Verbum et Ecclesia ISSN: (Online) 2074-7705, (Print) 1609-9982

Page 1 of 9 Original Research

Was Eve the firstfemme fatale?

Author: Feminist theology approaches the biblical teaching of the fall with a non-historical or traditional 1 Roche Coleman interpretation. The biblical teaching suggests that the primordial couple sinned by eating the Affiliation: forbidden fruit from the tree that God prohibited (Gn 3:1–24). Additionally, the woman is 1Department of Old blamed because she functions as a femme fatale who enticed Adam to eat the fruit. Writers Testament and Hebrew within the feminist and non-feminist theology argue that the so-called ‘Yahwist’ is responsible Scriptures, Faculty of for a patriarchal view that is evident in Genesis 3. Ultimately, male authors and interpreters of Theology and Religion, University of Pretoria, the Bible crafted a narrative that implicated the woman as the culprit for the presence of sin Pretoria, South Africa within humankind. Thereafter, women have been suppressed by the male-dominated culture that has manifested itself throughout the biblical literature. Several approaches seek to absolve Corresponding author: the woman of guilt in the fall narrative: firstly, denial of the fall; secondly, depatriarchalising Roche Coleman, [email protected] the biblical text; and thirdly, applying a deconstructionist literary methodology. The objective of this study was to consider whether Eve deserves the label of the first femme fatale. Did Eve Dates: use influence, beauty and words to persuade Adam to deviate from the divine mandates? The Received: 17 Aug. 2020 question surfaces uncomfortable considerations, but labelling Genesis 3 as patriarchal is an Accepted: 11 Dec. 2020 Published: 08 Mar. 2021 attempt to silence dialogue. Uncomfortable conversations are essential in the academic quest.

How to cite this article: Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: Feminist and non-feminist Coleman, R., 2021, ‘Was Eve theologians seek to absolve the woman of the femme fatale label by denying the fall, the first femme fatale?’, depatriarchalising the Old Testament and applying a deconstructionist interpretation. This Verbum et Ecclesia 42(1), article challenges the feminist, Old Testament and systematic theologian to reconsider their a2138. https://doi. org/10.4102/ve.v42i1.2138 interpretation of Genesis 3, especially, the woman’s role as a femme fatale. Keywords: femme fatale; fall; feminist; patriarchal; deconstructionist. Copyright: © 2021. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS. This work is licensed under the The femme fatale Creative Commons Attribution License. Comparative folklore portrays Eve1 as a femme fatale2 (Gaster 1969:22). The nude body of the woman, her unidentified words to the man and his willingness to eat the recommended fruit from the forbidden tree serve as characteristics of a femme fatale (Gn 2:25; 3:6–7). Edwards (2010) made this observation: Eve offers the fruit to Adam, she makes him a partner – in crime, many would say. Tempting a man is the defining action of the femme fatale: as Webster’s definition puts it, she ‘leads men into difficult, dangerous, or disastrous situations’. (p. 43)

Apart from the woman’s enticing presentation, it is implied that the man would not embark on the uncertain journey with the forbidden fruit that leads to his banishment (Gn 3:17–24).

Eve’s alleged seduction of Adam forms a tapestry in the history of folklores, such as the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh with the character of Siduri to Calypso who serves as the femme fatale seeking to detain Odysseus in the Greek folk story (Gaster 1969:22). According to Gaster, Genesis does not possess a unique account of the fall of humanity. Rather, the author of Genesis emulates the numerous stories of women serving as femme fatales in the folklore of societies. In his book, Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament, the primeval mother is cast as residing on an ‘enchanted island or in some similar domain and as giving succor to the hero on his travels like the woman the Sumerians designated Ninti’ (Gaster 1969:22). Ninhursaga created the Sumerian goddess Ninti to heal Enki’s rib. Similar to the Eve and Adam eating the fruit in the Garden of Eden, Enki eats forbidden flowers and receives a curse from Ninhursaga. Other deities persuade Ninhursaga to heal Enki of his curse. Ninti was one of eight goddesses who was created for this task and her name

Read online: 1.As a point of reference, Lilith is the first wife of Adam according to The‘ Alphabet of Ben Sira’, an anonymous medieval work on passages from the Talmud and Midrash (Stern & Mirsky 1998:167–202). See Gaines (2019) Lilith: Seductress, Heroine or Murderer for the Scan this QR etymology of Lilith’s name. Gaines recommended ‘Lilith, lylyt [tylyl] was not derived from the Hebrew word for night, lylh [hlyl], as they code with your supposed. Instead, Lilith’s name originated in her depiction as a mythic Mesopotamian friend and foe of Gilgamesh’. Seehttps://www. smart phone or biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/lilith/#note08r. mobile device to read online. 2.A femme fatale is an extremely attractive woman who leads men into dangerous situations or causes their ultimate destruction, through mysterious or seductive means that are manipulative (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/femme-fatale).

http://www.ve.org.za Open Access Page 2 of 9 Original Research represents both ‘Lady of the Rib’ and ‘Lady Who Makes Live’ us! You have estranged me from the glory of God’ (21:5–6) (https://www.brooklynmuseum.org). (Charlesworth 2011:281).

Equally, Bailey (1970:143) identified parallels from the primal Pseudo-Philo acknowledged that Adam violated the holy woman in the Gilgamesh story to the primal woman in the edict of God in the Garden of Eden, which offers a balance Genesis narrative on creation, but the distinction is that Eve’s approach. However, he places the culpability on Eve, status is not diminished (Gn 2:1–3:24). In the Gilgamesh epic, however, for luring her husband into sin: ‘[b]ut that man Enkidu becomes like a god after he is enticed by the harlot to transgressed my ways and was persuaded by his wife; and cohabit for 6 days and seven nights (II.ii11). Bailey (1970:143) she was deceived by the serpent. And then death was described the woman in Genesis as the ‘crown of creation’. ordained for the generations of men’ (Pseudo-Philo 13:8– Furthermore, he states, what is more extraordinary in Genesis 9). Adam sinned, but Eve is cast as the femme fatale who is the only account of the creation of woman as such in the lures the unsuspecting man into her web of lies and Ancient Near Eastern literature. In summary, he notes, whilst deception. the relationship with God is damaged through the woman’s disobedience, she receives a splendid status from Yahweh as Jesus Ben Sirach the first mother. After her punishment, the woman retains her central role that is never achieved by the harlot or any Historical and modern commentators do not identify Eve other woman in the Gilgamesh epic. Without question, the with the term femme fatale, but her characterisation remains Hebrew Bible’s account of the fall of the primordial couple constant. Writers note the negative influence the woman had and other Ancient Near Eastern literature fit the femme fatale on the man and blame her for persuading him to defy God. criteria. Biblical interpreters avoid the femme fatale label, but The Hellenistic Jewish scribe, Ben Sira, wrote, ‘[s]in began they attribute the femme fatale behaviour to Eve. Charlesworth with a woman, and because of her we all die’ (Sir 25:24). His (2010:306) argued that the labelling of the woman is unfair, writings present the woman as the source of her husband’s and the emergence of Patriarchalism in the Genesis fall problems. He blames the ‘worthless wife’ for her husband’s account has its origin with the ‘Yahwist’3 interpretation. ‘depression, downcast looks, and a broken heart’ (Sir 25:23). Therefore, women are suppressed by the male-dominated Furthermore, just as a ‘leaky cistern’ should not drip culture that manifests itself in the literature. The following continuously, a worthless wife should not ‘say whatever she comments by authors from the Hellenistic period to the 20th likes’ (Sir 25:25). If the wife ‘does not accept’ the control of century are noteworthy. her husband, Ben Sirach recommends the husband to ‘bring the marriage to an end’. Why? ‘A man’s wickedness is better Eve the temptress: Third century to than a woman’s goodness; women bring shame and disgrace’ 4 (Sir 41:24). Ben Sirach writes during the Second Temple modern interpreters period when the Seleucids controlled Jerusalem. His Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha patriarchal ideology originated under the influence of Hellenistic misogyny (Phipps 1989:53). Phipps credited the The Jewish and early Christian literature from the third- second-century Ben Sirach as the initial purveyor of the century BC to the first centuries referenced the woman’s role ‘reign of death to a happening in Eden’, as well as inciting in the fall. Passages in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha5 beliefs that lead to the Judeo-Christian doctrine of the fall. identify Eve as the antecedent of sin in humanity and the One can only speculate whether it was the culture or the distractor of Adam. In 2 Enoch 31:6, the author writes, ‘[i]n biblical narrative that impacted Sirach’s explanation of the such a form he (serpent) entered paradise, and corrupted woman. Eve. But Adam he did not contact. But on account of (her-Eve) nescience I cursed them’ (Charlesworth 2011:154). Enoch absolved the man of responsibility, whilst sin is the Church fathers consequence of the woman’s inordinate desire. In the Life of The writings of the church fathers clearly suggest their view Adam and Eve: Eve’s story of the fall and its consequences (known of the woman as possessing femme fatale characteristics. as Apocalypse of Moses in the Greek version), the author John Chrysostom (1979:435) proposed, ‘[f]or the sex (female) describes Eve as deceiving Adam by offering him the option is naturally somewhat talkative: and for this reason he to become ‘as God’ (21:3) (Charlesworth 2011:281). After restrains them on all sides’. Chrysostom (1979:435–436) Adam concedes and recognises his nakedness, he exclaims, continued by arguing that (1) the male sex enjoyed the ‘O evil woman! Why have you wrought destruction among higher honour as man was first formed and thus demonstrates his superiority; (2) women are not permitted 3.The once popular Documentary Hypothesis by Julius Wellhausen that Genesis is comprised of three separate sources (J –Yahwist, E – Elohist and P – Priestly) is to teach because the woman taught the man once, making referenced by Charlesworth. The theory has been refuted (cf. Archer 1997; Phelan him guilty of disobedience and bringing the ruin of 2005). humanity; (3) God subjected women to men because she 4.Women were considered to be property in Ancient Mesopotamia. Reviewing the literature during antiquity would yield the obvious interpretation. Researchers was beguiled, a superior was deceived by an inferior, a would expect a change of opinion by third century, especially from biblical interpreters. The literature written from the third century represents the core subordinate animal; and (4) the prohibition against women beliefs of officials responsible for shaping many doctrines of the church. leading and teaching men is a collective command as the 5.For additional insights (see Collins 2000; Delcor 1989; Helyer 2002). sex (woman) is weak and fickle.

