Good question and a beautiful verse. Seems to raise the fascinating discussion of whether truth and fact are synonymous, or if there is potentially some daylight between the two. My younger self would have squirmed at this idea, but I do wonder if the story of the fall was not factual but is still nevertheless true.
1 Like
Hi Craig. A red herring is a distraction, not necessarily something wrong. When you raised questions about how we decide what in Scripture is in error, inerrancy was a red herring since it only applies to the originals. Those who accept inerrancy still think their Bible and the compiled texts it’s based on may sometimes be in error. Lacking perfection doesn’t prevent inerrantists from trusting their Bible. Rejecting inerrancy doesn’t pose a new crisis of how to trust what isn’t perfect.
Inerrancy is also a red herring because it can divert people into testing the accuracy of Scripture rather than trying to understand and live it as best we can. If we want to show how inerrant (or errant) Scripture is, we’ll tend to focus on what can be placed on inerrancy’s scales. That leads to ignoring poetry, parables, symbolism, rhetoric and such, or trying to read those passages as if they were blandly literal. When inerrancy is our lens for what it means for God to speak, Scripture tends to get reduced to propositional statements.
Just the details of who he baptized. He realized he had said it wrong, started to correct it, but then gave up because he probably knew he couldn’t remember it all. But this is another great example of how inerrancy distracts. Rather than looking at Paul’s point, we’re disputing whether an error that’s immediately noticed and corrected counts as an error.
Let’s look, instead, at what Paul does. He’s just stuck his foot in his mouth, so what now? Tell his scribe to scratch the last few lines so he can do it over correctly? That would save face nicely, but no. Paul uses his mistake as an example of the foolishness God uses to shame the wise:
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power … God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe … But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise … My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God. (1 Cor. 1:17–2:5)
Paul’s muddled account of his baptisms becomes exhibit A for God’s wisdom proclaimed by foolish people. If we’re expecting perfect words from God’s messengers, Paul shows us we’re repeating the same mistake as some Greeks in Corinth. We’re so fixated on the quality of the message that we risk missing who it speaks of.
3 Likes
That is not quite correct. They were tallying opinions or trying to establish a consensus within their own ranks. They didn’t determine what was spoken by Jesus with a vote. Each scholar had his or her own reasons for accepting or rejecting each saying as going back to Jesus and thus voted accordingly. Scholars didn’t just change their mind because of popularity. Their historical arguments decided authenticity for each person.
Vinnie
There are two creation accounts of the creation of man and woman. The first is sparse. The second is lengthy in comparison. In the second account woman is taken from man’s rib and named (a form of subjugation) and patriarchy begins.
One possible answer to explain the two accounts is that the second creation in which woman is subjugated was added (an interpolation) to satisfy the needs of the Abrahamic covenant which promised abundant fertility. You can’t be prolific w/o a cooperating woman. I read a paper by Hadassah, the Israeli woman’s org that told of incidents of suicide among orthodox women who had reproductive issues.
Orthodox Jewish communities have the highest birth rates in the world.
Women are “chattel” in Genesis.
I disagree on both the rib and the naming. Adam names Eve in Genesis 3:20, but not 2:23. The earlier verse doesn’t have a complete naming formula (it’s just called rather than called her name). The “name” is really a descriptive term that puns on the similarity between ish (man) and ishah (woman). And Adam distances himself from the action and places it in the future by saying “this one shall be called.” This indirectness isn’t what you’d expect if Adam is claiming control of the woman.
The point of saying the other creature will be called “woman” is not to place himself above her but to recognize her sameness: she’s made of the same stuff. Woman is not a different kind, like the animals named earlier, but of the same flesh and bone as himself.
And that leads to the source material of the woman. Adam insists that they share flesh and bone, not just one rib. The term sometimes translated “rib” appears several dozen times in the Bible, so it’s not a mystery what it means. Elsewhere, it refers to the side of a building or structure, beside a person or object, a hillside, side walls, side chambers, and boards used for siding. That covers every other occurrence in the Bible. Any guesses what the core meaning of the word is?
