RECOVERING THE ORIGINS WITH WOMEN’S EYES

Activity: What were you taught about creation in Sunday school? [put up all that is said on the black board]

You will all by now be familiar with some basics of contextual reading of the Bible. For the sake of refreshing ourselves, some basic considerations:

1.1. Any text / writing, due to a particular need, is written with a purpose / message to convey in mind.

1.2. The writing is colored by culture, traditions, interpretations and contexts of the time in which it is written

1.3. When the writing is the product / collection of verbal/ oral traditions and communications, that means it has already gone through some interpretations, which are added on as part of the original story. Other messages that needed to be conveyed in each period of the passing on of the story too get added on to the original intent with which the story came into being.

1.4. Writing is done through the medium of language. So we have to work within the limitations of the language we have, to express concepts, attributes, notions that may be beyond the scope of language (ie) about God, fullness of nature etc.

Now beyond this when we move to looking at a text from a feminist perspective, that means: 2.1 We have to take sides; there can be no neutral stance2.2 The woman’s view/voice is seldom part of the main texts of the Bible, so we need to

read into the silences and fill in the gaps. 2.3 We need to look at texts with ideological suspicion (ie) who wrote it? Whose

reading? Whose reality is being examined? Who benefits by/in the view being conveyed by the text.

The story of Genesis 1-3 is familiar so we will not go into the details of the story at this point. Instead let us try to exercise the above considerations while we analyze this text.

What is the purpose of the Genesis stories in general and the creation stories in particular?

The book of Genesis is a book about beginnings. It explains beginnings of the universe,of humankind and of the people of Israel. Chapters 1-11 talks of the beginnings of human history, and Ch12-50 talk about the beginnings of Israel. Genesis also explains the relationship between God and the universe; god and the two created beings; the 2 created beings and their relationship to God and the universe.

Now what was the need to explain all of this? A child normally begins to ask questions about how he / she was born, how such and such a things was made etc, at a stage when there are some basic things the child knows, and many things and events around it that the child doesn’t understand and wants to make sense of. Similarly Genesis account was

written when the Israelites were in a crisis- there was so much they did not understand of what was happening around them; the things that they did know and believed in were coming into question and were being challenged. They had to explain to themselves and to the non-Israelite people that they had a relationship with their god and that their God had made them and cared for them; and therefore that they had a responsibility to be loyal to their god who had chosen them.

What was the context that caused this need for explanation? (context of the time of writing of Genesis)There were different points of crises for the Israelite people. The crises that caused the need for the story of beginnings or genesis to be written according to scholars was around the time period between 10th Century BCE (Solomon’s period) and 5th Century BCE (After the exile). 10th Century BCE – the earlier of the two crises – was the period of King Solomon. Probably the naturally inquisitive mind of Solomon coupled with his search for wisdom, prompted the beginning of the enquiry into the origin of things. Maybe the crisis in people’s minds was caused by the gradual decline, decay and signs of anarchy they were beginning to see after the golden Davidic rule. The extensive money power and human resources that were employed in the time of Solomon for the building of the temple, the cities for housing the royalty and even cities for horses – all of this labour was not voluntary, and some of it was probably forced. So the people were beginning to feel the oppressive hand of monarchy. The Israelites were maybe no longer so confident that God’s instrument was the king and God’s mode of speaking to them was through the King alone. So they began recalling stories that had been passed on to them down the ages about their origins and about their relationship to God – stories about Abraham, Noah’s floods, about Moses and the exodus, about the judges; they tried to recall all that they knew about how they had come to be known as God’s chosen people. They sought to find ways to relate this relationship between them as a chosen people and their god, way back to the creation stories themselves.

They did not just sit down one day and write it all down. It took time to collect all the oral stories. It actually took a long while- Scholars have concluded that Genesis was written over a period of 500 long years. So what began to be written probably at the end of Solomon’s reign, was still being written during the period after the Israelite people came out of exile from Babylon in 5th Century BCE.

The whole onionSo what we have now is and onion with many layers:

The core story + interpretation of it added on for centuries + purpose of writer in writing it + ages of interpretation after it was written- NOW

There are therefore many layers of the onion to peel before we can get to the core.

Our context as readers:That was all about the writing of the text. Let us come to NOW. Do we all come to the reading of the creation accounts with an empty head? No! we have all of the above and

also what opinions we have formed of it in our present context. That is what we saw in the activity we first did when we started this bible study.

So more layers are added to the onion we already have: i.e. for example ….

Beginnnings; Abraham; Moses; David; Solomon Exile ;Prophets; Inter testamental period; NT Epistles; Christ accounts; …interpretation of Church fathers; formal church endorsed views; ….our Sunday school stories, attitudes we have picked up in/from society around us….NOW.