http://www.ve.org.za Open Access Page 3 of 9 Original Research

Likewise, Nazianzen, Schaff and Wace (1994) soundly wisdom, and happiness – she was nevertheless a woman. For as concurred with Chrysostom writing: the sun is more excellent than the moon so the woman although she was a most beautiful work of God, nevertheless, was not the [S]he (the woman) indeed who was given to Adam as a help equal of the male in glory and prestige. (pp. 68–69) meet for him, because it was not good for man to be alone, instead of an assistant became an enemy, and instead of a yoke- fellow, an opponent, and beguiling the man by means of According to Luther’s interpretation, as Eve lacked the pleasure, estranged him through the tree of knowledge from the gravitas of Adam, she was more susceptible to the cunning tree of life. (pp. 256–257) schemes of the serpent who deceived her. Her beauty was superior to Adam’s, however, which allowed her to influence Both Gregory and Chrysostom place responsibility on the his behaviour. Again, the empowering beauty of the woman helper, Eve. (cf. Gn 2:16–17; 3:1–3). Both the man and captivated the man and rendered him powerless to flee from woman are entrusted with the fiduciary duties of the the woman’s effect. garden, but the woman reversed course towards a path of deceit. Didymus (2016:83) noted in his commentary on Nineteenth century to modern Genesis that the woman compelled the man to aid and abet The assignment of guilt to the woman for the fall of her with senseless actions. After being enticed, she took the humankind continued through the 19th century. Theologians word of the serpent as full consent and ate to bring the noted the passive leadership of the man and the seductive unfaithful deed to completion. She also made her husband nature of the woman. Both the lack of strength of conviction an accomplice, being guilty herself and making him assist by the man and the allurement of the woman continue the in the deception, such being the sensation that has been femme fatale theme. Franz Delitzsch (2001) opined: described as a block on the woman’s reason. Didymus (2016:83) further noted that shameful behaviour stripped [H]e whose existence in the Divine image preceded that of the them of their virtue, resulting in eyes that previously were woman remains at first passive in the transaction against God, beneficially closed to be opened. and then become the follower of his wife in sin. The woman who was the first seduced lost her human dignity to the serpent, and the man next seduced, lost over and above his manly dignity to Medieval period to protestant the woman. (p. 155) reformation As writers from successive generations read the fall account, The sentiments were pervasive as Lange (1873:251) affirmed, the woman is continuously blamed for enticing the man or ‘[t]he first female sinner becomes, after Serpent’s fashion, the first temptress’. possessing an inferior intellect. Saint Augustine of Hippo lived in the pre-Medieval period. Many of his theological Brown et al. (1968:13) echoed, ‘[t]he woman is tempted and interpretations are fundamental to Christian doctrine. falls first; she then tempts man’. The order of punishment Augustine argued that the woman is morally inferior to the serves as an indicator for the severity of the transgression in man as she is the weaker vessel (cf. Augustine 2009:342–430; Augustine & Taylor 1982:3–177; 1 Pt 3:7). Basically, he the Garden of Eden. The serpent is punished first for his surmised that the serpent selected Eve because she was weak. excessive offense of manipulating the woman. The woman is The argument seems unwarranted since both Adam and Eve second because of her iniquity. Many interpreters reason that were created perfect and in the image of God. The couple the woman deserved a scathing analysis as she is the culprit, existed without knowledge of sin; however, writers observed the temptress, who enticed her husband into sin, guilt and a flaw with Eve’s intellectual abilities. Franciscan scholastic shame with her beauty (cf. Brown et al. 1968:13; Krahmer and theologian St. Bonaventure (2005:105) did not deviate 2000:304–327). The serpent approached the woman because from previous writers, but proposed these critical comments her physical attractiveness would allow her to enslave the regarding the woman, projecting her as a transmitter of evil man through sexual desires according to McKenzie deeds: ‘after the woman was led astray, she enticed the man, (1954:570). The attractiveness of the woman not only ensnared who similarly turned to the outer book and to transitory the man but also would enslave herself to a man as a result of goods’ (Bonaventure 2005:105). He and others use the words her choice (McKenzie 1954:570). Furthermore, Krahmer entice or beguile, which connote the femme fatale psychology. (2002:4) suggested that Eve lacked the wisdom to utilise her Therefore, the woman employs her innate charm and external beauty and flattery to cajole the man towards their Creator. beauty to influence the man. Instead, she seduced Adam to commit sin because she lacked the knowledge and rational wisdom, thereby possessing a Luther (1958), a towering figure of the Protestant Reformation, lust for worldly goods. wrote that women possess a slightly lower status than the man: In sum, many commentators over the centuries argue that the For the woman appears to be a somewhat different being from woman lured the man into sin; she initiated the process that the man, having different members and a much weaker nature. led to the demise of humankind. According to the writers Although Eve was a most extraordinary creature – similar to who blame the woman, nothing can remove the guilt she Adam so far as the image of God is concerned, that is, in justice, incurred and deserved in the Garden of Eden.

http://www.ve.org.za Open Access Page 4 of 9 Original Research

Meyers (1993:127) is dismissive of the fall of humanity or the Feminist perspective on Genesis 3 sin of the woman. Instead, she recommends other salient It is important to note that feminism has existed for centuries, themes that manifest from the text. By reducing Genesis 3 to and to provide a succinct definition is difficult. In Helpmates, a conversation about disobedience and its consequences is an Harlots, and Heroes, Bellis (1994) argued: ‘oversimplification of a rich and powerful narrative’ (Meyers [F]eminism has a long history. No one definition would satisfy 1993:127). She suggests that the concept of a fall is derived all feminists; rather a range of understandings is needed. from traditional Midrash theology and Orphic thought that Nevertheless, feminism may be broadly defined as a point of was prevalent in the eastern Mediterranean world in late view in which women are understood to be fully human and antiquity (Meyers 1993:127).8 Moreover, she explains, the entitled to equal rights and privileges. In no sense can they be lack of an explicit reference to sin in the narrative, the strong considered subordinate or inferior. (p. 6) aetiological flavour of the Eden story and the absence of the vocabulary of sin are evidence for reconsidering the The definition expands as Schroer (2003) articulated: interpretation of the passage. The lack of sin terminology [A]ccording to Schüssler Fiorenza, Feminism strives to expose absolves the woman of guilt. Denial of a fall persists outside veiled and open discrimination of women within the kyriarchal6 feminist theology as well. pyramid as well as in the intrinsic ideologies that sustain it, and fights for the recognition of the complete rights of half of humanity. (p. 2)7 Herbert Haag (1969a:19) questioned the doctrine of original sin in his book ‘Is Original Sin in Scripture?’ He sought to The previous definitions find support inThe Woman’s Bible by dismantle the interpretation of Genesis 3 by suggesting, Stanton (1895), who suggests: ‘[t]he doctrine of original sin is not found in any of the writings of the Old Testament. It is certainly not in chapters From the inauguration of the movement for woman’s emancipation the Bible has been used to hold her in the ‘divinely one to three of Genesis’. He concludes in Der Urstand nach ordained sphere’, prescribed in the Old and New Testaments. dem Zeugnis der Bibel, ‘[t]he present conceptions of catholic The canon and civil law; church and state; priests and legislators; and evangelical dogmatics, according to which the primeval all political parties and religious denominations have alike state was a temporal phase at the beginning of human taught that woman was made after man, of man, and for man, an history … entsprechen nicht der Bibel’ do not occur in the inferior being, subject to man. Creeds, codes, Scriptures and Bible (Haag 1969b:267).9 Haag maintained that the statutes, are all based on this idea. The fashions, forms, anthropology of the Christian tradition of the West is rooted ceremonies and customs of society, church ordinances and in the Augustinian tradition derived from the Apostle Paul’s discipline all grow out of this idea. (n.p.) arguments in the Book of Romans. Therefore, original sin does not have its origin in the Genesis narratives. Paul Tillich For decades, feminists sought to eradicate the oppressive (1957) noted that the concept of a fall solves: message of scripture that expanded to every sector of the society. Stanton (1895) continues by noting: [A] rather difficult problem in a simple way … Adam before the Fall exists in a state of potentiality … The notion of a The Bible teaches that woman brought sin and death into the moment in time in which man and nature were changed from world, that she precipitated the fall of the race, that she was good to evil is absurd, and it has no foundation in experience arraigned before the judgment seat of Heaven, tried, condemned or revelation. (pp. 40–41) and sentenced. Marriage for her was to be a condition of bondage, maternity a period of suffering and anguish, and in silence and subjection, she was to play the role of a dependent on Although select writers deny the fall, the Bible consistently man’s bounty for all her material wants, and for all the affirms the sin by Eve (Gn 3:7–24; 1 Tim 2:13–14). Also, information she might desire on the vital questions of the hour, humankind is ‘shaped in iniquity and conceived in sin’ she was commanded to ask her husband at home. Here is the (Psalm 51:5) without the capacity to deliver themselves, Bible position of woman briefly summed up. (n.p.) which is a total depraved condition (Gn 6:8; Ps 119:176; Is 53:6–7; 55:7). In essence, patrialistic scholars believed that women were the catalyst for the sin and death that exists, and their punishment Genesis 3 marks the transition from a state of perfection to a is subjection to their husband. The perceived oppressive perplexing conscience filled withanimus , anxiety and message of the Bible led feminists to offer varied antagonism. Scripture has been supernaturally preserved hermeneutical approaches to the Hebrew Bible. and cannot fulfil the classification of myth. The Bible repetitively characterises humanity as fallen, dwelling in a Denial, depatriarchal and state of sin, without the capacity to deliver themselves, which deconstruction of the fall is total depravity (Gn 6:8; Ps 119:176; Is 53:6–7; 55:7). Three notable interpretations of the fall are presented: Secondly, there is a depatriarchal view of the biblical text. Firstly, there is a complete exoneration of the woman by denying Trible (1978:xvi, 1984:1–6) employed this method by the occurrence of a fall. defining the positive text as ‘counterliterature’ and the

