George W.

.I have long regarded the Genesis myths and original sin from a different point of view. Rather than dismissing it all a primitive superstition, as do most Atheists and Agnostics, I take a different view. To me Genesis is the story of mankind’s ascent not a fall. It begins with the Garden of Eden metaphor.

It was the remembered stories of Hunter-gathering. In the garden (hunter-gatherers) man and woman could just pluck fruit from the trees. There was no need for work. It was truly a paradise in the memories passed down. To a stone age farmer tilling the soil in Iraq under the hot sun, sweating, wearing blisters on his hands with the plow handles, it must have seemed that we lost something. There were the stories passed down for ages about the Hunter-Gatherer days. In retrospect those memories of hunter gathering must have seemed like paradise.

No need to till the soil, just live off of the land's abundance. Why did we lose that? It must have been a magic garden. We are now tilling the hot dusty soil to survive. We must have screwed up to be kicked out of that ancient garden. Forgotten were the harsh realities of hunter gathering life, starvation, and limited populations. The "Good Old Days" are always better in the memory than in reality. Golden ages are never quite so golden when inspected closely.

Man must have been kicked out for some reason. It must have been some offence to the gods or God. What would offend the gods the most? Attempting to be as smart as the gods or to become gods? The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is the challenge to the God severe enough to be kicked out of the magic garden. Man then had to fend for himself.

The Cain and Abel story is the second fall of man. It incorporates the memories of the second stage of human culture, pastoralism and the third stage, settled agriculture. Abel represents the golden age of pastoralism. Cain is the farmer. Pastoralism was also remembered by the Jews and Amorites as a happy go lucky lifestyle. Just follow the herds and guard them from wolves. But no serious work apart from moving with the herds to pastures. It wasn't as good as the ancient garden of Eden but it wasn't bad, compared to the drudgery of farming. So now this farmer sees his terribly hard life of pushing a wooden plow behind oxen if he was lucky, as the result of us screwing up sometime ago.

Cain the tiller of soil murders Abel the shepherd, destroying the golden pastoral life. God's punishment is for man to live by the sweat of his brow, plowing the hard rocky ground of Iraq. So, I view Original Sin as the metaphor for the tribal memories of the transition from hunter-gatherers to pastoralists to dirt farmers.

It was actually cultural advancement, supporting larger populations and permitting civilisation to evolve. But to the poor bloke behind the plow it must have seemed like man had lost two golden ages by sin (Original Sin and the murder of Abel by Cain.)

I think that by the time it was all written down in the books of Genesis, the writers might have actually believed it. Naturally later believers tended to believe it also, and perhaps for the reasons outlined above. Eden is the metaphor for hunter gathering, and original sin is why we lost it. It is very interesting because it tells us much about the ancient people who devised the stories some 6-8 thousand years ago.

Interestingly the Marxists viewed the Hunter-Gatherer Stage as an idyllic time when all men and women were equal and no one was exploited. And man "fell" into civilisation based on the exploitation of man by man.

Christian/Jews and Marxists fail to realise that hunter gathering is a very tenuous life style. They were often victims of predators. They could not store or preserve food. When the game was scarce or drought occurred many died. It was no Christian or Marxist paradise. But Judeo-Christianity and Marxism each had its own Original Sin. The former was challenging God. The latter was exploiting other men.

George W.
"There is not much difference between kneeling down and bending over."

zwi

I have read with great interest George W's contribution and agree that early man looked back to a time when the livin' was easier

However his analysis founders on two facts

1... There is no God, and therefore no Original Sin and everything is no longer your fault

2.. The last Ice Age ended about 12000 years ago, followed by warming and the rise of sea levels

Old littoral areas suitable for clamming and easy fishing soon became unavailable. Seaside resorts were flooded out. Farms with meters of thick black topsoil weer covered with saltwater.

Suez remained closed, the Straits of Gibraltar remained open, but about 7000 years ago the connection between the Black Sea and the Mediterannean closed and then opened again

Note added: How much of the Flood myth originated in this catastrophe I cannot guess

These events forced many wonderfully easy living places to vanish. Man had to survive by the sweat of his brow, remembering the paradises around the campfires. The priestly parasitic class, repositories of wisdom, did not know of the Bosporus and the glaciers, and so was born the doctrine of original sin That is to say, it is all your fault

The priestly parasites came up with two classic humdingers

1 They invented Hell. If you don't believe exactly as we tell you there will be everlasting punishment for your soul

OR

2 They elaborated paradise. There if you do exactly as we tell you in crashing this particular plane, you will have seventy two virgins at youir beck and call

Take your choice. One or the other You cannot have both

Zwi

Marduk

Original Sin and hell are Christian era concepts unknown to the writers of Genesis, I'm sure many a Liberal Rabbi would find George W's post agreeable.

