The "original sin"
'This re-examination of the adamic myth discloses that its composer did not express the male bias that has been characteristic of most subsequent translators and interpreters. To cite one example, they have usually not conveyed that Adam was with Eve at the scene of the crime. The Revised Standard Version, the New English Bible, and Today's English Version are among those following the Latin Vulgate's error of not stating that Adam was with Eve in the encounter with the serpent. In the Vulgate, Jerome omitted translating from either the Hebrew Bible or the Greek Septuagint the prepositional phrase which establishes Adam's presence. Jerome seems unwilling to accept that the representative male is unprotesting to the serpent. On the other hand, the King James Version, the Jewish Version of 1917, and the New Jerusalem Bible do not overlook translating immah as "with her" in Genesis 3:6. Thus, the composer pictures "her husband with her" when the fruit was stolen. Also, the plural verbs in the dialogue with the serpent suggest that Adam was present.
A century ago, Lillie Blake observed: "Adam standing beside her [Eve] interposes no word of objection... Had he been the representative of the divinely appointed bead in married life, he assuredly would have taken upon himself the burden of the discussion with the serpent, but no, he is silent in this crisis of their fate. Having had the command from God himself, he interposes no word of warning or remonstrance, but takes the fruit from the hand of his wife without a protest." More recently, Jean Higgins has likewise been amused: "There is something comical in the image of the man standing there and never entering into the conversation at all, never intervening to stop the temptation, leaving the woman to do the talking, thinking, deciding, acting, and only at the end reaching out his hand to accept and eat what his wife put into his hands." Phyllis Bird makes a more restrained comparison: "The woman in this portrait responds to the object of temptation intellectually and reflectively, employing both practical and esthetic judgment. The man, on the other hand, passively and unquestioningly accepts what the woman offers him."
What the story does not say should also be noted. The composer approves of the pair clinging together in the nude prior to the serpent episode, so the forbidden fruit is not a symbol of sexual temptation. Their shame is from the loss of self-respect after stealing what did not belong to them, not from any lustful embrace. Tikva Frymer-Kensky's perspective on Eve is based on the Genesis text: "Eve is portrayed as the spokesperson for the couple, and during her talk with the serpent she presents theological arguments. She is never portrayed as wanton, or as tempting or tempted sexually, nor does the biblical author single her out for greater blame than her partner."
Interpreters have frequently but erroneously presumed that the Genesis storyteller was describing what ought to be a continual divine penalty to humankind for the sin of Adam and Eve. But myths are a historical and do not attempt to chronicle the past or predict the future; they attempt to explain the present situation. Alienation from Yahweh causes disharmony in earthly associations. Work is no longer a pleasant activity as intended, but a grim struggle with nature. The maternal toil to insure biological survival becomes harsh when a tyrannical husband replaces a companion in marriage. Nothing is said in Genesis regarding this oppressive sexual relationship being perpetuated on humanity. The Hebrew Bible nowhere refers to a "fall" of Adam and Eve, even though expositors have commonly portrayed them plunging precipitously from innocence into depravity.'
From "Eve and Pandora Contrasted" by William E. Phipps in Theology Today, Vol. 45, No. 1, April 1988.
Found the whole thing here: http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1988/v45-1-article3.htm
I never know how accurate these commentaries are, but I do love new viewpoints such as this.
A century ago, Lillie Blake observed: "Adam standing beside her [Eve] interposes no word of objection... Had he been the representative of the divinely appointed bead in married life, he assuredly would have taken upon himself the burden of the discussion with the serpent, but no, he is silent in this crisis of their fate. Having had the command from God himself, he interposes no word of warning or remonstrance, but takes the fruit from the hand of his wife without a protest." More recently, Jean Higgins has likewise been amused: "There is something comical in the image of the man standing there and never entering into the conversation at all, never intervening to stop the temptation, leaving the woman to do the talking, thinking, deciding, acting, and only at the end reaching out his hand to accept and eat what his wife put into his hands." Phyllis Bird makes a more restrained comparison: "The woman in this portrait responds to the object of temptation intellectually and reflectively, employing both practical and esthetic judgment. The man, on the other hand, passively and unquestioningly accepts what the woman offers him."
What the story does not say should also be noted. The composer approves of the pair clinging together in the nude prior to the serpent episode, so the forbidden fruit is not a symbol of sexual temptation. Their shame is from the loss of self-respect after stealing what did not belong to them, not from any lustful embrace. Tikva Frymer-Kensky's perspective on Eve is based on the Genesis text: "Eve is portrayed as the spokesperson for the couple, and during her talk with the serpent she presents theological arguments. She is never portrayed as wanton, or as tempting or tempted sexually, nor does the biblical author single her out for greater blame than her partner."
Interpreters have frequently but erroneously presumed that the Genesis storyteller was describing what ought to be a continual divine penalty to humankind for the sin of Adam and Eve. But myths are a historical and do not attempt to chronicle the past or predict the future; they attempt to explain the present situation. Alienation from Yahweh causes disharmony in earthly associations. Work is no longer a pleasant activity as intended, but a grim struggle with nature. The maternal toil to insure biological survival becomes harsh when a tyrannical husband replaces a companion in marriage. Nothing is said in Genesis regarding this oppressive sexual relationship being perpetuated on humanity. The Hebrew Bible nowhere refers to a "fall" of Adam and Eve, even though expositors have commonly portrayed them plunging precipitously from innocence into depravity.'
From "Eve and Pandora Contrasted" by William E. Phipps in Theology Today, Vol. 45, No. 1, April 1988.
Found the whole thing here: http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1988/v45-1-article3.htm
I never know how accurate these commentaries are, but I do love new viewpoints such as this.