1.
Rojas 1
Re-­‐Analyzing
the
Story
of
Adam
and
Eve
Maria
Rojas
Dr.
Irons
Women
in
the
Bible

2.
Rojas 2
Maria Rojas
Dr. Irons
November 27, 11
Women in the Bible
Re-Analyzing the Story of Adam and Eve
It is only two chapters long with only four characters. The dialogue is simple, mostly
short and concise. If the plot were put into a play, it would last no more than ten minutes,
perhaps even five. Really, it is so plain and straightforward, it too easy to narrow down…or is it?
Yes, it is the story of Adam and Eve found in Genesis 2-3. And yet, despite its “simplicity,” this
story is also abrupt, untidy, and full of ambiguity. Perhaps it is the lack of descriptive analysis in
the text itself that has generating multiple interpretations throughout the centuries, most of which
have been negatively portrayed. However, in the last century, modern theological scholars have
challenged these traditional interpretations and viewed this story more positively. Hence, the
purpose of this paper is to analyze such interpretations, generally held as “new,” revaluate Eve,
Adam, and the serpent through contemporary lenses, and to see how different interpretations are
demonstrated in popular culture.
Traditionally, the story of Adam and Eve has been analyzed and interpreted negatively,
particularly by the Christian theological doctrine of Original Sin derived from the Fall of Man.
Although traditional interpretations have put the blame on the three culprits—Adam, Eve, and
the serpent—they have put a particular emphasis on Eve’s deception (“And it was not Adam who
was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression." 1 Tim. 2:14). For
many years now, Eve has been condemned as the dangerous temptress who after eating the
forbidden fruit, urged Adam to do so, bringing down punishment on both of them. Thus

3.
Rojas 3
accordingly, Eve deserved her punishment of childbearing and submission to her husband,
Adam. This common belief was then spread to women generally, who were held responsible for
“bringing the original sin in to the world, and for being a continuing source of seduction”
(Wijnaards). Furthermore, traditional interpretations have also speculated that the serpent was a
disguised-Lucifer who knew how to bring forth temptation. Yet surprisingly, not much has been
said about Adam’s faults.
Although traditional interpretations are still commonly referred to, beginning in the 19th
century, different and more positive interpretations of Genesis 2-3 have emerged. In 1896, one of
the most well known women activists, Elizabeth Stanton, along with a “Revising Committee,”
wrote the book The Woman’s Bible, which became the first attempt by women to evaluate the
Judeo-Christian legacy and its impact on women throughout history (Stanton). Written in a time
were America was going through a somewhat traditional religious revival, The Woman’s Bible
was denounced by religious leaders across the country (Murphy). And yet, despite the
controversy it produced by its thought-provocative alternatives to the Bible, The Woman’s Bible
became a bestseller. Although Elizabeth Stanton generally viewed the Bible negatively—for it
taught the “degra[tion] of women from Genesis to Revelation”—she did found some female
characters in the Bible who were fascinating, such as Eve (Stanton). In her analysis, instead of
condemning Eve’s actions (eating the forbidden fruit), Stanton wittily praises Eve for her
“intense thirst for knowledge, that the simple pleasures of picking flowers and talking with
Adam did not satisfy” (Stanton).
And yet, although The Woman’s Bible had a lot to say, according to Cullen Murphy, it
has not been until the last forty-years were a “generation of scholars has found new ways to
interpret the Scriptures and the societies that created them” (Murphy). Among one the most

4.
Rojas 4
prominent female contemporary scholars today is Phyllis Trible, who unlike Elizabeth Stanton, is
a feminist who views the Bible positively. In a lecture she gave titled, “Depatriarchalizing in
Biblical Interpretations,” Trible argues that if the Bible is reinterpreted differently from
traditional interpretations, it does not say what centuries of male-dominated religious studies
have held them to say (Murphy). In other words, stories in the Bible, particularly that of Genesis
2-3, are not necessarily hostile to women. Instead, these stories in the Bible could actually be
reclaimed as spiritual sources for women. Although many do not agree with Phyllis Trible, her
theological ideology has influenced contemporary scholarship in which Eve is reinterpreted.
Reevaluating Eve According to the Order of Creation
According to Genesis 2: 20-23, Eve was created from Adams’ rib. Hence, many
traditional interpretations have claimed that because woman was formulated as a second thought,
she is inferior to man. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11:7, the issue of women’s veiling comes
forth: there is a questioning of whether or not women should be veiled in the church. In the
letter, the apostle Paul claims that a man should not have his head veiled, “since he is the image
and reflection of God, but woman is the reflection of man,” hence she should wear a veil. He
alludes to Adam and Eve’s order of creation, somewhat placing women secondary in the church.
This sentiment seems to reappear again in 1 Tim 2:11-13, where the author delivers a similar
message: “Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to
have authority over a man, she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”
However, these interpretations of Genesis 2 are not necessarily true. In her essay “Eve and
Adam: Genesis 2-3 Reread,” Phyllis Trible claims that when God created the man of dust,
‘adham, it could be referring to man or to humankind. Because ‘adham is a generic term, it could

