GENDER CONSTRUCTION IN THE Y AHWIST CREATION MYTH

Ronald A. Simkins

Although ostensibly neglected by the biblical texts themselves,

the Yahwist' s story of Adam and Eve in the garden has served
ever since as the basis for patriarchy and the subordination of
women. Or, as one feminist critic maintains, this story has had
insidious effects on women: 'Prom the Malleus maleficarum's
justifications for the persecutions of women as witches to the
continued debarring of women from the Catholic priesthood to
the advertising slogans for Eve's Cigarettes, the Genesis 2-3
story, as justification for misogyny, has pervaded and invaded
women's lives'. 1 In recent years feminist scholars in particular
have begun to challenge the traditional Christian and Jewish
interpretations of this story. Whereas some scholars, primarily
literary critics, have sought to redeem the garden narrative
from the accretion of its misogynist, or at least androcentric,
interpretations} other scholars have endeavored to understand

1. 5.5. Lanser, '(Feminist) Criticism in the Garden: Inferring Genesis

2-3', Semeia 41 (1988), pp, 67-84 (68).
2. Two influential studies are P. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sex-
uality (Overtures to Biblical Theology; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978),
pp. 72-143; and Mieke Bal, Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of
Biblical Love Stories (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Blooming-
ton: Indiana University Press, 1987), pp. 104-30. Although other literary
critics acknowledge that Genesis 2-3 is inherently patriarchal, Trible and
Bal have argued that the narrative's linguistic codes actually present an
egalitarian text. However, their interpretation of the narrative has been
criticized by Lanser, '(Feminist) Criticism in the Garden', pp . 67-84.
She argues persuasively that their emphasis on the linguistic codes of
the text fails to account for the context in which the communication of
these codes are performed. The context, she claims and the history of
 SIMKINS Gender Construction 33

the text within the socio-historical context of ancient Israel. 3

The approach of this paper is decidedly historical and cultural,
and thus stands closer to the approach of the latter scholars.
The assumption that Israel was a patriarchal society in which
women were subordinate to men is axiomatic in biblical studies.
Such a presupposition, however, begs a number of questions
that are rarely addressed: 4 Given that most, if not all, societies
manifest some form of sexual asymmetry, in what ways was
Israel a patriarchal society? Or, assuming that patriarchy
implies the subordination of women,s under what circumstances
were Israelite women subordinate to men? At the core of the
Israelites' patriarchy and the subordination of women, how-
ever, is the more fundamental question and the focus of this
paper: How did the ancient Israelites construct gender? The
Israelites' gender construction is their justification for the sub-
ordination of women and the foundation for patriarchy.6 The
sexual asymmetry depicted in the biblical texts must first be
explained in terms of the Israelites' own understanding of gen-
der. Only then can references to Israel's patriarchy and subordi-
nation of women be adequately explained.
Unlike other historical studies, this paper does not attempt
to locate Genesis 2-3 within a specific socio-historical setting
in ancient Israe1. 7 Instead, this paper interprets the garden

interpretation affirms, expects us to infer a patriarchal meaning for the

text's linguistic codes.
3. Most notably C. Meyers, Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite
Women in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
4. For an exception see Meyers, Discovering Eve, pp. 24-46. For a his-
torical perspective on defining patriarchy see G. Lerner, The Creation of
Patriarchy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).
5. Patriarchy can be defined in terms of patrilineal descent and patri-
local residence, which do not necessarily entail the subordination of
women.
6. M.e. Inhorn argues that patriarchy in the modern Middle East is
tied to conceptions of gender which result in female subordination
within the dynamics of family life (Infertility and Patriarchy: The Cul-
tural Politics of Gender and Family Life in Egypt [Philadelphia: Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania Press, 1996]).
7. Meyers, Discovering Eve, for example, argues that the garden nar-
rative expresses the concerns of the early Israelites' struggle for subsis-
tence in the highland frontier.
34

narrative as a creation myth that symbolizes, and thereby

constructs and reinforces, 8 the ancient Israelites' most
fundamental cultural values, especially their understanding of
gender. 9 Consequently, the understanding of gender expressed
by the myth did not arise from a specific historical occasion but
was part of the basic Israelite worldview. It was derived from
the Israelites' shared particular experience of their physical and
social environments, which remained largely unchanged for the
duration of Israel's existence.lO In other words, this paper will
argue that the Yahwist creation myth served to construct and
reinforce the common Israelite understanding of gender, which
was rooted in the people's experience of agriculture and
procrea tion. 11

8. Symbolic formulations have an intrinsic double aspect. They pre-

sent cultural patterns that serve as models of and models for 'reality'.
See C. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books,
1973), pp. 91-94.
9. On this understanding of creation myths see B.S. Sproul, Primal
Myths: Creating the World (New York: Harper & Row, 1979), pp. 1-30;
and the essays in R.W. Lovin and F.E. Reynolds (eds.), Cosmogony
and Ethical Order: New Studies in Comparative Ethics (Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1985). For the symbolic character of myth see
W. Doniger a/Flaherty, Other Peoples' Myths (New York: Macmillan,
1988), pp. 25-33.
10. On the construction of a people'S worldview see M. Kearney,
World View (Novato, CA: Chandler & Sharp, 1984).
11. Unfortunately, the articulation of the Israelite understanding of
gender is through the male writers of the biblical texts, and thus readers
are uncertain whether this understanding was also shared by Israelite
women. On this ethnographic problem see E. Ardener, 'Belief and the
Problem of Women', in J.S. La Fontaine (ed.), The Interpretation of
Ritual: Essays in Honour of A.I. Richards (London: Tavistock, 1972),
pp. 135-58. Nevertheless, because the Israelite understanding of gender
for which this paper will argue is shared by both men and women in
some contemporary Mediterranean cultures, it is reasonable to suspect
that this understanding of gender was also shared by Israelite women.
For a discussion of the modern cultures see C. Delaney, The Seed and
the Soil: Gender and Cosmology in Turkish Village Society (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1991); and Inhorn, Infertility and
Patriarchy.
 SIMKINS Gender Construction 35

