Of all the Micah Tillmans in the world — and there are at least three — … I am this one.
Jul 27th, 2010 by Micah Tillman | 2 Comments |
My mother-in-law passed away this afternoon. The funeral should be next Monday.
Eventually I’ll get the time and energy to do some philosophical analysis of the experience (such important things should be analyzed philosophically at some point), but for now I just wanted to thank you for your thoughts and prayers.
Jul 25th, 2010 by Micah Tillman | 1 Comment |
Sorry I’ve been a little non-posty recently. Working hard on dissertation and another project.
Am currently back in Delaware because my mother-in-law has been admitted to a hospice center and “the prognosis isn’t good.”
Would appreciate your prayers, for her and the family. (Her name is Sarah, if that helps.)
Thanks!
Jul 13th, 2010 by Micah Tillman | Start the Discussion |
[ Intro | I: Intro | II.Intro | III.Intro | III.1 | III.2 ]
____________________________________________________
Part III.Two
1
The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; but God said, “You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.’” (NRSV)
First, it is interesting here that the Woman refers to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil as “the tree that is in the middle of the garden.” Back in 2.9 it was the Tree of Life that was identified as being in the middle of the garden. What was implied there has now been confirmed: both the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil are together.
Second, it is interesting that the Woman adds something to what God said, which we have not been informed of before: they were not to even touch the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Given that the Serpent had quoted God incorrectly, some have claimed that the Woman is here doing the same thing. I, however, see no reason to assume this. No story tells us everything that all its characters say during the course of the Story. Perhaps the no-touching command was simply left out till now.
2
Or it could be that the Woman is still so mentally young that she has mixed up God’s command not to eat with an agreement she had made with the Man that they would just stay away from the Tree altogether. The temporal location of this section of the Story is not given to us, after all, and therefore could have been anything from minutes to years after the Woman was first created. Just think of how long it takes babies to figure out that when things disappear they do not cease to exist, or how long it takes youngsters to be able to start to see the world as others see it. Both the Man and the Woman had a lot of growing to do, and so it would not be surprising that she would mix an ultimatum she and her husband had given themselves with the divine ultimatum it was meant to help them obey.
But then one would have to wonder if she was so young as to mix up these two different “rules,” how could she have been mature enough to have made up rules for herself? Given the fact that she changes from first person plural to second person plural in her statement, it seems clear that she is able to distinguish her actions from God’s commands. That is, when she quotes God, she speaks as if God were speaking. She does not say, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; but God said we shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall we touch it, or we shall die.’” Rather, when she begins to quote God she speaks as God would speak.
As with many of the other puzzles we have uncovered in Genesis 1 and 2, this one seems to be unsolvable. And as we have noted before, it is these puzzles that lend the Story much of its mystery and beauty. They both allow and invite continued contemplation.
Notice the serpent’s next claim:
3
But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (NRSV)
This is, of course, a blatant lie. But it is an extremely “subtil” one. It is subtle because it is almost entirely true. It is completely true except for the “You will not die” part.
Indeed, it is precisely because eating the fruit of the Tree will make them like God that they will die (see Part II.Eight). The right and responsibility for teaching the Humans to see good has been reserved by God for Himself. God, after all, can already see good, and has been passing on this ability to the Humans through teaching them. Therefore, to become like God by eating of the Tree is to usurp an authority God has not given away. To do so would be for the Woman to put herself in God’s place.
The Story does not imply that the humans are not allowed to know good and evil. This, however, has been read into the text for eons. Neither does the Story say they are not allowed to be like God. On the contrary, God made them to be “likenesses” of Himself!
Being like God is not the problem. Trying to be God is.
4
God has reserved the right to teach the humans to see good (and evil). God has reserved the right to help them become more godly. Eventually, as the lessons continued, they would have become “like God, knowing good and evil.”
It wasn’t the knowledge, then, that was deadly. If it was, the command would have been “Do not learn!,” rather than “Do not eat!” Gaining knowledge did not kill them. It was the attempt to do God’s job by giving themselves the knowledge that God is supposed to teach them that did.
By putting themselves in God’s place they are trying to be the very thing they were meant to be the image of. An image cannot simultaneously be an image and that which the image is of. Images cannot image themselves without destroying themselves. They make themselves infinitely empty by doing so, and an infinitely empty image is no image at all.
