Plato's Playground
Whew, that's a lot. We'll have plenty of time to digest and chew over and wrangle over all of this stuff, but for now I'll just make one quick point. All of your discussion is, of course, a reflection on something written long ago from the standpoint of theology developed much more recently. You're reading, not exactly modern, but largely medieval ideas onto a text written long before people had such thoughts -- as you explicitly acknowledge.
So, one question that occurs immediately to a skeptic is, okay, why this particular text? What's so special about it? Why don't you do the same thing with Aeschylus's Prometheus, or the legend of Gilgamesh, or the Vedas? As you say, this is just some people who knew much less than we do now, struggling to understand the universe in which they found themselves. To me, Genesis -- and particularly this early stuff -- is not a notably interesting example of ancient myth or writing. The plot is a mess, full of glaring illogic and inconsistency; the stories are just silly; and it is of no real literary distinction. You truly have to struggle to wring serious meaning from it. So why let your understanding be limited by the ill-formed ideas of some pre-literate goatherds? (I say pre-literate because obviously these stories were later inscriptions of an earlier oral tradition.)
I think Missy's post raises some very interesting points, but my primary comment on it relates indirectly to Cervantes' comments: who wrote this stuff? Missy, you asked two rhetorical questions, by means of setting this passage in context - "Who was it written by, who was it written for?" - but you only seemed to answer the second of them, to which the answer was 'a group of people with a view of the world that we would regard as primitive and limited'. Your response to the first part may be an answer to Cervantes' questions - "Why this text?" - if the answer is that it was written by God.
If the serpent is a metaphor for something else, then where are these metaphors coming from? Is God using metaphors to explain things to a group of people of whom he is concerned that they might not otherwise get it? Or have the metaphors arisen organically from the stories told among the people, as part of their own way of explaining the world to themselves? (I find it easier to believe that a snake could talk, by the way, than that there are such things as angels and that some of them are fallen and come to corrupt us.)
I think these are important questions:
- who created this text, and how, and why?
- if the author was God, why hasn't he updated or clarified it? Why's there no second edition, so that we in our age don't have to struggle with these three thousand year old metaphors?
If the message of the Bible was written in modern language and ways of thinking I'd find it a lot easier to take on board than I do when it's grounded in obscure and archaic metaphors.
Cervantes--why this text? That's a good question. Well you can't necessarily account for ancient taste based on what you like. And you can't detect the poetry of the original language unless you're a scholar in that area. There are many parts of the Bible (maybe not this one) that hold up beautifully from a literary standpoint when compared with their contemporary writings. The stories of Saul and David, for instance.
Shoot. I'm so out of time. I have more to say. I'll be back this afternoon.
Yes, anyway, the other point to be made is that of tradition. I didn't select which stories would be passed on--the original story tellers did. An organized religion formed around these stories and carried on; why these and not the mythological explanations of life given by the ancient Greeks? Perhaps it has more to do with the person of their chief purveyor, Jesus?
I don't know. This is what I puzzle on sometimes; what happened to Adam and Eve? What was the *click* that made them "see" this personal, creator-God? And pass that story on? And on and on. What happened to Noah? Abraham? How did they really talk to God and how did the original people hearing these stories understand that? Did they think it meant to talk like two people talk together or did they think it was more of an internal discussion, the way only you can "hear" your thoughts.
Anyway... to Iain's point and about the mess; I was a bit vague because it's really such a big answer and I'm not well qualified in this area. But you know that the reason things sometimes seem illogical or inconsistent has to do with multiple writers and insertions; often an attempted weaving of two versions of the same story as in the creation myth of chapter one and two.
I don't have information on hand, but there is scholarship which dates when different parts of the Bible were written and attempts to divide by authorship. I believe (and if anyone can help me out or correct me here, feel free to join in) that the oldest creation myths were from an oral Canaanite tradition; In Abraham's time these would have begun to be written out on clay tablets. In fact, I think the conjecture is that this is something Abraham himself would have done because his father was said to be a maker of idols--statues--therefore they would have been in the clay tablet business as well. The ancient religion of Abraham's father, Terah, involved a cosmic theatre. The God's were statues and their human servants "woke" them in the morning, dressed them, "fed" them, and generally acted something out with the statues that was their religion.
So that moment in Genesis 12:1 is kind of weird. What makes Abram suddenly become Abraham and have a personal relationship with God? What makes him give up the family business, which was probably pretty lucrative--making statues for temples and recording transactions on clay tablets--and move to Canaan, where now their creation myths get entwined with his personal God to the point where his God is their God?
This is where our oldest stories began. And of course, it has been added to, but not since about 100 AD. Eh, unless you want to get technical; the first time the canon was named as we know it now was 367 AD. And we've reached an age where it's just not going to change. It doesn't mean there isn't a lot of good theological writing out there, it just means--come on--no one's going to change the Bible. Sheesh. Really, can you imagine? No o
I'm not a Bible scholar, but my understanding is that the canon is not as well established as you suggest, Missy. If you compare Catholic and Protestant versions of the Bible you will see that there are different numbers of books in each (in the Old Testament). I believe that there are other (fairly minor) differences between different Christian traditions. The idea that the canon is fixed and unchanging is not entirely correct.
Um.... Cervantes, wasn't it you who started this by using "this particular text"?
As for why would anyone would use this text to have a discussion instead of the others you mentioned may be due to the fact that America has become of country homicidal maniacs who are trying to impose a theocracy based on it while cramming it down other peoples' throats.
As such, the other texts have no meaning since no one knows of their existence let alone what they contain or teach, at least in terms of the most powerful elements in America today.
Just my two cents.
Iain--right, of course I stand corrected with regard to the Protestant version--the Catholic Bible has remained unchanged since the original canon was adopted in the 4th century.
But of course, you should note that the Protestants dropped certain books, they did not add any. I maintain that new sacred writings will never be introduced and have not for over 1600 years.
Thanks for clarifying that, Missy - like I said, I'm no Bible scholar and so I don't know the details of these things.
But I wonder why: why are there no new sacred writings? I know that in some understandings God experiences all time in an instant, or in some other way alien to our understanding, but why did he reveal himself in this way so long ago? He was there in the garden, speaking to Adam - why is not here now, speaking to me? to you? to all of us? Where has he gone?
Perhaps he is, in some way, speaking to us, but he seems to have spoken to Adam in a direct and embodied way, not by means of (what amount to) nudges and winks. And that I don't understand.
Well, as I said, I would like to know myself just how ancient people percieved those interactions.
And I wonder how God could be able to escape the arrow of time? Do we really know that about God or is it just conjecture?
I think God does "speak" to people and reveal Himself today. I think there are very good theological writers today trying to grasp at the reality of God. And there's evidence of a growing spiritual maturity--we grow, we change, our view of God should too. But a great insight or a good book or essay won't join the canon for much more backward reasons than a lack of existance.
Oh yes, that's correct, I misremembered about the prohibition on eating fruit.
It is definitely true that the Hebrews at this time were not monotheistic. You'll note that even later on, the existence of other Gods is not denied -- it's just that YHWH demands that the Hebrews put him first.
Commenting by HaloScan
