Okay, so “Dataset 1” above is Protestants as a percent of the population, and “Dataset 2” is strict creationists as a percent of population. Both are tanking and have been since 1990, which is why I said Evangelicals prematurely declared victory in 1985. Evangelical denominations (including Charismatics) are the majority of Protestants in this country. The loss can’t be chalked up to Mainline denominations (progressives and Unitarians) and Catholics (not charted) alone, although they’re following the same trendline. It’s an across-the-board wipeout that has only gained steam (hence the chart bottoming out). The only religious traditions that have remained steady in numbers are Black Protestants (evangelical, but anti-MAGA), Judaism, and “Other.”
I’m sure you’re right, but human nature is 80:20 conservative:liberal, in 80% of the population and 2-:50 in 20% So democratic capitalism will always have a vast reservoir of ignorant people.
I think I probably agree in that particular verse, man and woman is better. But I get Marshall’s use of Human instead of Adam.
Not sure what text you are referring to. Sometimes Adam is a proper noun, sometimes it isn’t. It’s legit translation choice you just have to make in a couple ambiguous places. I don’t know where Liv comes from or what motivation there would be to use it. If it’s a trying to represent how Eve might have “sounded” in Hebrew to English speaking ears, kind of close to Life or Living but intended as a name, I get it. But then it should be used instead of the proper noun translated Eve, not instead of the common noun translated “the woman.” I think the whole thing is hard translation-wise because Human is not really used in English for a non-gendered person. We say person or individual. Human is used to set apart humans from non-humans. And humanity or humankind is a collective, it’s not a count noun you can pin on an individual.
For simplicity I was using the names they’re later given, but I see how what I wrote might make it seem like Genesis also uses the names earlier. I agree it’s important to see how they aren’t named until later (Gen. 3:20 for Liv, 4:25/5:1–2 for Human).
Going with “the man” for ha’adam almost reduces the woman to a cameo. She shows up partway through the story, has one big scene and disappears. By the end, “the man” is kicked out of Eden because God realizes “the man” has become like one of them. Even the woman’s act of picking fruit from the tree is, at the end, phrased as if it was done by “the man” (3:22–24).
And in the bookends to Eden, do we also say that on the sixth day God made “the man,” male and female in God’s image, and later called “the man” who was created male and female “Man” (1:26–27; 5:1–2)? This approach adds more patriarchy and male-domination than Genesis has on its own and obscures some surprising ways the Eden story pushes back against that bias.
It is odd to pair “the human” with “the woman,” but this oddness is in Genesis. Even after they’re divided into man and woman, instead of referring to them as the man and the woman (ha’ish and ha’ishah), we get a continuation of the human and the woman. It’s as lopsided as one part of divided Israel still being called Israel while the other part takes a new name, Judah. I’m fine with deviating from Genesis and referring to them as “the man” and “the woman” at this point in the story – as long as we don’t carry those terms into the beginning or ending where ha’adam is on their own.
This is important, because the life of “the human” before the split is shared backstory for both characters just as united Israel is shared backstory for both divided nations. The woman isn’t made from dirt or some bone or lump of dead flesh. Instead, the living, breathing human being that has already heard God’s commands and already named all the animals and learned to speak is split. God takes one side and forms it into a woman after fixing up the remaining side as a man.
Both of them remember their life before the split, but they remember it in line with their present. The man remembers himself as always being a man, since he says that the woman was taken from man. The woman remembers always being with the man, since she rephrases God’s command to the human (with its four singular “you”s) as if God spoke to them both (she uses one “we” and three plural “you”s). According to the story, God only gave that command before the split, but after the one became two, both of them remembered it. Both of them heard it.
I know many reject this way of reading the story because it sounds sci-fi, like that Star Trek episode where Riker gets split into two people. But it’s not sci-fi and we’re not meant to figure out how all the details could scientifically or historically happen, whether the talking snake or the fruit that gives unending life or the living human split in two.
If we just let it be the kind of story it is, it delivers an surprisingly egalitarian view of the sexes. It’s not good for a human to be alone, so the woman fulfills the role of ezer kenegdo, a complicated term meaning something like a “power opposite” or “matching ally” in which both words may either refer to an equal or a superior. The relationship between male and female is tighter than kinship: we’re the same flesh and bone. Because of this bond, a man will leave his parents’ house and move under his wife’s roof. Later, when they are tempted, the woman is deceived into sinning while the man reflexively eats what he’s handed. When they fess up, the woman admits she ate because she was tricked; the man simply because he was given – as if whatever is put into his hand ends up in his mouth.
