The Adamic Myth

[Thomas]

There is nothing wrong with interpreting the Eden narrative as told in Genesis 2-3 as the story of a good God and an errant humanity. Thus the myth offers us the origin of the relation between Creator and creature, the transgression, its – for humanity – tragic consequence, and indeed lays the ground for a later theology of reconciliation.

But that's not what the story is about.

Genesis 1-11 comprise an anthology of myths that were common to the Ancient Near East, and of a particular narrative strand of telling and retelling, edited and redacted according to the cultural and theological purposes of those who produced the Torah in the postexilic period.

Genesis 12-50 are etiological – they are stories of origin. These are there to convey 'who we are as a people', they are narratives of cultural identity, not a history as we understand the term today.

It was generally believed that the earliest materials in the Book of Genesis probably dated back to the tenth century BCE.

Today, the standard view place the text in the exilic period, that is the sixth and fifth centuries BCE, and some scholars think that the first eleven chapters may not have been added until the third century BCE.

To their credit, the editors recount these ancient texts with a surprising degree of veracity – the story is there to be read 'warts and all', it's just that for us, reading today in a Judeau-Christian context, we don't actually read the text at all as a text, rather we read it as the text upon which our interpretation rests. We assume that interpretative reading as intended, even if in some instances we are obliged to do some managing to make the text fit the understanding.

So we approach the text as we have been conditioned to receive it, even though those impressions correspond to very little of what the text actually says. And to assume that this is what the story was originally saying is anachronism.

Like other such tales from Antiquity, it has no concept of a ‘good God’, nor even a single, supreme deity. There's no sense of a sinful humanity, a devil, a transgression, a loss of innocence ... It is in fact a fairly typical, very ancient, folkloric myth of why we do not possess immortality, of why life is hard, of why women suffer in childbirth.

As a narrative, the early chapters of Genesis are neither more nor less inspired, illuminating, wise, or true than any other collection of ancient myths. Again, it is only a reading shaped to certain late interpretations, by which I mean the synagogue and the church, that it is in any sense an ‘inspired’ text – a scripture. Eden stands alongside Gilgamesh and Edda. And therein lies their wonder and their power.

I would add at this point that this might possibly be my most contentious text here on IO. Anyway ... to the text itself ...

 

[Thomas]

In this variant, god – who throughout the story appears as one god among others – has planted a garden in the world. Specifically, the term "Paradise" derives from the Old Persian meaning 'walled enclosure' or 'walled garden'.

So this Paradise is a garden of the gods. And here, in the centre, are the magic trees that grant the gods their powers. The fruit of one gives them knowledge, the fruit of the other gives them long (or possibly eternal) life. But, having created the garden and planted the trees, it needs tending, and the gods are by nature an aristocracy, and while planting a garden might be a pleasure, tending it is just hard work.

So, in order to keep his garden looking lovely, he fashions a creature of clay to do the manual labour. A peon, or peasant. Interestingly, the origin of the term 'pagan' is close, an uneducated rustic ... but I digress.

Out of necessity, he instructs Adam as to his duties, and what he might touch in that enchanted place, and what he must avoid. He goes so far as to tell him that the tree of knowledge bears poison fruit, and that anyone so foolish as to taste it is doomed to perish before sundown (2:15-17).

And yes, as it turns out, this god certainly and deliberately misled Adam here.
(So I am obliged to admit and apologise that, in my ignorance, I defended the ‘orthodox line’ on this point, some time ago. I now stand enlightened and corrected.)

God sees that the work is too much for Adam alone, and decides to supply a helper. One might fairly read, according to the bald account, that (unlike the Elohist narrative of the first chapter of Genesis) the creation of the animals of the world is, here in Chapter 2, a series of inept attempts at providing Adam with a useful companion (2:18-20).

Only after this succession of failures does God hit upon the idea of duplicating his creature. So he splits the clay creature into two by removing one of his “sides” (or “ribs”) and shapes that into the first woman. This plan succeeds, and so, at last, God leaves the peons to their toil.

At this point Adam and Eve are naked but not ashamed (2:25). To our ears, this implies innocence, but in context it merely points to their pathetic ignorance and penury in which their masters keep them.

On all of this, the myth pronounces no judgments; Whether we should think their situation a good one – or, at any rate, as good as they are likely to get – or whether we ought hope to see them liberated from their comfortable existence as ignorant and incurious serfs, is not the point. It is not relevant.

Then, along comes the serpent. At this stage, our storyteller of Antiquity has no concept of "the devil". The word ʿārûm can have a negative connotation, but also a positive one, so the serpent can be subtle, prudent, sensible ... so simply the "shrewdest" of the various animals God had fashioned in the course of his early, thwarted attempts at providing Adam with an assistant (3:1).

The serpent asks Eve if she's ever wondered why God has forbidden certain fruits. Eve in her innocence repeats the propaganda of the ruling regime about poison fruit (3:2-3), the snake disabuses her of the official indoctrination that keeps her in bondage: Of course you will not die if you eat of the tree of knowledge, he tells her; god wants you to believe that because he knows that, if you eat, your eyes will be opened, knowing what is good and what bad, and thus you will become like the gods themselves (3:4-5).

Within the mythic narrative itself, in its plainest literal sense, god has misled his creatures and it is the snake who is telling the truth.

So Eve eats, and Adam eats, and the effect is exactly the effect the snake said. Rather than killing them, 'their eyes have been opened' to their nakedness and the abuse of their maker.