6.For an explanation of kyriarchal pyramid see Fiorenza (2017). 8.In the ‘Serpent Was Wiser’, Hanson (1972:41–42) expounds on the Orphic presence in Genesis 3. 7.Schroer quotes a definition from Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza during an international dialogue on feminist biblical hermeneutics. 9.For a complete presentation, see Haag (1968:385–404).

http://www.ve.org.za Open Access deconstructionist offers the most radical departure from an author-text toward a reader-text deconstructionist offers the most radical departure from interpretation. an author-text The tow readerard a readerdeterm-teinesxt the meaning apart from the author’s original historical interpretation. Thedeconstructionist reader determ offersines thethe meaning most radical apart departurecontext from the or frauthor intent.om an’s Select original author - ctext ommentators histori towcalard a appe readerar- te toxt approach the Genesis 3 narrative with a context or intent.interpretation. Select commentators The reader appedetermar ines to a pproachthe meaningdecon thestructionist Genesis apart from mindset 3 narrativ the authorthate iswith ’as departure original a historifrom historicalcal and traditional interpretations (Scholz deconstructionistdeconstructionistcontext mindset oroffers that intent. isthe a departure Selectmost radical commentators from departurehistorical appe 2010and fromar traditional:9 to- an32; a author pproachGellman inte-text rpretations the2006: tow Genesisard 319 (Scholz a-335; reader 3 narrativFuchs -text 2008: e with 45 a- 65). A few interpretations of Genesis 3 that 2010:9interpretation.-32; Gellmandecon 2006: Thestructionist reader 319-335; mindsetdeterm Fuchsines that 2008: theis a meaningdeparture45-65). A highlight apartfrom few interpretationshistorical from deconstructio the and author traditional of’ nistGenes original skepticismsis inte 3 thatrpretations histori includecal :(Scholz the seduction of Adam by Eve is noble, Genesis 1- highlightcontext deconstructio or2010 intent.:9-nist32; Select Gskepticismellman commentators 2006: include 319: -the 335;appe seduction Fuchsar to 2008:11a ofpproach is Adam chara 45- 65). cterizedbythe EveAGenesis few is as nobleinterpretations m yth 3 , narrativ,Gene and thesise 1definitionof-with Gene a sis for 3 thata femme fatale is recast to present the woman as 11 is charadeconcterizedstructionisthighlight as m mindsetyth deconstructio, and thatthe definitionis nista departure skepticism for a from femme include historical fatalea heroine: the is andseduction recast. traditional to preof Adamsent inte therpretations by woman Eve is asnoble(Scholz , Gene sis 1- a heroine2010. :9-32;11 G isellman characterized 2006: 319 as -m335;yth , Fuchsand the 2008: definition 45- 65). for A a fewfemme interpretations fatale is recast of toGene presissent 3 thethat woman as highlight ad econstructioheroine. nist skepticism include: the seductionNoble Seduction of Adam by Eve is noble, Genesis 1- Noble11 Seduction is chara cterized as myth, and the definition for a femme fataleBechtel is recast (1993:111) to present posit the th womanat the reader as should affirm the woman in the role of a seductress, a Bechtelheroine .Noble(1993:111) Seduction posit th at the reader should affirmsince the wom the Hebrewan in the Biblerole of does a sedu notctress, prohibit or negatively address the matter between husband and since the Hebrew BibleBechtel does not (1993:111) prohibit orposit negatively that the readeraddresswife. sho theSeduuld matter affirmcing thebetween the husband wom husbandan inis thenot roleandadverse, of a sedu ratherctress, it leads to reproduction and the continuation of wife. SeduNoblecing Seduction sincethe husband the Hebrew is not Bible adverse, does rather not prohibit it leads ortothe reproductionnegatively legacy. S addresseductio and then the by continuation matter“foreign between or ofstran husbandge women” and is forbidden due to the advancement of other the legacy. SeductioBechtelwife.n Sedu(1993:111)by “foreigncing the positor husband stran thatge the iswomen” readernot adverse, shois forbiddenuld rathernations affirm dueit the ofleads towom people the toan advancementreproduction in (Bechtel the role 1993:111).of ofand a othersedu the ctress, continuation Bechtel contends of God tempted or seduced ‘Adam’ by nationssince of peoplethe theHebrew legacy. (Bechtel Bible S eductio 1993:111). does nnot by prohibit “foreign BechtelPage 5 of or9 or contends negatively stranOriginalge Gpresentingwomen”od addressResearch tempted is thetheforbidden orwomanmatter seduced due betweento him to‘Adam’ the so husband advancementhow by could and seduct of otherion receive an adverse connotation if God is the presentingwife. the Sedu womannationscing the to of himhusband people so how is (Bechtel notcould adverse, seduct 1993:111). ratherion receive Bechtelit leadsoriginator an toadverse contends reproduction of connotation seductionGod and tempted? theifBechtel God continuation or isseduced analysithe sof‘Adam’ ignores by the essential message of the narrative. The originatorthe legacy. of seductionpresenting Seductio? Bechtel nthe by woman “foreign analysi to or hims stran ignores soge how women” thecould essential seductissed forbiddenuction ion messa receiveof duegeAdam ofto an thetheand adverse advancement narratthe transgre connotationive. Thession of other byif God the pisrimordial the couple, transferred an atrocious legacy negativesed textuction asnations ‘text of Adam of of originatorterror’. people and theShe (Bechtel of transgreposits, seduction 1993:111).‘usingssion? byBechtelfeminist the Bechtel primordial analysi contendsextendss couple, ignoresfor humankind Gbeyond transferredod the tempted es sential humanof fear, a n or atrocious messa guilt,recourse.seducedge an dlegacy of ‘Adam’shame Additionally,the narrat that by extenive .God’s Theds beyond human recourse. Additionally, God’s hermeneutics,for humankind presentingI have triedofsed the fear,uction towoman guilt,recover of Adamtoan dhimold shame and sotreasures how the that transgrecould exten and seductdsssion beyondion presentationby presentationthereceive human primordial anrecourse of adverse ofthe couple,the .womanAdditionally, connotationwoman transferred is isa a ifwíø;dGod ◊g‰nV;k Godan ’s r‰z™Eoatrocious is ( the“helper[‘helper legacy thatthat correspond s”) to the man. An r‰z™Eo (“helper”) discoverpresentation a neworiginator one of in forthe ofthe humankind woman seduction household is ?a of wíø;dBechtel ◊g‰nV;kfear,of r‰z™Eofaith’ guilt, ( analysi“helper (Trible ands shame that ignores correspond thatcorresponds’] the signifyexten essentialsds” )value beyondto to the themessa as man. man.the humange noun An of recourse r‰z™Eoisthe often (“helper”)[‘helper’] narrat .usedAdditionally,ive signifiesto . Therefer predominantly value; God’s as to God’s divine assistance and ability

1978:xvi).signify By sedemploying valueuction as presentationtheof aAdam noun feminist is and often of thehermeneutic the used transgre woman to referssion isto apredominantlythe bywíø;d◊g‰nV;k the r‰z™Eo primordial(the“helper tonoun to deliver God’s thatiscouple, often corresponddivineHis used transferred people assistance to refers ”(Ex) to apredominantly n 18:4; the andatrocious man. ability Ps 70:5). An legacy to r‰z™Eo God’sHarman(“helper”) divine (1997:376) notes that r‰z™Eo is combined with N∞EgDm

Hebrew Bible, she cansignify depatriarchalise value as the nounthe istext often by used to referassistance predominantly and the ability to God’s to deliver divine his assistance people (Exand 18:4; ability Ps to deliverfor humankind His people of(Ex fear, 18:4; guilt, Ps an70:5).d shame Harman that exten(1997:376)ds beyond(shield) notes human to that emphasize r‰recoursez™Eo is combined protection. Additionally, with providedN∞EgDm God by’s a warrior in the context of battle (Dt 33:29; Pss 33:20; speculating(shield) thepresentation followingto emphasizeto (Trible deliver of protectionthe 1973): womanHis people provided is a (Exwíø;d◊g‰nV;k by 18:4;r‰z™Eo a warrior(“helper Ps 70:5). in that 70:5).the Harman 89:18 correspondcontext Harman- 19;(1997:376) of 115:9 (1997:376)battles”) to- 11). (Dthe notest notes 33:29;man.What that that An isPss r‰missed z™Eor‰z™Eo 33:20;is (“helper”)is combined combined by Betchel withwith’s interpretation, N∞EgDm is the helper, like God, serves as

