Here in the Philippines, we have a different myth on the first man and woman: Malakas (Strong) and Maganda (Beautiful). They came from a bamboo trunk splitted to two. The man and woman here came from equal halves, thus indicating gender equality in our pre-colonial times (our ancients even chose homosexuals as spiritual leaders). Not until... the Spaniards came with their Bible. Hope you find this interesting. The Philippine Mythology also has a vast array of fascinating and intriguing stories worth studying.
I always like the origin story Aristophanes gives in Plato's Symposium. Humans originally had four arms and four legs and came in three flavours, male, female and androgynous (which is both). The problem with this is that all these arms and legs meant they were able to cartwheel around and kick gods in the face and they were going to climb Olympus to do just that. Zeus was gonna thunderbolt them but then realised that they can't give him sacrifices and stuff if they're thunderbolted so, instead, he just chopped them in half, which obviously created two humans with two arms and two legs each. Of course, those two humans were actually just half humans so when they found their other halves they were whole and never wanted to separate again. Some people will tell you that the story was actually meant to be satirical but I don't see how this particular after the fact explanation of how the world works is any less valid than the normal creation myths. The other ones barely involve cartwheels to the face at all.
To all the people complaining about the feminist lens on this episode: I can't think of any other element of social order that affects our daily lives quite as much as the male/female duality.
The problem isn't that,the problem is to use his feminist lens to spin a narrative,and to create a impression that isn't true.Look at the comments about the bible,they give a waaay better insight on the matter.People aren't dumb to not catch a bias,a narrative or an agenda when they are present.
Interestingly, angels in paintings over several centuries and in different parts of the world are nearly always portrayed as androgynous or genderless looking, considering both Christianity and Islam are the two major religions that emphasize angels the most. Lots of these types of images during the time of the Renaissance after all. Interesting how that is. I suggest checking the website learnreligions for more.
As interesting as the myth is, its validity is probably too highly disputed to include it here. The earliest source that identifies Lilith as Adam's first wife is The Alphabet of Ben Sira, which is dated to between the 8th and 11th centuries, a text often referred to as a satirical text. The name 'Lilith' only pops up in the Bible briefly and amongst a list of beasts or demons.
Lilith being Adams' first wife is likely a scholarly legend, made up well after the Priestly creation story and the J creation story were written down. Lilith was a demon of lore that was supposedly responsible for infants that died suddenly. Some scholars noted how different the stories of Genesis 1 and 2 were and as a way to explain the discrepancy, came up with the story that Lilith was Adam's first wife. They didn't realize (or didn't want other people to realize) that the reason the stories are different is because they literally came from two different sources, were two different versions of the creation myth.
Something no one has mentioned yet: Eve only becomes subservient to Adam (e.g. "Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you") after they've both eaten the fruit and are being cast out. It's one of the punishments for their sin just like tilling the earth, pain in childbirth and, most importantly, death. It's implied that these things are not natural and are not how they were intended to be but have come about because of sin. By that logic male domination is not something that was ever intended, nor is it something good, but is part of the sad reality of a flawed world. Which, imo, lines up more with a feminist standpoint.
Vickie Currin I agree to an extent. Responsibility is a good word for what might have been intended, actually. But "rule over" is not a term that lends itself to loving, gentle interpretations. I think of a very brutal kind of authority when I think of someone "ruling over" someone else. And indeed if you look back through history men, as a rule, consistently abuse their power over women (as a side note I think it's very likely that if women ruled the world they would do the same, in a more feminine fashion. "No Men Beyond This Point" is a movie about just such a scenario and it's fascinating.) and I think that's just human nature. No one is perfect and it's very difficult to handle power well. Just look at politicians. But that's the point. No one is perfect. Men have abused their power (by which I mostly mean social power although being physical larger, stronger, etc. plays a part too) over women in the majority of societies for the majority of human history because people mess up and they can't be perfect. Which is why it's significant that the "he shall rule over you" line is part of the curse AFTER Adam and Eve have eaten the forbidden fruit. I would argue it's because of sin and a fallen world that this imbalance between the sexes has historically existed. Now you can argue about how much responsibility men should ideally have in the home or over their wives all day long but I think it's a separate issue. From the moment sin entered the world men began to rule over their wives, with all the negative connotations that word implies. Not because God intended to be that way or because it is good, but because that's how human nature works. I believe a fully biblical marriage would be much closer to the equality feminism advocates, though perhaps with a little more responsibility expected from the man, as you mentioned.
Eliza Corder I love your comments. I would say however that you are both correct and incorrect. To rule over has positive connotations as well. As a parent, you rule over your children. As a boss, you rule over you employees. Yes, that has been taken too far on too many occasions. But there have been plenty of times where the opposite is true. In those times, to rule over your house, meant to take responsibility for. Women didn't work because they were valued more than men. Sure, they didn't have jobs, or learned publicly, but they didn't need to back then. They took care of the home and the person that took care of them. The man provided food, clothing and shelter. The woman cooked and helped raise the children. (Yes, the men actually took a more active role in raising the children) . The men back then just simply didn't want the women to get hurt or die. Women were cared for. All of their needs were met. It was a symbiotic relationship where both benefited. On a side note, feminism now has it backwards. Women nowadays have more benefits than men, yet claim they are "oppressed". Feminism claims to be about equality but have yet to demonstrate that fact. Other than that, your comments were insightful. Have a wonderful day.
Can we please get end of lesson recap like on the science videos? There's a lot of names and stories and facts that Mike goes over. It'd be really helpful in remembering more than themes
I believe it was supposed to symbolise that we will always have hope coming from within us. Also in the version of the story I first heard, she didn't leave hope in the box. Hope doesn't come out until it's called. that made more sense to me.
The thing that people dont understand was Pandora's Box was filled with all the evils of humanity. Hope to is an evil then. Friedrich Nietzsche says"Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torment of men." In this case Pandora did mankind a favor by traping hope inside the box. Of hope was let out mankind would not survive; they would wait to be saved from the evils that befell humanity.
Really enjoying the series so far, great host makes it engaging and awesome effort presenting huge topics in 10 minutes, just wanted to chime in on the strong tone of the conclusion here: In the biblical case... Many scholars would disagree that the biblical story places the blame on the woman, but rather the man for bringing sin/evil into the world. First for his sin of omission as he didn't take care of and look out for his wife, referencing Genesis 3:6 "...she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate." The fact that the husband was with her meant that he should have been caring for her, encouraging her to obey God, not because women need a male to save them but because he was supposed to care for his wife, as he would have his parents before he left them (Genesis 2:24). Scholars also point to Genesis 3:9, noting that the omniscient God addressed first the man for the act of sin, and in Romans 5:12, where in reference to Jesus saving the world from its sin it says "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned." All this being said, this biblical myth has indeed been interpreted in the past to justify male dominance over women and throw women under the buss as it were for causing evil. But that stance is not by any means, popular opinion today.
Lilith is a matter of ACTUAL canonization. That is to say, what the Church and the Pope and his bunch say is and isn't what happened. There's actually a ton of Apocrypha... stories and myths and such that the Church said shouldn't be included in the bible... of which the tale of Lilith is one such story. Biblical Apocrypha is an interesting subject in itself... and arguably more interesting than what was deemed canon imo. It tends to work in a lot more Judaic mythology than usual for Christianity.
In a mythology course, it shouldn't be a factor that one myth is considered "canon" to a religious group and another is not, the point is that the myth existed for hundreds of years mostly as an oral legend and thus had an impact on the culture.
It's most certainly a factor. As you said, even apocryphal stories like Lilith had an impact on the culture somewhere along the line. But just the same, the ENTIRE concept of canonization and apocrypha (Christianity is hardly the only religion to do that) also had an impact on culture. These things are central to understanding mythology as it gives a clear sign to what people at the time and place deemed to be their religious truth. You don't ignore one for the other.
+Ignis Domini They are spoiling the subject to talk about something that has nothing to do with mythology. The Japanese creation myth is longer than that but they just picked the misogynistic part. Like they themselves addressed. When we talk about gods. There a a lot of feminine gods that are super powerful and influential in a lot of men's life. But they picked an choose parts of stories just to make their point about misogyny. Also, Couldn't they have mentioned a myth, among the myriad of them, that woman was superior over man just as a counter exemple? I'm sure there is one out there.
+Arseniy 7 No, actually. Biologically speaking, women are the default. Life originally reproduced clonally and then by parthenogenesis. Even now, there are a number of species made up entirely of females, like ants. The basic biological state of a fetus is female as well.
"reproduced clonally and then by parthenogenesis" - Clonal reproduction doesn't have genders. Parthenogenesis can produce both, male and female, depending on a specie. "like ants" - Info from a top 10 video? How about you try to read on it a bit. "The basic biological state of a fetus is female as well" - At least one, although unfinished, point made, congratulations!
Yes, finally Shintoism is here. It's just not know well enough abroad (or in Japan actually) and I think it's one of the more interesting mythologies out there. The Kojiki is an intriguing piece of literature. 天之御中主神 is difficult to say even in Japanese do I was surprised he got it right.
My favorite part of the Fall of Man story is the very last thing God does before banishing Adam and Eve from Eden: He makes them leather garments to help them survive exposure to the elements, a vast improvement over the wholly inadequate fig leaves they'd strung together after realizing their nudity. He was saying "You've made Me very angry, but even in your disgraced state I will continue to provide you with benefits beyond what you can achieve on your own."
“Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” Isiah 46:9-10 “My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. How precious to me are your thoughts, God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand-when I awake, I am still with you” Psalm 139:15-16 “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account” Hebrews 4:13
I think they supply enough evidence to open up people's minds to search for their own truths, not to convince or prove what the are saying is fact! it's just their theories to debated subjects and issues!
My understanding of Shinto myth is that the cause of mortality among humans is a man's fault - When Ninigi-no-mikoto was sent to pick a wife and become first king of men, he said no to Iha-Naga the mountain woman in favour of her sister Ko-no-hana the flower woman - choosing beauty over long life.
Mike, I am a fan of your work for the last few years. I love what you did on PBS idea channel and what you are doing on Crash Course Mythology. You work in bringing critical theory and philosophy to pop culture is at the vanguard of some of the best stuff going on for the public good on the web, and I very much appreciate that what you did for postmodern memes, you are now doing for the "ancient memes" we call mythology. Also, I should say that I am an Episcopal priest who serves as a chaplain and teacher of philosophy and world religions at a school for college prep 9-12 graders. As such, I use your material on a regular basis in many of my classes. With that preface, I am not a huge fan of your uni-dimensional portrayal of the Biblical Myths thus far in CC Mythology (I'm at Episode 10 or so right now). My critique is NOT that you are inaccurate. You are accurate in portraying how these texts have been used in the history of religion and culture, and probably in many of the ways these myths were originally intended. But you also know the power of interpretation, and how a text can gain new voices and new interpretations as it is handed down through the ages. It is the unfortunate case that Genesis 1-3 has often been used to justify human domination of the environment, and male domination of women, along with the patriarchal social structures that these values serve. I absolutely grant that this is the case. BUT if it is constantly repeated-- as even you seem to do-- that this is the ONLY way to interpret these texts, then these texts will continue to be used to justify these social structures of injustice, and generations yet to come will continue to read these as texts of oppression. It will justify that this is the "natural" read of these texts. I wish you would create an episode that is about re-visioning some of our living myths, especially and specifically these Genesis texts. One could easily point out the following: - In the first creation myth, male AND female are made in God's image, and thus the feminine is as divine as the male. - In both the first and second creation myth, humans are given the task of stewardship of creation. Our "dominion" only extends insofar as we are faithful stewards of the gift God has given us, and therefore abuse and degradation of the environment is inherently against the purpose of our creation. - In the second creation myth, male and female were created to be naked without shame, which has all kinds of body-positive and sex-positive implications. - In the second creation myth, the woman is made as a "helper"-- the Hebrew word is Ezer-- to the man. The word Ezer is only applied to one other Being in the Bible: God in Godself as a helper to humanity. - In the story of "The Fall", the subjugation of women to men is a consequence of sin, not the original divine plan for creation. So, to return to our origins does not mean to return to a primal subjugation, but a primal equality. - Finally, in the history of the Jewish and Christian reception of this text, it is usually NOT the woman who gets the blame for the fall. Rather it is her husband who is blamed for it, because he disobeyed and set his wife up for failure. For instance, see Paul's take on the primal fall in Romans 5 and 1Corinthians 15. It's Adam's fault. Not Eve. I could go on, but I think there is a case for an egalitarian and eco-sensitive re-read of the primal texts of Judaism and Christianity. It may not be the "majority" read of that tradition, but it is a viable minority voice. And if it is left un-heard, then people will only learn to associate these texts with their patriarchal and oppressive reads. For a fuller exploration of re-reading the Genesis texts, might I recommend Rabbi Jonathan Sacks "Not in God's Name: Confronting Religious Violence". It's a good read and a good example of a close read that is against the grain of the "normal" way most people use these texts. www.amazon.com/Not-Gods-Name-Confronting-Religious-ebook/dp/B00S3RILKI Thanks for reading, and many blessings on your continued work to spread wisdom across the interwebs.
