Cone insists that we see the cross and the lynching tree together because one is the symbol of Christian faith and the other is the symbol of black oppression in America. Also, he sees African Americans throughout the history of lynching in the United States as the symbolic reincarnations of Jesus. However, the two serve as foils to one another as well because one serves as the symbol of death and the other as the symbol of hope and salvation (Cone, xiii). He insists upon seeing these two symbols together because over time, the cross’s meaning has transformed, beginning as incredibly symbolic as the site of Jesus’s ultimate sacrifice to becoming almost just an ornament that Christians wear as a token of their faith (Cone, xiv). Cone claims that if Christians and individuals of society in general refuse to acknowledge the history and darkness of the true meaning of the cross, America will not be genuine in its following and understanding of the nature of Christianity. In other words, the history of the tragedies that befell African Americans in the American South gives Christianity a new context, allowing Christians to truly understand Jesus and his sacrifice. If they neglect to grasp the significance of the sufferings of African Americans during the history of lynching, they also neglect to grasp the degree of suffering that Jesus endured, which is integral to Christian tenet. The cross and the lynching tree interpret one another in that the cross serves as the universal symbol of Jesus (and all forsaken)’s suffering and the lynching tree is the reality of the suffering experienced by all of those that have hung on the cross, whether literally or metaphorically. The cross could not achieve its level of power without the dark reality the lynching tree provides and the lynching tree could not provide the level of purveying universal understanding it possesses without the cross’s simplistic shape and status as a cultural symbol.
Cone also discusses the “easy salvation” that the new Christian understanding of the cross and its symbolism entails, allowing believers to wear a token of their faith without truly exploring it (Cone, xv). Cone discusses the integrality of the cross and salvation to his experience in church in his youth and how African Americans were seemingly able to identify with the symbol as a congregation and community.
Biblically, Cone appeals to the desertion Jesus experienced by his disciples as well as the torture and eventual crucifixion he experienced at the hands of authorities (Cone, 156). These depictions help him to prove his point that Christianity is built upon a bed of suffering, a theme that continued throughout history in a manner that resonated with African Americans. African Americans have been abused physically and emotionally in the United States throughout history, exemplified in the history of lynchings and especially in the modern day with the prevalence of African Americans in the prison system (Cone, 163). In this sense, African Americans identify with Jesus once again, a forsaken few suffering at the hands of an ignorant majority. Cone remarks that Jesus and African Americans were both “strange fruit” (Cone, 158). A striking and disturbing image is presented when Cone introduces the idea that Christians have, in effect, have been lynching Jesus every time they lynch African Americans, an idea that forsakes the essence of Christianity (158). Cone also appeals to the Bible verses that acknowledge the horrors of Jesus’s death on the cross, emphasizing the mirroring of tragedy in the lynchings of America’s past (Cone, 161). Cone argues, in effect, that Christians have been repeatedly crucifying their savior through either literal crucifixion (during the history of lynching) or through an attitude of racism, and then ironically going to church each Sunday and praising Jesus.
Regarding sin, salvation, G-d, and Jesus Christ, Cone explores the relationship between faith and works. Ironically, Jesus was the criminal in the Bible’s storyline and those involved in his crucifixion authorities attempting to stop him from corrupting minds. Similarly, lynchers did not attempt to hide their identities, for they saw themselves as the good people in history. In the recognition of these similarities, Cone establishes the idea that good works do not make a good citizen nor a good Christian, as morality is subjective. The lynchers may have seen the tragedies they facilitated as “works”, but in Cone’s view they were crucifying the very figure that they lived to serve. Regarding theology and political justice, Cone sees many white theologians as hypocritical, as they refuse to acknowledge the significance of lynchings in history in their research and expansions upon the original crucifixion. In Cone’s interpretation, it is integral to acknowledge lynching and the atrocities of black history in America to gain a true understanding of what Jesus went through at the hands of his community.
Cone’s strengths lie in the parallels between Jesus’s crucifixion and lynchings in American history. The circumstances, societal states, and actual events that befell Jesus and African Americans are strikingly similar from a theological standpoint as well as the view of an average Christian. He also lines his argument with striking images that facilitate his message, such as the idea that Christians crucified Jesus over and over again as they lynched black Americans. However, Cone’s flaws in his argument lie also in this powerful imagery, as his argument could easily become lost in the impassioned, symbolic scenarios he presents. His tone is personal and in that he loses legitimacy to a more scientific reader.
