01/25/22

Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) “The Genesis of Good and Evil” (Part 6 of 16)

0030 In chapter two, Mark Smith addresses the question, “What is the original sin in Genesis 3, according to Scripture and Christian theologians?”

What do the authors of Wisdom of Solomon 2:24, as well as Saint Paul, Saint Augustine and John Calvin, retrieve from Genesis 3?

0031 What do I mean by the word, “retrieve”?

The reader is an actuality_2b, virtually situating the author_2a, the intersection of insight_2V and conditions_2H. The reader_2bemerges from (and situates) the potential of interpretation_1b, in the normal context of retrieve_3b.

Ah, the reader_2b retrieves the author_2a’s insights_2V and conditions_2H.

0032 The two-level interscope is introduced in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction (available at the smashwords website and other sites that market e-works).

Here is a picture for the reader and the author.

0033 Deuterocanonical texts, such as the Wisdom of Solomon, are not clear about the nature of Adam and Eve’s transgression.

Neither is Saint Paul, who writes a typology. Adam is the type of the one who fell. Jesus is the type of the one who is risen.

0034 Saint Augustine proposes that original sin arises in the realm of potential within Adam and Eve, then enters into actuality after the serpent closes the pitch. Yes, the sales pitch. The potential consists of pride, welling up within Adam and Eve. It is like a boil. First, it wells up below the surface. Then, it ruptures.

Augustine concludes that an infection of pride condemns all of us because we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. Original sin is like a sexually transmitted disease.

Augustine’s diagnosis… er… interpretation covers both insight_2V and conditions_2H. The insight_2V is pride as a motive for sin. The condition_2H is infection and transmission.

0035 John Calvin, after assessing many options, claims that the sin of Adam’s transgression is unfaithfulness. His approach to this conclusion is noteworthy. He retrieves early Christian authors. Then, he retrieves the gospels and letters of Paul. Then he retrieves the Old Testament. What does he unearth? Mark Smith is precise, saying, “The understanding of the conditions of human sin informs Calvin’s understanding of the origins of sin.” Calvin illuminates conditions_2H.

0036 So, Adam’s transgression is like a pustulating infection_2V, where pride seethes beneath the surface then ruptures into rebellion against God’s command. The conditions_2H are unfaithfulness. Then, the infection transmits from one generation to the next, through acts of procreation.

01/24/22

Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) “The Genesis of Good and Evil” (Part 7 of 16)

0037 In chapter three, Mark Smith asks, “What do contemporary scholars say?”

0038 Clearly, without Saint Paul, original sin does not swim below the surface of consciousness, like a fish waiting to catch the eye of Saint Augustine.

0039 Contemporary scholars suggest that Adam and Eve know not what they do. Where have I heard that before? They cannot be culpable for disobeying God’s command not to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,because they do not know good and evil.

The logic is circular. But, it is hard to refute.

0040 Interpretation_1b, the potential underlying the reader’s acquisition of meaning, presence and message from the author_2a, retrieves an intersection of insight_2V and conditions_2H. That is what the author_2a is! The author_2b is an intersection, arising from the fusion two actualities.

0041 So, who is the author?

During the centuries after the exile, when the Scriptures are compiled, the authors are the ones gathering material for redaction. They have a lot to work with, because the bards of Israel actively draw on sources from throughout the region, weaving them together in cogent and coherent narratives. The bards of Israel bring the stories of Adam and Eve out of their domestic tradition. The bards of Israel dramatically render Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Oh, and you know about Joseph! The bards of Israel remind me of Joseph. The bards of Israel outperform the priestly class. They are not dull and ritual oriented. They wear cloaks of many colors. Their garments are seamless. And, their reputations are colorful and seamy.

0042 Centuries later, Jesus steps into their sandals.

One of the remarkable features of the gospels is how they do not recite the stories in the Scriptures, even though such recitations may have been the bulk of Jesus’ orations. Audiences hear the same stories from Jesus as from any other bard (or “wandering preacher”). Plus, with Jesus, there is more. The kingdom of God is at hand, in the Word made flesh, not the script made permanent. The parables, the analogies and the lessons of Jesus, offered to his admirers, come like fireworks at the end of an event. The event is the telling of the stories of Israel. The stories raise the questions that Jesus addresses. What is the kingdom of God?

