After reading Genesis 2:15-3:24 use this blog to reflect, compare, and respond to your group’s assessment of the Genesis account in relationship to Clement of Alexandria and 2 Corinthians 11:1-4. Pay particular attention to how Eve functions for each author.
A journal of historical analysis, feminist theory, and politics
skip to content « Helpful tips for Comparing “Eve” assignment | Comparing Eve: Group #3 »About Jennifer Barry-Lenger
I am a first year PhD student at Drew University. My interests include late-ancient Christianity and Feminist Theory. I will be looking at feminist interpretations of time and how they might inform our readings of late-ancient texts. I am also…
16 Comments»
Mar. 3rd, 2008
Clement of Alexandria’s reading of Genesis 2:15-3:24 is informed by Christian tradition and the interpretation of Eve in light of Christ. He speaks with the hindsight of the existence of righteousness in Christ’s salvation. To him, Eve is most notable for her place in humanity’s genealogy.
Paul’s writings in 1 Corinthians 11:1-4 reflects a less interpretive, more textual reading of Genesis that sees Eve’s contribution as her role of the one led astray by the cunning counter voice. Paul does not appear to have any animosity towards Eve for being led astray, but holds the serpent to be the source of corruption rather than some traditional readings that hold Eve in a more negative light for her participation. Paul seems to find Eve as one who had the same “sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (11:3) but was led astray, just as the people of Corinth find themselves in that position with regards to following a false Gospel.
Mar. 3rd, 2008
The Genesis text seems to portray the nameless “Woman”/Eve as helper,in Clement she functions as the mother of all, and for the author of the Corinthians she (weak?/stupid?)is a victim of deception. for me, despite the over dramatic blame shifting that goes on in Genesis, the nameless “Woman”/Eve’s actions (for me at least) resonate with the text’s prescribed role as “helper.” She’s taking a walk the talks to the serpent as when she sees “that the tree was good for eating and a delight to the eyes” (6) she “helps” herself to some and shares with her partner. I fail to see the “shame” in that.
Clement, like the Genesis 2 text, also leaves “Eve” unnamed. She again is mention (simply?) as “the woman” but she is merely a helper but the one “who initiated transgression” and “‘Life’” as mother of all. And again, I don’t find Celment’s assessment to be one of “shame” necessarily, and while she isn’t named, she in a way, is beyond “names,” and is beyond the limitations of embodiment because she “is” all.
And, as for “Paul,” simply because I don’t trust him and therefore have nothing but suspicion for his words, he couldn’t possibly leave Eve unnamed because she allows him to be the object of all his anger and hatred. The thick layer of blame in his tone comes all to natural for Paul. His reference to the “deceived Eve” smacks something of a playground drama. I can hear Paul now… “DECEIVED EVE, DECEIVED EVE! NEENER NEENER!” He more or less warns, “don’t be a stupid woman, RESIST THEM ALL!!
Mar. 4th, 2008
Like Mary Magdalene, Eve, too, has also received a bad “rep” by commentators over time. So much so, that Mary the Mother of Jesus has been seen as the new Eve, who brings life rather than death. Church Father, Clement of Alexandria, describes Eve not by name, but as “the woman who initiated transgression,” he still raises her identity by describing her as life. He recognizes that she is mother to humanity, both to the “righteous and unrighteous alike.” However, Paul seems to fall in line with those who give Eve a bad name. He seems to want to make an example of Eve, so that we as followers in Christ are not deceived or led astray from Christ, as Eve was deceived by the serpent.
On a side note, in my research I came upon an interesting point of view of Genesis 3 posited by Rabbi Nathan. As I mentioned above, in history, Eve has always been given a bad reputation as the cause for the so-called ‘fall’ of humanity, however, R. Nathan interestingly interprets the text: putting Adam to blame since he did not tell Eve the commandment exactly as the Lord had told him, thus putting him at fault for her misunderstanding.
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis Book 3.65.1
2 Corinthians 11:1-4
Judah Goldin ed., The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955. p. 8-9.
Mar. 4th, 2008
In regards to Sarah’s comment that “Paul does not appear to have any animosity towards Eve for being led astray”–I tend to read this passage differently. It seems that Paul is using Eve as the example that we should not follow, to watch that we are not deceived as Eve was by the serpent. So, for me, it appears that Paul does look down on Eve for her lack of will to be able to be deceived (but that is just my reading of the text).
Mar. 4th, 2008
For those who read Paul with a hermeneutic of suspicion, Paul is trying to compare the people from the Church of Corinth to Eve. It would hardly be productive to make either of those two out to be evil, when Paul writes out of his concern and love for them. The context for 1 Corinthians dictates reading from the perspective of a concerned apostle who wants the people of Corinth to refrain from following false gospels because their salvation hangs in the balance. Eve made a mistake which some in Corinth have repeated; knowing the right way, and yet being led astray by others, whether serpent or human.
Mar. 4th, 2008
First of all, I would like to know if someone can fill in the gaps for me as to how this assignment fits Mary Magdalene. Not to be condescending, but I’m just not understanding this assignment in the larger picture.
That aside, I find it interesting that Clement uses one line within the Genesis text to deem Eve as the mother of the “Living”. When you use the term mother in relation to Eve, he uses the traditional understandings of what it means to be a mother; the nurturing role that can lead children astray or lead them down a path of “righteousness”. I’m curious as to how this text can be interpreted in today’s society; with the adoption of children by same-sex couples, more stay-at-home dads, and the exclusion of the “Leave It To Beaver” generation (where mother’s are leaving the house to work their own jobs and fulfill their own dreams). The traditional role of “mother” is at jeopardy in today’s society and to look at Clement critically we need to see what it says in today’s context.
