review essay

i dam, eve AND TH€

SERPENT

EL7IINE PAGELS

V I N T A G E B O O K S

A d i v i s i o n o f R a n d o m H o u s e , I n c .

N ew York

F i r s t V i n t a g e B o o k s E d i t i o n , S e p t e m b e r 1 9 8 9

C o p y rig h t © 1 9 8 8 by Elaine Pa gels

A ll rights reserved under International and Pan-American C o p y r ig h t Con vention s. Published in the United States by V in ta g e B o o k s , a d iv i­ sion o f R a n d o m H o u se , Inc., N e w Y o r k , and simultaneously in C an ada by R a n d o m H o u s e o f C an ada Limited, T oro n to . O r ig in a lly publish ed, in hard cover, by R an d om H ouse, Inc., N e w Y o r k , in 1 9 8 8 .

Library o f Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Pagels, Elaine H . , 1 9 4 3 - A d a m , E ve, and the serpent / Elaine Pagels.— xst V in ta g e B o o k s ed.

p. cm. B ibliograp hy; p. Includes index.

I S B N 0 - 6 7 9 - 7 2 2 3 2 - 7 : $ 8 . 9 5 1. S e x — Biblical teaching. 2. Bible . N . T . — Criticism, interpretation, etc. 3. S e x — R e lig io u s aspects— Christianity— H isto ry o f doctrines—

Early church, ca. 3 0 - 6 0 0 . I. Title. B S 2 5 4 5 . S 3 6 P 3 4 1 9 8 9

2 4 i ' . 6 6 ' o 9 o i 5 — dc20 8 9 - 4 0 1 4 7 C I P

G ra te fu l ac kn o w led gm en t is made to the fo llo w in g for permission to reprint previously published material:

H arvard Theological Review: Excerpts from “ Christian A polo g ists and the ‘ Fall o f the A n g e l s ’: A n Attack on R o m a n Imperial P o w e r ? " by Elaine P a gels, which ap peared in H arvard Theological Review 7 8 , 3 - 4 ( 1 9 8 5 ), pp. 3 0 1 - 3 2 5 ; and " T h e Politics o f Paradise: A u g u s t in e ’s E x e g e sis o f G e n e sis 1 - 3 V ersu s T h at o f J o h n C h ry s o s to m ,’’ by Elaine P a gels, which ap peared in H arvard Theological Review 7 8 , 1 - 2 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , pp. 6 7 - 9 ^ . C o p y rig h t © 1 9 8 5 by the President and Fellows o f H a rv a rd C o l le g e . R eprin ted by permission.

H en d ric k so n Publishers, Inc.: Excerpts from “ Exegesis and Exposition o f the G e n e s is Creation Accounts in Selected T exts from N a g H a m - m a d i , " by Elaine Pagels, in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, a n d E a rly Christi­ anity. edited by C. H e d ric k and R, H o d g s o n , pp. 2 5 7 - 2 8 6 . U se d by permission o f H en d ric k son Publishers, Inc., P e a b od y , Mass.

T & T C la rk Ltd.: Excerpts by Elaine Pa gels from The N ew Testament and Gnosis: Essays in Honour o f R. McL. Wilson, edited by A . H . B . L og an and A . J . M . W e d d e rb u rn (E d in bu rg h , Scotland, 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 1 4 6 - 1 7 5 .

National C ou ncil o f the Churches o f Christ in the U . S . A . : Scripture quotations are from the R e v ise d Standard Version B ib le . C o p y r ig h t 1 9 4 6 , 1 9 5 2 , © 1 9 7 1 by the D iv ision o f Christian Education o f the N a tio n al C ou ncil o f the Churches o f Christ in the U . S . A . U sed by permission.

Man ufactu red in the United States o f A m e ric a

36 35 34 33 32 31 30

THE BOOK OF GENESIS C h a p t e r s 1 - 3

(Revised Standard Version)

I N THE B E G IN N IN G God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was without form a n d void, and dark­ ness was upon the face o f the deep; and the Spirit o f God was moving over the

face o f the waters. 3 A n d God said, “ Let there be

ligh t” ; and there was light. 4A n d God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. } God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. A n d there was evening an d there was morning, one day.

6 A n d God said, “ Let there be a firmament in the midst o f the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters. ” 7A n d God made the firm a­ ment an d separated the waters which were under the firmament from the w a­ ters which were above the firmament. A n d it was so. 8A n d God called the firmament Heaven. A n d there was eve­ ning and there was morning, a second day.

9 A n d God said, “ Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, a n d let the dry lan d ap­ pear. ’ ’ A n d it was so. 10God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. A n d God saw that it was good. 11 A n d

God said, “ Let the earth put forth vege­ tation, plants yielding seed, and fru it trees bearing fr u it in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth. ” A n d it was so. l2 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fru it in which is their seed, each according to its kind. A n d God saw that it was good. 13A n d there was eve­ ning and there was morning, a third day.