Constructing Gender
Scholars who study gender and the social roles of men and
women have commonly distinguished between the terms sex' I

and gender'. According to this distinction, sex refers to the bio-

I

logical differences between males and females, especially in

their roles of procreation, whereas gender refers to the cultur-
ally specific patterns that are imposed upon these biological dif-
ferences. 12 Based on the facts of biological difference, sex is
assumed to be a natural and hence a universal category. Gen-
der, on the other hand, is a socially constructed category that,
although not reducible to or directly derived from the biological
facts, has some connection to these sex differences.
Because the biological differences between males and females
'furnish only a suggestive and ambiguous backdrop to the cul-
tural organization of gender' ,13 these differences are unable to
explain the differing gender roles of men and women. Any
explanation of gender differences must be found at the level of
cultural analysis where gender is constructed. Yet despite the
fact that gender roles vary from culture to culture and are there-
fore culturally specific, a number of formative anthropological
studies have endeavored to articulate the universal structure of
gender relations. This is not a return to a biological determinism
but an attempt to account for notions of gender that are present
in a wide range of societies and, in particular, a presumed uni-
versal gender asymmetry in which women are assigned the
subordinate role. The several analytical dichotomies employed
by these studies-most prominently the nature / culture14 and the
12. See J. Shapiro, 'Anthropology and the Study of Gender', Sound-
ings: An Interdisciplinary Journal 64 (1981), pp. 449-65 (449); and
J. Dubisch (ed.), 'Introduction', in Gender and Power in Rural Greece
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), pp. 6-9.
S.B. Ortner and H. Whitehead, 'Introduction: Accounting for
Sexual Meanings', in Ortner and Whitehead (eds.), Meanings:
The Cultural Construction oj Gender and Sexuality (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1981), p. 1-
14. S.B. Ortner argued that a woman's body and its functions are
viewed as closer to nature, and thus place her in social roles that are
considered to be lower than the culturally valued social roles dominated
by man ('Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture?', in M.Z. Rosaldo
36

domestic/ public15 oppositions-are derived from the same ｳｯ｣ｾﾭ

logical insight: 'that the sphere of social activity predominantly
associated with males encompasses the sphere predominantly
associated with females and is, for that reason, culturally
accorded higher value' ,16 Gender is recognized to be a social and
cultural product, but it is ultimately rooted in biological differ-
ence, for the male and female spheres of social activity are
defined by the role of each in procreation. In other words,
gender is interpreted as a cultural reflection of the biological dif-
ferences of sexual reproduction, which are assumed to be pre-
social facts, that is, universal.
In recent years these anthropological studies have received
extensive criticism from a number of quarters. 17 The most
revealing criticisms, however, are those that challenge the
subtle ethnocentrism inherent in the studies. By rooting gender
in the universal biological 'facts' of sexual reproduction, these
studies assume what needs to be explained. They have assumed
a culturally specific understanding of the process of procreation
that is not universally shared. 18 Ethnographic studies have

and L. Lamphere [eds.], Woman, Culture, and Society [Stanford: Stanford

University Press, 1974], pp. 67-87).
15. M.Z. Rosaldo argued that a woman's biologically determined task
of bearing children is reflected in the social dichotomy between domestic
and public social roles. Women, of whom a great part of their adult life
is spent bearing and raising children, are relegated to the domestic
sphere of activity, whereas men are free to engage in the activities and
institutions of the public sphere ('Woman, Culture, and Society: A The-
oretical Overview', in Rosaldo and Lamphere [eds.], Woman, Culture,
and Society, pp. 17-42).
16. Ortner and Whitehead, 'Introduction', pp. 7-8.
17. See the summary and references by H.L. Moore, Feminism and
Anthropology (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988),
pp.12-30.
18. See S.J. Yanagisako and J.F. Collier, 'Toward a Unified Analysis of
Gender and Kinship', in Yanagisako and Collier (eds.), Gender and Kin-
ship: Essays Toward a Unified Analysis (Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 1987), pp. 31-35. J. Hood-Williams argues that the distinction bet-
ween sex and gender assumes that the biological realm displays a clear
sexual dimorphism, that is, that it is a biological fact' that the world is
I

populated only by distinct males and females. The genetic analysis of

chromosomes, however, has made the biological distinction between
 SIMKINS Gender Construction 37