5
People usually think that God is somehow afraid of the humans achieving the knowledge of good and evil, and that the threat of death is to keep humans subservient. They agree with what the serpent implies: God is trying to keep the humans down.
The story, however, tells us the opposite. As Teacher, God is trying to raise the humans up by teaching them over time. They could get the information instantly by eating the fruit. But for some reason God likes processes (see Part I). God prefers interaction and relationship.
In her attempt to get to the head of the class, then, the Woman would end up standing behind the lectern. The Human desire to teach themselves cannot work, however, if they are images rather than subjects. The coup contradicts itself.
And the Teacher will return. But not immediately. We learn later in the Story that God will introduce a temporary substitute schoolmaster called “The Law.” But that is many plot twists away as of yet.
____________________________________________________
Jul 12th, 2010 by Micah Tillman | Start the Discussion |
[ Intro | I: Intro | II.Intro | III.Intro | III.1 | III.2 ]
____________________________________________________
Part III.One
1
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. (KJV)
The Storyteller of Genesis never ceases to amaze. Imagine reading this verse for the first time. What could your reaction be other than, “Say what?” A subtle serpent, eh? The NRSV translates it “crafty.” Either way, this is a strange statement.
We are used to thinking of some animals as more intelligent than others. Dolphins and certain primates invariably come to mind. But not snakes. Creepy, yes; intelligent problem-solvers who can be taught language or to do tricks, no.
Evidently at this point in the Story, it is the Serpent that takes the cake. And we can see why. Without even having to be taught . . .
2
He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden’?” (NRSV)
. . . it can talk. It can not only talk, but it can ask questions. It can not only ask questions, but it can quote other talking beings. And it can not only quote other beings, but it can quote them incorrectly (i.e., it is not just parroting). This is a “subtil” beast indeed.
We can have two reactions to the Serpent at this point. We could think it’s adorable because it didn’t quite understand God’s command. Maybe it just wants clarification, like a curious child. Or, we could think it’s up to no good. It might be going somewhere with this question, manipulating.
Those would be our two possible reactions if we can get over the fact that the Serpent is talking in the first place. So far the Story has asked us to “suspend disbelief” about a lot of things. It tells us about God, how God works, and about the nature of God’s Creation. But now it has gone off the deep end. We, after all, don’t believe fairytales anymore.
If we understand the Story (and modern psychological experiments with animals), however, the thought that an animal might talk won’t sound so fairytale-ish. It is the job of Humans in the Story to bring order, form, rationality to the Animal and Plant worlds (and perhaps to teach some animals human language, as some scientists have taught sign-language to apes). If Humans are to be Images of God, and God is teaching them to understand their world better, perhaps it is Humans’ job to provide the same service to the Animals. That one of them can already talk would give them hope that the others can eventually be taught to participate in the higher life as well. It would thus make sense to introduce a Talking Animal at this point in the Story.
3
But even given this charitable reading of the opening of Chapter 3, two other curiosities remain:
The first is that the Serpent is referred to in the singular. It is not that “serpents are the most subtil, and one of them said to the woman. . . .” Rather, it is that “the serpent was the most subtil, and he said to the woman.” We have to assume, however, that the Storyteller does not mean us to think there are no other Serpents around. After all, there would have been Serpents in the Storyteller’s day and reproduction is a cooperative endeavor. But evidently only one Snake is of consequence to the Story.
The second curiosity is that the Serpent asked the Woman what God said, and got it wrong. That is, the Serpent is doing something that can only be done in God’s absence. This is the first time in the Story that God has disappeared!
We should have seen this coming, as God has been gradually turning over responsibility to Creation itself, and therefore has been “stepping back” from various areas of control. To turn over responsibility for something is to: (a) become absent to it and (b) make it present to someone or something else. God here seems to have decided to let the humans completely run the show for a while. So, instead of asking God to clarify the teaching about which Trees were good for food and which weren’t, the Serpent turns to the Woman.
That is, of course, treating the Serpent charitably as well.
