Know Your Bible: Biblical Femmes Fatales - Episode One: Eve

Introduction

In this series of posts I will outline examples in biblical literature of the femme fatale, defined as a woman whose mysterious and seductive qualities ensnare males into dangerous and deadly lapses of judgement. But I will expand it to include, as well, biblical stories in which women directly kill for various motives.

We begin with the all-time classic archetypal Femme Fatale. The one who reportedly brought death itself into the world.

Adam and Eve, by Julius Paulsen

1. Eve

She has to be on this list because she has been blamed for the Fall of Man by theologians throughout the centuries. And it is not surprising that a patriarchal society would seek to blame all ills on a woman. But the actual biblical text indicates that this treatment is far from fair. At the base of it, Genesis 3 is simply an etiology for why snakes don't have legs and people wear clothes. And Adam fully shares culpability in the event.

The Original Text

Eve Tempted, by John Stanhope

The serpent in Genesis 3 asked Eve if they were allowed to eat of any of the fruit in the Garden of Eden. Eve told the serpent that they could eat of any fruit, with the exception of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They had previously been told that "on the day you eat of it, you will surely die ( ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות )" (Gen 2:17).

The serpent told Eve that this was not true. He said that the reason God did not want them to eat of that fruit was that when they ate of it, Adam and Eve themselves would become like gods, knowing good and evil.

The text then states:

"She took some of its fruit and ate it. And she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." (Gen 3:6)

Notice, the text implies that Adam was standing right beside her the whole time! If he was so virtuous, why was he not protesting this violation of the single command God had given them?

Anyway, the text goes on to say, "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked. So they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves." (Gen 3:7)

God interrogates them and learns what has happened. Adam blames Eve.

God had given him Eve as a helpmate suitable for him ( עזר כנגדו ) (Gen 2:18). And when he saw her, he declared that she was "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" ( עצם מעצמי ובשר מבשרי ) (Gen 2:23).

The Fall of Man, by Peter Paul Rubens

But now he throws her under the bus and says, "The woman whom you put here with me--she gave me fruit from the tree and so I ate it." (Gen 3:12)

He's half implying that it's God's fault as well for putting her here in the first place!

Eve blames the serpent (Gen 3:12-13). God accepts no excuses. He curses the serpent to be a legless animal that must ever after crawl on its belly (Gen 3:14). He punishes Eve by declaring that she shall have now greater pain in childbearing (Gen 3:16). He punishes Adam by declaring that ever after he shall toil to raise food amidst thorns and thistles. And by the sweat of his brow shall he get bread to eat (Gen 3:18-19).

And the threat that they would die because of eating that fruit is realized:

"Until you return to the ground, from which you were taken. For you are dirt, and unto dirt you shall return." (Gen 3:19)


The Rehabilitation of "The Woman"

The Church came to view the Virgin Mary as an Anti-Eve. An example of this is found in the writings of St. Irenaeus of Lyon, who wrote:

For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith. (Against Heresies 3.22.4)

And so, despite the still somewhat patriarchal character of the historical Church (the Catholic and Orthodox Communions), we sing praises to Mary that far and away undo any denigration of our archetypal Mother Eve.

We sing to Mary every Sunday:

More Honorable than the Cherubim. And beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim. Without defilement you gave birth to God the Word. True Birth-Giver of God, we magnify you!

Know Your Bible: Cain and Abel - the Archetypal Fratricide

According to Genesis 4:1-2, the first two humans, Adam and Eve, had a son Cain, who was a tiller of the soil, and a son Abel, who was a keeper of flocks.

The trouble starts when Cain and Abel brought offerings from their efforts to the LORD (Gen 4:3-4). 

When the Lord looked with favor on Abel's offering--but not on Cain's--Cain was (somewhat understandably) discouraged. 

The LORD addresses Cain's resentfulness with an enigmatic statement (Gen 4:7):

If you do well, will not your head be lifted up? But if you don't, sin crouches at the door. It's desire is for you. You must master it.

הלוא אם־תיטיב שאת ואם לא תיטיב לפתח חטאת רבץ ואליך תשוקתו ואתה תמשל־בו׃

There is clearly background information original readers of this text knew that made this statement understandable. Without this knowledge, any interpretation of this verse is unconvincing speculation.

Peter Paul Rubens - Cain Kills Abel

But the rest of the story is pretty straightforward. Cain invites his brother out into the field (Gen 4:8). And he kills him.

The LORD immediately addresses Cain and asks him (Gen 4:9):

Where is your brother Abel?

Cain replies with the famous line:

Am I my brother's keeper?

The Hebrew original is a sing-songy rhyme:

השמר אחי אנכי

ha-shomer aHi anokhi?

Is Cain's response just an elusive dodge, or is it potentially a challenge to God himself? 

In Psalm 121:4, God is described as "Israel's Keeper" (shomer-Yisrael; שומר ישראל).

In other words, is Cain implying that God was Abel's keeper? And so, since Cain could kill Abel, why did God allow this?

As a result, the first sin described in the Bible already asks the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?"

Cultural and Historical Connections

The immediate point of comparison is with Romulus and Remus. According to the Roman historian Livy, Romulus killed his twin brother after Remus jumped mockingly over the nascent walls of the city Romulus was building (History of Rome 1.7.2). 

