Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:34:24.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genesis 2: 4b–3: A Mythological Paradigm of Sexual Equality or of the Religious History of Pre-Exilic Israel?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

Anne E. Gardner
Anne E. Gardner
Affiliation:
Division of Religious StudiesLa Trobe UniversityBundoora, Victoria, Australia3083
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An investigation of the second story of creation and the Fall in the light of their exegesis by Phyllis Trible. The strengths and weaknesses of Trible's approach are considered and an evaluation of Genesis 2–3 as a paradigm of Ancient Israel's social and religious history is offered.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , February 1990 , pp. 1 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘Depatriarchalising in Biblical Interpretation’, JAAR XL/1, March, 1973, p. 30.Google Scholar

2 Hooke, S. H., Middle Eastern Mythology, (Penguin, 1963), pp. 29–30Google Scholar; Kramer, S. N., Mythologies of the Ancient World, (Doubleday, New York, 1961), pp. 103–105.Google Scholar

3 Pritchard, J. B. (ed.), The Ancient Near East, (Princeton University Press, 1975), volume I, pp. 30–39Google Scholar; S. H. Hooke, op. cit., pp. 42–46; S. N. Kramer, op. cit., pp. 120–121; Heidel, A., The Babylonian Genesis, (University of Chicago Press, 1951), pp. 18–60.Google Scholar

4 The Creation of Patriarchy (Oxford University Press, New York, 1986)Google Scholar, Like Lerner, Gerda, Stone, Milton, The Paradise Papers, (Virago, London, 1976) posits the replacement of the ancient near eastern goddess by a male god.Google Scholar

5 S. H. Hooke, op cit., pp. 32–34; S. N. Kramer, op. cit., pp. 101–103.

6 J. B. Pritchard, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 76–80; S. H. Hooke, op. cit., pp. 56–58; S. N. Kramer, op. cit., pp. 125–126.

7 S. H. Hooke, op. cit., pp. 30–32.

8 Heidel, A., The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, (University of Chicago Press, Phoenix edition, 1963), pp. 16–60Google Scholar; J. B. Pritchard, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 40–75.

9 Op. cit., JAAR XL/1, March 1973, pp. 35–42; God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1978), pp. 72–143.Google Scholar

10 God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 73. I have summarised Trible's points and numbered them, which she does not do.

11 Ibid., p. 73.

12 JAAR XL/1, p. 36.

13 Op. cit., JAAR XL/1, p. 36; God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality p. 90. In the latter work Trible rejects the usual translation of ‘ēzer as ‘helper’, preferring ‘companion’ which has no connotation of subordination.

14 Op. cit., JAAR XL/1, p. 37; God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 102.

15 Op. cit., JAAR XL/1, p. 37; God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, pp. 97–98.

16 God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, pp. 101–102.

17 Op. cit., JAAR XL/1, pp. 37–38; God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, pp. 100–102.

18 Op. cit., JAAR XL/1, p. 35; God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 98. Trible's argument that hā ādām can mean mankind is not new, for Luther recognised it cf. Swidler, L., Biblical Affirmations of Woman, (Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1979), p. 81.Google Scholar

19 God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 130.

20 Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 127 interprets ‘multiply’ in the sense of ‘The more she gives birth, the more her pain increases’, Such an interpretation is neither true to the text, nor to real life, where it is well recognised that labour is likely to be shorter with a second or subsequent child than with a first.

21 For further details cf. Walker, Barbara G., The Woman's Encyclopaedia of Myths and Secrets (Harper and Row, San Francisco, 1983), pp. 103–109.Google Scholar

22 JAAR LX/1 p. 58; God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 99.

23 God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 104.

24 cf. Gen. 11: 9, 16: 14 etc.

25 Some scholars have seen in 2: 24 the vestiges of a matriarchal society or part of a myth concerning the origin of marriage as an institution. Cf. Westermann, C., Genesis 1–11, translated by Scullion, J. (SPCK, London, 1984), pp. 233–234Google Scholar for a discussion of scholarly views. Westermann's own views are similar to those expressed by Trible.

26 Op. cit., JAAR, LX/1, pp. 39–40; God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, pp. 103–104.

27 God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 73. I have coalesced Trible's points to a certain extent.

28 God end the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 112.

29 JAAR LX/1, p. 40.

30 Op. cit., JAAR LX/1, p. 40.

31 God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 111.

32 cf. Childs, B. S., Myth and Reality in the Old Testament, (SCM Press, 1960), pp. 45–46, who discusses the views of Vriezen.Google Scholar

33 Ibid.

34 A selection is as follows: L. Swidler, op. cit., pp. 83–84; Brandon, S. G. F., Creation Legends of the Ancient Near East, (Hodder and Stoughton, 1963), pp. 129–130Google Scholar. For further interpretations of the snake cf. Driver, S. R., Plummer, A., Briggs, C. A., Genesis, (I.C.C. second edition, 1930), pp. 72–73Google Scholar; C. Westermann, op. cit., p. 244.