____________________________________________________
[ Scripture quotations: Genesis 3:1a, KJV and Genesis 3:1b, NRSV ]
Jul 11th, 2010 by Micah Tillman | Start the Discussion |
[ Intro | I: Intro | II.Intro | III.Intro | III.1 | III.2 ]
____________________________________________________
THE FIRST STORY: Part III
We now enter the final stage of our study. It may be that we have saved the most important chapter for last. It is here that we have “Death,” “The Fall,” and “The Curse.” This chapter (Genesis 3) has long shaped the way people see the world. And that is extremely unfortunate because most people have gotten this chapter wrong. It is time we see what it really says.
The ultimate question for this chapter is whether its characters are the same as they were in the previous chapters. If they are, then the Tradition is wrong. If they aren’t, then the Tradition is right.
The two things to remember as we enter this chapter are the ways in which God and Humans have been portrayed to this point: (1) God is a teacher, and (2) Humans are images (representations) of God. The “ultimate question” then, is: Does God continue to play a Teacher’s role, and do Humans continue to be portrayed as beings-meant-to-be-images?
The answer to both, we will see, is “Yes!”
____________________________________________________
Jul 10th, 2010 by Micah Tillman | Start the Discussion |
Politician: “Hey Paul, have some money”
Paul: “Thanks, man! Where’d you get it?”
Politician: “Oh, I printed some. Got the rest from Peter.”
Paul: “You mean Peter bought something from you?”
Politician: “Yeah, he bought another year of not having to go to jail for tax evasion.”
Paul: “Oh. That’s good. Sounds like you both came out ahead.”
Politician: “Yeah. Good times. But I couldn’t get it all from him. I had to print some of it.”
Paul: “Oh, well, you know. Gotta do what you gotta do. ”
Politician: “Yeah.”
Paul: “Though, you do realize that your printing money and a counterfeiter’s printing money have exactly the same effect. Every dollar everywhere becomes worth just a little bit less.”
Politician: “Yeah. So?”
Paul: “You think you’re helping me by hurting Peter and by making my money worth less?”
Politician: “No, I’m not hurting Peter. He paid me to not hurt him.”
Paul: “Oh, right. Sorry. But why not cut out the middle man, and just let Peter give his money to me, instead of giving it to you, and then you giving it to me?”
Politician: “Well, he wouldn’t have given it to you if I hadn’t stepped in. I wanted to make sure you got helped out.”
Paul: “Hey, and I really appreciate that. But when you think about it, doesn’t this mean that your idea of economic stimulation is (a) forcing people to do things they don’t want to do, while (b) making what money you leave/give them worth less than it was before. That’s how a thriving, vibrant, growing economy happens?”
Politician: “I know, right?”
Jul 10th, 2010 by Micah Tillman | Start the Discussion |
[ Intro | I: Intro | II.Intro | II.1 | II.2 | II.3 | II.4 | II.5 | II.6 | II.7 | II.8 | II.9 | II.10 | II.11 | II.12 | II.13 | III.Intro ]
____________________________________________________
Part II.Thirteen
1
And the man and his [woman] were both naked, and were not ashamed.* (NRSV)
Like the verse before it, this one seems rather out of place, surprising. One wonders why this seemed like relevant information to the Storyteller.
That they were not ashamed meant that they did not feel anything was other than as it should be. You are, after all, not ashamed of things being the way they are supposed to be. But you are also not ashamed of things which you do not realize are not the way they ought to be.
The Storyteller may be implying the latter, as the two have not yet learned to see good in all areas of life. They now can see good in the realm of food, and can see good in the realm of companions. But perhaps there is some good in clothing which they do not yet see.
If this is the case, and there is something good about being covered, this does not mean that their being naked was bad. It would not necessarily be bad any more than their not-yet-being-able-to-see-good in all areas of life was bad. Creation is always a process in this story, and as time goes on, they may grow to the point where they understand that there is something good about coverings. Perhaps coverings protect the sanctity of the exposure which allows the two to become one flesh. Or maybe it’s simply safer to have certain bodyparts covered when doing certain kinds of work.
In the Genesis 3, the question of nakedness will return again, so we will continue our consideration of what we are being told about it and its relation to humanity when we reach that point.
____________________________________________________
* Here the word in Hebrew for “man” returns to that often transliterated “Adam.” I have “corrected” the translation of the word for “woman.”
