it is clear that this text originally dealt with the production of children through the union of man and woman
I would have to strongly disagree with this interpretation and adamantly discourage it. This also looks to be yet another case where modern theological/ideological agendas have influenced an understanding of a verse—rather than, I might point out, aiming for a culturally and textually contextualized understanding.
The Yawhist author here has a story he is telling and verse 24 must be seen in that context, and much of that story serves an etiological purpose that explains man’s origin and woman’s origin, as seen from the culture that produced this text. For instance, we are informed earlier in the story (2:18-20) that Yahweh attempts to find for man a companion (עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ) so that he is not alone. Per the etiology already established in the story (adam formed from adamah), the man’s life-companion is sought from the exact same essence as man was formed from—the adamah! It is only because Adam could not find a suitable companion among the creatures fashioned (yatsar) from the exact same essence/material that he was, and whom are also referred to as hayah nephesh like Adam (2:7, 2:19), that Yahweh must now form this companion not from the same material that Adam was made from, but from his very essence—his flesh (בָּשָׂר), 2:21. The woman is built (banah) from the man’s flesh.
“This now is bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh (וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי). Accordingly she shall be called woman (’ishah) because from man (’ish) she was taken.” (Gen 2:23).
In other words the story also serves as an etiology on the origins of matrimony. Let me quote from my own work on this:
The point behind the creation and naming of the animals in this second account is to give an account of woman’s creation, who contrary to the animals, is the perfect fit/companion for man. There is additionally not only wordplay going on in this account, but also the presentation of a culturally-formed perspective that accentuates the essences from which man, animals, and woman were all created, and therefore how each one’s being defines them and their relationship to one another: man is essentially tied to and defined by the ground whence he was molded, ’adam from ’adamah, and woman is essentially tied to and defined in relation to man whence she was “built,” ’ishah from ’ish.
Finally, both accounts of the creation of man and woman serve as an etiological story explaining the origins of matrimony. This is more apparent in the second creation account. Why does man eventually marry woman? Our text responds by saying that it is because woman was substantially and essentially made from man’s flesh. “On account of this a man (’ish) shall leave his father and his mother and adhere to his woman/wife (’ishah), and they shall become one flesh”—that is, as they originally were and still are! The first creation account gives a radically different answer. It is because God created mankind (’adam) as both male (zakar) and female (neqebah) together.
So the reference to “one flesh” in verse 24 feeds off of an already established story-line, which I might add is very visible throughout the Yahwist story. No where does this story hint at childbearing or procreation as a possible understanding for “one flesh” here, and on the contrary it serves to remind its readers that man/woman, ’ish/’ishah, are substantively and etymologically of the same essence—of the same flesh. This was the Yahwist’s story.
Furthermore to pull in Gen 1:28 in an attempt to impose childbearing here is not only damaging and inappropriate on source-critical grounds, but also on narrative and contextual grounds. The proper context has already been provided in verses 18-23 by the Yahwist text.
Concerning your original question about לְבָשָׂר, I don”t necessarily see a problem here: it simply indicates the goal of the action—marriage to become one flesh again. The SP’s addition might have been a later addition in an attempt to understand the direction of this action “from”–“to.” But here I speculate.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I am not sure what question you are asking here. I agree that the story does not appear to have implications for procreation, merely that man is somehow incomplete with woman, and that woman is a lesser part of the equation (just for good measure). It might be seen as the divine declaration for marriage between a man and a woman, but I am not sure how that applied to polygamy.
JAS said
I am not sure what question you are asking here. I agree that the story does not appear to have implications for procreation, merely that man is somehow incomplete with woman, and that woman is a lesser part of the equation (just for good measure). It might be seen as the divine declaration for marriage between a man and a woman, but I am not sure how that applied to polygamy.
Woman is ezer kenegdo : equally powerful but different. Zioney Zevit explains this ancient Hebrew phrasing in his book “What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden.” Eve is not said to be Adam’s lesser part. To be fair, R. Alter comments that ‘ezer typically connotes active intervention on behalf of someone. Kenegdo used elsewhere in the bible would mean “alongside him”, “opposite him,” “a counter part to him”. Alter interprets the phrase ‘ezer kenegdo as “a sustainer beside him.”
What’s nuts is what the highly influential Augustine of Hippo says around 400 CE (from his Literal Meaning of Genesis 2):
[Excerpt from What Really Happened]
“If one should ask why it was necessary that a helper be made for man, the answer that seems most probable is that it was for the procreation of children, just as the earth is a helper for the seed in the production of a plant from the union of the two. . .. She was not to till the earth with him, for there was not yet any toil to make help necessary. If there were any such need, a male helper would be better and the same could be said of the comfort of another’s presence if Adam were perhaps weary of solitude. . . Surely, no one will say that God was able to make from the rib of the man only a woman and not also a man if He had wished to do so. Consequently, I do not see in what sense the woman was made as a helper for the man if not for the sake of bearing children.”
I don’t entirely follow the argument(s) here.
First, gen 2:24 speaks of man leaving father and mother being joined to a woman and the two becoming one flesh.