You started off this series by saying you would make a serious effort to distinguish between the facts of what these myths say and the ways in which they have been interpreted. I'm honestly not seeing that distinction play out, especially in the Adam/Eve account. There's actually a lot of textual evidence in that passage of Genesis that pushes back against an attempt to put the blame on Eve. Genesis 3:6 says that Adam was with Eve during the deception. Then, when Adam tries to put the blame on Eve for his sin, God doesn't buy it and curses him too. Furthermore, unlike Eve's curse, Adam's curse has effects that extend beyond himself. In Gen 3:17, God says, "Cursed be the ground because of you." (Adam's own name is a play on the word ground: 'adam vs. 'adama). There certainly are interpretations out there that try to blame Eve. But again, some important parts of the text itself push back against that interpretation... and there are many other interpretations out there that have quite a bit more balance. Bottom line... I think you're falling short in terms of distinguishing between the facts of what these myths say, and what interpretations are out there.
I'm still holding out for some mention of Indigenous North American mythology! I was certain Gitchi Manitou, Nokomis/Ataensic/Sky Woman, Nanabush, Weesageechak etc (mix of Anishnaabe and Iroquois heros there) would have been in the earth mothers and water creation stories. There is such a rich history in these stories, and I really hope they get some Thought Bubble loving.
Interesting interpretation. I always thought of Adam and Eve as equally at fault for the introduction of sin into the world, though I've always understood the "woman-at-fault" interpretation as a dominant interpretation in the church. I was taught that Adam never had to listen to Eve, so if he hadn't done that he wouldn't have been punished like Eve was and God might've just created another woman instead of punishing all of womankind (if she didn't repent, which is a different subject all together). It's a flawed theory but that's how I've always thought of it. I also wouldn't say that woman coming from man is a justification of misogyny- it's just God creatively using his materials. It's always sort of confused me why people always assume Adam was male before Eve was created. I (personally) have always been taught that Adam had both male and female qualities in him, and God took the female aspects out of him and used them to create Eve. So maybe he was intersex before Eve was created? Idk just a theory, I'm not a scholar so I should probably do more research on the subject.
Most of these interpretations are modern attempts at reconciling the ancient text with contemporary views on gender relationship, i.e. trying to retain the Bible's creation stories while at the same time acknowledging that we've come quite a long way since then. At the time they were written down, and until somewhat recently, these things were usually taken at way more face value. In many situations, women were considered subservient to men in Western society until the latter half of the 20th century; there was no need to read too much equality into the creation stories.
varana312 I didn't think of that. I'll definitely have to research more on the subject if I'm going to make sound theories that aren't there just to reconcile my worldview, it's actually something I've been struggling with for a while now. Thank you for your insight!
A small note. The reason for the creation of Eve in the Bible myth is not the need for extra workers in Eden but God's realization that Adam would be lonely. I think that's a very important detail for how gender relations are conceived within the framework of loneliness and companionship. This somewhat tempers the idea of gender dominance conveyed by other details. Adam needs Eve not to serve him but to find happiness and wholeness. Moreover, the myth represents God as concerned not for workforce, as in other myths, but for Adam's psychological and social well-being.
Women are perceived as gifts for a long time. See Lévi-Strauss theory. God makes a Woman as a gift of alliance with man: as a gift, it serves a purpose, just like objects does. There's no temperance in it...
Not if the gift is reciprocal. If the 'gift' is a gift to the giver alone (as in a shovel to a labourer - because the shovel doesn't need to be used to still be a shovel), then I agree, but if the 'gift' is a gift to the giver and the giver is a gift to the gift, then who benefits? God could have said, "stop being lonely, you have me", but instead offers a mutuality, woman and man, that they may become one.
Also let us not forget about Lilith and how she was left and demonized because of thinking herself to be equal to adam. Also how later in the story Izanami is turned into a vengeful demonic deity who becomes the creator of death.Or how pandora was created with an instiable curiosity and then presented with a box and told not open it.
Wordplay might be wordplay today, but back in pre-literate days it was ACTUALLY MAGIC, so that little riff from Genisis isn't just a pun. Language defines reality, especially in Hebrew (a thing they share with the Egyptians!) Also, curious that hope is feminine in the Pandora myth, and that death is only explicitly a punishment for men in Genesis...
Izanami might be blamed for humanities toils, but that in the later part of myth (after she has died giving birth to a fire god and Izanagi seeks her out against her wishes in the underworld of Yomi). Then again it can be seen as a punishment against Izanagi's transgression, making it one of the few mythological examples where the male figure is punished for their curiosity
@@lexluther919 Free will and an omniscient God are concepts that are fundamentally at odds with each other, as God supposed knows the outcome of every past, present, and future event. This eliminates the possibility of free will because every action you take has been already planned out for you because God already knows you are going to do it and you can't dictate from that path because God already knew of every possible deviation you could possibly attempt to make to the original plan. In short, there is no free will because God already planned out every action you could ever take ever.
This is fantastic information and presented in a great way. This narrator is so good. I like the little jokes here and there and the graphics really help to keep you focused on what is being said.
Its nice to find a channel that can discuss biblical stories in a fun filled manner without criticizing or condemning the stories but explaining them in logical ways. Cause like respect to all people and what they believe in, right. Thanks Crash Course.
About the story of Pandora and the opening of her "box": there is an error in the translation of the word 'phitos' from the ancient Greek texts, where 'phitos' ,which is a type of jar to store food-stuffs in (google it!), became mistakenly translated into the word 'box' in English. Also relevant for this story, is that the Greeks believed that a human womb had a phitos shape and that people where poured out of it at childbirth. Knowing this, the symbolism of Pandoras box is suddenly all about wombs and childbirth. For the ancient Greek the story might be a warning that all the evils of the word flow from a woman's womb, but that hope also lies inside the same womb and that the future lies within a woman. Or is trapped there, never to be let out, depending on how cynical you want to interpreter that story.
not really no, off the top of my head the only myth with females above men was the amazons, and their society was a fictional one thought up by a writer
Bart De Bock and also a parody, since in a lot of the stories Greek heroes would dominate Amazon women. Basically it was a whole "Ha ha, women aren't people" thing.
There's not much in relation to the human end of creation stories. Most of them are male dominated tales. But there are some tales of female deities in control of all existence. There's actually a fascinating theory about Tiamat, a female creation deity from Mesopotamia. In the oldest stories, she's portrayed as a loving creation-mother. But somewhere along the tradition of telling and re-telling her story, the myth turned into one where she was a terrible serpent responsible for all sorts of evils put on humanity, and was thus slayed by an invading male god named Marduk. Some theories hold that this change in character was a patriarchal 'overthrow' of a more matriarchal society. It's all theories with little evidence to back it up, since we're talking about vast stretches of ancient time, but it's interesting none the less.
Krescentwolf good points made, and I'm reminded that hunter-gatherer societies tend to be more egalitarian. the story of tiamat coevolved with the rise of agriculture, where sexual dimorphism plays an even larger role in the division of labor and the sexes. put those ingredients together and you're going to get pretty much the same cake every time.
You get some hints of it in more hunter gatherer societies, but agricultural societies, and thus ones with writing and thus the most sourced myths, tend to have more gender inequality because they can afford to. (division of labour requires one man being able to do enough work at one job to provide more than one person with the resources they need)
First, I think it's more than a bit of a stretch to say the Japanese myth explained in any way, shape, or form why there's "toil, pain, and disease" unless there was a lot more to that story that was left out of this video. Second, I don't think these stories were deliberately written to justify mistreatment of women, as the video seems to imply, but instead they were simply a result of a prevailing attitude at the time they were written. Use of these stories as justification for the mistreatment of women came after the fact.
And it's not even as universal as some would think. I'm saying this without doing a BIT of fact checking on Google or Wiki, lol, I'm lazy at the moment...but I do study mythology and ancient history, and if I recall (and please...someone correct me if I'm wrong), but I am pretty sure the ancient Egyptians as well as the Sumerians were extremely inclusive when it comes to women, seeing them as equals. So it's not like EVERY culture saw women as second-class. Granted, most of them did...but not all.
Interesting note, in the Hebrew Man is spelled "AYSh" (the A is silent, bear with me) And woman is spelled "AShH." the difference between them is that Ish has a Y and Ishah has a silent H. If we take those out, it spells "YH" one of the names of God. But let's say we take YH away from the words, we spell is "ASh." Esh, fire.
Compare the myths from the video to the Rotinonshonni, the creation myth of the Iroquois, a culture where women wielded significant power politically: "Osti:tsia had been faithful to her husband and, because Rotea:he believed in the gossip that began with the Meteor Fire Dragon, he became jealous. This resulted in the light of the sky going out. If the male beings who would inhabit the world below wanted their world to continue, they would have to trust and listen to the female beings and not gossip and learn the lessons of what happened in the Sky World, for it is through the women that the inner light of the beings of the world is renewed and they must be cherished for this always."
Wouldn't Pandora be a post creation myth since it takes place after the titian era? It's still relevant to social structure, but hardly a creation myth.
Great video. It's a little sad that some will inevitably interpret this as a "feminist agenda" simply because you point out that these old stories are sexist.
It is feminist agenda, because the stories only reflect and rationalize what the ancient people saw. It's nature that is sexist, and gender equality is just one big ideological delusion.
Sexism is a social construct. Darwin himself, the man that founded Evolution and greatly revolutionized biology, was accused heavily for being a "sexist" due to his work sexual selection.
@@leoheo88 You clearly did not read any of Darwin's work. You are referring to Social Darwinism, which by the way, was not written by Darwin. How we interact with people is a social construct, and therefore you are correct in saying that sexism is a construct. That does't make it non-existent. Values are social constructs. Morality. Traditions. Ethics. Cod of conduct. You name it. Pointing out that Adam naming all the animals, then naming a woman who was made and given to him, is super sexist, it's pushing an agenda. You don't have to like that Christianity is fundamentally patriarchal, but it is.
It's important to make clear: the "moral of the story" for mythologies thousands of years old is a guessing game, where one simply inserts their favorite interpretation. Where you say "misogyny everywhere," another can say (sticking to the general interpretations you present)"Women are the sex with the most persuasion, therefore are the ones most qualified for leadership" for the christian creation myth, or "When you make a claim, you should test it. In this case, being rewarded for the diligence with children."
You know what's really fun? When a guy on your dorm floor tries to explain his superiority as a man using the bible. In a political science learning community, we debated gun control, social security concerns, foreign policy, and so much more. You just never expect you have to seriously debate your own equality.
Another reading of the Fall of Humans story in Genesis 2 is that misogyny and patriarchy is a result of sin, on par with death, toil, injustice, and labor pains, and so should be as vigorously opposed as those other things. Of course, that's not how many actually read it, but I don't think it's a stretch to paint this curse as as a call to feminism.
