Critique Through Creation in "Noah"

Darren Aronofsky’s movie Noah adapts the events of Genesis 6-9, a story of just a couple thousand words, into a two and a half hour character-driven narrative about the great Biblical flood. To stretch this well-known story into a major motion picture, the filmmakers clearly had to make some changes and additions to the Bible’s content. Although many changes made in the film rewrite the story of Noah more dramatically, I found the different interpretations of the creation story to be particularly interesting.

The movie opens on an animated sequence that outlines the fall of man, but later on Noah tells the complete creation story, beginning with the separation of light and darkness and the formation of the earth. This scene uses a similar style of animation underneath Russell Crowe’s narration, which very closely follows the story in most versions of Genesis. However, the illustration itself adds a layer of interpretation over the creation story.

Frame by frame, the images on the screen follow the gradual formation of the earth and the appearance of living organisms, and it does so through a sort-of time lapse of images that seem to fit into the theories of the Big Bang and evolution, though Noah’s narration clearly indicates this gradual change is guided by the Creator. The story he tells still defines these periods of creation as days, but the illustration shows the gradual changing of the earth over time, the beginning of life from the dividing of cells, and the development of different creatures over time. While this portrayal of the creation of the world does not explicitly denounce the religious beliefs of many in creationism, it does work to rationalize this belief with modern scientific thinking. This interpretation could simply be an extra layer over the more directly biblical text that helps the story to appeal to a wider audience, but the filmmakers could also be offering this idea as a critique of more strictly creationist views.

Later in the sequence, the audience revisits the fall of Adam and Eve and sees Cain murder his brother Abel—a repetition of the images from the beginning of the movie. At this point, though, the illustration continues, showing how this first murder began all the violence between men. The shadowy images change form, depicting figures and soldiers from different periods carrying different weapons, all doing violence onto others. This addition to the telling of the creation story links this beginning more clearly to a critique on violence.

The creation story is reinterpreted once more in a conversation between Ham and Tubal-cain, the stowaway king. Ham protests his eating of the animals, citing his father’s teachings that men were intended as the keepers of the beasts. Tubal-cain, on the other hand, believes in the primacy of men over other creatures, telling Ham that they were meant to be the servants of men. This provides Ham and the audience with the alternative perspective of a person outside of Noah’s cultishly devout family, but more importantly, it provides an entrance point, through these contrasting views on the creation story, for the film’s environmental message.

Noah retells the biblical flood story with significant creative influence and sometimes in much more striking ways, but the layers of interpretation over Noah’s narration of the creation story provides a venue for several of the movie’s possible critiques. Through these subtle rewritings, the film may even create a seemingly more authoritative perspective with which to consider these ideas.

Noah- Movie vs Text

As it is well known, many different interpretations of biblical stories have been taken throughout history; some with more artistic interpretation that others. The modern film interpretation Noah is one of those more loosely, yet realistic interpretations of the popularized biblical story of Noah and the Ark. Although there are many aspects of the film accurate to modern biblical interpretations of the Creation story and also the Great Flood. For example, as well as having the main plotlines of Genesis 6-9 such as the flood and the animals gathering, the movie also keeps details like the rainbow after the flood and covering the ark with pitch. As for the realistic approach the movie takes on the story, it makes the audience differentiate between the preschool ideology of Noah’s Ark that one is taught in bible school and what the actual, terrifying, gory act of flooding the earth may look like. Sadly, I found the humanistic aspects of the movie believable; the main theme of man in inevitable internal conflict between right and wrong holds an abundance of truth.

                On the other hand, there were certain parts of the plot that stretched the concept of artistic interpretation very, very thin.  For example, I have trouble placing the roaming fallen-angel rock figures in the biblical narrative. The family dynamic is a stretch as well, although I can see how they fit into the text. In Genesis 6: 18, God tells Noah, “I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.” In the movie, that technically happens when Ila births two daughters to become Ham and Japheth’s wives. However, probably for dramatic movie purposes, the plot ended up that way, as well as adding Tubal-Cain as a stowaway on the ship as well as Noah and his family. Another interesting aspect was the depiction of the creation story. As Noah was telling the story of God building the earth in 6 days, the viewer could see millions of years of earth’s formation and the evolution of species go by, including the evolution of man. Usually, theories of evolution are usually avoided in religiously affiliated productions. The scene of Adam and Eve in the garden are very representative of the idea of free will, as Adam stops to pick up the snake skin (symbolizing humanity’s goodness) and Eve continues on to pick fruit the forbidden tree (symbolizing humanity’s temptation for evil). The fate of Ham changes dramatically from the text to the movie. Biblical accounts show Ham fated to be slave to his two brothers and shamed from the family. In the movie, he is somewhat lost and disoriented form the rest of his family, which plays a big factor in his deciding to peacefully leave them at the end of the movie.