14 A n d God said, “ Let there be lights in the firmament o f the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be fo r signs and fo r seasons a n d fo r days and years, 13an d let them be lights in the firmament o f the heavens to give light upon the earth. ’ ’ A n d it was so. 16A n d God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, an d the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17A n d God set them in the firmament o f the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18to rule over the day an d over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. A n d God saw that it was good. 19A n d there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

20 A n d God said, “ Let the waters bring forth swarms o f living creatures,

♦ x i ♦

T h e B o o k o f G e n e s i s

and let birds jly above the earth across the firmament o f the heavens. ” 21So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird ac­ cording to its kind. A n d God saw that it was good. 22A n d God blessed them, saying, “ Be fru itfu l and multiply and f ill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth. ” 23A n d there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24 A n d God said, “ Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts o f the earth according to their kinds. ’ ’ An d it was so. 25A nd God made the beasts o f the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. A n d God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “ .Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish o f the sea, and over the birds o f the air, and over the cattle, and over a ll the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. ” 27So God created man in his own image, in the image o f God he created him; male and

female he created them. 28A nd God blessed them, and God said to them, “ Be

fru itfu l and multiply, and f i ll the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish o f the sea and over the birds o f the a ir and over every living thing that moves upon the earth. ” 29A nd God said, “ Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face o f a ll the earth, and every tree with seed in its fru it; you shall have them fo r food. 30A n d to every beast o f the earth,

and to every bird o f the air, and to every­ thing that creeps on the earth, every­ thing that has the breath o f life, I have given every green plant fo r food. ” A nd it was so. 31 A nd God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. A n d there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and a ll the host o f them. 2A nd on the seventh day God fin ­ ished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from a ll his work which he had done. 3So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from a ll his work which he had done in creation.

4 These are the generations o f the heavens and the earth when they were created.

In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, }when no plant o f the field was yet in the earth and no herb o f the field had yet sprung up—fo r the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face o f the ground— 7then the Lord God formed man o f dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath o f life; and man became a living being. 8A n d the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9A nd out o f the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and goodforfood, the tree o f life also in the midst o f the garden, and the tree o f the knowledge o f good and evil.

10 A river flowed out o f Eden to water the garden, and there it divided

♦ xi i ♦

T h e B o o k o f G e n e s i s

and became fo u r rivers. 11 The name o f the first is Pishon; it is the one which

flows around the whole land o f H a v’- ilah, where there is gold; 12and the gold o f that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name o f the sec­ ond river is Gibon; it is the one which flows around the whole land o f Cush. 14A n d the name o f the third river is Tigris, which flows east o f Assyria. A nd the fourth river is the Euphra’tes.

13 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden o f Eden to till it and keep it. 16A n d the Lord God com­ manded the man, saying, “ You may

freely eat o f every tree o f the garden; 1 7but o f the tree o f the knowledge o f good and evil you shall not eat, fo r in the day that you eat o f it you shall die. ”

18 Then the Lord God said, “ It is not good that the man should be alone; I w ill make him a helper fit fo r him. ” 19So out o f the ground the Lord God

formed every beast o f the field and every bird o f the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every liv­ ing creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to a ll cattle, and to the birds o f the air, and to every beast o f the field; but fo r the man there was not found a helperfit fo r him. 21So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to f a ll upon the man, and while he slept took one o f his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; 22and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23Then the man said,

“ This at last is bone o f my bones and flesh o f my flesh;

she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out o f

M a n .”

24Therefore a man leaves his fath er and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. 23A n d the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

3 Now the serpent was more subtle than any other w ild creature that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “ D id God say, ‘ You shall not eat ofany tree o f the garden ’? ” 2A nd the woman said to the serpent, “ We may eat o f thefruit ofthe trees o f the garden; 3but God said, ‘ You shall not eat o f the fru it o f the tree which is in the midst o f the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die. ’ ” 4But the serpent said to the woman, “ You w ill not die. 5For God knows that when you eat o f it your eyes w ill be opened, and you w ill be like God, knowing good and evil. ” 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good fo r food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took o f its fru it and ate; and she also gave some to her hus­ band, and he ate. 7Tben the eyes o f both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.

8 A n d they heard the sound o f the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool o f the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence o f the Lord God among the trees o f the garden. 9But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “ Where are you?” 10A n d he said, “ I heard the sound o f thee in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” 11 He said, “ Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten o f the tree o f which I commanded you not to eat?” J2The man said, “ The woman

♦ xiii ♦

T h e B o o k o f G e n e s i s

whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fru it o f the tree, and I ate. ” 13Then the Lord God said to the woman, “ What is this that you have done?" The woman said, “ The serpent beguiled me, and I ate. ” 14The Lord God said to the serpent,

“ Because you have done this, cursed are you above a ll cattle, and above a ll w ild animals;

upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat a ll the days o f your life.

I3l w ill put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your seed and her seed;

he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. "

l6To the woman he said, “ I w ill greatly multiply your pain

in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth

children, yet your desire shall be fo r your

husband, and he shall rule over you. ’ ’

17A nd to Adam he said, “ Because you have listened to the

voice o f your wife, and have eaten o f the tree

o f which I commanded you,

'You shall not eat o f it, ’ cursed is the ground because o f you;

in toil you shall eat o f it a ll the days o f your life;

18thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you;

and you shall eat the plants o f the field.

I9In the sweat o f your face you shall eat bread

till you return to the ground, fo r out o f it you were taken;

you are dust, and to dust you shall return. ”

20 The man called his w ife’s name Eve, because she was the mother o f a ll living. 21 A n d the Lord God made fo r Adam and fo r his wife garments o f skins, and clothed them.