In our activity we have seen what we have traditionally been taught about the creation story. (collate from the black board at this point)

Now the recovery begins: Some observations about the creation stories:

Some Israelite tribes were in exile in Babylon, and some were under Bablylonian rule in their own lands. After the exile, the Israelite people were trying to find their identity as a nation in the midst of other cultures and nations. So the important themes underlying the creation accounts were that of relationships and identity

There are two creation stories not one: - Gen. 1: 1 – 2: 4a (Priestly Account / P account ) – written around 5 th century BCE after the exile

- Gen. 2: 4b – 25 (Yahwist Account/J account) – written around 10th cent BCE During / end of Solomon’s time.

[Hand outs of the sections in grey below for further reading and deepening after the bible study]

“The first creation account, Genesis. 1:1 to Genesis. 2:4a, was written during or after the Jews' Babylonian captivity. This fully developed story explains creation in terms of the ancient near eastern world view of its time. A watery chaos is divided by the dome (firmament) of the sky. The waters under the dome are gathered and land appears. Lights are affixed in the dome. All living things are created. The story pictures God building the cosmos as a supporting ecosystem for humanity. Finally, humanity, both male and female, is created, and God rests.

The second Creation story, Genesis 2:4b to 2:25, found its written form several centuries before the Genesis. 1:1 story. This text is a less developed and much older story. It was probably passed down for generations around the camp fires of desert dwellers before being written. It begins by describing a desert landscape, no plants or herbs, no rain; only a mist arises out of the earth. Then the Lord God forms man of the dust of the ground, creates an oasis-like Garden of Eden to support the "man whom he had formed." In this story, God creates animal life while trying to provide the man "a helper fit for him." None being found, God takes a rib from the man's side and creates the first woman. These two

creation stories clearly arise out of different histories and reflect different concerns with different sequences of events. Can they either or both be literal history? Obviously not.” 1

Genesis 22

a. The story comes from the southern storyteller of this and other stories. b. It was first written about 1000 BCE (before the common era, same as BC)c. The pre-creation situation is dry desert because that's what you find in southern Israel.d. Creation of humanity precedes the creation of vegetation and animal life.e. Man and woman, Adam and Eve, are created in two separate acts.f. The Creator is called "the Lord God."g. Creation is a hands-on experience for the Lord God.

h. One important aspect of the concept of the Lord God presented in this story is fertility

Genesis 13

a. This is the religious establishment's official authorized description of creation.b. This description was first written about 500 BCE, in or around the time the Jews returned to Jerusalem from exile in Babylon.c. The pre-creation situation is watery chaos because Babylon sat between the Tigris and Euphrates.d. Order of creation is light, sky, sea, earth, vegetation, sun and moon and stars, birds, sea creatures, land animals, and lastly, humanity.e. Creation of humanity is single act.f. The Creator is called "God."g. The Creator is present only through the commands that cause the creative acts to occur.

h. One important aspect of the concept of God presented in this description is bringing order out of chaos

In the 1st account (in actuality chronologically the later account),

nothing is said:

- about one person being superior to the other- about the roles of the two created beings

- about the authority of one over the other

what is said is:

- the first task entrusted to both created beings was to care for all of creation- god saw everything as “good” and so did not ask humans to dominate/control

over the rest of creation

- the second task entrusted to both human beings was to reproduce.

describes God as:

- one who loves and cares for all of creation- creates human beings to reflect god’s love and care for creation

- makes right relationships central to the well being of creation1 Watkins, James W. Rev. WHICH CREATION STORY, http://www.sullivan-county.com 2 Dykes, Ray Dr. ERRORS AND CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE http://www.sullivan-county.com3 Ibid

In the 2nd account of creation: (earlier account)- shift in order in which species are created- creation of man before the garden and then placing man in it to care for it- naming of creatures by man and not by God who created them- naming of woman by man and not by God who created her

Hearing the silenced voice(s) of women/women’s situation:The culture of the times when the creation accounts were being written were not ideal conditions of living for all human beings and creation. The pre-exilic and post exilic cultures influenced the writing of the creation accounts. So as we do a feminist reading of the creation accounts, we need to be aware that the notions about man-woman relationships, the attitudes about women and their place in society that existed at that time also found their way into how the creation accounts were written.

