PhilosopherJay

Hi mg01,

I think you hit it right with the connection between Gilgamesh and some of the main themes in this story. The theme of knowledge causing the lose of immortality here seems a development from Gilgamesh, where the theme of ignorance causing the lose of immortality is prevalent.

I think we can go further and deconstruct the story into more or less its original form. Basically, Priests censor material they oppose and add religious elements to folk stories, so by thinking about what was censored and taken out, and about the inserted religious elements, we can get a better idea of the original story. For example, there is no reason for the owner of the garden to be a God, let us assume in the original story that he is just a man who creates a garden. We may assume that he stocks his gardens with lots of different plants and animals and needs somebody to run it. That someone is Adam. Since the owner creates Adam, we may assume that Adam is the garden owner's son. The final Biblical version of the story has Eve being created from the rib of Adam, but, we may take that as an inversion of the original story where Adam came from Eve. In other words, Eve was Adam's mother. Once we get this, it is easy to figure out that the story is really about incest. The original trees would represent the family trees of Eve and the garden owner. These two trees are forbidden to the son, Adam.

The owner of the garden throws out his son and wife after finding they've committed incest. How does he find out? The snake probably represents Adam's penis, To seduce him, the wife gives the son an apple from the forbidden tree, the son innocently gives the apple to his father. The father recognizes the apple, understands where it is from and sets the trap for them, where he finds them both naked together. Eve is punished by a harsh birth, while Adam has to find a new job to support himself. It is just a nice anti-incest folk tale.

This incest taboo folk tale was possibly originally in a collection of anti-incest stories that included the incest story about Lot after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

Not at all.

I am claiming that the story of Cain and Abel with respect to sacrifice or offerings is anachronistic.

Equinox

Jay-

While I agree with many of your premises, I think a specific reworking like you have is far beyond what evidence we have. So, OK, maybe, but the incest story remains in the category of "guess" in my book.

Warmly-

Equinox

Headache

You actually think a man named Moses wrote Genesis? Interesting...

sschlichter

yes, it is true that I am reading Christianity back into it (and your response was very patient with that, I might add). We call it fulfillment, though. I agree, that at times it might look the same.

However, the new covenant is discussed in Jer 31.

Jer 31:31 "Indeed, a time is coming," says the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.
Jer 31:32 It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them," says the LORD.

and the 'reading back in' in Luke 22:20.

Luk 22:20 And in the same way he took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

This new covenantal relationship, interestingly enough, is tied back to the orginal probationary period of man in that it was lost as she "took and ate", and now re-offered using the same verbs, "take, and eat".

as to how rational it is, I cannot say.

sschlichter

Let me guess. All of modern NT scholarship says otherwise.

sschlichter

ok, good then I am not missing anything at all.

Headache

Who among scholars, claim that Moses wrote the first five books in the OT again?

You can not even present evidence for the existence of the biblical person called Moses, can you?

sschlichter

pre-exilic references, exilic references, post-exilic references, and new testament references attribute the Pentateuch to him. I do not really know what the attribution technically means. We attribute details of an undertaking to it's leader all the time. like Bush's war, Hoover's dam (actually not sure if Hoover had anything to do with Hoovers dam, but for the sake of analogy)

Does that mean he sat down and wrote it? I do not know but I know there are passages that he definitely did not write.

The person of Moses as described in Exodus had the education necessary, access to resources (creation and flood accounts) in Egypt, and plenty of time. The author of the pentatuech described trees and animals that are found in Egypt, but not Canaan or are rare in Canaan. (sea cows, for example). geographic references seem to be from the context of someone familiar to Egypt and the detailed account of creating the tabernacle in the desert all tend to make me think the author was more familiar with Egypt and the desert than Canaan.

I wish there was more but I actually feel there is more evidence for Moses existence than I have for yours.

I know the Pentatuech exists, is attributed very early to a man named Moses. There are signs of later editting but editting does not mean Moses did not write it. if you have some real evidence that points to someone else, please let me know (minus Wellhausen type stuff - that is not very compelling at all).

Or are you suggesting it was never writen at all?

~Steve

Headache

There are no extrabiblical evidence in support of Moses from the bible. If you think you know of some, I'd suggest you present them.

Moses, as described in the bible, is a fictional character. The Exodus is a nice story, but it never happened.

But, by all means, if you have extrabiblical evidence in support of any of these persons or events, feel free to supply them.