Primordial Sex--Eden as allegory

[lmbarre]

In the following, I shall advance the thesis that the story of Adam and Eve is built upon a common domestic issue.  The story illustrates the parental admonition that young people should not engage in sex just because they have reached the age that allows them to do so.  I also maintain that the literary genre of the work is an allegory where persons and places are symbolic.  The allegory probably stems from Israel's wisdom tradition which produced the allegory in found in Qoheleth 12:1ff.  Also, the sexual content of the story is a topic that the wisdom tradition addressed as shown by the Song of Songs and by the book of Proverbs.

We begin with the plot development in which the couple move from not knowing to knowing they are naked.  Not knowing that they were naked is how the narrative describes the innocence of childhood. Young children  are not ashamed of  nakedness.  Accordingly, Yahweh plays the role of a parent, instructing his children in what to avoid.

What about the tree of the knowledge of good and bad?  The meaning of the phrase, "good and bad" seems to hold the same meaning as it does with regard to a certain Barzillai:

I am now eighty years old; can I tell the good from the bad? Has your servant any taste for his food and drink? Can I still hear the voices of men and women singers? Why should your servant be a further burden to my lord the king? (2 Sam 19:36)

Barzillai's problem is that his sense of taste and hearing are dulled due to old age.  Understood in this way, the primordial pair and Barzillai are the same.  Old age is a kind of second innocence.  Knowing good and bad describes sexually active adult life that occurs between youthful innocence and desensitized old age.  It also describes God, for to be like God is to know good and bad.  The transition from childhood to adulthood is also described as "being wise" as opposed to being naive, a contrast that is often drawn in Proverbs.

The snake, perhaps originally thought to be a lizard with legs, symbolizes Adam's phallus with an erection, erect as the serpent originally was.  Eating of the tree of knowledge represents intercourse.  That a fruit should represent this is shown by the erotic image fruit has in the Song of Solomon.  After eating the fruit, the couple are found to have acquired carnal knowledge, instantly changed from innocent, virgin children to into sexually active "adults."  Their punishment for "not waiting" is described in terms of teenagers forced to premature parenthood.  Adam will have to get a difficult job to support his family and Eve will become pregnant and will have the bear the pains of childbirth and bear the responsibilities of motherhood.  Furthermore, they have now become mortal, subject to death.  It is this motif that lifts the story to a "cosmic" level.  As for the tree of life and its celestial guardian, this appears to be an addition to the story as is the insertion of the description of the four rivers thought to flow from Eden.

[Pharaoh Cat]

Clever.  Have you tried sharing your interpretation with a Rabbi?

Maybe the beginning and middle portions of Exodus could be interpreted as Egypt giving birth to Israel, with the plagues symbolic of labor pains.  Joseph's arrival at the end of Genesis would be the insemination.

[Too Few Lions]

all very Freudian, but I don't think the story originally had anything to do with underage sex. You can't just do away with the serpent and the tree, they're central motifs in the story, not a later addition. And although the story's clearly allegorical, there's no evidence to suggest that the serpent represents a penis, that's a very modern interpretation.

[Stevil]

Who knows what message the original story was meant to convey?
As a communication mechanism (of supposedly important information) it fails miserably.

[lmbarre]

Who knows what message the original story was meant to convey?
As a communication mechanism (of supposedly important information) it fails miserably.

While I do think that the tree of life is a later addition, not so with the tree of knowledge of good and bad (eating from which symbolizes intercourse.  Likewise, the serpent is interpreted to be a symbol because its appearance resembles a phallus.

Using the genre of allegory was especially suited for the author to talk about sex without being explicit.

[Too Few Lions]

Personally I think the story's easy to understand, I read it as the story of the fall of humanity from an original divine realm into the material realm. There are plenty of similar stories from other religions from the ancient Mediterranean / near East depicting a similar thing from 2-3000 years ago. It became particularly big in Gnostic thought, but was central to earlier philosophies / religions like Platonism and Orphism.

As Gawen's shown in his thread on 'sex in the Bible' the Israelites / Jews who wrote that story didn't have a problem with writing about sex in the Bible.

[Gawen]

Who's to know what the original story consisted of? Personally, I'm with TFL on this one. A simple story using a great deal of symbolism. Not much different than Revelation...which I think actually written by a disgruntled Jew after the fall of the second temple. And you all have seen what people have said about what means what in Revelation.

[Stevil]

Here is a fantastic post which Kevin Crady made on another forum.

Hey Mods, hope this isn't against the rules, dumping this stuff here. I have just discovered this guy and he seems pretty clued in, writing some very interesting and well reasoned posts.

The Devil in Eden

There are quite a few misconceptions floating around the Genesis story, especially regarding the Devil.  You Christians tell us the Devil began his career of evil in the Garden of Eden.