Time and again, the Eden story elevates the woman. I don’t think it’s trying to prove that women are better, but perhaps the storyteller knew that in a patriarchal culture only this approach would allow the woman’s equality to break through. Even so, it’s often been covered up. She shrinks to a bit player, formed as a helper for the man in exchange for a bone. Ironically, the story predicts this too. “He will rule over you,” God foretells. It isn’t how it should be, but how it will be. The story reveals that demeaning the powerful ally from God is a human impulse as old as sin.
This fascinates me, Marshall, and I want to make sure I’m understanding it correctly. Is this summary correct?
So Genesis 1 starts off with “Adam” (ha’adam) just being the Hebrew word for “humanity” - and inclusive of both sexes? And that continues into chapter 2, except there we now hear of “Eve” (meaning ‘the woman’) - but here it’s the awkward pairing you speak of: “the human and the woman”. And this continues all the way to Genesis 3:20 where “Eve” first becomes the proper name of an individual as we would understand somebody personally. But the reference to “the human one” for Adam continues even here and on until we reach 4:25, where finally for the first time, “Adam” also becomes a personal name? Am I understanding that correctly?
That is fascinating to me! And while I agree with your concluding paragraph, I am still curious about this.
So would you say that Paul, when he draws his conclusions about women (2 Timothy 2:13-15), was failing to recognize how the original story teller might be trying to “allow the woman’s equality to break through”? Is Paul guilty of a faulty reading of Genesis here? Or would you say he’s just reflecting his current patriarchal culture’s gloss over the story and shouldn’t be faulted for that? Surely all the Hebrew nuances you’re bringing to light here wouldn’t have been lost on him?
Yes, though as @Jay313 said, proper names aren’t used, so using them can confuse the issue. When adam appears with the definite article (like “the” in English) as ha’adam it can’t be a name, but without the article it may be a name. The very first mentions in Genesis 1:26–27 introduce the word first as adam and then as ha’adam; it’s possible the first mention is a name, but the second definitely isn’t.
Yes. In the Masoretic text there are four exceptions, but this gets nerdy. The Masoretes preserved the consonantal Hebrew text with vowel points. In Genesis 2:5, 20 and 3:17, 21 the word adam is joined to a preposition that changes the way the definite article is represented. Instead of being a prefixed ha, it’s just a vowel change. Since the difference between having the article and not having it was, in these cases, not present in the consonantal letters, the Masoretes used this opportunity to insert vowels that indicate no definite article. But since they only did it in these four places where the article would be invisible without vowel points, scholars are confident the earlier text used the article with adam throughout. And again, with the article means not a name while without the article may be a name.
Anyway, that’s my inexpert summary of what I’ve read from those who actually know this stuff, such as the Richards Hess and Middleton.
I’m not sure 2 Timothy is directly Paul, though I think it’s inspired Scripture regardeless. If it is him, it’s written well after 1 Corinthians and Romans. Perhaps Paul (or an associate) is dealing with some Christians who took his earlier statements that sin came from “one man” as a denial that Eve was also culpable. And so the passage isn’t trying to push women down so much as deny they are above men. There’s more there too, probably related to the Artemis cult and fertility rituals, but I won’t get into that.
As for “Adam was formed first, and then Eve,” that’s why I was very careful in my wording to show that in Genesis, God fixes up the remaining side to make a man before he builds the side that is taken into a woman. Genesis 2:21–22: God took one of the human’s sides and closed up the place with flesh; then God built a woman from the side God had taken. So this reading still has the man being made before the woman, but they’re sequential events. There’s no time when the man is conscious and doing things while the woman isn’t yet around.
What, like naming all the animals?
Yes, exactly. Both inherit the backstory of the human before it’s split into two people. That’s why both the man and woman retain knowledge of those events and the story makes no effort to show how the man relayed all the important information to the woman afterward to get her up to speed.
? seems very contrived. And contradicts 15-20. Or is this quantum super-positioning in Genesis?
Not contrived. And doesn’t contradict. And not quantum super-positioning.
Wow, this is so much easier than giving reasoning people can follow!
You
There’s no time when the man is conscious and doing things while the woman isn’t yet around.
Gen 2
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
So Adam wasn’t conscious during this interaction with God? Was it all a dream?
Nope. But I don’t want to over-repeat myself. It’s upthread.
A lot of this depends on translation. It’s as justified to say “not good for the man to be alone” as it would be to say “I will make a man suitable for him.” Both are grammatically masculine in Hebrew, but neither word means a male.
