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.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
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)