By eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve not only differentiated themselves from the animals, but they also became more like God. I really liked Eilberg-Schwartz’s counter to Freud’s claim that the serpent is a symbol of the penis. Because a snake often sheds its skin, it is often “naked.” The serpent, which is not ashamed of being “naked,” serves as a stark contrast to humans who desired to be clothed once they became aware of their nakedness. Eilberg-Schwartz believes that humans must cover their genitals because their Heavenly Father’s body is veiled. How do you think knowledge of good and evil is related to awareness of nakedness? Is awareness of nakedness part of a larger notion of moral knowledge, or is knowledge of good and evil simply being aware of being naked? Also, Eilberg-Schwartz says that humans are ashamed of being naked, but it doesn't make sense that God is veiled because he is ashamed. Why, then, is God veiled? Finally, does Freud's analysis of the serpent as a symbol of the penis have any relevance to our study?
I have never really noticed that even in my own mind I picture God cloaked covered. Why is this such a big deal? It is described that Adam and Eve could be described as animals and then the tree of knowledge that God forbid them to eat from came in and once they disobeyed God they became more like their God and father because they soon felt the need to cloak themselves and cover up there naked bodies. One thing that confused me in the chapter is when he discussed that of a son committing incest with his mother and how this reveals "the father's nakedness". It is a problem for boys to see their father's genitals which ES says but in all cases it seems to hold true that it is problematic when anybody is seen naked which is why every human being feels the need to be covered.
Interested in the question you asked about nakedness and morality, I dug around on the internet and discovered a fascinating Christian movement:
Christian Nudism!naked!! (wikipedia link, no overtly graphic nudity)
Evidently, these folks interpret this very Creation story alternatively. ES says Adam and Eve are "Covering themselves is an act of imitatio Dei," (p 90). Christian Naturists, however, equate clothing not with a more divine knowledge of beneficence, but with the knowledge of sin: clothes=sin; nakedness=sinlessness, or, at least an attempt at sinlessness.
I tend to agree with your objection to ES's claim that a veiled God is a happy God. ES does make a logical claim that God, as a projection of the Abrahamic patriarch, would indeed desire a veiled body for Himself and for his patriarchs, but it's much more fun to read it in alternative ways, especially in a modern context.
In this section of the book Schwartz talked about the story of Adam and Eve, and the Tree of Knowlege (good and bad). Once Adam and Eve ate from the tree they became different from animals and even more like God, because they covered their nakedness. Schwartz then says that this nakedness comes from serpents, because they shed their skins and they are not ashamed of being naked. For Adam and Eve this is a problem, because they have never shed their skin before and once they realized their nakedness they felt ashamed and God clothed them after they realized their nakedness and were hiding from God. Therefore, Adam and Eve become more like God, because they learn to be ashamed about their nakedness by covering themselves. From this it makes sense to me why the father's body is veiled, but then it recreates the imagery that God is humanlike and that is a little confusing. Why is God's nakedness viewed as being shameful? What does the nakedness and shamefulness of Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge have to do with knowing good and evil. Is it that by eating from this Tree, makes one ultimatley realize their wrong doing or does it have to do with something else, like becoming like God? If Adam and Eve's nakedness is what makes them become more like God, then why is God still veiled? Schwartz says that "the link between nakedness and shame, between being human and being covered, suggests one reason why the divine father's body must be veiled." What does this mean?
i was intrigued with E.S. thinking about the adam and eve story, i never would have though of the serpent representing a penis. So adam and eve were seperated from animal to human world when they were able to see as the serpent lost his arms and legs and was no longer able to speak? so if he had arms and legs i dont really see the representation of a penis. Also when in the story of adam and eve, because the both ate from the tree of knowledge when they weren't suppose to they were both punished. But it seems to me that the women had a way worse punishment than the man did, maybe it's just me, but childbear and having a period seems alot more harsh then earning your food through the sweat of his brow. I would rather have the man's punishment.
Does it ever state why god is veiled in the first place? why is he not naked? and when the man and women discover they are naked and are ashamed is it because they are not the same as god when they seem him, or being they want to be different than the animals? but where does being ashamed come from? why can't they just be happy being naked it's not like someone told them they HAD to be clothes or it was wrong… but i guess they were made clothes. IDK
I have never really analyzed the story of Adam and Eve being banned from the garden of Eden but I particularly like the way ES presents the way this all took place. I thought that ES idea of the serpent being used as the one to tell Eve to eat the fruit because the serpent shades its skin and this could be a symbol for transformation and lack of shame in the animal world. Adam and Eve were both shameless that they were naked until they ate the fruit then they were transformed into being more like God and less like animals and they became ashamed of their nakedness. The snake is also named "Shrewrest" and the Hebrew term for this is naked which is also a connection to Adam and Eve eating the fruit and becoming ashamed of their nakedness. Since Adam and Eve were like animals and unashamed of their nakedness then was God always clothed? Why would Adam and Eve not noticed this difference and even before eating the fruit not wonder why he was always clothed and they weren't? Was human intelligence no different than animal intelligence?