                Although one may think they know the story of Noah well, a quick read through Genesis 6-9 may change that understanding. The biblical narrative of the Great Flood is contradictory towards itself several times. Most of this is mathematical. At one point, there claims to be pairs of animals aboard the Ark (two of each, one male and one female), while at another point it is stated that there should be seven pairs of clean animals and birds. Does this mean of the same species, or seven random pairs of birds? (Seeing that the concept of species was not around in biblical times, this is hard to tell). Another number mix-up is the lifespan of people of that time period. In the beginning of Genesis 6, God proclaims that people should live no longer than one hundred and twenty years. However, we see Noah in his six-hundredth year of living, and later dies at the ripe old age of nine-hundred and fifty. Does that mean this new rule only applies to newborns? The text is organized in an interesting fashion as well, with some of the same plot points repeating themselves with slight differentiations right next to each other (as we also see in other stories of Genesis). One of the main claims as to why this pattern appears is that different accounts of the same story are interwoven together, making it impossible to truly distinguish which is the ‘original’ or ‘true’ version. Overall, the movie, as dramatic and influenced by popular media themes as it may be, was for the most part true to the text of the biblical accounts of the story of Noah. 

Biblezines: Scripture or Not?

Biblezines are the up and coming new form of bibles for adolescents. They are serving as children’s bibles but for the older youths. These biblezines are what they sound like: a magazine with biblical scriptures. Similar to magazines like Seventeen, they contain content designed to capture its your audience’s attention. However, the scripture in the magazine is sparse and limited in the forms of trivia and cartoons. Can these magazines be called ‘bibles’?

In my opinion, comic book bibles contain more credibility than these biblezines. At least in the comic book bibles, they focus more on actually biblical text. I don’t think these magazines are an acceptable substitution for bibles. Yes, we need to find a way to keep these new generations involved in the church and make sure that they know the scripture, but is this really the way? In Beal’s book The Rise and Fall of the Bible, he states that “On every page, the plain biblical text is overwhelmed by bold and colorful callouts, special columns, and other extras laid out in catchy fonts and colors” (43). In my experience with magazines-as well as my friends-when they read magazines, they typically don’t read everything but instead jump around and look at the articles with catching titles and are colorful.

Despite my reservations to these biblezines, I can see how they can be effective. Since I still had reservations after reading the texts, I went and looked for more information on these bibles and the effects they have with these youths. In an article in Christianity Today titled Ten Things You Should Know About The New Girls' Biblezine, they talk about all the pros that these substitute bibles have on girls. The responses to these magazines have been mainly positive so they are obviously reaching their intended audience. My only question, though, is that even though this media source seems to be effective, can they be considered scripture or not?

Fear of religious tolerance; fear of religious or moral pollution?

Fear of religious tolerance; fear of religious or moral pollution?

 In the story The Stowaway by Julian Barnes, Noah hated the half-breeds so he killed them all. He stated that some animals were clean and some were unclean thus creating a hierarchy. This retelling of the Noah story highlights the harms of hierarchical ideology but this time it pertains to the relationships animals share. (and Humans since we humans often like to think of our selves as a separate class or some how separate from the natural world… we just aren’t, we are animals.)

In Christian teens and Biblezines Revolve hates/fears religious “pollution” by “false” religions, and warns against the cultural concept of tolerance. (paragraph 18) Is this a fear of cultural convergence?  A fear or religious tolerance? The fear of polluting ones own religion is a understandable fear to a good God fearing conservative evangelical. All of their traditions that they value are up for grabs, can be reinterpreted and placed in a different context. I could side with them if it were not for the irony of how much cultural convergence produced Christianity as it is known today, and their rather wanton use of things like princess aesthetics (something that does not come from cultures described in the bible) to indoctrinate or educate their many children.

