NOTES to Clines' "What Does Eve Do to Help?" 1. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Woman's Bible: The Original Feminist Attack on the Bible (Edinburgh: Polygon Books, 1985; abridgment of the original edition, New York: European Publishing Co., 1895, 1898).
2. Stanton, The Woman's Bible, p. 20.
3. Stanton, The Woman's Bible, p. 20.
4. Stanton, The Woman's Bible, p. 21.
5. Phyllis Trible, 'Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation', JAAR 41 (1973), pp. 30-48. The review of Trible's article by John W. Miller, 'Depatriarchalizing God in Biblical Interpretation: A Critique', CBQ 48 (1986), pp. 609-16, deals entirely with matters unrelated to the present essay.
6. Of the contrary opinion is Susan S. Lanser, `(Feminist) Criticism in the Garden: Inferring Genesis 2-3', in Speech Act Theory and Biblical Criticism, ed. Hugh C. White (Decatur, GA: Scholars Press, 1988) (= Semeia 41 [1988], pp. 67-84 (68), writing that 'most contemporary feminist critics ... contend that by any reading Genesis 2-3 portrays man as primary and woman as subordinate'; but I do not know to whom she is referring.
7. 'Depatriarchalizing', p. 31.
8. 'Depatriarchalizing', p. 35.
9. 'Depatriarchalizing', p. 36.
10. Trible, 'Depatriarchalizing', p. 40: `If the woman be intelligent, sensitive and ingenious, the man is passive, brutish, and inept'.
11. Trible, 'Depatriarchalizing', p. 41.
12. Trible, 'Depatriarchalizing', p. 36.
13. Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978).
14. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 90.
15. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 90.
16. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 90.
17. S.R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (London: Methuen, 12th edn, 1926), p. 41.
18. D. Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; London: Tyndale Press, 1967), p. 65.
19. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 90.
20. Mark Twain of course twists the story, to amusing effect. His Adam complains: 'I get no chance to name anything myself. The new creature names everything that comes along, before I can get in a protest. And always that same pretext is offered - it looks like the thing. There is the dodo, for instance. Says the moment one looks at it one sees at a glance that it "looks like a dodo". It will have to keep that name, no doubt. It wearies me to fret about it, and it does no good anyway ... The naming goes recklessly on, in spite of anything I can do' (Extracts from Adam's Diary [New York: Harper and Brothers, 1906], pp. 5, 11). Let it be noted, lest Twain be thought a misogynist, that Eve's Diary deconstructs Adam's. 
21. Cf. Phyllis A. Bird, arguing that the sexual distinction in 1.28 relates entirely to procreation; 'sexual constitution', she writes, 'is the presupposition of the blessing of increase' ('"Male and Female He Created Them": Gen 1:27b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation', HTR 74 [1981], pp. 129-59 [147]).
22. 'So that they should not say there are two Rulers: the Almighty is One in the Heavens above, and he has no participant, and this one [Adam] is one of Earth, and he [also] has no partner' (James H. Lowe, 'Rashi' on the Pentateuch. Genesis [London: The Hebrew Compendium Publishing Company, 1928], p. 57 (my punctuation).
23. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim 9.5.9 (J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Cursus Completus (Patrologia Latina], vol. 34 [Paris, 1845], col. 396 (= Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 28/1); English translation by John Hammon, S.J., St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis (Ancient Christian Writers, 41-42; Ramsey, NJ: Paulist, 1982).
24. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim 9.5.9. See most recently Susan E. Schreiner, 'Eve, the Mother of History. Reaching for the Reality of History in Augustine's Later Exegesis of Genesis', in Gregory A. Robbins, Genesis 1-3 in the History of Exegesis. Intrigue in the Garden (Studies in Women and Religion, 27; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1988), pp. 135-86, and, more generally,
John A. Phillips, Eve: The History of an Idea (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984).
25. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Part la, Q. 92, art. 1; translation from St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae. Latin text and English translation, vol. 13, ed. Edmund Hill (London: Blackfriars in conjunction with Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1964), pp. 34-35.
26. G. von Rad, Genesis. A Commentary (OTL; revised edn; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), p. 83.
27. Trible, 'Depatriarchalizing', p. 36: 'Adham names them and thereby exercises power over them'; similarly Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 97.
28. Trible, 'Depatriarchalizing', p. 38.
29. See also the thorough analysis of the terminology for name-giving, by George W. Ramsey, 'Is Name-Giving an Act of Domination in Genesis 2:23 and Elsewhere?', CBQ 50 (1988), pp. 24-35.
30. See also Lanser, '(Feminist) Criticism in the Garden', p. 73, observing from the standpoint of speech-act theory that '[h]aving set up the sequence in which ha'adam is authorized to name [i.e. 2.19-22], the text has already generated the context in which "call" may be inferred to mean "call the name of", despite the abbreviated surface form'.
31. Trible, 'Depatriarchalizing', p. 38.
32. Trible, 'Depatriarchalizing, p. 41.
33. Von Rad, Genesis, p. 96. Cf. C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary (tr. John J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), p. 268: 'The blessing conferred on humans, namely the power of procreation, has not been lost by the crime and the punishment'.
