Gender Construction in the Yahwist Creation Myth
I. Introduction: Constructing Gender
Scholars who study gender and the social roles of men and women have commonly distinguished between the terms "sex" and "gender." According to this distinction, sex refers to the biological differences between males and females, especially in their roles of procreation, whereas gender refers to the culturally specific patterns which are imposed upon these biological differences. Based on the facts of biological difference, sex is assumed to be a natural, and hence, a universal category. Gender on the other hand is a socially constructed category which, 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 cultural organization of gender" (Ortner and Whitehead 1981: 1), 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 therefore 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 universal gender asymmetry in which women are assigned the subordinate role. The several analytical dichotomies employed by these studies-most prominently, the nature/culture and the domestic/public oppositions-are derived from the same sociological 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" (Ortner and Whitehead 1981: 7-8). Gender is recognized to be a social and cultural product, but it is ultimately rooted in biological difference, 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 differences of sexual reproduction which are assumed to be presocial facts, that is, universal.
In recent years these anthropological studies have received extensive criticism from a number of quarters. The criticisms which are most revealing, however, are those which 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. Ethnographic studies have demonstrated that the meaning of sexual reproduction is not inevitable or universal, but is culturally constructed. For example, 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 relationship between men and women are possible and do exist. Biological facts do not have social consequences and cultural meanings in and of themselves (Yanagisako and Collier 1987: 39). 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, we need to explain how a particular society defines these differences. Only then do we have the appropriate cultural framework for understanding how a particular society constructs gender.
In the study of a people's understanding of gender two interrelated levels of analysis should be distinguished. First, the study of gender focuses on the social relations of the men and women and their normative patterns of action. The focus is not simply on what men and women do, but also on what men and women should do. The goal of this analysis is to construct the people's social system of rules and regulations-implicit and explicit-that an individual 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 people (David Schneider), or in Clifford Geertz's terminology, the people's ethos.
A second, distinct level of gender analysis focuses on the worldview of the people. The worldview consists of the people's basic assumptions about the world. It is made up of the cultural system of symbols and meanings that are embedded in the normative system. It "contains implications for the general directions in which normative patterns of action ought to take place" (Schneider 1972: 38). It provides symbolic templates for limiting and guiding behavior, and solving basic human problems. In particular, the worldview includes assumptions about how the people classify gender differences, and how these different gender classifications relate to another. In other words, the people's worldview includes a gender-role plan which is actualized in the social actions of the people.
Both of these levels of gender analysis are necessary for reconstructing the ancient Israelites' understanding of gender. Their cultural valuations of gender cannot be isolated from their social patterns of action. In relation to these two levels of analysis, 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 expressed in normative form, but the symbols and 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.
II. Analysis of the Yahwist Creation Myth: Genesis 2:4b-3:24.
Gender is not the primary focus of the Yahwist creation myth, which extends at least through the flood narrative, but it is the prominent theme in the garden narrative. The creation metaphors employed by the narrative and the relational patterns instituted between the first man and woman all serve to express and reinforce the ancient Israelites' understanding of gender.
The garden narrative begins with the creation of the human creature (2:4b-17). In order to provide someone to work the ground, and thereby bring vegetation to the dry, barren earth, Yahweh God formed the human creature ('adam) from the dirt of the ground ('adamah). The wordplay attests both to the human creature's origin and, as Genesis 3:19 makes explicit, to his destiny. The human creature is dependent upon the ground from which he was taken. Yet the ground is dependent upon the human if it is to be anything more than a barren desert. The ground is dependent upon the human to till it and sow seed in it for vegetation. For this reason the human was created.
Scholars have long noted that the creation of humans from dirt or clay is a common ancient Near Eastern metaphor. What has not been noticed, however, is the cultural understanding of creation in which this metaphor is rooted. I have argued elsewhere that the fashioning of clay served as a metaphor for gestation during pregnancy. In the Mesopotamian myth of Atrahasis, 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.
Most scholars have compared Yahweh's creation of the human creature not to Enki and Belet-ili's creation in Atrahasis, but rather to Khnum's fashioning of humans on his potter's wheel. Indeed, this comparison with the Egyptian creator god is appropriate. Yahweh's creation of the human from the dirt of the ground does evoke the image of a potter who forms a vessel on his wheel. But as several hymns to Khnum make clear, the ancient Egyptians also attributed to Khnum the necessary and critical task of forming human fetuses during gestation. His role during the birth process has been beautifully illustrated on a number of wall carvings in the temple of Deir el Bahari that depict the birth of Hatshepsut, Egypt's only female king. 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 potter's wheel. Then in the following scenes, Khnum and his spouse Heket, a birth-goddess, lead the pregnant queen to the birth chamber where she delivers Hatshepsut. According to these carvings, Khnum is clearly 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.
