with an equal creation as the story recalls, is confusing and raises questions of what is important about the creation story. Are God's intentions of an equal creation the more important factor of the story, or is it more important to note that Lilith's expectation of equality was rejected by Adam which in turn causes her association with evil?
I'm having a difficult time formulating a purpose for the story of Lilith, as it seems that so many things are being said at once. Is this story a triumph of the female spirit? Did men at the time feel that Genesis 2 was insufficient at explaining why women should be subservient, so they created an additional story to support that evil followed woman's expectation of equality? Whatever the motives were, how can we reconcile the fact that God made an incorrect judgement about female creation?
If we take the story to be true, its implications are confusing and controversial. God had intended for man and woman to be equal, and created a female that expected equality. Man's dominance then, is not god given, but comes from somewhere else. The perfection so heavily referenced when talking about creation is shattered. Why would God create man and woman from the same material if man was going to have an innate sense of power and dominance. Did God know man was going to expect Lilith to be subservient? God's actions to bring Lilith back to Adam, by sending three angels to talk to her, seem to suggest that God's plan had gone awry. While this story does wonders for feminism, it creates many contradictions in terms of God's motives and omniscience.
Another aspect of our course that this story "clarifies" if taken as true is the question of intercourse before sin. The implications of this story are monumental. Not only are Adam and Lilith having sex before any fruit is tasted, but they have a preference of position! This almost surely corroberates the existance of lust from the beginning of creation. The fact that Adam and Lilith argue over who shall "lie below" implies a preference that could only exist with some kind of enjoyment of sex. Sex here is certainly not see here as solely a mode of reproduction comparable in emotion to shaking a hand.
The Zohar takes an interesting view on Adam's reaction to Eve's creation. The exclamations we discussed as verifying sexual intercourse and explaining kinship are taken here to support love and affection between Adam and Eve. If one thinks about the story of Lilith, it seems that Adam is so excited now to recieve his "obedient" wife after his bad experience with his first. The downward spiral of Lilith's actions lead her to become a deamon, and a prominant Jewish mythological figure. This further demonization of women, mixed with an equal creation as the story recalls, is confusing and raises questions of what is important about the creation story. Are God's intentions of an equal creation the more important factor of the story, or is it more important to note that Lilith's expectation of equality was rejected by Adam which in turn causes her association with evil?
I'm having a difficult time formulating a purpose for the story of Lilith, as it seems that so many things are being said at once. Is this story a triumph of the female spirit? Did men at the time feel that Genesis 2 was insufficient at explaining why women should be subservient, so they created an additional story to support that evil followed woman's expectation of equality? Whatever the motives were, how can we reconcile the fact that God made an incorrect judgement about female creation?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Nahmanides & Maimonides
Much is said in these texts about the nature of good and evil and what this knowledge really entails. The question of sex before sin is addressed by Nahmanides and characterized as passionless, lustless reproduction. It is described as almost involuntary, just another every day action not prompted by want or desire. Genitals were thought of "like the face and the hands and they were not ashamed of them" (E&A214). The knowledge of good and evil then becomes a conscious will to have sex and the institution of a decision between good and evil. The fact that sex now becomes a product of desire characterizes it as the evil choice, and tarnishes its original purpose of reproduction. The sin associated with sex is far removed from the physical act, and is rooted in the gained capacity to satisfy lustful desire. Almost synonymously, the knowledge of good and evil by Nahmanides is the capacity to fulfill desires.
Maimonides tackles a view that the knowledge of good and evil is humanity's greatest triumph and was strangely given to us as a punishment for sin. Maimonides makes the crucial distinction between knowledge of good and evil and intellect, which he states was originally present in our innocent state. Before the downfall man has the capacity to distinguish between true and false, not right and wrong. After sin man loses the capacity to distinguish absolute truth and is stuck with apparent truths. The terms good and bad reflect apparent truths, whereas true and false reflect absolute truths. We see god, a knower of good and evil, use the word good repeatedly, and untill eating the fruit nothing the humans do is "good." Maimonides gives the clear example of how Eve "saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to the eyes" (E&A 217). This sentance includes newly acquired desires and apparent truths.
Going back to Nahmanides, I so thoroughly appreciated his explanation of the punishmet given to Eve. Finally, someone who does not solely rely on male superiority to justify Eve's punishment! Nahmanides asserts that Eve's submission to Adam is a punished reversal of the order of events that led to Adam's sin. Since Adam sinned due to Eve's command to eat the fruit, now it is her turn to fall under Adam's command. This refreshingly logical reasoning gives great support for Eve's punishment.
Maimonides tackles a view that the knowledge of good and evil is humanity's greatest triumph and was strangely given to us as a punishment for sin. Maimonides makes the crucial distinction between knowledge of good and evil and intellect, which he states was originally present in our innocent state. Before the downfall man has the capacity to distinguish between true and false, not right and wrong. After sin man loses the capacity to distinguish absolute truth and is stuck with apparent truths. The terms good and bad reflect apparent truths, whereas true and false reflect absolute truths. We see god, a knower of good and evil, use the word good repeatedly, and untill eating the fruit nothing the humans do is "good." Maimonides gives the clear example of how Eve "saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to the eyes" (E&A 217). This sentance includes newly acquired desires and apparent truths.
