ic writer also shows clear contempt for the woman:
The lateness of her creation, and the irregular and undignified manner of it. . . sufficiently mark the low opinion he held of her nature: and in the sequel his misogynism, as we may fairly call it, takes a still darker tinge, when he ascribes all the misfortunes and sorrows of the human race to the credulous folly and unbridled appetite of its first mother (Frazer 2).
The earlier of the two is the more picturesque and also the richer in folk-lore as it retains many of the features characteristic of primitive simplicity. These have been carefully erased by the Priestly writer. Frazer finds parallels between the Jehovistic writer and the Greek myth of Prometheus, and he says there are common ideas about creation among the Greeks, Hebrews, Babylonians, and Egyptians, ideas handed down to the civilized people of antiquity by their savage forefathers (Frazer 3-4).
One of these ideas relates to a vision of women as a source of pollution and sin. Christianity accepted the
...