Returning to the Yahwist creation myth, Yahweh's forming the human creature from the dirt of the ground should be interpreted as a metaphor for humankind's birth from the earth. Yahweh acts as a potter by forming the human fetus in the womb of the earth, and then Yahweh acts as a midwife by delivering the human creature out of the earth, breathing into his nostrils the breath of life. On who impregnated the earth, 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 intercourse. At least not directly. In the following verses the Yahwist describes Yahweh planting a garden in Eden, causing every tree to sprout from the ground. The text implies that Yahweh sows seed in the ground which is a common metaphor for sexual intercourse, but even here Yahweh's specific involvement in the process remains abstract.
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 human creature from the ground, Yahweh splits the human creature in order to create two complementary individuals: man ('ish) and woman ('ishshah). By splitting the human creature, Yahweh introduces differentiation into the human species, but the terms used to describe this differentiation are explicitly social in orientation rather than sexual. The man is identified foremost as a husband, the woman as a wife. The specific social roles of each individual, however, have not yet been outlined. At this point in the myth the Yahwist simply notes that their complementary social roles find fulfillment in the institution of marriage.
The relational pattern established between the man and the woman is complex. They both have their origin in the human creature, 'adam, and thus express complementary parts of the human creature. But the man, 'ish, is identified with 'adam throughout the myth and the woman is "taken from the man," suggesting that the woman is somehow dependent upon the man. Although the myth claims that the woman's origin is dependent upon the man, this dependency is not obvious, nor does it reflect our experience. All other men are dependent upon women for their creation through childbirth. Nevertheless, the myth structures this ambiguous relationship between the man and the woman, symbolized by the wordplay between 'ish and 'ishshah, in reflection of the mutually dependent relationship between 'adam and 'adamah. The specific dependencies of this relationship, however, remain to be articulated.
The pivotal episode (2:25-3:7) 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. By eating the fruit, the human couple become like God knowing good and evil. The knowledge of good and evil-probably a merism for universal or cultural knowledge-is what distinguishes the human couple from all the other creatures that Yahweh created from the ground. 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. The implication is that the man and woman are sexually unaware. Without knowledge they are like children unacquainted with the significance of their bodies, and so their nakedness means nothing to them. After they eat the fruit, however, the man and woman know that they are naked and they appropriately cover themselves. The human couple are now aware of their sexuality; their nakedness has significance and therefore they cover their genitals. The fruit of knowledge has made the human couple like God, and their similarity to God is symbolized by their knowledge of sexuality. 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 (3:8-24) 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. These social roles are not simply described, but as the content of myth they are prescribed. 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 outlined in this episode to be Yahweh's punishments imposed upon the human couple for disregarding Yahweh's prohibition against eating the fruit of knowledge. But this interpretation is inadequate. First, the woman and the man are not cursed for their actions. Second, in only one case does Yahweh impose what could be interpreted as a punishment on the humans-Yahweh curses the ground on account of the man's actions, leaving it unproductive for agriculture. However, even in this case Yahweh does not alter the condition of the ground. Yahweh just withholds temporarily the rain needed for agriculture, a condition which is alleviated with the flood. And third, the structure of the myth suggests that the social roles ascribed to the woman and to the man are the inherent consequences of their acquisition of knowledge. The description of the human couple's social roles in this episode gives content to the parallel relationships between 'adam and 'adamah and between 'ish and 'ishshah. 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. 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 characteristic of a mother and wife in ancient Israel. Yet the woman's status as mother will be dependent upon her husband, for her husband will rule over her-that is, have control over her pregnancies. The woman's relationship to her husband is analogous to the man's relationship to the ground. Although the man comes from the ground, the ground 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 ground in that the fecundity of both is linked to the man's sowing of seed, but whereas the ground had given birth to the first man due to Yahweh's activity, all future generations will be born from the woman. Rather than the ground, the woman will be the mother of all living.
Although the Yahwist myth describes the woman's social role in relation to the man, the man's social role is described in relation to the ground. 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 ground, 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 provide for his own subsistence-a task which is made more arduous until the advent of rain. 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 ground from which he came.
III. Conclusion: Gender in Ancient Israel
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 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 'adam and 'adamah and between 'ish and 'ishshah, and the woman's association with the ground all serve to compare
the process of procreation to agriculture. Just as a man sows
seeds into the ground and thereby causes the earth 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. Both provide
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 ground. Like the ground, a woman
nurtures to full development the seed that is planted within her.
But although the man is dependent upon the woman for procreation,
she contributes nothing essential to the makeup of the new born
child. The woman's role in procreation is dependent upon the man's
seed.
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 spheres of Israelite men and women are of different kinds, and they are related to each other in terms of agricultural metaphor.
For a summary of the implications of Israel's gender construction, see Women in the Mediterranean.