If more evidence was required, there is god's reaction when he discovers something's amiss. Adam and Eve are hiding, and he has to call them to himself. What's going on? he asks. Adam tells him about eating the fruit. Who told you that? The snake. Being god, he takes immediate and draconian steps in an exercise of damage limitation. He curses the snake, sets up a condition of emnity between the snake and the woman so they will never be friends again, then inflicts all manner of sorrows on the woman, and on her mate.

Then he's off to the other gods and, in something of a panic, tells them that the two little clay gardeners have been awakened from their conditioning and, knowing the truth of things, it'll not be long before they're eating of the other magic tree, and become immortal. Before this happens, he declares, they must be driven out of the garden (3:23).

And so they are. Sentries are posted, angelic beings with flaming swords, so that the man and the woman cannot get back into it and perhaps gain complete equality with their erstwhile masters.

+++

Such a god, at times wise and resourceful, at others petty and tyrannical, is no different to the myths of the ancient Near East that have come down to us. The gods of Gilgamesh are depicted as powerful as they are ridiculous, cruel, stupid and contemptible. By comparison, the early Yahwist narratives of Genesis are models of moderation.

The later texts of Genesis, however, make more substantial moral improvements (from our perspective) on the older tales. Cain and Abel is a morality tale, albeit founded on the idea that their god has a preference for meat over vegetables as sacrifice. Those shorter episodes are remnants of a much more involved mythology of the Age of Giants and Heroes – they are enigmatic precisely because they have been so redacted as to be stripped of context.

 

[wil]

I so wish Iived in a land where the majority of the believing inhabitants were not literalists...and vocal...and insistent...but alas.

Now I would imagine what you are relating is graduate level theology...but it is my belief that the world would be a better place if is first became introduced in preschool Sunday school or catechism and this were a 6th grade understanding so by the time of bar mitzvah it were common knowledge for all believers...

Suppose that is why we have 3k denominations and not 5.

 

[Thomas]

I so wish Iived in a land where the majority of the believing inhabitants were not literalists...and vocal...and insistent...but alas.

Brother, I feel your pain.

Now I would imagine what you are relating is graduate level theology...

Well it's drawn from reading Hart (primarily), David Armstrong, and others, so yes, it's certainly not on the curriculum of a common religious education programme.

but it is my belief that the world would be a better place if is first became introduced in preschool Sunday school or catechism and this were a 6th grade understanding so by the time of bar mitzvah it were common knowledge for all believers...

I agree, and actually Hart makes that point, too.

"I have another motive, however, for repeatedly calling attention to how great the difference is between the ad litteram contents of the myths and their spiritual readings in Jewish and Christian traditions. A faith that refuses forever and ever to recognize and acknowledge that difference – in its totality – may suffice for an individual, or for a great many individuals; but it can never suffice for an entire culture. It is no great coincidence that the age of secularization followed close upon an epoch of increasingly literalist, increasingly narrow doctrinal and theological treatments of scripture (not to mention, of course, translations of the text into the vernacular)."

The point, at least as I see it, is Hart thinks the 'absolute literalist' reading is as wrong as the 'absolutely dogmatic' reading. They are two extremes.

"An arid literalism can only invite an arid disenchantment, and in time a detached cynicism. To reduce inspiration to a ridiculous set of objective claims all too easy to disprove – to forget, that is, the delicate cultural and religious alchemy by which myths are poetically and prophetically transformed into inspired readings – is simply to prepare the way for serious faith’s eclipse."

Here he makes the point. The purely literal is a dead reading ("The letter kills, the spirit gives life" 2 Corinthians 3:6).

"At least, modern cultural history abundantly confirms this... But as the age of faith has continued to retreat while modernity creeps on into its rheumatoid senectitude, all that is left behind is a landscape of contending fideisms. We live in a time of such peremptory fundamentalisms, religious and secularist alike, in part because ours is a culture without much capacity for dwelling in the open interval between the dream-time and ordinary time."
Hence the 3k denominations — and when one traces the origin of the overwhelming majority of those 3k, it should come as no surprise.

(Excerpts from a Hart substack essay "Sensus Plenoir II")

 

[wil]

I agree, and actually Hart makes that point, too.

My minister speaks of a masters class he took at Loyola University whose mission is to inspire students to learn, lead, and serve in a diverse and changing world, rooted in the Jesuit tradition of academic excellence and social justice.

The Priest basically said the church fathers determined the masses, the lay people couldnt handle the truth. They needed the fantasy of literacy...the rules and regs to follow, the threat of hell and the promise of heaven.

Dont give me that old time religion...just give me the beatitudes!

 

[moralorel]

In this variant, god – who throughout the story appears as one god among others – has planted a garden in the world. Specifically, the term "Paradise" derives from the Old Persian meaning 'walled enclosure' or 'walled garden'.

So this Paradise is a garden of the gods. And here, in the centre, are the magic trees that grant the gods their powers. The fruit of one gives them knowledge, the fruit of the other gives them long (or possibly eternal) life. But, having created the garden and planted the trees, it needs tending, and the gods are by nature an aristocracy, and while planting a garden might be a pleasure, tending it is just hard work.

So, in order to keep his garden looking lovely, he fashions a creature of clay to do the manual labour. A peon, or peasant. Interestingly, the origin of the term 'pagan' is close, an uneducated rustic ... but I digress.

Out of necessity, he instructs Adam as to his duties, and what he might touch in that enchanted place, and what he must avoid. He goes so far as to tell him that the tree of knowledge bears poison fruit, and that anyone so foolish as to taste it is doomed to perish before sundown (2:15-17).

And yes, as it turns out, this god certainly and deliberately misled Adam here.
(So I am obliged to admit and apologise that, in my ignorance, I defended the ‘orthodox line’ on this point, some time ago. I now stand enlightened and corrected.)