demonstrated that the meaning of sexual reproduction is not in-

evitable or universal, but is culturally constructed. 19 For exam-
ple, the social 'insight' that the male sphere of social activity
encompasses the female sphere is simply a particular cultural
interpretation of the biological fact that women give birth to
children and men do not. Other understandings of the relation-
ship between men and women are possible and do exist. Biologi-
cal facts do not have social consequences and cultural meanings
in and of themselves.20 The distinction between 'sex' and
'gender' is artificial; both entail cultural patterning. Rather than
assume that the biological differences of sexual reproduction
are universal facts, gender analysis needs to explain how a par-
ticular society, in this case ancient Israel, defines these differ-
ences. Only then will the appropriate cultural framework for
understanding how a particular society constructs gender be
discovered.
In the study of the ancient Israelites' understanding of gender,
two interrelated levels of analysis should be distinguished. 21 On

males and females problematic. Sex definition is not a 'fact'. Rather, con-
cepts of gender are implicit within the definitions of sex. In other words,
one must already know what it is to be a male or female before one can
confirm it genetically ('Goodbye to Sex and Gender', Sociological Review
44 (1996], pp. 1-16).
19. C. Delaney, 'The Meaning of Paternity and the Virgin Birth
Debate', Man 21 (1986), pp. 494-513; idem, The Seed and the Soil;
J.A. Barnes, 'Genetrix: Genitor: : Nature: Culture', in J. Goody (ed.), The
Character of Kinship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973),
pp. 61-73; T. Monberg, 'Fathers Were Not Genitors', Man 10 (1975), pp.
34-40; M. Strathern, 'No Nature, No Culture: The Hagen Case', in
c.P. MacCormack and M. Strathem (eds.), Nature, Culture and Gender
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), pp. 174-222; and Moore,
Feminism and Anthropology, pp. 25-30.
20. Yanagisako and Collier summarize the point succinctly: 'Sexual
intercourse, pregnancy, and parturition are cultural facts, whose form,
conse1uences, and meanings are socially constructed in any society as I

are mothering, fathering, judging, ruling, and talking with the gods'
('Toward a Unified Analysis of Gender and Kinship', p. 39).
21. Compare the three levels of analysis presented by Yanagisako and
Collier, 'Toward a Unified Analysis of Gender and Kinship', pp. 40-48.
They add the level of historical analysis, recognizing that conceptions of
gender change over time, which the subject of this paper presupposes.
38 Genesis

one level, the study of gender focuses on the social relations of

the men and women presented in the Bible and describes their
normative patterns of action. This has been the dominant
approach of biblical scholars concerned with gender in ancient
Israel. 22 The focus of this approach is not simply on what
Israelite men and women do, but also on what they should do as
men and women. The goal of this analysis is to construct the
people's social system of rules and regulations-implicit and
explicit-that an individual Israelite should follow if his or her
behavior is to be accepted by the community or society as proper.
The result of this analysis can be labeled the normative system of
the people23 or, in Clifford Geertz's terminology, the people's
ethos.24
Although largely neglected in biblical studies, a second, dis-
tinct level of gender analysis focuses on the worldview of
ancient Israel. The worldview consists of the people's basic
assumptions about the world. It is made up of the cultural sys-
tem of symbols and meanings that are embedded in the norma-
tive system. It contains implications for the general directions in
I

which normative patterns of action ought to take place'.2s It

provides symbolic templates for limiting and guiding behavior,
and solving basic human problems. In particular, the Israelite
worldview includes assumptions about how the people classify
gender differences and how these different gender classifica-
tions relate to one another. In other words, the Israelite world-
view includes a gender-role plan that is actualized in the social
actions of the people.
Because both of these levels of gender analysis are necessary
for reconstructing the ancient Israelites' understanding of gen-
der this paper, which primarily will focus on gender in the

22. Compare the numerous feminist studies discussed by Alice Ogden

Bellis, Helpmates, Harlots, and Heroes: Women's Stories in the Hebrew
Bible (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994). See also the essays in
P.L. Day (ed.), Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1989).
23. D.M. Schneider, 'What Is Kinship All About?', in P. Reining (ed.),
Kinship Studies in the Morgan Centennial Year (Washington, DC:
Anthropological Society of Washington, 1972), pp. 37-38.
24. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures, pp. 126-27.
25. Schneider, 'What Is Kinship All About?', p. 38.
 SIMKINS Gender Construction 39

Israelite worldview, remains provisional. The Israelites' cul-

tural valuations of gender cannot be isolated from their social
patterns of action, which must await another study. Neverthe-
less, the Yahwist creation myth is an ideal place to begin the
study of gender in ancient Israel. Not only are the patterns of
social behavior between men and women outlined in normative
form, but the symbolic meanings embedded in these normative
patterns are made explicit through the metaphors and structure
of the myth. Through this integration of worldview and ethos in
a single symbolic narrative, the Yahwist creation myth presents
a portrait of the ancient Israelite understanding of gender.