Going back to Nahmanides, I so thoroughly appreciated his explanation of the punishmet given to Eve. Finally, someone who does not solely rely on male superiority to justify Eve's punishment! Nahmanides asserts that Eve's submission to Adam is a punished reversal of the order of events that led to Adam's sin. Since Adam sinned due to Eve's command to eat the fruit, now it is her turn to fall under Adam's command. This refreshingly logical reasoning gives great support for Eve's punishment.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Aquinas
It was almost comical reading the highly reasoned arguments of Aquinas on the topic of Genesis 2, a story so highly critiqued and called upon that reason has almost completely been removed from many of the questions asked about the text. So far, in regards to female creation, we have heard rants about imperfection, evil, and motives that must include reproduction, for if not god would have just created a man. In light of these, Aquinas tackles the basic question of whether woman should have been made from man. Three objections are given in the full argument I found online. One objection states that different sexes exist in all animals, and an order of creation was not specified for these species, so it shouldn’t have been with humankind either. Another applies kinship laws to Adam and Eve as unfit parents if they were so closely related. I was a bit disappointed that Aquinas’ reasoning relied on an etiological explanation of male superiority to support creation order. To give a natural order of male as the leader of the human race, it seems fit that he be created first, just as god existed before the heavens and the earth. Aquinas goes on to rely on a very strict interpretation of the lines “wherefore a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife,” to reason that Adam would be more likely to join with Eve if they were made from the same material. This argument doesn’t appeal to me, as Adam and Eve could still have been created in the same fashion, both from the earth, just as all other animals that seem to have little trouble finding their sexual partners. To me, the rational objections provided before Aquinas’ answer seem more compelling than his answers. Although rational reasoning is used in Aquinas’ argument, the reasoning is applied to weak facts.
The second question Aquinas tackles in my reading regards Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib. We have seen the rib’s curvature construed as imperfection, and used to support male domination. Logical objections are made regarding Eve’s composition, and superfluity of god’s creation in that nothing not needed for life could have been created by god. Also, there is an argument that it would have been painful for god to remove a rib from Adam, even though the test clearly refers to a very peacefully anesthetic operation. Aquinas’ argument is less than satisfactory here, as he basically just gives reasons that the woman was not created from the head and feet. His reply to objection 2 is the most worthwhile in my opinion, as he reconciles the problem of superfluity in creation, by taking the rib in a general sense of human anatomy rather than a specific bone. He cites natural occurrences of body parts leaving the body, such as semen. My overall impression of this reading was that the objections had a stronger and more factual based argument that Aquinas, who often used reason out of context.
The second question Aquinas tackles in my reading regards Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib. We have seen the rib’s curvature construed as imperfection, and used to support male domination. Logical objections are made regarding Eve’s composition, and superfluity of god’s creation in that nothing not needed for life could have been created by god. Also, there is an argument that it would have been painful for god to remove a rib from Adam, even though the test clearly refers to a very peacefully anesthetic operation. Aquinas’ argument is less than satisfactory here, as he basically just gives reasons that the woman was not created from the head and feet. His reply to objection 2 is the most worthwhile in my opinion, as he reconciles the problem of superfluity in creation, by taking the rib in a general sense of human anatomy rather than a specific bone. He cites natural occurrences of body parts leaving the body, such as semen. My overall impression of this reading was that the objections had a stronger and more factual based argument that Aquinas, who often used reason out of context.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Demonization of women
If medieval Christians were alive today, they would say that women cause cancer. Demonization of women is taken to a whole new level in these texts. The underlying shift i see that leads to this new interpretation is a conscious evil, rather than a more "accidental" evil we have seen in previous interpretations. Until now, most talk of Eve as the origin of sin revolves around her weak nature and her ability to be tricked by Satan. Previously Eve plays an accidental spark that ignites a fire of sin for all ages to come. Here, the texts shift dramatically to a conscious lust and desire for evil. Eve no longer was tricked into sin, but seeks it out with her "insatiable desire." Women are no longer taken by sin, but now have "no shame or persuasion that can they desist from such acts." (E&A 247). The shift from passive to aggressive is seen in the words "lust," "ambition," "infatuation," "liar," and "passions."
Female sexuality takes on an interesting role in these texts as a sort of rebuttle to their inferiority. It is referenced in the Testament of Reuben that the reason females tempt and corrupt men with their sexuality is that they're "lacking authority or power over man" (Reuben). This motive given to female lust is ridiculous to say the least. Regardless of specific motive it is apparent that female lust is seen as a consciously evil act, made to ensnare, corrupt, and bash faith. It is as if the pleasure is taken out of lust, and the word "carnal" is taken so literally it conjures up images in my head of a dog ripping apart a piece of steak.
Men at the time of these texts seemed to see woman as a force of evil with one redeemable quality, reproduction. The phrase "necessary evil" (E&A 243) used by Malleus Maleficarum comes up today when slavery in America is taught to high school students. Certain conflicted minds during the era of slavery in America saw the institution as a necessary evil, required to keep the economy running at a moral expense. It seems here that women are just kept around for their birth canals to sustain a population while their evil corruption is tolerated.
A point I found fascinating is how Malleus Maleficarum finds fault in the female creation based on the curvature of a man's rib. It is not enough that females are created from men and thus are second priority and are destined to rule. In addition, they are created from a harshly shaped bone! There are two main functions of the rib bone: protection and allowing us to breath. It is not noted that Eve was taken from such an important part of the human body, but that she was taken by a curved part of the human body, making her intrisically flawed. The only straight bones of the human body i know are the bones of the extremities, and if Eve were taken from one of those Adam would have been terribly disfigured, making a slightly awkward genesis 2 story. This point of explanation for inferiority seems like the most makeshift one we've seen yet, and proves that the men writing this must have had incredible insecurity issues.