God sees that the work is too much for Adam alone, and decides to supply a helper. One might fairly read, according to the bald account, that (unlike the Elohist narrative of the first chapter of Genesis) the creation of the animals of the world is, here in Chapter 2, a series of inept attempts at providing Adam with a useful companion (2:18-20).

Only after this succession of failures does God hit upon the idea of duplicating his creature. So he splits the clay creature into two by removing one of his “sides” (or “ribs”) and shapes that into the first woman. This plan succeeds, and so, at last, God leaves the peons to their toil.

At this point Adam and Eve are naked but not ashamed (2:25). To our ears, this implies innocence, but in context it merely points to their pathetic ignorance and penury in which their masters keep them.

On all of this, the myth pronounces no judgments; Whether we should think their situation a good one – or, at any rate, as good as they are likely to get – or whether we ought hope to see them liberated from their comfortable existence as ignorant and incurious serfs, is not the point. It is not relevant.

Then, along comes the serpent. At this stage, our storyteller of Antiquity has no concept of "the devil". The word ʿārûm can have a negative connotation, but also a positive one, so the serpent can be subtle, prudent, sensible ... so simply the "shrewdest" of the various animals God had fashioned in the course of his early, thwarted attempts at providing Adam with an assistant (3:1).

The serpent asks Eve if she's ever wondered why God has forbidden certain fruits. Eve in her innocence repeats the propaganda of the ruling regime about poison fruit (3:2-3), the snake disabuses her of the official indoctrination that keeps her in bondage: Of course you will not die if you eat of the tree of knowledge, he tells her; god wants you to believe that because he knows that, if you eat, your eyes will be opened, knowing what is good and what bad, and thus you will become like the gods themselves (3:4-5).

Within the mythic narrative itself, in its plainest literal sense, god has misled his creatures and it is the snake who is telling the truth.

So Eve eats, and Adam eats, and the effect is exactly the effect the snake said. Rather than killing them, 'their eyes have been opened' to their nakedness and the abuse of their maker.

If more evidence was required, there is god's reaction when he discovers something's amiss. Adam and Eve are hiding, and he has to call them to himself. What's going on? he asks. Adam tells him about eating the fruit. Who told you that? The snake. Being god, he takes immediate and draconian steps in an exercise of damage limitation. He curses the snake, sets up a condition of emnity between the snake and the woman so they will never be friends again, then inflicts all manner of sorrows on the woman, and on her mate.

Then he's off to the other gods and, in something of a panic, tells them that the two little clay gardeners have been awakened from their conditioning and, knowing the truth of things, it'll not be long before they're eating of the other magic tree, and become immortal. Before this happens, he declares, they must be driven out of the garden (3:23).

And so they are. Sentries are posted, angelic beings with flaming swords, so that the man and the woman cannot get back into it and perhaps gain complete equality with their erstwhile masters.

+++

Such a god, at times wise and resourceful, at others petty and tyrannical, is no different to the myths of the ancient Near East that have come down to us. The gods of Gilgamesh are depicted as powerful as they are ridiculous, cruel, stupid and contemptible. By comparison, the early Yahwist narratives of Genesis are models of moderation.

The later texts of Genesis, however, make more substantial moral improvements (from our perspective) on the older tales. Cain and Abel is a morality tale, albeit founded on the idea that their god has a preference for meat over vegetables as sacrifice. Those shorter episodes are remnants of a much more involved mythology of the Age of Giants and Heroes – they are enigmatic precisely because they have been so redacted as to be stripped of context.

Where does it say Adam would die before sundown if he ate of the forbidden fruit? I don't see it in those verses.

Obviously this is all YOUR interpretation of the book. But I didn't see the animals as being Adam's companions at all. I saw the Garden of Eden as a test for Adam. It was to see if humankind could rule God's world. Adam failed, as did all humans, so that is why Jesus had to come along.

The serpent was telling the truth? A deceptive truth. Satan is the king of the world. He doesn't want to be replaced. Like that incompetent coworker who tears down everyone instead of just doing a good job, he appears intent on sabotage. Right away he asks Eve if it is true that she can't eat of ANY of the trees of the garden. She corrects him and says she can eat of all but one. He is trying to get her to focus on that one tree and ignore the most important tree, the Tree of Life. He notices that she isn't even sure of the law. She incorrectly tells the serpent that she can't even touch the fruit. But that is not true. The serpent also claims Eve won't die. But last I checked she's not alive. So he lied. The serpent wanted them away from the Tree of Life. He succeeded. Humans won't get to eat from that tree again until the serpent officially loses his title.

Now of course someone could try to make the serpent look like the good guy in this story. But there is a huge fault in that idea. When did the serpent ever try to help humankind? I don't see him giving humans good advice or ever trying to help them. That's because his character never wants to help humankind. Never.

 

[Thomas]

My minister speaks of a masters class he took at Loyola University whose mission is to inspire students to learn, lead, and serve in a diverse and changing world, rooted in the Jesuit tradition of academic excellence and social justice.

Good values.

The Priest basically said the church fathers determined the masses, the lay people couldnt handle the truth. They needed the fantasy of literacy...the rules and regs to follow, the threat of hell and the promise of heaven.

Nothing changes ... I would say that the evidence of recent times is most people aren't interested in the truth, they prefer their populist myths.

Then again, I'd say that most of what we have of the church fathers went over the peoples' heads. No offence, but they weren't doing their thing to determine the masses – a close study has picked over the emerging tensions between the philosophical pursuit and pastoral necessities ...

Dont give me that old time religion...just give me the beatitudes!

Yes, I suppose one can draw a baseline there.