Gender in the Garden of Eden

Gender is not the primary focus of the Yahwist creation myth,
which extends at least through the flood narrative,26 but it is the
prominent theme in the story of Adam and Eve in the garden.
The garden narrative itself can be viewed in four movements:
the creation of man from the arable land (2.4b-17); the creation
of woman from man (2.18-24); the maturation of the human
couple through knowledge (2.25-3.7);27 and the social conse-
quences of human knowledge (3.8-24). The understanding of
gender in this narrative is presented through a metaphor that
compares procreation to agriculture, and is symbolized by the
structural wordplays between hti'tidtim and hti'adtima (2.7) and
between 'is and 'issa (2.23), and by the social roles instituted
for the human couple (3.16-19),28 The agricultural metaphor

26. The flood is the culmination of the Yahwist's narrative, which

begins with a dry barren earth lacking rain and a human to till the soiL
I

Although the earth has a human to till the soil at the end of the garden
narrative, the creation myth does not come to an end until the advent of
rain and Yahweh's establishment of the seasonal cycle at the conclusion
of the flood (Gen. 8.20-22).
27. Gen. 2.25 marks a transition in the narrative. It forms both the
conclusion to the preceding section on the creation of the woman, and
the introduction to the following section. Because the twofold theme of
this verse-the human couple'S nakedness and lack of shame-is
developed in the following section, it has been assigned to that section.
28. The centrality of the wordplays between ha'iidiim and hii'fldiimfi and
between 'ts and 'issa for understanding the narrative's presentation of
40 Genesis

employed by the narrative and the relational patterns instituted

between the first man and woman all serve to construct and
reinforce the ancient Israelites' understanding of gender.
The garden narrative begins with the creation of the man
(2.4b-17). The Yahwist begins the narrative in typical Near East-
ern fashion, by describing that which was absent at the time of
creation: the earth (hii'iire$) was a dry, sterile desert with no
pasturage or field crops.29 The Yahwist then gives the reason for
the earth's sterile condition: Yahweh had not yet sent rain on the
earth, and there was no man to cultivate the soil. Therefore, in
order to provide someone to work the soil and thereby bring
vegetation to the dry, barren earth, Yahweh God formed the
man (hii'iidiim)30 from the dirt of the arable land (hii,adiima).31 The
wordplay between hii'iidiim and hii,adiima-presented as mascu-
line and feminine forms of the same word-attests both to the
man's origin and, as Gen. 3.19 makes explicit, to his destiny.
Having his origin in the soil, the man is dependent upon the
arable land from which he was taken. Yet the arable land is also
dependent upon the man if it is to be anything more than a

gender is also recognized by J. Galambush, "adam from 'adama, 'iSsa

from ''is: Derivation and Subordination in Genesis 2.4b-3.24', in M.P.
Graham et al. (eds.), History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of
John H. Hayes (ISOTSup, 173; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993),
pp. 33-46. However, she does not recognize the agricultural metaphor for
procreation that explains the word plays.
29. For this translation of Slab hassiideh and 'eseb hassiideh see
T. Hiebert, The Yahwist's Landscape: Nature and Religion in Early Israel
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 37-38.
30. Some scholars have argued against translating ha'adam as 'man',
claiming that it incorrectly gives priority to male existence and destroys
the wordplay with hii,adiima. Such translations as 'earth creature',
'earthling', or simply 'human' are preferred. See especially Meyers, Dis-
covering Eve, pp. 81-82. Although 'adam can refer to humankind or a
human individual without specifying gender, its use throughout the
garden narrative implies a masculine gender. The male gender of
ha'adiim is made transparent after the creation of the woman with the
unambiguous phrase, hii'adiim we'istO, 'the man and his wife'. See the
discussion by Lanser, '(Feminist) Criticism in the Garden', p. 72.
31. For the Yahwist, ha'adama is a technical term for the fertile soil
that can be cultivated, hence, 'arable land'. See Hiebert, The Yahwist's
Landscape, p. 34.
 SIMKINS Gender Construction 41

barren desert. The arable land is dependent upon the man to till
it and sow seed in it for vegetation. For this reason the man was
created.
Scholars have long noted that the creation of humans from
dirt or clay is a common ANE metaphor. What has not been
noticed, however, is the cultural understanding of creation in
which this metaphor is rooted. 32 In the Mesopotamian creation
myths the fashioning of clay served as a metaphor for gestation
during pregnancy. In the myth of Atra1}asis, for example, Enki's
treading of clay and Belet-ili's pinching off of fourteen pieces in
order to create humans are juxtaposed to a description of the
process and rites of childbirth.
The myth of Atra1}asis contains two accounts of human cre-
ation. Whereas the first account presents the creation of humans
in an abstract and general way, the second account details the
process by which humans are created out of clay:
Far-sighted Enki and wise Mami
Went into the room of fate.
The womb-goddesses were assembled.
He trod the day in her presence;
She kept reciting an incantation,
For Enki, staying in her presence, made her recite it.
When she had finished her incantation,
She pinched off fourteen pieces of day,
And set seven pieces on the right,
Seven on the left.
Between them she put down a mud brick.
She made use of a reed, opened it to cut the umbilical cord,
Called up the wise and knowledgeable
Womb-goddesses, seven and seven.
Seven created males,
Seven created females,
For the womb-goddess is creator of fate (1249-60; S iii 1_11).33

