Eve and Adam: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Readings on Genesis and Gender / Edition 7

by Kristen E. Kvam, Linda S. Schearing, Valarie H. Ziegler

Overview

"The editors have performed a great service in making widely available a documentary history of the interpretation of the Eve and Adam story." —Publishers Weekly

"This fascinating volume examines Genesis 1-3 and the different ways that Jewish, Christian, and Muslim interpreters have used these passages to define and enforce gender roles. . . . a 'must' . . . " —Choice

"Wonderful! A marvelous introduction to the ways in which the three major Western religious traditions are both like, and unlike one another." —Ellen Umansky, Fairfield University

No other text has affected women in the western world as much as the story of Eve and Adam. This remarkable anthology surveys more than 2,000 years of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim commentary and debate on the biblical story that continues to raise fundamental questions about what it means to be a man or to be a woman. The selections range widely from early postbiblical interpretations in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha to the Qur'an, from Thomas Aquinas to medieval Jewish commentaries, from Christian texts to 19th-century antebellum slavery writings, and on to pieces written especially for this volume.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9780253212719
Publisher:	Indiana University Press
Publication date:	05/15/1999
Pages:	536
Product dimensions:	6.12(w) x 9.25(h) x (d)
Age Range:	18 Years

About the Author

KRISTEN E. KVAM teaches at the Saint Paul School of Theology in Kansas City.
LINDA S. SCHEARING is a professor in the Religious Studies department at Gonzaga University in Spokane, WA.
VALARIE H. ZIEGLER is a professor in the department of Religious Studies at DePauw University in Greencastle, IN. She is author of The Advocates of Peace in Antebellum America.

Read an Excerpt

Eve & Adam

Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Readings on Genesis and Gender

---

By Kristen E. Kvam, Linda S. Schearing, Valarie H. Ziegler

Indiana University Press

Copyright © 1999 Indiana University Press
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-253-33490-9

---

CHAPTER 1

Hebrew Bible Accounts

INTRODUCTION

For two millennia now the Judeo-Christian tradition has placed man a little lower than the angels and woman a little higher than the demons.

No other text has affected women in the Western world as much as that found in the opening chapters of Genesis. The biblical story of the first man and woman became for many readers a blueprint for relationships between all men and women. Yet in spite of the wide-ranging influence of Genesis 1–3, there is surprisingly little agreement among readers concerning what these chapters actually say about such relationships. Do they present a message of subordination or one of mutuality? Or do they contain two messages in tension with one another? As you will see from the scholars surveyed in this introduction (and from those whose writings are included in this book's last chapter) contemporary opinion ranges widely on what Genesis 1–3 says about men and women.

The Story/ies of Creation

Genesis 1:1–2:43 contains a story of creation. In six days, the heavens, the earth, and all living creatures are created from a watery chaos. Following the animals' creation on the sixth day, Elohim (God) creates humankind in Elohim's own image. The first man and woman are created simultaneously and jointly receive Elohim's command to be fruitful, to multiply, and to subdue and have dominion over the earth. Their creation, Elohim remarks, is "very good." On the seventh day, Elohim rests.

In Genesis 2:4b, however, the creative process begins again, this time with an arid wasteland devoid of life. The missing prerequisites for life — water and someone to till the soil — are provided by Yahweh Elohim (LORD God), and thus human and plant life appear. After an unspecified period of time the story unfolds to reveal a garden to inhabit, creatures to name and befriend, productive work to do, and a specific prohibition to obey. Yet all is not complete. Putting the human creature to sleep, Yahweh Elohim removes a body part and fashions it into a second creature. The chapter closes with a man and woman who are naked and happily unashamed of it. But it is the chapter, not the story, that ends on this idyllic note.

In chapter 3 we meet a new character — the wily serpent. The dialogue between this smooth-talking snake and the woman concludes with both woman and man sampling the forbidden fruit. Fear, shame, and some strategically placed foliage immediately follow. When confronted by Yahweh Elohim, both man and woman place the blame for their actions elsewhere: the man blames the deity and the woman, and the woman blames the snake. Ultimately all three characters — snake, woman, and man — receive punishments from Yahweh Elohim. The story concludes with the woman being named, the couple being clothed, and the man and woman being expelled from the garden. Their expulsion is finalized by sword-wielding cherubim who now guard its entrance.