Looking at the biblical texts and Clement, either Clement nor Paul seem to be condemning Eve for her actions in the garden. For Clement, everything is turned into a positive to see how those that stray are still a part of the mother of the “living”; they are led astray, but not abandoned. Paul, conversely, uses the serpent, not Eve, as bearer of foolishness. For Paul, there is a warning about the serpent and “it’s cunning”, not a condemnation of Eve and her actions in the garden.
Mar. 4th, 2008
I agree with Beth that Paul would condemn the serpent/false prophets for their role in leading others astray. Certainly, there is culpability for Eve and the people of Corinth but they have been deceived by those who posses implied maliciousness. The commands which Eve receives come from God, and the people of Corinth receive their Gospel from Paul, the Apostle of Christ. The origin of the information is key in the discussion because both Eve and the Corinthians turn from divine word to the biblical equivalent of peer pressure.
Mar. 4th, 2008
Tai, I’m curious as to what led you to have this suspicion about Paul and his text; is it just Paul, or other books and authors as well? I agree with Sarah. Eve is not condemned by Paul in any way. The blame of deception lies in the serpent. I like how Paul uses Eve. It shows how we’re all fallible human beings; we all make mistakes.
Mar. 4th, 2008
Kimberly, I think your right with this text; our interpretation of the text probably does vary between our personal social location, religious traditions, etc… As I’ve said in a previous post, I agree with Sarah and her interpretation of the text. I don’t see Paul as pointing a finger at Mary; I feel he would have done the same, regardless of who it was (if it would have been Adam we would have been reading about him). The one problem, Mary was the first one to open the door of sin and therefore will always have the finger pointed at her. However, we need to be reminded of this incident to see how we are all culpable to temptation. Sometimes, I think society views itself as invisible, or immune, from God’s judgment; society views itself as the end all be all, instead of a product and part of a story that is continually being told and lived out to this day.
Mar. 4th, 2008
I was not necessarily stating that Paul saw Eve as evil by any means. More so, and I may be repeating myself, but I think Paul is just using Eve as a an example–where the Corinthians are to be careful to not be deceived as she was.
Mar. 4th, 2008
I want to clarify further, I do not think he finds her evil, just that he looks down on one who can be deceived and led astray. I do not think he thinks this of her because of her being a woman (where Beth states that Paul would react the same had it been Adam) and I agree with that statement.
Mar. 4th, 2008
Beth, in terms of my interpretation of Paul, he’s a “known” woman hater and takes every opportunity to chastise women, particularly women who are deceived or are the decceivers. For me, paying attention to the gender implications here is imperative to my understanding and relevance of the text. And I’m rather confused by your statement in your last post about “Mary opening the door to sin” Really? How and where? Also, making presumptive claims about god’s judgment is a theological concern, not an academic concern, and to presume that society finds themselves immune falls under a guise of Christian assumption. Not all members of soceity are Christians, nor do they acknowledge a Christian Judge-like figure. Surely you arent suggesting all of soceity are Christians or should be…could you clarify?
And in terms of what this exercise has to do with Mary, I’d say its fairly obvious. Were are dealing with two biblically based characters, who are women traditionally scorned. We are examining two women, possibly the MOST POPULAR women in Christianity of which we know little about, but can see from the early texts through contemporary academic discourse remain to be subjects of critical analysis. Also, these two women are often associated with sin, temptation, unruliness of their gender performativity, social stigma, sex, lies, and all. And as this course has already shown us, there is so much more to the “stories” of Mary and this exercise allows for yet another feminist hermeneutic to take place on a comparable figure textually scorned.
Mar. 4th, 2008
I also find it interesting how both Eve and Mary Magdalene are put in relation, in the Christian tradition, against Mary the mother of Jesus. Eve as the antitype to Mary (the former bringing mortality, and latter as the “new” Eve bringing immortality through her son). Then, Mary Magdalene as opposed to Mary the Mother through tradition as the sinner versus the sinless.
Mar. 4th, 2008
Sarah, my “hermeneutic of suspicion” does not in any way negate Paul’s intent to adrs. the people of Corinth and provide a quasi-parabolic warning, my suspicion, largely feminist based is more concerned with his phallocentricism and his obsession with gender. When the use of gender in Paul’s language is taken into consideration, it begs the question of exactly who in Corinth is Paul speaking to? Might he be speaking to women, particularly women apostles? Who really encompasses his audience? Why Eve? Why the mention of a serpent? Clearly the serpent suggests sexual prowess as well…These are the questions that I am concerned with as a result of Paul’s words and his discourse with the people of Corinth. It can never be as simple or as safe as we want it to be…thats what hermeneutics is all about; peeling back the layers and navigating through ALL of the textual implications.
Mar. 4th, 2008
I disagree that Paul is a “known” woman hater. Could someone cite a source for that. Especially since he openly acknowledges women as foundations and leaders in the city churches.
As to the relevance to Mary Magdalene, I would have liked to see some clearly defined link to the topic for our own edification, rather than just the implied connection between two women in the Bible. It’s like studying Esau and assuming Christ.
Jul. 2nd, 2009
you are a beatiful women :)
RSS