Female sexuality takes on an interesting role in these texts as a sort of rebuttle to their inferiority. It is referenced in the Testament of Reuben that the reason females tempt and corrupt men with their sexuality is that they're "lacking authority or power over man" (Reuben). This motive given to female lust is ridiculous to say the least. Regardless of specific motive it is apparent that female lust is seen as a consciously evil act, made to ensnare, corrupt, and bash faith. It is as if the pleasure is taken out of lust, and the word "carnal" is taken so literally it conjures up images in my head of a dog ripping apart a piece of steak.
Men at the time of these texts seemed to see woman as a force of evil with one redeemable quality, reproduction. The phrase "necessary evil" (E&A 243) used by Malleus Maleficarum comes up today when slavery in America is taught to high school students. Certain conflicted minds during the era of slavery in America saw the institution as a necessary evil, required to keep the economy running at a moral expense. It seems here that women are just kept around for their birth canals to sustain a population while their evil corruption is tolerated.
A point I found fascinating is how Malleus Maleficarum finds fault in the female creation based on the curvature of a man's rib. It is not enough that females are created from men and thus are second priority and are destined to rule. In addition, they are created from a harshly shaped bone! There are two main functions of the rib bone: protection and allowing us to breath. It is not noted that Eve was taken from such an important part of the human body, but that she was taken by a curved part of the human body, making her intrisically flawed. The only straight bones of the human body i know are the bones of the extremities, and if Eve were taken from one of those Adam would have been terribly disfigured, making a slightly awkward genesis 2 story. This point of explanation for inferiority seems like the most makeshift one we've seen yet, and proves that the men writing this must have had incredible insecurity issues.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Augustine
Apparently the problem of reconciling Genesis 1 and 2 is not a recent struggle. Reading Augustine's attempts at integrating the two creations really gives me a feeling of timelessness when it comes to this story, as I feel like he could have been sitting in our class pitching his ideas when we discussed contradictions of the stories, and completely fit in. His ideas about a "spiritual creation" are very interesting and fit well when trying to reconcile the differences in the stories.
He goes on to comment about circumastances of Adam and Eve's sin and their punishments. Characterizing the fall of man is probably one of the most important things when considering the notion of original sin. Augustine takes the sin beyond the simple act of dibobeying god's word. He asserts that Adam and Eve's sin also comes from not being able to admit their wrongdoing. It is the innate human sense of pride, to shift blame from oneself, that is their born quality of sin. What reason did Adam and Eve have to know morality or right and wrong. They were told not to do something and they did it. If they were created without any sense of human pride they would have confessed to their wrongdoing. It is, then, the pride that even the first humans were born with that constitues original sin.
It is also interesting to note, if looking at the issue of pride, that it seems to be a unifying force for the man and woman. Countless interpretations speak of the woman as the origin on sin (even later in Augustine's writing), and the man as this "innocent bystander." Augustine's mention of pride seems to put Adam and Eve on the same level for a nanosecond, and recognize them both as possessing a negative human trait.
In my eyes, these implications are huge. Original sin pretty much assumes that something went wrong with creation. God attempted to make humankind in his image, but somehow incorporated a fatal flaw in all of us. Original sin seems like a confession that our creation is somehow not 100% godlike.
Spong takes an interesting stab at original sin by very bluntly opposing the creation story as fact in favor of evolution. Therefore, the original humans could not have literally passed this sin onto all of humanity. According to Spong, all human nature at least has the potential to be intrinsically good, as it is not doomed by original sin. Jesus throughout time assumes a role of savior to perpetuate the notion of original sin. Spong takes a popular view that sin is used by christianity as a form of guilt to increase its power and reach. On a personal note, i feel that humanity in its essence is the state of nonperfection. Our definition as human is an embodiment of our ability to recognize our own shortcomings and sins. To me it is not as important to define that we are born with "original sin," but to note that we are born with the capacity to recognize sin.
He goes on to comment about circumastances of Adam and Eve's sin and their punishments. Characterizing the fall of man is probably one of the most important things when considering the notion of original sin. Augustine takes the sin beyond the simple act of dibobeying god's word. He asserts that Adam and Eve's sin also comes from not being able to admit their wrongdoing. It is the innate human sense of pride, to shift blame from oneself, that is their born quality of sin. What reason did Adam and Eve have to know morality or right and wrong. They were told not to do something and they did it. If they were created without any sense of human pride they would have confessed to their wrongdoing. It is, then, the pride that even the first humans were born with that constitues original sin.
It is also interesting to note, if looking at the issue of pride, that it seems to be a unifying force for the man and woman. Countless interpretations speak of the woman as the origin on sin (even later in Augustine's writing), and the man as this "innocent bystander." Augustine's mention of pride seems to put Adam and Eve on the same level for a nanosecond, and recognize them both as possessing a negative human trait.
In my eyes, these implications are huge. Original sin pretty much assumes that something went wrong with creation. God attempted to make humankind in his image, but somehow incorporated a fatal flaw in all of us. Original sin seems like a confession that our creation is somehow not 100% godlike.