"The Devil was a liar and a murderer from the beginning" you say.  Fair enough.  Let's go to Genesis and see who's the liar and the murderer.

The very first death threat uttered in the Bible was given by God.  "In the day you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which is in the midst of the Garden, you shall surely die."  That's God's claim.  OK, perhaps God isn't threatening them with death.  Maybe the Fruit of Knowledge really is poisonous, and he's just warning them of the danger.  We'll find out as we proceed.

What's the Serpent's claim?  "You shall not surely die!  For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."  To the Serpent, the Fruit isn't poisonous, but astoundingly beneficial, and God is hiding this truth from Adam and Eve because he's afraid "their eyes will be opened."

Two contradictory claims.  Shouldn't be too hard to tell which of the two is telling the truth.

Adam and Eve eat the fruit.  Suddenly, they become aware of their nakedness.  Think about that.  Adam and Eve had no more self-awareness than animals, until after they eat the Fruit.  And here's something else interesting:  The Serpent is described as more "clever" or "subtle" (i.e. intelligent) than the other creatures God created.  The Hebrew word for 'subtle' is awroom (Strong's Concordance #6175).  It is derived from awram (6191) "to be (or make) bare, used in the derivative sense (perhaps through the idea of smoothness), be crafty, prudent, deal subtly."  (Underlined text is from Strong's Concordance)

The word 'naked' (6174) is also derived from this root.  This is the word used of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  'They did not know they were naked.'  Using the other meaning, it could also say 'They did not know they were clever'.  They did not know they could use their minds to survive and flourish.  They did not know they were sapient beings.  When the Serpent gave them the Fruit of Knowledge, they became aware of both their minds (cleverness/intelligence) and their bodies (sexuality).

Linking back to the Ayn Rand quote, we see that in mythic terms, God created obediant automatons, but it is the Serpent that truly made them human.

The word for 'serpent' in Genesis is 'nawkhawsh' (5175).  It is derived from the root word 'nawkhash' meaning 'to hiss' , i.e. "whisper a magic spell, prognosticate, certainly, divine (verb--see Gen. 44:5, Joseph's divination) enchanter, (use) enchantment, learn by experience, diligently observe."  (Underlined text from Strong's Concordance)  Now, we atheist skeptic types usually have a rather low opinion of 'magic,' but for the moment, consider the contrasts between Magicians and Clergy, within the context of knowledge people possessed at the time the Genesis account was written.

The practice of "magic" assumed that there were certain spiritual operating principles, and that if a Magician learned what those principles were, he or she could use them to gain knowledge and/or affect reality.  Do certain things, and certain results follow.  As Heinlein put it, "One man's magic is another man's engineering."  In other words, "magic" as practiced in ancient times was an attempt to develop a science and technology for dealing with the "spiritual" realm.  We can say that it didn't work, but at least they were on the right track.  Our sciences are descended from ancient magical practices.  Alchemy---->Chemistry.  Herbology----->Botany and medicine.  Asrology----->Astronomy.  Sacred Geometry, Numerology, etc.------>Mathematics.  The Magician was also able to deal with spiritual reality on his or her own, through the use of his or her own intelligence.

Contrast the way of the Magician with the way of Clergy.  The Clergy claim that the way to get things done is to seek to appease a Deity and the Deity's power will do what needs doing.  Humans are fundamentally dependent on the will of the Deity.  Clergy have an inside track to communicating with the Deity, knowing what is required to appease it, relaying its messages back to the people, etc.  For Clergy, power-politics is the predominant cosmological principle.  The way to "make it" in reality is to know who is Lord, and do their bidding.  Obey, and you have good harvests, healthy children, etc.  Disobey, and here come the locusts.

It is no wonder that Clergy loathe Magicians and, if given the chance, will have them burned at the stake.

God (and his priest Adam) represent the Clergy model.  Right from the start, you have "Obey my orders and you'll get to munch free fruit.  Disobey me, and you die!"

The Serpent (and his priestess Eve) represent the Magician model.  He begins by asking Eve a question.  "Did God say you could eat of every tree of the Garden?"  He's employing the Socratic method to get her to see the bars of God's cage for herself.  Then, instead of commands and threats, the Serpent offers a testable hypothesis: "You will not die, but when you eat the fruit, your eyes will be opened and you will be as gods."  He never even asks Eve to eat the fruit.  He just tells her the truth about it and lets her decide for herself.  He does not threaten to bite her if she doesn't eat it.  Instead, he offers her value.

Once Eve takes a closer look at the fruit, she realizes that it is pleasant to the eyes (beauty), desirable to make one wise (knowledge) and good for food (physical nourishment and pleasure).  In other words, the Fruit is symbolic of all the elements of the good life.  Notice further that the Serpent isn't trying to "rule the world."  He never issues any commands, asks for worship and praise.  Never has a crusade or jihad ever been waged in his name.  In fact, he treats Eve respectfully, as an equal.

