The Fall as Allegorical Fiction.

[The Grand Nudger]

The Fall (NIV)

---

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
16 To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

---

Now, firstly, this narrative takes the form of a just-so story. A piece that describes what we could safely assume to be the storytellers experience of life - and how it got to be that way. It's told in third person omniscient. Presumably, it is not a story that was told by adam or eve, or even god. All characters are external to the narrator. That's just as well in any case, because the narrative would be too sparse from any single characters POV to form a workable vehicle, to create intrigue.

So, let's dive in again, shall we?

---

The scene as set in previous verses is one of an idyllic paradise, two naked people in a garden, not a care in the world, under the watch of a divine benefactor who has one simple rule. We can already see the fabric of a story about childhood and disobedience forming, which is fitting ( I think), in an origins narrative. That god is a parent and the humans are children is established in as few words as possible, and this is an impressive bit of authorship - an extremely judicious use of breath. Our first taste of whats to come concerns the two obedient children off alone without god (their father) there to supervise...and Eve's having a conversation with a serpent.

There's a snake in every garden, of course, and this snake is no different than any other. He's busy telling the impressionable young eve that what her father has told her is not, necessarily, true. That "eating the fruit" won't kill her at all, but will put her on par with god the father. It will give her knowledge that makes a difference, a seat at the adults table. Clearly desiring this she takes a bite. She finds that the forbidden fruit is actually very pleasant all around - nothing like what she had been taught to expect. Notice how passive adam is up to this point, who is apparently there with her. He's heard the rule the same as she, but he's not willing to pipe up just yet. He's content to sit back and watch, to be silently complicit.

Eve's a sharer, so she gives adam a taste of what was forbidden to them. Then something amazing happens. Their eyes were opened. I think it's important that the first thing we are told that their eyes were opened to was their own nakedness. The knowledge of good and evil, from the point of view of innocence, must have been a hell of a jolt...but what stands out to these two childlike characters; after availing themselves of some thing that was forbidden by their father figure - is nudity. The author doesn't seem to be trying to hide any metaphors for puberty here whatsoever. This is a sex story...and if we didn't have the audiences attention yet - we've got em now.

As quickly as possible they try to hide their misdeed. They hear god strolling through the garden, calling out to his children, and they hide themselves as well. Now, god is the sort of character with alot of unspoken assumptions wrapped around him. I doubt that the storyteller intended to convey the notion that god was actually looking for them, or that he didn't know where they were or what they had done - but nevertheless he approaches the situation in a decidedly familial way. "Where are you" he asks, already knowing. "What have you done" he asks, already knowing.

Again, the pains the storyteller goes through to liken adam and eve to children and god to a parent are exhaustive. Adam Blames Eve, Eve blames the serpent. God prpepares to announce his judgement against all. The narrative falls back into a just-so story for a moment, describing how snakes became snakes - common for this sort of fiction, before returning to the allegory. If we wondered what this story was about beforehand, where the storyteller drew his inspiration - gods judgement will leave no doubt.

The woman is cursed to childbirth, and it's going to hurt. She's cursed to desire for the man, and in her desire and dependence (we'll talk about this in a minute) she's cursed to subservience. The man is cursed to toil in the earth, a hard dusty existence where the ground rises up to strike him; the only release in this new life being death. Both characters have had the mantles of adulthood and gender role placed upon them where before they were innocent babes. Summarily, the father casts them out of his house to fulfill the roles placed upon them.

Now, there's a rabbinical tradition that asserts that the knowledge of good and evil was, in fact, knowledge of the law. The notion that the innocent of mind cannot be guilty, the consequences of knowledge. What's very clear here is that the narrative is about a loss of innocence any way you slice it. If we can reasonably infer that the storyteller wanted to suggest adulthood, puberty, sexual relations or a rite of passage as at least one of the things contained within knowledge of good and evil they couldn't have done a more thorough job. The value of this narrative (it's truth, if you will) doesn't hinge on whether or not god walked in a garden, or a woman talked to a snake, or a man ate an apple he shouldn't have.