[ Scripture quotation: Genesis 2:25, NRSV ]
[ Intro | I: Intro | II.Intro | II.1 | II.2 | II.3 | II.4 | II.5 | II.6 | II.7 | II.8 | II.9 | II.10 | II.11 | II.12 | II.13 | III.Intro ]
Jul 9th, 2010 by Micah Tillman | Start the Discussion |
[ Intro | I: Intro | II.Intro | II.1 | II.2 | II.3 | II.4 | II.5 | II.6 | II.7 | II.8 | II.9 | II.10 | II.11 | II.12 | II.13 | III.Intro ]
____________________________________________________
Part II.Twelve
1
Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.”* (NRSV)
This is perhaps the most adorable passage in Scripture. The word that the NRSV translates as “at last,” the KJV translates as “now.” It is Strong’s 6471, “a stroke,” from Strong’s 6470, “to tap, i.e. beat regularly.” It is as if the Man has been tapping each animal on the head as it passed, giving each a name. Given what he says, therefore, one wonders whether the Man even knows he was asleep. It may just seem to him that the queue suddenly got one woman longer.
However it would have seemed, the Man names the Woman just as he had with all the others. Only this time God hears the “magic words” which signal the completion of the process. The Man had found what he was looking for, and it turns out to be his other self. It is equal to him but not him. Had it been him there would have been nothing accomplished.
As himself he was alone. With her the Creation entire is complete.
That the Man names the animals as part of his exercising of Dominion, and also names the Woman, might seem to imply that the man has Dominion over the Woman. But this is not so. God brought the Animals to the Man “to see what he would name them,” but God simply brought the Woman to the Man. The Man, still in naming mode, names her as well.
Rather than an exercise of Dominion, the Man’s naming of the Woman is a signal of recognition. The process of naming the Animals was another learning process through which God takes the Man in teaching him to see good. And as the completion of the teaching session, the Man can finally see the good: the Woman. Now God has taught the Man to see good in the realm of sustenance and in the realm of relations.
2
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. (NRSV)
That is, the joining of man and woman is a reunification. It is a return of that which was given up and therefore missing. The flesh of the man was split in two; part was taken, but now it is returned and the two become one flesh again. But this return of what was lost is a return as something infinitely more than was lost. What was lost was a rib; what is returned is another self.
That the word “religion” also means to “re-connect” is important here. One might say this is the reason for the popularity of marriage metaphors in the New Testament. But we can also connect this reunification to the Greek Myth which gave rise to the idea of soul mates (see Plato’s Symposium).
3
Even though the philosophical point of the sentence is consonant with the flow of the Story, its phrasing seems out of place. It is clearly a statement by the author about current practice, rather than part of the Story. But it also shows the author’s intent that this Story be taken as describing our world. It is not a story about the past which can be taken or left. It is a story about how things are.
Though most humans are born physically complete, what they are as beings is not complete without others. Humans were not designed to be solitary, and neither Animals nor God can resolve the solitude. Such resolution is a role God has delegated to (other) humans.
4
Before moving on to the next sentence, I feel it important to make another translation note:
Of late it has become unfashionable to use the phrase “man and wife,” as it treats the woman only in terms of her relation to the man, while treating the man as a thing that can stand alone. The wife thus needs the man to be what she is, but the man is a man, and therefore needs no one. However, many languages do not have separate words for “wife” and “husband,” as English does. They would say, “the man and his woman,” or “the woman and her man.”
The Hebrew of these passages is like those non-English languages. The word translated “wife” in this verse and the next is the same word translated a verse earlier as “woman.” If the translators were going to change “woman” to “wife,” however, it would have been clearer to change “man” to “husband” as well. If they were going to make one a relative term, it would only be fair to make the other a relative term as well.
____________________________________________________
* Interestingly, the Hebrew name translated “woman” here (Ishshah) is connected to the name “man” (Ish) just as it is in English. The word “man,” of which it is the feminine (Strong’s 802), is not, however, the word that has been translated “the man” to this point. That word is often transliterated as “Adam” (e.g., in the KJV). In translations which do not use the word “Adam,” this shift is lost.