In Meyers’ view, Genesis 2 and 3 are, overall, samples of folklore (Meyers, 66). Meyers’ presentation of Genesis 2-3 concentrates on the idea that Eve is the main character in the Eden story rather than Adam. This view is created based upon the fact that she has a larger speaking part and is seemingly the protagonist of the selection (Meyers, 59). A misconception in the origin story due to interpretation is exemplified with the Latin translation of the Bible (The Vulgate). St. Jerome translated it with a misogynistic viewpoint, skewing the view of Eve and other women mentioned in the Bible for hundreds of years afterwards, as a single interpretation from Hebrew to Latin was then translated into many other languages, compounding other scholars’ personal viewpoints (Meyers, 65).
In Meyers’ interpretation, the inclusion of a garden is significant, especially in the seemingly lush state as is described in the text. Compared to the landscape of the Israelites, the landscape of Eden is more than ideal. The Israeli landscape is arid in comparison to the seemingly fertile land of the garden of Eden. This contrast emphasizes the fertility of the land in Eden, an integral facet because Adam (or ‘adamah) is created out of the earth itself in the origin story (Meyers, 72). The creation of Adam then leads to the creation of Eve out of an originally androgynous individual (Meyers, 73), the original humans bridging the distinction between animal and deity (Meyers, 73). Food in the garden also holds a significance, according to Meyers, that the modern reader would not identify with as closely as an individual in the biblical setting. The origin of humanity is linked with the abundance of food in the garden, a detail that the modern reader may skim over but is integral to the plot because of the lack of food availability in biblical times. Eve’s role in introducing Adam to the forbidden fruit is not necessarily a revealing of her disobedient nature. Instead, it is most likely just in compliance with the societal norms of Israelite culture during the time period, as women were in charge of foodstuffs (Meyers, 79). This alters the modern reader’s perception of Eve’s “sinful” act. The forbidden fruit that Eve is notorious for also ironically gives her the main role in the origin story, as with the addition of the dialogue between Eve and the serpent, she has a greater amount of lines and therefore more exposure than Adam.
A misconception related to 3:16 that Meyers explores is the belief that after Adam and Eve’s sin of eating the forbidden fruit, Eve was destined to have painful childbirth as dictated by God. Meyers disputes this, clarifying that based upon the language utilized in the original Hebrew text, the true meaning could be anything from God telling Eve she would have many pregnancies to telling her that she would have mental anguish rather than physical. This is supported by typical grammar usage in that, even if the Hebrew word for pain was used twice, it is highly unlikely that it meant the same type of pain twice. Therefore, it is more likely that the text is referring to the pain of childbirth in conjunction with the stress of parenting (Meyers, 93).
Meyers does successfully challenge the “overlay of androcentric or misogynist interpretations of the Eden story in early Jewish and Christian literature” with her proposal to recover the “Israelite Eve of the Hebrew Bible”. She does this by utilizing a grammatical analysis approach of the text and acknowledging the different meanings of the original Hebrew used and the possible inaccuracies in translation over time. Her analysis is all-encompassing, acknowledging not only Latin translation but also others to provide a holistic and thorough view of the text for the modern reader. She even provides a broader historical analysis of the text to further bolster her various arguments for the original Hebrew Eve, explained in the latter half of the entry regarding Genesis 3:16 specifically. To bolster her argument, Meyers utilizes the addition of scholarly research by figures such as Phyllis Trible (a feminist scholar) and even just earlier translations of the Bible, such as the Septuagint, to present her outlook to the modern reader.
Meyers’ central concern in her interpretation of these texts is investigating the validity of the cultural understanding that has been reached regarding Eve’s identity and role in the origin story. She has been presented throughout history as a sinful, sometimes conniving, sometimes dense individual that served as the origin of sin for humankind which is a heavy weight for one woman to carry on her shoulders. Meyers sets out in her interpretation to determine if and when the world’s interpretation of Eve went wrong, and if the presentation of her up to this point has been truthful to the language in the original Hebrew text. According to her investigation, there are a myriad of ways in which the text of Genesis 2-3 could be interpreted based upon individual understanding and interpretation of Hebrew, and individual words can alter the meaning of an entire section of text (as was exemplified in the investigation of the selection regarding pain in pregnancy). Also, historical context that Meyers provided gives new insight into societal norms during the era that influence the reading of the text, such as women’s role to provide foodstuffs and fear of snakes that may have influenced the “evil” role given to the serpent in later interpretations (Meyers, 79).