Spong takes an interesting stab at original sin by very bluntly opposing the creation story as fact in favor of evolution. Therefore, the original humans could not have literally passed this sin onto all of humanity. According to Spong, all human nature at least has the potential to be intrinsically good, as it is not doomed by original sin. Jesus throughout time assumes a role of savior to perpetuate the notion of original sin. Spong takes a popular view that sin is used by christianity as a form of guilt to increase its power and reach. On a personal note, i feel that humanity in its essence is the state of nonperfection. Our definition as human is an embodiment of our ability to recognize our own shortcomings and sins. To me it is not as important to define that we are born with "original sin," but to note that we are born with the capacity to recognize sin.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Allegorical Interpretation
Philo takes a very Christian interpretation of the events of the Garden of Eden as the origin of evil. The notion of a downfall of humanity is completely reflected in Philo's statement that the first humans "exchange[d] the life of immortality and well-being for the life of mortality and misfortune" (151-152). The events in the garden according to Philo seem to be summed up by one phrase: everything was peachy untill Eve showed up. His position on physical unity and its tie to the origin of evil is controversial. God creates Eve as a counterpart to Adam, and in effect they "become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). If the becoming one flesh is interpreted as producing offspring, then god's intention for creating Eve included sexual reproduction. Philo ties reproduction with desire and "bodily pleasure, which is the starting point of wicked deeds and violations of the Law" (151-152). This seems a bit contradictory that an act ordained by god is the root of all wicked deeds.
I found it interesting to note again the similarity to greek mythology in the joining of "two separate halves of a single being" (151-152). It is interesting how in the same passage Philo can talk about Adam and Eve as two separate halves of the same being, almost giving them a sense of equality, and also separate them so much as the pure and the evil. Eve is Adam's complete separate half, yet "becomes for him the beginning of blameworthy life" (151-152). Apparently god divided things just perfectly so that all good segregated into Adam, and all evil into Eve.
The references to female inferiority are innumerable and are becoming commonplace. Thankfully, we are beginning to see the images of male and female take on more complex roles than just superior and inferior. The allegorical implications of Origen suggest that maleness takes on a meaning of the spirit, and femininity takes on the meaning of the soul. This may just be another way to characterize male as strong and full of vitality, and the woman as delicate and quiet, but these meanings further elucidate (or complicate) the story's implications. Taking the Garden of Eden story as an allegory, we can delve into discussions such as what it might mean for the spirit to dominate over the soul, and which is of higher importance, the spirit or the soul. These allegorical symbols seem to obscure the meaning of the story to me, because how can it be that the soul is the root of evil, or responsible for mortality? Maybe I am taking the comparison too literally, but to use Eve as a representation of the soul should apply to all aspects of the story if it is an allegory, not just specific ones.
I found it interesting to note again the similarity to greek mythology in the joining of "two separate halves of a single being" (151-152). It is interesting how in the same passage Philo can talk about Adam and Eve as two separate halves of the same being, almost giving them a sense of equality, and also separate them so much as the pure and the evil. Eve is Adam's complete separate half, yet "becomes for him the beginning of blameworthy life" (151-152). Apparently god divided things just perfectly so that all good segregated into Adam, and all evil into Eve.
The references to female inferiority are innumerable and are becoming commonplace. Thankfully, we are beginning to see the images of male and female take on more complex roles than just superior and inferior. The allegorical implications of Origen suggest that maleness takes on a meaning of the spirit, and femininity takes on the meaning of the soul. This may just be another way to characterize male as strong and full of vitality, and the woman as delicate and quiet, but these meanings further elucidate (or complicate) the story's implications. Taking the Garden of Eden story as an allegory, we can delve into discussions such as what it might mean for the spirit to dominate over the soul, and which is of higher importance, the spirit or the soul. These allegorical symbols seem to obscure the meaning of the story to me, because how can it be that the soul is the root of evil, or responsible for mortality? Maybe I am taking the comparison too literally, but to use Eve as a representation of the soul should apply to all aspects of the story if it is an allegory, not just specific ones.
Friday, September 26, 2008
New Testament
In the new testament we see certain interpretations of Genesis 2 capitalized on while others are left behind. In the first short passages it is solidified that our knowledge of nudity and the consequences of us eating the forbidden fruit are sinful. To palliate the effects of clothing ourselves, there is a massive shift towards "cloth[ing] yourselves with Christ" (E&A 117). This is repeated in the next passage with "clothe yourselves with the new self" (E&A 117) and later with "women should dress themselves modestly and decently" (E&A 119). It seems as though the new testament attempts to replace the negative connotation of sin with a positive clothing in Christ. Either way, it solidifies that our action of attaining godly knowledge was sinful and should try to be replaced with a more richeous action of clothing in Christ.
The next point of interpretation that the new testament deals with is the order of human creation, and its implications. What a coincidence that the male authors of this text happen to pick genesis 2 to base their entire theory of inferiority off of when genesis 1 is right beside it. Nevertheless, this order of woman being created after man is repeated numerous times in these short assigned texts, and is always followed by a statement of inferiority. The order of creation is harnessed to explain male supremacy more so than Eve's responsibility for tempting Adam into eating the forbidden fruit. This suggests that women's inferiority was ordained by god, instated from the beginning, not due to the course of human actions. Female inferiority is strengthened by this interpretation.
Also, somehow in the mess of interpretation, God's original intention of being fruitful and multiplying has become lost. "the body is meant not for fornication but for the lord, and the lord for the body" (Cor 6:13b). In our discussion we deduced that human bodies were made for two reasons, to work the land, and bear children. For whatever reason this connection with the land and sex is lost, and the body becomes not one's own, but part of god. The strength of the phrase "in his image" is greatly increased and a sense of non-ownership is felt about the body. Even gender is stripped away as "there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (E&A 117).
The next point of interpretation that the new testament deals with is the order of human creation, and its implications. What a coincidence that the male authors of this text happen to pick genesis 2 to base their entire theory of inferiority off of when genesis 1 is right beside it. Nevertheless, this order of woman being created after man is repeated numerous times in these short assigned texts, and is always followed by a statement of inferiority. The order of creation is harnessed to explain male supremacy more so than Eve's responsibility for tempting Adam into eating the forbidden fruit. This suggests that women's inferiority was ordained by god, instated from the beginning, not due to the course of human actions. Female inferiority is strengthened by this interpretation.