I read once of a Japanese student who converted to Christianity and joined the Jesuit order. On a visit to Japan he sought out his old Zen teacher from the monastery where he was educated. He read him the Beatitudes, and the old man nodded, "Your Jesus was truly enlightened. I've been teaching that message my whole life!"

One might say that what separates us is yours is the Christ of the literal minimal, mine is the Christ of the theological maximal.

But it's a broad church!

 

[Thomas]

Where does it say Adam would die before sundown if he ate of the forbidden fruit? I don't see it in those verses.

Genesis 2:17. The text says 'on that day'.

Obviously this is all YOUR interpretation of the book. But I didn't see the animals as being Adam's companions at all. I saw the Garden of Eden as a test for Adam. It was to see if humankind could rule God's world. Adam failed, as did all humans, so that is why Jesus had to come along.

The point rather is, it's not my interpretation, it is my presentation of what the text actually says.

Your interpretation, and there's nothing wrong with that, is a reading of the text in light of later Judeau-Christian revelation.

The serpent was telling the truth?

They ate the fruit, and did not die ... nor do we have any reason to believe they were immortal.

Satan is the king of the world.

I agree, but that's much later. The original text had no concept of satan as we do, and even Jewish commentaries point out in their tradition he's nowhere like the figure in ours – he's a type of prosecutor, as opposed to advocate ...

Now of course someone could try to make the serpent look like the good guy in this story.

That's the flip side of the same coin. The serpent is neither 'good' nor 'bad' in that regard. The serpent is a figure from myhtologies right across the world, snake-serpent-dragon, and fulfills a certain psycho-function in the tales.

 

[Thomas]

By the time we get to the Flood, the story of Noah sees a very ancient and widespread myth undergo a reworking under a more developed religious consciousness.

The tale has its roots in Mesopotamian stories regarding a great flood, the earliest known forms of which are the extremely fragmentary legend of Ziusudra, king of Shuruppak.

Ziusudra comes from Sumerian legends of the last king of Shuruppak before the Great Flood.

All we possess are fragments of the Eridu Genesis, in which Ziusudra is warned by the god Enki (Ea) of the coming deluge and is instructed to build a large boat, in which he houses his family and all the beasts of the field. After enduring a seven-day storm, he emerges, offers sacrifices to the sun god Utu, and is granted eternal life, the Gods taking him to Dilmun—a paradisiacal land, "place where the sun rises."

This prototypical myth appears in Akkadian traditions of Atra-Hasis, composed in Akkadian c.1800BCE, with its roots in older Sumerian traditions.

Atra-Hasis (the name means "exceedingly wise") is warned by the god Enki (Ea) to build an ark to save himself, his family, animals, and provisions, preserving life on Earth.

The narrative explains that there was a rebellion among the gods in which the younger gods refused to serve the older gods. Therefore the gods created humanity to do the work. These labourers multiplied, and soon the gods were becoming annoyed by their noise. They make several attempts to destroy them – plague, famine, war, then come up with a great flood. Atra-Hasis survives thanks to Enki’s intervention, all the rest are soaked and melt back to the clay from which they were made.

At this point the gods realise that now there are no more labourers, there's no more food on the altars. Their rather ill-thought out reaction to the problem has created a greater one, they are starving. And, of course, being gods, getting off their backsides and doing the work themselves is out of the question!

Luckily, Atra-Hasis, having survived, builds an altar and offers sacrifice. According to the text, the poor, demented, starving gods get a whiff of the "delightful fragrance of the smoke" and "gather ravenously around the sacrifice, like a swarm of flies." – This among other elements of the narrative show that the stories are not necessarily in awe of their gods – they are not 'good' in the fullest sense of the word, and often quite bad. Quite simply, they are beings more powerful than us, but equally as temperamental, equally spiteful and capricious, and sometimes just as stupid, violent and vengeful.

The story remains fairly consistent over the centuries. By the time of the final recension of Genesis, possibly 300BCE, the protagonist of the tale is Noah. The basic shape of the narrative is largely unchanged; but its moral and spiritual insight has definitely evolved. When Noah offers sacrifice, there's no swarm of flies here. By contrast, the Jahweh of Noah is a wiser, refined and noble being:
"And the LORD smelled a sweet savour (echoing earlier myth); and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done." (Genesis 8:21).

Here we can see the biblical flood narrative has moved on a long way, morally and theologically, from its origins. In Noah's God we catch the early glimpse of the God of later prophetic traditions – a just God, a God of majesty, a God holy and hidden.

 

[Thomas]

The Genesis narrative follows Gilgamesh "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.
Rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling."
Gilgamesh is mentioned in one version of The Book of Giants which is related to the Book of Enoch. The version found at Qumran mentions the Sumerian hero Gilgamesh and the monster Humbaba with the Watchers and giants.
At the very least, more than a thousand years have passed between the Sumerian / Akkadian myths, and their retelling in Genesis. In that time the moral values, theological insights and spiritual sensibilities have changed significantly, and what the Bible offers is a pared back account suitable for a post-exilic, monotheistic pedagogy.

 

[moralorel]

Genesis 2:17. The text says 'on that day'.


The point rather is, it's not my interpretation, it is my presentation of what the text actually says.

Your interpretation, and there's nothing wrong with that, is a reading of the text in light of later Judeau-Christian revelation.


They ate the fruit, and did not die ... nor do we have any reason to believe they were immortal.


I agree, but that's much later. The original text had no concept of satan as we do, and even Jewish commentaries point out in their tradition he's nowhere like the figure in ours – he's a type of prosecutor, as opposed to advocate ...


That's the flip side of the same coin. The serpent is neither 'good' nor 'bad' in that regard. The serpent is a figure from myhtologies right across the world, snake-serpent-dragon, and fulfills a certain psycho-function in the tales.