This passage uses several complex metaphors. It begins by des-

cribing the process of making bricks. Like a brick-maker, Enki

32. See the discussion in RA. Simkins, Creator and Creation: Nature
in the Worldview of Ancient Israel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994),
pp.41-8l.
33. S. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gil-
gamesh, and Others (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), pp. 16-17.
42 Genesis

prepares the clay by stomping it with hi, feet, but in this context
his actions serve as a metaphor for the shaping of the fetus in
the womb. Mami, the divine midwife, recites incantations so
that the fetus will be born properly. This was a common task of
Near Eastern midwifes. 34 After her incantation, she pinches off
fourteen pieces of clay, which is analogous to the movement of
the fetus into the birth canal. Finally Mami puts down a mud
brick as a birthstooP5 and then delivers seven males and seven
females.
The metaphorical association between the fashioning of clay
and the process of childbirth is made explicit in the following
lines of the myth, which give instructions for performing the rit-
uals appropriate for a woman giving birth. When a woman
gives birth a mud brick should be put in the birthing house for
seven days in honor of Mami, and the mother shall sever herself
from the baby by cutting the umbilical cord (5 iii 15-19). The next
lines of the myth repeat Mami's role in the creation of humans,
but with more specific detail:
The womb-goddesses were assembled
And Nintu was present. They counted the months,
Called up the tenth month as the term of fates.
When the tenth month came,
She slipped in a staff and opened the womb.
Her face was glad and joyful.
She covered her head,
Performed the midwifery (I 277-84).36

Nintu-Mami unambiguously acts as a divine midwife and deliv-

ers humans, who were fashioned from clay from their mother
who is, ostensibly, the earth.
Most scholars have compared Yahweh's creation of the man
not to Enki and Belet-ili's creation in Atrabasis, but rather to
Khnum's fashioning of humans on his potter's whee1. 37 Indeed,
34. G.M. Beckman, Hittite Birth Rituals (Studien zu den Bogazkoy-
Texten 29; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983).
35. W.G. Lambert and A.R. Millard, Atra-basts: The Babylonian Story
of the Flood (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969), p. 153.
36. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, p. 17.
37. C. Gordon, 'Khnum and El', Scripta Hiersolymitana 28 (1982),
pp. 203-14; J.K. Hoffmeier, 'Some Thoughts on Genesis 1 and 2 and
Egyptian Cosmology', JANESCU 15 (1983), p. 47; C. Westermann, Genesis
 SIMKINS Gender Construction 43

this comparison with the Egyptian creator god is appropriate.

Yahweh's creation of the man from the dirt does evoke the
image of a potter who forms a vessel on his wheel. But as the
Great Hymn to Khnum makes clear, the ancient Egyptians also
attributed to Khnum the necessary and critical task of forming
human fetuses during gestation:
He fashioned gods and men,
He has formed flocks and herds;
He made birds as well as fishes,
He created bulls, engendered cows.
He knotted the flow of blood to the bones,
Formed in his workshop as his handiwork,
So the breath of life is within everything,
Blood bound with semen in the bones,
To knit the bones from start.
He makes women give birth when the womb is ready,
So as to open ... as he wishes;
He soothes suffering by his will,
Relieves throats, lets everyone breathe,
To give life to the young in the womb.38
Like a potter shapes a vessel on his wheel, so Khnum forms the
fetus in the womb. In fact, without Khnum's contribution con-
ception cannot take place. Or, as the Admonitions of Ipuwer
state: 'Lo, women are barren, none conceive, Khnum does not
fashion because of the state of the land.'39
Khnum's role during the birth process has been illustrated in a
number of wall carvings in the temple of Deir el Bahari depict-
ing the birth of Hatshepsut, Egypt's only female king.40 In the
first relevant scene the chief god Amun, who assumes the form
of the king, is tastefully depicted having intercourse with the
queen Iahmes, Hatshepsut's mother. After the intercourse, the
next scene portrays Khnum fashioning Hatshepsut on his pot-
ter's wheel. In the following scenes Khnum and his spouse
Heket, a birth-goddess, lead the pregnant queen to the birth

1-11 (trans. J.J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), p. 203.

38. M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: A Book of Readings (3
vols.; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973-80), nIl p. 112.
39. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, I, p. 15t.
40. For drawings of the wall carvings see Naville, The Temple of
Deir El Bahari (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1896), pIs. XLVI-LV.
44 Genesis

chamber, where she delivers Hatshepsut. According to these

carvings, Khnum is dearly the one who forms and shapes the
fetus during gestation. His work and skill as a potter serve as a
metaphor for his activity in the birth process. 41
Returning to th., Yahwist creation myth, Yahweh's forming
the human creature from the dirt of the arable land should be
interpreted as a metaphor for the man's birth from the arable
land. Yahweh acts as a potter by forming the human fetus in the
womb of the earth,42 then as a midwife by delivering the human
creature out of the ground and breathing into his nostrils the
breath of life. 43 The male hii'iidiim comes from the female
ha'Cidama like a fetus from its mother. The wordplay between
hii'iidam and hii'Cidiima establishes the relationship between the
man and the arable land to be like that of a child and his mother.
On who impregnated the arable land, the father of hii'iidiim, the
myth is silent. Yahweh might be assumed, but the birth process
has been abstracted to include only gestation and parturition.
According to the biblical writers, Yahweh does not participate in
sexual intercourse. 44 At least not directly. In the following verses
the Yahwist describes Yahweh planting a garden in Eden, caus-
ing every tree to sprout from the land (2.8-9). The text implies
that Yahweh sows seed in the soil, which is a common metaphor
for sexual intercourse, but even here Yahweh's specific involve-
ment is described only in terms of 'planting'.
In the creation of the first woman, Yahweh takes a different
course of action (2.18-24). Being unable to form a suitable helper
for the man from the arable land, Yahweh takes one of the
man's ribs in order to build an individual who corresponds to the
man (kenegd6). By creating the woman, Yahweh introduces dif-
ferentiation into the human species. Humans can now be distin-
guished as man ('f§) and woman ('issa). The terms used to describe
41. S. Morenz, Egyptian Religion (trans. A.E. Keep; Ithaca, NY: Cor-
nell University Press, 1973), pp. 183-84; Gordon, 'Khnum and EI', p. 206.
42. See Ps. 139.13-15, in which the psalmist compares his mother's
womb to the depths of the earth where Yahweh fashioned him.
43. Compare the discussion in D.C. Benjamin, 'Israel's God: Mother
and Midwife', BTB 19 (1989), pp. 115-20.
44. On the theological problem posed by the sexuality of God, see H.
Eilberg-Schwartz, God's Phallus and Other Problems for Men and Mono-
theism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1994).
 SIMKINS Gender Construction 45