Also, somehow in the mess of interpretation, God's original intention of being fruitful and multiplying has become lost. "the body is meant not for fornication but for the lord, and the lord for the body" (Cor 6:13b). In our discussion we deduced that human bodies were made for two reasons, to work the land, and bear children. For whatever reason this connection with the land and sex is lost, and the body becomes not one's own, but part of god. The strength of the phrase "in his image" is greatly increased and a sense of non-ownership is felt about the body. Even gender is stripped away as "there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (E&A 117).
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Vita Adae et Evae
At the end of Genesis 3 we are left with many unanswered questions that are still argued about today. Who is the snake, and what is his motive for tricking Eve into eating from the tree of knowledge? This is one of the most interesting questions that has a variety of possible answers. Our readings last week took a sexual standpoint to this question and reasoned that the snake had a passion for Eve, and had its motives rooted in sexual desire. This week's reading provides an alternate viewpoint and comprehensively explains the snakes motives and origin.
Here we see that the snake in Genesis 2 is really the devil with a very specific motive. We learn that the devil was cast out of heaven due to events surrounding adam's creation, and looks to seek revenge by "caus[ing] [adam and eve] to be expelled through [eve's] (doing) . . .as [the devil] ha[s] been driven out of [his] glory" (Vita xvi:4). According to this text the snake's motives had nothing to do with sex, and were purely revenge by the devil from being cast out of heaven. It also answers the question of the origin of the snake and what it represents. According to this text the snake indeed is the origin of sin, being satan himself.
The whole introduction of satan into the picture really shifts the argument of many questions we have previously discussed. Were god's intentions really for the humans to never eat from the tree of knowledge and stay without knowledge forever? The fact that the event of eating the fruit was provoked by an opposing force far removed from god now makes it seem as though this really wasnt the plan. If god did not banish satan then it seems as if there would be no reason that Eve would have ever eaten from the tree. This new information gives a different perspective on the events of Genesis 2.
Comparing "Vita Adae et Evae" with Gen Rab 8:10, we see two different plots coexist. In Gen Rab 8:10 go does not want Adam to be worshipped, and demonstrates his humanness by making him sleep. In "Vita Adae et Evae" God banishes Satan from heaven for not worshipping Adam. As is becoming typical, there are two completely contradictory interpretations of the same text.
I found a lot of reaffirmation in this text more so than new innovation, especially when it came to the inferiority of women. Not only is the entire construct of temptation and weakness repeated, but direct references to a woman's weakness still prevail. It is innovative that we see Eve's perspective of her actions in Genesis 2, as she says "on my account hast thou been driven" (Vita iii:2) from the garden of Eden. However, it still follows the same construct of inferiority, so much so that she offers her life for her actions. Another example of this is when Adam says "Thou canst not do so much as I" (Vita vi:1) in refernce to fasting.
Here we see that the snake in Genesis 2 is really the devil with a very specific motive. We learn that the devil was cast out of heaven due to events surrounding adam's creation, and looks to seek revenge by "caus[ing] [adam and eve] to be expelled through [eve's] (doing) . . .as [the devil] ha[s] been driven out of [his] glory" (Vita xvi:4). According to this text the snake's motives had nothing to do with sex, and were purely revenge by the devil from being cast out of heaven. It also answers the question of the origin of the snake and what it represents. According to this text the snake indeed is the origin of sin, being satan himself.
The whole introduction of satan into the picture really shifts the argument of many questions we have previously discussed. Were god's intentions really for the humans to never eat from the tree of knowledge and stay without knowledge forever? The fact that the event of eating the fruit was provoked by an opposing force far removed from god now makes it seem as though this really wasnt the plan. If god did not banish satan then it seems as if there would be no reason that Eve would have ever eaten from the tree. This new information gives a different perspective on the events of Genesis 2.
Comparing "Vita Adae et Evae" with Gen Rab 8:10, we see two different plots coexist. In Gen Rab 8:10 go does not want Adam to be worshipped, and demonstrates his humanness by making him sleep. In "Vita Adae et Evae" God banishes Satan from heaven for not worshipping Adam. As is becoming typical, there are two completely contradictory interpretations of the same text.
I found a lot of reaffirmation in this text more so than new innovation, especially when it came to the inferiority of women. Not only is the entire construct of temptation and weakness repeated, but direct references to a woman's weakness still prevail. It is innovative that we see Eve's perspective of her actions in Genesis 2, as she says "on my account hast thou been driven" (Vita iii:2) from the garden of Eden. However, it still follows the same construct of inferiority, so much so that she offers her life for her actions. Another example of this is when Adam says "Thou canst not do so much as I" (Vita vi:1) in refernce to fasting.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Sex
Given that time references in the story can be interpreted a variety of different ways, leading to no clear indication of Adam and Eve's age, I think most people picture Adam and Eve at an age pleasing to them. For me this age seems to be in their mid twenties. They are adolescent enough to be easily persuaded that God's word is wrong, which to me doesnt correspond with old age and wisdom. I think another important question is the range of time that the story covers. It is obvious that Adam and Eve are not children throughout the whole story, because they do produce children and therefore must be of age to reproduce. However, this doesnt mean that from the beginning of their creation they were of a mature age. The thought seems strange to me that God would create the first human beings to live an altered life timeline (no childhood) than all humans after them.
