Hi juantoo3 —
I think you're trying to locate the mythological 'events' within an evolutionary historical process, no bad thing in itself, but I would argue that the authors were addressing a philosophical problem: Why is there suffering? But then maybe, it suddenly occurs, you see more in the historical process than I do ... so this is not so much an argument as a question?
You are quite correct...and as usual my view has more to do with questions as well. It seems to me that a culture's "mythos" are built in and around familiar settings, and use familar characters/heroes to set up and deliver the punchlines. Even if, as tradition states, it was Moses who compiled the book of Genesis some 1500 or more years after the supposed fact, one would presume there was some cultural memory (oral history perhaps?) that hearkened back to the time of the Garden. In any event, the ag. revolution was still fresh enough in the minds of all the cultures in the region to have some echoing significance.
Take the Biblical Flood and compare it to the Epic of Gilgamesh. The view of the gods is radically different: in the Epic the gods are craven, creaturely, and (much like the gods everywhere) seem more prone to vice than the poor humans they torture. They're dependent upon man for sustenance (something they didn't realise until they's almost wiped man out) and when man builds an altar, the descend like ravening vultures ... but the whole Epic is about the quest for immortality, which, in the end, fails.
The Biblical Flood is presented as an event not because the gods found man noise-some and a nuisance, but because of moral failure. The metaphysics of Scripture is superior to the Epic to the nth degree.
Absolutely.
On my theology course, there was of course mention of the woman who's dna we all carry, although no-one went so far as to say her name was Eve.
Mitochondrial Eve. Essentially mother to mother to mother all the way back.
There is also a Y-chromosomal Adam. Father to father to father all the way back.
But you're quite right...this isn't typically discussed using these terms, and when it is discussed it is typically in the context of "bottleneck with founder effect."
There is also the question that science would argue that the appearance of a new species in more than one place is statistically highly unlikely, and then we have our 'man' (what's the proper name?) alongside Neanderthal man ... so we were looking at the emergence from a phylum group? I don't know, I need more data!
From the latest I've been able to glean, Neandertal has now been discounted as a modern-human ancestor, Neandertal is now considered a separate branch that died out...although a great deal of question remains as to why they died out. Neandertal and Cro-Magnon (ancestor to modern-humans) both are considered to have come from a yet earlier proto-human source, and while the child of Lapedo does create some uncomfortable questions, it does clearly show that Neandertal and Cro-Magnon could interbreed.
Throw in the Flores Hobbit and "human" kind is a bit more diverse than we like to give credit.
My own questions on this revolve around the anatomical differences between East and West. The anatomy of Asian peoples is sufficiently different that if examined side by side in a lab as is typical with ancient anthropological finds, the researchers would likely conclude a different "species" or at least "sub-species." So you are quite right, it is a bit hard to believe that humans could spring up independently in multiple places. Last I heard the three oldest human cultures were the Bushmen in sub-Saharan Africa, the Ainu of the northern Japanese Islands, and the Laplanders of northern Europe. I know there is a fellow, Spencer Wells?, who is working on a genetic map to attempt to trace the genetic ancestry, but I haven't heard the conclusion yet.
One lecturer looked to the explosion of art around the pre-historic world — suddenly, it seems from archeological finds, man everywhere was creating art — and he points to that as a turning moment.
So we could discuss around the same lines, although I'm way short of you on the timeline details, but there is the view, as you have put forward, that we're talking about an evolutionary 'tipping point' as it were.
I think your point about a step-change in 'reasoning' is right on the mark.
To say art "exploded" I guess is a bit dramatic, but no less than I use regarding the ag. revolution. But I do see the ag. revolution taking place in less than a thousand years, where art has a bit broader range of development. And then, what is "art?"
Examples of the use of red ochre are widespread and date back almost 100 thousand years. Pierced shells, thought to be used as a necklace or other body ornament have been found in South Africa dating back almost 100 thousand years. Is body paint and ornaments considered art? The more pressing question for me is "why?" Did they paint their bodies and decorate their bodies solely and only for the aesthetic reasons, or is there a deeper reason for doing so?
