Fiat homo – take 2

The second account of creation (Genesis 2) has its origin in the J text, in which God is addressed as YHWH (Lord) God. This time around there is a distinctly different tone, and the character of God is altered along with it. Once again there is primeval chaos awaiting order, but the “chaos” is earth-bound rather than cosmic: there is no vegetation, since it hasn’t rained yet, and there is no-one to till the ground.

The sequence of creation this time around:

1. Man
2. Garden
3. Animals
4. Woman

Note that in Genesis 1 water and land animals are created before humankind.

“Man” is “formed from the dust on the ground”, and God breathes life into his nostrils – a much more humble origin than being fashioned in the image of God. The Notes indicate that there is a play on words in the original Hebrew: ‘adam (man) is formed from ‘adamah (ground). Man is intimately related to his environment, but is brought to life by the divine breath of God. His body comes from earth, his life from God.

Then God creates a garden for man, “in Eden, in the east”, and populates it with trees that are “pleasant to the sight and good for food”. (“Eden” means “abundance, plenty, fullness”.) Also in the garden are the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The Notes indicate that the phrase “knowledge of good and evil” encompasses “moral, spiritual, and physical (sexual) knowledge”.

Man’s task is to till and keep the garden, while living off its fruit. “[B]ut of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” Interestingly he is not prohibited from eating of the tree of life which, one assumes, confers immortality. What a missed opportunity we have here!

God’s next task is to create man “a helper as his partner”, but he goes about it in rather an odd way. He creates animals and birds and brings them to the man “to see what he would call them”. The implication is that God wants to see if one of the animals or birds could be a partner. When this fails God removes one of the man’s ribs after causing him to fall into a deep sleep, and fashions him a partner. This time man is satisfied to the point of waxing poetical:

This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,
for out of man was this one taken.

Somewhat abruptly the narrator comments that this is the reason that “man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh”. In contrast with the first myth, which emphasised the seeds of plants and fruit, and even instructed humankind to be fruitful and multiply, this one merely notes the loneliness of man, and that a helper/partner is needed. Up to this point in the text sex plays no role, yet now the man and woman are immediately referred to as “the man and his wife” Or am I missing something? The same kind of postlapsarian pre-emption occurs in the final line of chapter 2: “And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.” You just know it’s not going to last …

In the first creation myth humankind is given “dominion” over all other living things, but there is no indication of anything but equality between human male and female. In this story man gets to name all the animals, and woman is fashioned from his rib as well as being named by him. To name something is to have authority over it. So man is still in a position of authority over nature (although this relationship is milder than one of “dominion” over nature) – even though both he and they are formed of the same raw material. But there is a different relationship between man and woman; no longer one of equality, they are formed of different raw material, and woman can be seen as being subservient to man by virtue of being formed of a small part of him. Of course, she is also created after man. It’s not difficult to see how previous generations could find proof of woman’s status as somehow lesser than man in such a powerful story as this one. Man’s assertion that she is “bone of my bones/and flesh of my flesh” should mitigate against this interpretation, but it didn’t.

On the other hand, although man’s original raw material was “dust”, he is now flesh and bone, like the woman. As such they are closer kin than man and animals, and should once again, be each other’s equal. But he still named her … and the original Hebrew refers to “Woman” as ‘ishah since she is taken from the man, “man” being ‘ish. The Notes say that these two terms are “the first explicitly gendered terms applied to the humans”.

A note on the etymology of “woman”: originally the first part of the word “woman” meant “wife” (i.e., a “woman”). “Man” meant “human being” – therefore “woman” referred to a female human being. The word “man” came to be used to the exclusion of women; in a practical sense, they became invisible in the language, and hence the use of the word “man” in a gender-neutral sense is frowned on nowadays. Be a mensch and say “human”!

(It is not my intention to ascribe blame to the Bible in terms of the perceived relative worth of men and women – my interest is in seeing how some readings can bolster certain philosophical positions. And the Bible is quoted as source and “proof” of a bewildering variety of points of view.)

Notes:

• God is not explicitly stated as being omniscient, so I won’t harp on the mistaken attempt to give man a furry or feathered partner. But one does get the idea he is feeling his way along – and that the omnipotent being of the first creation myth would have done things somewhat differently.
• From 2.19 the KJV calls the man “Adam”, but the NRSV carries on calling him “man”.
• Long ago I read that the word usually translated as “rib” could also be rendered as “part” or “side”. Seeing the woman as formed of the man’s side, or half of him, would put a completely different spin on her relationship with him. It would be much closer to the ancient notion that there was a single being originally, that was then split into male and female. Since the NRSV does not mention this, I guess such a translation would be inaccurate.

It interests me that so far no reason is supplied for God’s creation of all and sundry in the first place. As far as humankind is concerned Eden is created first and only then is a gardener needed. Hmmm … maybe reasons will be supplied later.

Image: The Creation of Eve by Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475 – 1564)

~ by tamfuwing on April 30, 2008.