Following in the same paragraph “false religions” is said to actually be considered “moral pollution”  “the popular idea… that any behavior or lifestyle choice is OK” is false because God hates Sin.” Did the people at Revolve say this or did Hillary Kaell the author of Christian Teens and Biblezines add this later? What paragraph is she referring to in paragraph 18?

While this is said in respect to the dilemma of Christians dating Non-Christians, the philosophy behind this can be used for understanding the conservative evangelical Christian ideologies towards groups of people with a different religion.

Paragraph 21 describes witnessing or prostilitizing techniques teens can use with their non-Christian friends. While teens are told not to have non-Christian boyfriends or girlfriends, they are still allowed to have non-Christian friends.

“The First response counsels asking a direct question (“What do you believe?”) but it is not meant to lead to an open discussion (i.e., “I believe in Jesus Christ and you should too). Instead girls are told to be respectful and seem interested in other people’s faiths so that they can “befriend them and (gradually) lead them to truth of the Good News.” (Paragraph 21)

When it comes to seeming interested it seems like a slippery slope in to the sin of deceit. Cause they really aren’t interested in the other religion.

Here the hierarchy ideology is very visible again.

Genesis Parody  

The Stowaway was a very interesting article it gave a unique outlook on the tale of the Noah’s ark, it is told from a point of view of an outspoken woodworm, that sneaks into the ship, the story definitely defies the traditional telling of the classic flood story. What I thought while reading this article was here we go another story about Noah, however Noah is portrayed very different from the Noah stories in Genesis. In his rewritten story noah has 4 kids different from the story in Genesis where he had 3 kids.

This parody of Genesis, the author dissembles the original story of Genesis, the ark was boat a ship but a whole flotilla,also was Noah a good man?No he was not. Furthermore the calm and logical approach of the narrator makes the story believable, to an extent that the person reading does not question the credibility of the story. Think about it even before we readers find out who the narrator is, it is obvious that he exists outside the course of events and so there it appears to be no reason for his depiction of what is happening to be unbiased.

One thing pointed out by the New York Times review article I read was that we could readily assume that Barnes chose a woodworm as a narrator of the story because he wanted to show how easily we are manipulated into believing that something is objective. To further extend this what the person from the New York Times was trying is we tend to forget that history is a story being told, there is always some perspective and it’s always someone’s recollection of how a certain event had happened.

Fan fiction

Modern renditions and tellings of scriptural stories are not uncommon in modern cultures through multiple forms of media. A quick Google search of “movies about the Bible”will reveal a long list of movies dating back to mid 90’s. The obsession we have towards understand biblical scripture is evident in the works produced. Each person directing a new film or writing a spin of fictional story adds their own interpretation and spin on biblical stories, pushing our boundaries of what we think we understand. The manga series Let’s Bible by Youn In-Wan depicts Jesus as a busty blonde while Lucifer is a slightly androgynous brunette, helplessly without any agency, tries to escape Lucifer and her descendants. I can’t imagine this manga series to have too much support or fans who are conservative Christians. Some might say that the manga series bastardizes the image of Jesus, but really the series is just another person’s interpretation of biblical scripture. Who is to say that Jesus was not really a cross-dressing women in antiquity?

For this week’s reading we watched Noah (2014) and read The Stowaway by Julian Barnes, both a take on the story of Noah and the Ark. The story of Noah has always intrigued me. Why has God chosen this specific person to be the shepherd of the new world? Why is his family granted amnesty? In The Stowaway, Barnes explains the selection process of Noah to be that though Noah was not the best person, he was the best of the worst. Sticking to the original story, humanity has gone downhill and God wanted to cleanse the Earth of evil and sin. But rather than viewing the Ark as holy salvation, the woodworm sees it as a prison. The woodworm griefs over how Noah is an abusive alcoholic with a dictatorial command over the animals and his family, largely contrasting the traditional depiction of Noah being a holy pious man who was handpicked by God because he was just so good. The biggest takeaway from The Stowaway for me is the argument that it is ok to be flawed. Noah was a horrible, abusive, egotistical person who slaughtered animals for the smallest things, he also did follow God’s instruction of saving (most) of the animals in the end. The woodworm argues that there seems to be a dichotomy of the image of Noah in scripture, the Noah before the flood was a drunkard, but the Noah after the flood was a good pious man who did no wrong. My interpretation of the woodworm’s argument is that it is ok to be flawed and still loved by God. The hilarious, satirical take on the story of Noah attempted to explain many things (like the Bible does) such as the evolutionary gap between species was amazing since it not only casts a bad light on Noah, but also debunks the creationist theory and favors evolution.

