World Religions James Willis

1/25/02

The Garden of Eden: An Exercise in Deception

Before I start, I will make an assumption, which is supported by the text though quite polemical. My assumption is that Adam and Eve are mortal. The reasons are beyond the scope of this paper and to mention them would unnecessarily elongate it. That said....

Anything spoken has multiple interpretations. Often, people speak statements that are meant one way but interpreted another. This is called misinterpretation. Other times, people say a statement that is true in one interpretation, though they wish it to be interpreted a different and false sense. This is called deception. No one lies in the Garden of Eden, as there is at least one true interpretation in each statement. There are instances, however, when things are said that are interpreted incorrectly.

I'll begin in the second chapter of Genesis, after God has created Adam. He tells Adam if he eats the fruit from the tree, "he will surely die". Well, if we assume Adam is mortal, which he may not know, then this statement is a tautology. I can say John (or any random person) will surely die. If John is mortal, yes, by definition he will surely die one day. God wants Adam to interpret this differently; if Adam is going to die anyway, what good is the threat unless it is interpreted that this disobedience will somehow speed up the process (i.e. Adam will die immediately). This is how God wants it to be interpreted, but as I said, since it has at least one true interpretation it cannot be considered false. The next controversial statement comes from the serpent. He speaks the truth without deception. He says that Adam and Eve won't die if they eat from the fruit, but their eyes will be opened to the knowledge of good and evil. What the serpent means and what God said are different. Here, the serpent simply means that Adam and Eve won't die as a result of eating the fruit. As we shall see, Adam and Eve do die (making true what God states, though in a different sense than Adam and Eve were meant to interpret), but they do not die as a result of eating the fruit, which is what the serpent implied.

After Eve eats the fruit, she gives some to Adam. They then become embarrassed because they're naked, and God notices this and suspects some foul play. Adam says Eve gave him the fruit to eat, and Eve said the serpent tricked her. Here, we have another apparent problem. If I maintain the serpent told the truth, how can he have tricked her? Well, I will claim here that Adam and Eve did not know whether they were mortal or immortal. Since her interpretation of what God said and her interpretation of what the serpent said are at odds, she decides (having to do something with the pressure God is putting on her at the moment) to trust God, and thus her interpretation of what he said. Since the interpretations are incompatible, she says the serpent tricked her, which is what she believes happened.

God then metes out sentences and makes them leave Eden, and then says that he does not wish them to return for eating from the tree of life would make them more like gods than they are already. What happens after is the subject of wars, crusades, and jihads; it is also beyond the scope of this paper.

I am well aware this is different from the traditional interpretation (making the serpent the truth teller and God deceptive), and this would usually qualify for heresy. However, one thing the reader is urged to keep in mind when reading this is that it is merely one interpretation. And, like I said at the beginning, it is merely one possible interpretation. It is not "right", merely possible. Now, having read this paper, you will die.

Addendum (9/01/03) – After having discussed this in class, the phrase “you will surely die” is no doubt the most troubling phrase and is translated differently in different editions. In modern Hebrew, the phrase is used as a curse that literally means “drop dead and die on the spot” and a typical phrase Hebrew cab drivers use to criticize one another’s driving. Could this be a case of where a translator took liberties in order to cohere with their sense of God? Maybe. But it must also be noted that language changes over time. Thus, it seems at least possible that this phrase might have changed as well. Unfortunately, there are no other texts I can think of written in Hebrew during this same time period (the ascription of Genesis is usually attributed to Moses with varying degrees of divine influence depending on denomination).