Nikita Poletaev, Period 6, 10/10/23

 Nikita Poletaev

Period 6

Due 2023-10-10

Analysis of Patriarchy and its Roots in Creation Myth

Based on a discussion we had in class, there seems to be a correlation between certain features in the creation myths of cultures, and the incidence of patriarchy in said cultures. Many creation myths formed in agricultural societies share similar characteristics: there was chaos before creation, that before animal life came a mother nature, and that there was no hint of malady in life before a single event. For the purposes of this ramble, I am interested in one quirk of this last feature specifically: that women are the source of evil in our world. Here I aim to attempt to explain – to both myself and the audience – why exactly this has affected society in the way that it has. I hope to achieve this by diving into the single most widespread creation myth in all of human history, that being the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis.

In the most common translation of this myth, God/Yahweh/Jehovah/Elohim/etc. creates the first human man, Adam, in the Garden of Eden. The god then proceeds to create Eve, the first woman and companion to Adam, from Adam’s rib. After some time living in bliss, Eve is tempted by a serpent living in the Garden to take an apple from the Tree of Life. She falls for the cruel temptation, eats of the fruit, and offers it to her husband who eats it as well. This is the source of the concept of “original sin” in Christianity, and all of humanity must atone for it, by default, for eternity.

This version of the myth is, like all others, an interpretation of an ancient Hebrew text. It is a translation of a language that hasn’t been spoken in millenia, and from my understanding, was often written without vowels. This brings up the possible issue of errors or bias in translation, which would completely transform the meaning behind the selection. For instance, the translation of the creation of Eve seems to be quite lopsided, both literally and figuratively. In the previously stated translation, Eve comes from the rib of Adam; this gives the impression of inferiority, of women being only a small part of the whole. In the original Hebrew text, this is written with the word tsela’. In all other instances of the word, it has been translated in the context of the side of something, or something lateral. This interpretation is, ironically, more broad yet more accurate. It conjures up the idea that man and woman complete each other, that they are equally as essential for human life and society to properly function. This is in stark contrast to the subconscious idea of inferiority that the “rib” interpretation brings. From this we can glean another issue with the aforestated interpretation – if Adam and Eve are truly equals, why then is Eve practically vilified in this story? Why is she implied to be this temptress, extending the influence of the serpent in the Garden?

The answer to this question, as we touched upon in class, seems rather straightforward once actually stated – power. From historical analysis, we can with great certainty assume that this was done to exert indirect power over the population by polarizing them. As Christianity continued to spread from approximately 1 AD onwards, it became more and more institutionalized and intertwined with the ruling classes of society. The church became equivalent in power to kings in kingdoms across Europe, where Christianity most spread to. Religion was the same as education for most. The clergy was even one of the three estates of pre-Revolution France, arguably more powerful than their King ever was. This institution had gained widespread power over centuries. It had to gain the trust of the nobility somehow, and the way to do this was to give them power over their people; and what better way to do that than to subconsciously turn them against each other? 

 The church was able to successfully twist the stories told to children to teach them about how the world works; they were able to ingrain in society this belief that the man is superior, for the farmer does all the work in the fields and his wife only keeps the house. This belief was widespread, lasting for hundreds of years, permeating only through the humbler members of society. The scholars writing these translations for the church, whether they were knowingly creating this bias or semi-knowingly proliferating it, were only part of the issue. They were more educated than the common person, and may have taken ‘creative’ liberties in their translations, using figurative language and the like. This would be perfectly comprehensible by the nobility, who were also educated and even more experienced with poetry and flowery language. But if we were to step into the shoes of the peasant, we would understand why the church’s tactics worked. You would go to your pastor for their Sunday service, your only day off from work. You, your wife, your many children would listen to him read from the Holy Book, the penned-down word of God. Surely, then, this word was literal and exact, for our God is all-knowing and all-powerful. To try to interpret His word otherwise would be blasphemy; it would go against God’s very will! 

Through time, as quality of life increased, as revolutions came and went, education gradually became more accessible. Some moved on from religion, others stayed. Old habits die hard, though, and the notion that the Bible is to be strictly interpreted became etched into the cultural heritage of the Christian world, even as it became more secular. Even after the separation of church from state, church is not separate from people. We are left with inequality as a relic of the lust for power of rulers of yore. While the inequality we see today is, like its roots, a shadow of its former self, it is still a major issue. Society as a whole has gotten immeasurably more educated. As we hang on to these obsoleted biases, we hang on to the patriarchy that has stemmed from them, and that simply has no valid place in our modern world.