1. Gen 2:17 "except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die.” I'm struggling to find a translation that mentions "sundown" or "sunset". Even so, I do recall that somewhere on a thread this matter was discussed. The Hebrew used here literally means "dying you will die". The same phrase was used later on and didn't mean that someone immediately died (Numbers 26:65). So no dishonesty here.

2. Actually I'm reading it from a Sumerian style perspective with applications of later biblical texts. The beginning of the book of Genesis is in the style of a Sumerian oral story, or at least that is what it reminds me of. The difference between the biblical perspective and every other similar story comes down to gods. The serpent is a deity in practically every parallel story. There are more gods involved in other stories. Even the human characters are sometimes depicted as gods. So my perspective is that this story stands out. It has similarities, but a lot of major differences that separate it from all of the other accounts.

3. Someone who tries to deceive you for their own personal gain is definitely not good. If the serpent were good, he would have produced something good. He knew what would happen to Adam and Eve if they ate of the forbidden fruit.

 

[moralorel]

The Genesis narrative follows Gilgamesh "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.
Rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling."
Gilgamesh is mentioned in one version of The Book of Giants which is related to the Book of Enoch. The version found at Qumran mentions the Sumerian hero Gilgamesh and the monster Humbaba with the Watchers and giants.
At the very least, more than a thousand years have passed between the Sumerian / Akkadian myths, and their retelling in Genesis. In that time the moral values, theological insights and spiritual sensibilities have changed significantly, and what the Bible offers is a pared back account suitable for a post-exilic, monotheistic pedagogy.

Basically agree. But the epic of Gilgamesh changed over time. Unlike the biblical writings, the stories kept changing. The Epic of Gilgamesh didn't focus on the moral aspects of sin. It actually spent more time blaming issues on the gods and the fights between these gods. The gods often screwed up. A lot of the focus is on dialogue between the gods. The moral lessons are rather lacking in the Epic of Gilgamesh as well. It's more like a Klingon version of the Bible. It focuses on honor and glory, not on sin and morality. Honestly the Epic of Gilgamesh, in my opinion, feels more like a book that is meant to entertain. It doesn't feel like a book that is trying to stand as a foundation to a religion.

The bones in the structure of these two stories are similar. But after that the differences are plenty.

A fascinating find would to be able to find a written down version of these traditions that inspired these stories. Even the Bible cites books that don't exist (that we know of) and it would be such an amazing archaeological discovery to find these sources. But we don't even know if the stories originated with a culture that had an alphabet. This is probably the reason for Genesis following the pattern of an oral story.

 

[Thomas]

1. Gen 2:17 "except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die.” I'm struggling to find a translation that mentions "sundown" or "sunset". Even so, I do recall that somewhere on a thread this matter was discussed. The Hebrew used here literally means "dying you will die". The same phrase was used later on and didn't mean that someone immediately died (Numbers 26:65). So no dishonesty here.

I'm working from the Hebrew Genesis 2:17:
וּמֵעֵ֗ץ הַדַּ֙עַת֙ טֹ֣וב וָרָ֔ע לֹ֥א תֹאכַ֖ל מִמֶּ֑נּוּ כִּ֗י בְּיֹ֛ום אֲכָלְךָ֥ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ מֹ֥ות תָּמֽוּת׃
and specifically: בְּיֹ֛ום (yôm) "in the day".

In all reasonability, the understanding of the Hebrew term is, of course, contextual. Does it mean that very day, or does it mean at some time in the future, as a result of the choice made at that point? Really, I think, it's probably impossible to say.

But one has to bear in mind that the first labourers in the various mythological gardens of the ancient Near East were not immortal, so they were going to die some day. And it's quite likely that it does not mean 'a spiritual death', as this is a very late understanding in Judaism.

Was this text part of the original myth woven into Genesis 1-11, along with others, or is it a later understanding? Put another way, was the whole 'snake' thing in Genesis 3, written around 500BCE after the exile and Josiah's reforms, a text composed to conform to the (then) contemporary teaching and far removed from the myth's original?

I'm inclined to think the snake was there – it's there is the earlier myths – but Genesis 3 is a reworking to fit a post-exilic theology.

(In the same way, the Jahweh of pre-exilic texts is a very different being to the understanding of Jahweh as emerges from the reforms initiated by King Josiah, the 16th King of Judah (640-609BC).)

What is clear is that if we're being honest, we have to compare the myths in Genesis 2 and 3 to the myths from which they derived, which had been around for perhaps two millennia before Genesis was written, and stem from cultures that predate Israel and Judah.

David Carr in The Formation of Genesis 1-11 discusses the Eden narrative, and how the story resonates with the narratives focusing on human mortality in the Ancient Near East myths and lore, where mortality distinguishes human beings from divine entities. His premise is that Genesis 1-11 is a Priestly reworking of the ür-text, dating from the 5th century BCE.

He does ask some interesting questions: Why did Adam and Eve not eat of the Tree of Immortality? and why didn’t God forbid them from eating from that tree also?

This leads to speculation about What would happen if they had? Or what would have happened had they hadn't eaten from either tree?

The answer is that, in the minds of the storyteller, that's irrelevant, because we are not immortal and, according to our theologies, we have fallen out of favour with God. These myths tell us why things are they way they are, they don't speculate on the alternatives.