22 Then the Lord God said, “ Be­ hold, the man has become like one o f us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his band and take also o f the tree o f life, and eat, and live fo r ever" — 23therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden o f Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. 24He drove out the man; and at the east o f the garden o f Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flam ing sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree o f life.

INTRODUCTION

# | B R U P T C H A N G E S in social attitudes have recently becom e X j com m onplace, especially with respect to sexuality, including

M 1 m arriage, d iv o rc e, hom osexuality, abortion , contraception, and g e n d e r. W h eth er w e w elcom e these changes o r not, they have altered the w ay w e think o f other p eople and o u rselves, how w e act, and how w e respond to the actions o f others. F o r Christians, in particular, such changes may seem to challenge not o nly traditional valu es but the v e ry structure o f human nature.

B u t h ow did these traditional patterns o f g e n d e r and sexual relationship arise in the first place— patterns so o b vio u s and “ natu­ ra l” to those w ho have accepted them that nature itself seem ed to have o rdain ed them? R eflectin g on this question, I soon began to see that the sexual attitudes w e associate with Christian tradition e v o lv e d in w estern culture at a specific time— du ring the first fo u r centuries o f the com m on era, w hen the Christian m ovem en t, w hich had begun as a defiant sect, even tu ally transform ed itself into the relig io n o f the R om an E m p ire. I saw, too, that these attitudes had not p revio u sly existed in their eventual Christian form ; and that they represen ted a d epartu re from both pagan practices and Je w ish tradition. M an y Christians o f the first fo u r centuries took p ride in th eir sexual re ­ straint; they eschew ed p olygam y and often d ivo rce as w ell, w hich Je w is h tradition allo w ed ; and they repudiated extram arital sexual practices com m on ly accepted am ong their pagan con tem poraries, practices including prostitution and hom osexuality.

C ertain Christian m oralists o f this period insisted that sexual in tercourse should not be pursued fo r pleasu re, e v e n am on g those m onogam ously m arried, but should be reserved so lely fo r p ro crea­ tion. N o t all these attitudes w ere origin al with the C hristians, w ho b orro w ed much from Je w ish and philosophical, particu larly Stoic, tradition; but the Christian m ovem ent em phasized and institutional-

♦ x v i i ♦

I n t r o d u c t i o n

ized such view s, w hich soon becam e inseparable from Christian faith. H e r o ic Christians w ent even fu rther and em braced celibacy

“ fo r the sake o f the K in g d o m o f H e a v e n ,” b eh avio r w hich , they said, Je su s and P aul had exem p lified , and w hich they had u rg ed upon those capable o f the “ an gelic life .” B y the b egin n in g o f the fifth centu ry, A u g u stin e had actually declared that spontaneous sexual d esire is the p r o o f o f— and penalty for— universal o rigin al sin, an id ea that w ou ld have baffled most o f his Christian p red ecesso rs, to say nothing o f his pagan and Je w is h contem poraries.

M an y pagan contem poraries o f the early Christians in the G ra e c o -R o m a n society o f the first fo u r centuries pursued sexual practices that superficially may look fam iliar to som e p e o p le in the twentieth century. T h e R om an s, fo r exam p le, legalized and taxed prostitution, both m ale and fem ale; and som e o f them easily toler­ ated d iv o rc e, as w ell as hom osexual and bisexual relation ships, esp e­ cially d u rin g adolescence or, in the case o f m arried m en , as a d iversio n from fam ily obligations. Y e t w hen w e in vestigate R om an practices m ore closely, w e find ourselves upon m o re u n fam iliar g ro u n d ; w e may be dism ayed to see, fo r exam p le, that exp o sin g and ab an donin g infants was w id ely and o p en ly practiced d u rin g the first and second centuries o f the com m on era, as was the routin e sexual use and abuse o f slaves. T o the extent that w e reco il fro m such practices, w e re v e a l, w heth er o r not w e exp licitly iden tify o u rselves w ith religio u s tradition, that w e too are affected by the tran sform a­ tion o f sexual valu es that Christian tradition introduced into w estern culture.

From the first century, w hen the Christian m o vem en t appeared as a n ew and “ deadly superstition” (in the w ord s o f the R om an historian T acitu s), through two centuries o f p ersecu tion , d u rin g which its m em bers w ere subject to arrest, torture, and execu tio n , the m ovem en t continued to g ro w . T h en in 3 1 3 o ccu rred an even t o f incalculable significance— the conversion to C hristianity o f the em ­ p ero r C onstantine; and from that time, with only a tw o-year in terru p ­ tion d u rin g the b rie f reign o f the neopagan e m p ero r Ju lia n , called the A postate, Christianity increasingly becam e the official relig io n o f the em p ire. A ccom p an yin g the spread o f Christianity— alth ou gh , as classical historians rem ind us, not lim ited to it— w as a revo lu tio n in sexual attitudes and practices.