So Eve eats the Fruit, and sure enough, she doesn't die "in the day" she does so.  Neither does Adam.  Later in the narrative, he (women don't count in the Bible) is attributed an astounding life-span of nearly a thousand years.  Given that "day" in Genesis is supposed to really mean "day" (as any fundamentalist Creationist will assure you), we have no choice but to accept that God's claim--that knowledge is poison--was falsified.  In fact, God himself acknowledges the truth of the Serpent's claim:

"Behold the man (women don't count) is become as one of us, (and here I thought there was only one god) to know good and evil: and now, lest he put out his hand, and also take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever: Therefore, the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden...and he placed at the east of the garden Cherubims (a type of spirit being) and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

So, rather than bringing humanity's death, eating the Fruit made Adam and Eve "like gods" just as the Serpent said, and not only that, it opened the way to immortality for them.  And so, to prevent humans from completing their ascent to divinity (it was a Rise in the Garden, not a Fall), God responds with what would soon become his old stand-by: violence.

"But Adam and Eve died spiritually the day they ate the Fruit!" you say.

Where in Genesis does it say anything about a "spiritual" death?  God just told Adam he would die "in the day" he ate the fruit.  He didn't say anything about "spiritual" death, or expulsion from the Garden, or any other punishment.  He would die, period.  You claim to revere the Bible, but you twist the plain meaning of the text to prop up your theological "interpretation" rather than adjusting your theology to conform to the Bible.  Furthermore, you Christians are always fond of tying morality and spirituality together.  "If there is no God," you say, "then there's no morality either!  There will be blood in the streets!"  But, you see, it is self-evident in Genesis that God intended for humanity not to be morally good, but obediant.  He wanted creatures that would obey his commands without regard to whether they were good or evil, because they couldn't tell the difference.  There is no morality with God.

If you don't believe me, just look at all the moral excuse-making you have to do on God's behalf.  "But it's OK for God to perform abortion (cause a miscarriage)."  "It's OK for God to kill people for disobeying him."  "It's OK for God to torture people forever."  "It's OK for God to sanction mass child molestation (Num. 31:17-18)."  It's OK for God to sire an illegitimate child with another guy's fiance.'"  Etc.  Then, look at all the atrocities you commit on his behalf.  No, we don't even have to go back to the Salem witch trials or the Crusades.  What's going on right now, today, in Iraq is sufficient.  Or all the needless deaths from AIDS in Africa because you think it is better for black people to suffer lingering death than to use condoms.

So, if you wish to link "spiritual life" with such things as morality, self-awareness, the faculty of conscious deliberation and choice, etc. (i.e. the things that distinguish us, for the most part, from other animals), then it is self-evident in the narrative that the Fruit gave Adam and Eve spiritual life, awakening them from the zombie-like slumber God had hoped to keep them in.

Look again at the two claims.

God: "In the day you eat the fruit, you shall surely die."
Serpent: "You shall not surely die!  For God knows that in the day you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you shall be as gods."
God himself endorses the Serpent's claim and reacts with fear and wrath not to prevent Adam and Eve from dying, but to prevent them from living forever.

"But Adam did die, because as a result of his sin, God denied him access to the Tree of Life, which he was free to eat from before."

That's quite an interesting admission.  You see, Adam did not die because he ate the Fruit of Knowledge.  It was not poisonous; nothing about the Fruit of Knowledge itself caused them to die or prevented them from living forever.  Had God just shrugged and walked away, Adam and Eve would have been immortal.  God, using violence, insured their deaths.  In other words, slow-motion murder.

So, what have we seen here?  God lied.  That is self-evident in the narrative.  Eating the Fruit of Knowledge did not kill Adam and Eve.  It had the exact effects the Serpent said it would, a fact God carefully chose to hide from Adam, and which he later did not even try to deny.  Everything the Serpent said was true.  That also is self-evident in the narrative.

Furthermore, the Serpent did not kill Adam and Eve.  He never threatened them or harmed them in the least.  He simply gave them the gift of truth about the Fruit, and about God.  And one more thing: he gave them freedom.  He did not command them to eat the Fruit, or threaten to punish them if they didn't.  As he promised, the Fruit was not poisonous or unhealthy.  To the contrary, Eve acknolwedges that it was "good for food," and her account is never contradicted.

Who killed Adam and Eve?  Who took violent action to insure that they would die?  God.  Again, this is self-evident in the narrative.

Remember that bit about the Devil being "A liar and a murderer from the beginning?"

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God."

--Thomas Paine Age of Reason, Part I, pp. 18-19

It all starts to make sense now, doesn't it? 

[Tank]

I think a link for context would be a good idea.