The film Noah (2014) also does something similar, but not to such a great effect. Noah begins with the recounting of the fall of humanity and immediately cuts to a scene of Noah and his sons, skipping all in between biblical stories and events that take place. It also leaves plot holes such as why the shiny material they easily dig up from the ground is so precious and scarce. Being a Hollywood film, of course there is gross heterosexual romance that makes it way into the narrative. I honestly can’t believe that Emma Watson agreed to do this film after reading the script. It’s not a bad story, just poorly executed.

The Problem of Anachronisms in Biblical Translation

I have heard it said that claiming to know the will and intent of God is wrong, that there are some parts of the divine plan which humans are neither meant to know nor capable of understanding. I assume that people with more traditional views of the Bible as the inspired word of God would probably agree with this statement, and they might begin to accuse some translators of disrespect along these lines. People with such a traditional mindset often find the amount of interpretation, addition, and summary which go into some translations to be upsetting, believing that one can’t call something the Word of God if it is not in God’s words. This viewpoint constitutes a major argument against meaning driven translations.

I’m talking here about the idea of functional equivalence in Bible translations. Such translations give the translator’s understanding of the text instead of one based on words and phrases, a distressing concept to more traditional minds. This type of translation removes ambiguities and often promotes the views of the translator, but at the cost of introducing anachronisms and losing some the language itself. We see an excellent example in Leviticus 18:22 which many cite as Biblical prohibition on homosexuality. However, a functional equivalence translation of the verse introduces the very concept of homosexuality into the language of an ancient world which did not have an understanding of or equivalent to such a complex term.

The problem I see here is not necessarily translators imposing their views on the text, but the erasure or at least alteration of history. That is, saying that one believes homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God is understandable, but implying that the ancients had a concept of homosexuality is problematic, especially since we know that it is only a recent construction. And surely this is not the only relatively modern concept introduced by such interpretations. Respect for history and the characters and events of the text thus becomes another issue to raise when talking about functional translation. While I am in no position to make a judgment call on how important accurate portrayals of Biblical times are in translation, I suppose this concern does add another point to the argument in favor of formal equivalence translations.

Cultural Demand Questions Biblical Authority

        Because our Western culture is obsessed with efficiency and fast paced living, there is a push for everything to be simplified. Want to read a Bible on your train to work? There's an app for that. Want to understand the Bible? There are translations for that. Better yet, there are translations on Bible apps for that and they may include commentary on each verse. The cultural demands for simplistic renditions of the Bible are increasing daily and often overlooked by critics that may say these translations are blasphemous or shouldn't hold any authority. "The Stowaway" and Noah are just two of many interpretations and translations of the story of Noah's Ark, one of the Bible's most known tales. Your average Joe may consider these renditions as helpful, entertaining, and an easy way to get to the point of the story...is he wrong to associate these products with the Word of the Lord? 

        According to Beal, contemporary retellings of the Bible like "The Stowaway" and Noah could be considered forms of Biblical interpretations or "niche Bibles." Niche Bibles are translated to speak directly and personally to it's target readers by sticking "to the point in a way the Bible itself does not" (Beal). These retellings interpret Biblical passages for the readers in order "to control meaning, dispelling doubts and questions and directing readers toward specific conclusions" (Beal). By definition, these specific retellings of the Bible would be considered functional rather than form-driven because where form-driven translations remain faithful to the metamorphic language of the Hebrew texts to allow the imagination to make its own images, feelings, and ideas, functional equivalence translations do not stick to the original texts but write something almost completely new though partially inspired by the text.
         If one were to regard a "Women's Bible with Commentary," a niche Bible, as a "real Bible" that should hold authority, then by definition and principle, one should also consider "The Stowaway" and Noah in the same esteem. With that being said, contemporary retellings of the Bible are forms of Biblical interpretations and/or niche Bibles and said Bibles are fulfilling the ever-growing demand for simplistic renditions of famous texts. The cultural demand for simplistic Bibles leads to the creation of such...but also leads to critiques questioning the authority of the them. Is there an app that will end this vicious cycle?