[L]et 89:18a female-signify19; speculate. 115:9 value(shield)- 11).If the as Whattheserpent to noun emphasize is is missed “moreis often subtle”protectionby used Betchel than to refer itsprovided’s interpretation, predominantly[shield] bya a deliverwarrior to is emphasise to the of God’sin helper, thethe mancdivine protectionontext like. The assistance God, of womanbattle provided serves (D and function t as 33:29;by ability a warriors Pss in a33:20; indiminished the capacity from God, nevertheless she

fellowa creatures,deliverto deliver ofthe the woman 89:18 manHis is .people -moreThe19; 115:9appealingwoman (Ex- 11).18:4; functionthan What Psher 70:5).husband. sis in missed a Harmandiminished by Betchelcontext (1997:376)functions cap ’ofascity interpretation, battle notes asfr oma (Dthelp thatGod 33:29;err‰, z™Eobyisnevertheless is t heshieldPss combined helper, 33:20; ing theshelike89:18–19; with man God,N ∞EgDmfrom serves115:9–11). potential as misfortune. Throughoutfunctions (shield)the myth,as a tohelp shea emphasize deliver eris theby more shieldof protectionthe intelligenting man the. The manone,provided womanthe from more bypotential function a warriorWhat misfortune.s Gene inin is thea misseddiminishedsis context 3 as by Myth ofBetchel’s capbattle acity (D interpretation tfr 33:29;om God Pss, nevertheless is33:20; the helper, shelike

aggressiveGene onesis89:18 and3 as -the19; Myth onefunctions 115:9 with - greater11). as What a sensibilities. help iser missed by (pp.shield 30–48)by ingBetchel10 the man’s God,interpretation, from serves potentialLeeming as a is deliverer misfortune.the (2015:1helper, of the like- 2) man. explainsGod, The serves woman that as myths functions are stories about gods and heroes who are a Leemingdeliver Geneof (2015:1thesis man 3- 2)as. The Mythexplains woman that function mythss in are a diminished storiesin embracea diminished about capd as godsacity truth capacity fr and omby select heroesGod from, groupsnevertheless whoGod; andare nevertheless, untrue she by others. she The stories do not have a particular origin Whereasembrace the patriarchalfunctionsd as truth asview bya help select mayLeeminger bygroupsdrastically shield (2015:1 anding untruereduce the-2) manexplains bythe fromothers. potentialthat Thefunctions frommyths stories misfortune. an as are d individual,ao nothelper stories have by aboutyeta shieldingparticular they gods are the originheld and man heroesas fromsacred whopotential by family,are clan, tribe, religion or nation. Applying acumen fromof the an Genewoman, individual,sis the3embrace as matriarchal Mythyet theyd as truth areview held byaccelerates selectas sac groupsred Eve’s by family,and untruemisfortune. clan,this by tribe,defini others. religiontion The of storiesmyth or nation. restrict do not Applyings have the scope a particular of the originfall. The seduction by Eve, if it occurred, only has intellectualthis capabilities. defini tionLeeming ofNowfrom myth Eve an restrict (2015:1individual,standss equalthe-2) scopeyetexplains or theysuperior of thearethat ftohelda ll.myths Theas s aseduction arecredimplication storiesby family, by aboutEsve, for clan, if individuals godsit tribe,occurred, and religion heroesembracing only or haswho nation. the are Hebrew Applying Bible as truth. Adam, whichimplication isembrace whys theford this serpentasindividuals truth defini is by singularlytion select embracing of myth groups focused restrict the and Hebrewon untrues her. the scope Bibleby others.Genesis of as the truth. The fall. storiesIn The 31902 asseduction d,o before mythnot have by the Ea Deutsche ve,particular if it occurred, Orient origin- Gesellschaftonly has in Berlin, Friedrich Delitzsch presented In essence, the fromdepatriarchalIn 1902 an individual,,implication before view the extends yet sDeutsche for they beyondindividuals are Orient held the biblical as-embracingGesellschaft sacred by the family, in Hebrewh Berlinis infamous clan, ,Bible Friedrich tribe, paperas religiontruth. Delitzsch, titled or, “Babelnation. present undApplyinged Bibel. ” He argued that significant portions of the content in Leeming (2015:1–2) explained that myths are stories about text to thehis ideainfamousthis of definiGod paper beingtion, titledof Father. Inmyth ,1902 “Babel restrictThe, before feministsunds the Bibel the scope seekDeutsche.” He ofto arguedthe Orient fall. that The-GenesisGesellschaft significant seduction were porbyin plagiarized tionsBerlinEve, ifof, it Friedrichthe occurred, from content BabylonianDelitzsch onlyin has present mythologyed and reworked by anonymous Hebrew gods and heroes who are embraced as true by select groups eradicate the masculineh ispresence infamous period paper ,to titled satisfy, “Babel their und Bibel.authors” He argued during that the significant Babylonian por Exile.tions 11of I nthe 1907 content, he publishedin Mehr Licht (More Light), escalating Genesisimplication were plagiarizeds for individuals from Babylonian embracing the mythology Hebrewand Bible and untrue reworked as truth. by others. by anonymous The stories Hebrewdo not have a particular hermeneutics.authors duringIn theGenesis 1902 Babylonian, before were the plagiarizedExile. Deutsche11 In 1907 fromOrient, he Babylonian- Gesellschaftpublishedthe Mehr mythology in rhetoric Berlin Licht , for(More andFriedrich a reworkedBabylonian Light) Delitzsch, escalating by presen anonymous present ce edwithi Hebrewn the Bible. Loader (2003:309-321) notes that authors during the Babylonian Exile.11 Inorigin 1907 ,from he published an individual; Mehr however, Licht (More they Light)are held, escalating as sacred the rhetorichis infamous for a paperBabylonian, titled, “Babelpresence und withi Bibeln . the” He B arguedbyible. Bultmannfamily, Loader that significantclan, (1960:1278 (2003:309 tribe, porreligion-321)-tions1282) notesof orfollowed the nation. contentthat Delitzsch Applying in and this intensified the belief of myths in the bible by Thirdly, there is a deconstructionistthe rhetoric11 forapproach a Babylonian to the fall. presen ce within the Bible. Loader (2003:309-321) notes that BultmannGenesis (1960:1278 were plagiarized-1282) followed from Delitzsch Babylonian and mythology intensifieddefinitionimposing the and of belief reworkedamyth demythologizing ofrestricts myth by s the anonymousin scopethe bprogram ibleof the by Hebrew fall. on Thethe seduction worldview of early Christianity. Each publication Within the three approaches,Bultmann the deconstructionist (1960:1278-1282) offers11 followed the Delitzsch and intensified the belief of myths in the bible by imposingauthors a demythologizing during the Babylonian program Exile. on the I nworldview 1907, heby published of Eve,provides early if it ChristianityMehr occurred,credence Licht onlyfor .(More Each vari has ed Light)publicationimplications interp, escalatingretations for individuals or complete denial of Eve’s role as a femme fatale. most radical departureimposing from an a author-textdemythologizing towards program a on the worldview of early Christianity. Each publication providesthe credence rhetoric for for vari a Babylonianed interpretations presen orce complete within embracing theden ialBible. of Eve theLoader ’Hebrews role (2003:309as Bible a femme as truth.-321) fatale notes. that reader-text interpretation.Bultmannprovides (1960:1278 The credencereader-1282) determinesfor followed varied interpDelitzschthe retations and intensified or complete the den beliefial of of Eve myth’s srole in the as ab iblefemme by fatale. meaning apart from the author’s original historical context Reading Deconstruction/Deconstructive Reading. Lexington: University of Kentucky.; Culler, J 1982. On imposing a demythologizing program on the worldviewIn 1902, ofbefore early the Christianity Deutsche .Orient-Gesellschaft Each publication in Berlin, or intent.Reading Select Deconstruction commentators/Deconstru appearctive to Reading approach. Lexing theton: UniversityDeconstruction: of Kentucky.; Culler, Theory J and 1982. Criticism On After Structuralism. Ithaca: Cornell University; www.dictionary.com). provides credence for varied interpretations or completeFriedrich den Delitzschial of Eve ’presenteds role as ahis femme infamous fatale . paper titled, Genesis Deconstruction:3 narrative with TheoryReading a deconstructionist and Deconstruction Criticism After mindset/Deconstru Structuralism thatctive is. Ithaca: Reading Cornell. Lexing Universityton: University; www.dictionary.com of Kentucky.; Culler,). J 1982. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism After Structuralism‘Babel11 See und. Ithaca:Delitzsch, Bibel’. Cornell HeF 1903. argued University Babel that und; www.dictionary.com significant Bibel : ein Vortrag portions).. 3. ofDurchgesehene the Aufl edn. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. In 1904 a departure from historical and traditional interpretations 11 contentDelitzsch in respondedGenesis towere his criti plagiarisedcs arguments fromby publishing Babylonian Babel und Bibel: Ein Ruckblick und Ausblick (Babylon See Delitzsch,Reading Deconstruction F 1903. Babel/Deconstru und Bibel :ctive ein VortragReading. .3. Lexing Durchgeseheneton: University Aufl ofedn. Ke Leipzig:ntucky.; J.C.Culler, Hinrichs. J 1982. In On 1904 (Fuchs 2008:45–65; Gellman11 See 2006:319–335; Delitzsch, F 1903. Scholz Babel 2010:9–32). und Bibel : ein Vortragand. 3.the Durchgesehene Bible: A Look BackAufl edn.and aLeipzig: Look Forward J.C. Hinrichs.). In 1904 DelitzschDeconstruction: responded to his Theory critics and arguments Criticism by After publishing Structuralism Babel .und Ithaca:mythology Bibel: Cornell Ein Ruckblickand University reworked und; www.dictionary.com Ausbl by ickanonymous (Babylon ). Hebrew authors A few interpretations Delitzschof Genesis responded 3 to thathis criti highlightcs arguments by publishing Babel und Bibel: Ein Ruckblick12 und Ausblick (Babylon and the Bible: A Look Back and a Look Forward). during the Babylonian Exile. In 1907, he published Mehr deconstructionist scepticismand the includeBible: A Lookthe Backfollowing: and a Look the Forward ). 11 See Delitzsch, F 1903. Babel und Bibel : ein Vortrag. 3. DurchgeseheneLicht [More Light] Aufl edn. escalating Leipzig: J.C.the Hrhetoricinrichs. Infor 1904 a Babylonian seduction of Adam by Eve is noble, Genesis 1–11 is 8 Delitzsch responded to his critics arguments by publishing Babelpresence und Bibel: within Ein the Ruckblick Bible. Loader und Ausbl (2003:309–321)ick (Babylon noted that characterised as myth and the definition for a femme fatale is8 and the Bible: A Look Back and a Look Forward). Bultmann8 (1960:1278–1282) followed Delitzsch and intensified recast to present the woman as a heroine. the belief of myths in the Bible by imposing a demythologising 8 programme on the worldview of early Christianity. Each Noble seduction publication provides credence for varied interpretations or Bechtel (1993:111) posited that the reader should affirm the complete denial of Eve’s role as a femme fatale. woman in the role of a seductress since the Hebrew Bible does not prohibit or negatively address the matter between Redefiningfemme fatale husband and wife. Seducing the husband is not adverse, In an attempt to absolve the woman of luring the man into rather it leads to reproduction and the continuation of the sin, Edwards (2010) suggested redefining Eve’s role because legacy. Seduction by ‘foreign or strange women’ is forbidden Genesis 3 allows us to see an archetypical femme fatale. She because of the advancement of other nations of people (Edwards 2010) provides the following definition: (Bechtel 1993:111). Bechtel contends God tempted or seduced [A] knowing woman, skilled at telling stories, irresistibly ‘Adam’ by presenting the woman to him, so how could attractive to an immature man, whom she leads into the difficult seduction receive an adverse connotation if God is the and dangerous possibility of growing up, a possibility he first originator of seduction? Bechtel analysis ignores the essential embraces and then rejects, with disastrous consequences for message of the narrative. The seduction of Adam and the himself and for her. It is a redefinition that heightens rather than transgression by the primordial couple transferred an diminishes the allure of the femme fatale. (pp. 43–44) atrocious legacy for humankind of fear, guilt and shame that

