Dear Banjo,

Hebrew has no distinction between "woman" and "wife", so the meaning of the word depends on context: "his woman" means `his wife`, "he took her for a woman" means `he took her for a wife`, but "one woman" means `a woman`. So I would translate the relevant verses in Genesis 2 as follows:

22) And the Lord God built the rib which He took from the man for a wife and brought it to the man.
23) And the man said: "This time it is a bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh - this shall be called a woman for it was taken from a man".
24) Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother and stick to his wife and they will become one flesh.
25) And both were naked, the man and his wife and they were not ashamed.

That said, marriage as we know it is a latecomer. The earliest biblical references of taking a woman are indirect and only have to do with the joining of extended families. The first (though indirect) mention of a marriage ceremony is in Joel 2:16 and the only references to the modern Jewish concept of marriage are in 2 Chronicles 13:21 and 24:3, where the word used is "[he] UPLIFTED [14 and 2, respectively] women", so the women that are married are thus consecrated and elevated from being just any women into being one's wife/wives.

Funny how woman came out of a mans rib, but ever since men have come out of women’s vaginas.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Many thanks for your kind response. I’m afraid there really is nothing to hope for from our inveterate “ghost writer” friend, Peter Sellick. You may recall that he declared, following my repeated expressions of irritation at his lack of response on this forum :

« I will engage with you if you engage with me ! »

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17351#306885

Since then, Peter has written 65 articles which I have systematically analysed and respectfully critiqued to the best of my ability but, alas, to no avail. Not once during the past three years has he condescended to “engage” with me. His good intentions have been lost in the sands of time and long been forgotten :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=8F1irdrNjWg

To revert to your response, I understand that, while, as you say, the same Hebrew word may be interpreted as “woman” or “wife” depending on the context, there are also several other Hebrew words for wife :

http://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the/hebrew-word-for-48eda733f81c96587ed209509223237e151e5ce6.html

I agree with your interpretation of “wife” as the appropriate translation for the corresponding Hebrew word in respect of verses 24 and 25 of Genesis 2. However, though verse 25 (“And both were naked, the man and his wife and they were not ashamed”) appears to refer to Adam and Eve specifically, verse 24 does not :

« 24) Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother and stick to his wife and they will become one flesh »

Adam and Eve had neither father nor mother !

.

Dear Banjo,

I also was at times disappointed by Peter's lack of engagement, but I understand that his interest and messages are for internal consumption within the church for its internal dialogue, so he must view discussions with non-Christians as a waste of time. I tend to comment, mostly in favour, when he makes general spiritual observations, but when his article (like this one) rests on Christian scripture, I step off for it's not my place to interpret that which I do not believe in to begin with.

I find the "wordhippo" page not that accurate. For example, the second word, 'raayah' is translated as "beloved woman, dame, lady" where in fact it means "a female companion". This word does not appear in the bible (but only later, in the Talmud) and in its biblical masculine form it simply means "friend" or "a fellow with whom one spends time". It was even mistranslated to English as "neighbour", as in "thou shalt love thy fellow whom you spend time with as thyself". Nowadays, 'raayah' is nearly always used to denote the wife of a dignitary (such as the "first lady").

Verse 24 relates to verse 23 while verse 25 starts a new story. The idea of verse 24 is that men (other than Adam) are inspired by verse 23 to leave their parents and stick with their wives. Whether this is their true reason to leave their parents, is in doubt, but this can provide comfort for parents who so believe when their son leaves them.

.

Dear CHERFUL,

.

You wrote :

« Funny how woman came out of a man’s rib, but ever since men have come out of women’s vaginas »

It seems that the Hebrew word "tsalaw" may be translated as “rib” or “side”.

In the context of Genesis 2:22 (“Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man”) the word “side” (perhaps “underside”) would be more appropriate than “rib” because in verse 23 Adam says: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”. A “rib” is just a bone with no flesh.

That said, all this is meant to be purely allegorical : “Adam” is a generic term for “mankind” (including both men and women), etc., etc., as Moses (the presumed author of Genesis 2) makes mountains out of molehills.

Maybe, but I can’t help feeling that allegory – if allegory there is – is heavily tainted with machismo. It inverses the natural process of birth whereby, as you rightfully point out, CHERFUL, the woman gives life to the man by nurturing him in her womb before ejecting him into the world – to the man providing part of his body in order to produce the woman and give her existence.

In the beginning there was reality. Moses (born 1400 BC) replaced it with allegory.

And so the expression “my other half” came into being …

« And now ‘love’ is the name for our pursuit of wholeness » (Plato, 378 BC, Athens) :

http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/eros/platos-other-half

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thank you for your comments and clarifications. I am totally illiterate in Hebrew and from what you say, the author of "wordhippo", apparently, is not much better at it than me.

You are also probably right as regards your interpretation of verses 23-25 of Genesis 2. Moses seems to have gotten his logic somewhat tangled up in his zeal to impress his message on his followers.

The order of versus 24 and 25 should probably have been inversed to make sense – as there is a lapse of a generation between the two.

Neither Adam nor Eve had a mother or a father, but their children did !

.