In order to undermine the effectiveness of the Bible, many purported “Biblical scholars” have relegated much of God’s holy word (especially Genesis 1-11) to “myth” status. Instead of being written by Moses as it claims, these “scholars” claim that the Bible has undergone many revisions by various editors.
Riane Eisler takes this approach in her anti-Biblical book, The Chalice and the Blade. She buys into the JEDP fabrication (a modernist contrivance originating in the last century), which alleges that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, but that there were a number of authors and editors. To support her assertion that the Bible is a collection of edited myths, she cites what she considers a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.
“The first tells that woman and man were simultaneous creations. The second, more elaborate one tells that Eve was created as an afterthought out of Adam’s rib” (86). Ms. Eisler is obviously getting this stuff from liberal scholars rather than the Bible (she parrots them so well).
In the first place, Genesis 1 does not say that man and woman were a simultaneous creation (Gen. 1:26-28). The verses of Genesis 1 are summary statements, not ones devoted to details or a minute-by-minute account. In the second place, the phrase, these are the generations, in the book of Genesis always opens up a new emphasis. There is frequently an overlapping between sections, but a new line of thought is begun. Gen. 2:4 begins the history of man–from man’s perspective. Genesis 1 provides the entire scope of events in summary form. Then we focus on the sixth day and the events of it.
Anyone who saw West Side Story will probably recall the opening shot of New York City. The camera then centers its attention on a few streets and finally zooms in on one block, where the drama begins. Similarly, in the Bible we are provided a panoramic view of the Creation before zooming in on mankind.
The third mis-statement of the author is that Eve was created as an afterthought. How utterly absurd! Only a prejudiced mind could see this great event with such a jaundiced perspective. God was demonstrating to Adam the need for someone who was different yet his equal. Who can think that an infinite God, who could create the heavens and the earth, would be so foolish as to neglect woman (especially since He made the animals male and a female), and that He would then have to say to Himself, “Whoops. I forgot to create a female counterpart to man”?
More fantastical than this assertion is the author’s claim that since serpents were associated with the “goddess” when the Old Testament was being written, the author of Genesis 3 selected a serpent to be the villain in man’s fall. How ironic, Eisler says, that a serpent is instrumental in moving mankind away from “Goddess” worship to Jehovah worship. “The ‘sin’ of Eve when she defied Jehovah and herself dared to go to the source of knowledge was in essence her refusal to give up that worship” (89). What Eisler lacks in genuine evidence she compensates for in imagination.
Women Woefully Mistreated
Eisler goes on to levy several charges against the laws of the Old Testament. She alleges that women were the private property of men, first belonging to their fathers, then being “owned by their husbands. . .” (95). These allegations, with all due respect, are laughable. They seem to arise from some sort of hysteria which is derived from the National Organization of Women (NOW).
Ms. Eisler apparently never thinks that some of the arrangements God made for women were for their protection. She assumes that Jehovah hates women and apparently superimposes our modern society on the patriarchal system, which simply does not work.
Space limitations forbid responding to each error that she makes; let’s focus on what she terms the worst example of dehumanizing women. She complains about the teaching of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, in which a man who rapes a damsel must marry her and pay her father fifty shekels of silver. Her interpretation is that since the girl is no longer an economic asset, the father must be compensated. [Just a thought here: If daughters are so profitable, why do Eisler and other feminists always aver that men were only interested in having sons?] She also adds that a forced marriage to a man who held unlimited power over his wife could hardly be out of “concern for the girl’s welfare” (96).
If the custom was for a bride to bring a dowry (not unusual in many world cultures), then the rapist has indeed robbed the father and should be made to pay. But Eisler’s problem is that she does not understand how these people thought. To violate a woman was a great sin, and it obligated the man to marry her. Even women thought this way. When Tamar was violated by Amnon and then commanded to leave, she pleaded, ‘”This evil of sending me away is worse than the other you did to me” (2 Sam. 13:12).
Apparently, Eisler does not view ancient women in need of protection and imagines a paradise akin to a “free sex” society (the alleged lifestyle of the Cretans). She has a difficult time, however, envisioning modest and virtuous behavior. God did not allow his people to practice promiscuous sex (He still doesn’t). A woman was to be pure when she married (so was a man). If she were not a virgin, a man would know. What man would want an immoral woman, or vice versa? Her virginity is her proof of sexual purity at the time of marriage. Once lost, her husband cannot know on the wedding night whether she was raped or is a harlot. Even though the rape was not her fault, she has been shamed, humiliated, and robbed of her virtue. The one who took it from her must become her husband; otherwise, she would likely remain single.
The Levite’s Concubine
When one sees how Eisler exegetes Judges 19, one must wonder how well she does with archaeological data. In discussing the incident of the Levite and his wife, she misunderstands not only the book of Judges but the details of the text.
First of all, she regards this text as typical of “the biblical view of rape” (99). In reality, the book of Judges shows how degenerate Israel was when they departed from God. The book even ends by making the point: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). To try to pass off man’s own subjective and faulty concept of right and wrong (not based on Bible teaching) as God’s view of rape is dishonest.
But even worse is this sentence: “A bunch of rowdies from the tribe of Benjamin demand to see him outside, apparently with the intention of beating him up” (99). How could anyone misunderstand this verse–unless she was trying to do so? “Bring out the man . . .that we may know him carnally” (Judges 19:22). Beat him up? Is this a serious attempt at interpretation? They wanted to use him for homosexual purposes–and then kill him (20:6).
Also dishonest is the following: “Nowhere in . . . this brutal story of . . . gang rape and killing of a helpless woman is there even a hint of compassion, much less moral indignation or outrage” (99). Apparently she neglected to read the rest of the story. While it is true that the man who pushed the woman out the door and then proceeded to have a good night’s sleep was callous, he nevertheless accused the men of the city of committing “lewdness and folly in Israel” (Judges 20:6). All Israel then rose up to punish the tribe of Benjamin Only 600 men out of the tribe of Benjamin were left after the battle; 25,000 had died (20:46-47). The entire tribe nearly became extinct because of the death of this concubine. “No moral indignation,” did you say, Ms. Eisler? Incredible!!