Y e t w hen w e exp lo re Je w ish and Christian w riters fro m the first centuries o f the com m on era, w e find that they seld om talk directly about sexual b eh avio r, and they seldom w rite treatises on such topics

♦ xv iii ♦

I n t r o d u c t i o n

as m arriage, d iv o rc e, and g en d er. Instead they often talk about A d am , E v e , and the serpent— the story o f creation— and w hen they do, they tell us what they think about sexual matters. From about 20 0 B.C.E. (b e fo re the com m on era), the story o f creation becam e, fo r certain J e w s , and later fo r Christians, a prim ary m eans fo r re v e a l­ ing and d efen d in g basic attitudes and values. O u r spiritual ancestors argued and speculated o v e r how G o d had com m anded the first man and w om an to “ be fruitful and m ultiply, and fill the e a rth ,” and how he instituted the first m arriage; how A dam , after he fou nd am on g the anim als no “ h elp er fit fo r him ” (G en esis 2 :2 0 ) , m et E v e , with well- known and disastrous consequences. Such interpretations o f the first three chapters o f G e n esis, as w e can see, en gag ed intensely practical concerns and articulated deeply felt attitudes.

As I in vestigated these Je w ish and Christian sources, I found m yself fascinated with the story o f A d am , E ve, and the serpent, written d o w n by m em bers o f H e b re w tribes about three thousand years ag o , and pro b ab ly told fo r generations b efo re that. I had always assumed that this archaic story w ields an extrao rd in ary influence upon w estern culture, but as my w ork progressed I was surprised to disco ver how com p lex and exten sive its effect has been.

T h e anthrop ologist C lifford G eertz defines culture as

an historically transmitted pattern o f meaning embodied in sym­ bols; a system o f inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic form, by means o f which men communicate, perpetuate, and d e v e lo p their k n o w le d g e about and attitudes toward life.1

I f any o f us could com e to ou r ow n culture as a fo re ig n an th rop olo ­ gist and o b se rve traditional Christian attitudes tow ard sexu ality and ge n d e r, and how w e v iew “ human n atu re” in relation to politics, philosophy, and p sych o lo gy, w e might w eli be astonished at attitudes that w e take fo r gran ted . A ugustine, one o f the greatest teachers o f w estern C hristianity, d erived m any o f these attitudes from the story o f A d am and E v e: that sexual desire is sinful; that infants are infected from the m om ent o f conception with the disease o f o rig in al sin; and that A d a m ’s sin corrupted the w h ole o f nature itself. E ven those w ho think o f G en esis on ly as literature, and those w ho are not Christian, live in a culture in d elib ly shaped by such interpretations as these.

B u t the G en esis accounts o f creation introduced into G raeco - R om an culture m any valu es other than sexual ones— fo r exam p le, the intrinsic w orth o f e v e ry human b ein g, m ade in G o d ’s im age (G e n e sis 1 :2 6 ) . O ften these oth er values w ou ld p ro v e im m ensely

♦ x i x ♦

I n t r o d u c t i o n

influential. A lth o u g h the early Christians thought o f this con viction o f hum an w orth in m oral— not social o r political— term s, Christians liv in g m o re than fifteen hundred years later w ou ld in vo k e this idea to help transform the laws, ethics, and political institutions o f the W est. In 1 7 7 6 the authors o f the D eclaratio n o f In d ep en d en ce in­ vo k ed the biblical account o f creation to declare that “ w e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created e q u a l . . . ” — an idea so fam iliar that w e may have difficulty seeing that it is em pirically u n p ro vab le; A risto tle, am ong others, w ould have con sid ered it ab ­ surd. A s w e shall see, the idea o f human m oral eq uality flourished am o n g converts to Christianity, many o f w hom , especially slaves and w om en , w ere anything but equal u nd er R om an law.

So m e Christians today, o f course, in vok e G en esis against the th eory o f evo lu tio n , criticizing the claims o f scientific o b jec tiv ity and the relative valu es they associate with “ secular hum anism ’ ’ ; many insist that the creation story validates their o w n social and sexual attitudes. L ib eral critics accuse such interpreters o f literalism ; and it is true that such b elievers often insist that they understand p erfectly w ell w hat “ the B ib le says,” without con siderin g that w hat they as­ sum e it m eans m ay d iffer entirely from w hat others— even their Christian pred ecesso rs— have taken it to m ean. Y e t such evan g elical Christians intu itively understand one thing that their critics often miss: that the biblical creation story, like the creation stories o f other cultures, com m unicates social and religiou s values and presents them as if th e y w e r e u n iv e rs a lly v a lid . M a n y p e o p le w ho have— intellectu­ ally, at least— discarded the creation story as a m ere fo lk tale n e v e r­ theless find them selves en gaged with its m oral im plications co n cern in g procreation , animals, w ork , m arriage, and the human striving to “ su b d u e” the earth and “ have d o m in io n ” o v e r all its creatures (G e n e sis 1:2 8 ) .

T h is b ook e xp lo res, am ong oth er things, h o w these Christian interpretations o f G en esis em erged in the first fo u r cen tu ries, and h ow Christians in voked the story o f A dam and E v e to justify and establish their beliefs; how they saw their ow n situations, th eir suf­ ferin g s, and their hopes m irrored in the story o f the creation and the fall. I h ave not, by any m eans, w ritten a history o f early C hristian ity; instead, I am interested in a process o f intellectual history— h ow these ideas o f sexuality and m oral equality, am on g o th ers, cam e about; and I am interested in the herm eneutical process— h o w C h ris­ tians read the story o f A d am and E v e , and often p ro jected them selves

♦ x x ♦

I n t r o d u c t i o n

into it, as a w ay o f reflecting upon such matters as sexu ality, hum an freed o m , and human nature.