[ Scripture quotations: Genesis 2:23-24, NRSV ]
[ Strong's quotations from Abingdon's Strong's; Online access to Strong's ]
[ Intro | I: Intro | II.Intro | II.1 | II.2 | II.3 | II.4 | II.5 | II.6 | II.7 | II.8 | II.9 | II.10 | II.11 | II.12 | II.13 | III.Intro ]
Jul 7th, 2010 by Micah Tillman | Start the Discussion |
[ Intro | I: Intro | II.Intro | II.1 | II.2 | II.3 | II.4 | II.5 | II.6 | II.7 | II.8 | II.9 | II.10 | II.11 | II.12 | II.13 | III.Intro ]
____________________________________________________
Part II.Eleven
1
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. (NRSV)
One has to wonder whether the deep sleep was necessary to avoid the pain that would be associated with the surgery about to be performed. At this point in the Story, it may have simply been too early in the life of the Man for him to comprehend the sensation of pain. It is best not to introduce someone to pain who is just learning about good. This can only lead to confusion.
Students, as the Storyteller qua teacher surely knew, see associations where none are meant, and misunderstand their lessons through hearing what was never said. An immature character may come to associate the absence of pain with good, as Utilitarian theorists later in history did. But even more importantly, it is not good to have to associate pain with the arrival of the person meant to be your partner. Such a linkage would throw knots into the Story’s unfolding that would be best avoided.
The context the Storyteller gives us in Genesis 1 for the creation of Woman is exactly the same as for the Creation of the Man. They both occur on the Sixth Day. As we have lived through the Story so far, therefore, we cannot help but wonder whether we are meant to see this as the first sleep the man ever experienced. And what would it be like to have your first sleep be followed by the appearance of a Woman? “Is this how sleep works?” our young minds would wonder.
2
And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. (NRSV)
Rather than making the Woman from the Earth, as the man was, the woman is made from living material. Why not return to Earth, which had functioned so well for the three types of plants, the three types of land animals, and the Man?
I can think of two reasons. Both are perhaps too esoteric to sound important, however. They have to do with what philosophers call the difference between kinds and particulars:
While both humans could be created from Earth (a kind of thing), they could not be created from the same (particular) lump of Earth. At best one half of the lump would go to make the male, and the other to the female. Therefore, if the two humans were both made from Earth, they would be made from the same kind of stuff rather than the same particular stuff.
Thus the Storyteller would be setting the stage for future arguments that run something like: “You must have been made out of the same dirt as the Dodos!” or “I clearly come from a better patch of soil than you!” Even given the fact that both humans would come from the same kind of thing, the fact that they do not come from the same particular thing would drive a wedge between them. It would provide an excuse for a falling-apart, since they do not have a common origin.
The emphasis in this passage, however, is the “equal to” which we saw above, and the “becoming one flesh” which we will see below. It would make no sense at this point in the Story to introduce a difference that would counteract the unity the Storyteller is now revealing. It’s always best not to do two opposite things at once.
The second reason likewise stems from the difference between particulars and kinds, and goes as follows: Coming from the same kind of thing, but not the same particular thing, may not create the connection necessary to solve the Fourth Tension. It is possible, after all, to be with someone or something, and yet to be alone. If there is too great a difference (say, between a human and a rock, or between a bitter person and a joyful one) true togetherness becomes impossible. Perhaps the “particular” difference would make it impossible to end the Man’s being alone.
3
Those are two possible reasons. Whether they are the actual ones — or even good ones — is a question I find impossible to answer. We should, then, move on to asking what the benefits of the choice God actually made are.
Given that we are worried about the way in which the origins of the Man and the Woman might allow them to work together or might drive them apart, we have to consider how one coming from dirt, and the other coming from the first, actually works positively.
It is of great importance that the Man must give up part of himself to get what he is missing; he becomes incomplete to become complete. That the Woman is made of the part the Man gave up means that the Woman is made of what the man lacks. To “get,” the Man first has to “give.”
But this also means that the Man and Woman are made of literally the same stuff. They share a rib, as it were, like Siamese twins. And though the one part they are both made of now belongs to the Woman, the two will become “one flesh.” The sharing — the going forth and returning, the giving and receiving — create a bond of unimaginable strength.
