The Bible (2 scriptures in particular) and Literary Criticism

by CeriseRose 10 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  CeriseRose

  Okay I'm taking my first university level course (English Lit) since leaving school almost 20 years ago. I have had no exposure to the Bible other than my own reading of Revelation which scared the bejeebus out of me, and learning through the WTS (obviously a skewed angle).

  When I started this course, I was still going to meetings and a "JW." The first thing the course offered was a literary view of Genesis 1-3 (an example of a myth form of writing). I read it (like I had so many thousands of times before), and read the commentary, all with the view that the WTS promotes. In other words, the comments that the instructor makes that didn't jive with 'them', I discounted as unintelligent and unfounded.

  Now, 6 months later, I'm out of the JWs. In reviewing for my final exam coming up this Saturday, I re-read the commentary, with open eyes and heart. And now, what I'd like is comments from others on this commentary...specifically the treatment of Genesis 1:27 and 2:22. It's a totally new concept for me and I have no other knowledge base to confirm or deny the thought. It does interest me though, as I know at some point I'll be needing to decide what I do believe, particularly around the validity of the Bible as a book from god. So here's the comments:

  "Two different myths concerning the creation of humanity seem to be compressed in these chapters. In chapter 1, God creates man on the sixth day: 'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female he created them' (verse 27). 'Man' here refers to the whole species, not just the male. This first statement indicates that men and women were created simultaneously and equally.

  However, in chapter 2, verse 22, we find that Eve is created after and out of Adam, a distinctly different version that has long been a primary source for our culture's anti-feminism. Eve's role in the Fall, the subsequent multiplication of her sorrow in childbirth, and God's commandment that her husband "shall rule over" her (chapter 3, verse 16) have been seen to justify the view that women are the cause of human misery and that their position is subordinate to men's."

  Thoughts/comments?
• 

  logansrun

  Yes, I agree with that.

  B.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Congradulations on your returning to school, my wife and I are preparing to do the same. As for the value of literary critism in it's many forms, while some aspects are tenative and debated (which has value in itself), basics like the observations you mentioned about Genesis are well established and confirmed thru multiple disciplines. The world changes a great deal once the spell of Bible literalism is broken.
• 

  Leolaia
• 

  Leolaia
• 

  Leolaia
• 

  Leolaia

  However, in chapter 2, verse 22, we find that Eve is created after and out of Adam, a distinctly different version that has long been a primary source for our culture's anti-feminism. Eve's role in the Fall, the subsequent multiplication of her sorrow in childbirth, and God's commandment that her husband "shall rule over" her (chapter 3, verse 16) have been seen to justify the view that women are the cause of human misery and that their position is subordinate to men's."

  I understand the story in a slightly different way. I believe it functions in part as an etiological legend explaining female subordination among other things, but it also describes this subordination as an abberation of creation, a situation that God did not originally intend. Genesis 2:28 says that Eve was created to be Adam's ezer kenegdo "supporter corresponding to him", which carries no inherent sense of inferiority. Indeed, the opposite is the case. Ezer, in meaning "helper, supporter", can just as easily mean "one who protects, aids"; thus Yahweh is spoken of in the OT as Israel's ezer. In the context of Eve's creation, Adam is an incomplete individual, deficient, one who lacks without his counterpart. That is how Eve functions as Adam's ezer. Kenegdo is also defined in Gesenius' lexicon as meaning "corresponding to, with parity", that is, as an equal partner. So I see the story as actually quite feminist in a way, that women were intended to be man's equal, and it is through sin and human imperfection that the original arrangement changed to the present one. We see the change occurring in all sorts of subtle ways. Before sin, Eve was "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" to Adam; he saw no difference between himself and her (2:23). But then after sin, Eve suddenly becomes "that woman" (3:12). And is Eve really being duped by the serpent? Read her version of God's commandment in 3:2-3 and compare it with the original in 2:16-17. She has tinkered with the wording a lot!
• 

  AlanF

  Good deal going back to school, and to getting your head straight about the JWs, and beginning to get things in perspective about the Bible.

  There's no question that Genesis contains two somewhat parallel but somewhat inconsistent creation stories. I'm not convinced that the problem you mentioned, namely, that the two are inconsistent because the one refers to the creation of man, whereas the other refers to the creation of man and woman. Genesis, and other Hebrew narratives, often compress events and make a series of them look like one. So it can be argued that Genesis 1 is simply a summary of the creation of mankind that's spoken of in more detail in Genesis 2. Nevertheless, there are clear inconsistencies between the stories that can't be solved by such arguments.

  When I first critically examined the Bible some years after leaving the JWs, I was amazed to find that Genesis was far more problematic than the Watchtower Society had led us to believe. For example, the first Genesis creation story is perfectly parallel in its basic flow of events to the much older Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elis, which I believe is based on an even older Sumerian story. You can read some parallels here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/ce02.htm . The Flood story is a conflation of two earlier and somewhat inconsistent stories redacted by the Jews probably in the 6th century B.C. When scholars untangle the two stories and put them side by side, the result is two smaller stories that are much more internally consistent. You can read a little introduction to this here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/flood20.htm .

  You're starting down a long but fascinating road. I wish you the best!

  AlanF
• 

  City Fan

  A good book to read on this subject is 'Who wrote the Bible?' by Richard Friedman. It explains many of the doublets contained in bible.
• 

  Narkissos

  I think the reference to "the Fall" (or "sin"), reminding Christian theology, is somewhat misleading here.

  The literary genre of Genesis 2--3 (and more broadly 1--11) has been aptly labeled "primeval story". One characteristic of such stories is that the end of the story is also the beginning of the literary construction. This end is just reality as the writer (and original readers, or audience) understands it. In the case of Genesis 1, it is the anthropocentric view of mankind as belonging to the cosmos and yet superior to any other creature. In Genesis 2--3, the end is the reality of human life involving knowledge and death, food and work, pain and childbearing, etc. The subjection of women is just a part of this picture, which is coextensive to the human society as the writer knows it. The feminist argument that it was not God's "first project" misses, IMO, the literary genre of the text. If "subjection of women" was not God's project because it is a result of the so-called "Fall", then knowledge was not God's project for man (and woman) either...