In the first lines of the chapter, Alter's translation contains a feature not found in any other translations: Eve interrupts the serpent. Verses 2-3 contain the interruption according to Alter:
"And he [the serpent] said to the woman, 'Though God said, you shall not eat from any tree of the garden-' And the woman said to the serpent, From the fruit of the garden's trees we may eat, but from the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden God has said, 'You shall not eat from it and and you shall not touch it, lest you die.'"
This exchange as rendered by Alter is revealing of Eve. She comes across as a figure eager to display her knowledge, correcting the serpent even before he's finished. Admittedly, the serpent is stating a falsehood. Yet, in her eagerness to correct, Eve comes across as proud, wishing to display herself as more in the know than the serpent.
As with many knowledge-proud folks, she is actually wrong, or fails to remember the details of, the Lord's commands. The Lord never commands that they not touch the fruit from the tree of good and bad. Alter notes, "many commentators have observed, Eve enlarges the divine prohibition...perhaps setting herself up for transgressions: having touched the fruit and seeng no ill effect, she may proceed to eat"(n.3,p.11). It might be added, Eve claims an authority here but according to scripture was not actually present when God gave the command. The command is given at v.2:17 and Eve is created at v.2:22.
The serpent predicts that if they eat the fruit their "eyes will be opened and you will become as gods knowing good and evil"(v.3:5). Interestingly, displaying an honesty of sorts, the serpent doesn't promise they will be Gods but become 'like' gods. And, they do achieve a heightened knowledge, as predicted: "the eyes of the two were opened and they knew they were naked"(v.3:7).
Their noticing their nakedness seems to me akin to their noticing their vulnerability. This sense of vulnerability has occurred because,through their distrust of him, they've caused a fundamental schism with their creator. Evil is caused by the absence of good, of God.They've sought this out and achieved this, by separating themselves from him, by seeking something without his consent or knowing.
Their separation from God is prefigured by their separation from each other. This occurs figuratively at the end of Genesis 2. Initially, Adam and Eve are depicted as "become one flesh" at the end of v. 24. In the following verse, the beginning of v. 25, this unity has become "the two of them were naked, the human and his woman."
This separation between them continues at the outset of Genesis 3, where Eve seems apart from Adam. The text doesn't necessarily indicate that Adam is not present during the dialog between the serpent and Eve. However, he is silent; this isn't a question or debate they seem to be exploring together. Moreover, "she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave to her man, and he ate"(v.3:6). This latter sentence indicates a sequence, a time lag. They did not pick and eat together.
Elements of the story make the fall seem almost cruelly fated, a natural outcome of the story elements. Eden, the creation, seems flawed by design. At the end of Genesis 2, Adam and Eve are portrayed as "naked"(v.2:25), an aspect of their being that they will come to see as their vulnerability. The Hebrew for naked here is 'arumim and it is opposed in pun to the snake's "cunning," or in Hebrew, 'arum. Via this pun, the writer comes close to questioning God's placing Adam and Eve in their nakedness or vulnerability alongside the snake and his cunning. Moreover, as just noted, Eve's point of pride is her knowledge, yet this is precisely what the Lord's lone prohibition touches upon. In addition, the proud person most often boast of a quality or possession he fears or perceives he lacks. The person who feels or worries about being poor makes a point of displaying, trumpeting and pursuing wealth. Eve's pride in her knowledge suggests she worries or realizes it is limited, or less than perfect. In a sense, even before the fall, she has inkling of her nakedness. Now one might say such a realization doesn't preclude paradise, but one could certainly argue otherwise.
Adam is quick to blame the set-up. His argument can be found in his response to God's questioning them how they fell. Adam replies, "The woman whom you gave by me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate"(v.3:12). In other words, God's blessings intended to keep man near to God prove to do the reverse. They prove the tools of his fall. And, Adam has a point. Eve is given to Adam as a "sustainer" because God feels "it is not good for the human to be alone"(v.2:18).
After their fall, they can't look at God: "they heard the sound of the Lord God...and the human and his woman hid"(v.3:8). They don't wish to be seen by God. It is as if they've becomes aware of how poorly they fare in comparison. Prior to the fall, they existed in a hierarchical relation to their creator, in an asymmetrical relation and they were saw this and knew of it on some level. They had a sense of God, but somehow lacked a sense of themselves?
Has the fruit delivered divine vision? If it has, the ability to see themselves as God sees them hardly elicits a corresponding love. God looks on his creation in Genesis One and the sight of it prompts him to declare it "very good"(v.1:1).
After the fall, Adam and Eve have acquired some aspect of divine perception but seem far removed from seeing themselves as "very good." Of course, they are looking on themselves as "fallen," but it is hard to see how this as potential or capacity wasn't a central part of their being in that moment of the creation when God judged it "very good." Of course, vision is conditioned by other aspects of one's state. If one is good and wise, yet much less wise and much less good than another, this doesn't present a problem if one sees it within the context of a profound unity between oneself and the other. If this unity is substantially fractured, then the disparity rears it's head; the other's more perfect wisdom and virtue can't be depended on, all but essentially claimed and called one's own. We are but the holders of our own wisdom and virtue, knowing our limits and that the other knows our limits.
No comments:
Post a Comment