35 cf. Childs, B. S., Myth and Reality, pp. 45–46.Google Scholar

36 Saggs, H., The Greatness that was Babylon, (Sidgwick and Jackson, London, 1962), pp. 299–358 gives a good description of the kinds of divination practised in Babylonian temples.Google Scholar

37 Mundkur, B., The Cult of the Serpent: An Interdisciplinary Survey of its Manifestations and Origins, (State University of New York Press, Albany, 1983), p. 174.Google Scholar

38 Fulco, W. J., ‘Athirat’ in The Encyclopaedia of Religion, ed. Eliade, M. (MacMillan, N.Y., 1987), Vol. I, p. 491.Google Scholar

39 Reed, W. L., ‘Asherah’ in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, (Abingdon, Nashville, 1962), Vol. I, pp. 250–251.Google Scholar

40 Ibid., p. 492.

41 cf. S. H. Hooke, op. cit., p. 39.

42 J. B. Pritchard (ed.), op. cit., Vol. I, Tablet I, Col. 4, line 20.

43 Ibid., line 34.

44 Ibid., Tablet II, Col. iii, lines 20f.; Speiser, E. H., Genesis, Anchor Bible Series (Doubleday, New York, 1964), pp. 26–27 sees links between the Enkidu story and Genesis 2–3.Google Scholar

45 See the illustration in Philips, J. A., Eve: The History of an Idea, (Harper and Row, San Fransisco, 1984), p. 40Google Scholar; also Gray, J., Near Eastern Mythology, (Hamlyn, 1969), p. 74.Google Scholar

46 See illustration no. 11 in G. Lerner, op. cit., which pictures the goddess Ishtar beside a fruit-laden tree.

47 For a discussion of this issue cf. C. Westermann, op. cit., pp. 211–214.

48 cf. L. Swidler, op. cit., p. 36. Lang, B., Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs: An Israelite Goddess Redefined, (Pilgrim Press, New York, 1986), pp. 51–81.Google Scholar

49 cf. G. Lerner, op. cit., p. 195.

50 cf. illustration of Asherah in J. Gray, op. cit., pp. 74–75.

51 Genesis 3: 22 seems to have links with the Gilgamesh Epic for there Gilgamesh obtained the plant, reserved for the gods, which would make the old, young, and therefore confer immortality. Cf. A. Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, Tablet XI, lines 268–281.

52 Op. cit., JAAR LX/1, p. 40.

53 JAAR XL/1, p. 40; God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 110.

54 For a full list consult Nelson's Complete Concordance of the R.S.V. Bible, (T. Nelson and Sons, N.Y. 1957), pp. 96–97.Google Scholar

55 Ex. 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:3 Num. 13: 27, 14:8, 16: 13, 14. For a list of Yahwist passages cf. Ellis, P., The Yahwist, (Liturgical Press, Minnesota, 1968), pp. 33–40, although it should be noted that not all scholars agree on every inclusion.Google Scholar

56 On the sixth occasion, Num. 14: 8, the people are promised that God would take them into a land flowing with milk and honey but are warned not to rebel against the Lord in verse 9. The seventh occasion (Num. 16: 13–14) is in the context of the rebellion against Moses and Aaron.

57 Gunkel, H., Genesis, Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (Göttingen, 1901), pp. 11f., 25f.Google Scholar, views Genesis 2: 4b–3 in terms of a microcosm and macrocosm. The former is the transition from childhood to adulthood and the latter a spiritual history of mankind modelled on the microcosm. Gunkel's macrocosm is too wide in its application and is better construed as referring to a spiritual history of Israel after its settlement in Canaan.

58 Pentateuchal studies are in a considerable state of flux and for a summary of the numerous and diverse views on the subject, the reader should consult Knight, D. A., ‘The Pentateuch’, pp. 263–296 in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters, eds. Knight, D. A. and Tucker, G. M. (Scholars Press, Chicago, 1985)Google Scholar. The present writer is inclined to the view that, although there are signs in Genesis 2: 4b–3 of early authorship such as anthropomorphisms and aetiological explanations, the tale, as it stands, is an exilic production. The expulsion from the Garden of Eden forms a parallel to the expulsion from the promised land. Most telling, however, is that there is no reference to the story, its characters or setting in any biblical work prior to the Exile.

59 Ecclus 25: 24; Wis. Sol. 2: 23–24; Life of Adam and Eve 44: 2; Apoc. of Moses 10: 2, 32: 2; 1 Enoch 30: 15–16; IV Ezra 3: 7; II Baruch 54: 15, 19; Rom. 5: 12–21; I Cor. 15: 21–22, 45–49; II Cor. 11: 3; I Tim. 2: 13–15. For Rabbinicviews of the story of Adam and Eve cf. Hayman, A. P., ‘The Fall, Freewill and Human Responsibility in Rabbinic Judaism’, SJT 37, pp. 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar