(20 votes, average: 4.90 out of 5)
Loading...Why should women be subservient to men? This past Friday I gave a talk at a Pride Event in Chapel Hill, in connection with our Homecoming for alumni interested in LGBTQ issues (we beat Duke the next day in one of the weirdest final five minutes of a football game I’ve ever seen). The title of the talk was “Sex and Gender in the Bible” and the overarching questions were “what does the Bible actually say?” and “how much of it is relevant to a modern situation?”
The questions matter because the Bible, in many ways and in many passages, does not actually say what people think it says, and the reason for raising the question of relevance is not exactly what most people imagine (though it’s related).
What Does the Bible Say About Women Being Subservient to Men?
I had planned for the talk to focus on “homosexuality” and “same-sex relations” (which are the same thing) in the Bible, but I started out by explaining the biblical view(s) of the relationship of the genders, since the question of same-sex sex is closely related to it, in ways most people do not know and would not anticipate. I’ll do a few posts on the matter here, starting with the gender issue.
The first thing to be said is that unlike views becoming widely (though not universally!) shared in 2019 America, in the Bible there were two genders, male and female, and that’s it. Adults were men. Or they were women. Other options are not explored.
And for virtually the entire Bible the relationship between the two is constant: women are …
Want to keep reading? Join the blog! It costs a whopping 50 cents a week, and for that you get five 1200-word posts, on interesting and important topics, day in and day out. One of the goals of the blog is to raise funds for charity: every penny goes to help those in need. So why not come on board?
Well…Professor,
It appears you left no stone unturned here!
Are we to assume that man tried having sex with all of the animals and found them all lacking in that department? Or, was the problem that none of them could, or would, cook?
Yeah, nothing about sex there. Just needing someone to help around the garden.
. . or not sex, but conversation or companionship? If the dog had been domesticated already – or heaven forbid, the cat – there might have been no woman!
Personally FWIW (own theory!!) I think the writers who were inventing the Bible and all had womenfolk (at the very least mothers), were tired of their women being smarter than them and decided when making up the creation story to ‘put them in their place.’
My own theory. Men would typically be the hunters and protectors due to physicality. Women were the mothers and protectors of the children, meaning they would stay with them while men were out hunting. I think ti was perception that maybe the men were superior because of the inherent danger they faced from both animals and other men while out. Again, just me thinking out loud.
Great article. It demonstrates why the Bible should not be the sine qua non for modern mores, morals and/or ethics.
Do you believe Paul was fairly egalitarian? Assuming of course you’re only looking at his undisputed writings.
In many respects. I may need to repost on this.
Is 1. Timothy the only reason Paul gets a bad rap when it comes to equality?
Nope! More on that to come.
Since you are getting into the analysis of scripture based on human sexuality questions, I would like to get your take on the relationship between David and Jonathan, particularly what is said in 1 Samuel 18:1-4, and 2 Samuel 1:26
I don’t have a lot to say. It certainly looks like an intimate relationship, but I can see how it could be read differently.
I read that women can’t serve as priests in the RC because they are meant to be stand-ins for Jesus who, of course, was a man.
That’s part of it. Another part is in today’s post.
In all my years in the church I don’t think I ever heard a discussion of how strange it was that God expected Adam to find a suitable mate among the animals. Perhaps they were embarrassed by the implications, like bestiality? Regardless, it’s a shame that the Genesis 2 & 3 version of creation came to define the woman’s role; at least in the chapter 1 version she appears to be created equally with man, in fact, in the image of God along with the man.
wow, an omniscient god not realizing the animals would not be a suitable mate, who would have ever thought???
Very interesting and enlightening analysis, however, I think I we’d all be better off it God just gave Adam a nice sweet puppy dog. ????
Yeah, maybe so. But of course then we wouldn’t be here….
My thing (my ‘trouble’?) is I haven’t just liked the women in my life; I’ve also admired them; They have very often been the wiser, more steady, dependable adults around me; starting way back before I was born with my mother and the midwife who was single and ran a maternity home outside town. I was soon taught to HAR HAR And think men are cleverer, stronger, all the usual stuff. But clever at maths isn’t wise, and stronger at throwing stuff isn’t courageous. I’m just a genuine admirer of women, I guess. I honestly do think they have been the ‘stronger sex’ in my life.