10.For further consideration of feminist interpretation of Genesis, see Susanne Scholz The alternative characterisation by Edwards casts Eve as a (2010:9–32) and Phyllis Bird (1983:275–279). superior sanctifier of the ‘immature’ instead of a sneaky 11.Deconstruction has philosophical roots in the ‘masters of suspicion’ (Marx, seducer. A personal aversion to a text, however, does not Nietzsche and Freud). It questions traditional assumption regarding language, asks readers to eliminate the metaphysical and argues that meaning is defined by the grant an interpreter the liberty to redefine terms that alter the reader who should redefine words or create new word constructions, etymology, puns and other word plays. In texts that do not provide reliable references, words original author’s intent. only refer to other words and nothing or no one may offer a basis for the meaning of a text (e.g. God, author and speaker). Deconstruction is a unique form of 12.See Delitzsch (1903). In 1904 Delitzsch responded to his critic’s arguments by scepticism that seek to remove authority or meaning from a text (cf. Atkins 1983; publishing Babel und Bibel: Ein Ruckblick und Ausblick [Babylon and the Bible: A Culler 1982; Dole 2020; Ward 2004). Look Back and a Look Forward].

http://www.ve.org.za Open Access Page 6 of 9 Original Research

In sum, writers who seek to excuse or recast the woman God created the man and woman in the Imago Dei and both abandon their literary and interpretive duty. Feminists are rebelled (Gn 1:26–28; 3:7–24). especially guilty of this offence because of their allegiance to an ideology that ignores or redefines anything that appears Consideration for the literary features of the biblical text and Redefining Femme Fatale Redefining Femme Fatale to subordinate women to men. In an effort to relinquish the the historical and cultural context is ignored. What emerges In an attempt to absolve the womanIn ofan luringattempt the to man absolve into thesin, woman Edwardsyears ofof real(2010:43luring or perceivedthe-4 4)man oppression, into sin, Edwardsfeminists, to(2010:43 their -44)from the feminist interpretations are personal predispositions suggests redefining Eve’s role becausesuggest Genesiss redefin 3 allowing Eves us’ sto role see becausean arch eGenesisdetrimenttypical femme 3and allow that fatal sof us men,e .to seedeny an or archre-appropriateetypical femmeliterary fatalethat. reveal a psychological portrait of the writer and the She provides the following definition: texts. In essence, the feminist ideology is a continual societal inclination. The final section analyses the fall She provides the following definition: replication of the fall on a micro-level. narrative within its literary context. “a knowing woman, skilled at telling“a knowingstories, irresistibly woman, skilled attractive at telling to an immaturestories, irresistibly man, attractive to an immature man, whom she leads into the difficult andwhom dangero she leadsus possibility into the ofdifficult growingThe and biblical up, dangero a account possibilityus ofpossibility the fall describes of growing the woman up, blaming a possibility The setting and snakes of creation he first embraces and then rejects, withhe first disastrous embrace consequencess and then rejects, forthe himself withserpent disastrous andfor herfor rebellion.her. consequences The woman for doeshimself not acceptand for her. It is a redefinition that heightens ratherIt is than a redefinition diminishes that the heightens allure of responsibilitytherather femme than fatale fordiminishes her.” fraudulent the allureactions. of She the maliciously femme fatale ate .” The setting for Genesis 1–3 is the creation account of the fruit. Feminists blame a patriarchal interpretation, the humankind by God, who placed them in the Garden of Eden to serve as his vice-regents. Chapter 3 of Genesis details the The alternative characterization by EdwardsThe alternative casts Eve characterization as a superior bysanctifier Edwardsbiblical of cast theauthor(s) s“ Eveimm and asature ultimatelya superior” God sanctifier for the woman’s of the role. “imm By ature” shifting the responsibility and focus, feminists refuse to accept introduction of sin into creation through the primaeval instead of a sneaky seducer. A personalinstead aversion of a sneaky to a text seducer, however,. A p ersonaldoes not theiraversion grant mother an to interpretand a text father, however,er sinned. The does reinterpretation not grant an of interpretthe ercouple’s transgression against God. Sin did not exist in the the liberty to redefine terms that alterthe the liberty origina tol redefine author’s terms intent. that alter thebiblical origina narrativel author by’s feministintent. does not compel successive Garden of Eden or in the psychology of the cast of characters in In sum, writers who seek to excuseIn or sum recast, wr theiters woman who se aekbandon to excuse their orliterary recastgenerations and the toiwomannt conformerpretive a tobandon the divine their commands literary of aand holy i God.nterpretive the narrative (i.e. God, man, woman and serpent), but that did duty. Feminist are especially guiltyduty of . this Feminist offence are due espe tocially their guallegianceilty of Both this to the a offenn man ideceolog and due ythe that towoman their transgressed allegiance God’s to a nmoral ide ologlaw y thatnot prohibit the woman from becoming the first femme fatale. ignores or redefines anything that appearsand to endured subordi thenate consequences. women to The m booksen. In and an articleseffort writtento relinquish The plot surfaces when the serpent initiates a dialogue with ignores or redefines anything that appears to subordinate women to men. In an effort to relinquish the woman. Snakes are embedded within the Ancient Near the years of real or perceived oppressionthe year, femins of isrealt, to or the perceivedir detriment oppression and thatfrom, feminof men,a feministist ,deny to the perspective orir redetriment- shift andthe thinfractionat of men, by denyEve. or re- Therefore, feminists replicate the rebellion of their mother Eve. Eastern literature as alternatively sinister or wise creatures. appropriate literary texts. In essenceappr, theopriate feminist literary ideology text iss. aIn continu essenceal, threeplication feminist of ideology the fall onis a continual replication of the fall on a micro level. a micro level. In ‘Blaming Eve Alone: Translation, Omission, and Implications of The Gilgamesh Epic characterises snakes as duplicitous In “Blaming Eve Alone: Translation, In Omission “Blaming, andEve ImplicationsAlone: Translation, of ;h™D;mIo inOmission Genesis 3:6b, 3and’,:6b” Parker Implications (2013:729, of733) ;h™D;mIo noted in Genesisthat the 3:6b”entities waiting to launch their menacing attacks on the Parker (2013:729, 733) notes that theParkerpreposition (2013:729, ;h™D;mIo (733)“with notes her” )that place thes prepositionthepreposition man at the;h™D;mIo scene [‘with(“with her’]of her places”) place the mans the at manthe scene at theof the scene ofunsuspecting. Gilgamesh tells Urshanabi that he has retrieved the events between the serpent and theevents woman. between Correctly, the serpent sh ande argues the woman. that gCorrectly,rammatically she thea plant with the capacity to restore youth for himself and the the events between the serpent and the woman. Correctly, she argues that grammatically the elderly, but on his journey to Uruk a snake intervened13 preposition provides critical evidencepreposition for theologians provides who critical are seeking evidence to forisolateargues theologians Evethat grammaticallyand whoblame ar e theseeking preposition to isolate provides Eve critical and blame evidence for theologians who are seeking to isolate Eve and (Sanders n.d.): her for the fatal act of disobedience.her It foris incumbent the fatal act on of translators disobedience. to reflect It isblame theincumbent herman’s for the presence on fatal translators act of disobedience. to reflect It is the incumbent man’s onpresence Gilgamesh saw a well of cool water and he went down and with the woman through their translationswith the and woman not excuse through the theirman, translations while condemningtranslators and not totheexcuse reflect woman. the the man, man’s while presence condemning with the womanthe woman. bathed; but deep in the pool there was lying a serpent, and the In the final analysis, however, the manIn the is culpable,final analy ansids ,Parker however, acknowledge the man isthroughs culpable,that the their woman antranslationsd Parker did andacknowledge not excuse sthe that man, the whilst woman did serpent sensed the sweetness of the flower. It rose out of the not fulfill her divinely created role asnot the fulfill helpe herr. divinely created role as thecondemning helper. the woman. In the final analysis, however, the water and snatched it away, and immediately it sloughed its skin and returned to the well. (p. 22) All three views, the denial of the fall,All the three depa viewstriarchalizing, the denial of of the the biblicalman fall, is theculpable, narrative, depa andtriarchalizing andParker acknowledges of the biblical that the narrative,woman and did not fulfil her divinely created role as the helper. the deconstructionist interpretationthe disregard deconstructionist the author interpretitative meanationing disregard of the thebiblical auth or text.itati ve meaning of the biblical text.The Genesis creation account differs from the Gilgamesh Consideration for the literary features of the biblical text and the historical and cultural context are Consideration for the literary features of the biblical text and the historical andAll cu threeltural views, context the denial are of the fall, the depatriarchalising epic, but the themes of the serpent, plant and the loss of ignored. What emerge from the feministignored. interpretations What emerge are from perso thenal feminist predisposiof interpretations ttheions biblical that reveal arenarrative paerso naland predisposi the deconstructionisttions that reveal eternala life are present in both. Both accounts characterise the psychological portrait of the writer andpsycholo the societalgical portr inclinationait of the. The writer final and section theinterpretation societal will a nalyze inclinationdisregard the the . The authoritative final section meaning will of a nalyzethe theserpent as a sinister being to be avoided. In contrast, Joines fall narrative within its literary context.fall narrative within its literary context. biblical text. (1974:1–11) calls attention to the ancient Orient where snakes were symbols of wisdom and life. The West Semitic system