There is a theme of the last becoming first, and the first becoming last throughout the Bible that is most explicitly mentioned in the New Testament (Matthew 19:30, 20:16; Mark 10:31; Luke 13:30, etc). The theme is essentially that the order in the beginning is the reversal of the order at the end. The theme appears most frequently in the context of the rule of the wicked in this life in contrast to the rule of the humble in the world to come. It also, however, appears in a lot of other places. The first woman is created out of a man, while all subsequent men come from women. Mankind goes from immortal to mortal, through the fall of Adam (which is a reference to both Adam and Eve, as they are technically the same person and two different persons at the same time) and then from mortal to immortal through the sacrifice of Christ. We are born as children, grow up, and must then become like little children again in order to inherit the Kingdom of God. If the man ruled over the woman in the beginning, then the woman will in the end rule over the man. I don't however, agree with the interpretation of the events in the story as though Adam is granted authority over Eve, in the common sense. The only kind of Christian ruler that is righteous is a servant (Matthew 20:28, etc). Adam must lay down his life for Eve, see to her needs, and she must give him her desires, as to allow him to devout his life to their fulfilment. It is not a coincidence that Eve is created out of Adam's rib (or side), as it is a symbol of partnership or equal standing. Also, in Genesis 2:18, God said that Eve would be "an help meet unto [Adam]". This is an unfortunate translation. The word "meet" signifies correspondence, partnership or equality in the original Hebrew. The episode is correct, however, in that the Bible verses have been frequently used to justify unrighteous rule of men over women. And, there are scriptures that suggest that, in the context of the world of the wicked, the unrighteous rule of men might be reversed and instead granted to women, as prophesied in Isaiah 3:12, "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. ..." Humans have a tendency of using whatever means they can to justify their behaviour, rather than changing their behaviour.
+Emanuel Palm Here are some thoughts I had watching the video, some similar to your own. First, there are not 2 separate unrelated accounts in the Bible regarding the creation of humans. Genesis chapter 1 is an overview and chapter 2 gets into specifics with more details of how they were created and early events. They are complementary, not contradictory. Second, realize that, per the biblical account, humans were created to live forever in perfection. Scientists do not understand why we grow old and die. 98% of the atoms in our body are replaced each year by other atoms we consume. Our bodies have wonderful abilities to heal themselves. Science is trying to understand why this process does not continue forever, giving us the eternal youth all humans long for. They are working on various possible solutions. If humans have expectations they can accomplish such, then isn't it reasonable to conclude that the original Creator and designer of humans understands and can do much more? The point of this is to realize we are not as we were intended to be. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad did not confer any actual knowledge. It was simply a means to reveal whether particular humans would accept their Creator's standards and ways or take it upon themselves to determine what was right and wrong. Eating such was a deliberate act of rebellion and demonstration of lack of loyalty and appreciation for their life-giver. Just as a leaf plucked from a tree gradually dries up and crumbles into dust so too humans, once they cut themselves off from their life source and sustainer were as good as dead. Still, their bodies were so close to perfection, without all of the bad effects of mutations which accumulated and which later generations have suffered through with increasing genetic disease, that it took quite a while for their bodies to succumb to the full effects of aging and finally death. When Jehovah told Eve what the results would be for her rebellion, it is not that he endorsed or caused these bad effects. He, after all designed and wanted humans to live in physical, mental, emotional and spiritual perfection. The increased pain of childbirth was the natural physical result of becoming physically imperfect. Excessive female craving for her mate and imperfect, selfish men taking advantage of this to be domineering are results of mental and emotional imperfection. God does not encourage such, but urges humans to fight against such impulses. (Ephesians 5:25, 28,29) Husbands, continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and gave himself up for it, 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. A man who loves his wife loves himself, 29 for no man ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cherishes it, just as the Christ does the congregation Proper exercise of headship is for a husband to put the interest of his wife and children before his own. However, Jehovah God knew that once humans became imperfect, many would not do that. He was forewarning Eve of future bad results. Those who try to blame everything on women or compare such to mythological legends as the videographer did are mistaken. BOTH bear the blame and results of unappreciative and unwise rebellion, but Adam more so. As family head, he was responsible for their well-being. Also, Eve's sin was in a bad response to deception, however Adam did so despite knowing the claimed benefits of rebellion were a lie. (1 Timothy 2:13,14) For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor. Realize that the videographer is attempting to discredit the Bible by mixing it's accounts in with various human mythologies and distorting their meaning. Here are the Bible's answers to many other questions people have long wondered about: www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/
My point was simply that the interpretation given in the video isn't so obvious as it might seem. Details were secondary. The first realization you must come to before seriously studying any ancient text is that you are looking through a thick, foggy, cultural lens, which you brought yourself. If I remember correctly, Mike Rungetta, the host, said something similar in some earlier episode. Unless you understand the intended audience, you are likely going to misunderstand the myth. In the spirit of the contemporary culture of easy-digest media, the episode is full of references to themes likely alien to the original audiences of the considered stories. Rather than saying something on the line: "these things allowed men to rule unrighteously over women", I would much rather have listened to a no-stance discussion about how these cultures perceived manhood in contrast to womanhood, and how the roles were embodied in their myths. Also, talking about the Bible as a myth without picking any particular Christian cultures as reference is like saying that all religious people, or any other group of people, are stupid. In both cases you are bound to make too many generalisations. A potentially quite interesting episode would have considered how the Bible was used in specific historical instances to legitimize certain behaviours. The Bible has been used to justify wars, ethnic cleansing, patriarchy, and so on, but not by every Christian that ever lived. Examples are powerful, and history is full of entertaining stories. Interesting that a JW would reply to my comment. I respect your diligence in studying the scriptures. Allow, me, with all respect, to reply with another link: www.mormon.org/beliefs/the-creation-and-the-fall
[01:39] "man is created near the very beginning..."-this anthropic principle, talking-about-you-style, is the best audience-hook for a nonfiction history, (the Bible is good-reading for elementary schoolers)... the 'bones' story is a morale above human ignorance: the womb-state, the worthiness of the female, K'Eve's same birthday, Adam's mark of first-lineage....
There is actually an old Hebrew saying "Woman was not take from man's head so as to be his master, nor from his feet so as to be his slave, but from his rib so as to be close to his heart". Pity they didn't put that in the Bible.
I'm glad you liked it. A Biblical scholar once remarked that the final climatic act of creation is the creation of the female ... so women are the peak of creation ;)
Nope, it says Satan whispered to both of them, and as a matter of fact the Quran seems to place more blame on Adam, as he was the the one who had to ask for forgiveness, which was granted unlike in the bible.
In [the original version of the bible in - ] Hebrew you can see that it's actually not Adam's RIB the piece of flesh and bones that god took from him in order to create Eve, but his SIDE. (Explanation and proof : the word is צלע (şelaġ or "tzelah" in different ), which usually means rib in modern Hebrew, but in biblical Hebrew (and also sometimes in modern Hebrew) it means side. that's a huge difference. It also makes what Adam said after that much more sensible: "bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh"?! a rib is a bone, so it should've been: "bone of my bones" or at most: "bone of my bones and flesh of my bones" (because according to the belief that she came from his rib - her flesh also came from his rib which means that it came out of his rib, which again is his bone).). Another thing is that in Hebrew, "Ish" and "Isha" is completely different from its equivalent in English. In English, the word "woman" isn't the feminine form of man ("maness" like princess and ), but instead is the combination of the words "womb" + "man", means that a woman is simply a man with a womb. In Hebrew, however, "Isha" is the feminine form of "Ish", means that man and woman are different genders of the human species. Those two differences makes the meaning of the bible totally different from how they presented it here. there is no subordination of women, nor comparison of women to animals. about the english version of the bible, I don't know.
So wait... Pandora was a bioweapon!? Also, I was also dissapointed by the lack of a mention of Lilith. Want an example of old-world misogyny? Right there.
The information in these videos feels really shallow. It really covers what is most popular and many people know anyway. I was expecting much more from CC.
The Bible says that satan tricked Eve into sinning, but Adam knew what he was doing when he ate the fruit, so sin, when a child was born, would be passed down through the father. The Bible puts blame on both parties, not just Eve. This interpretation of the Bible is completely incorrect.
Um how do you conclude that the Bible calls men superior to women when the end of the verse says "they become one flesh"...? I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding in today's society about the difference between "equal" and "identical". Just because men and women are two different sexes with two different roles does not mean one is no more important or superior than the other.
"Your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" This is not "equality not identicality" this is straight up superiority of men and oppression of women.
What's weird about all the women being the downfalls is that their digressions are usually not sinister or conniving in nature. They are simply not doing what the men say they should do. Eve was curious about prospect of knowledge, and so she ate the apple. Izanami was "unfinished" and spoke first to be made whole. Pandora was tricked into opening a box out of curiosity. I think this reflects how childlike men viewed women. As if they didn't or couldn't even act maliciously but stumbled upon ruining the world. So what's worse, being smart but ruinous or stupid and foolhardy? Either a terrible way to be seen through the generations.
It's important to note that the English etymology for the term for woman isn't about adding "wo" to the default of man; in old English men were essentially called "war-men," or war-human, and women were called "wife-men," or wife-human. Throughout the years the war part of war-man fell out of style while the wife part was shortened down.
Hi Mike, I have to say (that after seeing your in Idea Channel for some moths now) I feel really pleased to see you here doing these videos, I really, really but really like the way you present your topics and ideas =) thanks for doing so!
One key to myths is correct interpretation. The video is fairly incorrect in several places. First, the order of creation is significant but subtle. All things were created in a particular order, from the most insignificant to the greatest. Eve wasn't created second, she was created last, therefore she was the crowning creation, the most significant. The words "ish" and "isha" aren't significant here but the words "Adam" and "Eve" are. "Adam" means "human" and "eve" means "mother of all living." The pair were given two commandments: (1) to multiply and fill the earth (replenish is a faulty translation) and (2) not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. These two commandments were contradictory: since they were immortal they couldn't have children (immortal parents give birth to immortal children; if no one dies, the place fills up and only a limited number of spirits receive bodies - the whole point of the drill). The only way to accomplish this is to become mortal by eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Enter Lucifer (satan is just a Hebrew word for "adversary;" this person is throughout the Bible). He's been thrown out of heaven for rebellion and wants to foil the plan. It was explained there but he didn't understand it well so he falls into his own trap. His plan is to trick the pair into causing their own death. He tries to get the man to eat but he doesn't understand the dilemma and refuses. He changes tactics and tells Eve of the virtues of eating it. But he tells her too much and she sees that they must make a choice: either living forever in ignorance or becoming mortal, having offspring, and learning from the opposition in all things: there is no light unless there is darkness, there is no virtue without vice, there is no pleasure without pain - if there is no opposition, there can be no measure of things; there can be no knowledge. She goes back and explains what she's done and why. He still refuses but she tells him that if he doesn't then he'll be alone in the Garden and they won't be able to fulfill the other commandment - to multiply. He then sees the wisdom in it and also eats. Penalties and punishment? No, not really. Elohim (God - literally "gods" in Hebrew) explains what will happen, childbirth is painful, farming is hard. Nothing more than that. The "ruling" part is explained later as being the voice for the pair but they will both preside over the human family as equal partners. The story was originally a drama that was played out in the ancient temple and was the original version that was in one form or another played out in every temple on every continent, slightly changed from place to place. Since the older scriptures were lost while Israel was captive in Egypt, what we have is a restored version written originally by Moses then changed slightly over the centuries by various scribes. While our narrator above does lots of eye rolling he doesn't get close to conveying the richness of the story. Bottom line: Eve wasn't the villain, she was the hero.
Interesting. I never thought of it that way. Thanks for that, really. I think this shows how dangerous it is to model society or even to generalize morality from a 2,000 year old book written by "man". There are many angles and many different interpretations. I'm not a religious person but I do appreciate the role of mythology within history.
why could they not multiply, to fill the earth, and be immortal? does there need to be a larger number of people than can fit on earth? even with death there would not be an infinite number of people because the world will end at some point! :) they could make spaceships and colonize other planets if the world filled up! :) interesting perspective, though, they should have made the video with this one!! :)
You kind of lose some credibility when you talk about the "correct" interpretation of a 2000+ year old myth. There are many interpretations, and no objective way to define a correct one here.
I've always had hangups about the tree of good and evil story. 1: How would they know defying God was bad without knowledge of good and evil? On the same note, how would they know the serpent was leading them astray? 2: Why would an omnipotent God allow (or create) an Usurper in the garden? 3: why even put the tree there in the first damn place?
