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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Starting from the end, your suggestion that supporters of women's rights stick to Gen 1 has long been the practice.
This is in many respects quite an insightful reading. However (and you'll have to get used to my apparent nitpicking), you'll have to be careful not to make assumptions when the text is ambiguous. There are so may ambiguities in Gen 2-3 and these are the fodder for an endless array of interpretations (and misreadings). The most egregious example is your interpretation of 2:16 as sexual ("Lust"), which you identify as sinful. Even for those exegetes who understood 2:16 as the man recognizing a sexual partner, this is certainly not necessarily sinful. Of course, the whole issue traces back to God's observation that "it isn't good for the man to be alone", with the further question, what 'help' the woman was supposed to provide.
In an academic setting, it's best to avoid words like "rant" (especially when applied to God). In any case, I think it's unfair to apply this term to the assertion in Gen 1 that God had merely to speak things into existence (and, further, which things?). Better to (thoughtfully) compare this to the description of God's creative activities in Gen 2.
Way to go!
Post a Comment