Could I Create Scripture??

The movie "Noah" is weird. Maybe it's because seeing the Watchers, Noah, a massive flood and glowing snakeskin in the same rough hour on my laptop in a cramped dorm, while pondering if this movie is scripture, just sends my mind in a circle. However, is this movie with its $125,000,000 budget and star-studded cast that was produced in 2014, scripture? Your gut, mind, eyes, ears, head, shoulders, knees and toes all aggressively want to tell you "NO". But is it? Noah, at its core, is just a re-telling of one of the most popular Biblical stories. Why does changing the medium that this story is being told through, change the story of Noah's Arch from being absolutely scripture (if you actually read in the Book of Genesis) to something that we so viscerally discredit at such?

The Book of Mormon is absolutely scripture (at the very least, it is scripture to Mormons). The Book of Mormon is significantly farther, at least in terms of subject matter, from the more traditional stories found in the Torah, Quran or Christian Bible. Yet, because the Book of Mormon -- and potentially even other, somewhat similar, religious texts such as Christian Science's Science and Health -- can be considered scripture, it seems that even texts that tell new stories, can still be regarded as scripture.

If subject matter doesn't determine what is scripture, then maybe the major deciding factor should be whether people actually follow the text. For example, if I wrote a text called The Way's to Follow Hartungism, detailing Hartungism, my new religion and all the way's one can be a devout follower of this religion, I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone willing to call this scripture. However, what about Scientology? There are plenty of people who would refer to the texts of Hubbard as scripture. But honestly, why is a story such as this, any different than the nail-bitingly wonderful stories found in my The Way's to Follow Hartungism.

The story of Noah, even in movie form, seems to fit both of these categories. The content is fairly close to the story told in the Book of Genesis and the story of Noah has millions of followers. It seems that even in Blockbuster form, the story of Noah should be considered scripture. After all, why should the slight differences between the movie and the text make all that much of a difference? There are plenty of discrepancies within the canon of the Christian Bible, let alone all the other texts that can also be considered scripture. Therefore, it seems logical that the Hollywood-fueled, Russell Crow style story of Noah should be able to, at the very least, sit comfortably in the gray area of "What is scripture?", if not be outright given a "yes" on that question.

So, content and followers. If some Hollywood producer can produce something that is, at the very least, questionably scripture, can I?  If I have the two, is it possible for anyone to create scripture? I honestly don't know. My gut, mind, eyes, ears, head, shoulders, knees and toes tell me yes. Now, do I have the followers? No. Do I have text that can be followed? No. BUT, hypothetically, should I get those two (along with other details not discussed here), I believe that there's a chance.

Darren Aronofsky's Interpretation of Genesis 6-9

            Genesis begins by expressing the Lord’s regret in creating humankind by saying, “I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created—people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them” (Genesis 6:7). Then the story continues by favoring Noah because “Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God” (Genesis 6:8). Trusting in Noah to build a very specific ark, God announces that He will put an end to the violence and he will destroy them along with the earth. After the flood it is said that “all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all the human beings; everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life end” (Genesis 7:21-22). Darren Aronofsky creates a new or “rewritten” version of the flood story in his 2014 film, Noah. Three noteworthy interpretations of Aronofsky in Noah were: the people drowning in the flood and trying to get onto the ark, the perception of Noah’s malicious character during parts of the movie and the aspect of global conservation.

The first aspect—the scene of people drowning and suffering in the flood—was really interesting because the Bible never spoke of this. All Scripture said was that God would blow out every living creature and then said every living creature was dead. Aronofsky adding in the scene of people climbing the highest thing they could see to save their lives so they wouldn’t drown to death was enormously powerful because not many people think about what that would have looked like. Since it is not in the Bible, this could be considered to be an interpretation or reworking of the text.