The biblical presentation of the man and woman’s believed that snakes were a phallic animal associated with The Setting and Snakes of CreationThe Setting and Snakes of Creation fertility cults based on images of naked or semi-naked The setting for Genesis 1-3 is the disobediencecreation account provides of ahumankind factual presentation by God, of whoevents placed that them The setting for Genesis 1-3 is the creation account of humankind by God,occurred who and placed should them be received as an authoritative source of goddesses of fertility accompanied by snakes (Munnich 14 in the Garden of Eden to serve as Hisin vice the- regentsGarden. ofChapter Eden to three serve of asGene Hissis vice detailtruth.-regentss Unambiguously,the. intr Chapteroduct threeion the Bible of Gene delineatessis detail the creations the intr andodu ction2008:42). Images appear from Ugarit, Egyptian and of sin into creation through the primaevalof sin intocouple creation’s transgress throughion the against primaeval Godfall. coupleSin of humanity. did’s not transgress existWhy wouldinion againstGod in his God providence. Sin did permit not exist inCanaanite art depicting Semitic goddesses holding snakes in the Garden of Eden or in the psychothelog Gardeny of the ofcast Eden of ch orar inacters the psycho in the lognarrativythe of biblicalthee (i.e. cast, God,author of ch man artoacters record, in a thefictitious narrativ narrativee (i.e., God,with mantheir, hands, or the snakes entwined about them (Munnich and woman, serpent), but that did notand prohi womanbit the, serpe womannt), but from that becoming did not prohi thespurious firstbit the femmeclaims? woman Thefatale factsfrom. are becoming simple and the unavoidable, first femme but fatale2008:43).. Snakes are connected to the storm god and with one the desire for fanciful analysis or the attempt to justify a of the most dangerous demons, Lamashtu (also written as The plot surfaces when the serpentThe initiates plot surfacea dialogues when with the the serpent woman initiates. Snakes a aredialogue embedded with the woman. Snakes are embeddedLamaštu) 15 who appears in her homeland of Mesopotamia within the Ancient Near Eastern literwithaturein asthe alternatively Ancient Near sinister Eastern or literwisea tcreaturesurepresupposition as alternatively. abounds sinister amongst or wise select creatures groups.. By reinterpreting the fall narrative, feminists offer a singular and in Syro-Canaan in iconography holding venomous The Gilgamesh Epic characterizes Thesnakes Gilgamesh as duplicitous Epic characterizesentities waitingperspective snakes to launch onas biblicalduplicitous their interpretation. entities The waiting unwillingness to launch of theirsnakes in her hands (Munnich 2008:42). Whether culturally menacing attacks on the unsuspecting.menacing Gilgamesh attacks tells on Urshanabi the unsuspecting. that he has G interpretersilgameshretrieved tellsato plant accept Urshanabi with the biblical that narrative he has retrieved as authoritative a plant withsinister or wise, the snake will seduce the woman in Genesis the capacity to restore youth for himselfthe capacity and the to elderl restorey, youthbut on f or his himself journeypresents and to aUruk the challenge. elderl a snake yIf, anbut interpreter on his does journey not view to theUruk Bible a snake3 and she will seduce the man. as the word of God, then any explanation is permissible. 13.See http://www.aina.org/books/eog/eog.pdf (Sanders n.d.). Many interpreters function like the primordial couple and 14.Munnich recommends these sources for further study: Buchholz (2000) and Joines desire alternative explanations of the Biblical narrative, (1975). which exceed God’s divine parameters. The Bible states that 15.See also http://www.ancientneareast.net/mesopotamian-religion/lamastu-lamashtu/. 9 9 http://www.ve.org.za Open Access Page 7 of 9 Original Research

The voice: Obedience and authority The woman is beautiful because Samson says, ‘[g]et her for me, for she looks good to me’ (Jdg 14:3). Chisholm Genesis 3:6 and 17 offers answers for the woman’s influence (2013:409) observes, ‘Samson seems to possess great on the man. The seminal passage, however, that cunning, but he overlooked two important facts – the substantiates the woman’s role as a femme fatale occurs in Philistine’s ingenuity and, more importantly, his own as a result of you listen to vulnerability to female charm’. His susceptibility made‘] כִּ ֽי־שָׁ מַ עְ תָּ֮ לְ ֣קֹול אִ שְׁ תֶּ ָך֒ :Genesis 3:17 the voice of your wife’]. Several commentators avoid him reveal the riddle (Jdg 14:15; cf. 16:5).18 The same occurs commenting on the passage (Hamilton 1990:202–204; with Delilah regarding Samson’s strength but at the Longman 2016:70–73; O’Connor 2018:65–67; Sarna 1989:28; expense of his life (cf. 16:5–31). One can assume Delilah is Westermann 1994:263–265).16 beautiful, as Samson places emphasis on the physical appearance of his wife in Judges 14. Firstly, the woman demonstrates a leadership role by engaging with the serpent (Gn 3:1–6). Her actions suggest the In a second attempt to rid themselves of Samson, the ability to act as the authorised representative and leader of פַּתִּ֣י אֹות֗ ֹו וּרְ אִי֙ בַּמֶּה֙ ֣כֹּחֹו Philistines rulers command Delilah to the couple. Secondly, the woman portrays knowledge of the Entice him! See where his great‘] גָד֔ ֹול וּבַמֶּה֙ ֣נוּכַל ל֔ ֹו וַאֲסַרְנֻ֖הוּ ֑לְעַנֹּתֹו circumstances beyond the man. By deciphering nuances of strength lies and how we may overpower him and the fruit (good for food, delight to the eyes and making one humiliate him’], the narrative explains the tactic she wise; Gn 3:6), the woman assumed that her knowledge is employed (Jdg 16:5). sufficient to make an informed decision. Thirdly, the woman is seduced by the serpent, and then she entices the man with וַ֠ יְהִי כִּ ֽי־הֵצִ֨ יקָה ֧לֹּו בִדְבָרֶ֛ יהָ כָּל־הַיָּמִ֖ים וַתְּאַֽלֲצֵ֑הוּ וַתִּקְצַ֥ר ֖נַפְשֹׁו לָמֽוּת So, Delilah words to eat the fruit. Through persuasive words and her [‘[P]ressed him daily with her words and urged him that his radiant beauty, the woman convinced her husband to soul was annoyed to death’] (Jdg 16:16). The incessant nagging transgress God’s command (Gn 3:6, 17). It is important to with her words exasperated his heart (Webb 2012:404). Webb note that the woman’s beauty is inferred from the 11 (2012:404) further noted that the same reference is used of ,good‘) ’טֹוב‘ affirmations that everything God created was became‘ וַתִּקְצַ֥ר ֖נַפְשֹׁו בַּעֲמַ֥ל יִשְׂרָאֵ ֽל Yahweh in Judges 10:16 who beautiful, sweet’) (Gn 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31; 2:9, 12, 17, 18). exasperated with Israel’s misery’ and finally gave them their The continual emphasis on the creation being ‘good’ reflects request for deliverance from the Ammonites. The difference is a level of beauty and pristine appearance in God’s creation. that Samson gave his heart secret to Delilah without knowing Certainly, the eye-catching attraction extends to the man and she would betray him. Likewise, it was the words of the woman. Höver-Johag (2011:303) noted as late as the Christian woman that enticed the man in the Garden of Eden to eat the in combination ’ ‘טֹוב era, Palmyrene and Nabatean graffiti used forbidden fruit. Genesis 3 says: with other root forms to refer the ‘beauty’ and ‘excellence’ of .(’because you listen to the voice of your wife‘) כִּ ֽי־שָׁ מַ עְ תָּ֮ לְ ֣קֹול אִ שְׁ תֶּ ָך֒ a woman. The aforementioned action by the woman in the Garden of Eden (leadership, knowledge and seductive The use of ‘voice’ is metonymy for obedience and authority. words) are the quintessential elements of the femme fatale. The Both Adam and Samson were enticed and pressed with words that led them to rebel against God’s divine prohibitions by woman used leadership, knowledge, beauty and persuasion femme fatales. The men are guilty for acquiescing and receive a to entice the man to eat the fruit. penalty for their actions, but the women receive their labels for their roles. (v. 17) Although the narratives are not parallel because of the pre- and post-fall condition of humanity, a similar scenario occurs in Judges 14:15 and 16:5. In Genesis 3, the events transpire In summary listen to the voice’] occurs 11 times in‘] שָׁ מַ עְ תָּ֮ לְ ֣קֹול apart from a sinful disposition. Every interaction thereafter The phrase includes a sinful nature that cannot honour God. Nevertheless, the Old Testament denoting obedience or listening to words salient features emerge from the Judges’ narratives that are (Gn 3:17; Ex 3:18; 4:8; 15:26; Jdg 2:20; 1 Sm 2:25; 15:1; 28:23; worth noting. 1 Kg 20:25; Jr 18:19; Ps 58:5[6]). Three distinctions are worth noting regarding the phrase ‘listen to the voice’: The phrase references obeying a command or hearing entice •‘] פַּתִּ֣י אֶת־אִישֵׁ֗ ְך The Philistines demand Samson’s wife to 17 your husband’] and, therefore, he would reveal the riddle. what occurred without the consideration for one being a 16.O’Connor (2018:66–67) avoided Genesis 3:17, the seminal passage that explains superior or inferior. King Saul obeyed his servants and the God’s reason for punishing Adam and Eve. Nevertheless, she blames patriarchy not the woman, serpent or God for the social conditions: ‘patriarchal thinking today witch at Endor (1 Sm 28:23; cf. the servant advises the continues around the globe and in the United States. It is deeply intertwined with King of Aram 1 Kg 20:25; Gn 3:17). Jeremiah asked the racism and classism and all forms of social organization that grant authority and privilege to the few. Typically, patriarchal thinking values men over women, whites Lord to ‘hear the words of his enemies’ (Jr 18:19). over people of color, and rich over poor. Although global challenges to these entrenched ways of living are emerging, these systems still prevail in both blatant • The phrase occurs with spoken words, written commands and subtle ways’ (O’Connor 2018:66–67). and signs. Eli’s sons did not listen to his wise counsel is never itself a פתה Mosis (2011:162–172) suggested the condition described by.17 entice’ or‘ ַפ ִ ֣ת י desirable goal or one in which a person should abide; even though no moral or 18.In Judges 14:15 and 16:5, the wife and Delilah are commanded to itself, it does nonetheless always imply a ‘trick’ Samson. The verbs stem in both passages are pile with a factitive use and an פתה religious value judgement inheres in lack or shortcoming. The word is associated more with the notion of inexperienced, imperative conjugation. The intensity of the command by the Philistine rulers is naive youth lacking the necessary maturity and understanding that could lead to reflected by their threat: ‘or we will burn you and your father’s house with fire’ death as a result of being sexually promiscuous (cf. Pr 1:4; 7:7). (Jdg 14:15).

