Thanks! Checked this book out right now and will read it!
1 Like
Thank you! What are the tags I should use to search old posts on this topic?
1 Like
We may be going to tags someday, but for now, easiest just to use the search function at the top of the page.
Adam and Eve are not historical. McKnight calls the story “literary” which has so wide a scope it is almost meaningless. The proper exegesis of the Adam and Eve story is below.
[Begin snip]
Adam and Eve choose to venture out, as they must, because their fallen condition is our human condition, and it is our fallen human condition that the Biblical author is describing. Adam and Eve’s sudden realization after eating the forbidden fruit is of a shift in their state of being. At the Torah’s allegorical level, it happens in an instant of Biblical time; but the transition actually occurred over millions of years of biological time as the human brain increased in size and complexity and man developed his unique intelligence and an acute sense of self-consciousness. The fundamental nature of the shift is described very specifically in the Biblical text.
Adam and Eve open their eyes, cover their nakedness, and hide from God.
Discrete variables can be obtained from the Genesis text and arranged in a formula.
Here are the variables in the formula for the fall with the corresponding text:
- Self (open their eyes) = + shame (cover their nakedness) + fear (hide from God).
• The formula for the fall is (+ self = + shame + fear).
Adam and Eve open their eyes to self consciousness in a Biblical instant, compressing millions of years of evolutionary time. Their expanded self-consciousness generates ontological anxiety —
the fear of sin and death. Paul Tillich, the philosopher and theologian lecturing at Yale University declared, “Courage is the self affirmation of being in spite of the fact of non-being.”
The discipline of the self-sacrifice returns a man from the fall by eliminating the fear generated by the threat of non-being — the self-conscious awareness of the inevitability of death. By eliminating concern for the self (– self) the individual’s sense of ego is diffused (– shame), and anxiety over the threat of non-being subsides (– fear). I visualized the formula after seeing its precise variables expressed in reverse in another religious text from another time. I was reading the Gospel of Thomas from the Nag Hammadi texts of the 1st-2nd century when I encountered the following logion (37). The author of the Gospel of Thomas refers directly to the return from the ontological fall.
His disciples said, “ When will you become revealed to us and when shall we see you?”
Jesus said, “When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then [will you see] the son of the living one, and you will not be afraid.”
Here are those discrete variables in the formula for the return from the fall with the corresponding text from the Gospel of Thomas:
– Self (see the son) = – shame (without being ashamed) – fear (you will not be afraid).
• The formula for the return is (– self = – shame – fear)
The compiler/author of the Gospel of Thomas portrays Jesus reversing the process of the fall in Genesis to describe the return. The discrete variables in the formula are the variables from Genesis but the values are now negative. The self is gone and so are shame and fear. Recall Tillich. “Courage is the self affirmation of being in spite of the fact of non-being.” The self-sacrifice eliminates the threat of non-being through disciplines that affirm the essential self (the Spirit) by surrendering the threatened self (the body). Literary paradoxes for the self-sacrifice such as those found throughout the gnostic Gospel of Thomas abound in scripture:
Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”
Matthew 16:24-25
“I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God.”
Romans 12:1
Snip from: The Fundamental Structure and Systematic Theology of the Torah, Richard Faussette
The Return from the Fall (the self-sacrifice) is incorporated into the Epistle to the Hebrews @ 8:8-13 where the author quotes the “gospel before the gospels” from Jeremiah 31:31-34 in full.
“The days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers the day I took them by the hand to lead them forth from the land of Egypt; for they broke my covenant and I had to show myself their master, says the Lord. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will place my law within them and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer will they have need to teach their friends and kinsmen how to know the Lord. All, from least to greatest, shall know me, says the Lord. For I will forgive their evildoing and remember their sin no more.”
To write the Law upon your heart is to memorize it and internalize it. Daniel Boyarin calls it Jesus’ monovocality.
- Who or what was the serpent? “The satan” as a general prosecutor, or Satan as a discrete being?
Why the assumption that the serpent here needs to be Satan? Genesis identifies the serpent in the garden as a “beast of the field” (Gen 3:1; cf. Matt 10:16). Paul simply says, “the serpent,” not the devil or Satan. Revelation 12:3, 9 identifies the “old serpent” as having seven heads like Lotan of ANE mythology, corresponding to Leviathan (Isa 27:1). The serpent in the garden doesn’t seem to have seven heads or live in the sea, nor is it called a dragon.
In the Genesis story, the serpent is a talking animal. Whether the elements of the story symbolize things or beings is a different question than what the passage says as a narrative.
