The Summer and Fall of Mankind

[vovat]

I was considering writing a post on the more mysterious figures of the Bible, like Enoch and Melchizedek, but then I thought, "Why not just do a series on the Biblical patriarchs and their contemporaries in general?" (No, I didn't think those exact words, but that was the gist of it.) And what better place to start than with the original patriarch and matriarch of the human race, Adam and Eve? Their story begins in way back in Genesis 2.

Okay, so, God makes the first human out of dirt (which is MUCH less embarrassing than evolving from an ape, for some reason), and has him live in a magical garden with every kind of plant and animal. He names all of the animals, but I'm not entirely sure why this detail is relevant, since it's not like whatever names he used would be the same ones we use today. Except I think I remember seeing an indication that some people believed all humans spoke Hebrew before the Tower of Babel incident, which is pretty typical mythological ethnocentrism. American fundamentalists probably believe that Adam spoke English.

There have already been plenty of people who pointed out the absurdity in the forbidden fruit story, so I'm just going to sum it up. God makes ignorant people who don't know the difference between right and wrong, and then gets mad when they do the wrong thing. What's the moral of this story, anyway? Is it that humans will always do the wrong thing when it's an option (and there's a talking snake to tempt us)? That hardly seems fair, since Adam and Eve weren't supposed to know the difference before eating the fruit anyway. Is it a warning against curiosity, or an indication that we should always do as we're told even when the instructions make no sense and aren't explained? (And really, the bit about the tree really DOESN'T make much sense, because God could have easily put it somewhere else if he didn't want anyone eating from it.) It's a popular opinion that eating the fruit represents sexual awakening, but didn't God already tell Adam and Eve to "[b]e fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth"? This bit is actually in Genesis 1, which means it was most likely written by a different author who hadn't even heard of the Garden of Eden story, but I'm not sure a literalist would be too keen on that explanation.

God's curse on the disobedient human beings involves childbirth being painful, husbands being in charge of wives (yeah, God is pretty sexist even this early on), and having to till the ground for food. Although it's not actually in the book that's supposed to be the revealed word of God, however, it seems to be a popular idea that the Fall of Man ruined everything for everybody. Prior to this, all animals were herbivores that lived in peace, no plants were harmful, and life was eternal. This last one seems to be contradictory to the text, because why would God have been afraid that people would eat of the Tree of Life if they were ALREADY immortal? For that matter, He never made the Tree of Life forbidden in the first place, but after Adam and Eve ate of the other tree (referred to in the King James version of Genesis 2 as "the tree of knowledge of good and evil"; apparently God was about as skilled at naming things as Leonard of Quirm), He went to great lengths (involving cherubim and a flaming sword; say what you will about Yahweh (and I've already said plenty), but at least the dude had style) to protect it. Genesis 3:22 reads, "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever." So are the only ways in which God is different from humans that he knows the difference between good and evil (which is no longer a difference as of Genesis 3) and is immortal? The latter is no small thing, but I hardly think it makes someone worthy of worship. But as we'll see with the Tower of Babel, this concept of God was terrified of being unseated from power by mankind, which is hardly something an omnipotent being would have to be concerned about.

But getting back to the magical garden where tyrannosaurs were best friends with sheep, why would these animals have been punished for something that humans did wrong? Childbirth is painful for many animals as well, but THEY didn't eat any forbidden fruit, did they? And the idea that eating fruit brought sin into the world seems rather far-fetched anyway. Why would being able to tell good from evil have been an asset in a world that didn't HAVE any evil? And why would the snake have been hanging around in a perfect place? Sounds like God had already sown the seeds for sin, doesn't it?

Next week (or whenever I get around to writing it, but I'm hoping to make this a Sunday feature), we'll turn our scrutiny toward Adam and Eve's children, and how Yahweh prefers meat to vegetables.

Comments

[burningofroissy.livejournal.com]

I ♥ you so much for this post.

God makes ignorant people who don't know the difference between right and wrong, and then gets mad when they do the wrong thing. What's the moral of this story, anyway?

This made my day.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Thanks! That description of the story isn't original with me, but I think it definitely fits.

[revme.livejournal.com]

Well, apes are dirty! Dirt just is.

What's the moral of this story, anyway?

God's got problems (and is kinda a dick).

And yeah -- there's a lot made of the two origin stories, at least by biblical scholar types -- that they're conflicting and whatnot. And the general idea is that it was more an idea to just write down the different versions of the origin story for posterity or something -- I think a lot of the OT is intended a bit more like a history book (i.e. all the boring-ass Begats) AND collection of mythology (all the magicy stuff). It's kinda interesting in that sense, but silly to take at face value. (Ooops.)