Something that I found to be very interesting from this selection in our reading was the thought of humans becoming more god-like and becoming more intelligent than the animals all at the same time. Since I was little I always thought humans were always just at a higher intelligence than animals, even when I was reading the bible and Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden. The way that the bible spoke about the purposes that God had for both of them it made them seem like they were at least a little higher in rank then any of the other animals. But the way that ES writes about how much more intelligent they became after they ate the fruit it kind of throws me back a little and makes me think a little differently about how they actually could have been. Another thing that I kept thinking about while reading this was the whole concept of the body of God and the theme of the naked body in general. These things were taken very different then they are today, like if you saw someone naked now usually you would just apologize repeatedly until the other person either accepted it or it was kind of just left alone and not mentioned again. But there is such a problem with even the thought of nudity of someone else in the bible. It makes me wonder if we might have become a little more liberal on the problem of accidentally viewing someone in that way without their permission?
I also thought it was interesting the way ES talks about how humans become more god-like because they eat from the tree of knowledge of the good and bad. It also stated that this makes humans higher than the other animals on the earth. The serpent is a negative influence on Eve which causes her to offer Adam fruit from the tree of knowledge. I also grew up learning that humans were higher than animals and had never seen it from this angle before. I also agree with an earlier comment, do humans wear clothing because they are embarrassed by nakedness because images of God are always covered up? Adam seemed to be embarrassed by being naked in the garden when God came to talk to him, is this the reason for that?
I think that the Bible is trying to get across the idea that discomfort about being naked and being seen naked is natural in humans, and even a lofty ideal.
The story as a whole is much like old folk tales. It is really only unlike folk tales in that there isn't an endless slew of them. But rather than explaining why some bird has a long beak, or why cats are asocial, it explains why snakes have no legs and eats dust (even though snakes don't), why humans have painful childbirth (even though other apes do too). It explains why humans with a perfect god are not living perfect lives. It explains why humans have urges that other animals don't.
Before I move on, it is interesting to note that humans start as equivalent to other animals. People often claim that the Bible sets humans apart, making us not animals. But, no. Adam is just one among many talking animals, equal in their nudity. Only by stealing the fruit of God does he become something apart from other animals. Note also that man makes himself into this, and God is none too happy about it. (And taking one of God's two essence-giving fruits from his wooden branch is awful phallic in itself…)
Anyhow, some tribe of humans who no longer needed pelts only to survive felt their discomfort about being naked and being seen naked. This, they saw set them apart from other animals. Perhaps they could have tried to overcome their anxiety, but rather they decided that their discomfort was a lofty ideal — to define it as good rather than deal with the idea of being wrong. That the knowledge to cover oneself set man above animals. And they told a story about how that came to be. And since this ideal needs an authority to back it up, covering oneself must be godly. Finally, since covering oneself is godly, it goes without saying that god is covered.
Finally, I want to point out that man covering himself up is a major way to change the form that he was born with. Wearing clothes may even be compared to circumcision in the right circumstances. A transition from lowly mortal form, to the visage of God. So perhaps God isn't covered up, maybe he has a natural form that our best approximation of is expressed in clothing. *shrug*
The section of the reading was on the story of Adam and Eve. It talks about how they realize they are naked once eating off the forbidden tree of knowledge. In realizing that they are naked, they come upon the knowledge of knowing right from wrong. This knowledge is what makes Adam and Eve separate from the animal world. I was thinking about this though, and do animals not know right from wrong? On the other hand, do we train/teach them like we with humans to know right from wrong? I do not think we are exactly born with the knowledge to know what is right or wrong so how can we say that we are any different from animals really. The reading then goes into how both women and men are punished, men with having to earn his food by working for it and women with childbearing and continual sexual desire. I do not see how these two things are remotely comparable. I do not find childbearing a punishment, but still why were women put to be punished with that?
Keep in mind that the story is a fable, and written after the time it would have supposedly happened. So don't try to find logic in proper chronology, a violation first, then a reasonable punishment. Rather, remember to look at it backwards, that the things seen as punishment were noticed first, and the stories given to explain them. A lack of equality in the punishment stems directly from a lack of equality in the situation that needed justifying by the writer.