And come to think, the men I admired were different: They didn’t BLAH BLAH pat sayings; they listened, thought, asked questions and then spoke quietly. I try to be that way.
Women are Ministers in Church of Scotland and have been for a while as are Gay men and women. It is up to the congregation to choose their minister and nobody can take that power from them.
When God created the animals, were they all male? Did he create female animals after he created woman?
Ha! Good question. Text doesn’t say. But it’s usually assumed they were male and female animals. Maybe God thought, hey, I could do that with Adam too….
Of course! He was single, after all. So it wouldn’t have occurred to him necessarily. Until Adam started kvetching. Also that proves Adam was Jewish . .
We’re unraveling Bible mysteries fast here. Soon we’ll have it all figured out . . (ri-ight! . . . )
Excellent post! I personally feel that this blog entry demonstrates the dangers of scripture when we take beliefs and ideologies from ancient cultures, attribute them as if they’re “what God says” making them written in stone and nearly impossible to change. With old ideas written in stone they become immutable keeping us locked into beliefs of the past where new data and information are not allowed. We’ve seen this demonstrated throughout history as societies have struggled to change in the face of outdated religious based dogma.
Okay, off my soapbox.
I was directed to this website that states the word “homosexual” was not used in earlier translations of the Bible (in many languages and cultures not just English) and didn’t begin showing up until modern translations of the 20th century.
Is this true?
https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27
Ah. I’ll be dealing with that in a later post.
Is it your sense that earliest Christianity and Paul began to support women as leaders in the new faith and then there was a retrenchment and crackdown to put women in their place as proto-orthodoxy began to develop?
It was great to meet you and have dinner with you in Chicago!
Yup!
Yes it was!
Dr. Ehrman,
I get how this thinking is at the heart of Judaism and then Christianity, but are you aware of how the ancient Greeks and/or Romans felt concerning a woman’s role in regards to man’s?
Thanks, Jay
Oh yes, that itself is a very complicated story, and can’t be answered in a sentence, in part bacause there were many different views and attitudes in different times and places. (In 2000 years if someone is looking back on the entire history of America and asked, “How did they view women?” I’m afraid I wouldn’t be able to say!)
Trivial thought…… have you considered that God never told the Woman about the tree? Nowhere in Genesis ch2 it says the Woman knew about the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Makes me scratch my head in puzzlement.
Then on another side note I could never understand the Christian idea of the ultimate sin that doomed humankind from the Genesis account. It to me doesn’t fit into the story. Unless one reads it into it. Again makes me scratch my head.
Not so trivial. That’s been pointed out before. And she also indicates that he said something about the fruit that he didn’t say!
If each chapter is taken as a stand alone story that would fit, but the first chapter states “ he made them man and woman”, so Adam was there and so was Eve when the prohibition against the fruit of the tree of good and evil. My problem is, who has a child and does not child proof the kitchen. Clearly reason, responsibility, and accountability were not Godly traits at that time.
I think the idea is that the woman takes her orders from the man. So God tells the man who in turn tells the woman. That was the ancient mentality. The story of Adam and Eve the way I see it is to make a point that women seduce men to doing things they wouldn’t otherwise do. The Arabs call a woman ” the night whisperer”. A man makes an agreement with another man, goes home and by the next day, both men already changed their minds. Who’s to blame? The wife, the night whisperer who talked him into changing his mind. This is the view of women in ancient times and in some cultures till today. Another point the story makes is that when a man listens to his wife, he pays the price dearly just like Adam did. Women were blamed for a lot of things. A woman is cursed by calling her a witch but men are not cursed by calling them a wizard. Women are the weak link and so the snake talks to her. SHE eats the fruit and SHE gives her husband some to eat. Here God talks to the man first because he should know better. The he curses the snake then the woman then lastly he says to the man: “You listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree, although I commanded you, ‘You must never eat its fruit.’. So the message here is that man should rule over the woman and not listen to her. This whole story is to justify the ancient tradition going on back then. It’s the way God ordained it and women just have to live with.