While the tale of Izanami's children (and her eventual death) showcase a 'blame the woman' moment... there are many non-patriarchal stories in Japanese myth as well. I mean... the pantheon is ruled over by Amaterasu... a female deity. Then you have gods like Inari, who has appeared as male, female, and even hermaphroditic depending on the story. There's a lot of 'gender binary' stories in creation tales, for whatever reason. But there's plenty of 'gender fluid' tales as well. Hell, the very word hermaphrodite comes from greek mythology.
CrashCourse ,I'm really enjoying your series about mythology, but I do want to clarify something. With the Biblical story of Creation, there aren't two different versions in Genesis. Genesis 1 provides a general summary of Creation week, Genesis 2 goes into more detail about the events during Creation week. Same story, different aspects.
InsecureKid Just to clarify what I was implying is that religious people need to update their beliefs, not abandon them. After all, that's exactly what Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, countless Islamic, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist scientists did. Update the myths and misconceptions, maintain the fundamental belief in God. Fine by me.
InsecureKid The thing is, religion seems to be updating itself. Projections show the world is becoming increasingly new-creationist. That is the idea that God started the Big Bang and then everything happened as shown by science. There are actually many people reinterpreting holy scriptures. Think about it, 'Let There Be Light' is basically a pre-medieval way of describing the Big Bang.
blah. I was enjoying this series until you started giving overly generalised lectures about gender inequality - most of which is just assertion without evidence. Myth is not the only reason for gender inequality. Nor is it fair to suggest that the creators of these myths had the intention of ensuring gender inequality in the future. There are other interpretations as to why women would be (in the minds of our archaic ancestors) subservient to men other than the reasons you are giving.
There are 2 corrections in the third slide of your intro Rakshasas are the leaders.They are dignified and some can be good. Asuras, sort of thier henchmen drink blood The mahabharat, another Indian epic is the longest, not the Ramayan. Before anyone asks me how I know, I'm Indian
I came out of this video as a liberal/ultra-feminist dude... But there's a conclusion to draw from this: Those civilizations were only men and women from their times. Remember, the man hunted dangerous animals, often being killed or horribly injured in the process, or defending their territory from outsiders (often getting slaughter as well) while women took care of the hut and kids and recollections or plantation. I mean, would you blame those men for believing they were more important when they where the ones being killed left and right trying to bring a tiger steak to the table? Perspective is gold.
It's really funny because the reason childbirth is painful is because of the large brains of babies, which could be symbolic from the gaining of knowledge. Also, man came from the dirt, meaning, possibly, he no longer lives in the trees, but walks and runs on the land, symbolizing the birth of man from ape.
Loki gave birth to children in the form of a giant woman, a horse god as a horse and fathered as a man. in retrospect he was the only true transgender God. Plus Thor was a cross dresser so "Norse mythology for whateverthe #@$& it is"
Ray Martin I can't remember which Hindu god did it (I think Vishnu but I'm not 100% on that) but basically he turned into a woman to marry a guy the day before he would be sacrificed and/or die in battle. The Hijra, a third gender group roughly equivalent to trans women in the West, worship this incarnation of the god and the man they married, and symbolically take the same action during a annual festival - marrying the man-god and becoming widows the next day. It's seen as the only marriage they can have, at least traditionally and under current laws on homosexuality.
There's also that story of how a demon named Bhasmasura who attained a boon from Lord Shiva after intense meditation saying " whose head my hand touches shall be turned into ash (bhasma, hence where he got his name)." So after he got his boon, he was captivated by Shia's wife Parvati and wanted to possess her. In order to do get her, he attempted to touch the head of Shiva as to kill him. Lord Vishnu, aware of this, came down to earth as a beautiful woman and seduced Bhasmasur. Bhasmasur said he wanted to marry Mohini, to which Mohini replied that she was very fond of dancing and she would marry him if he could imitate her dance moves. So long story short, they danced for a while and then at the end Mohini touched her head, Bhasmasur did the same, and you can guess what happened next.
Aditya Raghav Aditya Raghav thanks for the more in depth explanation - it's been a long time since I read Mahabharata, so some details got a bit cloudy for me.
Loki had a giant wife, she gave birth to Hel, the serpent of Midgard and Fenrir. He himself gave birth to the eight legged horse after that little incident with the wall.
... Can't help but hear "Inducing a deep sleep and taking a rib" as an allegory to "Tranquilizing and taking a DNA sample". "Ribs" could have been the simplified expression to describe chromosome to the ancient people who haven't even established the concept of biology yet, and could have been alluding to X chromosome being taken from the first male and duplicated into XX pair to produce a female specimen. Hmm... fascinating. >):^]
Because he is. He told each story exactly how they appear in their respective mythologies. All he's doing is pointing out the fact that there's a pattern throughout all of them that shed light on the zeitgeist of the people who told them. It's a rather unfortunate pattern but all the important that we point them out.
to be fair in the pandora Hope is a woman as well, or at least female, the most powerful force for good in the universe is female in that story. How this good came about is very arguably sexist but it's not all bad in that story. That's not to say the myth wasn't sexist, it was, after all Greece was incredibly sexist in it's mythology. Zeus was a massive cereal rapist but there is at least that little glimmer of ambiguous hope in that one.
Friedrich Nietzsche: "Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torment of men." Hope was the greatest of evils in the box; stuck at the very bottom. Pandora saved humanity by by traping hope inside.
Two things that could have been researched more: 1) In the oldest translations of Genesis, Eve was made out of the "bony part" of Adam. Normally this translates as the bone that is common in most mammal penises, but strangely missing from human penises. But later this got sanitized as rib. 2) If you exam real world matriachies (not the artifical ones created by modern people and less than one generation old) you will find that men do surprisingly little work. They typically work just enough to survive, but spend most of the rest the time relaxing and chasing women. This is because mothers not wives dominate men's lives. Between the natural instinct of women baby their babies and evolutionary advantage of keeping their sons freed up to chase tail, in matriarchy men just work less. Patriarchy might be nothing more than the natural result of potential mates trying to trade sex/reproduction for labor from men, and then men enforcing those agreements when women tried to cheat them.
Modern interpretations of Adam and eve’s relationship messes it up and makes it seem wrong. But they were created as equal partners with different jobs. Kinda like yin and yan
as far as gender equality in early human societies goes, i remember reading something about how the agricultural revolution is actually to blame. prior to that, men and women were equal because they did equal amounts of work. there were things men were good at and things women were good at, thus male deities had roles in law and war and travel, while female deities had roles in keeping the house, protecting children and fields, etc after the agricultural revolution, however, the work that used to be evenly split between men and women became dangerous for pregnant women as the heavy workload would cause miscarriages. so women were made to stay at home; instead of tending to the house and doing hunter-gatherer work with the men, women just stayed at home. with the surplus of food caused by the revolution, people could have more kids, so the primary duty of the wife and any other women in the house was concerned with looking after children, serving the men, and so on. this also caused the shift from goddesses of agriculture like Demeter; men became the only valid voice in the conversation, so their many gods and goddesses became male gods, with female deities holding less prominent positions. an interesting fact that was in this thing i read pointed out that, while men and women have been equal at least prior to the agricultural revolution, at no point in history have women in general held a great deal of power over men. there are cultures in the world where women are important, revered, and hold power, but it's never been this way for the vast majority of women at once.
So, judeo-cristiana scripture portrays women's desire to find a male partner as a torment, comparable to the pain of childbirth, women are burdened with? and men working themselves to an early grave to providing for women as man's god given destiny? who said the bible wasnt feminist!?
My view in the issue(coming from a Christian standpoint) is that Eve made the suggestion and Adam obeyed so now Adam must make the suggestion and Eve must obey, however if you read the rest of the Bible you notice that God urges a very two way relationship with both cooperating for a common goal. Man is given authority, but he is also given the brunt of the work with women have the less bodily taxing job of keeping the home. Another important thing is the idea of blame. Adam blamed Eve for the first sin (and then was the responsibility to make the choices and shoulder blame for failure) I think that man's modern acceptance of women as equal is a good metaphor for us taking responsibility for our own sin unlike Adam. We have shared all equally and are stronger for it.
Here in the Philippines, we have a different myth on the first man and woman: Malakas (Strong) and Maganda (Beautiful). They came from a bamboo trunk splitted to two. The man and woman here came from equal halves, thus indicating gender equality in our pre-colonial times (our ancients even chose homosexuals as spiritual leaders). Not until... the Spaniards came with their Bible.
Hope you find this interesting. The Philippine Mythology also has a vast array of fascinating and intriguing stories worth studying.
"They would exchange compliments, and then have intercourse"
Well, that escalated very quickly
What is entercource
You sweet sweet innocent person
i really wanted to give this comment a like but it's at 69 and that's perfect
Then a deformed child was born, because inbreeding
I always like the origin story Aristophanes gives in Plato's Symposium. Humans originally had four arms and four legs and came in three flavours, male, female and androgynous (which is both). The problem with this is that all these arms and legs meant they were able to cartwheel around and kick gods in the face and they were going to climb Olympus to do just that. Zeus was gonna thunderbolt them but then realised that they can't give him sacrifices and stuff if they're thunderbolted so, instead, he just chopped them in half, which obviously created two humans with two arms and two legs each.
Of course, those two humans were actually just half humans so when they found their other halves they were whole and never wanted to separate again.
Some people will tell you that the story was actually meant to be satirical but I don't see how this particular after the fact explanation of how the world works is any less valid than the normal creation myths. The other ones barely involve cartwheels to the face at all.
It seems like these ancient myth creators all went
"Women, am I right?"
This cracked me up.... u know what i mean
"men makes mistakes too"
Zeus. That's all I'm gonna say.
And I add onto that his wife, Hera: Goddess of Marriage decided to stay faithful to him despite how much it was hurting her
To all the people complaining about the feminist lens on this episode: I can't think of any other element of social order that affects our daily lives quite as much as the male/female duality.
The problem isn't that,the problem is to use his feminist lens to spin a narrative,and to create a impression that isn't true.Look at the comments about the bible,they give a waaay better insight on the matter.People aren't dumb to not catch a bias,a narrative or an agenda when they are present.
Okabe Rintarou the way the guy talks about it is the truth though and why the patriarchal society is enforced
Interestingly, angels in paintings over several centuries and in different parts of the world are nearly always portrayed as androgynous or genderless looking, considering both Christianity and Islam are the two major religions that emphasize angels the most. Lots of these types of images during the time of the Renaissance after all. Interesting how that is. I suggest checking the website learnreligions for more.
The Ancient Japanese have a Matriarchal society.
*First 30 seconds*
*Incest alarm bells ring immediately*
Get used to that alarm because it happens a LOT!
Japanese culture is quite tolerant regarding incest, I guess that explains creation myth
Just wait till we get to Greece. _And I though the Von Hapsburgs were crazy._
And Egypt mythology celebrates it, Ancient Pharaos used to marry between siblings. Targaryens also used to do this
You know what they say about incest: It's all relative.
I was hoping for some mention of Lilith.
smith22041 yeah, me too. she gets left out a lot
As interesting as the myth is, its validity is probably too highly disputed to include it here. The earliest source that identifies Lilith as Adam's first wife is The Alphabet of Ben Sira, which is dated to between the 8th and 11th centuries, a text often referred to as a satirical text. The name 'Lilith' only pops up in the Bible briefly and amongst a list of beasts or demons.
that's what i was thinking too. maybe the next video?
Lilith being Adams' first wife is likely a scholarly legend, made up well after the Priestly creation story and the J creation story were written down. Lilith was a demon of lore that was supposedly responsible for infants that died suddenly. Some scholars noted how different the stories of Genesis 1 and 2 were and as a way to explain the discrepancy, came up with the story that Lilith was Adam's first wife. They didn't realize (or didn't want other people to realize) that the reason the stories are different is because they literally came from two different sources, were two different versions of the creation myth.
Same. Even though her story isn't exactly canonical, she's an important part of the way gender roles are interpreted.
Hey, socks are a pretty sweet gift. Even Dumbledore wanted them
And Dobby!