JCS

Is there really evidence for that claim? I would think the farther back in time you go the more difficult the struggle for survival becomes.

Peter Kirby

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hesiod/
In Works and Days Hesiod divided time into five ages:--the Golden age, ruled by Cronos, when people lived extremely long lives 'without sorrow of heart'; the Silver age, ruled by Zeus; the Bronze age, an epoch of war; the Heroic age, the time of the Trojan war; and lastly the Iron age, the corrupt present. This is similar to Hindu and Buddhist concepts of the Kali Yuga. The idea of a Golden Age has likewise had a profound impact on western thought. Works and Days also discusses pagan ethics, extols hard work, and lists lucky and unlucky days of the month for various activities.

best,
Peter Kirby

Psycho Economist

I'll echo Marduck's sentiments first: Yeah. This jibes with the current paradigm in liberal Jewish theology.

But:

1. Hunter-gatherer lifestyle sucks. You openly conceed that.

2. The Torah is the knitting of previously unrelated legends of a few Judahite and Israelite tribes, edited for maximum political leverage and narrative appeal. So this deliberate poeticism would be hard to pull off.

The Judahites were nomadic herders as long as they'd been in the hill country. They never knew a hunter-gather lifestyle. There weren't (to my knowledge) any hunter-gatherer groups in the eastern mediteranean at the time the Judahite culture coalesced.

However, there may be another, more plausible mythologized history to tease from the real history of the region. Before the Judahites and Israelites distinguished themselves from any other herding cultures in the area by giving up pigs, the people on the land had to settle into agronomic farming to sustain their herding activities, and then are suddenly found back in a nomadic lifestyle. That cycle repeated a couple of times, actually. Once in the stone age, and once between the two crests of the bronze age, and when the Judahites (the Israelites may have had a head start in the north) returned to sedentary farming a third time between the bronze and iron ages, they were there to stay.

It could be that the expulsion from Eden represents one of these (politically or ecologically) motivated forced departures from or returns to nomadic herding.

If you don't mind historical evidence getting in the way of your objectivist fairy tale interpretation of the Old Testament, you might want to check out some of the refrences in the infidels.org library and the "book of the month" list.

Volker.Doormann

To understand the origin meaning of the Hebrew 'Gan Eden' it is helpful to read some extra biblical text and to look for the symbols and the elements of the Hebrew Genesis, which have no location and no timeline. The Prolog of Gilgamesh written about 2500 B.C.E., and translated by Samuel Noah Kramer ("Gilgamesh and the Huluppu-Tree: A reconstructed Sumerian Text." Assyriological Studies of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago 10. Chicago: 1938.) contains similar elements as one can find in the Hebrew Genesis: "After heaven and earth had been separated and mankind had been created, after Anûum, Enlil and Ereskigal had taken possession of heaven, earth and the underworld; after Enki had set sail for the underworld and the sea ebbed and flowed in honor of its lord; on this day, a huluppu tree which had been planted on the banks of the Euphrates and nourished by its waters was uprooted by the south wind and carried away by the Euphrates. A goddess who was wandering among the banks sized the swaying tree And -- at the behest of Anu and Enlil -- brought it to Inanna's (Venus) garden in Uruk. Inanna tended the tree carefully and lovingly she hoped to have a throne and a bed made for herself from its wood . After ten ! years, the tree had matured. But in the meantime, she found to her dismay that her hopes could not be fulfilled, because during that time a dragon had built its nest at the foot of the tree the Zu-bird was raising its young in the crown, and the demon Lilith had built her house in the middle. But Gilgamesh, who had heard of Inanna's plight, came to her rescue. He took his heavy shield killed the dragon with his heavy bronze axe, which weighed seven talents and seven minas. Then the Zu-bird flew into the mountains with its young, while Lilith, petrified with fear, tore down her house and fled into the wilderness. "

The symbols, what this text is talking about - like the epos of Gilgamesh in hole - is the dilemma of both, the physical life and/or the spiritual order beyond physical life. Looking to the elements in Genesis 2, one can find elements, which are related to a very similar sketch.

Gen 2:9: "And the Lord of the gods has let grown trees ... tempting to contemplation ... and he put the Tree of Life in midst of the garden of joy (Hebrew: Gan Eden) ... In the 'Garden of joy' a river is flowing, to water it . This (process) is sequenced in four phases: " The first phase is called Pishon, it means growing, increasing, enlarge . then a circle shaped hole (Havilah) is 'comprised' (cabab). In the second phase something is 'bursting out' (Gihon). In the third phase something is 'moving' (halak) 'a step' 'rapidly' (Chiddqel) 'forwards' (qidmah) (Ashshuwr). In the fourth phase something is 'grow tired' or 'collapsing' or 'break down' (per-awth=EuPhrat)."