A s I began to exp lo re these questions, both substantive and herm en eutical, I soon disco vered that Je w s and Christians in vario u s times and places have read the creation story— and its practical im ­ plications— quite d ifferen tly, som etim es even antithetically. W hat Christians see, o r claim to see, in G en esis 1 - 3 chan ged as the church itself changed fro m a dissident Je w ish sect to a po p u lar m ovem en t persecuted by the R om an govern m en t, and changed fu rth er as this m ovem en t in creasingly gained m em bers throughou t R o m an society, until finally even the R om an em p ero r h im self c on verted to the new faith and C hristianity becam e the official relig io n o f the R om an Em pire.

D u rin g recent decades, several distinguished scholars, includ­ ing P rofessors R o b e rt M . G ran t, G e o rg e s de Ste. C ro ix , R am say M acM u llen , W ayn e M eek s, and Paul V e y n e , have pointed out that Christians w e re in m any w ays sim ilar to their pagan n eig h b o rs.2 T h e ir w ork s docum ent, am ong other things, social, political, ec o ­ nom ic, and cultural parallels that I have not re v ie w e d here. Instead I focus upon w ays in which Christians differed from pagans, or claim ed to d iffer— w hat m ade them, in oth er w ord s, specifically Christian w ithin the pagan w o rld ; I am interested, in T e rtu llia n ’s w ord s, in the “ peculiarities o f the Christian so c ie ty .” 3

In each chapter I take up a theme that Christians attem pted to understand o r justify by means o f the creation story. Je w is h teachers o f Je s u s ’ time and e arlier, as I show in C hapter 1 , often in vok ed the story o f A d am and E v e to defend Je w ish sexual practices ran gin g fro m ab h o rren ce o f public nakedness (fo r G o d clothed A d am and E v e in P arad ise) to marital practices design ed to facilitate rep ro d u c­ tion (fo r h ad n ’t G o d said, “ B e fruitful and m ultiply, and fill the earth ” ?). T h e se Je w is h teachers noted that G en e sis contains not one but two distinct accounts o f creation, o f which the first begins with the o p en in g chapter o f G en esis and tells how G o d created the w orld in six days, crow n in g his achievem ent by creating adam— that is, hum anity— in his im age (G en esis 1:2 6 ) . B u t this account ends with G en esis 2 :3 ; and the fo llo w in g verse, G en esis 2 :4 , b egin s a different narrative. T h is second story tells how the L ord m ade a man out o f earth, and, after m aking all the animals and finding none o f them a suitable com panion fo r A d am , he put A d am to sleep, brou ght w om an out o f his side, and presented her to A d am as his w ife. T h e

♦ x x i ♦

I n t r o d u c t i o n

w om an then persu aded h er husband to d iso b ey d ivin e law and earn ed w ith him their expulsion from P aradise.

M o st biblical scholars today a g re e that the tw o creation ac­ counts, o rig in ally separate, w ere later join ed to m ake up the first three chapters o f G en esis. T h e story o f A d am and E v e (G e n e sis 2 : 4 0 , told in the lan gu age o f fo lk lo re, is considered the o ld e r o f the tw o accounts, dating to 1 0 0 0 - 9 0 0 B .C .E .; the account n ow placed first (G e n e sis 1 : 1 - 2 : 3 ) dates to postexilic theologians (c. 4 0 0 B .C .E .). Je w is h teachers in antiquity, like m any Christians after them , turned to th eo lo gical in gen u ity rather than historical o r literary analysis to account fo r contradictions in the texts.

A c c o rd in g to N e w Testam ent accounts, Je s u s h im self m en­ tioned the story o f A dam and E v e o nly once; and, lik e m any oth er Je w is h teachers, Je su s used G en esis to m ake a m oral point— specifi­ cally, to an sw er a practical question put to him by the P h arisees, the in terpreters o f Je w is h law , about the legitim ate gro u n d s fo r d ivo rce. J e s u s ’ rep ly— that what G o d has join ed togeth er, let no o n e put asunder— shocked his questioners, fo r instead o f an sw erin g the q u es­ tion he had been asked about th e grounds fo r d iv o rce, he sim ply ruled out d iv o rc e altogeth er. Since procreation was assum ed by many Je w s to be the p u rp o se o f m arriage, and since Je w is h tradition had taken d iv o rc e fo r gran ted as a m ale p rero g ativ e— and som etim es as a neces­ sity, in cases o f a w ife ’s infertility—Je s u s ’ an sw er to the P h arisees b ro k e w ith Je w is h teaching. W hen even his ow n fo llo w ers objected ( “ I f su ch is the case o f a m an w ith his w ife , it is n o t e x p e d ie n t to m a rry ’ ’ ), Je s u s must have startled them even m o re than he had the P h arisees b y su ggestin g that ceiibacy “ fo r the sake o f the K in g d o m o f H e a v e n ’ ’ m ay, in fact, be p referab le to m arriage (M atth ew 1 9 : 1 0 - 1 2 ) . F o r g en eratio n s— e v e n m illennia— e v er since, C hristians have been trying to w o rk out the practical im plications o f such sayings, and those o f P au l, Je s u s ’ zealous disciple.