0043 The bards do not write. They recite. They are held to strict account by their audiences. That includes women who tell their children the traditional fairy tales. These women are the condition_2H that preserves the early Genesis stories through millennia, starting with the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia. Not the start of the Ubaid, when the world still seems like paradise. Rather, later, when labor and social specializations generate inequalities so great that nothing seems quite right.

Adam and Eve are fairy-tale figures who, like so many fairy-tale figures, capture an archetypal image of an event that cannot be properly pieced together. Why? Changes occur over generations. No one knows what exactly is going on. But, the fairy-tale figures indicate that ‘something’ is going on and this ‘something’ has to do with their drama.

01/22/22

Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) “The Genesis of Good and Evil” (Part 8 of 16)

0044 What happens when the Ubaid begins?

The following claims are stated plainly in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace. They are dramatized in An Archaeology of the Fall. Both e-works are available at smashwords and other electronic-book venues. Search Razie Mah along with the title.

The Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia first appears on the edges of the newly filled Persian Gulf. The Ubaid is similar to all the Developed Neolithic villages of the day, except for one difference. The Ubaid practices speech-alone talk. All other cultures practice hand-speech talk.

In hand-speech talk, the referent is imaged or indicated by the gesture-word. In speech-alone talk, spoken words are pure symbols, labels that can be attached to the part, as well as to the whole. The semiotic world of the Ubaid is correspondingly out of kilter. Speech-alone talk can fashion words for things that cannot be pictured or pointed to in hand talk.

Consider the word, “wheel”. The wheel does not appear in nature. How can hand-speech talk picture or point to a wheel? Instead, the rotary motion that goes into making pottery gains a spoken name. Then, an artifact is built that validates the name. The Uruk period, following the Ubaid, invents the wheel.

Different producers develop specialized languages, increasing their innovation and productivity. Different social circles find new ways to organize, increasing their capacities for regimentation and coordinated action. The Ubaid becomes rich and powerful. The subsequent Uruk period is more rich and more powerful. The Sumerian Dynastic is labeled, “civilization”.

These sociological trends take place over thousands of years. They are difficult to fathom. No one really can figure out what is happening. But, whatever it is, it does not stop. Soon enough, the present erases the past. Then, the present erases the past, over and over and over. It is like a pustule that festers, then ruptures, festers, then ruptures, over and over. Each iteration is different. Each iteration is more uncanny.

0046 The Epic of Gilgamesh recounts the adventures of a king, who lives (according to many intelligent guesses) around 4500 years ago. The Ubaid coalesces around 7800 years ago. Let me imagine that a complete overturning of the established order occurs each time the conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn move into a new element, around every 200 years. In the 3300 years between the start of the Ubaid and King Gilgamesh, sixteen complete turnovers occur. How can anyone comprehend the changes?

Yet, the fairy tales of Adam and Eve convey the nature of this social process. There is a definite beginning, in a idyllic garden. A threshold is crossed, the garden is lost. Then, another threshold is crossed. Cain kills Abel. Then, another threshold is crossed. Lamech, with two wives, murders a man with none. Then, the genealogies begin. One name follows another. The lengths of the lives call to mind the slow grinding of the heavenly spheres. One overturning follows another.

0047 Today, we are blessed with novel, otherwise invisible celestial timekeepers. Uranus, 84 year orbit, associates to revolutions. Neptune, 165 year orbit, links to dreamy oceanic spirits of the age. Dwarf Pluto, 248 year orbit, goes with the trees of life and death. The years of discovery oddly reinforce astrological associations. They are 1781, 1846 and 1930, respectively. Think French Revolution (1791), the Communist Manifesto (published 1848) and America’s big stock market crash (1929).

The stars and the planets are telling. Recall, Satan, the one who is defeated in the first half of the grand sweep of Paradise Lost, is a stellar angel, at first. Now, he sells faithlessness, to us, just as he did to Eve.

0048 The conditions that define the authors of Genesis 3 touch base with the reactions of mothers, in the tradition of Seth, within the Ubaid, to ever increasing social complexity. Each story is like the completion of a spiraling development, like royalty (Jupiter) having to meet time (Saturn), like the cycle of peace and revolution (Uranus), like popular movements, rising like islands, then drowning in a sea of their own contradictions (Neptune) and like a long, treacherous trek between the tree of life and the tree of death (Pluto). The cycles spiral because labor and social specializations are always innovating.

The fairy tales of Adam and Eve point to the start of our current Lebenswelt.