Carr observes:
"These considerations can be important as we look back on the story and attempt to determine the reason for God’s forbidding of the tree of knowledge in 2:17a and assess the accuracy of God’s statement in 2:17b that the human would “surely die” if he ate of the forbidden fruit. The human’s eating of the fruit did not lead to immediate death, to be sure, and in that sense the snake’s statement in 3:4– 5 (“you will not surely die”) was correct. But we see in 3:22-24 that the human’s gaining of godlike knowledge from eating the fruit did lead YHWH to permanently exclude him from the garden and a chance to gain immortality through eating of the tree of life. In that sense, he will now “surely die” in a way that was not (necessarily) the case before eating the fruit." (p 50-51).

This seems a meaningless point until we look at the origin picture – Unknowingly given the chance of immortality – that tree is not forbidden – Adam and Eve lose that chance, by eating from the wrong tree. This loss is similar to, and is perhaps the residue of, the Epic of Gilgamesh in which Adapa’s unknowing refusal of the food of immortality or Gilgamesh’s loss of the plant of rejuvenation while taking a swim.

The way in which the text is presented in Genesis, however, implies that:
"God’s prohibition of eating from the tree of knowledge in 2:17 can be read as a divine provision for keeping the human in the garden, aimed at preserving the human (and soon his wife) in the special, elevated position of tending God’s sacred garden that he gained in 2:15. In this sense, the prohibition of 2:17 is consistent with God’s prior generous provision of other garden fruit (2:16) and God’s subsequent care in providing the human with a corresponding “helper” in the garden work (2:18-22). All of these acts reflect God’s initial gracious intent for humanity to live with God in the abundant Eden garden. And all of this was lost when humans chose to eat of the forbidden fruit, thereby growing up in gaining a modicum of godlike “knowledge of good and evil,” but losing their privileged position as God’s garden attendants and their chance at godlike immortality." (ibid).

2. Actually I'm reading it from a Sumerian style perspective with applications of later biblical texts. The beginning of the book of Genesis is in the style of a Sumerian oral story, or at least that is what it reminds me of. The difference between the biblical perspective and every other similar story comes down to gods. The serpent is a deity in practically every parallel story. There are more gods involved in other stories. Even the human characters are sometimes depicted as gods. So my perspective is that this story stands out. It has similarities, but a lot of major differences that separate it from all of the other accounts.

Because Genesis is much later than the Sumerian and Akkadian texts, and was reworked from a 5th century Judean monotheistic perspective.

 

[Thomas]

Unlike the biblical writings, the stories kept changing.

I rather see the biblical story as a reworking of the myth.

The Epic of Gilgamesh didn't focus on the moral aspects of sin. It actually spent more time blaming issues on the gods and the fights between these gods. The gods often screwed up. A lot of the focus is on dialogue between the gods. The moral lessons are rather lacking in the Epic of Gilgamesh as well. It's more like a Klingon version of the Bible. It focuses on honor and glory, not on sin and morality. Honestly the Epic of Gilgamesh, in my opinion, feels more like a book that is meant to entertain. It doesn't feel like a book that is trying to stand as a foundation to a religion.

Well they weren't, they were just stories of why the world was the way it was. It's only the emergence of Israel that Genesis 1-11 emerge as commentaries, if you like, on the myths, from the standpoint of founding a religion – Monotheistic Judaism.

Much of the work of the post-exilic reforms was to establish a Jewish religious culture and religious identity. The importance of the Temple being emphasised, with the plan of getting a scattered people to return to the centre – Jerusalem. It was successful to some degree, but not entirely so.

A fascinating find would to be able to find a written down version of these traditions that inspired these stories. Even the Bible cites books that don't exist (that we know of) and it would be such an amazing archaeological discovery to find these sources. But we don't even know if the stories originated with a culture that had an alphabet. This is probably the reason for Genesis following the pattern of an oral story.

From a biblical point of view, that's the work of the Document Hypothesis, and the JEPD sources that revised the original texts.

 

[Thomas]

Another comment:

"I am also unconvinced that Carr adequately addresses the numerous challenges posed by the documentary hypothesis in addressing the substantial ancient Near Eastern flood myth parallels. In brief, the final form of Genesis exhibits approximately seventeen points corresponding to the Epic of Gilgamesh, with the J source sharing only twelve points in total and the P source a mere ten. Is it not strange then that both the J and P versions (independently) lack certain elements of the shared tradition, and that, when combined—and only when combined—they form an account bearing an extreme resemblance to it? (See also Dustin G. Burlet, Judgment and Salvation: A Rhetorical Critical Reading of Noah’s Flood in Genesis (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2022), 25)." (emphasis mine)
(Dustin Burlet, Millar College of the Bible, Winnipeg, MB)

 

[moralorel]

I'm working from the Hebrew Genesis 2:17:
וּמֵעֵ֗ץ הַדַּ֙עַת֙ טֹ֣וב וָרָ֔ע לֹ֥א תֹאכַ֖ל מִמֶּ֑נּוּ כִּ֗י בְּיֹ֛ום אֲכָלְךָ֥ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ מֹ֥ות תָּמֽוּת׃
and specifically: בְּיֹ֛ום (yôm) "in the day".

In all reasonability, the understanding of the Hebrew term is, of course, contextual. Does it mean that very day, or does it mean at some time in the future, as a result of the choice made at that point? Really, I think, it's probably impossible to say.

But one has to bear in mind that the first labourers in the various mythological gardens of the ancient Near East were not immortal, so they were going to die some day. And it's quite likely that it does not mean 'a spiritual death', as this is a very late understanding in Judaism.

Was this text part of the original myth woven into Genesis 1-11, along with others, or is it a later understanding? Put another way, was the whole 'snake' thing in Genesis 3, written around 500BCE after the exile and Josiah's reforms, a text composed to conform to the (then) contemporary teaching and far removed from the myth's original?