Genesis 1 deals with sex in an implied way with all the repetition of "after their kind" in the animal kingdom. The importance of a self sustaining earth relies on sex. More explicitly he tells the humans to "bear fruit and be many and fill the earth" (Gen 1:28). This is a more literal reference to birth, which is obviously linked to sex. In Genesis II the first overt mention of sex is in the statement "A man . . . clings to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). This statement itself was controversial when we discussed it in class, however the joining of flesh must be taken as a reference to sex and reproduction. The next direct reference to sex comes when "The human knew Havva his wife" (Gen 4:1). However, is this the first time they had sex? I originally thought that they did not have sex before they ate from the tree of knowledge, because they were "unaware" of their nudity and therefore would not have had the knowledge of sex. However, this becomes a greater question of god's intention of immortality. If god never intended Adam and Eve to eat from the tree, he surely still intended them to multiply and fill the earth, which implies sex. So, it is not entirely clear when the first time Adam and Eve could possibly have had sex.
In the rabbinical interpretations, sex is used for a variety of different purposes. First, sex is used as a selection process to find Adam a mate and realize the need for Eve. Here there is no negative connotation given to sex. Another interpretation gives much negative connotation to sex, pinning it as the snake's motive towards tricking Eve. It is a passion for Eve that god punishes because the snake "set his eyes on that which was not proper for it" (E&A 86). There is no consistent mold that sex fits into in these interpretations, especially the one referring to Adam as an androgene. I'm not exactly sure what to make of this interpretation, but it was exciting to read because i recently took a class on ancient greek and Hindu mythology and saw many creation stories centered around androgynous beings. One that I particularly liked was in "The Symposium," where one of the party members told a story about how the earth was primitively filled with two faced beings. Some of these beings were entirely male, some were entirely female, and some had both sexes. At one point a divine power split these beings in half, and the rest of the story becomes an etiology of how humans spend their lives searching for their "other half," be it the same sex or opposite sex. I feel that these short passages are a glimpse into the reality that sex can be used in just about any way, good or bad, to support an interpretation.
Genesis 1 deals with sex in an implied way with all the repetition of "after their kind" in the animal kingdom. The importance of a self sustaining earth relies on sex. More explicitly he tells the humans to "bear fruit and be many and fill the earth" (Gen 1:28). This is a more literal reference to birth, which is obviously linked to sex. In Genesis II the first overt mention of sex is in the statement "A man . . . clings to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). This statement itself was controversial when we discussed it in class, however the joining of flesh must be taken as a reference to sex and reproduction. The next direct reference to sex comes when "The human knew Havva his wife" (Gen 4:1). However, is this the first time they had sex? I originally thought that they did not have sex before they ate from the tree of knowledge, because they were "unaware" of their nudity and therefore would not have had the knowledge of sex. However, this becomes a greater question of god's intention of immortality. If god never intended Adam and Eve to eat from the tree, he surely still intended them to multiply and fill the earth, which implies sex. So, it is not entirely clear when the first time Adam and Eve could possibly have had sex.
In the rabbinical interpretations, sex is used for a variety of different purposes. First, sex is used as a selection process to find Adam a mate and realize the need for Eve. Here there is no negative connotation given to sex. Another interpretation gives much negative connotation to sex, pinning it as the snake's motive towards tricking Eve. It is a passion for Eve that god punishes because the snake "set his eyes on that which was not proper for it" (E&A 86). There is no consistent mold that sex fits into in these interpretations, especially the one referring to Adam as an androgene. I'm not exactly sure what to make of this interpretation, but it was exciting to read because i recently took a class on ancient greek and Hindu mythology and saw many creation stories centered around androgynous beings. One that I particularly liked was in "The Symposium," where one of the party members told a story about how the earth was primitively filled with two faced beings. Some of these beings were entirely male, some were entirely female, and some had both sexes. At one point a divine power split these beings in half, and the rest of the story becomes an etiology of how humans spend their lives searching for their "other half," be it the same sex or opposite sex. I feel that these short passages are a glimpse into the reality that sex can be used in just about any way, good or bad, to support an interpretation.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Immortality in Genesis 1-3
A dictionary.com search for immortal/immortality brings back the phrase "not subject to death" in the majority of definitions. It is clear from genesis II that humans are at least subject to death. God warns the humans that if they eat from the Tree of Knowledge they "must die, yes, die" (Gen 2:17). This is direct implication that death is possible for the human beings, and therefore proves them to be mortal. The statement is further reiterated by Eve when she explains to the snake that "you are not to eat from "the tree" and you are not to touch it, lest you die" (Gen 3:3). This further shows that fear of death, something god has made real but not imminent, is instilled in the human mind.
It is obvious that after eating the fruit, there is no chance of immortality when god says "to dust you will return (Gen 3:19). Following this is the more interesting statement when God says "take also from the Tree of Life and eat and live throughout the ages" (Gen 3:22). God seems to be referring to humanity living throughout the ages here, and is extending a sort of immortal aspect to the human race. However, this comment also implies that before eating from the tree of life, the first humans were not welcomed to live throughout the ages. This provides more concrete evidence that the first humans were mortal.
There were two instances of mortality issues in Genesis 1 that i found worth considering. The first was the statement that "God greated humankind in his image" (Gen 1:27). This ridiculously controversial statement has been assessed to death, so all i will attempt to say is that God is obviously immortal, and that immortality may or may not have been conferred to humankind given the phrase "in his image." Four lines later a line seems to support the opposite claim, mortality: "Bear fruit and be many and fill the earth" (Gen 3:28). Forgive me for taking a scientific approach to a very non-scientific story, but filling the earth and sustaining a population must coincide with death. I highly doubt God intended humans to repoduce and live immortally untill the earth's carrying capacity was reached, at which point God would step in and find a solution to the overpopulation problem.