As you pointed out earlier from bible scholar Bruce Metzger, we are just talking about myths in Genesis 1-3. I like the way the stories blend. When God created Adam, mankind as I am told, He created ‘male and female’ forgive me, but this is still one being in his image. I was told by a Rabbi that everyone should have a Rabbi. So here we are with a male and female in God’s image. Now it is getting complicated because this image was not a man and man in God’s image or a woman and woman in God’s image, this was a man and woman in God’s image but not a woman and a man in God’s image. A Rabbi will tell us, or should I say told me, that a rib had nothing to do with this ‘myth’, it was the side the woman came from and where did she go from there. And why was his side covered with flesh? What was there before what ever was removed was removed? Eve? I’m reminded of the words of the former president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, when asked about the the rights of homosexuals in Iran. He answer “we do no have that phenomenon in Iran”. Perhaps we can safely say the that the writer, rewriter, polisher, editor, uncounted copyist and redactors did not have this phenomenon either.
One of my favorite scenes in the comedy Soap was a Texas woman talking to the gay character played by Billy Crystal where she learns he is gay and says, “ We don’t have Homos in Texas…least not live ones”.
Your comment reminded me of that type of denial so, Thank You!
Coming from a church which followed the literal interpretation of scripture, I think I can speak from experience. Long hair up, no make up or jewelry, always skirts, no TV, no sports, or sporting events, not even my children’s, and women should be silent in the church. I submitted to this for 38 years, and raised 6 children, some of which still remain, my husband a minister. How was I able to free myself? I was so devoted to Truth and concerned with suffering that the Bible began to speak to me from another level. I went through “ The dark night of the soul” for several years because I lost everything I thought I had acquired, but I eventually learned this was the death of my ego. There is no turning back once you know, but its truly amazing, and a journey worth taking.
Wow. Thanks
What a great post, Charlene. I very much relate to the “dark night of the soul.” Still going through that journey. At 49 years of age, I still suffer from fundamentalist orthodoxy and the damage it did to my whole being – my soul – the very thing many claimed they were “saving” with their dogma and literalism. I am slowly finding the light, but it is always a challenge and it seems like I still have those plunges back in to the dark night of the soul. Just wanted to let you know that your post spoke to me. Thank you.
so glad you were able to free yourself from this self imposed prison, I will never understand why women in particular become so entangled in such a false doctrine
Well done. Amazing courage. Best of luck to you!
With you brother… as Science Mike says I think, “It was my pursuit of God that led to my loss of God.” Hang in there man… I’m with you
I enjoyed reading your post, Charlene. I imagine it was frightening (to say the least) to challenge your identity. I have a parallel life-experience, not about a faith, but about my “place” in my family of origin. Had to work through thoughts of God / the universe striking me down for daring to question the order that had been set for me. There was also grief as I was “cast out”, not because my family won’t speak to me or deal with me anymore, but because I just don’t fit in their world, any longer due to how my thinking has changed.
Posts on gender issues in the Bible are actually one of the things I was hoping for when I subscribed to the blog. I’m very much looking forward to the further posts.
How does a Pride event in the Bible Belt go down? As a queer person, I’m glad to be on the side of the world from your neck of the woods, but maybe I’m imagine it all wrong and it went down smoothly?
In my part of the South, it goes down extremely well. But move five miles outside of Chapel Hill in a particular direction, and it don’t go down well at all!
Like Greensboro? Whoa. I moved here from Dayton, Ohio, three years ago and let me tell you – I had no idea how “South” North Carolina was – it has actually been very difficult for me in this new culture. I worked for 15 years for the University of Dayton, which is a Catholic university (and I am not Catholic) and it was such a community and culture of diversity and love – what I find in NC is that “bless your heart” really is not a nice thing for people to say! It’s hard to find my place here – like-minded people – seeking and open to discussions. I see very little of Jesus in what is Christianity today. Okay. Off my soapbox.
Ah, right, “well bless you!” Ha! Lots of nice things are not nice in NC! But I love it. The hardest part for me, moving from New Jersey, was realizing my sarcastic and cynical humor was NOT FUNNY down here. But, then again, I think I’m a better person for it. Oh my god, I’ve become a southerner….
Welcome!