this differentiation are explicitly social in orientation rather

than sexual. 45 The man is identified foremost as a husband, the
woman as a wife. The specific gendered social role of each indi-
vidual, however, has not yet been outlined. At this point in the
myth the Yahwist simply notes that their social roles find ful-
fillment in the institution of marriage (2.24).46
The relational pattern established between the man and the
woman in this part of the myth is complex. Trible has argued
that both the man and the woman have their origin in the
human creature, hti'tidtim, and thus represent complementary
parts of the human creature. 47 But the man, 'fS, is identified with
hti'tidtim throughout the myth. Moreover, the woman is taken
me'fS, 'from the man', just as the rib is taken min hti'tidtim, 'from
the man', suggesting that the woman has her origin from the
man and is thus dependent upon the man. Yet the wordplay
between 'fS and 'issa also suggests a complementary relationship
between the man and the woman. The man, hti'tidtim, is called 'ls
in order to emphasize the unity of substance between himself
and the woman, 'issa. 48 Although the animals and the birds
shared with the man a common origin min hti'tidtima, 'from the
arable land', no partner (,ezer) was found for the man who cor-
responded to him (kenegdo). His naming of the creatures distin-
guishes them to be unlike him.49 The man's recognition of the

45. R.B. Coote and D.R. Ord, The Bible's First History (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1989), p. 57.
46. A. Tosato, 'On Genesis 2.24', CBQ 52 (1990), pp. 389-409, argues
forcefully that the etiological reference to marriage is a late gloss to the
text from the Persian period. However, his assumptions of the verse's
discontinuity in form and content are not persuasive, and leave his
argument unconvincing.
47. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, pp. 94-105.
48. Galambush, "adam from 'adama, 'issa from 'lsI, p. 35.
49. The man's naming of the animals is often interpreted to be an
expression of human dominance or superiority over the animals. See
G. von Rad, Genesis (trans.J.H. Marks; Old Testament Library; rev. edn,
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), pp. 82-83; Westermann, Genesis 1-11,
pp. 228-29; Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC, 1; Waco, TX: Word
Books, 1987), p. 68. This meaning of naming, however, is foreign to the
Yahwist's narrative. In the myth, name-giving is placed in the context of
finding a suitable helper for the man. The significance of name-giving
must be understood in this context. As recognized by G. W. Ramsey: 'If
46 Genesis

woman as 'issa therefore signals her correspondence to him. She

is a suitable helper. 50
Although the myth's description of the woman's origin from
the man suggests that she is dependent upon the man, the
nature of this dependency is not explained. Moreover, the basis
for this ､･ｰｮｾｹＭｴｨ｡＠ the woman comes from the man-
does not reflect common human experience, at least in the final
stages of human procreation. All other men are dependent for
their existence upon the mothers who bore them. This fact' is I

acknowledged in the myth itself by hii'iidiim coming from

hii'ildiima like a baby comes from its mother (2.7), and by the man
naming his wife Eve because she will be the mother of all living
(3.20). According to the current scientific understanding of pro-
creation, which is less than a century old, human creation is
dependent upon the joining of the man's sperm and the
woman's egg in conception, each contributing half of the needed
genetic material, and the woman's uterus in which the embryo
develops until parturition. However, this knowledge is not uni-
versal, nor was it possible in the world of ancient Israel. The
ancient Israelites understood the facts' of procreation differ-
I

ently, and these 'facts' are symbolized in the myth by the woman
coming from the man. Although the man is born from the
'female' land, the woman is dependent upon the man for her
existence. The myth structures this ambiguous relationship bet-
ween the man and the woman, symbolized by the wordplay
between 'is and 'issa, in reflection of the mutually dependent
relationship between hii'iidiim and hii'ildiima. The specific depen-
dencies of this relationship remain to be articulated.
The pivotal episode in the garden narrative focuses on the
woman's dialogue with the serpent and her and her husband's
subsequent eating of the forbidden fruit of knowledge (2.25-3.7).
the act of naming signifies anything about the name-giver, it is the qual-
ity of discernment' ('Is Name-Giving an Act of Domination in Genesis
2.23 and Elsewhere?', CBQ 50 [19881, pp. 24-35 [34]). See also J. Magonet,
'The Themes of Genesis 2-3', in P. Morris and D. Sawyer (eds.), A Walk
in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden
aSOTSup, 136; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), pp. 40-41.
50. Compare RR Hutton, 'God or Beast? Human Self-Understanding
in Genesis 2-3', Proceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Bib-
lical Societies 6 (1986), pp. 128-41 (129).
 SIMKINS Gender Construction 47