3 Likes
If one quotes from Hamlet or The Golden Journey to Samarkand to make a valid point with a literary allusion does it mean that one believes them to be histories of Denmark or Uzbekistan which validate one’s point? In Paul’s case yes of course, how could he not, living 1600 years before the Enlightenment. And not. The classical worldview was a fecund mix of extremely pragmatic, rational and superstitious, a very broad and deep spectrum, often in the same mind; evolution was obvious to the C7th BCE pre-Socratic Anaximander. The C5th BCE Democritus gave us atoms and infinite space. Paul, quoter of Anaximander’s contemporary Epimenides, would have known this. So, no, Paul wasn’t a modern reactionary fundamentalist. He’d have no reason not to believe in Adam and Eve and the Fall and to have absorbed the highly evolved idea of Satan. None of which has anything to do with what he meant. See my tagline.
I think it is safe to say that Paul probably did not take the Genesis story as some vague metaphor, no more than I do myself. Not that this proves anything. People use stories to illustrate their points whether they believe it is historically or literally true or not. And even if you did take Paul’s comment in such a way, it doesn’t cover very much. So MAYBE Paul believed that Eve really existed, that the intelligent being referred to as the snake really existed as well, and that this event actually happened – same as I do. But none of this necessarily means that Paul believed that Eve was a golem of bone created by necromancy or that the snake was a talking animal getting her to eat a magical fruit.
1 Like
You can only speculate on what an author thought but by the way he compares the fall to the Cross in Romans its hard not to see how the sacrificial death of Jesus isn’t equally a possible candidate for an allegory as the Garden story. Paul seems to refer to the event as if it’s true and there is no hint he thought otherwise. Paul didn’t know any better. The question is, can we still accept the thrust of what Romans teaches if we leave the details of the Garden story behind? How does it change things? To be quite honest, belief in a “literal” garden story today is on par with believing in a flat earth or a young earth. There is no point in sugar coating this. It’s a nonsensical belief that deserves no credence in educated arenas. We must attribute it to accommodation.
We know of people like Philo who had allegorical interpretations but for me it’s hard to see why a Pharisee who believed the Torah contains the God’s Law thought it was “wrong” or allegorical in regards to the creation story. Was Abraham real to Paul? The exodus despite the logistic problems?
Was there any reason for Paul to deny the Garden story? The idea that life evolved via evolution was not on Paul’s table. The story of Adam and Eve are as good an explanation of creation at the time as any other.
Can’t know for certain but if I had to place a wager I’d bet heavily on Paul taking Genesis at its word. He was a Pharisee. Jewish scripture at the time was his authority. It was his truth and way of life before Damascus. Reinterpreting it in light of the Cross was his truth after.
1 Like
Did he have any other choice?
And yet he did not go around telling the gentiles to follow the law.
Which he changed after Damascus.
Perhaps we should be willing to change our view of the OT likewise.
Thinking of becoming a cat-herder, are ya?
Double-covenant’s a possible route: OT by Jews for 1st covenant Jews and OT by Jews & NT for 2nd covenant non-Jewish believers; no more Replacement Theology.
Guys, it’s an adventure in missing the point. Unless one is trying to force original sin and PSA in to Paul. His point is my tagline.
Well, when I said reinterpreted, I was being charitable. Early Christians have misinterpreted the Old Testament since Calvary. Modern Christians have been changing the Old Testament for 2,000 years. We don’t have to be willing, it’s already the norm.
Vinnie
Are you implying the latter is more fantastic than the former? By modern standards, both are like believing in fairy tales. Maybe a team of archaeologists will one day locate Cinderella’s missing glass slipper. There is an equally likely chance of that occurring as there is locating the Garden of Eden. Contemporary grown ups with access to education should not believe the Garden story.
Vinnie
1 Like
There is nothing fantastic about a person named Eve living 6000+ years ago.
Nor is the idea that the universe we can see not being the totality of reality all that fantastic since many atheist scientists have suggested the same thing.
The idea of non-human beings capable of interacting with people is one you will find in every culture and period on the planet, which is taken even more seriously now we know how vast the universe is. And people claim communication with such beings all the time. No… not so fantastic.
But a golem of bone created by necromancy? Considerably more fantastic.
Talking animals? Definitely more fantastic.
magical fruit giving people life or knowledge? Total fantasy.
The vast vast majority of people on the planet would definitely treat stories with things like these as something fabricated for the sole purpose of entertainment.
Modern standards? Are you talking about the same period of history in which I live? …one saturated with tales of aliens, supernatural beings, and other worlds much more than any other time period in our history? No I think you must be talking about some kind of “modern fantasy” like an alternate history where most people in the world are Vinnie clones believing according to what you dictate.
No… this is just the typical ideological rhetoric I often heard from people which says that their decisions on what to believe is some kind of default and everybody has to believe that unless they can prove something else to be the case. Pure nonsense which is also quite dishonest.
Since “Modern” Christians haven’t been around for 2,000 years this doesn’t make sense. Did you mean all Christians, starting with Peter, James, and John, have been changing the OT for 2,000 years?