Generally in Biblical times the position of women was a subordinate position. Yes we do have the stories of Ruth, Deborah, Esther, and a few women like this that are prominent. But these were exceptions and not the rule. The ordinary Israelite woman of the Biblical times was held in low esteem and was considered the property of the man /master she belonged to, whether she was a wife or a concubine or a slave. As this was the status of women during the time the creation accounts were being written, the story writers as they wrote, had to give a legitimate reason why their status was low. As the creation stories were written in order to show the origin of things, the low status of women too had to be explained from the beginning. We need to realize that the creation stories had to be written in such a way as to preserve the lower status of women. If the story encouraged the change in the present status, the way the present society functioned would have to be shifted radically, and that was not what the writers of the creation accounts wanted. (For example, if an American author supportive of Bush and his policies were to write a book on Islam, and on terrorism, we can be sure he will not be critical of Bush’s policies and that he would try to color the views about Islam so as to favour the continuation of the war on terror OR if Bal Thackeray wrote a book on religious fundamentalism, we can be sure of what he will say about and how he would define fundamentalism.!!)

If we observe the creation accounts, we will notice that in the entire account in Genesis 1-3, we are hearing the story from the angle of God who is portrayed as “He”. We hear god’s voice, and we hear the voice of the created male when he names all things and when he names the created female. But only once do we hear the voice of the created woman. When we do hear the voice of the created woman it is to place in her mouth words that show that she was the one who tampered with the forbidden and she was the one who gave in to evil. So we see that whatever the original state of creation was, during the 500 or more years that transpired before it was/and while it was being written, many of the interpretations concerning the role of women and her part in the causality of sin in the world were added on to the story of creation itself as part of the story.

In short the role of woman as more responsible for the break down between God-human relationships is endorsed and explained in the creation accounts. The woman is portrayed

as more prone to temptation, as a trouble maker and as a temptress herself. The one woman (eve) is made to represent all of womankind and the light in which women were and are held. These notions are conveyed not just by the text, but by all the layers of the onion that we talked about –it is reinforced throughout history of Israel, by cultures outside the Hebrew culture, and by the negative attitude that prevailed during the writing of Genesis and now by our traditional Sunday school stories and interpretations.

Some keys to feminist unlocking: What we need to note while we attempt to re-read these texts is that God set both human beings free to make choices, and the consequence of disobedience to God was a break in relationships. Their disobedience breaks the harmony between them and God and between themselves and between them and nature. This results in loss of security and the entry of shame. God’s vision for an inter related universe in harmony is replaced by sin separation and broken relationships. This is reflective of the period after exile when the Israelite people felt their relationship with their god had been broken due to their disobedience.

StereotypesThere are notions that have been used to keep women in subordinate roles until today:Such notions and counter notions are as follows:“Woman was created after man and is therefore inferior”

The argument that woman was created after man breaks down when we notice that in the 1st account, all of creation was created before man. So does that mean the birds and animals are superior to man?

“Woman was the cause of sin, and continues to be a temptress who can lead one to sin, and therefore has to be kept under the control of the superior male”

Woman and man are judged together; the woman is not judged until the man also ate the fruit. Both act with the full knowledge of the consequences of their disobedience.

“Woman was made out of man’s rib and to be his helper and is therefore subordinate”The word ‘helper’ presupposes that the one being helped is weaker/in need of help, and is therefore in a dependant position; So does this not mean that man and not woman is inferior?

Doing a feminist reading does not mean being man-bashers. It means being on the side of the under-dog and trying to re-read texts from their perspective instead of the dominant perspective that is implied in the text. So we are not here to argue about who is inferior or who is superior. We are here to admit that this text has been used to hold women in subordinate positions, in submissiveness, and in subjugation. The agenda of the writers of genesis as it affected women, continues to impact the theological agenda for women, our identities and bodies even today. And therefore we are trying to get a more equitable reading of the text that will liberate women from this prison of lower status, and reclaim for them a rightful place in creation and in society.

Breaking stereotypesThere are some clues to certain concepts in the texts of the creation accounts that may help us break the stereotypes about women, their creation, their role and purpose.

The problem of language and translations‘Image of god’: Genesis 1: 26, 27- I mentioned at the start of the BS that we have to consider the limitation of language as a medium to express entities such as God or even humans. Could we re-read the verse 27 without the use of gender pronouns? As in my NRSV, I read,

“So God created humankind in God’s image,In the image of God, God created them; Male and female God created them.”