http://www.ve.org.za Open Access Page 8 of 9 Original Research

(1 Sm 2:25; cf. 15:1), Israel transgressed God’s written References covenant (Jdg 2:20; cf. Ex 15:26) and the elders in Israel and slaves in Egypt had to decide to obey the miraculous Archer, G.L., 1997, A survey of the Old Testament introduction, Moody Press, Chicago, IL. Atkins, D.G., 1983, Reading deconstruction/deconstructive reading, University of signs performed by Moses (Ex 3:18; 4:8). Kentucky, Lexington, KY. • The phrase notes general obedience that may occur Augustine, 2009,The city of God, transl. M. Dods, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA. between humankind and animals. In Psalm 58:5[6], ‘the Augustine & Taylor, J.H., 1982, The literal meaning of Genesis, (Ancient Christian cobra does not obey the snake charmer or the skillful writers, no. 41–42), Newman Press, New York, NY. caster of spells’. Bailey, J.A., 1970, ‘Initiation and the primal woman in Gilgamesh and Genesis 2–3’, Journal of Biblical Literature 89(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.2307/3263044 Bechtel, L.M., 1993, ‘Rethinking the interpretation of Genesis 2:4B–3:24’, in A. Brenner Repeatedly, the Old Testament uses the idiom for general (ed.), A feminist companion to Genesis, pp. 77–117, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. obedience. The reality is seen when the man eats the fruit Bellis, A.O., 1994, Helpmates, harlots, and heroes: Women’s stories in the Hebrew as a result of obeying the voice of his wife, and God, Bible, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, KY. Bird, P., 1983, ‘Images of women in the Old Testament’, in N.K. Gottwald (ed.), The therefore, made eating adverse through thorns, thistles Bible and liberation: Political and social hermeneutics, pp. 275–279, Orbis, and sweat (Gn 3:17–18). The man receives a more severe Maryknoll, NY. Bonaventure, 2005, Works of Saint Bonaventure, Breviloquium, transl. D.V. Monti, punishment because the role granted to him by God as vol. 3/3, St. Bonaventure, Franciscan Institute Publications, New York, NY. the first created (‘and only’ omitted) thing to embody the Brown, R.E., Bea, A.C., Fitzmyer, J.A. & Murphy, R.E., 1968, The Jerome biblical image and likeness of God (Gn 1:26–28; 2:7, 18–25). The commentary, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Buchholz, H.G., 2000, ‘Furcht vor Schlangen und Umgang mit Schlangen in Altsyrien, narrative demonstrates that the man failed as a leader Altkypros und dem Umfeld’, Ugarit-Forschungen 32, 37–168. and husband by deferring to the voice of his wife over the Bultmann, R., 1960, ‘Mythos und Mythologie IV: Im Neuen Testament. 3. Aufl. (= 2. Aufl.)’,RGG 4, 1278–1282. voice of the Lord (Gn 2:16–17). Charlesworth, J.H., 2010, The good and evil serpent: How a universal symbol became Christianized, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Although there is a reluctance to identify Eve as the first Charlesworth, J.H. (ed.), 2011, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA. femme fatale, that is her identity at this moment in the Chisholm, R.B., 2013, A commentary on Judges and Ruth, Kregel, Grand Rapids, MI. Genesis narrative. The primordial woman’s distinct Chrysostom, J., 1979, A select library of the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers of the qualities and behaviour epitomise the original definition of Christian Church, 1st series, vol. 13, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI. a femme fatale. Collins, J.J., 2000, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish identity in the Hellenistic diaspora, 2nd edn., William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI. Culler, J., 1982, On deconstruction: Theory and criticism after structuralism, Cornell Acknowledgements University, Ithaca, NY. Delcor, M., 1989, ‘The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Hellenistic period’, in Competing interests W.D. Davies & L. Finkelstein (eds.), The Cambridge history of Judaism, vol. 2, pp. 409–503, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. The author declares that he has no financial or personal Delitzsch, F., 1903, Babel und Bibel: ein Vortrag, 3. Durchgesehene Aufl edn., relationships that may have inappropriately influenced him J.C. Hinrichs, Leipzig. Delitzsch, F., 2001, A new commentary on Genesis, transl. S. Taylor, vol. 1, Wipf and in writing this research article. Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR. Didymus, 2016, Commentary on Genesis, transl. R.C. Hill, vol. 132, Catholic University of America Press, Washington, DC. Author’s contribution Dole, A., 2020, ‘Reframing the masters of suspicion: Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 88(2), 615–618. https://doi. R.C. is the sole author of this research article. org/10.1093/jaarel/lfz096 Edwards, K.L., 2010, ‘The mother of all femme fatales: Eve as temptress in Genesis 3’, in H. Hanson & C. O’Rawe (eds.), The femme fatale: Images, histories, contexts, Ethical consideration pp. 35–44, Palgrave Macmillan, London. Fiorenza, E.S., 2017, Congress of wo/men: Religion, gender, and Kyriarchal power, Dog This article followed all ethical standards for research Ear Publishing, Indianapolis, IN. without direct contact with human or animal subjects. Fuchs, E., 2008, ‘Reclaiming the Hebrew bible for women: The neoliberal turn in contemporary feminist scholarship’, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 24(2), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.2979/FSR.2008.24.2.45 Gaines,Fiorenza J.H.,, E S 2019, 2017. ‘Lilith: Congress Seductress, of Wo/men: heroine Religion, or murderer’, Gender, andBible Kyriarchal Review 17(5), Power . Funding information viewedIndianapolis, 03 April 2020, IN: Dog from Ear https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people- Publishing. cultures-inthe-bible/people-in-the-bible/lilith/#note08r. This research received no specific grant from any funding Gaster,Fuchs, T.H., E 2008. 1969, ‘Reclaiming Myth, legend, the and hebrew custom bible in the for old women: testament The, neolHarperiberal & Row, turn Newin contemporary agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. York, feministNY. scholarship,’ Journal of feminist studies in religion, 24/2, 45-65. Gellman, J.I., 2006, ‘Gender and sexuality in the garden of Eden’, Theology & Sexuality Gaster,12(3), T 319–335. H 1969. Myth, legend, and custom in the old testament. New York: Harper & Row.