In 1711, one reader commented upon the discrepancies within Genesis 1–2. On the basis of style, theology, content, and divine names, the German pastor H. B. Witter suggested that Genesis 1–3 contained not one, but two creation stories. By the end of the nineteenth century, after much challenge and refinement, the suggestion that sources lay behind Genesis 1–3 had blossomed into a full-blown hypothesis concerning the authorship of the Pentateuch. Called the Four Source or JEDP theory, it suggested that the Torah/Pentateuch was composed of four documents: J (Yahwist, 10th c. BCE), E (Elohist, 8th c. BCE), D (Deuteronomy, 7th c. BCE), and P (Priestly, 6th–5th c. BCE). According to this theory, Genesis 1–3 contained a doublet, that is, two accounts of the same event. Genesis 2:411-3:24 was from the Yahwist source and dated c. 900s BCE(during the reigns of David or Solomon), while Genesis 1:1-2:43 came from a much later period (the exile or postexilic period, c. 500S-400S BCE) and reflected the concerns of its priestly writers.

Recent challenges concerning the dating, provenance, and existence of J, E, D, and P have called into question much of the Documentary Hypothesis. Literary critics, for example, argue that doublets, a traditional criteria for the existence of sources, have a literary function and represent artistic crafting. Others suggest that the attempt to get behind the text to hypothetical sources is futile and should be abandoned in favor of analyzing the text itself.

Genesis 1–3: Contradictory Visions of Gender

Many who read the accounts in Genesis 1–3 conclude that within these chapters lie two stories with two different messages concerning gender. They disagree, however, as to what these messages are and how they relate to one another.

Anne Gardner, for example, describes Genesis 2–3 as "strongly sexist" with Genesis 1 functioning as its corrective. Drawing on Ancient Near Eastern creation accounts, she argues that stories similar to Genesis 2–3 contain male culprits, not female ones. By making woman the villain, the Yahwist significantly changed the story pattern commonly found in the surrounding cultures. This was done, Gardner argues, to turn the story into a polemic against goddess worship. Since P (Gen. 1:1–2:4a) did not perceive goddess worship as a threat, P "deliberately took issue with Genesis 2:4b–3" by stressing the "simultaneous creation of male and female (Gen. 1:27)." Thus P could declare that humankind's creation was "very good" (Gen. 1:31) and, as Gardner emphasizes, "that included the woman!"

Whereas Gardner views P as a corrective to J, other scholars suggest that J corrects P. According to Phyllis Bird, for example, P's image of woman in Genesis 1 is not as egalitarian as scholars like Gardner assume. P is not, as some might hope, an "equal-rights theologian." While the P account addresses sexuality in its biological aspects, it is the J account that emphasizes the psychosocial aspects of sexual relationships:

Genesis 2–3 supplements the anthropology of Genesis 1, but also "corrects" and challenges it by maintaining that the meaning of human sexual distinction cannot be limited to a biological definition of origin or function. Sexuality is a social endowment essential to community and to personal fulfillment, but as such it is also subject to perversion and abuse. Genesis 2–3 opens the way for a consideration of sex and sexuality in history.

Thus for Bird, Genesis 2 contains an ideal image of gender relations — an image that becomes perverted in Genesis 3. Genesis 1, however, is neither for nor against women's equality.

Not all scholars believe that the differences between Genesis 1 and 2–3 represent an effort to correct. Literary critic Robert Alter, for example, agrees that the two accounts are essentially contradictory (the first being egalitarian and the second hierarchical), but this is because the subject matter itself is contradictory and "essentially resistant to consistent linear formulation." The tension between stories is not an accident of compositional merging, but the product of intentional artistic crafting. This literary tension mirrors the "bewildering complex reality" of human relationships.

Genesis 1–3: A Unified Vision of Women

The above positions of Gardner, Bird, and Alter all assume that Genesis 1–3 contains different, even contradictory, visions of woman. Other scholars, however, disagree with this conclusion and insist that these chapters present a unified image. The contours of this image, however, remain controversial. In her earlier writings, for example, Phyllis Bird suggested that P and J were of like minds when it came to women:

While the two creation accounts of Genesis differ markedly in language, style, date and traditions employed, their basic statements about woman are essentially the same: woman is, along with man, the direct and intentional creation of God and the crown of his creation. Man and woman were made for each other.

Azalea Reisenberger reaches the same conclusion as Bird albeit by a different route. Reisenberger, informed by the rabbinic tradition of Adam as hermaphrodite, suggests that woman came from the side (not the rib) of the 'adam. She views the separation of woman and man in Genesis 2:23 as analogous to humankind's simultaneous creation described in Genesis 1:27. For Reisenberger, Genesis 2 recapitulates Genesis 1, with both maintaining "the equality of the sexes."

While Bird and Reisenberger conclude that Genesis 1–3 envisions mutuality and egalitarianism as the goal of gender relations, others would argue that subordination and hierarchy are the essential vision of Genesis 1–3.