01/21/22

Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) “The Genesis of Good and Evil” (Part 9 of 16)

0049 What do contemporary scholars say about the emblematic trees?

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil raises the question of human wisdom and discernment.

The tree of life raises the question of human immortality, or lack thereof.

0050 Perhaps, there are other lessons as well.

If the stories of Adam and Eve are fairy tales about the one-way increase in social complexity that characterizes the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia, made possible by the realization of speech-alone talk, then the women of Seth may be onto something.

Speech-alone talk projects meanings, presences and messages into spoken words. Then, culture constructs artifacts that validate those projections. Surely, the nameless and feminine authors of the Genesis fairy tale do the same with the fabled trees. The trees are artifacts that validate their projections. This is a condition_2H.

0051 Speech-alone talk exists as two arbitrarily related systems of differences.

The key term is “differences”.

So, what is the tree of life different than?

Obviously, the tree of death.

What is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil different than?

The tree of the lack of such knowledge? The tree of innocence?

0052 Why are the trees of death and innocence not mentioned?

They are projected as shadows onto the trees that are mentioned.

Eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and you will surely die.

Eat of the fruit of the tree of innocence and you will surely live.

0053 God’s command to Adam is sound advice.

But, it is the other advice that God does not speak, because He knows the truth.

0054 Speech-alone talk fosters unconstrained social complexity. The adoption of speech-alone talk is a one-way street.

Today, no one wants the internet to go off, despite its dangers. Two generations ago, nobody wants the electricity to fail. A hundred years before that, railroads and steamships are necessities. These types of statements go back to the start of the Ubaid, where people learn to trade before the temple. Technical and social innovations produce more wealth and more power. Consequently, speech-alone talk spreads from the Ubaid to surrounding hand-speech talking cultures. It flies on wings of mimicry. Today, as with the Ubaid, all civilizations practice speech-alone talk.

0055 So, what is the truth?

There is no return to the innocence and the life of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. The portal is closed.

The women of Seth acknowledge this. They see people gaining knowledge all around them, as novel specialties arise, flourish, then are replaced by further innovations. They see new insights gain fashion, order society, then go berserk. They see people leaving small villages and migrating to larger ones, if only for their own protection. The old ways no longer offer security.

0056 The women of Seth somehow grasp the Ubaid in their fairy tales. God is correct. Once the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is consumed, we can become like the gods, because we may devise ways to live forever and to be all controlling. Self-anointed human gods may be aided by the tree of life, pruned into the tree of the innocence of others.

But, more worrisome, the tree of life offers an escape from the dreary technicalities and the nightmarish machinations of speech-alone talk and all that it actualizes. Adam and Eve are expelled from the garden in order to prevent an attempt to escape their divine fate, inspired by a delusion that we can return to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

0057 The women of Seth see the madness, through the passing generations. First, the crowds ridicule and kill the shamans of old. Who needs the timeless ways? Then, generations later, the crowds gather like sheep in the hope of a revival of a shaman of old. Then, a pretender guides them, as they move and become one with the animals. Then, a flaming sword, swerving in all directions, drives them to annihilate one another, along with everything that seems to prevent their return to bliss. This is an insight_2V.

There is no return to the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. We cannot eat from the tree of innocence, ever again.

01/20/22

Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) “The Genesis of Good and Evil” (Part 10 of 16)

0058 In chapter four, Mark Smith addresses the question, “Is Genesis 3 about human sin?”

After covering what modern scholars say about the text and conditions of Genesis 3, the question turns to production_3Hand writing_3V. Readers seek to interpret both the conditions_2H and the insights_2V of the author. These are tied to the author’s scope_1H and charism_1V.

As far as conditions go, I speculate that the conditions_2H include the increasing social complexity of the Ubaid villages, then the Uruk townships.

The authors are the daughters of Seth, who gradually compose the early stories of Genesis, as well as one for Noah, plus more. The stories are maintained by the women of Seth, then afterwards, the women of Israel. Then, the bards of Israel take them for their own, around the time of (or later than) Ezekiel.

0059 These conditions explain how the stories can be so ancient, yet showing the patina of post-exilic editing.

Plus, these conditions explain why the lessons of the Genesis 1 are declared in the time of Moses, while the lessons of the stories of Genesis 3 are ignored. Adam and Eve belong to the stories of the women, not the men, of Israel.

