Abstract:
Feminist theology approaches the biblical teaching of the fall with a non-historical or traditional
interpretation. The biblical teaching suggests that the primordial couple sinned by eating the
forbidden fruit from the tree that God prohibited (Gn 3:1–24). Additionally, the woman is
blamed because she functions as a femme fatale who enticed Adam to eat the fruit. Writers
within the feminist and non-feminist theology argue that the so-called ‘Yahwist’ is responsible
for a patriarchal view that is evident in Genesis 3. Ultimately, male authors and interpreters of
the Bible crafted a narrative that implicated the woman as the culprit for the presence of sin
within humankind. Thereafter, women have been suppressed by the male-dominated culture
that has manifested itself throughout the biblical literature. Several approaches seek to absolve
the woman of guilt in the fall narrative: firstly, denial of the fall; secondly, depatriarchalising
the biblical text; and thirdly, applying a deconstructionist literary methodology. The objective
of this study was to consider whether Eve deserves the label of the first femme fatale. Did Eve
use influence, beauty and words to persuade Adam to deviate from the divine mandates? The
question surfaces uncomfortable considerations, but labelling Genesis 3 as patriarchal is an
attempt to silence dialogue. Uncomfortable conversations are essential in the academic quest.
INTRADISCIPLINARY AND/OR INTERDISCIPLINARY IMPLICATIONS: Feminist and non-feminist
theologians seek to absolve the woman of the femme fatale label by denying the fall,
depatriarchalising the Old Testament and applying a deconstructionist interpretation. This
article challenges the feminist, Old Testament and systematic theologian to reconsider their
interpretation of Genesis 3, especially, the woman’s role as a femme fatale.