I'm inclined to think the snake was there – it's there is the earlier myths – but Genesis 3 is a reworking to fit a post-exilic theology.

(In the same way, the Jahweh of pre-exilic texts is a very different being to the understanding of Jahweh as emerges from the reforms initiated by King Josiah, the 16th King of Judah (640-609BC).)

What is clear is that if we're being honest, we have to compare the myths in Genesis 2 and 3 to the myths from which they derived, which had been around for perhaps two millennia before Genesis was written, and stem from cultures that predate Israel and Judah.

David Carr in The Formation of Genesis 1-11 discusses the Eden narrative, and how the story resonates with the narratives focusing on human mortality in the Ancient Near East myths and lore, where mortality distinguishes human beings from divine entities. His premise is that Genesis 1-11 is a Priestly reworking of the ür-text, dating from the 5th century BCE.

He does ask some interesting questions: Why did Adam and Eve not eat of the Tree of Immortality? and why didn’t God forbid them from eating from that tree also?

This leads to speculation about What would happen if they had? Or what would have happened had they hadn't eaten from either tree?

The answer is that, in the minds of the storyteller, that's irrelevant, because we are not immortal and, according to our theologies, we have fallen out of favour with God. These myths tell us why things are they way they are, they don't speculate on the alternatives.

Carr observes:
"These considerations can be important as we look back on the story and attempt to determine the reason for God’s forbidding of the tree of knowledge in 2:17a and assess the accuracy of God’s statement in 2:17b that the human would “surely die” if he ate of the forbidden fruit. The human’s eating of the fruit did not lead to immediate death, to be sure, and in that sense the snake’s statement in 3:4– 5 (“you will not surely die”) was correct. But we see in 3:22-24 that the human’s gaining of godlike knowledge from eating the fruit did lead YHWH to permanently exclude him from the garden and a chance to gain immortality through eating of the tree of life. In that sense, he will now “surely die” in a way that was not (necessarily) the case before eating the fruit." (p 50-51).

This seems a meaningless point until we look at the origin picture – Unknowingly given the chance of immortality – that tree is not forbidden – Adam and Eve lose that chance, by eating from the wrong tree. This loss is similar to, and is perhaps the residue of, the Epic of Gilgamesh in which Adapa’s unknowing refusal of the food of immortality or Gilgamesh’s loss of the plant of rejuvenation while taking a swim.

The way in which the text is presented in Genesis, however, implies that:
"God’s prohibition of eating from the tree of knowledge in 2:17 can be read as a divine provision for keeping the human in the garden, aimed at preserving the human (and soon his wife) in the special, elevated position of tending God’s sacred garden that he gained in 2:15. In this sense, the prohibition of 2:17 is consistent with God’s prior generous provision of other garden fruit (2:16) and God’s subsequent care in providing the human with a corresponding “helper” in the garden work (2:18-22). All of these acts reflect God’s initial gracious intent for humanity to live with God in the abundant Eden garden. And all of this was lost when humans chose to eat of the forbidden fruit, thereby growing up in gaining a modicum of godlike “knowledge of good and evil,” but losing their privileged position as God’s garden attendants and their chance at godlike immortality." (ibid).


Because Genesis is much later than the Sumerian and Akkadian texts, and was reworked from a 5th century Judean monotheistic perspective.

1. Nowhere does it say that Adam and Eve were immortal. It was the Tree of Life that kept them from experiencing death. God acknowledges this: Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil. And now lest he reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever…” Therefore, the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken…” (Genesis 3:22-23).
In the biblical context, humankind isn't ready for the tree of life. But in Revelations it shows that the tree returns and they are ready once again to eat from it. This is after death is no longer. So, with or without biblical context, Adam and Eve would have lived forever as long as they were allowed to eat from the Tree of Life.

2. I am skeptical that the Genesis story was truly overworked. Again, this is my opinion, but I have my reasons. As you probably know tradition has it that Moses wrote the Torah and that Ezra (and possibly Nehemiah) updated the scriptures after returning from exile. True or not, I think we can both agree that these texts faced some updating and translation processes. But why keep the structure and style of Genesis intact? Why not do the same as every culture? Change the style and structure to meet your current society? I see absolutely no way that the writer of Exodus wrote this book and Genesis from scratch. They are so different. Why? Why didn't Moses update it to be more of an Egyptian style of writing? These authors took this story seriously.

3. I understand why someone would say that Genesis copied the Epic of Gilgamesh. On the surface it makes perfect sense. Genesis as a text was written after the Epic of Gilgamesh. But there is a big problem with that logic. Which major culture did the patriarchs control before Genesis was written? The Sumerians are currently considered to be the first major civilization. But they were polytheistic pagans. They didn't follow Hebrew law. If the story of Genesis were true, not one major culture followed these teachings. So, who was going to print the original story? Who was going to mass produce this story? Nobody. So, it survived in oral tradition. It didn't get published until the Hebrews had their own nation. It is perfectly fine to believe that a story had a true beginning (inspired by true events or just made up by someone's vivid imagination), but the original story didn't have a civilization capable of reproducing this story on tablets for the populace. I see it just as possible that the Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, etc. copied stories that originated from the original authors of the Garden of Eden story. They heard the stories about a beautiful garden, added their own gods to it, changed the biblical figures to match their own people (similar to how we now portray Jesus as a blond-haired blue-eyed man) and made their own version of the story.
Another point to consider here is the plausibility of the stories. The pagan versions of these stories often have no plausibility to them and even remove the interesting parts that might actually have scientific basis. Noah's ark? It took a long time to build and would have been seaworthy. The ark in the Epic of Gilgamesh? Built in 6 days and definitely not seaworthy. The serpent? In Genesis he is cursed to slither on the ground and loses his legs. As you probably know snakes used to have legs. Then all species of snakes stopped having legs. The genes are still there. They are just turned off. In the Epic of Gilgamesh the serpent achieves eternal life. But against my own argument, I am unaware of snakes having a history of vocal chords.