---

Now, for a few questions-

---

How did you find yourself cast out of the garden of your father and forced to toil or bear? What effect does your desire for your partner have upon you, what is your experience of providing for your family? How profound was the change from adolescence, through puberty, and into adulthood - how pronounced was your shame during that period - especially with regards to being caught? How many of you had a serpent for a friend, telling you that your parents might be fibbing just a little bit with regards to your innocence and the consequences of it's loss? How relevant does this narrative seem to you, under a reading like this one? Is it surprising that a story like this would survive so long?

---

If I get enough kudos.... I might be tempted to go through the bible line by line......show some fundies how it's done. /kudoswhorecapon

[Thumpalumpacus]

Tradition has it that Moses was the author.

I don't think his contract got renewed, though; he's only got one book to his credit.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Does it matter whether the story of the Fall was written or intended as allegory? I don't think it does, primarily because so many people believe it to be literal truth. The tenets of a faith are what the faithful believe, not what literary criticism tells them to believe.

I understand that more than a few religious scholars insist that the GOE story is allegorical, but this is a fairly recent development. Since is clearly isn't factually true, this strikes me as backpedalling of an especially mean sort.

Boru

[Mudhammam]

I think it's a great allegory for the reasons you mentioned and also because I think it can be broadened to include the entire genesis of conscious reflection itself; that is, there certainly seems to be a crude innocence, if you will, in other animals that most human beings do not share. It's almost as if the Garden of Eden story was an attempt to capture the all too familiar saying, "We're too evolved for our own good." (To eat from "the tree of knowledge").

To answer your questions:

How did you find yourself cast out of the garden of your father and forced to toil or bear?

It was a slow gradual process that probably first began when I bought George Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God" as a thirteen year Christian, thinking I could easily bring down you internet atheists if only I studied what you actually thought. My parents reacted by taking the book away and telling me I could only read material that was written from a Christian perspective. Now I clearly see why.

What effect does your desire for your partner have upon you, what is your experience of providing for your family?

Hmmm... I live with my girlfriend, we both share responsibility for paying the bills and I don't have a family to provide for, nor do I have much interest in starting one any time soon. Not sure exactly how to relate to the effects that my "desire for [my] partner" has upon me given that she often complains that I don't spend enough time with her (actually, she said I'm always on "that atheist forum"), and it usually drives me to want to spend less time with her...

How profound was the change from adolescence, through puberty, and into adulthood - how pronounced was your shame during that period - especially with regards to being caught?

Damn... lots of shame as an adolescent. My parents made such a stupidly big deal every time I got caught looking at porn, I had so much sexual repression until a much older woman came into my life...probably all I should say about that.

How many of you had a serpent for a friend, telling you that your parents might be fibbing just a little bit with regards to your innocence and the consequences of it's loss?

Can't really think of any.

How relevant does this narrative seem to you, under a reading like this one? Is it surprising that a story like this would survive so long?

The story has a great deal of relevancy for me in terms of losing childhood innocence, really searching deeply and asking those "big questions" until I felt the ground shake beneath me, realizing that my entire belief system and that of the adults around me for the first decade and a half of my life were completely built upon fabrications. My deconversion, which took a few years, was tough, and I definitely relate to eating the apple in that I find myself in a reality not AT ALL like the one I used to think existed.

And no, it's not surprising that the story is still immensely popular considering the history of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

[FreeTony]

So before the fall people could just go around murdering each other and not know it was wrong?
Surely eating the fruit was a good thing then?
God knew all this would happen when he decided to make a talking snake surely?
Why put the tree there? It's like putting a cake in front of your kids with 100% certainty they will eat it, then condemning them to misery for it.


It makes no sense whatsoever allegorical or not, apart form demonstrating God as a cruel idiot.

[Whateverist]

So a synonym for "the fall" could be "growing up". Man's fallen nature is his audacity for not remaining in an infantile condition. Kind of ironicalish.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Boru
I'd say yes, it does matter. All that the bible doesn't represent aside - the stories contained therein are among the earliest in western literary tradition. It would be difficult to understand how a set of narratives that didn't have anything meaningful to say about the human condition would be so resilient. If talented hands hand't made such compelling fiction to begin with it's unlikely that we'd be discussing it (or the religious traditions that sprang from it) in the here and now. I don't know that appreciating allegory would be seen as backpedaling by the folks who had a hand in creating the narrative. If they didn't intend it to be thus we're looking at an allegorical accident in nearly every verse.