The second viewpoint is how Noah’s personality is portrayed in the ark. It is understood in the Bible, that God chose Noah because he was neither violent nor evil. But, one can see how Noah becomes cruel on the ark. Noah almost ends up killing Ila and Shem’s daughters. This of course is another interpretation that could simply indicate that Noah was human, was not perfect and did not always know what God’s instructions were for him. Again, this is an interesting interpretation because of the contrast of Noah’s character in the Bible and in the film.

The third concept that was evident from the beginning of the film when Ham picks the flower and Noah instructs him not to take what is the Earth’s. In Genesis 9 it is written that God said to Noah and his sons, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything” (Genesis 9:3). Thus, Aronofsky’s is using his own version of environmentalism. The article and video I read and watched went more in depth in Aronofsky’s main purpose creating his film, Noah.

Aronofsky’s main objective was not to retell the same flood story that is written in the Bible, but to use authoritative scripture to justify why humans need to conserve the environment. Many critics are not fond of the film, Noah, because Aronofsky does several of his own interpretations of Genesis 6-9 and does not keep to Scripture. Thus, through interviews and quotes, one can see that Aronofsky’s purpose was not to keep to an exact representation of the flood account, but to create a new important message of environmentalism.

A Place in Pop Culture

Because the texts of the Bible are ancient, Christians take it upon themselves to read meaning into them that is relevant to today’s cultural context. Revolve does just that, providing extra-biblical content that provides clear “biblical” answers to modern day issues relevant to a teenager’s life. These advice columns and quizzes are side by side with biblical texts, giving them a strange feeling of legitimacy. Revolve begins by defining itself:"This Bible is about radical devotion and revolutionary people … (it's about) rising to the challenge of faith in the extreme." This simplified summary of what the Bible is allows for a reader to see themselves within the story of the Bible. From this a reader can interpret that they themselves need to have extreme faith and radical devotion. In “Christian Teens and Biblezines”, Hillary Kaell puts forth the idea that the Biblezine Revolve is a socialization tool used to provide evangelical teens with guidelines for how to reconcile scripture and pop culture. Some of these guidelines are explicitly stated, while others, like the statement regarding what the Bible is “about”, are less direct. Instead of teaching girls how to interpret scripture for themselves, Revolve teaches girls how to interpret pop culture based on evangelical theology.  

Revolve reinvents the Bible as a book with answers and advice for how to live a Christian lifestyle as a teen girl. Kaell sees Revolve as“...part of the way that world-affirming evangelicals carve a space for themselves in the midst of American culture.” The evangelical theology in Revolve teaches girls what the Bible “says” about contemporary problems, and gives girls the tools to filter pop culture through the evangelical lens of Revolve. Similar to how evangelicals teach young girls to value purity and traditional gender roles through the appeal of princesses (Enticed by Eden, ch. 1), Revolve takes something that is secularly popular and forms it as a mode for promoting evangelical values. Overall, Revolve readers are taught less about the Bible, and more about how to live a modern life based on “biblical” values. 

Eden's Tinder

In Enticed by Eden, I was given a side of Adam and Eve that I never even considered. I have never entertained the thought where the creation of Adam and Eve was romantic in any sense. The book quoted some conservative evangelicals and their belief in romance in Eden. I thought it was peculiar when “love at first sight” was mentioned. We know that Eve more Adam several sons, but it does not mention whether they love each other or not. I never thought there was a concern of love and romance in Eden given all the chaos and drama that happens in there. It is absurd that Eve is just made to be submissive because of the order they were “born” in. There was a joke on the internet that went, “God created man first, because every artist needs a sketch for the final product.” This quick joke that I stumbled upon gave me a good chuckle and for the first time made me question the importance of the order of their “birth”. If we really think about the evangelical lens to the creation of women, instead of dogs, women are men’s best friend.

Reading this book has introduced me to a weird world of Christian sex. If I had read only this book in my entire life, I would blame the Bible for all the injustices against women. Of course, I know that the Bible and religion is not the only patriarchal structure that continues to oppress women, but Schearing and Ziegler brings up the way modern women are suppose to be complete submissive to men which fuels sexual fetisization. Most of my life hatred is fueled by the patriarchy. I cannot believe that there are women in the modern world that believes they are suppose to be below men just because a collection of scriptures said so. This is unacceptable. Women are not to only be the damsel in distress, but also heroines of their own lives. As portrayed beautifully, the Disney movie Enchanted flips the role of damsel and knight. Feminism is geared towards equality in all genders, meaning the validation of men’s emotions along with their vulnerability and women’s equality in a multitude of issues.