It is obvious that after eating the fruit, there is no chance of immortality when god says "to dust you will return (Gen 3:19). Following this is the more interesting statement when God says "take also from the Tree of Life and eat and live throughout the ages" (Gen 3:22). God seems to be referring to humanity living throughout the ages here, and is extending a sort of immortal aspect to the human race. However, this comment also implies that before eating from the tree of life, the first humans were not welcomed to live throughout the ages. This provides more concrete evidence that the first humans were mortal.
There were two instances of mortality issues in Genesis 1 that i found worth considering. The first was the statement that "God greated humankind in his image" (Gen 1:27). This ridiculously controversial statement has been assessed to death, so all i will attempt to say is that God is obviously immortal, and that immortality may or may not have been conferred to humankind given the phrase "in his image." Four lines later a line seems to support the opposite claim, mortality: "Bear fruit and be many and fill the earth" (Gen 3:28). Forgive me for taking a scientific approach to a very non-scientific story, but filling the earth and sustaining a population must coincide with death. I highly doubt God intended humans to repoduce and live immortally untill the earth's carrying capacity was reached, at which point God would step in and find a solution to the overpopulation problem.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
God's Intentions
The question of whether or not the snake tells the truth in Genesis 2 is an equivalent question of whether or not God tells the truth when he says "on the day that you eat from [the Tree of Knowing], you must die, yes, die" (Gen 2:17). As the story is told, God does not strike the humans dead the day they eat from the tree, so of course the literal reading of the statement is false.
What is more interesting to consider is if God ever meant his statement. Did God really ever intend for humans to never taste the tree of knowledge and live forever? According to the repetition in Genesis 1 of "after their kind" (Gen 2:12, 24, 25) when speaking of the creatures of the earth, God intended for his earth to be self sustaining perpetuating. This fact in itself embodies reproduction and death, hand in hand, to create generations. It seems as though god never had immortality in the cards for his creatures.
Another thing in the text that I noticed that supports this claim is the way the punishments sound when god orates them. I get the feeling when i read the story that god has already thought about his course of action. They are listed so methodically and bluntly that it seems as if god is reading off a laundry list, as if he knew that humans would not be able to resist the forbidden fruit. There is no thinking, or deliberation (perhaps God just doesnt need any) between the confession and the punishment. It seems to me as if god was waiting for this to happen. The switch from innocently walking around in the garden to spewing out punishments is too quick for me to believe god intended for the fruit never to be eaten.
From another light, taking the story as an etiology to explain the nature of human knowledge, would a story really be created to explain our knowledge where God wished us to have none?
What is more interesting to consider is if God ever meant his statement. Did God really ever intend for humans to never taste the tree of knowledge and live forever? According to the repetition in Genesis 1 of "after their kind" (Gen 2:12, 24, 25) when speaking of the creatures of the earth, God intended for his earth to be self sustaining perpetuating. This fact in itself embodies reproduction and death, hand in hand, to create generations. It seems as though god never had immortality in the cards for his creatures.
Another thing in the text that I noticed that supports this claim is the way the punishments sound when god orates them. I get the feeling when i read the story that god has already thought about his course of action. They are listed so methodically and bluntly that it seems as if god is reading off a laundry list, as if he knew that humans would not be able to resist the forbidden fruit. There is no thinking, or deliberation (perhaps God just doesnt need any) between the confession and the punishment. It seems to me as if god was waiting for this to happen. The switch from innocently walking around in the garden to spewing out punishments is too quick for me to believe god intended for the fruit never to be eaten.
From another light, taking the story as an etiology to explain the nature of human knowledge, would a story really be created to explain our knowledge where God wished us to have none?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Etiologies in Gen 2-3
One of the most pressing philisophical questions, "why are we here," seems to be curtly answered in the first few lines of genesis 2: "there was no human to till the soil" (Gen 2:5). We discussed the intimate linkage between mankind and the earth, and this wording suggests that mankind was created to till soil, explaining our origins (so much for being a doctor). This human purpose is again supported when God sends adam into "the garden of Eden, to work it and to watch it" (Gen 2:15). Again we see a defined reason for human existance, protecting and working the land.
After this we see some more concrete etiologies, such as the explanation of the family unit. The way kinship works, mother, father, and children, and the order they occur, is explained here. The reference to "bone" and "flesh" (Gen 2:23) enforces the relationship between man and wife. The order of these events is spelled out, "a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). Even the use of the word "Therefore" sets the tone of an etiological explanation of a present phenomenon.
The next enlightenments are results of god's punishments. We learn why snakes exist as they do as a punishment for their powers of manipulation. Further than that, it seems that Genesis 2 also explains the source of uneasiness and fright of many humans with snakes, as "emnity" (Gen 3:15) is placed between humankind and snakes. The use of the word "seed" shows that this is an explanation of a lasting condition, something that transcends generations and is omnipresent, such as the general fear of snakes and their connotation of evil.
The pain of childbirth and "inferiority" of women is explained as a punishment for Eve breaking god's rule, as well as mankind's ongoing struggle to produce food from the ground. This last explanation of hardship to till the soil could cover such things as natural disasters, and would have been especially important to explain in biblical times, when fear of famine and food production was a much more pressing issue than it is now.