By eating the fruit the human couple become like God, knowing
good and evi1. 51 The knowledge of good and evil-probably a
merism for universal or cultural knowledge-is what distin-
guishes the human couple from all the other creatures that
Yahweh created from the arable land. 52 Through knowledge the
man and woman gain the potential for culture; the human
couple become creators like God.
The specific way in which the human couple's newly acquired
knowledge makes them like God is indicated by the context. The
episode frames the man and woman's acquisition of knowledge
with references to their nakedness. Before they eat the fruit, the
human couple are naked and not ashamed. 53 The implication is
that the man and the woman are sexually unaware. 54 Without
knowledge they are like children unacquainted with the signifi-
cance of their bodies, and so their nakedness means nothing to
them-their publicly displayed nakedness does not call into
51. A number of scholars have compared the transformation of the
human couple to a rite of passage. See Hutton, 'God or Beast?' pp. 136-37;
and S. Niditch, Chaos to Cosmos: Studies in Biblical Patterns of Creation
(Studies in the Humanities, 6; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 31-34.
52. On the many interpretations of 'knowledge of good and evil' see
Westermann, Genesis 1-11, pp. 242-45; and H.N. Wallace, The Eden
Narrative (Harvard Semitic Monographs, 32; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1985), pp. 115-32. On the specific meaning of 'cultural knowledge' see
R.A.Oden, 'Divine Aspirations in Atrahasis and in Genesis 1-11', ZAW
93 (1981), pp. 197-216 (213).
53. Or, 'do not shame each other'. See J.M. Sasson, 'welO' yitbOsasfl
(Gen. 2.25) and Its Implications', Bib 66 (1985), pp. 418-21.
54. Shame, the complement of honor, was a positive social value in
the culture of ancient IsraeL Not to be confused with guilt, it refers to a
person's concern for reputation (honor). A person who is shamed, on
the other hand, has lost reputation by either acting shamefully or failing
to defend one's reputation (one's honor) against the challenge of others.
See the essays in D.O. Gilmore (ed.), Honor and Shame and the Unity of
the Mediterranean (American Anthropological Association Special Pub-
lication, 22; Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association,
1987); and the discussion in 8.J. Malina, The New Testament World: In-
sights from Cultural Anthropology (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John
Knox Press, rev. edn, 1993), pp. 28-62. For a primarily psychological anal-
ysis of shame see Lyn M. Bechtel, 'Shame as a Sanction of Social Control
in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming', ,SOT 49 (1991),
pp.47-76.
48 Genesis

question thffir reputation. 55 After they eat the fruit, however, the
man and the woman know that they are naked and they
appropriately cover themselves. The human couple are now
aware of their sexuality; their nakedness has significance to
them, and therefore they cover their genitals. They display
shame, guarding their public reputation so that they will not be
perceived as acting like a shameless person, a person without
honor. The fruit of knowledge has made the human couple like
God, and their similarity to God is symbolized by their knowl-
edge of sexuality.56 The ramifications of this knowledge, of the
human couple being like God, are spelled out in the remainder of
the narrative.
In the final episode the Yahwist myth presents the particular
social roles of the woman and the man as the consequence of the
human couple's new status of being like God (3.8-24). These
social roles are not simply described but, as the content of myth,
they are prescribed. Moreover, the social roles personify the
ancient Israelites' understanding of gender. They represent the
normative patterns of social behavior for Israelite men and
women. In other words, the first man's role as a farmer and the
first woman's role as a mother symbolize the appropriate
behavior for all Israelite men and women.
Scholars have traditionally interpreted the consequences out-
lined in this episode to be Yahweh's punishments imposed upon
the human couple for disregarding Yahweh's prohibition
against eating the fruit of knowledge. 57 But this interpretation is
inadequate. First, the woman and the man are not cursed for
their actions. Secondly, in only one case does Yahweh impose

55. See L.M. Bechtel, 'Genesis 2.4b-3.24: A Myth about Human Matu-
ration', lSOT 67 (1995), pp. 3-26 (17).
56. A striking parallel to the transformation of the human couple is
present in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Enkidu is created out of day and lives
like a wild animal. However, through a sexual encounter with a harlot,
he is transformed into a civilized man. The harlot's response to
Enkidu's transformation highlights the parallel: 'You have become
[wise] Enkidu, you have become like a god.'
57. See the standard treatments by von Rad, Genesis, pp. 91-98; and
Westermann, Genesis 1-11, pp. 252-67. Against these interpretations see
Meyers, Discovering Eve, pp. 86-88; and J. Barr, The Garden of Eden and
the Hope of Immortality (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 1-20.
 SIMKINS Gender Construction 49