Eden’s sketch of humanity’s creation doesn’t end with a slight ribbing. It’s a side-splitter.
In some cases, yes. Hagar is treated like chattel by Sarah and Abraham. She may be one of the slaves the couple picked up in Egypt while Abe loaned out his wife to the Pharaoh (Genesis 12:11–16). But later when this piece of chattel runs away, pregnant with Abraham’s child, God sees her and promises her a future. And then, this woman names God!
So she named the LORD who spoke to her, “You are El-roi;” for she said, “Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?” Therefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi [well of the living one who sees]; it lies between Kadesh and Bered. (Genesis 16:13–14)
Perhaps naming doesn’t indicate subjugation, and perhaps Genesis reveals God’s soft spot for the marginalized, even as it honestly portrays their marginalization.
6 Likes
“EC Bible scholars” don’t necessarily read every word of this forum looking for questions.
I have an MA in Bible translation, so I might be as close as you get on this thread. Paul is clearly alluding to the Genesis narrative. We don’t know his mental state about whether he took the narrative “literally” or not. Anytime an author makes literary allusions, they speak as if the story happened and the people in it lived. You can’t know from the reference what they knew or did not know about the historicity and factuality of the story.
We can’t know this. We don’t know Paul’s mind just because he made literary allusions.
If Paul believed Eve and the serpent were historical facts and he was wrong, it wasn’t the only thing in his worldview that he was wrong about. Who cares? The authority of scripture and the power of the gospel has never depended on the perfection of any author’s worldview.
Again, we can’t know what was in his mind, so the best thing to do is interpret the story for ourselves, using our own minds and the knowledge available to us. Also, it’s not deceptive at all to use allusions to literature as “real,” assuming the audience is familiar with the same literary canon, because everyone knows what assumptions are being made because of their shared culture. Reading Paul is reading other people’s mail. You can’t fault him for not writing to every possible audience in the world when he wrote to a specific one. Referring to literature to make a rhetorical point is not at all the same thing as “teaching myths.”
Lots has been written on this, so happy researching. Start with NT Wright.
5 Likes
The earliest speculation of the Jews in the midrash referring to this same meaning of the word as “side,” is that Adam was androgynous created male and female both as it says in Genesis 1:27 and thus split into two persons with male and female separated.
3 Likes
Good example of the rabbit hole you go down with literalism.
Yes, it’s one of several early Jewish interpretations. Something along those lines also removes what otherwise appears to be a plot hole: the adam/human is told by God not to eat of one tree because otherwise “you [singular] will surely die.” But later the woman knows of the command, knows it applies to her too, and she phrases it in the plural (“you [plural] will die”). If the woman was one side of the undifferentiated creature God spoke to, there’s no need to explain how she heard the command.
I think a main reason people reject this reading is that is sounds more like fantasy lit to have a character split in half, both sides maintaining the memories of the undivided creature. But if we look at the story, this is by no means the only fantastic detail. It fits the style of the whole account (talking serpent, fruit that gives knowledge or eternal life, creatures made from dust, etc.). We don’t have to insist the fantastic details aren’t there to allow that God is speaking truth through it.
1 Like
First, it is not important whether Eve is taken from a rib or from anywhere else in Adam’s body - there are other hypotheses, some say Adam’s penis. What is important for Biblical theology is that male and female were originally ONE. My New English Bible uses “rib” and the import is the same regardless of what part of the body Eve is created from.
I also hypothesize the creation of man and woman in the Bible is based on the prior creation of man and woman in the Zoroastrian Avesta, where Maryane and Maryashe are the primal parents created from a rhubarb plant which is hemaphroditic - both male and female. The Babylonian exiles are in Babylon when Cyrus the Persian whose descendant will authorize the Torah conquers Babylon. The Persians are Zoroastrian.