Raymond C. Ortlund, for example, argues that Genesis 1–3 presents a unified vision of male "headship" as well as "male-female equality." After admitting that neither expression ("headship" or "equality") is found in Genesis 1, Ortlund suggests that God's use of the term "man" in Genesis 1:27 ("God created man in his image") "whispers male headship, which Moses will bring forward boldly in chapter two." For Ortlund, male headship and male-female equality are not mutually exclusive. "Headship," Ortlund insists, is not "domination." That is, men are divinely appointed leaders and protectors of women but they are not given a license to be tyrants or wife abusers. Ortlund can affirm that men and women are equal (both are made in the image of God) because he locates this "equality" in the realm of the spirit rather than the structures of society and family. Thus while Ortlund argues that Genesis 1–3 contains a unified vision of gender relations that allows men "headship" while also affirming equality, his vision is, in reality, one of a "benevolent" hierarchy.

Beyond Genesis 3

Another issue, perhaps not as prominent as discussions of Genesis 1–3's internal consistency, but nevertheless important, is how one should understand Genesis 1–3 in relation to Genesis 4–5. For many readers, Eve's story concludes with her expulsion from the garden. Even scholarly treatments of Eve often conclude at the end of chapter 3. Literary critic Mieke Bal, for example, views the woman's naming in Genesis 3:20 as the final element in her characterization. Scholars like Mary Phil Korsak and liana Pardes, however, stress the importance of Genesis 4–5. Korsak likens Eve's account to a symphony, with the third movement in Genesis 4 and the finale in Genesis 5. Thus Genesis 1–3 is part, but not all, of the first woman/Eve's story.

According to Pardes, Genesis 1–3 contains a challenge to, and reaffirmation of, patriarchy that is echoed in Genesis 4–5. For Pardes, the maternal naming speech in Genesis 4:1–2 signals Eve's literary emergence as Adam's equal. Eve's strength and power are diminished, however, by the end of chapter 4, and by chapter 5 have vanished completely. Thus just as some see in Genesis 3 the distortion of the egalitarian vision of Genesis 2, so Pardes sees in 4:25–5:3 the diminishment of the egalitarian vision of 4:1–2.

Genesis 1–3 and Ancient Israel

As we have seen thus far, there is tremendous diversity of contemporary opinion concerning what Genesis 1–3 (and 4–5) actually say about women. This makes it difficult to speculate on how these texts might have informed their ancient readers. Was Eve's story used to subordinate Israelite women or to provide them with an image of equality? It would be helpful if we could analyze how biblical writers understood the significance of Eve's actions in the Garden. But it is precisely at this point that we run into a curious problem. There is no mention or allusion to the first woman/Eve in the Hebrew Scriptures beyond Genesis 5. Given the prominence of Adam and Eve in early Jewish and Christian literature this is quite astonishing. As Carol Meyers observes,

Her [Eve's] story is so well known that it is somewhat surprising to find that in the rest of the Hebrew Bible, the story of Eden is not a prominent theme. Neither are the actions of Adam and Eve ever cited as examples of disobedience and punishment, although the long story of Israel's recurrent rejection of God's word and will provides plentiful opportunity for drawing such analogies.

This silence does not stop Meyers from using the story to reconstruct gender roles in ancient Israel. Supplementing Genesis 2–3 with insights from the social sciences, Meyers concludes that Genesis 2–3 is a wisdom tale. Its purpose was "to enhance the acceptance by both females and males of the often harsh realities of highland life and to provide ideological sanction for large families and for intense physical toil in subsistence activities."

Meyers is aware that using Genesis 2-3 for women's history is somewhat perilous. She admits that,

Even though there is a general assumption that the Bible is an accurate reflection of at least some aspects of Israelite society, and although this assumption may be valid at many levels, when it comes to gender it must be carefully examined. Theologians and feminists alike need to be cautious in drawing conclusions about Israelite women from biblical texts not only because an overlay of interpretation may occlude the text but because the texts themselves may not have a one-to-one correspondence with reality.

Yet in spite of this, Meyers declares that:

Not only does Eve represent Israelite women, she is also a product of the way of life of women in that world. The social realities of everyday life provided the raw materials from which the biblical narrator forged the now famous tale. The artful crafting of that simple yet powerful narrative is inextricably linked to the life experience of the Hebrew author. ... It also constitutes the audience, the social group to be addressed by and moved in some way to respond to the multifarious messages of the story.

The extent to which biblical ideology can be equated with ancient reality remains a thorny issue in biblical studies in general and in gender studies in particular. For example, in what chronological period should we seek the "daily reality" behind Genesis 2–3? Meyers assumes that the reality behind Genesis 2–3 is that of rural, premonarchic Israel. Yet proponents of the late dating of Genesis 2–3 place this material in the exile (or even later). While this fact would not exclude an earlier date for a preliterary form of the story, the fact that the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures do not mention Eve might indicate that they do not know her.