You want to interpret that to mean . . . what exactly? Companionship? How is companionship (or committed friendship or whatever) becoming one flesh? We speak of close friends as one soul in two bodies. The physical otherness of a (mere) close friend is a conspicuous aspect of the relationship. Everything about that expression and image seems to suggest the author is speaking of coitus, presumably as consumated in a child, the most literal two becoming one flesh.
I just don’t see how that is at all ambiguous, nevermind wrong, as an interpretation of the text. And I don’t see how all that leads up to that line changes the meaning.
This takes me to Robert’s point. I don’t understand why we should take this as God being unsure he could repeat making man from scratch. It seems to me the obvious point to the passage is to provide an origin story for marriage. Everything about woman being made from mans flesh leads up to the explanation of the two being carnally united.
Of course there are overtones of them being more generally made for each other (presumably including things like companionship) but that imagery and language used seems patently to be speaking about procreation or at the very least coitus.
They came from a single flesh and so they desire to be reunited as one flesh. This is *physical* visceral language. Again that doesn’t deny less physical implications, but the base meaning is, quite literally, fleshy. “You, oh young man, want carnal knowledge of that beautiful woman? Hey, that’s to be expected . . . . You were once physically one, and you want to be reunited.”
Am I just blinded by subsequent interpretations or is that not the obvious intention of the author?
Robert said
Porphyry said
This takes me to Robert’s point. I don’t understand why we should take this as God being unsure he could repeat making man from scratch. It seems to me the obvious point to the passage is to provide an origin story for marriage. Everything about woman being made from mans flesh leads up to the explanation of the two being carnally united.
I am not arguing against the interpretation of the two of them becoming one flesh being an allusion to Iago’s beast with two backs (Masoretic Text) or the child resulting from such union (more explicit in the Samaritan Pentateuch). Just offering an imaginative midrash. But in the story it is true that God sets out to make a helpmate for Adam from the ground and does not succeed. His many failed attempts result in all the beasts of the field and every bird of the sky. That’s a rather humorous accident of creation.
Ahh, I see you point. Thanks for the clarification.
Porphyry said
I don’t entirely follow the argument(s) here.First, gen 2:24 speaks of man leaving father and mother being joined to a woman and the two becoming one flesh.
You want to interpret that to mean . . . what exactly? Companionship? How is companionship (or committed friendship or whatever) becoming one flesh? We speak of close friends as one soul in two bodies. The physical otherness of a (mere) close friend is a conspicuous aspect of the relationship. Everything about that expression and image seems to suggest the author is speaking of coitus, presumably as consumated in a child, the most literal two becoming one flesh.
I just don’t see how that is at all ambiguous, nevermind wrong, as an interpretation of the text. And I don’t see how all that leads up to that line changes the meaning.
This takes me to Robert’s point. I don’t understand why we should take this as God being unsure he could repeat making man from scratch. It seems to me the obvious point to the passage is to provide an origin story for marriage. Everything about woman being made from mans flesh leads up to the explanation of the two being carnally united.
Of course there are overtones of them being more generally made for each other (presumably including things like companionship) but that imagery and language used seems patently to be speaking about procreation or at the very least coitus.
They came from a single flesh and so they desire to be reunited as one flesh. This is *physical* visceral language. Again that doesn’t deny less physical implications, but the base meaning is, quite literally, fleshy. “You, oh young man, want carnal knowledge of that beautiful woman? Hey, that’s to be expected . . . . You were once physically one, and you want to be reunited.”
Am I just blinded by subsequent interpretations or is that not the obvious intention of the author?
I think Robert’s point is rather comedic myself. But, no, I am hardly trying to imply an absence of “carnal knowledge”. I was taking exception to Augustine assigning the sole purpose of a woman to procreation as though she were a baby making tool. And when the brief brush I’ve had with Aristotelian thought comes to mind, Augustine may very well be going just that. He has reduced the woman to her most “useful” attribute — that of the womb.
I think the intention of the author is yes, to promote marriage and probably continuance of the family unit. Broadening the possible meanings for the root ‘-r-b [leave], and continuing his examination for the alert to a conclusion by use in 2:24 of the word “therefore”, Zevit writes:
“Gen 2:24 follow events narrated earlier in the story that perhaps justify the presence of “therefore”: . . .. In this context, with the failed animal experiment behind them “therefore” marks a conclusion that humans behave . . ..
“The verse implies that since parents birth sons and (may) provide those sons with wives, every son is obliged to care for his father and his mother and to cling to his wife simultaneously. Understood this way, the verse also alludes to the formation of extended families embracing three generations in a single household that were typical of Israelite society.”
See, by expanding the possible choices for the root ‘-r-b, to include for example, “fortify” or “strengthen” where it has been used as such elsewhere in the five books, he is able to show that a man does not leave his father and mother but strengthens the family unit by caring for his parents and clinging to his wife simultaneously.
Robert said
Wow! Augustine would prefer a male companion. I didn’t realize he was so LGBTQ friendly.I think the creation of man must have been something of a creative accident that God was apparently having trouble repeating so he had to take a part from Adam. Nothing in the Hebrew suggest this explicitly, but why not just create another person in the same way he created Adam? It seems as if he tried but failed to repeat his creation of the man (Gen 2,18-20). Anyway, that’s my personal midrash.
Ha! That’s what I was thinking too!! But now I’ve narrowed it down to Aristotelian influence. 
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)