P au l him self, som e twenty years after Je s u s ' death, u rged an eve n m ore austere discipline upon his fo llo w e rs than Je s u s had preach ed . A lth o u g h Paul ackn ow led ged that m arriag e was not sin ( 1 C orinthians 7 :3 ) , he en cou raged those w ho w e re ab le to ren ou n ce it to d o so. P aul in voked the creation account to u rg e C hristians to avo id prostitution ( 1 C orinthians 6 : 1 5 - 2 0 ) , and later to a rg u e that w o m en must v e il their heads in church, apparently to ack n o w le d g e their su bordination to m en as a kind o f d ivin e o rd e r g iv e n in nature ( “ F o r man was not m ade from w om an, but w om an fro m man. N e i­ ther w as man created fo r w om an, but w om an fo r m an ,’ ’ 1 C o rin th i­

♦ x x i i ♦

I n t r o d u c t i o n

ans 1 1 : 3 - 1 6 ) . In the gen eration s fo llo w in g P au l, C hristians fiercely debated w hat the apostle meant. Som e insisted that o n ly those w ho “ u nd o the sin o f A d am and E v e ” by practicing celibacy— even w ithin m arriage— can truly practice the go sp el. O thers, w h o w e re to predom in ate w ithin the m ajority o f churches, rejected such austerity and com p osed , in P a u l’s nam e, other letters, later in corporated into the N e w T estam en t as if Paul h im self had w ritten them , w hich used the story o f A d am and E v e to support traditional m arriage and to p ro v e that w om en , b ein g naturally g u llib le, are unfit fo r any ro le but raising ch ild ren and keep in g house (see, fo r exam p le, 1 T im o th y 2 : 1 1 —1 5 ) ; thus the story o f Eden was m ade to rein fo rce the patriar­ chal structure o f com m unity life.

B u t the m ajority o f Christians, as I also show in C h ap ter 1 , rejected the claim m ade by radical Christians that the sin o f A dam and E v e w as sexual— that the fo rb id d en “ fruit o f the tree o f k n o w l­ e d g e ” c o n v e y e d , ab o ve all, carnal k n ow led ge. O n the con trary, said C lem ent o f A le x a n d ria (c. 18 0 C . E . ) , conscious participation in p ro ­ creation is “ cooperation with G o d in the w o rk o f c re a tio n .” A d a m ’s sin was not sexual in dulgence but d iso b edien ce; thus C lem en t agreed with most o f his Je w is h and Christian con tem poraries that the real them e o f the story o f A dam and E v e is m oral free d o m and m oral respon sibility. Its point is to show that w e are respon sib le fo r the choices w e fre e ly m ake— g o o d o r e v il— just as A d am was.

In C h ap ter 2 I show how Christians also began to app ly the creation account to their ow n precarious political situation, in w hich they w ere constantly subject to persecution by the R om an authorities. A b o u t on e hundred years after Je s u s ’ death, w hen m any Christians lived in fear o f a sim ilar fate— arrest, tortu re, and e x e c u ­ tion— fo r refu sin g o rdin ary allegiance to the em p ero r and the go d s, the Christian ph ilosop h er Ju stin invoked G en esis to a rg u e that hum ankind o w es allegian ce only to the G o d w ho created ail hum an­ ity— the G o d o f Israel, now the G o d o f the Christians— and not to the g o d s o f R o m e , w hom Ju stin denounced as dem ons. Ju stin turned G e n esis 6, which tells o f the fall o f the an gels, into an indictm ent o f the R om an em perors and their gods; fo r these d ign itaries w ere, Ju stin said, n on e oth er than the dem on offsp rin g o f the fallen angels.

A b o u t tw enty years after Ju stin had been b eheaded fo r refu sin g to w orship the R om an g o d s, C lem ent o f A le x a n d ria took the state­ m ent that G o d had created hum anity in his im age as e v id en ce o f human eq uality— and as an indictm ent o f the im p erial cult. From such beginn in gs, in open defiance o f the totalitarian R om an state,

♦ x x i i i ♦

I n t r o d u c t i o n

and often m et w ith brutal vio len ce, Christians fo rg e d the basis fo r w hat w o u ld b ecom e, centuries later, the w estern ideas o f freed o m and o f the infinite valu e o f each human life.

C lem en t realized, too, that certain inquirin g and restless C h ris­ tians saw in the G e n e sis story not on ly sexual and political im plica­ tions but distu rb in g philosophical and religio u s ones as w ell. H o w could an all-p ow erfu l G o d have created the w orld “ g o o d ” w h en w e find in it so m uch sufferin g? W hence cam e the serpent? W hy did G o d b e g ru d g e A d am and E v e the k n o w led ge that even he adm itted w ou ld m ake them “ like o n e o f u s” (G e n e sis 3 :2 2 ) ? Such questions, and the u n d erlyin g o n e, unde malum ( “ W hence is e v il? ” ), w e re , the Christian w rite r T ertu llian said, “ the questions that m ake p eo p le h e re tics.”