If read this way that would mean that both male and female are part of the godhead image. If we use the pronoun ‘he’ for God in this text, then it somehow gives the impression that the male is more in God’s image than the female. As mentioned earlier, the intention of the creation accounts was to explain and reaffirm that there was a special relationship between god and human beings. The human had to be given a position that distinguished the human from the rest of the created order. So the phrase ‘image of god’ was used. We should also remember that the writer of these accounts was also writing this in the context where other cultures around the Israelites were worshipping graven images. So to allay any idea that God had a particular ‘image’ as such, the writer purposely left it ambiguous and did not assign any particular likeness or sex to God. The language of Genesis 1:26-27, is carefully guarded so as not to allow any masculine identification to define the image. When we use ‘image of God’ and ‘he’ interchangeably, we are committing a grave error in missing the original intent of the phrase. The idea that the woman images the divine as much as the man and that she is equally important in the understanding of humanity as representative of God on earth is the correct scriptural meaning.

‘adam’We have to remember that both Hebrew and English are gendered languages. In most languages where generic terms need to be used, it is rendered in the masculine. So this notion is a result of the limitation of our language which is so gendered in favour of the male, and not the result of ‘divinely inspired’, ‘revealed truth’. So in instances where humankind is meant but the word ‘adam’ is used must be also read with this limitation of language in mind.Some renderings of Gen1: 26,27 say:

“Then God said, “Let us make adam in our image…So God created adam in his image, In the image of God he created himMale and female he created them. “

The term ‘adam’ is not used as a proper name here to denote the name of the male of the species. (Until Gen 4:25, ‘adam’ is not used as a proper name.) It is meant as a generic

term. In the Hebrew, this generic term is not masculine. The word “adam” comes from “adamah” meaning “earth” or “ground”. So adam means “earthling” or “groundling” or “earth creature”. No gender is implied in the Hebrew word for the first creature. The Hebrew word for ‘man’ (‘ish’) referring to the ‘male’ is used only in 2:23 after the ‘woman’ (‘ishah’) too has emerged.

“ The term ‘adam’ tells us that the essence of human life is not its eventual classification into gendered categories but rather its organic connection to the earth. And the earth in this case is not general, vague, unspecified soil or ground but rather ‘adamah’, that reddish brown substance, or humus, that is capable of absorbing water, being cultivated, and supporting life.”4

“Adam” therefore refers to the human species as a whole. It actually means ‘humankind’So the intention of the writer of this account is to convey not gender, but the idea that the essence of human life from the beginning, was integrally connected to that which makes life possible, namely, arable land.

“Helper”, “Partner”, “rib”, “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh”The Hebrew term for ‘helper’ (Gen 2: 18) is often used in the Old Testament to refer to one as exalted as God, and always refers to the one stronger than the one who stands in need of help. 5 So ‘helper’ could be explained positively and liberatively too.

But it must be noted that the term ‘helper’ when used in the context of the second account of creation, where God creates everything else apart from the man and vegetation of the garden in order to find a suitable ‘helper’ for man, it seems to convey an inferior status. The term ‘helper’ seems to suggest to some a sense of inferiority. This is also true in our times when we sometimes refer to our house maids/male servants as ‘house helper’, implying clearly an inferior status. Here we have to remember our initial observation that the story is written from the man’s point of view, to convey a specific agenda that would legitimize and not challenge the existing lower status of women.

In this text the word ‘helper’ comes with the meaning of “being on par with” or “corresponding to” 6 The better translation therefore would be “companion”. This would coincide with the task of conservation and preservation of creation and the task of reproduction that God gave to both man and woman equally in the sense of ‘stewardship’ instead of ‘dominion’ (Gen 1:28) as most translations render it.

The word “companion” would also be compatible with the reference to the woman being taken from the ‘side’ of the man. The word literally used is that woman was taken from the ‘rib’ of the man. We must note her that there are serious doubts if the Hebrew word used “sela” actually referred to the anatomical term ‘rib’. The story teller here does not

4 Meyers, Carol. DISCOVERING EVE- ANCIENT ISRAELITE WOMEN IN CONTEXT, New York: Oxford university press, 1988. p. 82. 5 Dennis, Trevor. SARAH LAUGHED- WOMEN’S VOICES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. Britain: Spck, 1994. p.12.6 Meyers, Carol. DISCOVERING EVE- ANCIENT ISRAELITE WOMEN IN CONTEXT, New York: Oxford university press, 1988. p.85

use the anatomical term for rib. The word “sela” only in this instance is translated in the anatomical sense. In the rest of the OT the word is frequently used to mean “the side” of the temple or the sides of the ark or the sides of the tabernacle or altar. So therefore it is “side” not ‘rib’ that would be a more appropriate translation. In that sense, God taking a whole side from the man to create the woman means she is of as great value as the man. It also coincides with the image of the godhead as having both male and female elements.

