And another . . .(Genesis 2 & 3. See yesterday and the day before.)
I’m still on Adam and Eve, “trapped like a
trap in a trap,” as Dorothy Parker said.
The way the serpent frames his question − “Did
God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” − induces Eve to defend
god, by multiplying his rules, or by making the one rule more stringent. “We
may eat of any tree in the garden, except that one in the middle. We can’t eat
its fruit, or even touch it − or
we’ll die.”
Incidentally,
the commentators get very, very[1]
excited about this conversation. Here . .
. is the . . . first . . . theological . . . conversation
ever; and this − even before the
apple itself − this is where we (humankind)
begin to go awry: we stop giving ourselves to
God, and we begin talking about
him.[2]
But Eve isn’t explaining God; she’s taking him seriously.
The
serpent is wondering aloud whether there are any dietary laws. (Surely
not.) Eve admits there are, but she defends the law and she defends God in a way she believes
will please him. She knows that this God is a serious god. If he says jump, you don’t
ask, “How high?” You jump as high as you
can and hope it’s high enough. So she says, “We don’t eat from the tree in the
middle of the garden. We shouldn’t even touch it, God says.”
“I
can’t see why that is,” the serpent replies, “eating the fruit will be good for
you; it will make you like gods; like God himself you will know ‘good and
evil.’”
I learned this (what follows) in Sunday School from a former
CIA agent, a linguist of immense talent, who learned ancient Hebrew (and Aramaic),and
koiné Greek (also Homeric Greek and modern Greek) and was spending his
retirement reading the Bible in the original languages. The Hebrew word for knowledge is a form of ידע, “to
comprehend, to understand.” Also, whatever you think, the phrase “good and
evil” [טוב ורע] does not describe an ethical distinction; it means something like “everything,” as in “all the ins and outs.”
Then, “knowledge of good and evil” isn’t “ability to distinguish what is good
from what is ill”; it is being able to see the answer to life, the universe, and everything.
That
is what the serpent has on offer. Eve and Adam can be like gods, knowing what
God knows, all the ins and outs.
This is the problem as far as God is
concerned. God doesn't mind if people talk about him, if they take him
seriously - as Eve does! Indeed, if
there is anything certain in the Hebrew Scriptures, it is that: God must be
taken seriously. No matter what else we think of him, when he’s ordering that
seven tribes living in Canaan be exterminated, or forgetting his promise to the
house of Eli, or deciding there's an intermission in his ever-lasting
covenant with David, we have to take God seriously.
But
if people start thinking they know what God knows − even a tenth what God knows
− even a hundredth a thousandth, a millionth, even if they only think that − they’ll stop taking him
seriously. Then who knows what they’ll get up to.
And now I'm sprung. As Cathy Baker said, "That's all!"
V
(bicbw)
That's all, except for this:
[1]
very. “theolorgasmically.” I wrote originally, then thought better of it, then
put it in a footnote. So, shoot me.
[2]
If we’re
talking about God, we must be
treating him as if he were an object rather than an other (The Other), an it rather than a Thou as in: “Let me explain it
to you.” So, theology is a sin.
No comments:
Post a Comment