Something no one has mentioned yet: Eve only becomes subservient to Adam (e.g. "Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you") after they've both eaten the fruit and are being cast out. It's one of the punishments for their sin just like tilling the earth, pain in childbirth and, most importantly, death. It's implied that these things are not natural and are not how they were intended to be but have come about because of sin.
By that logic male domination is not something that was ever intended, nor is it something good, but is part of the sad reality of a flawed world. Which, imo, lines up more with a feminist standpoint.
This comment. This comment right here deserves more likes. Multiple points in the Bible also prove this logic as being accurate.
Mia Hansen *internet high fives at you*
Vickie Currin I agree to an extent. Responsibility is a good word for what might have been intended, actually. But "rule over" is not a term that lends itself to loving, gentle interpretations. I think of a very brutal kind of authority when I think of someone "ruling over" someone else.
And indeed if you look back through history men, as a rule, consistently abuse their power over women (as a side note I think it's very likely that if women ruled the world they would do the same, in a more feminine fashion. "No Men Beyond This Point" is a movie about just such a scenario and it's fascinating.) and I think that's just human nature. No one is perfect and it's very difficult to handle power well. Just look at politicians.
But that's the point. No one is perfect. Men have abused their power (by which I mostly mean social power although being physical larger, stronger, etc. plays a part too) over women in the majority of societies for the majority of human history because people mess up and they can't be perfect.
Which is why it's significant that the "he shall rule over you" line is part of the curse AFTER Adam and Eve have eaten the forbidden fruit. I would argue it's because of sin and a fallen world that this imbalance between the sexes has historically existed.
Now you can argue about how much responsibility men should ideally have in the home or over their wives all day long but I think it's a separate issue.
From the moment sin entered the world men began to rule over their wives, with all the negative connotations that word implies. Not because God intended to be that way or because it is good, but because that's how human nature works.
I believe a fully biblical marriage would be much closer to the equality feminism advocates, though perhaps with a little more responsibility expected from the man, as you mentioned.
So... he is a babysitter and women aren't able to take care of themselves. Mkay.
Eliza Corder I love your comments. I would say however that you are both correct and incorrect. To rule over has positive connotations as well. As a parent, you rule over your children. As a boss, you rule over you employees. Yes, that has been taken too far on too many occasions. But there have been plenty of times where the opposite is true. In those times, to rule over your house, meant to take responsibility for. Women didn't work because they were valued more than men. Sure, they didn't have jobs, or learned publicly, but they didn't need to back then. They took care of the home and the person that took care of them. The man provided food, clothing and shelter. The woman cooked and helped raise the children. (Yes, the men actually took a more active role in raising the children) . The men back then just simply didn't want the women to get hurt or die. Women were cared for. All of their needs were met. It was a symbiotic relationship where both benefited.
On a side note, feminism now has it backwards. Women nowadays have more benefits than men, yet claim they are "oppressed". Feminism claims to be about equality but have yet to demonstrate that fact.
Other than that, your comments were insightful. Have a wonderful day.
Important side note: They didn't eat from a Tree of Knowledge. It was the Tree of "Knowledge of Good and Evil"
Maybe Adam's rib used to make Eve was his penile bone, thus explaining why men are the only male mammals without one...
Can we please get end of lesson recap like on the science videos? There's a lot of names and stories and facts that Mike goes over. It'd be really helpful in remembering more than themes
i never understood how pandora left hope in the box, yet we are still able to have hope
I believe it was supposed to symbolise that we will always have hope coming from within us.
Also in the version of the story I first heard, she didn't leave hope in the box. Hope doesn't come out until it's called. that made more sense to me.
The thing that people dont understand was Pandora's Box was filled with all the evils of humanity. Hope to is an evil then. Friedrich Nietzsche says"Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torment of men." In this case Pandora did mankind a favor by traping hope inside the box. Of hope was let out mankind would not survive; they would wait to be saved from the evils that befell humanity.
thats quite interesting, but doesn't explain why we have hope (ie its out of the jar as well)?
The version I read once said what was left was the power to see the future. If people had that, they would give in to despair.
BadPeople1100 me too, that why we have the expression "hope never die" in all language that comes from latim or greek.
Really enjoying the series so far, great host makes it engaging and awesome effort presenting huge topics in 10 minutes, just wanted to chime in on the strong tone of the conclusion here: In the biblical case...
Many scholars would disagree that the biblical story places the blame on the woman, but rather the man for bringing sin/evil into the world. First for his sin of omission as he didn't take care of and look out for his wife, referencing Genesis 3:6 "...she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate." The fact that the husband was with her meant that he should have been caring for her, encouraging her to obey God, not because women need a male to save them but because he was supposed to care for his wife, as he would have his parents before he left them (Genesis 2:24).
Scholars also point to Genesis 3:9, noting that the omniscient God addressed first the man for the act of sin, and in Romans 5:12, where in reference to Jesus saving the world from its sin it says "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned."
All this being said, this biblical myth has indeed been interpreted in the past to justify male dominance over women and throw women under the buss as it were for causing evil. But that stance is not by any means, popular opinion today.
Where is the rebellious Lilith, from Abrahamic mythology?
Where is Rígsthula from Norse mythology, to explain and justify the social hierarchy?
But there isnt really a cannon in myth right. Lilith is just as much myth as genesis
Lilith is a matter of ACTUAL canonization. That is to say, what the Church and the Pope and his bunch say is and isn't what happened. There's actually a ton of Apocrypha... stories and myths and such that the Church said shouldn't be included in the bible... of which the tale of Lilith is one such story.
Biblical Apocrypha is an interesting subject in itself... and arguably more interesting than what was deemed canon imo. It tends to work in a lot more Judaic mythology than usual for Christianity.
In a mythology course, it shouldn't be a factor that one myth is considered "canon" to a religious group and another is not, the point is that the myth existed for hundreds of years mostly as an oral legend and thus had an impact on the culture.
It's most certainly a factor. As you said, even apocryphal stories like Lilith had an impact on the culture somewhere along the line. But just the same, the ENTIRE concept of canonization and apocrypha (Christianity is hardly the only religion to do that) also had an impact on culture. These things are central to understanding mythology as it gives a clear sign to what people at the time and place deemed to be their religious truth. You don't ignore one for the other.
AND he didn't mention Loki was genderfluid!
I hope that sometime he starts an episode with "Gooood Mythical Morning!"
To the random person scrolling through the comments, have a nice day!
Right back at you
Thanks Galaxy Otter! I hope you have a great day too!
Please, Have a Nice day as well
Galaxy Otter Aww, thanks! You too buddy!
Galaxy Otter thanks Otter. You too.
"God is definitely a man because no woman would screw up this bad" - George Carlin
My. Favorite. Quote. Ever.
It's gotten a fair share of use since mr carlin!
Apparently acknowledging that ancient women were oppressed is "pushing an agenda" now, according to these comments.
+
Ignis Domini +
+
Everything is conspiracy these days.
+Ignis Domini They are spoiling the subject to talk about something that has nothing to do with mythology.
The Japanese creation myth is longer than that but they just picked the misogynistic part.
Like they themselves addressed. When we talk about gods. There a a lot of feminine gods that are super powerful and influential in a lot of men's life. But they picked an choose parts of stories just to make their point about misogyny.
Also, Couldn't they have mentioned a myth, among the myriad of them, that woman was superior over man just as a counter exemple? I'm sure there is one out there.
the irony is that men actually came out of women
But men are physically stronger, so it goes how they say it does.
Actually, they first come out of men, into women, who later gives birth.
Sad I have to explain it.
+Arseniy 7 No, actually. Biologically speaking, women are the default. Life originally reproduced clonally and then by parthenogenesis. Even now, there are a number of species made up entirely of females, like ants.
The basic biological state of a fetus is female as well.
"reproduced clonally and then by parthenogenesis" - Clonal reproduction doesn't have genders. Parthenogenesis can produce both, male and female, depending on a specie.
"like ants" - Info from a top 10 video? How about you try to read on it a bit.
"The basic biological state of a fetus is female as well" - At least one, although unfinished, point made, congratulations!
What a deep, insightful comment.
Your acute intellect and eloquence brighten this comment section!
Yes, finally Shintoism is here. It's just not know well enough abroad (or in Japan actually) and I think it's one of the more interesting mythologies out there. The Kojiki is an intriguing piece of literature. 天之御中主神 is difficult to say even in Japanese do I was surprised he got it right.
My favorite part of the Fall of Man story is the very last thing God does before banishing Adam and Eve from Eden: He makes them leather garments to help them survive exposure to the elements, a vast improvement over the wholly inadequate fig leaves they'd strung together after realizing their nudity. He was saying "You've made Me very angry, but even in your disgraced state I will continue to provide you with benefits beyond what you can achieve on your own."
aperson22222 I like that part too
aperson22222 God is angry, but he is still a Dad.
God's all like : "Get out of my house!! And here, take 200 $ ."
IceMetalPunk nowhere in the Bible does it say God could forsee it.
“Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” Isiah 46:9-10
“My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. How precious to me are your thoughts, God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand-when I awake, I am still with you” Psalm 139:15-16
“Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account” Hebrews 4:13
Q: Why do all the stories on this show not have enough evidence to be proven true?
A: They're Myth-teries
The Strange Quark.........
Well done, sir.
+
😉🖒
I think they supply enough evidence to open up people's minds to search for their own truths, not to convince or prove what the are saying is fact! it's just their theories to debated subjects and issues!
I had an English teacher in high school who loved puns like that, and I always groaned at those too.:-)
My understanding of Shinto myth is that the cause of mortality among humans is a man's fault - When Ninigi-no-mikoto was sent to pick a wife and become first king of men, he said no to Iha-Naga the mountain woman in favour of her sister Ko-no-hana the flower woman - choosing beauty over long life.
Mike, I am a fan of your work for the last few years. I love what you did on PBS idea channel and what you are doing on Crash Course Mythology. You work in bringing critical theory and philosophy to pop culture is at the vanguard of some of the best stuff going on for the public good on the web, and I very much appreciate that what you did for postmodern memes, you are now doing for the "ancient memes" we call mythology.
Also, I should say that I am an Episcopal priest who serves as a chaplain and teacher of philosophy and world religions at a school for college prep 9-12 graders. As such, I use your material on a regular basis in many of my classes.
With that preface, I am not a huge fan of your uni-dimensional portrayal of the Biblical Myths thus far in CC Mythology (I'm at Episode 10 or so right now). My critique is NOT that you are inaccurate. You are accurate in portraying how these texts have been used in the history of religion and culture, and probably in many of the ways these myths were originally intended.
But you also know the power of interpretation, and how a text can gain new voices and new interpretations as it is handed down through the ages.
It is the unfortunate case that Genesis 1-3 has often been used to justify human domination of the environment, and male domination of women, along with the patriarchal social structures that these values serve. I absolutely grant that this is the case.
BUT if it is constantly repeated-- as even you seem to do-- that this is the ONLY way to interpret these texts, then these texts will continue to be used to justify these social structures of injustice, and generations yet to come will continue to read these as texts of oppression. It will justify that this is the "natural" read of these texts.
I wish you would create an episode that is about re-visioning some of our living myths, especially and specifically these Genesis texts. One could easily point out the following:
- In the first creation myth, male AND female are made in God's image, and thus the feminine is as divine as the male.
- In both the first and second creation myth, humans are given the task of stewardship of creation. Our "dominion" only extends insofar as we are faithful stewards of the gift God has given us, and therefore abuse and degradation of the environment is inherently against the purpose of our creation.
- In the second creation myth, male and female were created to be naked without shame, which has all kinds of body-positive and sex-positive implications.
- In the second creation myth, the woman is made as a "helper"-- the Hebrew word is Ezer-- to the man. The word Ezer is only applied to one other Being in the Bible: God in Godself as a helper to humanity.
- In the story of "The Fall", the subjugation of women to men is a consequence of sin, not the original divine plan for creation. So, to return to our origins does not mean to return to a primal subjugation, but a primal equality.