When you start saying “over yander” THEN you will be a North Carolinian.
Yup, still learning the ropes, 31 years later….
It works pretty well here in Raleigh! ????
That is the product of Human writing books claiming it to be God’s words.
— O people, we created you from the same male and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes, that you may recognize one another. The best among you in the sight of GOD is the most righteous. GOD is Omniscient, Cognizant.
— “I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you male or female – you are equal to one another.”
— “The submitting men, the submitting women, the believing men, the believing women, the obedient men, the obedient women, the truthful men, the truthful women, the steadfast men, the steadfast women, the reverent men, the reverent women, the charitable men, the charitable women, the fasting men, the fasting women, the chaste men, the chaste women, and the men who commemorate GOD frequently, and the commemorating women; GOD has prepared for them forgiveness and a great recompense.”
These are three verses from the Quran. Looks like the Quran treats men and women equally when it comes to punishment and reward. Does the Quran grant both men and women equal rights in this world too?
I respect the Bible but I don’t worship it. My creation story is that somewhere along the way, humanoid species, maybe Neanderthal or Denisovan began to recognize motives and actions as being right or wrong. Genesis 1 & 2 are just one story told over centuries to suit one tribe or group.
You’ve got to wonder about this God– there’s Adam, with an obvious anatomy, and God is looking for a help mate and companion. So he creates a slime mold. No? Gee, how about a nice tuna? No, well, this lobster looks pretty hot– still no?? Choosy aren’t you? How about… an elephant! NO!? An amoeba! Maybe you like ’em petite! NO? NO? Well, how about… and this goes on and on through hundreds and thousands of species, from diatoms to bacteria (all created), and insects, and spiders, and so on. Fundamentalists believe this, apparently. The Bible says it! It must be true! You really have to wonder what these people are worshiping.
I have been intrigued by the theory of Harold Bloom in “The Book of J,” that the author of the J sections of the Pentateuch was a woman. He points out that these verses deal with women’s stories and issues to a much greater degree than either E or P. Bloom admits that J was no feminist in the modern sense. However, J’s women are indeed strong, determined and effective in achieving what Bloom calls “The Blessing” by any means necessary. In that he is certainly right. And I suppose we do have to admit that even if J was not a woman him/herself s/he was strongly influenced by a Jewish mother [actually Israelite], unless – and Bloom in fact suggests this – the author was a princess descended from Solomon through one of his foreign wives. [for Bloom this explains why J’s deity favors younger sons and, sometimes, younger or foreign wives.] The book includes a wonderfully rich translation of J by David Rosenberg, isolated from E and P, which I found very useful.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802110509/
“the serpent tempts the woman to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which both she and the man were forbidden by God to eat (there are roughly 823 theories about the proscription) (it is not called an apple by the way). And they are kicked out of the Garden of Eden and their life is made miserable. No more luscious low-hanging fruit: the man has to scrounge to eat by the sweat of his brow; and no more idyllic existence for the woman either: now she will experience horrible pain bringing forth children…”
Dr. Ehrman, would this be another etiological explanation from the author for all the hardships and suffering that life held at that point in history?
Yup!
I was always curious about the serpent — the one creature that could apparently communicate with humans.
“First I think of a man, I take away reason and accountability and wallah” Jack Nicholson, As good as it get.
“This made many of the women feel unsafe, and one of the groups described a situation to me in which ‘big hairy men’ would come in and have to be accepted into the women’s shelter even though it made the women in the facility very uncomfortable,” Ben Carson, Secretary of HUD.
Non Calvinist Christians often like to talk about God’s foreknowledge of knowing who would choose Him, but apparently in Genesis He couldn’t foreknow man would need another human partner.
Also interesting that having direct fellowship with the ultimate being of the universe and living in a paradise is not enough to be happy without interaction with other humans.
It’s a whole different thing when God himself orders you vs. someone telling you God Orders you to do so. Eve did not get a fair judgement in my opinion.
Another point. Where was Adam when this whole episode between the snake and Eve went on? Can’t be far since she ate from the fruit and gave some to her husband who was with her and he ate it according to the story. How come he wasn’t involved in the discussion?
I suppose it was a big garden….
