Modern Christianity II

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.