- Finally, in the history of the Jewish and Christian reception of this text, it is usually NOT the woman who gets the blame for the fall. Rather it is her husband who is blamed for it, because he disobeyed and set his wife up for failure. For instance, see Paul's take on the primal fall in Romans 5 and 1Corinthians 15. It's Adam's fault. Not Eve.
I could go on, but I think there is a case for an egalitarian and eco-sensitive re-read of the primal texts of Judaism and Christianity. It may not be the "majority" read of that tradition, but it is a viable minority voice. And if it is left un-heard, then people will only learn to associate these texts with their patriarchal and oppressive reads.
For a fuller exploration of re-reading the Genesis texts, might I recommend Rabbi Jonathan Sacks "Not in God's Name: Confronting Religious Violence". It's a good read and a good example of a close read that is against the grain of the "normal" way most people use these texts.
www.amazon.com/Not-Gods-Name-Confronting-Religious-ebook/dp/B00S3RILKI
Thanks for reading, and many blessings on your continued work to spread wisdom across the interwebs.
You started off this series by saying you would make a serious effort to distinguish between the facts of what these myths say and the ways in which they have been interpreted.
I'm honestly not seeing that distinction play out, especially in the Adam/Eve account. There's actually a lot of textual evidence in that passage of Genesis that pushes back against an attempt to put the blame on Eve.
Genesis 3:6 says that Adam was with Eve during the deception. Then, when Adam tries to put the blame on Eve for his sin, God doesn't buy it and curses him too. Furthermore, unlike Eve's curse, Adam's curse has effects that extend beyond himself. In Gen 3:17, God says, "Cursed be the ground because of you." (Adam's own name is a play on the word ground: 'adam vs. 'adama).
There certainly are interpretations out there that try to blame Eve. But again, some important parts of the text itself push back against that interpretation... and there are many other interpretations out there that have quite a bit more balance.
Bottom line... I think you're falling short in terms of distinguishing between the facts of what these myths say, and what interpretations are out there.
I'm still holding out for some mention of Indigenous North American mythology!
I was certain Gitchi Manitou, Nokomis/Ataensic/Sky Woman, Nanabush, Weesageechak etc (mix of Anishnaabe and Iroquois heros there) would have been in the earth mothers and water creation stories. There is such a rich history in these stories, and I really hope they get some Thought Bubble loving.
Interesting interpretation. I always thought of Adam and Eve as equally at fault for the introduction of sin into the world, though I've always understood the "woman-at-fault" interpretation as a dominant interpretation in the church. I was taught that Adam never had to listen to Eve, so if he hadn't done that he wouldn't have been punished like Eve was and God might've just created another woman instead of punishing all of womankind (if she didn't repent, which is a different subject all together). It's a flawed theory but that's how I've always thought of it. I also wouldn't say that woman coming from man is a justification of misogyny- it's just God creatively using his materials. It's always sort of confused me why people always assume Adam was male before Eve was created. I (personally) have always been taught that Adam had both male and female qualities in him, and God took the female aspects out of him and used them to create Eve. So maybe he was intersex before Eve was created? Idk just a theory, I'm not a scholar so I should probably do more research on the subject.
Most of these interpretations are modern attempts at reconciling the ancient text with contemporary views on gender relationship, i.e. trying to retain the Bible's creation stories while at the same time acknowledging that we've come quite a long way since then.
At the time they were written down, and until somewhat recently, these things were usually taken at way more face value. In many situations, women were considered subservient to men in Western society until the latter half of the 20th century; there was no need to read too much equality into the creation stories.
varana312 I didn't think of that. I'll definitely have to research more on the subject if I'm going to make sound theories that aren't there just to reconcile my worldview, it's actually something I've been struggling with for a while now. Thank you for your insight!
"Don't forget to be mythological" is my new motto.
Well done! I did not realize how pervasively ancient mythology discriminated against women.
Adam and eve was taken out of context. There's was no misogyny.
A small note. The reason for the creation of Eve in the Bible myth is not the need for extra workers in Eden but God's realization that Adam would be lonely. I think that's a very important detail for how gender relations are conceived within the framework of loneliness and companionship. This somewhat tempers the idea of gender dominance conveyed by other details. Adam needs Eve not to serve him but to find happiness and wholeness. Moreover, the myth represents God as concerned not for workforce, as in other myths, but for Adam's psychological and social well-being.
Women are perceived as gifts for a long time. See Lévi-Strauss theory. God makes a Woman as a gift of alliance with man: as a gift, it serves a purpose, just like objects does. There's no temperance in it...
God has no need of offering an alliance with a lowly creature like man. If He created Eve, it was as a way for Adam to find wholeness.
Not if the gift is reciprocal. If the 'gift' is a gift to the giver alone (as in a shovel to a labourer - because the shovel doesn't need to be used to still be a shovel), then I agree, but if the 'gift' is a gift to the giver and the giver is a gift to the gift, then who benefits? God could have said, "stop being lonely, you have me", but instead offers a mutuality, woman and man, that they may become one.
Also let us not forget about Lilith and how she was left and demonized because of thinking herself to be equal to adam.
Also how later in the story Izanami is turned into a vengeful demonic deity who becomes the creator of death.Or how pandora was created with an instiable curiosity and then presented with a box and told not open it.
Will you also be covering the matriarchal societies and their creation mythologies, like those of the Polynesians?
Wordplay might be wordplay today, but back in pre-literate days it was ACTUALLY MAGIC, so that little riff from Genisis isn't just a pun. Language defines reality, especially in Hebrew (a thing they share with the Egyptians!)
Also, curious that hope is feminine in the Pandora myth, and that death is only explicitly a punishment for men in Genesis...
Izanami might be blamed for humanities toils, but that in the later part of myth (after she has died giving birth to a fire god and Izanagi seeks her out against her wishes in the underworld of Yomi).
Then again it can be seen as a punishment against Izanagi's transgression, making it one of the few mythological examples where the male figure is punished for their curiosity
The woman was the first human to disobey to the rules of a dictator... pretty amazing
how is he the dictator if he allows free will?
@@lexluther919 Free will and an omniscient God are concepts that are fundamentally at odds with each other, as God supposed knows the outcome of every past, present, and future event. This eliminates the possibility of free will because every action you take has been already planned out for you because God already knows you are going to do it and you can't dictate from that path because God already knew of every possible deviation you could possibly attempt to make to the original plan. In short, there is no free will because God already planned out every action you could ever take ever.
@@grimtheghastly8878 even hell !
Hang on that Japanese myth sounds similar to the Moses tale...
This is fantastic information and presented in a great way. This narrator is so good. I like the little jokes here and there and the graphics really help to keep you focused on what is being said.
Its nice to find a channel that can discuss biblical stories in a fun filled manner without criticizing or condemning the stories but explaining them in logical ways. Cause like respect to all people and what they believe in, right. Thanks Crash Course.
They're better be an episode about Satan/Lucifer and/or "evil" or "destruction" deities!
Pernicious. What a succulent word. Thanks for expanding my vocabulary today.
So glad this video totally missed out on the Chinese creation mythology in which Nvwa, a FEMALE goddess, created man from dirt and water.
another feminist hiding behind fake accounts.
Pangu/ Pan Khu first
No need to put female when you literally said "goddess", unless there is some male goddess I am unaware of...
these replies are just butthurt lol sad
jazmin nicole I don’t particularly care for the comment as a whole, just confused about the part I pointed out
About the story of Pandora and the opening of her "box": there is an error in the translation of the word 'phitos' from the ancient Greek texts, where 'phitos' ,which is a type of jar to store food-stuffs in (google it!), became mistakenly translated into the word 'box' in English. Also relevant for this story, is that the Greeks believed that a human womb had a phitos shape and that people where poured out of it at childbirth.
Knowing this, the symbolism of Pandoras box is suddenly all about wombs and childbirth. For the ancient Greek the story might be a warning that all the evils of the word flow from a woman's womb, but that hope also lies inside the same womb and that the future lies within a woman. Or is trapped there, never to be let out, depending on how cynical you want to interpreter that story.
What about matriarch myths, aren't their any like that that put the women above the men?
not really no, off the top of my head the only myth with females above men was the amazons, and their society was a fictional one thought up by a writer
Bart De Bock and also a parody, since in a lot of the stories Greek heroes would dominate Amazon women. Basically it was a whole "Ha ha, women aren't people" thing.
There's not much in relation to the human end of creation stories. Most of them are male dominated tales.
But there are some tales of female deities in control of all existence.
There's actually a fascinating theory about Tiamat, a female creation deity from Mesopotamia. In the oldest stories, she's portrayed as a loving creation-mother. But somewhere along the tradition of telling and re-telling her story, the myth turned into one where she was a terrible serpent responsible for all sorts of evils put on humanity, and was thus slayed by an invading male god named Marduk.
Some theories hold that this change in character was a patriarchal 'overthrow' of a more matriarchal society. It's all theories with little evidence to back it up, since we're talking about vast stretches of ancient time, but it's interesting none the less.
Krescentwolf good points made, and I'm reminded that hunter-gatherer societies tend to be more egalitarian. the story of tiamat coevolved with the rise of agriculture, where sexual dimorphism plays an even larger role in the division of labor and the sexes. put those ingredients together and you're going to get pretty much the same cake every time.
You get some hints of it in more hunter gatherer societies, but agricultural societies, and thus ones with writing and thus the most sourced myths, tend to have more gender inequality because they can afford to. (division of labour requires one man being able to do enough work at one job to provide more than one person with the resources they need)
This is my favourite series on the internet!
First, I think it's more than a bit of a stretch to say the Japanese myth explained in any way, shape, or form why there's "toil, pain, and disease" unless there was a lot more to that story that was left out of this video.
Second, I don't think these stories were deliberately written to justify mistreatment of women, as the video seems to imply, but instead they were simply a result of a prevailing attitude at the time they were written. Use of these stories as justification for the mistreatment of women came after the fact.
And it's not even as universal as some would think. I'm saying this without doing a BIT of fact checking on Google or Wiki, lol, I'm lazy at the moment...but I do study mythology and ancient history, and if I recall (and please...someone correct me if I'm wrong), but I am pretty sure the ancient Egyptians as well as the Sumerians were extremely inclusive when it comes to women, seeing them as equals. So it's not like EVERY culture saw women as second-class. Granted, most of them did...but not all.
Interesting note, in the Hebrew
Man is spelled "AYSh" (the A is silent, bear with me)
And woman is spelled "AShH." the difference between them is that Ish has a Y and Ishah has a silent H. If we take those out, it spells "YH" one of the names of God. But let's say we take YH away from the words, we spell is "ASh." Esh, fire.
no naruto comments? interesting
You just HAD to bring that up?
+huraziel almost every Japanese animation and video game make references to their creation myth. So it's not exclusive to Naruto.
NARUTO! SASUKE! Goku?
not even close to almost every...
came to the comments just to find a naruto reference
I've been greatly enjoying this season of Crash Course! Might be my favorite season.
Compare the myths from the video to the Rotinonshonni, the creation myth of the Iroquois, a culture where women wielded significant power politically:
"Osti:tsia had been faithful to her husband and, because Rotea:he believed in the gossip that began with the Meteor Fire Dragon, he became jealous. This resulted in the light of the sky going out. If the male beings who would inhabit the world below wanted their world to continue, they would have to trust and listen to the female beings and not gossip and learn the lessons of what happened in the Sky World, for it is through the women that the inner light of the beings of the world is renewed and they must be cherished for this always."
The leech baby's *adorable!*
Wouldn't Pandora be a post creation myth since it takes place after the titian era? It's still relevant to social structure, but hardly a creation myth.
It's a myth about the creation of a social structure.
I'm loving this series. I can't wait for the 30+ more episodes to come!
Great video. It's a little sad that some will inevitably interpret this as a "feminist agenda" simply because you point out that these old stories are sexist.
It is feminist agenda, because the stories only reflect and rationalize what the ancient people saw. It's nature that is sexist, and gender equality is just one big ideological delusion.
Sexism is a social construct. Darwin himself, the man that founded Evolution and greatly revolutionized biology, was accused heavily for being a "sexist" due to his work sexual selection.
