The Fall of Eve CRP #2 Dr. Overton’s paper takes the slant that the story of the Garden of Eden is a tale of the sliding emphasis of women over the course of history. She discusses how the Goddesses of the past have been erased or blended into the roles of man. Eve was a Goddess, but then relegated to a normal woman made out of a man. Overton’s sources are severely outdated, with the most recent being book published in 1992. I would of liked to have read quotes from the actual religious texts that she mentions. The sources are mostly used to describe artifacts from the era that she is referencing and do not substantiate the points she is trying to convey. The few passages that are mentioned are not referenced and are difficult to decipher as to which religious text she is referring to. There were two points she made in the beginning of the article concerning Adam and Eve’s eyes being closed before the apple and why women have pain in childbirth. These examples are new to me. I haven’t heard them before and wished that she would of referenced which culture’s tale of the Garden of Eden it came from. The author’s paper, while written for a MMW audience, still needs to include some of the basics of the Garden of Eden story she eludes to. The perspectives of the Hebrew’s are barely mentioned, although their religious articles should lead to having the most credibility as they haven’t been changed over time with the consistency as others.

The passages about the names of Eve and snakes and how the were translated into different cultures seemed a bit of a stretch. Snakes apparently have always fascinated people and do so to this day. They are scary, mysterious creatures whose attacks are deadly and can topple the biggest animals. Naturally, a God or Goddess who can tame a snake would be revered. People learned at an early age to stay away from snakes, nothing good would come from it. The correlation of birds and snakes is an obvious one as well. The snake is the closest to the ground, i.e. Earth, while the bird is predominately in the sky or heaven. People’s names on the other hand, would be simple with few characters, easier to pronounce and to write. Dr. Overton mentions in the creation of words how the word Eve derived out of the word snake in the Aramaic and Arabic etymology. I would gather that the tales, having existed before written word, would lend to the development of Eve being “born” of the snake. The questioning of “Why a snake and not a cherub, a bull, or a unicorn?” is pointless. Would the goal of the story have a different meaning if a snorkeling hippopotamus rose from the pond and offered a tasty lobster to Eve? I don’t believe so. Dr. Overton doesn’t mention any opposing viewpoints on this topic. By not addressing these, it leads to skepticism. It appears to me, that the paper was written with the outcome planned out and the research targeted to emphasize it. The author’s credentials are countless in this field. She has a Doctorate in History, Masters in Judaic Studies, is a lecturer in Religious Studies and writes continuously in various forms within the topic of history and religion. Perhaps, this is why she doesn’t reference any other viewpoints on her topic.

I believe Dr. Overton is successful in presenting her ideas, although I believe that anyone could write a paper that effectively counters her point. History made so long ago is subjective and many pieces are put in place by conjecture. Who is to say that a statue was originally created to be worshipped as