To All,
Thirdson's post about snake's limbs prompted me to repost my contribution to H2O from a few months back. There I was corrected in a few facts which I had erred in, so this is the second edition.
philo
Genesis’ creation as an allegory.
I have attempted to make some sense of the Adam and Eve story. I take it as an allegory. If one accepts that there are parts of the bible which are allegorical, (having a truth or meaning, which is in the narrative, rather than in the facts) then it seems to me the early genesis stands out to be viewed this way. There are fundamental believers who insist on its literal truth. Possibly some are doing so out of concern to keep the first pages of the bible 'safe'. That is, if the first story were taken as allegorical, where would this end? The whole canon would slide down this 'slippery slope' away from the fundamentals to become part of 'wishy-washy' individualistic interpretation. However every reasonable person will admit, there is not much evidence with which to assert that the story is literally true, although perhaps faith is what is needed. At the same time, early genesis bears strong characteristics of allegorical writing. So here's one attempt at an interpretation.
I think you can fit many pieces of the story into a framework depicting the development of humans from animals, and the early developments of human culture. I am not saying that the 'science' as presented in this part of the bible is necessarily true, or that it was inspired by God for our amazement today, although that is possible. Rather, I am proposing that the author(s) of ‘Adam/Eve Creation’ had ideas about nature, which are not dissimilar to current ideas today. I don’t want to play down the obvious ascendance of man, or to propose that I have hit upon the main 'message' being conveyed. Clearly man rules on earth, at least until the fall, and the story puts people centre-stage in a moral situation. They are shown talking to each other, and talking with God. And clearly the story/stories carry other themes than the one I am suggesting.
Before describing this framework let me make one parallel from “the beginning”.
Genesis gives us a creator as the source of life, an entity, a cause. We know nothing about Him (1*) except that he makes things. To this extend, God has no personality yet, and is more like a concept. Similarly, the Big Bang theory has an impersonal powerful event, a bang, as the cause of all matter and motion. Then, so far as the first few verses of Genesis goes, the scientific and the biblical ideas are at least comparable.
The order of creative acts can be deduced by observation from nature, rather needing to be a matter of guesswork or divine inspiration, as some claim. So note that by placing, for instance, the creation of light before that of vegetation, the story is demonstrating observed knowledge of the world, not common sense, luck, or necessarily inspiration. Furthermore, making human beings the last creation fits in with a developing-life viewpoint in which man is the most sophisticated animal. So we have less developed life in the early creative ‘days’ like vegetation, and later on the fish, birds, land animals and finally man. It is true that birds are out of position on this scale, but still the broad development of life seems to be a subtext of the story so far. I stress, this is not an evolutionary picture in any up-to-date sense, but rather depicts the idea of development.
Another piece of the jigsaw is the knowledge of the constitution of the human body, which is seen here in God’s words to Adam, “for dust you are, and to dust you will return”. This is again showing accurate observation of nature. But by showing that all life is subject to the same decay at death. Highlighting that Adam is made of earth's elements implies similarity of man to animals, and all earthly life, rather than man’s distinctiveness. So this fits in with ‘man as animal form’ which is another evolutionary concept.
One can infer that disobedience was the only possible cause of Adam's death, that had he and Eve not eaten the forbidden fruit, they would never have died. But this inference is only built upon these words or warning, "In the day you eat [the fruit] you will die". There seems to be no strong reason to assert that Adam and Eve were therefore immortals, and could not have died through mischance or natural causes. To illustrate, if I said to my child, "don't put your hand on the fire or you'll get hurt", it would not mean that so long as he/she obeyed me they would never get hurt.
An animal to receive particular attention in the story is the serpent, which as its punishment from God (for incitement of the rebellion), loses its legs. Is this an absurd mythical embellishment? I don't think so. There are vestigial limbs in a number of snake species today, so this seems to be another representation of life's development based on accurate observations of nature.
In the Garden man’s food source was ‘fruit’ from ‘trees’. The evolutionary connection is clear enough. I believe there is a consensus of scientific opinion about humans descending from tree monkeys. Our colour vision, for instance, is not considered essential for hunting (2*) and can be explained as a remnant of our more distant past. The explanation goes that it was necessary for fruit feeders in dense rainforest to be able to see their food quickly and easily. This is much more easily achieved by having colour vision since foliage obscures and disguises a fruit's shape, whereas even a tiny chink of colour against a green background makes for easy recognition. According to Genesis this food source was plentiful and easy to collect in the Garden of Eden.
Disobedience brings about man’s ejection from the Garden of Eden. He has to live in the open either as a farmer or as a hunter. At this time Adam and Eve are given clothes to cover their shame. The idea that man was once unclothed like all the animals seems obvious to anyone with an evolutionary viewpoint, but I find it amazing that people have had this same idea for thousands of years.
Walking erect has big advantages for humans, but there are some disadvantages too, to do with sex and aggression. A moment of realisation is portrayed in the story, “Then their eyes were opened, and they began to realise that they were naked”. Among primates, (and many other animals) to display ones genitals all the time is more than indiscreet, it invites both aggression from competitors and perhaps unwanted sexual attention as well. So to cover ones 'nakedness' (with clothes) can be seen as a way to regulate behaviour within groups. Is this part of the story a mythical explanation for the beginning of culture?
There are other problems with walking upright. The tilting of the pelvis, which this posture has brought about, has narrowed the birth canal increasing birth pains enormously for human females compared to other mammals. As God says to Eve, “I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy”.
In summary, the 'creative' Genesis stories attempt to integrate quite accurate observations of nature with notions of man’s biological and cultural development, and to roll them into a theology. It explains both, that humans came from the animals, and why humans are so distinct from them.
Footnotes
1* Genesis 1:27 "in God's image he created him [Adam]". This was the sixth creative 'day' at the end of the creation period. It is the first mention of God having a gender.
2*Hunting carnivores see movement acutely but their colour vision is often limited or non-existent, hence the widespread escape strategies: to freeze or run.