The Encyclopedia of Archetypal Symbolism writes: "The first known account of a paradisiacal garden appears on a cuneiform tablet from ancient Sumer. Here we learn of the mythical place called Dilmun, a pure, clean, bright place where sickness, violence, and old age do not exist. At first this paradise lacks only one thing: water. … Dilmun, however, is a paradise for the gods alone and not for human beings, although one learns that Ziusudra (= Utnapishtim, the Sumerian counterpart of Noah) was exceptionally admitted to the divine garden."

In The Legend of Sargon [Ancient Near Eastern Texts 119], this Garden of joy is also mentioned: Sargon, the mighty king, king of Agade, am I. My mother was a changeling, my father I knew not. The brother(s) of my father loved the hills. My city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the banks of the Euphrates. My changeling mother conceived me, in secret she bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed My lid. She cast me into the river which rose not (over) me, The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water lifted me out as he dipped his e[w]er. Akki, the drawer of water, [took me] as his son (and) reared me. Akki, the drawer of water, appointed me as his gardener, While I was a gardener, Ishtar granted me (her) love, And for four and [ ... ] years I exercised kingship, The black-headed [people] I ruled, I gov[erned]; Mighty [moun]tains with chip-axes of bronze I conquered, The upper ranges I scaled, The lower ranges I [trav]ersed, The sea [lan]ds three times I circled. Dilmun my [hand] cap[tured], [To] the great Der I [went up], I [. . . ], [ . . . ] I altered and [. . .]. Whatever king may come up after me, [. . .] Let him r[ule, let him govern] the black-headed [peo]ple; [Let him conquer] mighty [mountains] with chip-axe[s of bronze], [Let] him scale the upper ranges, [Let him traverse the lower ranges], Let him circle the sea [lan]ds three times! [Dilmun let his hand capture], Let him go up [to] the great Der and [. . . ]! [. . .] from my city, Aga[de ... ] [. . . ] . . . [. . .]. (Remainder broken away.)

The tree of life, which was put in midst of the 'Garden of joy' is in summery an eternal male/female symbol of creating (physical) life . The symbol and it's meaning is timeless and it is only up to each one himself to respect the female womb - 'Garden of joy' - today as it is written above by its sensitive and healing attributes www.doormann.org/the0.htm. Nothing has lost. Still the knowledge (Gnosis) is to give birth as a second birth of the consciousness of the own soul.

Along with this symbols, there are other symbols, which contain a more sophisticated meaning. As one can read in the 'Code of Manu' www.doormann.org/manuslaw.txt Hinduism distinguish between firstborn which means the physical body and twiceborn which means the spiritual consciousness. The symbol of both firstborn and twiceborn is dramatized in the Cain and Abel parable. The principle of 'Cain' [Qayin {kah'-yin}] is related to material and the principle of 'Abel' is related to spirit or that, what a spiritual teacher is. In that story the principle 'to plough possession' (Cain) is defeating the principle of 'Teaching spiritual order for the crowd' (Abel).

But as we know from many other parables of the Hebrew bible, in which these both principles are dramatized in stories with two brothers, this symbol shows in general the two distinguishable bases of i.) physical life (HWH = sHiWaH) = Shiva) and ii.) the spiritual order, as it is cryptic said in the Gospel of John. 'Ye must be born again' (a second - spiritual - birth). This awaking of the soul, to recognize ones own existence is equal in the meaning to the (growing) 'tree of knowledge', which is also mentioned in the Genesis as a second way to go, after one is firstborn by a mother into a narrow physical body, which is literary called Egypt ('Egypt', Hebr.'Mitzrayim' = 'narrow places') as most of the VIP's of the Hebrew bible must go down to Egypt, which is the existence of the spiritual soul in a body in this (physical) world.

Sargon has said, that he has captured Dilmun - this sumerian 'Garden of joy' - with his hand . Each Moslem visit one time in his life the Kaaba in Mecca and touched with his hand an object on the Kaaba and is kissing it after a special washing procedure www.doormann.org/the4.htm wearing only two clothes. They are seeking refuge by this symbol like child's are seeking refuge at mothers womb, which is the eternal 'Garden of joy' in every present. Religions, guided by male man, have lost the origin meaning of that eternal symbols. But nothing is lost in time, if it is recognized by the consciousness of the soul in every present.

