Comments on: Comparing Eve: Group #4

By: Sarah Wastella

Sarah Wastella — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:10:52 +0000

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.

By: tai

tai — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:07:59 +0000

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.

By: Kimberly

Kimberly — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:01:53 +0000

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.

By: tai

tai — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:00:03 +0000

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.

By: Kimberly

Kimberly — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:58:26 +0000

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.

By: Kimberly

Kimberly — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:56:29 +0000

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.

By: Beth Underwood

Beth Underwood — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:56:02 +0000

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.

By: Beth Underwood

Beth Underwood — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:34:11 +0000

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.

By: Sarah Wastella

Sarah Wastella — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:29:53 +0000

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.

By: Beth Underwood

Beth Underwood — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:24:54 +0000

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.