Traditional translations seems to convey the idea that the woman was created out of something as insignificant as a single bone. But then by the same count we would have to say also that the man was created of something even more insignificant than a bone namely, mere “dust of the ground”. But like I said earlier, feminist reading does not mean arguing for superiority of one over the other. What is meant by ‘side’ is a companionship and a partnership. The woman is not part of man in the sense that she belongs to him. He could not have his ‘side’ back even if he wanted it. She is a new creature, with an identity of her own, the result of the same marvelous handiwork of God as the man. It is in belonging to each other that they would fully represent God’s image and not in any one belonging to another as property or in subordination.

The phrases “bone of my bone” and “flesh of my flesh” also intensifies the implication of being a “side” of each other. Here too it is not anatomy but partnership that is meant. ‘Flesh’ connotes weakness and ‘bone’ connotes strength. It is when both these combine that the essence of being human is also conveyed- both strength and weakness as parts of human existence. ‘Flesh’ and ‘bone’ here refers to both the man and the woman; ‘weakness’ has not been attched only to the woman.

A non-neutral yet equitable readingBeing created as male and female means a sense of “belonging”, a sense of “being in relationship with” and a sense of “being in community”. It is not in domination, power- over or in blaming of another that the true image of god lies in us as humans made in God’s image. When God is truly imaged as both male and female, when the image of god is understood as male and female “being in community”, then we as male and female with our differences that make us unique, are also in community with each other and not in opposition to each other. It is not the man or the woman who can reflect god, but it is community in relationship, harmony and interdependence that can reflect the image of God.

We are very aware of the woman’s silence in the entire creation accounts in chap1 and 2. We can understand the value that a character in a particular story has by measuring how much that character is allowed to say. By that measure we are disconcerted by the utter silence of the woman. We know what the man thinks of the woman, but not what she thinks of him. No doubt this is definitely a male account, and a woman would have written it differently. In 2:24 we hear the woman being referred to as “his wife” or “his woman”, but there is no corresponding mention of “her husband” or “her man”. We are still looking at the story from the point of view of the male narrator and the man in the garden, and no attempt is being made to see the woman’s side.

The tiny epilogue at the end of the 2nd chapter gives us at least a glimpse of balances swaying in the favour of the woman though it is not much to leap in joy about. The closing verses, Ch 2: 24-25 leaves us with some hope. In spite of all the limitations of language and translation and the agenda of the story tellers in maintaining the status quo, there is yet some hope in the creation accounts. In ancient Israel descent was traced through the male line and property was handed down from father to son. That meant that when a woman married, she left the household of her parents to join that of her husband. The story teller knew well of this practice. Yet he says that the man would leave his parental household and cling to his wife. Here the writer is commenting on the extraordinary power of love and sexual attraction. The relational aspect of the first couple is given more importance than the procreative aspect of a male-female union. In the ideal world of Eden, male and female complement each other. The conjugal bond is given priority over the parental bond. In this there is an acknowledgement that in the parent-child relationship, there is an intrinsic hierarchy and powerlessness of and dependence of one on the other. And there is a recognition that in the man-woman coming together there is and should be no such hierarchy. The clinging of the man to his wife and both of them being naked and unashamed, conveys the sense of each giving the other worth, identity and dignity; of security and lack of fear or shame of the other or of the self’s identity. In this relationship is what true image of God is mirrored.

We are responsible to reflect the true image of God by striving for right relationships between sexes without domination, subordination, power or fear. When each can be naked and yet sure of not being exploited by the other or having to feel shame, therein lies true security for both sexes. Tomorrow we will talk about how this sense of security is given differently for a man and a woman.

Bibliography: 1. Bird, Phyllis Sexual Differentiation and Divine Image in the Genesis Creation texts in THE

IMAGE OF GOD: GENDER MODELS IN JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN TRADITION. Ed. By Kari Elisabeth Borresen. Fortress Press, 1995.

2. Brenner, Athalya & Fontaine, Carole (eds). A FEMINIST COMPANION TO READING THE BIBLE - APPROACHES, METHODS AND STRATEGIES. England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

3. Dennis, Trevor. SARAH LAUGHED- WOMEN’S VOICES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. Britain: SPCK, 1994.

4. Melanchthon, Monica. INCLUSIVE ANTHROPOLOGY IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 5. Meyers, Carol. DISCOVERING EVE- ANCIENT ISRAELITE WOMEN IN CONTEXT. New

York: Oxford University Press, 1988. 6. Phyllis Trible. GOD AND THE RHETORIC OF SEXUALITY. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,

1978. 7. Tingjin, Yong. REFLECTIONS OF CREATION STORIES- Informal Notes for Women’s Voice

Core group, Malaysia, 2002.

By, Jessica Richard

SAYET prog, NCCI, 20-25 Nov, 2003