I too enjoyed ES's take on the story of Adam and Eve, particularly because I have not looked at the story in the context that the author does. In my experiences, the story of Adam and Eve has never been taught to have any deeper meaning than the creation story. I found it very interesting that ES suggests that Adam and Eve differentiate themselves from animals from their realization that they are naked and desire to cover their genitals. From reading the creation stories in Genesis I understood that God created humans to be above all living things and to more or less dominate the Earth. Genesis Chapter 1 says, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." I do not understand why Adam and Eve would have the desire to distinguish themselves different from animals. From this I feel like ES's theory and the creation story are not completely cohesive.
I had never heard the idea that Adam and Eve were taking their humanity. To me their story was just that a story. Still I don't believe that it was a real event but ive never thought of it as an excape for being like animals. And I dont think I buy the link ES provides between being God like and covering your genitals.
I can't decide how I would like to go about thinking about this portion of the book. I don't know whether to agree that Adam and Eve were becoming more God-like when they covered their genitals or to believe they really were ashamed of their genitals after eating the apple that they had to cover up? Either way both make sense. I feel both are correct after thinking about it for a bit. Covering genitals would support the fact that God is human-like with a body, covering his own genitals. On the other hand, Adam and Eve feeling ashamed of their naked bodies seems more appealing. Since I was little, I was taught that Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and were to feel less significant than they did before, hiding from God and and their own nakedness. This seems more logical to me right now because it is something I was taught not picturing God with a body and all the parts that go with it.
If I may be very pedantic for a moment, it was not an apple. It's just a fruit, although somewhere much later in the Bible (I forget where) there is a passage suggesting it was a grape. The Talmud suggests grape, fig, or wheat.
If you tie back to Greek mythology, it may have been a pomegranate (or, you know, Pandora's Box).
Google tells me that the image of an apple is used as a visual Latin pun: malus (apple) | malum (evil)
In this section of the book, they discussed the story of Adam and Eve. I have never really thought in depth about this story or thought about analyzing it at all. Both ideas of the story seem to make some sense to me. Were Adam and Eve becoming more God-like or were they really ashamed of their genitals? It makes sense that once they had knowledge that they then recognized that they were naked, and should cover themselves. That seems the like the most logical conclusion, it seems to make more sense because that is the way we think today. It isn't right to walk around without being clothed. Even though I tend to lean toward this conclusion, both sides have credible points.
I have to agree with the point that Mac made that people believe that humans are separate and distinct from animals in the Bible, but they are actually not, according to this reading. I had never even thought about talking animals before and it just makes me think of Disney movies. So as Adam and Eve become more like God, they are becoming less like animals.
I honestly would have thought of the serpent as being a phallic symbol as well, but I liked the interpretation ES had about the serpent representing transformation and lack of shame in the animal world, since the serpent periodically sheds its skin.
The last thing I want to hit on is why did God tell Adam and Eve they would die if they ate from the tree of good and evil? Why didn't he just tell him the truth…that their eyes would be open, etc?
I am not entirely sure what to think about ES talking about Adam and Eve "ascending" from the animals when they ate the "forbidden fruit." Maybe I don't really understand..but it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. God created man and the animals…in this part we are equal. So then man goes against God and ascends animals by becoming more aware? So our gift was us not being aware/shameful. Hmm. Not really sure what to think about this, but ES does raise the interesting parallel between God being veiled and human culture. "And becoming cultured, all of these characters are in some sense more like God." (p. 91) If this is the case, could man have created stories about God being covered because of our culture, when perhaps in the "beginning" God may have been naked just like man was? Wouldn't this make more sense because God supposedly created man in his image?
In this reading it talks about the story of Adam and Eve and the eating of the forbidden fruit. It is stated that when they did this they became ashamed and clothed themselves. This in turn made them more like God, because God "himself" is clothed? Maybe God is veiled to hide the true gender. When wearing clothes the genetalia of men and women are covered and the idea of gender may no longer exist. Adam and Eve may have clothed themselves to become more like God in the simple aspect that the gender of God is unknown. Perhaps they wanted to cover themselves to hide what they were, and in turn made them more like God because they were now "sexless" to the naked eye. I always thought that division of human and animal was apparent throughout the entire bible, but in this reading it says that the division didn't occur until Adam and Eve ate from the tree. I don't understand how acting against God (i.e. eating the forbidden fruit) can cause man to have dominance over animals. They disobeyed God and were rewarded? This doesn't seem logical.