@@leoheo88 You clearly did not read any of Darwin's work. You are referring to Social Darwinism, which by the way, was not written by Darwin. How we interact with people is a social construct, and therefore you are correct in saying that sexism is a construct. That does't make it non-existent. Values are social constructs. Morality. Traditions. Ethics. Cod of conduct. You name it. Pointing out that Adam naming all the animals, then naming a woman who was made and given to him, is super sexist, it's pushing an agenda. You don't have to like that Christianity is fundamentally patriarchal, but it is.
I really hope you guys bring up some of the many beliefs of the Aboriginals of Australia, they're so nuanced and interesting.
It's important to make clear: the "moral of the story" for mythologies thousands of years old is a guessing game, where one simply inserts their favorite interpretation.
Where you say "misogyny everywhere," another can say (sticking to the general interpretations you present)"Women are the sex with the most persuasion, therefore are the ones most qualified for leadership" for the christian creation myth, or "When you make a claim, you should test it. In this case, being rewarded for the diligence with children."
You know what's really fun? When a guy on your dorm floor tries to explain his superiority as a man using the bible. In a political science learning community, we debated gun control, social security concerns, foreign policy, and so much more. You just never expect you have to seriously debate your own equality.
Could do you an episode on Matriarchal myths? These are even less known.
Another reading of the Fall of Humans story in Genesis 2 is that misogyny and patriarchy is a result of sin, on par with death, toil, injustice, and labor pains, and so should be as vigorously opposed as those other things. Of course, that's not how many actually read it, but I don't think it's a stretch to paint this curse as as a call to feminism.
There is a theme of the last becoming first, and the first becoming last throughout the Bible that is most explicitly mentioned in the New Testament (Matthew 19:30, 20:16; Mark 10:31; Luke 13:30, etc). The theme is essentially that the order in the beginning is the reversal of the order at the end. The theme appears most frequently in the context of the rule of the wicked in this life in contrast to the rule of the humble in the world to come. It also, however, appears in a lot of other places.
The first woman is created out of a man, while all subsequent men come from women. Mankind goes from immortal to mortal, through the fall of Adam (which is a reference to both Adam and Eve, as they are technically the same person and two different persons at the same time) and then from mortal to immortal through the sacrifice of Christ. We are born as children, grow up, and must then become like little children again in order to inherit the Kingdom of God.
If the man ruled over the woman in the beginning, then the woman will in the end rule over the man. I don't however, agree with the interpretation of the events in the story as though Adam is granted authority over Eve, in the common sense. The only kind of Christian ruler that is righteous is a servant (Matthew 20:28, etc). Adam must lay down his life for Eve, see to her needs, and she must give him her desires, as to allow him to devout his life to their fulfilment. It is not a coincidence that Eve is created out of Adam's rib (or side), as it is a symbol of partnership or equal standing. Also, in Genesis 2:18, God said that Eve would be "an help meet unto [Adam]". This is an unfortunate translation. The word "meet" signifies correspondence, partnership or equality in the original Hebrew.
The episode is correct, however, in that the Bible verses have been frequently used to justify unrighteous rule of men over women. And, there are scriptures that suggest that, in the context of the world of the wicked, the unrighteous rule of men might be reversed and instead granted to women, as prophesied in Isaiah 3:12, "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. ..."
Humans have a tendency of using whatever means they can to justify their behaviour, rather than changing their behaviour.
+Emanuel Palm Here are some thoughts I had watching the video, some similar to your own.
First, there are not 2 separate unrelated accounts in the Bible regarding the creation of humans.
Genesis chapter 1 is an overview and chapter 2 gets into specifics with more details of how they were created and early events.
They are complementary, not contradictory.
Second, realize that, per the biblical account, humans were created to live forever in perfection. Scientists do not understand why we grow old and die. 98% of the atoms in our body are replaced each year by other atoms we consume. Our bodies have wonderful abilities to heal themselves. Science is trying to understand why this process does not continue forever, giving us the eternal youth all humans long for. They are working on various possible solutions.
If humans have expectations they can accomplish such, then isn't it reasonable to conclude that the original Creator and designer of humans understands and can do much more?
The point of this is to realize we are not as we were intended to be. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad did not confer any actual knowledge. It was simply a means to reveal whether particular humans would accept their Creator's standards and ways or take it upon themselves to determine what was right and wrong. Eating such was a deliberate act of rebellion and demonstration of lack of loyalty and appreciation for their life-giver.
Just as a leaf plucked from a tree gradually dries up and crumbles into dust so too humans, once they cut themselves off from their life source and sustainer were as good as dead. Still, their bodies were so close to perfection, without all of the bad effects of mutations which accumulated and which later generations have suffered through with increasing genetic disease, that it took quite a while for their bodies to succumb to the full effects of aging and finally death.
When Jehovah told Eve what the results would be for her rebellion, it is not that he endorsed or caused these bad effects. He, after all designed and wanted humans to live in physical, mental, emotional and spiritual perfection. The increased pain of childbirth was the natural physical result of becoming physically imperfect. Excessive female craving for her mate and imperfect, selfish men taking advantage of this to be domineering are results of mental and emotional imperfection. God does not encourage such, but urges humans to fight against such impulses.
(Ephesians 5:25, 28,29) Husbands, continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and gave himself up for it, 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. A man who loves his wife loves himself, 29 for no man ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cherishes it, just as the Christ does the congregation
Proper exercise of headship is for a husband to put the interest of his wife and children before his own. However, Jehovah God knew that once humans became imperfect, many would not do that. He was forewarning Eve of future bad results.
Those who try to blame everything on women or compare such to mythological legends as the videographer did are mistaken. BOTH bear the blame and results of unappreciative and unwise rebellion, but Adam more so. As family head, he was responsible for their well-being. Also, Eve's sin was in a bad response to deception, however Adam did so despite knowing the claimed benefits of rebellion were a lie.
(1 Timothy 2:13,14) For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor.
Realize that the videographer is attempting to discredit the Bible by mixing it's accounts in with various human mythologies and distorting their meaning.
Here are the Bible's answers to many other questions people have long wondered about:
www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/
My point was simply that the interpretation given in the video isn't so obvious as it might seem. Details were secondary. The first realization you must come to before seriously studying any ancient text is that you are looking through a thick, foggy, cultural lens, which you brought yourself. If I remember correctly, Mike Rungetta, the host, said something similar in some earlier episode. Unless you understand the intended audience, you are likely going to misunderstand the myth.
In the spirit of the contemporary culture of easy-digest media, the episode is full of references to themes likely alien to the original audiences of the considered stories. Rather than saying something on the line: "these things allowed men to rule unrighteously over women", I would much rather have listened to a no-stance discussion about how these cultures perceived manhood in contrast to womanhood, and how the roles were embodied in their myths. Also, talking about the Bible as a myth without picking any particular Christian cultures as reference is like saying that all religious people, or any other group of people, are stupid. In both cases you are bound to make too many generalisations. A potentially quite interesting episode would have considered how the Bible was used in specific historical instances to legitimize certain behaviours. The Bible has been used to justify wars, ethnic cleansing, patriarchy, and so on, but not by every Christian that ever lived. Examples are powerful, and history is full of entertaining stories.
Interesting that a JW would reply to my comment. I respect your diligence in studying the scriptures. Allow, me, with all respect, to reply with another link:
www.mormon.org/beliefs/the-creation-and-the-fall
thanks for your thoughtful interpretation. well spoke.
[01:39] "man is created near the very beginning..."-this anthropic principle, talking-about-you-style, is the best audience-hook for a nonfiction history, (the Bible is good-reading for elementary schoolers)... the 'bones' story is a morale above human ignorance: the womb-state, the worthiness of the female, K'Eve's same birthday, Adam's mark of first-lineage....
I like to think that woman was taken from man's rib so that she will protect his heart. :D
There is actually an old Hebrew saying "Woman was not take from man's head so as to be his master, nor from his feet so as to be his slave, but from his rib so as to be close to his heart". Pity they didn't put that in the Bible.
aww That is such a beautiful saying!
I'm glad you liked it. A Biblical scholar once remarked that the final climatic act of creation is the creation of the female ... so women are the peak of creation ;)
Red Sparks Wow haha! (:
word life!
I think that's the largest I've ever seen a dislike bar on this channel. Good job. You're much better than most.
In the Quran, women are never blamed for tricking Adam into eating the apple. It's Satan that tricked them both.
i’m the quran homosexuals receive the death penalty and mohammed is a perverted rapist
Utube Viewer true that
Nope, it says Satan whispered to both of them, and as a matter of fact the Quran seems to place more blame on Adam, as he was the the one who had to ask for forgiveness, which was granted unlike in the bible.
That's not true, there isn't a single verified Islamic religious text that establishes a punishment for homosexuality
Abbod Al-Hasani Yes there is there are plenty. Google it
I take a mythology class in school and thanks to crash course I have a 95 in that class!
In [the original version of the bible in - ] Hebrew you can see that it's actually not Adam's RIB the piece of flesh and bones that god took from him in order to create Eve, but his SIDE.
(Explanation and proof : the word is צלע (şelaġ or "tzelah" in different ), which usually means rib in modern Hebrew, but in biblical Hebrew (and also sometimes in modern Hebrew) it means side.
that's a huge difference.
It also makes what Adam said after that much more sensible: "bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh"?! a rib is a bone, so it should've been: "bone of my bones" or at most: "bone of my bones and flesh of my bones" (because according to the belief that she came from his rib - her flesh also came from his rib which means that it came out of his rib, which again is his bone).).
Another thing is that in Hebrew, "Ish" and "Isha" is completely different from its equivalent in English.
In English, the word "woman" isn't the feminine form of man ("maness" like princess and ), but instead is the combination of the words "womb" + "man", means that a woman is simply a man with a womb.
In Hebrew, however, "Isha" is the feminine form of "Ish", means that man and woman are different genders of the human species.
Those two differences makes the meaning of the bible totally different from how they presented it here.
there is no subordination of women, nor comparison of women to animals.
about the english version of the bible, I don't know.
So wait... Pandora was a bioweapon!?
Also, I was also dissapointed by the lack of a mention of Lilith. Want an example of old-world misogyny? Right there.
The information in these videos feels really shallow. It really covers what is most popular and many people know anyway. I was expecting much more from CC.
Hence the title crash course. It's not meant to be that detailed just a starting point.
The Bible says that satan tricked Eve into sinning, but Adam knew what he was doing when he ate the fruit, so sin, when a child was born, would be passed down through the father. The Bible puts blame on both parties, not just Eve. This interpretation of the Bible is completely incorrect.
Um how do you conclude that the Bible calls men superior to women when the end of the verse says "they become one flesh"...?
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding in today's society about the difference between "equal" and "identical". Just because men and women are two different sexes with two different roles does not mean one is no more important or superior than the other.
"Your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you"
This is not "equality not identicality" this is straight up superiority of men and oppression of women.
What's weird about all the women being the downfalls is that their digressions are usually not sinister or conniving in nature. They are simply not doing what the men say they should do. Eve was curious about prospect of knowledge, and so she ate the apple. Izanami was "unfinished" and spoke first to be made whole. Pandora was tricked into opening a box out of curiosity. I think this reflects how childlike men viewed women. As if they didn't or couldn't even act maliciously but stumbled upon ruining the world. So what's worse, being smart but ruinous or stupid and foolhardy? Either a terrible way to be seen through the generations.
Why didn’t you put up an incest alert for Adam and Eve when it’s literally selfcest?
It's important to note that the English etymology for the term for woman isn't about adding "wo" to the default of man; in old English men were essentially called "war-men," or war-human, and women were called "wife-men," or wife-human.
Throughout the years the war part of war-man fell out of style while the wife part was shortened down.
This is so well presented and beautifully made, well done!
Hi Mike, I have to say (that after seeing your in Idea Channel for some moths now) I feel really pleased to see you here doing these videos, I really, really but really like the way you present your topics and ideas =) thanks for doing so!
One key to myths is correct interpretation. The video is fairly incorrect in several places. First, the order of creation is significant but subtle. All things were created in a particular order, from the most insignificant to the greatest. Eve wasn't created second, she was created last, therefore she was the crowning creation, the most significant. The words "ish" and "isha" aren't significant here but the words "Adam" and "Eve" are. "Adam" means "human" and "eve" means "mother of all living."