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Most of what I've read suggests that there were at least three different authors (or groups of authors) involved in the writing of Genesis. One refers to God as Elohim and another as Yahweh, while the third is primarily concerned with the priesthood. Also, there are certain parts that seem to have come out of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, while others probably originated in Judea. Even if you subscribe to the traditional view that it was written by Moses, however, he still wasn't an eyewitness to any of this stuff. As I'm sure I'll mention again in later posts, I think there's a general trend in mythological history to make things that happened prior to recorded history sound really wacky (because, hey, it's not like anyone back then could prove prehistoric people DIDN'T live 900 years and have sex with angels), while it becomes more realistic when you get closer to when it was actually written.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

He names all of the animals, but I'm not entirely sure why this detail is relevant

Actually I think it's very relevant, but then I'm one of those who doesn't believe in taking Genesis literally, so I don't care what language that might have been. There's a lot in Genesis about the power of Words, and that's a theme that is repeated throughout the Bible. "In the beginning there was the Word" as John says in the new testament-- the concept of Christ being The Word made Flesh is one of the mystical aspects of Christianity that personally resonated with me the most. Anyway, so what's important about Adam naming the animals is merely that he DID Name them-- Named them with a capital N. Madeleine L'Engle explored the importance of Naming in A Wind in the Door, so I'll just leave that to her and just be vague like this here myself.

Also because I believe in Genesis as a creation myth and not as something meant to be taken literally, I do not find the story of the Fall nearly so absurd, either. There's a lot going on in this story in general. First off I believe from the standpoint of my religious views that the most important lesson we're meant to get from the Creation is the concept of God as Father-- not a mere inventor who built something and let it loose, not a temperamental dictator (though you might get that impression from later stories in the Old Testament), not a blank and unfeeling natural force, but a PARENT. Parents set limits for their children based on what they believe is best for them, and children are really good at testing those limits-- and truly, breaking through limits is part of growing up. As I see it, the Fall was not so much an arbitrary punishment but a natural consequence of the disobedience. This actually becomes clearer if you accept the theory of evolution, because the story of the Fall fits REMARKABLY into actual evolutionary record: the early ancestors of humans were, well, basically animals. They "eat from the Tree of Knowledge, which makes them like gods," 'k? ie they develop big huge brains for making decisions! Whereas before, as animals, they functioned primarily on instinct-- the basics of survival. Now, dangit, they started THINKING, and things go screwy from there on out. They lost paradise by becoming aware-- pull in something from Buddhism here, basically the only reason we're no longer in Eden is we've learned to be dissatisfied. We didn't realize we had reason to be dissatisfied before our brains got so big. AND, pain in childbirth? Direct result of humans having large brains and walking upright. SCIENTIFIC FACT. Anyway, we'd be HAPPIER if we were still dumb animals, but we're not, so, no more earthly paradise for us, until we learn to take it easy and stop pretending we know everything. Wonder if this comment is too long to post.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Anyway, so what's important about Adam naming the animals is merely that he DID Name them-- Named them with a capital N. Madeleine L'Engle explored the importance of Naming in A Wind in the Door, so I'll just leave that to her and just be vague like this here myself.

True Names are also significant in the Earthsea books, and I believe they're found in Egyptian mythology as well.

First off I believe from the standpoint of my religious views that the most important lesson we're meant to get from the Creation is the concept of God as Father-- not a mere inventor who built something and let it loose, not a temperamental dictator (though you might get that impression from later stories in the Old Testament), not a blank and unfeeling natural force, but a PARENT. Parents set limits for their children based on what they believe is best for them, and children are really good at testing those limits-- and truly, breaking through limits is part of growing up.

Yes, I think the idea of eating the fruit and being driven out of the garden could easily be seen as a metaphor for growing up. Mind you, if the story took place in today's economy, Adam would be unable to find a job and would remain in the Garden for years to come, sleeping on the couch and hating every minute of it. {g}

[billiedoll.livejournal.com]

Actually, the Tree of Life contained the knowledge of good and evil. Without that knowledge, Adam and Eve were shameless. Exactly why this is a good thing, I don't know. Once they gained that knowledge, they began to realize all the things that they were doing wrong, like not wearing clothes and whatnot.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are referred to as two different things in Genesis 2.

What's so evil about not wearing clothes, anyway? It can be uncomfortable, sure, but I don't have any particular moral objection to it.

[billiedoll.livejournal.com]

As I said, there are things I don't get about the whole business. But the idea that knowledge of sin (shame) creates sin comes up in the New Testament, as well.