From: kyee@caesar.mit.edu (Kenneth Yee)
Newsgroups: alt.mythology,sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: The creation of Eve
Date: 15 Aug 92 16:32:11 GMT
Reply-To: kyee@mtl.mit.edu
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology

In article <92225.125915TIP@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>  
TIP@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
> This goes back to the question of what evidence there is supporting the  
idea
> 
> that the original creation myth was aimed at suppressing the matriarchal
> religions and societies of the time (which seem to have been much more
> widespread than modern anthropologists will often have you believe).   
Not only
> was the woman to be blamed for the fall from grace, but so was the  
snake,
> the standard symbol of the female priestesses power.  Clearly, the myth
> points out, only the patriarchal god can offer Paradise, and men should
> stay well away from female wiles.  Moreover, elsewhere in Genesis, there
> are a number of warnings to stay away from a certain contemporary god,  
whose
> name I unfortunately forget, who was referred to as male but has  
recently
> been shown to be the most powerful female goddess of the time.
> 
> I have another question, though, concerning the Garden of Eden myth.  It  
seems
> to me that fundamentally what Eve chose was knowledge--in any of its  
forms,
> knowledge as wisdom, knowledge of her own individuality, knowledge of  
her
> sexuality, knowledge of her mortality--over immortality.  But an  
immortality
> in which she would always be dumb to the world around her.  While this  
is
> a difficult choice, knowledge seems to be the obvious one to me.  I'd be
> interested to know what other people thought about this.  Or if anyone  
had
> insights on why she got pegged as making the biggest mistake of all  
time.
> 
> -karen

Others have illustrated a historical basis for the supression of  
matriarchal traditions and the dominance of the Hebrew tradition.  I know  
very little about this, so I'm taking those arguments on faith.  Turns out  
that this is not inconsistent with the idea of male creation of Eve.  Let  
me reiterate this idea, then follow with some theoretical musings (get  
ready to hit 'n' :-) )

     The basic claim is that the "rib" that Eve was created from is more  
likely the phallus.  The idea is based on the assumption that males envy  
female parturition, and it would make (psychological) sense for a male  
giving birth from his genitalia in analogy with a female giving birth from  
her genitalia. (I don't want to get into anal creation theories... Alan  
Dundes has an essay on the Earth Diver motif in his book _Sacred  
Narrative_ that explores this... it's also based on male envy of female  
parturition.)

     If we look at the idea of male ENVY of female parturition, it would  
seem reasonable for a patriarchal society to wrest the power of creation  
(birth) from the female and give it to the male.  That Eve, in the tale,  
was responsible for the Fall, can be looked at in terms of the concept of  
projective inversion.  In reality, the patriarchal society was responsible  
for the "fall" of the matriarchal society, but in the tale this has been  
inverted to show the female being responsible for the fall, thus  
justifying the (historical) suppression of the female.  I'm not sure if  
this idea applies to other tales found in the Hebrew tradition, though --  
any opinions?

     Another thing to note: I've assuming that what's to be found in the  
Bible is derived from oral tradition.  However, I'm sure that what we have  
today is a reflection of the religious/political views of the church  
leadership(s) each time the Bible has been edited, canonized, translated,  
etc.  This is something to be wary of whenever trying to analyze a  
(Biblical) tale.

				--- Ken
				    kyee@mtl.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.mythology