5.
Rojas 5
be reinterpreted as androgynous: “one creature incorporating two sexes” (Trible). Hence there
was no differentiation among sexes as many traditional interpreters held it to be. In other words,
it was until Eve was differentiated as a woman that Adam was differentiated as a man.
Reevaluating Eve as the Temptress
According to Michael Molloy, it “has sometimes cynically been said that there are two
types of women in the scriptures: dutiful wives and dangerous temptresses” (Molloy). Eve, the
“mother of all living” has generally been considered an example of the latter due to her
“disreputable reputation” that began in the second century A.D. (Cornell). However, if one reads
the Bible closely, she is not only the temptress, but also the most colorful character in Genesis 2-
3. Though not much is said about Eve’s psychological state of mind throughout the narrative, we
as readers can infer the possibilities of what made Eve eat the forbidden apple. Furthermore, we
could also see how the consequences of her actions are not so negative after all.
To begin analyzing the motives and the consequences, however, I first put attention to the
already referred to notion of Eve’s deception. According to traditional interpretations, Eve is
blamed for being deceived by the serpent. Yet, even if Eve was deceived, should she really be
blamed for it? According to Nancy Coker, Eve ate before differentiating good from evil, so how
could she possibly know “what it meant to sin?” (Coker). To put this interpretation
metaphorically, Eve is a baby who crawls to the edge of the bed and falls down (“The Fall of
Man”), should she be blamed for her crawling? If she really is “naïve” as tradition has held her to
be, then she should also be faultless for her naïve exploring. Nevertheless, according to other
modern interpretations (in which I agree), this notion of a “naïve” and “deceived” Eve is
questionable in the first place. If one re-reads Genesis 3:6, Eve does not seem to be the “easy

6.
Rojas 6
prey for a seducing demon,” but rather an active character that consciously chooses her actions
(Niditch). She might not be able to differentiate right from wrong yet, but she had enough
intellectual capacity to see that the fruit was good for food and for the eye, but most of all, it was
a good source for wisdom. In other words, Eve is no longer the deceived or the naïve one, but
becomes the “more intelligent one, the more aggressive one, and the one with greater
sensibilities” (Trible). Before taking in the forbidden fruit, she had already evaluated the
prohibition, interpreted it, and decided to take the risk.
Hence, instead of condemning Eve’s actions, she could be praised for her strong
motivation (the promise of knowledge) and for taking seriously the “pursuit of experience and
insight” (Drucker). After all, who really knows what Eve’s situation was? According to some
sources, Adam’s portrayal indicates he was “passive, brutish, and inept,” “was blinded by his
self-centerness and lack of ambition,” and had “an underdeveloped capacity for fun” (Trible;
Cornell; Drucker). If such is true then, perhaps Eve was utterly tired of the simplicity of Adam
and her surroundings. Furthermore, as Eleanor Wilner suggests in her poem “Candied,” the
blame for Eve’s actions could also be placed on the limitations of Eden itself, for it was too
perfect: “how things had got so soft is hard to say” (Cornell). Thus, Eve’s desire of
enlightenment due to simplicity makes her take an active role in defining the world she lived in.
She knows there is something beyond the plainness of her life, and yearns to find out what it is.
Which she does: she learns what is good and what is bad. In other words, Eve risks her
life for the divine insight of God. Yet, traditional interpretations have failed to notice her courage
and labeled her “The one who brought death” (if it were not for the “Original Sin,” life would be
eternal). Nevertheless, immorality is not necessarily as idealistic as its been glorified. In The
Nakedness of the Fathers, Alicia Ostriker urges the reader to re-analyze death: “Reader you may