Biblical Womanhood?

As mentioned before when discussing American bibles there are two major ways of interpreting; an egalitarian view, and a hierarchical view. Enticed by Eden by Linda S. Schearing discusses modern conservative evangelical views of gender hierarchy and the findings have left me feeling rather disturbed. I was aware of the purity balls and the practice of courtship, the eschewing women from careers, but never of the many conventions, the use of Mary Kay, and the most shocking of all; Christian Dominance and Discipline (CDD for short.) CDD is in compliance with conservative evangelical theology and yet seems ironically similar to common BDSM practices.

 The key difference is that instead of spanking for the pleasure of the dominant partner and submissive partner, the spanking is divinely mandated and can only received by the female partner. This allows for much more opportunity for physical and psychological harm since safe words and consent are not considered or allowed since it is believed to be divinely mandated by those who practice it. Although biblical interpretations abound and Christian individuals and denominations disagree with what is changed by the new covenant through Jesus, those who practice CDD argue these practices are congruent with Ephesians 5 (21-33), 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-12 (and most likely 13-15 as well), Titus 2:3-5, 1 Peter 3:1, Romans 13:1,  and Hebrews 13:17.

While Hebrews 13 is the only one to not mention men, women, couples, or positions of power, Kelly, a woman who seems to sincerely enjoy CDD finds this verse “significant” and asserts that men have no real control or authority over their wives if they only control her by her willingly submitting to them. This is the scary part of this; men do not need consent from their wives for anything. Would practitioners of CDD agree that marital rape is apart of their practices?

Rewritten Scripture or Evangelical Fan Fiction?

In Enticed by Eden, Schearing and Ziegler examine some of the ways in which evangelical Christians reinvent the Bible and especially the use of the images of Adam, Eve, and Eden. Although the uses and interpretations of biblical passages in promoting evangelical ideas are varied, a few particularly striking examples come in the chapter, “Someday My Prince Will Come.” Throughout this section, the book quotes several examples of Christian relationship guides, which reinvent the Bible by rewriting scripture to reflect the authors’ beliefs.

To introduce this chapter, the book discusses the popularity of Christian relationship guides, saying “sex and marital manuals have long been a preoccupation for evangelical Christian thinkers” (17). These texts provide interpretations of biblical passages, especially Genesis 1-3, that spin the scripture for the authors’ very specific causes. Among others, Joshua Harris, author of evangelical books such as I Kissed Dating Goodbye and Boy Meets Girl, is frequently quoted to demonstrate how these books reinvent the Bible. His books appear to reflect many of the ideas about relationships that Schearing and Ziegler connect to evangelicals—the hierarchy of men over women and their complementary natures—but they also summarize and paraphrase scripture in a way that rewrites it for the intended audience. For example, Harris is quoted saying, “‘Enjoy pure sex!’ God practically shouts in Proverbs 5:18-19” (21). Although one could argue for this paraphrase, it hardly seems sufficient to condense this short passage in this way. Furthermore, even if one defends this interpretation in part, the concept of purity seems to be inserted somewhat artificially by Harris.

Let your fountain be blessed,
    and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
     a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
May her breasts satisfy you at all times;
    may you be intoxicated always by her love.

Proverbs 5:18-19 (NRSV)

By condensing and simplifying these verses in this way, Harris prescribes a meaning to them, and by placing these words into the mouth of God, he tries to add authority to his interpretation. Harris’ rewriting of scripture continues when he creates “an imaginary conversation between Adam and his great-great-granddaughter Elanna, who wonders how she will find a mate pleasing to God” (21-22). This bit of creative writing appears to be something like biblical fan fiction, once again aimed at pushing his agenda. This creation of new material serves as an example of more radical rewritten scripture—a text that’s only roughly based on biblical figures and ideas.

Given these examples of how these evangelical relationship manuals reinvent the Bible, it becomes clear how much these texts are adapted to fit the needs of the author or sponsoring group. Although certain interpretations of biblical text can be helpful for different audiences, these examples show the importance of reading these texts critically and considering one’s own interpretations alongside those prescribed by others.