Never thought about it this way before. Food for thought:
The biblical myth in Genesis 1 is diametrically opposed to all this (Genesis 1, it should be noted, was developed in Babylon during the Jewish captivity there as a direct rebuttal to the Babylonian myth). The Bible portrays a good God who creates a good creation. Chaos does not resist order. Good is prior to evil. Neither evil nor violence is part of the creation, but enter later, as a result of the first couple’s sin and the connivance of the serpent (Genesis 3). A basically good reality is thus corrupted by free decisions reached by creatures. In this far more complex and subtle explanation of the origins of things, violence emerges for the first time as a problem requiring solution.
Cosmic order requires the violent suppression of the feminine, and is mirrored in the social order by the subjection of women to men and people to ruler.
…
Neither evil nor violence is part of the creation, but enter later, as a result of the first couple’s sin and the connivance of the serpent (Genesis 3).
That’s a rather convenient interpretation. Usually it’s Eve who gets blamed for listening to the serpent and leading poor Adam into temptation.
If sin were equally on the first couple, how come Christianity (and Judaism, for that matter) spend so much time suppressing the feminine and excluding women from leading sacred rites (and yes there are women rabbis and ministers now, but how long did that take and how widespread is it?).
In a period when attendance at Christian Sunday schools is dwindling, the myth of redemptive violence has won children’s voluntary acquiescence to a regimen of indoctrination more extensive and effective than any in the history of religions.
So the suppression of heretical sects, the Inquisition, the ongoing exclusion of women from official positions of influence in most churches… that’s because of TV violence?
That the Myth of Redemptive Violence is with us and influences us – that’s clear. That Christianity somehow stands against it is not.
The simplicity of this story commended it widely, and its basic mythic structure spread as far as Syria, Phoenicia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Germany, Ireland, India, and China. Typically, a male war god residing in the sky fights a decisive battle with a female divine being, usually depicted as a monster or dragon, residing in the sea or abyss (the feminine element).
I know Greek and Roman myths best and recognize sky gods fighting battles to establish the world, but not the overthrow of this female monster; Uranus, Cronus, Typhon, and the Gigantes are all males. The best recorded Germanic myths are Norse, where the world is made from the corpse of Ymir, a primordial monster but again male. I know the others less well, but the closest thing I could find for India was the sacrificial man Purusha, and I don't think I recognize the story at all from Egypt or China.
All in all, it looks like women are more likely to be left aside than made a central victim. Between this and what you point out, as far as femininity and creation stories go, their dichotomy between such creation myths and what happens in Abrahamic religions looks invented.
I think I understand what the author’s saying, but isn’t violence sort of part of nature? Early humans and proto-humans were predator and prey to small and large animals, and I can’t imagine that hasn’t become part of our genetic (neural) history.
I do agree that violence has become an end in itself (especially in historic feuds) but it seems to “sell.” Perhaps there’s partly a biological reason for this.
That said, I enjoy murder mysteries (why? I dunno) but it sure would be nice if real violence could be done away with. But what could replace stories with a protagonist and an antagonist? Would such stories be as interesting?
The point, as I understand it, is that, sure, it’s part of us and our history, but that there’s a kind of fatalism that’s taken hold, and we’ve come to believe that it can’t be overcome.
Isn’t that the entire point of the argument: that there’s an implicit assumption that such conflicts must be solved violently, with either the destruction or the pacification of the antagonist?
Take Star Trek: The Next Generation as an example. There were always clear protagonists, and often clear antagonsists. How many of the problems were resolved through violence?
So I was watching “The Temptress” last night, and in the middle of it there were scenes of a dam being built. I thought to myself, I should be able to find out what that is. So I searched with “the Google” for “dam los angeles 1925.” Sure enough, it was the construction of the St. Francis Dam.
It never looks that big in pictures, but when you see people building it you get a real sense of its scale. It was huge. Never underestimate the power of water.
i was floored, being raised christian, having read a bunch of the bible for confirmation in the church, that - not noticing until college, reading in a mythology class - there are two completely different creation stories. almost back to back.
i guess? people just get to choose whichever one suits the moment - like so many of the “lessons” from thar old book
My rabbi was mentored by the translator who had translated the version of the Torah used by the Reform Jewish movement. The way it works is that there were two myths going around. Rather than choose one version, the authors recorded both. There are several places in the Torah where this happens, like the two 10 commandments.
There was a quite long period when you couldn’t get an issue of Keyboard magazine without some mention of Ciani. She is/was very well-respected in the synth community.
