Jimmy Higgins

Interesting post indeed. I'd like to make some comments, actually alot of comments.
Well actually, that isn't 100% true. Genesis 2:15 says: So actually, there are two jobs the man must fulfill.
1) till the land
2) be the protector or keeper of it

You do make an excellent about the plucking of fruit. Genesis 2:5 indicates that someone must till the soil for food to be brought up. Then in Genesis 2:9, God raises up trees, which need to work to gain its fruits. There is no mistaking here the value of the tree, or even the magic of it, for as the soil must be tilled for food, the tree gives it freely.

You know, the greatest irony of the lament christian view of The Fall is that God throws man out because he ate the fruit. This is certainly not the case and in fact, the reason God throws man out is because of his zealousness. Genesis 3:22-23 states that God kicks them out because he fears that man will become life he is. I don't think that section is given its dues like it should. There is an ancient foundation hidden in there. A much older story that was used for details in the "newer" version. Lets ask ourselves a couple of questions:
1) How could man truly become like God? (If he had the knowledge of all things [ie of good and evil], and ate of the tree of life for immortality, how does this equal the omniscience of today's god? Its almost as if the god being spoken of in The Fall, is a "lesser" god. One with "fewer" powers. That an omniscient god may not have even been possible within the imaginations of the people who wrote this legend.

2) On the same note, did God need to eat of the tree in order to continue being god?

Not to stray too far, but it does remain that God throws man out, not because of the prohibition being broken, but because God doesn't want man to become a god like he is. This is also seen in the story of the Tower of Babel. Therefore, I must wonder whether the question of hardship farming has much to do with the end game of the story, because The Fall ends with the note of being driven out for God's fear of man becoming a god. Man's punishment is that one a farmer would receive, however, its importance does not seem to be controling the need of the legend.

However, Cain isn't a farmer anymore. Once he is punished he wanders aimlessly, though finding time to found a city.

Well, I think Gunkel said something to the effect that at one point, people worshipped a certain ideal. However, after time passed, no one really knew why. Hence the legend is born to explain why.
I question whether original sin is even a proper concept. I guess you can say the eating of the fruit was the first, and therefore, original sin, however, that this caused the plagues of man then, really isn't the same ideal of original sin as the christian world believes it is.

The woman wasn't an equal in the story. Merely a helper.

Very interesting post.

Psycho Economist

Thanks, Jim.

I hope you're not trying to make a kind-hearted allegation of plagerism on my part. My post was heavily influenced by The Bible Unearthed, which is on the Internet Infidels book-of-the month list (how I found it, actually). A smaller influence was Nonzero by Robert Wright, who asserts that hunter-gatherers spend much more time on subsistance (and subsistence-related activities) than herders or farmers.

But there's also a lot of little things that came from other books on the reading list and library section (and elsewhere on the 'net, and in psychology and history...) I didn't want to try and document it all.

Hope you're not offended.

From what you say of Eve's Seed, it sounds a little loopy. Biologically, we're not even adapted to walk upright, let alone be more "hunter-gatherer" than any other apes are. I will agree that cognitively, we're adapted to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle (and all it entails). Indeed that's what we've been for most of "human" existance.

I wasn't looking to assert my hypothesis was the real inspiration of the Genesis narrative, just that it was an explanation better-fitted to who the ancient Hebrews really were.

S.D.Jim

Psycho Economist: thank you for your response.

Regarding your statement of my possible “kind hearted allegation of plagiarism”. Please accept my apologies for any unintended misrepresentation of your post. Subconsciously such a thought may have had some influence on my post. Consciously, however, I intended only to point out to some who might not be aware of “The Bible Unearthed” that your post agreed with the book. And, to point out that if they wished to understand the full impact of your post, they might wish to consult the book.

I think I was aware then and now that you are very capable of individual and in depth scholarship on this and many other subjects. And also, that you are quite capable of presenting a clear summary of your studies.

As to “Eve’s Seed” sounding “a little loopy”, it may well be. However, this loopiness may be due to my inability to clearly present McElvaine’s thesis in an understandable manner. Having read and reread the book several times, I think his thesis (which is much more complex my simple summary) is at least worthy of consideration when studying the prehistory of humanity. Particularly as it relates to the formation of civilizations, cultures, mythologies, and religions.

As to your statement “Biologically we’re not even adapted to walk upright...”, I’m not sure what you mean. It appears to me that the hominid adaptation to bipedalism has, in fact, been successful for several million years. If it were not, it seems to me, it would have been weeded out by natural selection long ago. If you mean that the physical adaptation, working within the constraints of the prehominid genome, is less than an elegant and perfect ‘design’, then yes we do not represent the best possible ‘design’ for walking upright.

I’m inferring, perhaps incorrectly, that you seem to imply a distinction between the physical and cognitive adaptation to a hunter-gatherer way of life. One being biological the other not. I’m not convinced that evolution is so sharply divided. I think that evolution, particularly human evolution, is a convoluted interaction of the two into one rather amazing whole.

I have held such a view for most of my 65 years of life experiences. “Eve’s Seed” offered me a new and interesting insight into the evolution not just of civilizations and societies, but also of cultures, mythologies, and religions. In other words an amalgam of the physical and cognitive.

Perhaps it would be better to let McElvaine speak for himself concerning a basic premise of his. Quoting from page 6. “Our distant ancestors had adapted biologically to live in small bands of collector-hunters, the hominid and human way of life for at least 98 percent of our evolution. It was this process that the human nature - the mixed constellations of motivations that give human beings predispositions to respond in certain ways to certain circumstances and to desire particular situations of living - that remains with us down to the present.”

It is this human nature that was massively impacted by the agricultural revolution. These changed circumstances of life brought about new mythologies including the Genesis stories to explain what happened and why. Tentatively, I, in agreement with McElvaine, think that these new mythologies and the religions they spawned were at least somewhat out of sync with the human nature that remained part of us. This sense of not fully fitting the new cultures remains with us today.

Again, I apologize for any unintended insult to your intellectual integrity. Also, I can only suggest that if you think “Eve’s Seed” is a little loopy you might wish to read it and analyze it yourself rather than rely on my inadequate abilities to represent it.

Thanks

Jim

Three-Three

I think it's possible that the very first "priestly parasite" was an old man in a hunting-gathering clan avoiding being set adrift on an iceberg as Bear lunch.

33

Psycho Economist

Two points!

Almost. Certainly cognitive adaptations have been more successful, but both are biological. I think we're better cognitively adapted than physically because the brain is more malleable than bones. Also, our capacity for language (which seems to have emerged within the last 20% of human evolution, at the earliest) has helped tremendously: enabling us to hold information for each other and pass along abstract concepts more easily.

No apology necessary. I meant what I said in good fun. I hope to get around to Eve's Seed as soon as I can. But I doubt it will be during the semester.

MacG

The concepts of the switch from hunter/gatherer to settled agriculture and the 'fall' from the garden of eatin' are pretty fully developed in the book 'Ishmael' by Daniel Quinn (among others of his books). If you've read it, you should cite it, if not...it's a very interesting book.
Cheers,
MacG

Psycho Economist

I hope you mean George W. I've never read Ishmael, myself. Almost did, but I got scared away; I was still a fundy-presbyterian at the time.