Obviously I'm not trying to push these opinions on anyone. I just am trying to explain an alternative to what you are saying.

 

[moralorel]

I rather see the biblical story as a reworking of the myth.


Well they weren't, they were just stories of why the world was the way it was. It's only the emergence of Israel that Genesis 1-11 emerge as commentaries, if you like, on the myths, from the standpoint of founding a religion – Monotheistic Judaism.

Much of the work of the post-exilic reforms was to establish a Jewish religious culture and religious identity. The importance of the Temple being emphasised, with the plan of getting a scattered people to return to the centre – Jerusalem. It was successful to some degree, but not entirely so.


From a biblical point of view, that's the work of the Document Hypothesis, and the JEPD sources that revised the original texts.

See my previous response.

But obviously this is still opinion. The Bible could very well be telling the truth. The stories of old were true. Most of Jacob's descendants forgot these stories or assumed they were myths. When they were no longer spoiled in Egypt many turned back to their old God of Jacob and prayed for freedom. The God of Jacob eventually intervened. They realized the stories of old were true and returned to their God. Or at least some did. And for the first time a nation existed of Jacob's descendants. And then the stories could be written down.

 

[Thomas]

1. Nowhere does it say that Adam and Eve were immortal

No, I don't think they were. These are about 'us'. The implication in the myths is immortality is for the gods. In Gilgamesh, as in Genesis, the humans were not immortal, they had a chance at immortality, but didn't see it.

It was the Tree of Life that kept them from experiencing death.

Would they not have had to eat of the tree? It was not forbidden them, but the text suggests they never actually did.

God acknowledges this: Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil. And now lest he reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever…” Therefore, the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken…” (Genesis 3:22-23).
In the biblical context, humankind isn't ready for the tree of life.

This is a thread in the Ancient epics. The question is, why do we die? Each comes up with its own reason. As you say, there is a view that we're not ready for it, or it's for the gods, not for us ...

But here Genesis assumes they hadn't eaten from the tree, and God throws them out before they do – so 'becoming like one of us' is twofold in this story, it's knowing good and evil, and possessing immortality. The relation between those two is a theme for a longer meditation.

But in Revelations ...

Yeah, but now we're into a Christian exegesis of the myth. I'm looking at the myths themselves.

So, with or without biblical context, Adam and Eve would have lived forever as long as they were allowed to eat from the Tree of Life.

That appears to be what was worrying God.

2. But why keep the structure and style of Genesis intact?

Because it was the origin myth they believed. It came down through oral tradition.

The Documentary Hypothesis has identfied the Priestly Source (P) as source for Genesis 1:1-2:4, possibly composed during the 6th century BCE, and the Jahwist Source (J), the rest of Chapter 2, earlier, the 10th or 9th century BCE. These sources (or sources akin to) reworked the oral tradition according to their own theological viewpoint.

That they depend on Gilgamesh is evidenced in the text itself, both sources (P and J) picking different elements to highlight in their own telling.

Why not do the same as every culture? Change the style and structure to meet your current society?

Exactly, that's what every culture does, even today with out 'urban myths' that clearly date way back.

The only point I am making here, is to read the elements of the myth that are there before the re-working.

Hart, for one, believes its disingenuous to teach Genesis as if it were an absolutely original story belonging to Hebrew Revelation. It clearly isn't, it's not Hebrew in origin. The garden, the snake, the trees, the gods, the humans, all predate the Bible.

In the same way, many Hebrew law codes follow on from pre-existing law codes. 'An eye for an eye' and other laws in Exodus and Deuteronomy derives from the Code of Hammurabi, 18the century BCE.

Even the 10 Commandments are largely pre-biblical. The only Hebrew element is the observance of a strict monotheism – One God.

Exodus acknowledges that the Jews made idols related to other gods. Monotheism wasn't a done deal at this point. Nor was Jahweh the being He later became.

In the Eastern Christian tradition, we have Christus Pantokrator (Christ Almighty) that can be traced back to the Hebrew El Shaddai, but who El Shaddai was, we do not know. 'El' means 'God', but Shaddai might derive from Akkadian shadû 'mountain'. There are other possibilities.

So, who was going to print the original story? Who was going to mass produce this story? Nobody. So, it survived in oral tradition. It didn't get published until the Hebrews had their own nation.

The Hebrew version, you mean. The origin survives in parts, though, if incomplete, in tablets and fragments, some elements far older than any surviving biblical texts.

The oldest Scripture texts we have are among the Dead Sea Scrolls, 3rd century BCE. There are clues in much older finds, but not scripture.

I see it just as possible that the Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, etc. copied stories that originated from the original authors of the Garden of Eden story.

I'd say the story is the same, the Biblical version is probably the last and latest variation.

They heard the stories about a beautiful garden, added their own gods to it, changed the biblical figures to match their own people (similar to how we now portray Jesus as a blond-haired blue-eyed man) and made their own version of the story.

No, you're pushing the Biblical story back its antecedents?

Obviously I'm not trying to push these opinions on anyone. I just am trying to explain an alternative to what you are saying.

OK. I think the alternative is not really defensible.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'd say the story is the same, the Biblical version is probably the last and latest variation.

What about the Qur'an?

 

[Thomas]

What about the Qur'an?

I'd say Rabbinical Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Baha'i (etc.) theologies are reworkings of the elements of the original myth to fit their own paradigm.