34. Ramsey, 'Is Name-Giving an Act of Domination?', pp. 34-35, resists such a conclusion, arguing that name-giving is an act of discernment of the true nature or essence of the one or the thing named rather than of domination. There is, however, no reason why discernment and domination should be regarded as mutually exclusive; the fact remains that it is Adam who names Eve, and not the other way about. Coincidentally I find in my files a clipping of a newspaper article by the columnist Jill Tweedie, entitled 'The power of the namer over the named'. She writes: 'Ted Hughes, Poet Laureate and erstwhile husband of the poet Sylvia Plath, is once more plagued by Plathites and forced to defend, among other things, his choice of the name "Sylvia Plath Hughes" for her gravestone ... [T]he right to name is the right to exercise a half-magical, half-brutal power over the one named. To name is to possess, always has been, always will be. If I name you, you are mine. If you name me, I am yours' (The Independent, April 24, 1989).
35. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p. 98.
36. See further, Lanser, '(Feminist) Criticism in the Garden', p. 72, arguing, on the basis of speech-act theory (that meaning is constituted not just by words and sentences but by the total context of the act of speech), that the context implies the identification of the 'adam as male. '[W]hen a being assumed to be human is introduced into a narrative, that being is also assumed to have sexual as well as grammatical gender. The masculine form of ha'adam and its associated pronouns will, by inference, define ha'adam as male. I am not suggesting that one cannot read ha'adam as a sex-neutral figure; I am saying that readers will not ordinarily read Genesis 2 in this way. Gendered humans are the unmarked case; it is not ha'adam's maleness that would have to be marked but the absence of maleness.'
37. Stanton, The Woman's Bible, p. 20.
38. Phyllis Bird, 'Images of Women in the Old Testament', in The Bible and Human Liberation: Political and Social Hermeneutics, ed. Norman K. Gottwald (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1983), pp. 252-88 (287) (originally published in Religion and Sexism: Images of Women in the Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Rosemary Radford Ruether [New York: Simon & Schuster, 1974], pp. 41-88).
39. Phyllis A. Bird, '"Male and Female He Created Them": Gen 1:27b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation', HTR 74 (1981), pp. 129-59 (156).
40. On the translation, see David J.A. Clines, 'The Image of God in Man', Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968), pp. 53-103 (96).
41. Similarly too Bird, '"Male and Female He Created Them"': 'There is no message of shared dominion here, no word about the distribution of roles, responsibility, and authority between the sexes, no word of sexual equality. What is described is a task for the species (kibshuha) and the position of the species in relation to the other orders of creatures (redu). The social metaphors to which the key verbs point are male, derived from male experience and models, the dominant social models of patriarchal society' (p. 151).
42. See, for example, Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 3/1 (E.Tr. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1958), pp. 194-95; on which see also F. Horst, 'Face to Face: The Biblical Doctrine of the Image of God', Interp 4 (1950), pp. 259-70; Clines, 'The Image of God in Man', pp. 92ff.; Bird, '"Male and Female He Created Them"', pp. 132-33.
43. Phyllis Bird reads the evidence differently, arguing that in the Yahwistic account of creation 'the primary meaning of sexuality is seen in psycho-social, rather than biological, terms ... The intended partnership implies a partnership of equals, characterized by mutuality of attraction, support and commitment' ('"Male and Female He Created Them"', p. 158). This view is based, however, on some inferences from the narrative, especially that of Gen. 2.23, rather than on the explicit terming of the woman a 'helper'. And contrariwise, Susan Lanser finds in Genesis 1 a 'theologically egalitarian impulse manifested more openly' than in what is for her the evidently subordinationist perspective of Genesis 2-3; cf. '(Feminist) Criticism in the Garden', p. 79.
44. Among other elements of the 'priestly work' that display the same orientation may be mentioned the presumption of legitimacy through descent from males, the absence of women from the performance of the cult, and the covenantal sign of circumcision that is relevant only to males (cf. Bird, '"Male and Female he Created Them"', p. 156).
45. Cf. the recent observations of Phyllis A. Bird on certain practical questions in translating the sexist language of the Old Testament: 'Translating Sexist Language as a Theological and Cultural Problem, USQR 42 (1988), pp. 89-95.
46. Cf. Letty M. Russell, 'Authority and the Challenge of Feminist Interpretation'; in Feminist Interpretation of the Bible (Oxford: Blackwell, 1985), pp. 137-49. She begins her article: 'Feminists of the Jewish and Christian faiths are faced with a basic dilemma. Are they to be faithful to the teachings of the Hebrew scriptures and the Christian scriptures, or are they to be faithful to their own integrity as whole human beings? ... [T]his issue ... is pressed upon [feminists] every time they propose an interpretation or perspective that challenges a dominant view of scriptural authority and inter-pretation' (p. 137).
47. Russell, 'Authority and the Challenge of Feminist Interpretation', p. 138.