Reflections on Genesis 2-3: (part 2) Concerning Sex — Recap

Well, alas, I didn’t get a fight (any real disagreement) over my contention that Genesis is a subversive text concerning its view on patriarchy, that is contra the common idea that is is written supporting strict patriarchy it was instead written in a surrounding that was very patriarchal yet within contains subversive elements undermining the same. No disagreements lead to less discussion.

An interesting thought occurred to me during the class. Now that we had completed our discussions of the independent stories of creation, the cosmological/ontological and the moral/political in which we refrained from “mixing” the stories, that is to say we regarded them independently. But now that we are done, we might regard the question of why the redactor/editor juxtaposed them in this way? Here’s my thought on this:

The first story tells how in its ontological unfolding of a taxonomy of creation that the Cosmos is intelligible. The second story begins to tell the story of how Man is intelligible as well

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 comments

  1. I don’t understand how you can differentiate between stuff you’re just making up and hanging on the text and stuff that actually comes from the text. It seems one could (and many have) say exactly the opposite and use the same text as evidence.

  2. Mark says:

    JA,
    It’s in the hermeneutic, the “method” of extracting meaning from the text. There are many different ones. In this reading, I’m using a philosophical hermeneutic, that is trying to read Genesis using the same methodologies you would read Plato or Aristotle. There are many others and you are right in thinking that many come to very different conclusions. I think it is important to realize what is the nature of the hermeneutic you are using and how it and others compare. Which one you settle on as closest to the Truth is a matter of heart, study, and discernment.