The pair were given two commandments: (1) to multiply and fill the earth (replenish is a faulty translation) and (2) not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. These two commandments were contradictory: since they were immortal they couldn't have children (immortal parents give birth to immortal children; if no one dies, the place fills up and only a limited number of spirits receive bodies - the whole point of the drill). The only way to accomplish this is to become mortal by eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
Enter Lucifer (satan is just a Hebrew word for "adversary;" this person is throughout the Bible). He's been thrown out of heaven for rebellion and wants to foil the plan. It was explained there but he didn't understand it well so he falls into his own trap. His plan is to trick the pair into causing their own death.
He tries to get the man to eat but he doesn't understand the dilemma and refuses. He changes tactics and tells Eve of the virtues of eating it. But he tells her too much and she sees that they must make a choice: either living forever in ignorance or becoming mortal, having offspring, and learning from the opposition in all things: there is no light unless there is darkness, there is no virtue without vice, there is no pleasure without pain - if there is no opposition, there can be no measure of things; there can be no knowledge.
She goes back and explains what she's done and why. He still refuses but she tells him that if he doesn't then he'll be alone in the Garden and they won't be able to fulfill the other commandment - to multiply. He then sees the wisdom in it and also eats.
Penalties and punishment? No, not really. Elohim (God - literally "gods" in Hebrew) explains what will happen, childbirth is painful, farming is hard. Nothing more than that. The "ruling" part is explained later as being the voice for the pair but they will both preside over the human family as equal partners.
The story was originally a drama that was played out in the ancient temple and was the original version that was in one form or another played out in every temple on every continent, slightly changed from place to place. Since the older scriptures were lost while Israel was captive in Egypt, what we have is a restored version written originally by Moses then changed slightly over the centuries by various scribes.
While our narrator above does lots of eye rolling he doesn't get close to conveying the richness of the story. Bottom line: Eve wasn't the villain, she was the hero.
Tom's Best Stuff lovely. I'd really like to read more on this view. did you have any books or material I can borrow?
Interesting. I never thought of it that way. Thanks for that, really. I think this shows how dangerous it is to model society or even to generalize morality from a 2,000 year old book written by "man". There are many angles and many different interpretations. I'm not a religious person but I do appreciate the role of mythology within history.
why could they not multiply, to fill the earth, and be immortal? does there need to be a larger number of people than can fit on earth? even with death there would not be an infinite number of people because the world will end at some point! :) they could make spaceships and colonize other planets if the world filled up! :) interesting perspective, though, they should have made the video with this one!! :)
You kind of lose some credibility when you talk about the "correct" interpretation of a 2000+ year old myth. There are many interpretations, and no objective way to define a correct one here.
What a load of bollocks.
I've always had hangups about the tree of good and evil story.
1: How would they know defying God was bad without knowledge of good and evil? On the same note, how would they know the serpent was leading them astray?
2: Why would an omnipotent God allow (or create) an Usurper in the garden?
3: why even put the tree there in the first damn place?
Nag Hamadi library, bro. Better answers.
While the tale of Izanami's children (and her eventual death) showcase a 'blame the woman' moment... there are many non-patriarchal stories in Japanese myth as well. I mean... the pantheon is ruled over by Amaterasu... a female deity.
Then you have gods like Inari, who has appeared as male, female, and even hermaphroditic depending on the story. There's a lot of 'gender binary' stories in creation tales, for whatever reason. But there's plenty of 'gender fluid' tales as well. Hell, the very word hermaphrodite comes from greek mythology.
CrashCourse ,I'm really enjoying your series about mythology, but I do want to clarify something. With the Biblical story of Creation, there aren't two different versions in Genesis. Genesis 1 provides a general summary of Creation week, Genesis 2 goes into more detail about the events during Creation week. Same story, different aspects.
what about that verse said anything about men being Superior to women or vice versa?
which it is. (the bible that is)
this absolutely changed my viewpoint on life. thank you for posting such an inspirational video.
All I can say is that humans back then were really backward and they put all of that backwardness into their holy scriptures.
InsecureKid Just to clarify what I was implying is that religious people need to update their beliefs, not abandon them. After all, that's exactly what Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, countless Islamic, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist scientists did. Update the myths and misconceptions, maintain the fundamental belief in God. Fine by me.
InsecureKid The thing is, religion seems to be updating itself. Projections show the world is becoming increasingly new-creationist. That is the idea that God started the Big Bang and then everything happened as shown by science. There are actually many people reinterpreting holy scriptures. Think about it, 'Let There Be Light' is basically a pre-medieval way of describing the Big Bang.
*neo-creationist. Not new-creationist.
audience of this channel is really the best....on "big think" there are ppl with tiny brains ....dont think big when your RAM is small
blah. I was enjoying this series until you started giving overly generalised lectures about gender inequality - most of which is just assertion without evidence. Myth is not the only reason for gender inequality. Nor is it fair to suggest that the creators of these myths had the intention of ensuring gender inequality in the future. There are other interpretations as to why women would be (in the minds of our archaic ancestors) subservient to men other than the reasons you are giving.
There are 2 corrections in the third slide of your intro
Rakshasas are the leaders.They are dignified and some can be good. Asuras, sort of thier henchmen drink blood
The mahabharat, another Indian epic is the longest, not the Ramayan.
Before anyone asks me how I know, I'm Indian
Remember to take a shot everytime this guy says misogyny!
I came out of this video as a liberal/ultra-feminist dude...
But there's a conclusion to draw from this: Those civilizations were only men and women from their times.
Remember, the man hunted dangerous animals, often being killed or horribly injured in the process, or defending their territory from outsiders (often getting slaughter as well) while women took care of the hut and kids and recollections or plantation.
I mean, would you blame those men for believing they were more important when they where the ones being killed left and right trying to bring a tiger steak to the table?
Perspective is gold.
Are there any matriarchal social order myths?
Google it.
Lots and lots of them. For some reason, not a single one was mentioned.
It's really funny because the reason childbirth is painful is because of the large brains of babies, which could be symbolic from the gaining of knowledge. Also, man came from the dirt, meaning, possibly, he no longer lives in the trees, but walks and runs on the land, symbolizing the birth of man from ape.
Loki gave birth to children in the form of a giant woman, a horse god as a horse and fathered as a man. in retrospect he was the only true transgender God. Plus Thor was a cross dresser so "Norse mythology for whateverthe #@$& it is"
Ray Martin I can't remember which Hindu god did it (I think Vishnu but I'm not 100% on that) but basically he turned into a woman to marry a guy the day before he would be sacrificed and/or die in battle. The Hijra, a third gender group roughly equivalent to trans women in the West, worship this incarnation of the god and the man they married, and symbolically take the same action during a annual festival - marrying the man-god and becoming widows the next day. It's seen as the only marriage they can have, at least traditionally and under current laws on homosexuality.
There's also that story of how a demon named Bhasmasura who attained a boon from Lord Shiva after intense meditation saying " whose head my hand touches shall be turned into ash (bhasma, hence where he got his name)." So after he got his boon, he was captivated by Shia's wife Parvati and wanted to possess her. In order to do get her, he attempted to touch the head of Shiva as to kill him. Lord Vishnu, aware of this, came down to earth as a beautiful woman and seduced Bhasmasur. Bhasmasur said he wanted to marry Mohini, to which Mohini replied that she was very fond of dancing and she would marry him if he could imitate her dance moves.
So long story short, they danced for a while and then at the end Mohini touched her head, Bhasmasur did the same, and you can guess what happened next.
Aditya Raghav Aditya Raghav thanks for the more in depth explanation - it's been a long time since I read Mahabharata, so some details got a bit cloudy for me.
Loki had a giant wife, she gave birth to Hel, the serpent of Midgard and Fenrir. He himself gave birth to the eight legged horse after that little incident with the wall.
... Can't help but hear "Inducing a deep sleep and taking a rib" as an allegory to "Tranquilizing and taking a DNA sample". "Ribs" could have been the simplified expression to describe chromosome to the ancient people who haven't even established the concept of biology yet, and could have been alluding to X chromosome being taken from the first male and duplicated into XX pair to produce a female specimen. Hmm... fascinating. >):^]
I think you are stretching the interpretation of these stories to try and give them similar themes. Why not just tell it like it is?
Because he is. He told each story exactly how they appear in their respective mythologies. All he's doing is pointing out the fact that there's a pattern throughout all of them that shed light on the zeitgeist of the people who told them. It's a rather unfortunate pattern but all the important that we point them out.
I could just not miss the nataraj sculpture kept on the desk behind.
😊😊😊😊
to be fair in the pandora Hope is a woman as well, or at least female, the most powerful force for good in the universe is female in that story. How this good came about is very arguably sexist but it's not all bad in that story. That's not to say the myth wasn't sexist, it was, after all Greece was incredibly sexist in it's mythology. Zeus was a massive cereal rapist but there is at least that little glimmer of ambiguous hope in that one.
Francis Mitchell I imagined Zeus going "Prepare Capitan Crunch, I'm coming..."
No Zeus, please not Tony the Tiger!
I deserve this...never misspell anything on the internet, this is what I have learned, I thank you for this lesson people of the comments section.
Friedrich Nietzsche: "Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torment of men."
Hope was the greatest of evils in the box; stuck at the very bottom. Pandora saved humanity by by traping hope inside.
Two things that could have been researched more:
1) In the oldest translations of Genesis, Eve was made out of the "bony part" of Adam. Normally this translates as the bone that is common in most mammal penises, but strangely missing from human penises. But later this got sanitized as rib.
2) If you exam real world matriachies (not the artifical ones created by modern people and less than one generation old) you will find that men do surprisingly little work. They typically work just enough to survive, but spend most of the rest the time relaxing and chasing women. This is because mothers not wives dominate men's lives. Between the natural instinct of women baby their babies and evolutionary advantage of keeping their sons freed up to chase tail, in matriarchy men just work less. Patriarchy might be nothing more than the natural result of potential mates trying to trade sex/reproduction for labor from men, and then men enforcing those agreements when women tried to cheat them.
Modern interpretations of Adam and eve’s relationship messes it up and makes it seem wrong. But they were created as equal partners with different jobs. Kinda like yin and yan
as far as gender equality in early human societies goes, i remember reading something about how the agricultural revolution is actually to blame. prior to that, men and women were equal because they did equal amounts of work. there were things men were good at and things women were good at, thus male deities had roles in law and war and travel, while female deities had roles in keeping the house, protecting children and fields, etc
after the agricultural revolution, however, the work that used to be evenly split between men and women became dangerous for pregnant women as the heavy workload would cause miscarriages. so women were made to stay at home; instead of tending to the house and doing hunter-gatherer work with the men, women just stayed at home. with the surplus of food caused by the revolution, people could have more kids, so the primary duty of the wife and any other women in the house was concerned with looking after children, serving the men, and so on. this also caused the shift from goddesses of agriculture like Demeter; men became the only valid voice in the conversation, so their many gods and goddesses became male gods, with female deities holding less prominent positions.
an interesting fact that was in this thing i read pointed out that, while men and women have been equal at least prior to the agricultural revolution, at no point in history have women in general held a great deal of power over men. there are cultures in the world where women are important, revered, and hold power, but it's never been this way for the vast majority of women at once.
So, judeo-cristiana scripture portrays women's desire to find a male partner as a torment, comparable to the pain of childbirth, women are burdened with? and men working themselves to an early grave to providing for women as man's god given destiny? who said the bible wasnt feminist!?
My view in the issue(coming from a Christian standpoint) is that Eve made the suggestion and Adam obeyed so now Adam must make the suggestion and Eve must obey, however if you read the rest of the Bible you notice that God urges a very two way relationship with both cooperating for a common goal. Man is given authority, but he is also given the brunt of the work with women have the less bodily taxing job of keeping the home.
Another important thing is the idea of blame. Adam blamed Eve for the first sin (and then was the responsibility to make the choices and shoulder blame for failure) I think that man's modern acceptance of women as equal is a good metaphor for us taking responsibility for our own sin unlike Adam. We have shared all equally and are stronger for it.