The import in Genesis is based on the fact that man and woman were originally ONE and will one day be united in ONE flesh again (Genesis 2:24). Because of this separation and reunification of man and woman foretold in Genesis, in the NT Jesus does not condone divorce which the Pharisees condone because they make changes in the Torah with their rabbinical commentary.
Yes, Adam does not name Eve in 2:23. He simply identifies her gender, her “kind” as woman. I agree.
Yes, Adam names Eve in Genesis 3:20. This is significant because it is right after the Fall when they are punished:
God says to the woman: “You shall be eager for your husband and he shall be your MASTER” (Genesis 3:16). This is literally, a subjugation by God! Immediately after Adam is designated Eve’s MASTER by God (Gen. 3:16), Adam then names Eve and associates her name with her role which is to be the mother of all who live (the reproductive role).
The first creation of man and woman is at Genesis 1:27-28 where the treatment of man and woman is the same. They are to be fruitful and increase and rule together. This is before the Fall.
Your salient disagreement seems to be over the subjugation of woman and the beginning of patriarchy in Genesis and my characterization of women in Genesis as “chattel.” I stand by it. If you object to the obvious subjugation of woman, and her naming in the wake of the Fall, you’d really have a problem with the wife/sister episodes with Abraham who gives his wife as sister to Abimelech and the Pharaoh.
Incidentally, do you know who names Adam?
Thank you the opportunity to make an input to the discussion of whether Paul accepted the literal story of genesis… we first need to examine whether Paul had the holy spirit which represents the faith of who? Jesus Christ… So what did Jesus believe of the accounts in genesis… Matt.19.4 indicates Jesus believed in literal creation…also Matt 24:37 and luke 17:26 clearly Jesus believes in the flood account as it is written… To have the faith of Jesus and not just faith in him we have a more sure word of prophecy… Thank you… Praise God!!
In that verse, master/rule is a verb, not a noun. It’s “he shall rule over you.” I think it’s descriptive rather than prescriptive. Much like Jesus speaking of families being divided and fathers turning against sons (Luke 12:49–53), the point isn’t that God is forcing family members to attack each other, but that it will happen due to how humans respond.
God, in Genesis 5:1–2. This is the only place “Adam” is given as a name, and it is a name for all humankind, not just one man.
Nicely said… The man acquiring a hmm… Like a proper first name? Or Adam more like a surname? The interesting thing to me is because of transgression also known as breaking the law man has to be assigned what’s considered a legal fiction… An all caps name to be arraigned on the charges of harkening unto another " voice" in the garden… I believe that now becoming a law breaker and necessary of adjudication in the court that has jurisprudence over the universe… The singularity of identification is given to identify the offender… Modern day our legal fiction named on our birth certificates in all caps is what identifies the real person as straw man to stand before the court on legal matters…
Marshall wrote:
“In that verse, master/rule is a verb, not a noun. It’s “he shall rule over you.” I think it’s descriptive rather than prescriptive. Much like Jesus speaking of families being divided and fathers turning against sons (Luke 12:49–53), the point isn’t that God is forcing family members to attack each other, but that it will happen due to how humans respond.”
rich responds:
I also have the translation: “become subject to him.” Either way, Eve is subjugated to man.
Don’t say “I think it’s descriptive rather than prescriptive” without including support for the remark.
Your reference to Luke fails. Not analogous.
Marshall wrote:
“God, in Genesis 5:1–2. This is the only place “Adam” is given as a name, and it is a name for all humankind, not just one man.”
rich responds:
I have to agree and disagree. It depends on the translation. Some translations use Adam as early as 2:19 but that is because Adama is man in Hebrew. The point where ‘man’ is translated as Adam is the translator’s preference. I have 3 different translations in front of me.
At 5:2 God named THEM man (mankind). This is the toledoth, the record of descendants.
Remember, man(kind) is not a man. Adam is a man. God does not explicitly name Adam “the man” anywhere. Adam explicitly names Eve.
That. Is how it reads to me also, as being part of the curse of sin, rather than God’s will for mankind.