Volker

beastmaster

Seems to me that Genesis is a just-so story to answer the question:

Why do humans suffer in ways that animals appear not to?

Examples:

(1) Shame. Animals run around naked with their nipples and penises exposed. Dogs smell each others' butts. Camels cut raunchy farts but show no emabarassment.

Humans, in contrast, are shy about their bodies and body functions.

How come?

Because Adam and Eve ate the fruit and then knew shame.

(2) Childbirth. The ancient Hebrews must have noticed that childbirth for their mares and livestock was relatively quick and painless.

Human women, in contrast, have a painful childbirth.

How come?

Because God cursed Eve with painful childbirths for eating the fruit.

(3) Physical labor. Squirrels find nuts and grab them. Birds find seeds and grab them.

Humans, in contrast, must toil to get food.

How come?

Because God cursed Adam with back-breaking labor for eating the fruit.

---

George W, I don't buy the theory that Genesis is romanticizing one mode of production or stage of civilization over another. [Edited to add: Or, perhaps, that theory is incomplete because it concerns only theme #3, at most.]

Rather, it seems to me that Genesis is romanticizing the "free and easy" lifestyle of the animals and hypothesizes that humans used to have it so easy.

Shadownought

Many were very successful and healthy. The Koster site (I think) in Illinois is one example.

I don't think it has anything to do with Genesis, though.

S.D.Jim

I have returned to this thread several times over the last few days. Primarily because I am favorably impressed by the posts of George W. and Psycho Economist as reasonable arguments for the real reasons behind the Genesis Myth. But I am also struck by the apparent agreement of these posts with two books I found very useful in my own wide reading about the formation of biblical myths.

These are: “EVE’S SEED - Biology, the Sexes, and the Course of History” by Robert S. McElvaine, pub. by McGraw-Hill, and “The Bible Unearthed - Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origins of It’s Sacred Texts” by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman pub. by The Free press.

McElvain’s thesis in ‘EVE’S SEED” is that hominids (including modern humans) evolved over millions of years to be adapted to a collector-hunter way of life. This included not just physical adaptation but also mental, societal and cultural adaptations that shaped our Human Nature. Secondly, this sucessfull adaptation was turned upside down by the invention of agriculture approximately 10K years ago. Thirdly, the cultural, societal, and mythical adaptations made to adjust to this massive change included what he calls the second “Conception Misconception”.

The first misconception in the collector-hunter society was that women were the sole procreators because they seemed to have the magical power to conceive, bear, birth, and nourish new life and males seemed not to be involved. The second misconception came out of male experience with animal husbandry and farming. They became aware that male semen seemed to be involved in procreation and this combined with the awareness that planting a seed in furrowed soil brought forth new life. But rather then assuming that both sexes might be involved, particularly in their experience of seed planting, they went to the extreme position of claiming sole procreative power to males. This resulted in what Mcelvaine calls the “seed metaphor”, the male seed was planted in the soil of the woman who still bore the burden of carrying, birthing, and nourishing but had no responsibility for the planting of new life. Combined with the males ,on average, proclivities for hierarchy and dominance seemed to lead to the obvious conclusion that , males were superior. This in turn led to religious mythologies that supported this “obvious fact”.

Quoting McElvaine “The belief that men have procreative power led inevitably to the conclusion that the supreme Creative Power must also be male. The toxic fruit that grew from the seed metaphor was male monotheism.” He presents numerous mythologies including Genesis to support his thesis of this monumental change in culture and religion.

Sorry for the long winded summary, now back to George W.”s post. His assumption that the creators of Genesis were reflecting a belief that the hunter-gather time was a golden age of plenty and all was undone by the sin of a woman and thus we were banished from paradise by the male creator fits well within McElvain’s presentation. I am not sure if he is aware of McElvain but I congratulate him on his insight, and agree with both he and McElvaine.

As for Psycho Economist”s post about the evidence for occupation, abandonment, and reoccupation of the highlands of Judea and Israel, it is an important observation about the history of Israel as opposed to the biblical myths of the founding of the state. I’m not convinced about its applicability to the story of Adam and eve, however it certainly may be an explanation of the Cain and Able story which seems to revolve around a fond remembrance of their pastoral past. I also find P.E.’s post to be in agreement with “The Bible Unearthed” who’s primary thrust is the questioning of the historicity of the bible stories which so many of the “biblical archaeologists” seem to accept at least to some degree.

Again please forgive my long post. Both of these books have been very important to me in my recent education on mythology and in particular biblical mythology, and I have wanted to comment on them and seek comment for some time.

Thank you:
Jim