The bards of Israel account for why the stories of Adam and Eve find their way into the writing of Genesis. Their genius forces the redactor’s pen. But, the written scriptures are new, compared to the age of the oral tradition. Consequently, the stories of Adam and Eve make a dreamy impression in the time of the Second Temple.

The bards, the wandering preachers of Israel, also account for the conditions surrounding John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth. No one seems particularly surprised by their appearance. They recite the scriptures just like all bards do. The audiences attend to their words. The kingdom of God is at hand.

0060 These conditions are radically different than those intimated by Mark Smith and colleagues, who examine only the patina and not what might lie beneath. Smith wants to retrieve insights by considering only the surface conditions. His procedure is to begin with the explicit writing of Genesis 3, particularly concerning the choice of words.

0061 He starts with the word, “evil”, first mentioned in regards to the tree at the center of the garden. The scriptural Hebrew, ra’, means poor in quality and disagreeable, as well as wicked and harmful. For example, if a fruit is poisonous, then it is ra’. An inedible fruit would fit the idea where God commands Adam not to eat, if only for health reasons. But, this idea is dispelled as the story plays out.

0062 Then, there is the creation of woman from Adam’s rib. God fashions all sorts of animals, who get names, but none are sufficiently helpful. Adam tends a garden. Adam domesticates animals. They all live in paradise, offering a hint ofthe Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

God, not Adam, insists that it is not good that the human should be alone. He then fashions a woman from Adam’s rib. Adam is overjoyed at the introduction.

Here is the etiology of woman, according to the daughters of Seth, who tell fairy tales to their children, about the beginning.

01/19/22

Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) “The Genesis of Good and Evil” (Part 11 of 16)

0063 What does the woman want?

Trees are all over the garden. But, there are two notable botanical specimens. There is the tree of life, somewhere in the periphery. There is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, placed right in the center. So, I already know what the woman wants. She wants to be center stage.

0064 The tree in the center of the garden has not attracted Adam’s curiosity, so far. He is happy with a tasty garden, attentive domesticates, and the rib-helper. Wow, she is the most.

0065 Yes, the woman has desire. Sure, the trees are good for food and beautiful to behold. In Genesis 2:9, the author uses the word, “nechmad”, meaning desirable.

0066 Then, the woman enters into conversation with the serpent, who also has desires. Its desire is to manipulate her desire. He wants to pitch a sale. Immediately before Eve seals the deal, Eve notices that the fruit is “ta’awah” (desire) to the eyes and “nechmad” (desirable) to make one wise. Then, the serpent closes the pitch with a promise that the purchase will open her eyes. She will be like the gods, knowing good and evil.

0067 Then, Adam joins in and the eyes of both are opened.

They realize that they are exposed.

0068 This word, “teshuqah” (desire), shows up again in Eve’s chastisement, as well as in the Song of Songs. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the same word gains creepier overtones. The clay, within the human person, desires to return to dust. This is an insight_2V.

0069 But, what about the conditions_2H?

Is Genesis 3 about human sin?

Or, is it about giving one’s sons and daughters a little hint about the nature of desire?

There is a difference between desirable and desire. Plus, the serpent can close on both.

01/18/22

Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) “The Genesis of Good and Evil” (Part 12 of 16)

0070 In chapter five, Mark Smith asks, “When does the story of human sin begin in Genesis?”

0071 At this point, conditions further clarify.

The first audiences for the early stories of Genesis are children. The first authors are their mothers, the daughters of Seth. Eve is their great-great-…-great grandmother. The stories convey to each child this lineage, a direct descent to this mother, who is center stage. Eve is more than a foolish woman who talks to serpents. Eve is your mother as well.

0072 What does it mean to be a mother, a woman, cursed under Eve’s indictment?

A Primer on the Family presents the family as a prototype of the corporation, the content level of the organization tier. Eve, the woman, is the producer. Her man is the management. Her children are the service, or, in today’s terms, the human resources. Eve does not change the centrality of the mother. She magnifies it.

She offers a warning.

0073 The story of Eve’s temptation offers many lessons, including ones on the nature of desire. As Smith points out, Genesis 3 portrays a deeply disturbing psychological narrative. Don’t all good fairy tales?

Plus, I add, Eve’s narrative, along with other Genesis stories, captures the weirdness of the constellation of unconstrained social complexity during the Ubaid. Adam and Eve are made in paradise, eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and are expelled. Neither Genesis 2 nor 3 use the word, “sin”. The label, “evil”, is only mentioned in the name of the infamous tree.