Data availability Haag, H., 1968, ‘Der “Urstand” nach dem Zeugnis der Bible’, Theologische Gellman,Quartalschrift J I 2006. 148(4), ‘Gender 385–404. and sexuality in the garden of eden’, Theology & Sexuality, 12/3, Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data 319-335. Haag, H., 1969a, Is original sin in scripture? Sheed and Ward, New York, NY. were created or analysed in this study. Haag,Haag, H., H 1969b,1969. Is ‘Zeitschrift original sin fürin scripture? die alttestamentliche New York: Sheed wissenschaft’, and Ward. Publons 81(2), 145–286. -- 1969. ‘Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche wissenschaft, 81/2, 145-286. Hamilton, V.P., 1990, The book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.

Disclaimer Hanson,Hamilton, R.S., V 1972,P 1990. The The serpent book ofwas genesis wiser: : chaptersA new look 1-1 at7. genesisGrand Rapids 1-11, :Augsburg Eerdmans . Publishing House, Minneapolis, MN. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of Harman,Harman, A.M., A M 1997. 1997, “ ‘r‰z™Eo”’, I inn A W. guide Van to Gemeren old testament (ed.), theologyA guide andto Old exegesis: Testament the introductory the author and does not necessarily reflect the official policy theologyarticles and from exegesis: the new The international introductory dictionary articles of from old testament the new theology international and exegesis. or position of any affiliated agency of the author. dictionaryVan Gemeren, of Old W Testament(ed). Grand theology Rapids: Zondervan.and exegesis, pp. 376–377, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI. In Theological dictionary of the old testament. editors Botterweck, G” בוֹט “ .Höver-Johag, I 2011 J, Ringgren, H, Willis, J T, Green, D and Stott, D W (eds). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

http://www.ve.org.za OpenJoines, Access K R 1974. Serpent symbolism in the old testament: a linguistic, archaeological, and literary study. Haddonfield, N.J.: Haddonfield House.

Krahmer, S M 2002. ‘Adam, eve, and original sin in the works of bernard of clairvaux’, Cistercian studies quarterly, 37/1, 3-12.

Lange, J P 1873. A commentary on the holy scriptures. Schaff, P (trans). New York: Scribner, Armstrong, & Co.

Leeming, D A 2015. The handy mythology answer book. Canton, MI: Visible Ink Press.

Loader J A 2003. ‘The primeval narrative as a literary myth’, Old Testament Essays, 16/2, 309–321.

Longman, T 2016. Genesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Luther, M & Pelikan, J 1958. Luther's works. Vol. 1 Lectures on genesis: Chapters 1-5. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

McKenzie, J L 1954. ‘The literary character of genesis 2-3’, Theological Studies 15/4, 542-572.

14 Meyers, C L 1993. Gender Roles and genesis 3:16 revisited in the feminist companion to genesis. Ed. Athalya Brenner; FCB 2; Sheffielf: Sheffield Academic Press.

In Theological dictionary of the old testament. editors Botterweck, G ” התפ “ .Mosis, R 2011 J, Ringgren, H, Willis, J T, Green, D and Stott, D W (eds). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Münnich, M 2008. The cult of bronze serpents in ancient canaan and Israel. In Iggud: Selected Essays in Jewish Studies. Vol. 1. The Bible and Its World, Rabbinic Literature and Jewish Law, and Jewish Thought. World Union of Jewish Studies Jerusalem 39-56.

Nazianzen, G, Schaff, P, and Wace, H 1994. A select library of the nicene and post-nicene fathers of the christian church [2nd series]. vol. 7. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishing. Page 9 of 9 Original Research O'Connor, K M 2018. Genesis. Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys (Smyth & Helwys Bible commentary, 1).

Helyer, L.R., 2002, Exploring Jewish literature of the second temple period: A guide for Parker,Parker, J.F., 2013, J F 2013. ‘Blaming ‘Blaming Eve alone:eve alone: Translation, translation, omission, omission, andand implicationsimplications of of;h™D;mIo in genesis New Testament students, InterVarsity, Downers Grove, IL. Genesis 3:6b 3:6b’,’, Journal Journal of Biblicalof Biblical Literature Literature 132/4, 729 132(4),-747. 729–747. https://doi. in G.J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, J.T. Willis, D. Green & org/10.1353/jbl.2013.0050 ,’טֹוב‘ ,Höver-Johag, I., 2011 Philo 1997. The works of philo: complete and unabridged. Yonge, C D (trans). New D.W. Stott (eds.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, pp. 296–317, Phelan, M.W.J., 2005, The inspiration of the Pentateuch or, the Graf-Wellhausen Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI. updated edn. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishing. fallacy , Two Edge Sword, Waterlooville. Joines, K.R., 1974, Serpent symbolism in the old testament: A linguistic, archaeological, Phipps,Phipps, W., 1989, W 1989. Genesis Genesis and and gender: gender: Biblical biblical myths myths ofof sexuality sexuality and and their their cult culturalural impact . New and literary study, Haddonfield House, Haddonfield, NJ. impact , Praeger,York: Praeger. New York, NY.

Joines, K.R., 1975, ‘The serpent in Genesis 3’, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Sanders, N.K., n.d., ‘The epic of Gilgamesh’, Assyrian International News Agency Books Wissenschaft 87, 1–11. OnlineSarna,, viewed N M 1989 11 .May Genesis: 2020, be from-reshit: http://www.aina.org/books/eog/eog.pdf The traditional Hebrew text with new JPS. translation. The Krahmer, S.M., 2002, ‘Adam, eve, and original sin in the works of Bernard of Clairvaux’, JPS TorahGenesis: commentary Be-reshit:. Philadelphia: The traditional Jewish Publication Hebrew Society text. with new JPS Cistercian Studies Quarterly 37(1), 3–12. Sarna, N.M., 1989, translation , The JPS Torah commentary, Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, PA. Lange, J.P., 1873, A commentary on the Holy Scriptures, transl. P. Schaff, Scribner, Scholz, S 2010. ‘A third kind of feminist reading: Toward a feminist sociology of biblical Armstrong, & Co., New York, NY. Scholz, S., 2010,herm eneutics’, ‘A third kindCurrents of feministin biblical reading: research Toward, 9/1, 9- 32. a feminist sociology of biblical hermeneutics’, Currents in Biblical Research 9(1), 9–32. https://doi. Leeming, D.A., 2015, The handy mythology answer book, Visible Ink Press, Canton, MI. org/10.1177/1476993X10364969Schroer, S 2003. ‘We will know each other by our fruit’: Feminist Exegesis and the Hermeneutics f Liberation” In Feminist Interpretation of the Bible and the Hermeneutics Loader, J.A., 2003, ‘The primeval narrative as a literary myth’, Old Testament Essays Schroer, S., 2003, ‘“We will know each other by our fruit”: Feminist exegesis and the of Liberation. Schroer, S and Bietenhard, S (eds). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 16(2), 309–321. hermeneutics of liberation’, in S. Schroer & S. Bietenhard (eds.), Feminist

interpretation of the Bible and the Hermeneutics of liberation, pp. 1–17, Sheffield Longman, T., 2016, Genesis, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI. Stanton, E C 1895. The Woman’s Bible. Seattle: Coalition on Women and Religion. Academic Press, Sheffield. Luther, M., 1958, Luther’s works. Vol. 1: Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1–5, in J. Pelikan http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/9880/pg9880-images.html et al. (eds.), Concordia Publishing House, Saint Louis, MO. Stanton, E.C., 1895, The woman’s Bible, Coalition on Women and Religion, Seattle, WA,Stern, viewed D and 07Mirsky, June M 2020, J 1998. from Rabbi http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/9880/nic fantasies. New Haven: Yale University Press. McKenzie, J.L., 1954, ‘The literary character of Genesis 2–3’, Theological Studies 15(4), pg9880-images.html . 542–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/004056395401500402 Tillich, P 1957. Systematic theology vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rabbinic fantasies Meyers, C.L., 1993, Gender roles and Genesis 3:16 revisited in the feminist companion Stern, D. & Mirsky, M.J., 1998, , Yale University Press, to Genesis, A. Brenner (ed.), FCB 2, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. New Haven, CT. .in G.J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, J.T. Willis, D. Green & D.W. Stott Tillich, P., 1957, Systematic theology, vol. 2, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL ,’פתה‘ ,Mosis, R., 2011 (eds.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, 162–172, Eerdmans, Grand Trible, P., 1973, ‘Depatriarchalizing in the biblical15 interpretation’, Journal of the Rapids, MI. American Academy of Religion 41(1), 30–48. Munnich, M., 2008, ‘The cult of bronze serpents in ancient Canaan and Israel’, in Trible, P., 1978, God and the rhetoric of sexuality, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, PA. B.J. Schwartz, A. Melamed & A. Shemesh (eds.), Iggud: Selected essays in Jewish studies. Vol. 1. The Bible and its world, Rabbinic literature and Jewish law, and Trible, P., 1984, Texts of terror literary-feminist reading of biblical narrative, Fortress Jewish thought, pp. 39–56, World Union of Jewish Studies Jerusalem, Jerusalem. Press, Philadelphia, PA. Nazianzen, G., Schaff, P. & Wace, H., 1994, A select library of the Nicene and post- Ward, G.S., 2004, Barth, Derrida and the language of theology, Cambridge University Nicene fathers of the Christian church [2nd series], vol. 7, Hendrickson Publishing, Press, Cambridge. Peabody, MA. Webb, B.G., 2012, The book of judges, William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI. O’Connor, K.M., 2018, Genesis, Smyth & Helwys Bible commentary 1, Smyth & Helwys, Macon, GA. Westermann, C., 1994. Genesis 1–11, transl. J. Scullion, Augsburg, Minneapolis, MN.

http://www.ve.org.za Open Access