After this we see some more concrete etiologies, such as the explanation of the family unit. The way kinship works, mother, father, and children, and the order they occur, is explained here. The reference to "bone" and "flesh" (Gen 2:23) enforces the relationship between man and wife. The order of these events is spelled out, "a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). Even the use of the word "Therefore" sets the tone of an etiological explanation of a present phenomenon.
The next enlightenments are results of god's punishments. We learn why snakes exist as they do as a punishment for their powers of manipulation. Further than that, it seems that Genesis 2 also explains the source of uneasiness and fright of many humans with snakes, as "emnity" (Gen 3:15) is placed between humankind and snakes. The use of the word "seed" shows that this is an explanation of a lasting condition, something that transcends generations and is omnipresent, such as the general fear of snakes and their connotation of evil.
The pain of childbirth and "inferiority" of women is explained as a punishment for Eve breaking god's rule, as well as mankind's ongoing struggle to produce food from the ground. This last explanation of hardship to till the soil could cover such things as natural disasters, and would have been especially important to explain in biblical times, when fear of famine and food production was a much more pressing issue than it is now.
Friday, September 5, 2008
9/9/08 Gen 1:1 - 4:1 Fox
I had remembered the stories of creation and the garden of eden told in hebrew school as one continuous tale. Not untill I read the fox translation (which I think was the first time I actually read the bible) did i realize that although these two stories are often told as one, they are written very differently. The first thing that struck me about genesis 1 was the almost rythmic repetition of certain words such as "There was evening, there was morning," "God saw that it was good," and "It was so." These seemed to create a precise order to creation, and a means to look back and assess god's work. All of genesis one is positive, good, and "excedingly good" (Gen 1:31) when it comes to humans. Genesis 2 is written with less repetition and is more concerned with looking forward, establishing the future of mankind while answering some of life's toughest questions. Negatives are also introduced in genesis 2, such as "not good" (Gen 2:18), and when "no helper" (Gen 2:20) could be found for the human. These negatives coincide with the introduction of evil to balance out the "good" of genesis 1.
Genesis 1 is all about what happened, with no questions as to why. It is written without the slightest hint of reasoning other than showing us what already exists. God did this and god did that and it was good: the ultimate rant of omnipotence. Genesis 2 starts to tackle questions and provide understandings for the way life is, not just explain how we came to be. God's punishment of Adam and Eve serves to explain profound questions such as birth and death. With this understanding comes emotions, absent in genesis 1 but crucial in genesis 2. Obviously there were no humans to have emotions for most of genesis 1, but even so the introduction of sinful emotions such as "Lust" (Gen 2:16) and "Emnity" (Gen 2:15) coincide with the evil presented here.
On a technical note, obvious differences in the two stories include referring to god as "YHWH, God" in genesis 2 as opposed to just God in genesis 1. The striking difference though that interested me was the blunt contradiction between the order of creation in the two stories. In Genesis 1, god creates all other living creatures before he creates man. However, in genesis 2, god says "it is not good for the human to be alone, I will make him a helper corresponding to him" (Gen 2:18). He then brings all of earth's creatures to man to have him name them, implying that they were created after he was.
Another inaccuracy or point of vagueness concerns the creation of women. In Genesis 1, "God created humankind . . . male and female" (Gen 1:27). This wording suggests equality, supported by how god gave them "Dominon over all living things" (Gen 1:28). This sense of equality vanishes in Genesis 2 as the female is not created with the male, but from the male. This initial priority listing continues as the female shows to be the weaker sex. After being blamed for Adam's eating the forbidden fruit, god punishes her by saying "[Your husband] will rule over you" (Gen 2:16). Eve is now reduced to one of the mere creatures of the earth that god gave "male and female" control over in genesis 1. She is stripped of her humanity and forced into submission. I suggest religious womens rights supporters use Genesis 1 to bolster their claim of equality of the sexes.
Genesis 1 is all about what happened, with no questions as to why. It is written without the slightest hint of reasoning other than showing us what already exists. God did this and god did that and it was good: the ultimate rant of omnipotence. Genesis 2 starts to tackle questions and provide understandings for the way life is, not just explain how we came to be. God's punishment of Adam and Eve serves to explain profound questions such as birth and death. With this understanding comes emotions, absent in genesis 1 but crucial in genesis 2. Obviously there were no humans to have emotions for most of genesis 1, but even so the introduction of sinful emotions such as "Lust" (Gen 2:16) and "Emnity" (Gen 2:15) coincide with the evil presented here.
On a technical note, obvious differences in the two stories include referring to god as "YHWH, God" in genesis 2 as opposed to just God in genesis 1. The striking difference though that interested me was the blunt contradiction between the order of creation in the two stories. In Genesis 1, god creates all other living creatures before he creates man. However, in genesis 2, god says "it is not good for the human to be alone, I will make him a helper corresponding to him" (Gen 2:18). He then brings all of earth's creatures to man to have him name them, implying that they were created after he was.
Another inaccuracy or point of vagueness concerns the creation of women. In Genesis 1, "God created humankind . . . male and female" (Gen 1:27). This wording suggests equality, supported by how god gave them "Dominon over all living things" (Gen 1:28). This sense of equality vanishes in Genesis 2 as the female is not created with the male, but from the male. This initial priority listing continues as the female shows to be the weaker sex. After being blamed for Adam's eating the forbidden fruit, god punishes her by saying "[Your husband] will rule over you" (Gen 2:16). Eve is now reduced to one of the mere creatures of the earth that god gave "male and female" control over in genesis 1. She is stripped of her humanity and forced into submission. I suggest religious womens rights supporters use Genesis 1 to bolster their claim of equality of the sexes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)