Oh??? LOL Why is that so important? Why isn’t it important how the Bible describes the earth as a table with four corners, pillars, and unmoving, and larger than the sun?
What is important for Biblical theology is that there is no need whatsoever to read everything in the Bible in a literal manner let alone in manner contrary to the findings of science. What is important for Biblical theology is to recognize the simple fact that Genesis is not a single account of events in chronological order, not even close.
I didn’t argue either of these points. “Curse of sin” or “God’s will for mankind”
Marshall was objecting to my understanding that woman is subjugated in Genesis in the second creation of man and woman.
Without doubt, woman is subjugated in Genesis when God let’s Adam name her (only after the Fall) as he let Adam name the animals and when God explicitly indicates that Eve is to be subject to her husband.
What is prescriptive is: God blessed them saying, “Be fertile and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.”
Why don’t we discuss the issue with an orthodox Jewish woman who lives by Torah?
““Gitty would reach her late teens before she realized she was living in perhaps the most religiously conservative community in America. “In my parents’ house, there’s no TV, no radio, no newspapers not in Yiddish, no Internet,” Gitty says. Gitty knew “I couldn’t live in Kiryas Joel anymore, that I didn’t want to be one of those women who pop out babies every eighteen months and think whatever their husbands tell them to…””
From:
Escape from the Holy Shtetl, Mark Jacobson, July 13, 2008
The Jewish-American Saga of Gitty Grunwald and Her Daughter -- New Y - Nymag
Kiryas Joel is the fastest growing city of its size in the United States because of its high total fertility rate.
“…think whatever their husbands tell them to.”
Women ride in the back of their chartered buses and are pushed off sidewalks in Brooklyn by rebbes.
I feel you took exception to me saying the close to the same thing though I’m more blunt about it.
Vinnie
I just printed and read that article. Wright raised some interesting points and a lot of stuff I find agreeable. Some nice quotes in there and I think questioning what it means for a work to be authoritative was the highlight for me. The bigger picture of the four Acts with us being in an unfinished 5th was also interesting. In the end though, without getting into any hermeneutical specifics, I felt it was overall a bit too vague. It critiqued evangelical and other views but in my mind, didn’t offer any concrete examples of how to apply what it was saying. It just left me feeling wanting at the end.
Vinnie
mitchellmckain wrote:
“What is important for Biblical theology is that there is no need whatsoever to read everything in the Bible in a literal manner let alone in manner contrary to the findings of science. What is important for Biblical theology is to recognize the simple fact that Genesis is not a single account of events in chronological order, not even close.”
Genesis contains the establishment of the first diaspora and everything required to do that. Genesis is filled with allegories. You can read it literally and it will suffice for you, or you can penetrate the allegories and get a fuller deeper exegesis.
Nothing I’ve argued is contrary to science. I am fully aware this is the BioLogos forum.
Jesus is likened to the pre-fall Adam before Eve was taken from his rib. When Adam was still androgynous(ONE) he had no desire because there was no other. He was complete in himself.
Once Eve was separated from him, they each desired what the other had and so sin became possible.
Gospel of Thomas logion 114
Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.
Jesus said, “I myself will lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Women were not required to make the self-sacrifice in Judaism (to write the Law on their hearts and make learned behavior intuitive as Jesus did). The phrase “living spirit” refers to the self-sacrifice in which the body is ontologically given up and a person becomes wholly spirit.
When Simon Peter says women are not worthy of life, he means as a “living spirit” not that they should be corporeally dead.
“I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a LIVING sacrifice, HOLY and acceptable to God.” Romans 12:1
mitchellmckain wrote:
“What is important for Biblical theology is to recognize the simple fact that Genesis is not a single account of events in chronological order, not even close.”
I totally agree. Genesis is not history even though its presentation is quasi-historical. It has a structure within which the stories are told, so it cannot be history. History is linear. It is not structured. History “happens.”
Genesis is a succession of archetypes that result in the first successful diaspora in Egypt.