So (seeing the Middleton post you linked) - we have the proper name Adam finally in Genesis 5. I’m so glad there are middle-persons like you that are helping bring scholarship to this lay level for people like me. I know I could take the time to try to delve into it all for myself, but that is time I just don’t have. But I do have interest - enough to follow you as a tour guide!
Well - sure. I wasn’t meaning to dispute about authorship of the Timothy letters. So - yeah - it’s curious that the writer of 1 Timothy (whoever that inspired author may be) is perhaps dealing with a specific situation and context (as always) - and are you suggesting that this explains (justifies?) their treatment of women as derived from the creation narratives? But that still qualifies as a misuse of that passage now for our context where some want to misuse those creation narratives to paint women as ‘lesser’ beings?
Genesis 1:26, 4:25 and 5:1a may use Adam as a name, but Genesis 5:2 is the one (and only) time Adam is given as a name.
Obviously I disagree with readings that paint women as lesser. If someone takes that passage as arguing that women can’t teach because they’re more easily deceived as seen by Eve, I think that’s nonsense. Nonsense in actuality, but also definitely not true to Genesis and probably not true to 1 Timothy. But that passage is a minefield and even good books on it have to simplify some things.
Genesis 2-3.
That was my thinking.
A cameo? She has the main role in the crucial moment of the garden story. The man is practically a bystander and she gives him the fruit in 3:6. “The woman” is the most accurate translation. It’s a common noun, not a proper name.
No, because the Hebrew doesn’t include the definite article, so the translational choice in 1:26-27 is between the collective “humanity” or the individual name “Adam.” The context makes it clear. In 5:1-2, there again is no definite article, so the choice is the same – humanity or Adam? The context makes it clear – adam is all of humanity. But in the very next verse, we learn that adam has a son when he’s 130 yrs old. All of humanity or an individual named Adam? Again, the context makes it clear.
So, yes, adam has a fluid meaning depending on context.
The human is a legitimate translation. But if you choose to go that way, you’ll definitely need some exposition to explain why “the woman” isn’t less of a human.
I think you’re making too much of the fact the author chooses ha’adam instead of ha’ish. They are synonyms in this usage, and the reason may have been as simple as creating the wordplay of ha’adam being created from adamah (earth). I don’t think you should fashion the argument on a word the author didn’t use, rather than what he (they) actually wrote.
This just mystifies me.
True, but that’s why I think you’d be better served calling him “the man” rather than “the human.” The implication in English remains that he is fully human and she is somehow lesser, no matter how much verbiage is devoted to debunking the idea. I also still think it’s a mistake to assign proper names to the characters in Gen 2-3.
I think this is a good example of how sometimes in translation you can’t use the same translation for all occurrences and communication/inferred meaning should overrride concerns about consistency in key terms. In a communicative context where the two genders of the humans are in focus, I think that needs to be part of the translation consideration. Sometimes what gets translated “man” intends to focus on the humanity of the individual and sometimes the two genders seems to be in view, like when God created humanity/“man” in his image, male and female and when God took the “rib” from the “man” made the woman and brought her to him. You skew the communication if you make it God took a gendered person from the ungendered person and introduced her to the ungendered person. And you can’t really make it work in English (removing both genders) to say God took the human and introduced [ungendered them] to [ungendered their] counterpart. (Though some other languages could do this and, it would be worth considering as an option.) Maybe it would be better (and drive home the equal splitting picture) if you translated Gen 2:22 “And from the half that the LORD God had taken from the human, he made a female human and brought her to the male human.”
I think Paul has rhetorical aims and likes playing with language and concepts. Jesus’s number one preferred title for himself was Son of Man, which in Hebrew is Ben Adam, and a better translation in English than Son of Man would probably be “Human One.” I think his original Jewish audience would have instantly connected the first Adam second Adam stuff because of their familiarity with Jesus constantly calling himself the Son of Adam (“son of” having a much wider semantic range and being able to do a lot more figurative work in Greek and Hebrew than in English. The “son of” construction was used with qualities or identities someone embodied, like Jesus’s disciples getting the nickname Sons of Thunder or Jesus referring to Pharisees as Sons of Hell.)
There is a whole interpretive tradition that says “fell into a deep sleep” should be read as “was presented with a vision.” So maybe.
Some scholars have argued that the “painting Eve as lesser” was a direct contradiction to the cult of Artemis that had a competing creation story (Artemis was created first, before her twin brother) and syncretistic beliefs that were affecting the Christian community (the cult pushed female superiority and encouraged women to forgo marriage and childbirth). We are reading someone else’s mail and what could have been intended as a correction of an extreme or a competing narrative can send people without the same context and in a different starting point off to the other extreme.