The half-sisters Elizabeth and Mary lived out their lives in mortal combat, the Catholic and Protestant religions serving almost as a pretense for a conflict actually based on their mothers' marriages to Henry VIII. By a delicious irony, the two are entombed side by side in Westminster Abbey.

To end on a positive note, Catullus' brother died while serving in Bithynia. This is not a fratricide. This is a touching tribute to a dead sibling. Catullus traveled to perform the rituals necessary to allow his brother passage to the afterlife. And he penned a poem on the matter, in which he bids his brother farewell.

He writes (Carmina 101.10):

And into eternity, brother, hail and farewell

atque in perpetuum frater ave atque vale

And the elisions themselves speak a voice broken in grief:

atque'n perpetuum frater ave'tque vale

A New Interpretation of "The Manger"

The traditional Nativity scene shows us Mary and Joseph, surrounded by animals, looking at the baby Jesus lying in a feeding trough--the manger. Also arriving on the scene are the shepherds and perhaps even the Magi (who, according the the Gospel of Matthew, probably didn't arrive until as much as two years later).

I'm going to suggest that reconstructing the authentic scene of the birth can come from noting the curious fact that the manger is mentioned three times in the account of Jesus' birth. For all the charm of the traditional Creche, the actual biblical text supports a different scene, one in which "The Manger" is the key to the story.

The Birth of Jesus - Manger #1

The Gospel of Luke tells us that Mary and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem to be enrolled in a census:

"While they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger (ἐν φάτνῃ; en phatne), because there was no room for them in the inn." (Luke 2:6-7)

The Greek word rendered "manger" is φάτνῃ (phatne). The word could denote the feeding trough itself or the stable where an animal would be housed for eating and sleeping.

Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, which were copied by hand for hundreds of years before the invention of the printing press, contain thousands of minor (and also some major) variations. One interesting variation is that some manuscripts, indeed the very one considered the authoritative text of the Greek Orthodox Church, don't say that Mary laid him in a manger, but rather that she laid him in the manger (ἐν τῇ φάτνῃ; en te phatne).

Manger #2

The account in Luke continues with the appearance of the Angels to the Shepherds. We might have thought that the reference to Jesus being in a/the manger was extraneous. But the Angels seem to think it is the primary information the Shepherds need to find the new-born Messiah:

"You will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger." (Luke 2:12)

Again, some ancient manuscripts have "the manger" (ἐν τῇ φάτνῃ; en te phatne) here as well.

How Did the Shepherds Know Where to Find Jesus?

If you Google on the question of "How did the Shepherds find Jesus?" you may find the claim that the shepherds must have known of a passage in Micah 4:8, which led them to a specific tower near Bethlehem. This is a contrived and unconvincing solution to the problem. I suggest the answer is more straightforward. The shepherds knew where to find Jesus because the Angels told them exactly where to go. 

Manger #3

The shepherds hastened to Bethlehem and we learn that:

"They found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger (ἐν τῇ φάτνῃ; en te phatne)" (Luke 2:16).

It is significant that, in this third instance, all the manuscripts include the Greek definite article τῇ (te) "the" here. It was the manger. The manger is what they knew to go to, in order to find Jesus.

And it becomes conspicuously strange for the manger to be mentioned again for this third time. I conclude that, after Mary gave birth, she laid Jesus, not just in some random feeding trough in some random stable, but apparently instead in something known to the people of this area as "The Manger." And people of this region knew exactly where "The Manger" was.

What was "The Manger"?

I suggest, based on early Christian evidence and modern parallels, that "The Manger" was some type of rock formation locals knew was found in a nearby cave. It was likely in the shape of a feeding trough, hence its name.

My great-grandfather Lance Dodge was the man who set the dynamite that blew open the entrance to the Cave of the Mounds, in Blue Mounds, WI. Inside that pristine cave there are natural rock formations that are named from their similarity to other objects.

So, for instance, there is a rock called "The Parrot." Another formation is called "The Lilly Pads." In the Wisconsin Dells, you can see a rock formation known as "The Piano" because of its shape.

The earliest Christian traditions about the location of Jesus' birth state that he was born in a cave. The 2nd Century AD Christian writer Origen  tells us that the place was a site for tourism of both Christians and non-Christians:

"There can be seen the cave located in Bethlehem where he was born and the manger where he was wrapped in swaddling-clothes. And this site is talked about with great interest in all the surrounding countries. Even among the enemies of our faith it is being said that in this cave Jesus was born, the one who is worshiped and revered by the Christians." (Against Celsus 1.51)

Origen is a particularly important witness to the fact that, not only was the cave still something to see and visit, but also the manger was still there. He makes no mention of this cave ever having been a stable. His testimony suggests that the manger is indeed some geological feature within the cave that would have been preserved for over a hundred years after the birth of Jesus.

The Emperor Constantine had a Church constructed over the site of this cave. Today there is a Silver Star marking the traditional site of the birth of Christ. Knowledge that a geological feature in the shape of a feeding trough had once been the cradle in which Mary placed the baby Jesus would have long since vanished when workers cleared the area for the construction of a pilgrimage site. 

Even so, I believe the evidence I have described here presents a compelling new way to interpret the Nativity Story.