1 Like
Yes, people existed and probably had names 6000+ years ago. Your dating is certainly not arbitrary and underscores how deep the absurdity of the Garden story and a literal Old Testament is in the mind of modern believers. Anatomically modern humans go back significantly further than archbishop Ussher’s calculations using genealogies in the Old Testament under the assumption they are accurate and complete. This practice assumes the historicity of the garden story to begin with. Once you dispense with that, you should also dispense with the silly date of 6,000 years ago.
No one is suggesting otherwise but many of the atheist scientists have suggested this because the implication of a beginning suggested a Beginner.
What can I say though, sure, lots of people believe in a spiritual realm and communication with God. Nothing necessarily fantastic about that but it depends on the person and specific beliefs. Do you believe God is crying when it rains or angry when it thunders? Unless you think primitive beliefs in the tree, sea, sun, sky, rock and water gods are intellectually on par with monotheistic beliefs? I don’t dispute the spirituality behind the belief but the intellectually framing of many experiences are quite fantastical.
All nonsense.
The number of people who believe in these things, the saturation of which you have only asserted, could be attributed to the ease at which information is transmitted nowadays, or simply population growth. But I would suggest the statistics would show that education level reduces a person’s propensity to believe in nonsense. That is not to say its a cure and can’t produce its own fantasy.
Nonsense is nonsense, whether it is from a fellow Christian about talking snakes and magic fruit in an idyllic garden, a young earth creationist talking about evolution and radiometric dating or a flat farther going on about the conspiracies of NASA. A literal Genesis is nonsense. Modern science makes it so. All mistaken beliefs are not equal. Trying to find a historical core in the garden story is like looking for one in Goldilocks and the Three Bears. The genre is creation myth. It can still be inspired. Treat it accordingly.
Vinnie
Yes. Poor phrasing on my part. Modern and ancient Christians have been doing this since the birth of Christianity. I don’t have any writings of James, Peter and John to assess them. I can only assess those authors we have writings from.
14 Then Joseph[h] got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, 15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, “Out of Egypt I have called my son.”
Gotta love Matthew’s treatment of Hosea 11:1. Is this a “pattern” or a prediction? “This was to fulfill”… Matthew would be laughed out of seminary for this exegesis. There are plenty of examples where Jesus is read into things he shouldn’t have been, not to mention the caricature of Jews and the Law.
Vinnie
1 Like
The only thing more absurd is the mindlessly black and white claim that just because a fanciful story is told about someone that the person didn’t exist and all things said about them have no basis in reality.
Huh? There was no mention of the origin of anatomically modern homo sapiens in what I said. Ok… I can play that sort of stupid game too.
Your belief in prince charming and fairies that make glass slippers with magic is very amusing.
Once you dispense with fairies making glass slippers with magic then, you should also dispense with your obsession with Cinderella’s missing glass slipper.
Or… we could both stick to things actually said instead of inserting things convenient for a such an overblown personal soapbox, leaving these ludicrous anti-Ussher and anti-Rodger&Hammerstein weaponry out of it to engage in a more rational discussion.
As long as you are willing to bow to the dictates of rationality, you can add intellectual adjustments and justifications for just about any belief system, and thus the labeling of some as more primitive than others is not reasonably justified. All subjective beliefs whether concerning fairies, animism, UFOs, psychics, shamanism, ghosts, or healing with crystals are on par with the equally subjective monotheistic theological claims. There is no objective evidence for any of it and thus no reasonable basis for expecting other people to agree with such beliefs. …but to think that you can live your life purely according to the dictates of objective observation alone is the runaway massive delusion of modern times.
Nothing is more nonsensical that this claim.
That might be true of people with just enough education to inflate their delusions of knowing everything. But higher education tends expand ones awareness of just how much is not known or understood and thus decreasing the likelihood of dismissing the beliefs of others as just nonsense.
Incorrect. Just because you cannot get any sense out of a statement in the language of Ongota doesn’t mean the statement doesn’t make any sense to anybody. Your ability to get meaning out things is not the limit of sensibility.
No it is not. Even if it not meaningful to me, that doesn’t make it meaningless to anyone else. You go too far. And it is not this black and white choice between literal and nothing but a vague metaphor. There are all manners of gradation between these extremes.
To be sure, I think that an understanding of Genesis which is more connected and true to reality as we experience it, is generally going to be more meaningful to more people. And I certainly have a tendency to seek the greatest meaning in these texts. But that doesn’t mean a different understanding of the text is simply nonsense. An understanding of the text contrary to the findings of science will certainly detract from its meaning for me, but so does a dismissal of the stories as purely fictional, unless there are good reasons for doing so (like in the case of Job and 50% in the case of Jonah).
No it certainly does not. Modern science is not the source, limit, or definition of meaningfulness. The most you can say is that modern science, with its written procedures giving the same result no matter what you want or believe, gives the basis for a reasonable expectation that others should agree with its findings. And thus going against those findings is not reasonable. But to say that it is not even meaningful is just as blind and willfully ignorant.
1 Like