David Clark points out a very poignant quote in “Reading the Bible Ideologically: Feminist Criticism” (chapter title? does that mean only feminists read ideologically???) when Fewell expresses a fairly wide held opinion among biblical scholars that the bible was written by men and for men. The idea that the text is intrinsically patriarchal (and perhaps beyond rescue) has led some prominent Christian feminist scholars to look to other forms of worship (e.g. Ruether, Daly, etc). That being said, what Trible did with Gen 2-3 in “God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality” was nothing short of a lifeline to anyone who realized the patriarchal nature of the text (or interpretation of the text? or both?) and yet still wanted to place stock in the authority of the bible. The main weakness with Trible (in my opinion) is that rather than present her “rhetorical criticism” i.e. a complex set of poetic structures, “ring compositions”, and inclusios as one possible way to reconcile the text by means of a modern construction, she argues that the author(s) really meant it to be read in the manner she suggests (to be fair she was cutting edge in 1978 in the wake of Muilenberg’s “Form Criticism and Beyond”). Nevertheless, I think many still try and ague that the author(s) meant or were thinking this or that though such questions seem far beyond the realm of modern readers/interpreters. Furthermore, scholarship seems to point to a fully patriarchal society during the time in which Gen 2-3′s redaction took place. (although that may not hold true of an earlier society; see Meyers). Thus, maybe we should not be asking if Gen 2-3 is patriarchal or not, but rather, despite the fact that it seems to in fact be patriarchal in scope and nature, how should we read it in today’s society/churches? What “informal canonical” decisions should/can be made? Should any canonical decisions be made? Should/can such passages as the one quoted by TYD (1 Tim 2:11-15) and many others be informally removed from our own personal canons? Is it possible not to constantly make “informal canonical” decisions about scriptures? We all tend to hold up the passages and/or teachings (scriptural and otherwise e.g. GA’s teachings) we like and downplay those we don’t.

Also, concerning LDS interpretations of Eve, I echo the previous question concerning LDS’s view on Eve. Does the idea that Eve was keen enough to further the plan begin with Joseph Smith as far as LDS teaching go? Also, how widely do you all think this principle is taught explicitly in seminaries/institutes/sunday schools?

I second David Clark with the Jewish Kabbalistic and Christian Gnostic views. I hope you won’t dismiss these as “pagan influenced.”

If anything, I believe Christianity was much more influenced by paganism after the Romanization of the Church.

Some of these Gnostics were making an effort to preserve some of the knowledge and traditions that the Romanization took away.

One of the fundamental pillars of knowledge they held on to is the fact that Eve was an instructor to Adam. It was she who made it possible for man to become like God. They (the Gnostics) believed Eve was a vessel of knowledge sent to Adam by God.

When they partook of the fruit, the “Complexio Oppositorium” was put into effect, which is the idea that there must be opposition in all things for man to progress and experience joy. The Gnostics believe Eve knew this concept but Adam did not. Thus Eve saves Adam from the eternal damnation of ignorance (or the absence of gnosis) by becoming the vessel God uses to endow Adam with that gnosis.

The Kabbalistic tradition is similar to Phyllis Trible’s interpretation. I am sure Trible used Kabbalistic elemets for that interpretation. The primordial creature being sexless, and the separation of the sexes, etc.

On the other hand, while Joseph Smith acknowledged the immense importance of the complexio oppositorium (also a Masonic teaching) and that it in turn became possible due to Eve’s initiative, I am not sure about his interpretation of the Genesis account of the fall regarding the equality of Adam and Eve. In fact, notwithstanding his efforts to give women a leadership structure (Relief Society), I am not sure Joseph saw women as truly equal to men.

While he clearly understood the necessity of the female character in the salvation of man (remarkably reflected in the meetings of the quorum of the annointed), some other events in his life also reflect a strong patriarchal influence (the polygamous period).

It was not until recently that the specific text from Genesis that insinuates Eve is a subordinate to Adam due to her disobedience was removed from the Temple Endowment.

Christian Gnostic and Jewish Kabbalistic teachings have elements that are much more positive towards Eve than more orthodox interpretations. Neither of those is a monolith, so interpretations will vary.

Thanks for the review of that chapter. I really liked To Each Its Own Meaning. It’s a great presentation of different approaches to scripture.

I also have to admit that the feminist criticism chapter was my least favorite when I read the book initially. By isolating certain aspects of the chapter you made me reconsider my opinion of it. Thanks.

One thing that she does gloss over, and which I wish she had spent more time on was this: “The Bible, for the most part, is an alien text, not written by women or with women in mind. Some feminist critics have asked why we should be reading the Bible at all.” (p. 270) That’s a powerful critique which I wish she would have addressed more thoroughly.