As with the other “potential partners” in the Garden, God creates the Woman and then brings her to the Man:
____________________________________________________
[ Scripture quotations: Genesis 2: 21-22, NRSV ]
[ Intro | I: Intro | II.Intro | II.1 | II.2 | II.3 | II.4 | II.5 | II.6 | II.7 | II.8 | II.9 | II.10 | II.11 | II.12 | II.13 | III.Intro ]
Jul 4th, 2010 by Micah Tillman | Start the Discussion |
[ Intro | I: Intro | II.Intro | II.1 | II.2 | II.3 | II.4 | II.5 | II.6 | II.7 | II.8 | II.9 | II.10 | II.11 | II.12 | II.13 | III.Intro ]
____________________________________________________
Part II.Ten
1
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. (KJV)
Leaving out the “cattle” and the “creeping things,” God recreates the beasts of the field and the fowl of the air. Where before God had employed the Sea in creating the fowl, this time it is the ground. The ability to use two different tools to accomplish the same job should lead us to some interesting considerations. If the Humans, for instance, were to fail to bring order to the World, could God use something else? Perhaps we have just found the answer.
This time God does not see that something is good. Instead, God waits to see what the Man will call the Animals. God decides to wait on the Man before exercising the power to see what their names are. In contrast, God only had to wait on Himself to create a thing before seeing whether it was good. God has turned over to the Man the responsibility and power to name, and yet is still portrayed as the one who exercises the power to see.
2
One question that is not often asked is why, if God is trying to remedy the Man’s being-alone, God asks the man to name Animals. This is not the usual way one goes about seeking a life-partner. Normally potential partners identify themselves.
God is, as it were, waiting for the Man to suddenly blurt out, “You’re the One!” when confronted with the next creature in line. It is as if God is a parent presenting a series of stuffed animals to a child and waiting to see which one he will name “My Favorite.”
As we will see later, the Man does finally give a Creation who is presented to him a name that tells God that the search has succeeded. But until that Creation is presented, God sees the names the Man gives; and none of them are what God is waiting to hear.
3
This does not mean that God rejects the names that the Man gives. Quite the contrary, whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Though we would expect God to be disappointed as He hears each new name — without hearing the “magic words” — God instead takes the process as having permanent and positive significance. God is, as it were, working on two things at once: finding a solution to the Fourth Tension and giving the Animals names.
In the process God is teaching the man to see good in another area of life. Having learned about food, he is now learning about relationships and taking the first step in exercising Dominion. He is bringing form to the Animal Kingdom by introducing names into it.
4
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. (KJV)
Evidently God got cattle to the man as well. As we spoke of earlier, simply because something is left out of the Story does not mean it escaped the Storyteller’s mind. Otherwise we’d have to assume that the Storyteller thought God didn’t think it was necessary to feed Sea Creatures.
We find in this verse that Tension Four cannot be resolved by one of those over whom the man is given Dominion. The “help meet” for the man cannot come from amongst those creatures “lower” than him.
But neither can it come from God. If God was the “help meet,” the Man would not have been alone in the first place. God made the Man in such a way that he (the Man) would need something other than God (despite some of the songs one hears during worship services nowadays).
Having discovered that the Man cannot find what he needs among either the Animal or the Divine — among that which is below him or that which is above — only that which is equal to him is left. But in the Universe there is nothing equal to him. Here we find support for the argument that the word translated “meet” should be translated “corresponding to,” and understood in the sense of “equal.” But as nothing strictly equal to the man exists in the Universe, God will be forced to create something new.
5
Moving beyond philosophical considerations, we turn to Walter Kaiser’s essay, “Genesis 2:18: A Helper for Man?”* There Kaiser writes, “the customary translation . . . as ‘helper fitting him’ is almost certainly wrong.”
Appealing to considerations elucidated by R. David Freedman, Kaiser argues that the word rendered “helper” should actually be “power.” Freedman also argues, Walter reports, that the translation, “corresponding to” is also improper. “Equal to” is the correct rendering, says Freedman. To this, Kaiser adds: “The idiomatic sense of this phrase ‘bone of my bones’ is a ‘very close relative,’ ‘one of us’ or in effect ‘our equal.’” We will see this phrase below.
Both from the philosophic structure of the Story and from Hebrew scholarship, we can see that the intent of the author was to show the male and female as eye-to-eye creations. To hear a structure of subordination in the Story is to not hear the Story. It is to mask the voice of the Storyteller.
____________________________________________________
[ Scripture quotations: Genesis 2:19-20, KJV ]
*In Hard Sayings of the Bible.
[ Intro | I: Intro | II.Intro | II.1 | II.2 | II.3 | II.4 | II.5 | II.6 | II.7 | II.8 | II.9 | II.10 | II.11 | II.12 | II.13 | III.Intro ]