In C h ap ter 3 I exp lo re how som e o f these fo llo w ers o f Je su s, often called gnostics, read the story o f A dam and E v e in w ays that dism ayed and ou traged o rth o d o x Christians. F o r gn ostic Christians d eclared that the story, taken literally, m ade no sense; thus they them selves set out to read it sym bolically, often alleg o ric ally . T h e most radical gnostics turned the story upside d o w n and told it, in effect, fro m the serp en t’s point o f view : som e said he was “ w ise r” than all the o th er animals and so tried desperately to p ersu ad e A dam and E v e to partake o f the tree o f k n o w led g e, d e fy in g their jealous and hostile creator; this w ise serpent, som e dared say, was a m anifes­ tation o f C h rist him self! O th er gnostics read the story o f A d am and E v e as an a lle g o r y o f re lig io u s e x p e r ie n c e , as r e la tin g th e d is c o v e r y o f the authentic spiritual se lf (E v e ) hidden w ithin the soul (A d a m ). T h e gn ostic author o f the Interpretation o f the Soul saw E v e as re p re ­ senting the alienated soul seeking spiritual u n ion ; the au thor o f Thunder: Perfect M in d saw her as the d ivin e e n e rg y u n d erlyin g ail existen ce, hum an and d ivin e. G n o stic Christians, w h o d isagreed with o n e an oth er on alm ost everyth in g else, agreed that this n aive story hid p ro fo u n d truths about human nature, and they v ied with one an o th er to com e up with ingenious and im agin ative interpretations o f its d e e p e r m eaning.

L ead ers o f the church w h o called them selves o rth o d o x (literally , “ straight-thinking” ) Christians den oun ced such interpretations and accused gnostics o f p ro jectin g their ow n bizarre fantasies upon the text. A b o v e all, they said, gnostic Christians den y the p rim ary reality o f the G e n e sis account— nam ely, that it depicts hum anity created m orally fre e and entrusted with free w ill. G n o stic C hristian s, w ho d en ied that the hum an w ill has the p o w er to p reven t e r r o r and

♦ x x i v ♦

I n t r o d u c t i o n

sufferin g, also d en ied , in effect, that baptism fu lly d eliv e rs us from sin and su fferin g and restores ou r m oral freed o m , and fo r this reason, am on g oth ers, the gnostics w ere exp elled by the leaders o f the church and consigned to oblivion.

A s the Christian m ovem ent in creasingly g ain ed con verts throughout R om an society d u rin g the third and fourth centuries, som e o f the m ost ardent Christians insisted that to realize the greatest freed o m on e must “ renounce the w o rld ’ ’ and ch o ose p o verty and celibacy. F o r certain Christians, celibacy was a w ay o f rejectin g R om an social life. In G en esis 1 - 3 , w h ere Je w s — and m any C h ris­ tians, fo r that matter— traditionally saw G o d ’s en dorsem en t o f m ar­ riag e and p rocreation , ascetic Christians saw the opposite: A d am and E v e w ere virgin s in Paradise and should have rem ained so; as G r e g ­ o ry o f N yssa e xp lain ed , G o d could have arran ged fo r the human race to “ m u ltip ly” in com pletely nonsexual w ays, as an gels do. B u t w hen one R om an m onk, Jo v in ia n , although h im self celibate, tried to p ro v e from the Scriptures that celibate Christians w ere no h o lier than their m arried sisters and brothers, Je ro m e , A m b ro se, and A u gu stin e, three future saints o f the church, attacked him , w h ile P o p e Siricius o f R o m e denounced and excom m unicated Jo v in ia n fo r his “ h e r e s y .” In C h apter 4 I e x p lo re what m otivated men— and especially w om en — to em brace that ascetic life; and w hat kinds o f freed o m its advocates did indeed find in choosin g celibacy.

From these exploration s I cam e to see that fo r n early the first fo u r hundred years o f our era, Christians reg ard e d freedom as the prim ary m essage o f G en esis 1 - 3 — freedom in its m any form s, in clu d ­ ing fre e w ill, freed o m from dem onic p o w ers, freed o m from social and sexual obligation s, freedom from tyrannical g o v e rn m e n t and from fate; and self-m astery as the source o f such freed o m . W ith A u gu stin e, as I show in C hapter 5, this m essage ch an ged. In the late fourth century, A u g u stin e was livin g in an en tirely differen t C h ris­ tian w o rld — o n e that Ju stin and his con tem poraries could hardly have im agin ed— fo r Christianity was no lo n g e r a dissident sect. T h e Christian m ovem ent, having been oppressed and persecu ted by R o m e fo r som e three hundred years, o v e r several gen eratio n s, with C o n stan tin e’s con version in 3 1 3 , came into im perial fa v o r and, throughout the later fourth century, consolidated its n ew position as the official relig io n o f the em pire. Christian bishops, on ce targets fo r arrest, torture, and execu tion , now received tax exem ptio n s, gifts from the im perial treasury, p restige, and ev en in flu en ce at court; their churches gain ed n ew w ealth, p o w er, and prom in en ce. So m e

* x x v ♦

I n t r o d u c t i o n

Christians, w ho on ce defiantly proclaim ed their fre ed o m against their persecutors, now found that their old rhetoric— and e ven their traditional understanding o f human nature and its relation to social and political o rd e r— no lo n g er applied to this new circum stance, w hich m ade them allies o f the em pero r. In a w orld in w hich C h ris­ tians not o n ly w e re free to fo llo w their faith but w e re officially en co u raged to d o so, A ugu stin e cam e to read the story o f A d am and E v e v e ry d ifferen tly than had the m ajority o f his Je w is h and Christian predecessors. W hat they had read fo r centuries as a story o f human freed o m becam e, in his hands, a story o f human bon dage. M ost Je w s and Christians had agreed that G o d g a v e hum ankind in creation the g ift o f m oral freed o m , and that A d a m ’s misuse o f it b ro u gh t death upon his p ro g e n y . B u t A u gu stin e w ent further: A d a m ’s sin not only caused o u r m ortality but cost us o u r m oral free d o m , irreve rsib ly corru pted o u r exp erien ce o f sexuality (w hich A u g u stin e tended to identify with o rigin al sin), and m ade us incapable o f g en u in e political freed o m . Fu rth erm ore, A u gu stin e read back into P a u l’s letters his ow n teaching o f the m oral im potence o f the human w ill,4 alo n g with his sexualized interpretation o f sin.