It isn't a powerful little fable -because- it's true, even if it were true, and it doesn't lose it's power just because it's false, even if it were false. That shame has it's origin in knowledge is a commentary that doesn't rely on the narrative being factually accurate. That we have a different experience of life as children than we do as adults, and due in no small part to the knowledge we've gained, again, doesn't rely on the narrative being factually accurate. I think it's important to remember that the specifics of the curse are (or would have been) absolutely factual. Absolutely rooted in reality and the storytellers experience.

Yes, it's a just-so story no matter how one reads it, but as far as allegory goes, as far as fables are concerned (hello talking snake!) it's at least as competent as anything attr. to Aesop. We wouldn't demand that there actually be some historical race between a tortoise and a hare - for that narrative to have value...and we certainly wouldn't point to any group of nutters that believe that it -is- factual as a criticism of the narrative.

@FreeTony -
Funny you should ask that..because the very next vignette is a story about the first murder, what motivated it - and the consequences that flow from it. When's the last time you saw a 5 year old murder another 5 year old? "Before the fall" invokes a childlike innocence, a situation in which even if we had done wrong, we wouldn't have known it, and as such couldn't be culpable for it in the sense that an adult might be (who acts from a position of knowledge). God doesn't deign to give us the law in genesis 3, he just has the one rule, backed up by a little white lie, I think that fathers can relate. I would eat the fruit myself, yes (and ultimately our two heroes do decide to eat the fruit)- but from within the vantage point of the narrative eating the fruit is morally neutral. They didn't have any knowledge of good or evil - so that isn't something that would have figured into their decision about eating the fruit. Like a child disobeying an earthly father, there isn't much malice involved - and perhaps...had that father explained what the tree would actually do..they might have had reason for pause.

Then again, these are children, so explaining something complicated (as per the allegory) might have been pointless. I understand that my children will see through my little fibs, that I can't possibly prevent them from losing their innocence. I also accept that the example of my life, and the garden that I've made for my children contains within it the fruits of knowledge. I'm going to keep them from eating the fruit for as long as possible, but when they do.....I'll cast them out into the world to make their own way just as well. Whether or not it makes good allegory has nothing to do with whether or not any of it actually happened. Granted, it might not appeal to you. It's fiction after all, and it's hard to write a story that appeals to everyone. That said, the cruelty of god, in this regard, is hyperbole. Even the authors would have known from their own experience that it doesn't take a curse from god for human beings to enter adulthood or lose their innocence. The curse is part of the just-so form that this story is told in. But so what if god is cruel in the narrative? That's a common theme about gods. If they weren't cruel we'd have a hard time squaring away the nastier shit we see around us. The greeks did that chestnut to a t..lol.

@Whatev
Could be, yeah, our desire for a place at the big boys table comes with some side effects. Every so often I wish my kids could have continued to be babies, and every now and again I'm reminded that ignorance can at least seem like bliss. Agreed about the irony, you put it better than I could have, in fewer words.

[Minimalist]

All that the bible doesn't represent aside - the stories contained therein are among the earliest in western literary tradition.

Pardon the pun but that is a huge leap of faith.

From what we know, these stories were borrowed/stolen from much earlier Mesopotamian traditions which had been written down by them at least 1500 years earlier and probably much much more. Separately, Egypt developed a literate society while this particular group of Canaanites was still getting sheep shit out from between their toes.

[FreeTony]

To be fair, having an omnipotent and omniscient character in any story leads either to plot holes, or a very boring story.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Min
Not disagreeing with you in the least. We still have this narrative though. I wouldn't expect it to be completely original. We seem to be doomed, as a species, to retelling the same tales down through the ages. We lost egyptian lit for so long it only made it's way into our modern consciousness by proxy and piggybacking. There are definitely older stories (and better ones - but that's just my opinion). I could write a book on some Gilgamesh! Fuckin love it. Same with beowulf, even though we know it's a later story it still deserves it's place as a first among seconds..lol, same with the bible - I'd argue.


@ Tony. Indeed, and notice how god isn't given the omniscient treatment in the narrative? The narrator, amusingly, seems to know more about what's going on than god does. The narrator has the advantage of restrospection..lol. He's looking back both on the "history" of man and at his own personal history.