Neandertal had art as well...it is not considered to be as well developed, but there are some amazing complex geometric patterns carved on stones and on cave walls. The patterns are remarkable for accuracy especially if they didn't have tools like squares and compasses. Neandertal art is not like that of the Cro-Magnons, it is distinct. What that means regarding any differences in how each brain worked is wide open to debate.
I think the idea as the serpent being 'good' and representing 'wisdom' in the face of a 'bad god' who wanted to keep man in ignorance is untenable if you read and contemplate the text. It's a very modern notion founded on anti-authoritarianism as much as anything. It would be alien to the scribe of the time. And it inverts the message of the text, which says something in itself.
I don't disagree at face value. The only exception I can think of is how far one will go to equate "serpent" with "dragon." Both have negative connotations in the Abrahamic faiths, but the dragon in particular is a wisdom symbol in many of the eastern cultures.
To me it's all about Israel's struggle to understand the world and themselves. If God does exist, if there is just one God, and if that one God is good (these were the issues the Greek philosophers were contending with, as was Asia and the Orient), then why is there suffering? Why is there evil?
Absolutely. I think these questions still resonate today.
I think these are the questions the text addresses. What the symbolism means is subsequent to that. I think most people fail to see beyond the symbol, or reduce it to the mundane, like sex or something.
LOL. I see your point.
Then again, there is the deeper thread, in Christianity, that there was a 'pre-flesh humanity', but that would be necessary for people who saw the world in a roughly Platonic fashion, the procession from high to low, etc.
Well now, to be quite honest you are the first person I've discussed this with from a "Christian" perspective that was even willing to entertain the thought. Frankly, in my experience Christians plug their ears and look the other way rather than try to place these matters into a context. And the thought of having ancestors far more ancient than Eden is just downright disturbing and upsets a lot of cherished applecarts.
I can see now I may have misread your quote...if by "pre-flesh" you meant something like "spirit bodied" humans living in some astral alternative existence. I do think that is a default "go to" place rather than considering what I had just mentioned.
I've got an old copy of New Scientist somewhere which discusses that temple site found in Turkey, reckoned to be one of the earliest? Part of the review suggested that temple worship kick-started the agricultural revolution by creating a need to feed a large gathering of people. Apparently there's evidence of early farming around the temple site ... small family-oriented units would not (apparently) need to farm on an organised pattern, but feeding large groups of people creates different needs.
I think I know what site you are speaking of...the name escapes me at this moment. I don't know that I agree with that summation. For one, its really hard to know what took place, what happened first, etc. There's no written records I'm aware of. It also seems to presume the temple was first, and that a large number of people decided it was a good idea to mill about the place. It takes awhile to grow a crop to harvest...
I can only conjecture, but going by just this you stated, I would be inclined to think the garden came first, and the temple was then built either to commemorate or otherwise consecrate the place. Then you have something there to feed those people milling about, and an incentive and inducement to hang around. Göbekli Tepe, is that the name of the place?
I also recall that the appearance of common 'bread wheat' (I'm really fumbling in the dark here, through memories in a very dusty cupboard) was the happy cross-pollination (?) of two strains that created a plant with a loaded seed-head, and yet the seeds were accessible. Apparently early strains were one or t'other — seeds easily got at, but they fall off the stalk so tend to be lost when harvesting, or seeds requiring a blow-torch to access! Then a strain appeared in the Mesopotamian Basin that had a full seed head that could be harvested with little loss, but separated quite easily on the threshing-room floor ...
... don't know if any of this is grist to your mill. Probably not.
A bit outside my understanding, but I do recall reading years ago of some wheat retrieved from an Egyptian tomb that was still viable. A quick check says it might be what is called Khorasan wheat, but I really don't know. I do recall reading that besides being still viable after 4000 years, that it was used to hybridize into some of the modern strains of wheat grown today. But yeah, Mesopotamia seems to be where grain cultivation took off...but then we're still stuck trying to fit Asians into the equation. I haven't been able to find any source material in English that describes prehistoric Neolithic development in Asia.
Thank you Thomas! And G-d bless you as well! (I'm certain He does!)