7.
Rojas 7
thank God for death, without which there’s no story. Reader imagine yourself imprisoned in
paradise, dying of wholesomeness, dying of heath, dying for a grain of poison” (Cornell). In
other words, Ostriker reclaims death more positively. Death is not a terrible consequence: it is
the cork of a torturous everlasting perfection.
Furthermore (and what is more importantly), traditional interpretations have completely
ignored the most significant contribution Eve has given to humankind: intellect. According to
Johanna Drucker, the stigmatization of Eve’s wisdom with “harsh punishment utterly negates the
power of embodied knowledge in women and men alike” (Drucker). Hence, shouldn’t we
appreciate the defining moment when the eyes of Adam and Eve were opened? Their act of
disobedience brought realization to life as the notion of ethical discernment was born. According
to Judith McKinlay, when Adam and Eve covered their nakedness, in their ashamedness, they
also reclaimed “their self-identity as human not animal” (McKinlay). That is to say, their newly
held ethics became a form of identity. (Ironically, the traditional interpretations that denounce
Eve are based on ethical grounds, grounds that were brought by Eve.) To put this analysis at the
other end of the coin, what if Eve had said no to the serpent? Perhaps it would have been a
greater offence. As Coker put it, humanity would have been static, “settling for an eternal
yesterday” when it was time to move forward, when it was time to wake up (Coker).
Re-evaluating Poor Adam
Although some traditional interpretations have blamed Adam for eating the fruit from the
tree of knowledge, the stigmatization attributed to him is much less severe than Eve’s. In some
cases, some interpreters have shown pity to him. In others, Adam has even been portrayed as
compassionate. For example, in the YouTube video called “Bible Stories for Children (2-20)

8.
Rojas 8
Adam and Eve,” when Adam learns that Eve ate from the forbidden tree, he becomes very
disappointed. However, because he couldn’t “bear to be separated from her,” he ended up eating
the fruit as well with her. Hence, according to this interpretation, Adam wanted to do what was
“right” as conscious character, but loved Eve too much, so decided to disobeyed God instead.
However, if this interpretation of Adam is analyzed, it does not fit the text of the Bible.
To begin with, when Eve offers Adam the fruit in Genesis 3:6, his actions were “He ate.” In
other words, he is “silent, passive, and a bland recipient” (Trible). He does not show any
reluctance towards the fruit, unlike the video would like to portray. There is no hint of hesitation,
nor does he theologize, contemplates, or “evision[s] the full possibilities of the occasion”
(Trible). As Susan Niditch’s commentary points out, when Eve gave Adam the fruit, “he [ate it]
as if he were a baby” (Niditch). Furthermore, as his character develops later on, he continues to
have childlike manners when he defends himself in Genesis 3:12 (“The woman whom you gave
to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate”). In here, he tries to evade his
responsibility by directly blaming Eve and indirectly accusing God. Hence, through his answer,
he almost seems like a “comical man” (Niditch).
Reevaluating the “Diabolical” Serpent
Genesis 2-3 has generally been held as the story of Adam and Eve. Yet its intriguing plot
wouldn’t have taken place if it were not for its third character: the serpent. According to
traditional interpretations, the serpent is a disguised Satan who tempted Eve: He was the
trickster, the deceiver who knew how to get his way. Nevertheless, such interpretation is
questionable. To begin with, at no point in Genesis 2-3 suggest that Satan was present.
Furthermore, if the definition of “trickster” is defined as Susan Niditch suggests, “a character

9.
Rojas 9
having the capacity to transform situations and overturn the status quo,” then the serpent is a
trickster (Niditch). Nevertheless, if the term “trickster” is defined as a character that uses lies as a
device to trick, the serpent is not. In other words, when the serpent approaches Eve, he speaks
nothing but the truth when he suggests that “the consequence of eating from the forbidden tree is
gaining the [godlike] capacity to distinguish good from evil” (Niditch). Furthermore, the serpent
also speaks the truth when it claims that Eve would not die by eating the fruit. In fact, according
to Genesis 3:22, God recognized that man could “reach out his hand and take also from the tree
of life, to eat, and live forever.” Hence, it was not the fruit that cause death, it was God’s
decision to kick Adam and Eve out of Eden that did.
Genesis 2-3 in Popular Culture
Whatever the interpretations of Adam and Eve (and by extension the serpent) are, it is
undeniable that they have greatly affected and are continuously affecting the particularities in our
popular culture, thus affecting our everyday lives. As Theresa Sanders claims in her book
Approaching Eden, one doesn’t have to be religious to know the story of Adam and Eve
(Sanders). In fact, nearly everyone has heard about the tale, or at least become familiarized with
it through its symbolism.
That being said, a particular interest of mine is to see how popular culture has legitimized
or revoked traditional interpretations. For example, according to Sanders, it is no accident that
Harry Potter’s villain, Lord Voldemort, has a snake mascot; “after Eden, we all know that snakes
cannot be trusted” (Sanders). Additionally, in the movie series, the demonic Lord Voldermort
himself is given snake-like features. The way this terrifying character is portrayed seems to