what could be interpreted as a punishment on the humans-

Yahweh curses the arable land on account of the man's actions,
leaving it unproductive for agriculture (3.17-18). However, even
in this case Yahweh does not alter the condition of the soil.
Yahweh just temporarily withholds the rain needed for agricul-
ture, a condition that is alleviated with the flood (8.20-22). And
thirdly, the structure of the myth suggests that the social roles
ascribed to the woman and to the man are the inherent conse-
quences of their acquisition of knowledge. 58 The description of
the human couple's social roles in this episode gives content to
the parallel relationships between hii'iidiim and hii'iidiima and
between 'fS and 'issa. Yahweh's narrative role serves primarily
to institute the human couple's social roles and to explain the
implications of their knowledge.
Yahweh inaugurates the woman's social role by declaring that
he will increase her toils and pregnancies (3.16).59 Because the
woman now has knowledge and an awareness of her sexuality,
childbirth is possible. She will bear children, but such births will
be painful. Her life will be filled with the labors that are charac-
teristic of a mother and wife in ancient Israel. Yet the woman's
status as mother will be dependent upon her husband. Because
she is 'issa who comes from 'is, her husband will rule over her.
The context of procreation limits the extent and defines the pur-
pose of the man's dominance. The woman's social task of bear-
ing children is dependent upon the man; he will have control
over her pregnancies. The woman's relationship to her husband
is analogous to the man's relationship to the arable land.
Although the man comes from the land, the arable land is
dependent upon the man to bring forth vegetation. It will
remain a barren desert without the man to till it and sow seed in
it. Similarly, the woman's ability to bear children is dependent
upon her husband, who must first impregnate her. The woman
is like the arable land in that the fecundity of both is linked to the
man's sowing of seed; but, whereas the land had given birth to
the first man due to Yahweh's activity, all future generations

58. Compare the argument made by B.D. Naidoff, 'A Man to Work
the Soil: A New Interpretation of Genesis 2-3', lSOT 5 (1978), pp. 2-14.
59. On the translation of Gen. 3.16 see Meyers, Discovering Eve,
pp.95-121.
50 Genesis

will be born from the woman. 60 Rather than the arable lana, the
woman will be the mother of all living (3.20).
Although the Yahwist myth describes the woman's social role
in relation to the man, the man's social role is described in rela-
tion to the arable land (3.17-19). The man's newly acquired
knowledge and awareness of sexuality is expressed not in terms
of procreation, but in terms of agriculture. The man now has the
knowledge to work the arable land, which is the purpose for
which he was created. No longer will the man live off the fruit
of God's garden. Through his toil and sweat the man will pro-
vide for his own subsistence-a task made more arduous until
the advent of rain. 61 The man will be like Yahweh in his social
role of working the soil. Just as Yahweh planted a garden and
caused trees to sprout up from the earth, the man will also bring
forth life from the barren ground. Yet, unlike Yahweh, the man's
fate is linked to the arable land from which he came.

The Yahwist's Construction of Gender

Gender in ancient Israel is rooted in the biological differences of
sexual reproduction. The woman will be a mother, giving birth
to children, because only she is biologically capable. However,
this biological connection-the biological fact that women bear
children--does not account for the woman's relationship to the
man, nor do biological facts explain why the man is described as
a farmer. The biological differences between men and women
have no meaning in and of themselves. They are meaningful
only when they are culturally defined. The ancient Israelites'
understanding of gender results from their cultural construction
of these biological differences.
The Yahwist creation myth expresses through its metaphors
and structure the Israelites' particular understanding of the
60. That the Yahwist relates human procreation to agriculture is also
recognized by H. Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism: An Anthro-
pology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism (Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press, 1990), p. 161.
61. According to the Yahwist, the rain of the flood will bring relief to
the curse on the arable land (Gen. 5.29); and the end of the curse after the
flood is signaled by God's inauguration of the seasonal cycle, entailing
the regular occurrence of rain (Gen. 8.20-22).
 SIMKINS Gender Construction 51

biological differences of sexual reproduction. The man's birth

from the ground, the woman's creation from and dependence
upon the man, the association of the fruit of knowledge with
sexual awareness, the parallel relationships between ha'adam
and ha'ddama and between 'fS and 'issa, and the woman's
association with the arable land, all serve to compare the
process of procreation to agriculture. 62 Just as a man sows seeds
into the soil and thereby causes the arable land to produce
vegetation, a man can sow his seed, semen, into a woman
causing her to give birth to a child.
The man's role in procreation is metaphorically compared to
the role of a farmer. As a father and a farmer, the man provides
what is essential for life: seed and semen. Moreover, the man's
semen, like seed, determines the character or quality of what
will be produced; it contains all the essential characteristics of
the child that will be born. The woman's role in procreation is
metaphorically compared to the arable land's. Like the soil, a
woman nurtures to full development the seed that is planted
within her. But although a man is dependent upon a woman for
his own procreation, she contributes nothing essential to the
makeup of the newborn child. The woman's role in procreation
is dependent upon the man's seed. The gender relations con-
structed by the Yahwist creation myth are illustrated in the fol-
lowing diagram:

62. Elsewhere in the biblical tradition, procreation is explicitly com-

pared to agriculture in Wis. 7.1-4 and Sir. 26.20-21.
52 Genesis

Agriculture Procreation

Yahweh (Yahweh?)

planted
II metaphor? ｾ＠ I(semen?)
+ t
hii'itdiimd hii'itdamd

ｾ＠
Divine
birth
ﾷｾｭ［ｴ｡ｐｨｯｲ＠
Human
hii'iidiim =======''is
I
seed ｾ＠ remen

hii'itdamd
+ metaphor --...' iSsa
I
germination 1 ｾ＠ birth

sfal;. wteseb hassadeh k6l l;.ay

Gender in ancient Israel is not constructed so that the male

sphere of activity encompasses the female sphere of activity.
The relationship between men and women is not metonymic.
Rather, the gendered social spheres of Israelite men and women
are of different kinds, and they are related to each other in terms
of metaphor. The man is like a farmer and the woman is like the
arable land.