It is uncertain how far we can get behind Genesis 2–3 to Eve's real-life counterparts. In the more than two thousand years since its writing, however, Genesis 1–5 has had a profound effect on its readers. While the extent to which Eve's story influenced the women of the writer's own society is uncertain, the degree to which it shaped her daughters' lives in the centuries that followed is legendary.

Background to the Selections

The biblical selections in this chapter are from the New Revised Standard Version. Following each selection we have provided a verse-keyed commentary that identifies translation, syntactical, and interpretive issues that touch upon gender. In writing this commentary we kept two criteria in mind. First of all, our comments are limited to only those items that concern gender. Other issues, no matter how tantalizing and worthy of comment, were passed over. Those readers who would like to explore these aspects of the text are advised to use a good commentary on Genesis as a study guide. Second, our purpose in providing a commentary was not to give readers the "correct" way of reading a verse, but simply to familiarize readers with Adam and Eve's story and to alert them to issues evoked by its content. Chapters 2–8 of this book will explore how succeeding generations of readers struggled to deal with many of the issues highlighted in our commentary.

(Continues...)

---

Excerpted from Eve & Adam by Kristen E. Kvam, Linda S. Schearing, Valarie H. Ziegler. Copyright © 1999 Indiana University Press. Excerpted by permission of Indiana University Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments
General Introduction
1. Hebrew Bible Accounts
2. Jewish Postbiblical Interpretations (200s BCE-200 CE)
3. Rabbinic Interpretations (200-600s CE)
4. Early Christian Interpretations (50-450 CE)
New Testament (c. 50-150 CE)
Extracanonical Sources
Church Fathers
5. Medieval Readings: Muslim, Jewish, and Christian (600-1500 CE)
Islam
The Qur'an (c. 610-632)
Muslim Interpretations
Judaism
Midrashic Themes
Christianity
6. Interpretations from the Protestant Reformation (1517-1700 CE)
7. Societal Applications in the United States (1800s CE)
Antebellum Debates on Household Hierarchies
Women Make the Case for Equality
New Religious Movements on Gender Relations
8. Twentieth Century Readings: The Debates Continue
Hierarchical Interpretations
Egalitarian Interpretations
Appendix: The Preadamite Theory and the Christian Identity Movement: Race and Genesis 1-3 at the Turn of the Millennium
Index

What People are Saying About This

Ellen Umansky

Wonderful! A marvelous introduction to the ways in which the three major Western religious traditions are both like, and unlike one another.

Editorial Reviews

"[A] unique collection of texts on the theme of Adam and Eve from the perspective of gender relations.Ju;ly 2002"—Religious Studies Review

From the Publisher

[A] unique collection of texts on the theme of Adam and Eve from the perspective of gender relations.Ju;ly 2002

Religious Studies Review

In western culture and religion, the Genesis story of Eve and Adam has established and dominated views about gender roles. A long history of interpretation of Genesis 1-3 exists in all three of the great monotheistic religions. In this anthology, the editors have gathered primary documents from each of these traditions to examine this history of interpretation. Each section contains a brief historical essay that sets the readings in context, and the editors briefly introduce the individual writings. Chapter 1 offers selections from Genesis 1-5. Chapter 2 provides documents of Jewish post-biblical interpretation, including apocryphal texts like Sirach and pseudepigraphical texts like the Life of Adam and Eve. Chapter 3 contains rabbinic interpretations of Genesis 1-3, including midrashim like the one attributed to Rabbi Joshua ben Karhah: "It teaches you through what sin that wicked creature inveigled them, because he saw them engaged in their natural function, he [the serpent] conceived a passion for her." Chapter 4 contains early Christian interpretations ranging from biblical texts (1 Corinthians 15:21-22) to the theological writings of Tertullian and Augustine. Chapter 5 collects readings of the story from the Middle Ages, including various readings from the Qur'an and commentaries by Islamic theologians. The writings of Martin Luther and other Protestant reformers on Eve and the role of woman are gathered in Chapter 6. The writings in Chapter 7 demonstrate the ways that various 19th-century American social movements, like abolition and women's suffrage, and new religious groups, like the Shakers and the Christian Scientists, interpreted the Genesis story. The final chapter includes writings from 20th-century Christians, Jews and Muslims demonstrating that the debate about the meanings of Genesis 1-3 is far from over. The editors have performed a great service in making widely available a documentary history of the interpretation of the Eve and Adam story. (Mar.)

Publishers Weekly - Publisher's Weekly