10.
Rojas 10
whispers Lucifer’s characteristics (he is wicked snake). Thus, in this subtle allusion to Genesis 3,
the traditional interpretations of the serpent are reinforced.
Nevertheless, other references in popular culture do
not reinforce nor deny traditional interpretations, as can be
seen in the cartoon to the right. In this reference to Genesis
3, the roles of Adam and Eve are put into a comical
contemporary “phenomenon.” Eve, taking the role as a
woman who is sensibly concerned with her body image,
asks Adam whether she looks fat. However, it is not Eve’s
preoccupation that is mocked, but Adam’s intellectual
capacity. Hence, as many modern interpretations have
portrayed Adam, this caricature makes Adam look like a fool for admitting that Eve does indeed
look fat: it was his “second BIG mistake. Nevertheless, unlike modern interpretations, Adam and
Eve actions are referred to as mistakes, taking the middle ground between traditional and modern
interpretations.
Yet, a third category of popular culture references actually
objects to traditional interpretations, sometimes subtly and at other
times, quite frankly. For example, many advertisements have been
made were its advertisers claim their products to be as good as the
“forbidden fruit.” In an 1943 advertisement (shown to the left), the
product (liquor) is actually named “Forbidden Fruit” and is claimed
to be “Incomparable as a ‘Gift of the Gods’—delicious and
delightful.” Such description is then rejecting the traditional notion

11.
Rojas 11
that casts the fruit eaten by Eve negatively. Instead of trying to stop customers (which are Eve),
this advertisement wants to seduce them, thus indirectly celebrating the moment Eve finally
decides to eat from the tree of knowledge.
Ending Thoughts…
Though Genesis 2-3 has traditionally been interpreted negatively throughout centuries
now, a closer view into the Bible reveals a much more complex story were a multitude of
interpretations can be seen. According to contemporary interpretations, the actions that Adam,
Eve, and the serpent committed did not necessarily bring calamity to humankind. Instead, they
brought possibilities. Furthermore, because of the variety of interpretations that Genesis 2-3
offers, references in popular culture are mixed. Some references support traditional
interpretations, others stay somewhere in between, and yet a third challenges them.

12.
Rojas 12
Works Cited
"Bible Stories for Children (2-20) Adam and Eve." YouTube. 8 May 2011. Online Video Clip.
Coker, Nancy. “Images of Eden: Sacred Apples or Forbidden Fruit?” Sunrise Magazine.
Theosophical University Press, April/May 1995. Web. 30 Oct. 2011
Cornell, M. Doretta. “Mother of all the Living: Reinterpretations of Eve in Contemporary
Literature.” Cross Currents 54.4 (2005): 91-107. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO.
Web. 29 Oct. 2011.
Drucker, Johanna. "Resident Artist (Guest) TESTAMENT OF WOMEN." Nashim: A Journal of
Jewish Women's Studies & Gender Issues 15 (2008): 202-211. Academic Search
Complete. EBSCO. Web. 30 Oct. 2011.
"Gramophone Scene 1943 Ad for Forbidden Fruit Liqueur." Ebay.com. JPG.
Huckle, Jon. "Man's Second BIG Mistake." DaySpring, 2008. JPG.
McKinlay, Judith E. "Eve and the Bad Girls Club." Hecate 33.2 (2007): 31-42. Academic Search
Complete. EBSCO. Web. 28 Oct. 2011.
Molloy, Michael. “Judaism: Women in Hebrew Scriptures.” Experiencing the World Religions:
Tradition, Challenge, and Change. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill, 2010. Print.
Murphy, Cullen. The Word According to Eve: Women and the Bible in Ancient Times and Our
Own. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1998. Print.
Niditch, Susan. “Genesis.” Women’s Bible Commentary-Expanded Edition. Ed. Carol A.
Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe. Louisville, KY: Westminister John Knox Press, 1998. 13-
29. Print.
Sanders, Theresa. Approaching Eden: Adam and Eve in Popular Culture. New York: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2009. Print.

13.
Rojas 13
Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. “The Woman’s Bible.” 1898. Sacred-texts.com. Web. 29 Oct. 2011.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible. 4th Ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.
Trible, Phyllis. “Eve and Adam: Genesis 2-3 Reread.”academic.udayton.edu/michaelbarnes/103-
W05/RG4.htm. 18 July 2011. Web. 29 Oct. 2011.
Wijnaard, John. “Women were Considered to be sinful.” womenpriests.org. Web. 21 Nov.
2011.