Very interesting post Prof. Ehrman! I’m always amazed by how many Christians invoke the Adam and Eve story in a very literal way to explain aspects of reality and what it means to be human, despite the paradoxes and unbelievable aspects of the story.
My only contrary point is that the Roman Catholic Church does not really cite the Genesis story in their defense for not ordaining women priests. The defense is based on the male gender of Jesus, the gender of his apostles and his relation to the Church. Its a obtuse metaphysical argument that boils down to whether the gender of Jesus was a divine intention of God or a historical contingency of the life and time of first century Palestine (the liberal view).
Perhaps you can delve into this issue of Jesus’ gender in a future post. Thanks!
I can’t resist the snark. You mention the Catholic Church and why women can’t be priests. Oh lordy, lordy, they hate women so much that they’d rather be celibate and diddle the children rather then soil themselves with women. I can’t express my hatred for them enough. The damage religion has done to people is just abominable.
Yeah, I get it! Though I’m not sure that “they” do. But certainly some of them do!
In Robert Alter’s “Genesis: Translation & Commentary” he suggests the Hebrew word that the KJV translates as “help meet” is more accurately “sustainer” – the Hebrew word connotes something much stronger than mere helping. He published his life’s work “the Hebrew Bible: Translation with Commentary” last year!
Adam and Eve started out unaware of their nakedness like all the other animals. Then they transformed after eating an apple. That made them aware of themselves and subsequently caused the woman to experience extreme pain in childbirth. This sounds suspiciously like human evolution. As the size of the human brain grows, its functioning expands too, causing a need for clothing, and the increased size of the average brain causes extreme pain in childbirth.
Are there any translation issues that might give a favourable modern view of man and womans creation? Can I also ask you as a side question if it’s more accurate to read the Old Testament from a Hebrew Jewish Translation (and if so what would you recommend – Psalms 2:12 is a point of contention for example with the “kiss the Son” vs “Take homage to purity”) rather than the other main translations out there? Also I think you recommended the NIV for new testament if I remember rightly?
I’m not sure what you mean by your first question; all translations are different, with some stronger than others. My preferred translation is not the NIV (which I think has been affected too much ty the translators’ evangelical views) but the NRSV.
Thanks for replying so quickly. So I came across this site about the role of women from a Jewish perspective which has many quotes from the Old Testament supporting a ‘separate but equal’ view of men and women. It mentions words such as ‘built women’ as opposed to ‘formed the man’ which meant that women are endowed with a greater degree of “binah” (intuition, understanding, intelligence) according to Rabbis. Translations of single words can potentially alter the meaning. http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm
Thanks for clarifying your preferred translation of the New Testament. Do you use the NRSV for the Old Testament as well or do you have another preference? I ask as I want to read the Old Testament but want a reliable translation (see my comment about Psalms 2:12 as Jews would translate this very differently to Christians).
Yes, for the OT. NT I usually just read in Greek, but the NRSV is teh one I use with students.
It is hard to accept that women are subservient to men in light of Galatians 3:28, … neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female … you are all one in Christ Jesus.
However, I Timothy 2: 12-15 does say that … I don’t permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man; she should be quiet … Adam was formed first, then Eve … Adam wasn’t the one deceived … woman are saved through childbearing.
I think is was in one of your books, Bart, that I first learned that Galatians is one of the most, if not the most, historically accurate letters written by Paul in the sense that Paul actually wrote it, and that Timothy is suspect because it contradicts the general respect that Paul ascribes to women as leaders in the early church, e.g., Priscilla in a few letters.
This argument is hard to refute.
Yes, they don’t really reconcile
Hi everyone. Here in South Africa, a woman Judge lost her position due to stating that its in the African culture for a man to abuse his wife as they learn it from religion. Mmm… Because the world has lost Common sense, what is abuse and what is not now á day? Since white man introduced christianity in Africa, the Africans have made their own add-on to it in the literal thousands of different denominations. Eish!!