A u g u stin e ’s theory o f original sin not o nly p ro v e d politically exp ed ien t, since it persuaded many o f his con tem poraries that human b eings u n iversally need extern al go vern m en t— w hich m eant, in their case, both a Christian state and an im perially supported church— but also offered an analysis o f human nature that becam e, fo r better and w o rse, the h eritage o f all subsequent gen eratio n s o f w estern C h ris­ tians and the m ajor influence on their psychological and political thinking. E ven today, many p eo p le, Catholics and Protestants alike, regard the story o f A dam and E v e as virtually synonym ous with o rig in al sin. D u rin g A u g u stin e ’s ow n lifetim e, as w e shall see, v a ri­ ous Christians objected to his radical theory, and oth ers bitterly contested it; but within the next few gen eration s, Christians w ho held to m ore traditional view s o f human freed om w e re them selves con dem n ed as heretics.

A u g u stin e spent the last tw elve years o f his life battling fo r his interpretation o f G en esis against a yo u n g Christian bishop, Ju lia n o f Eclanum , w ho attacked and criticized his theory o f o rig in al sin not on ly as an abrupt d epartu re from o rth o d o x Christian thought but as M anichaean heresy, the v e ry heresy that A u g u stin e had once ad ­ m ired and later attacked. W hen Ju lia n challenged A u g u stin e to defin e w hat is “ n atu re” — human nature and nature in g e n e ra l— A u g u stin e rep lied that m ortality and sexual d esire are not “ n atu ral” ;

♦ x x v i ♦

I n t r o d u c t i o n

both, he insists, en tered into human e xp erien ce o n ly to punish A d a m ’s sin. C h apter 6 considers this debate on the nature o f nature and suggests w ays in w hich A u g u stin e’s view s— antinatural and e ven p rep ostero us as they w ill appear to m any readers— n everth eless b e­ cam e d eep ly rooted in ou r cultural attitudes tow ard su fferin g and death.

O n e o f m y colleagu es, m isunderstanding the v iew p o in t p r e ­ sented here and in my p revio u s b ook, The Gnostic Gospels, has o b ­ jected that religio u s ideas cannot be reduced to practical (o r, in his w o rd s, political) agendas. O n this I w h oleh earted ly a g re e w ith him. I am not saying that religio u s ideas are nothing but a c o v e r fo r political m o tives, as if, fo r exam ple, Christians in the fourth century first chose to join forces with the R om an state and then adopted the doctrine o f o rigin al sin to justify their new political direction . In ­ stead, I intend to show that religiou s insights and m oral choices, in actual exp e rie n c e, coin cide with practical ones. Scholars and th eo lo ­ gians may separate them theoretically, but at the cost o f d istortin g o u r understanding: in o u r actual exp erien ce— as in that o f Christians in the first fo u r centuries— m oral choices often are political choices. A n act o f religio u s affirmation is always, in som e sense, a practical and consequential act.

So m e readers may ask, “ A r e you saying, then, that biblical interpretation is nothing but projection? Is exegesis (w h at o n e reads out o f the text) m erely eisegesis (read in g into the te x t)? ” C ertain ly not; but an yon e con cern ed with the history o f herm eneutics co n ­ fronts the question o f interpretation, a question biblical in terp reters share with law yers w h o debate the m eaning o f the C onstitution, with psychiatrists as they reflect upon their interpretation o f case histories, and with an thropologists and historians w ho p o n d er their data. W hat I am thinking o f is w hat the anthropologist Foucault calls “ the p o li­ tics o f truth” — that is, that what each o f us p erceives and acts upon as true has m uch to do w ith o u r situation, social, political, cultural, religio u s, o r philosophical.

T h o se w h o are unfam iliar with biblical interpretation o r cynical about it m ay assum e that the controversies and d iv e rg in g in terp reta­ tions described h ere m erely confirm what they h ave suspected all alon g: that biblical interpretation is no m ore than id e o lo g y u n d er a d ifferent nam e. Y e t those w ho seriously con fron t the B ib le w ill realize that g en u in e interpretation has alw ays req u ired that the read er actively and im agin atively en g ag e the texts. T h ro u g h the process o f in terpretation, the re a d e r’s livin g e xp erien c e com es to be

♦ x x v i i ♦

I n t r o d u c t i o n

w o ven into ancient texts, so that what was “ dead le tte r” again com es to life.

W hat I intend to show in this b oo k is how certain ideas— in particular, ideas con cern in g sexuality, m oral fre e d o m , and hum an valu e— took th eir defin itive form d u rin g the first fo u r centuries as interpretations o f the G en esis creation stories, and h ow they have continued to affect our culture and e v e ry o n e in it, C hristian o r not, e v e r since.

♦ x x v i i i ♦