Commenting super late here and I’m know you’re diving more deeply into this topic in coming posts, but I did wonder what your thoughts were that the original Hebrew word is not rib, but sela, which means “side”, and within context of the bible is often associated with divine objects- “the side of the temple”, etc. Some scholars argue that this entailed a literal splitting of the first human in half, so that the resulting “helpmeet” was more of a “soulmate”. Getting a bit Jerry Macguire here, but my understanding was that the two complete each other. Is this a viable interpretation?
Also עֵזֶר (helpmeet) occurs twenty-one times in the Old Testament alone. Twice, referring to Eve in Gen 2, three times it refers to powerful nations Israel called on for help when besieged. In the sixteen remaining cases the word refers to God as our help.
Do you believe this complicates the interpretation of helpmeet and therefore the role believed to be asserted in Gen 2?
I don’t think there’s a dispute about the word — it is indeed “zela.” But it means different things in different contexts (for example it can mean the ridge of a hill; or a plank of lumber). In this case the phrase is “one from among his ZELA’s” — and that usually is thought then to mean one of the elements making up his side, that is, a rib. It doesn’t look like God is splitting the human in half but taking something out of him. BUT, there certainly were traditions (and scholars who have focussed on the idea) that hte original “Adam” meant “Human” (not “man”) and that the creation of Eve meant taking an androgyne and creating two beings, one male and the other female. In either event, though, Eve was created precisely to be a companion and helper to Adam (who remained Adam after Eve was created), not as his equal.
One of the various sources I’ve come across on my online travels is the “_magnify” Youtube channel, who highlights a few ways in which English translators are alleged to have made Genesis 2 more misogynistic than it really is. One of these is the translation choice to have Eve be made from Adam’s “rib” when the Hebrew actually refers to Adam’s “side” or “half” (I’ve heard this from enough independent sources to take it as fact), and another is the choice to describe Eve as “helper” when the Hebrew is closer to “rescuer”.
I think these points are interesting, but we should resist the temptation to exaggerate their significance. Less misogynistic than the KJV is a low bar! Burdening women with the role of rescuer has some rather ugly implications in light of, say, women who stay with abusive partners.
If you have thoughts to add, I’m interested.
Why would taking a rib instead of part of his side be more misgynist? In any event, translation is a complicated business and you often will hear solutions that have been *suggested* but not widely accepted. (As far as rescuer goes: did the program suggest she was needed because the animals that had been created were inadequate “rescuers”?)
The argument goes that a rib is small and insignificant compared to a person’s entire side, but you’re right, any argument that one translation is less misogynistic than another has to be viewed skeptically when the difference is largely in the assumptions the reader brings to it. For reference, the video sources are https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FN4pVp6lNJ0 (for the rib) and https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5Vv-E3n1ZTs (for the helper). Both videos are 60 second shorts.
Ah, I don’t think it says that God took his entire side, but that he took one of his ribs: וַיִּקַּח אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו Maybe on eof our Hebrew scholars can help us out here (I’m in a coffee shop in the middle of nowhere just now)
Robert Alter (a major Hebrew scholar) writes that Nahum Sarna observes that צֵלָע (rib) can also mean an architectural element. Strong’s concordance shows the word is also used to mean “side” (Ex. 38:7 – “the sides of the altar”) or even hillside (2 Sam. 16:13). In this context, though, אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו can’t mean “one of his sides” as humans only have two sides, and taking one would have Adam rather malproportioned (not to mention bleeding to death). A better comparison is to 1 Kings 6:15, which says בְּצַלְעוֹת אֲרָזִים (with boards of cedar), that is, “board” is similar to “rib.”
Philip Stern writes in “Wordplay in Genesis” (BAR) that “The name of the Sumerian goddess of healing, Ninti, can mean “lady of life” or “lady of the rib” because the Sumerian word ti means both “life” and “rib.” ” and suggests that ancient Hebrew scholars would have understood the wordplay.
I am confused. In this post, it is said : “Genesis 2:7: Then the Lord God formed “man” (Hebrew: “Adam”)” and then it is said ” this one shall be called Woman (Hebrew: Isshah), for out of Man (Ish) this one was taken.””
So, does Ish or Adam or both mean man?
I also found on internet that Adam comes from the Hebrew word “Adamah” meaning Earth/ Which one it is?
“Adam” means something like “human one” and becomes the name of the first such being. Ish means a male adult.