Afterwards, Eve bears two children, Cain and Abel. Eve is the producer.

0074 “Sin” is mentioned in Genesis 4, along with the word for desire, “teshuqah”. Desire appears in the temptation of Eve and in her rebuke, where God says, “Your desire will be for your man.” Yes, the woman will desire her man to be her manager. There is no sin in that.

So, where does the word, “sin”, first appear?

When Cain, the gardener, complains about God preferring burnt offerings of meat, God offers a revealing repost, saying (more or less), “If you do what is right, you can bear it. If you do not do right, sin crouches at your door. Its desire (teshuqah) is for you, but you can rule over it.”

The word, “sin”, appears for the first time. It does so in conjunction with a desire that crouches, like a predator, at Cain’s threshold. Cain can rule it. Or, it can rule Cain.

We all know what happens next.

0075 The daughters of Seth do not pull punches. This conjunction of “sin” and “desire” is so provocative that I wonder, what child would not remember it, later, as an adult?

Even more intriguing is how this conjunction exposes a disquieting reality within the Ubaid’s spiral towards unconstrained social complexity. The idea of one brother killing the other is not out of the question. Why? Such killingis an artifact that validates what the murderous brother has been telling himself.

0076 In hand-speech talk, gesture-words picture or point to their referents. So, the words cannot lie about what they refer to.

In speech-alone talk, spoken words do not picture or point to their referents. Instead, we construct artifacts that validate our projection of meaning, presence and message. We speak, and the world comes into creation. Not just any creation. Our creation. Our imagination constructs artifacts that validate our spoken words.

0077 Oh, those damned artifacts.

When fatty portions are added to a fire, the fire jumps to life.

When cabbage is added to a fire, the fire smolders.

0078 One son does not talk to himself. Instead, he praises God.

The other mutters under his breath. He complains about God’s rejection of his artifacts.

0079 The children hear a fairy tale, telling them of dangers in their upcoming lives.

The mothers hear the tragedy of two sons, where one rules over his desires and the other does not.

0080 This is one of the poisonous fruits of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the tree of speech-alone talk. I can create my own world through my own symbolic actions that simultaneously do not honor God and open the door to the one whose desire is for my desire.

Sin crouches at Cain’s door. It desires to speak to him.

Behold the fruits of the tree of death.

01/17/22

Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) “The Genesis of Good and Evil” (Part 13 of 16)

0081 Mark Smith points out other links between Genesis 3 and 4.

When God rebukes Adam, He curses the ground.

When God confronts Cain, He says, “…now you are cursed from the ground…”

God expels Adam and Eve from Eden.

Cain replies to God, saying, “…you have driven me out…”

Adam and Eve settle east of Eden.

Cain goes to live in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

0082 Genesis 4 does not elaborate on the crouching sin. I suppose Abel’s murder is plain enough.

Smith notes that Abel’s offering is pleasing to the Lord.

Smith adds that God does not punish Cain for murdering Abel.

Smith does not say what happens next. He is tracking two words, “sin” and “evil”.

0083 However, what happens next provides insight into the author-ity of Genesis 4. After the murder, God gives Cain a mark, deterring others from killing Cain. Cain founds a city. Within a few generations, another murder occurs. Lamech, who has two wives, murders a man with none.

0084 Here is a critique of the social conditions of the Ubaid. Increasing labor and social specializations lead to greater wealth and power. The haves learn to take from the have nots.

01/15/22

Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) “The Genesis of Good and Evil” (Part 14 of 16)

0085 In chapter six, Mark Smith asks, “Where does human evil begin in Genesis?”

In Genesis 3, Eve takes the fruit.

In Genesis 6, divine sons take beautiful daughters.

0086 Genesis 6:2 describes divine males commandeering human females.

What does this mean?

An extrapolation from Lamech offers an answer. These men are “divine” in name only. These wealthy and powerful “gods” have designs on women who attract their attention.

Does this sound vaguely contemporary?

0087 Then, there is the word for design, “yester”.

In Genesis 6:5, God admits that every design of the thoughts of civilized hearts is only evil, continually.

In Genesis 8:21, God, having let loose the civilization-destroying flood, regrets the act, but does not change the diagnosis. The design (yester) of the human heart is to evil from its youth.

Its youth?

Think of the start of the Ubaid.

Unconstrained social complexity is a condiiton_2H.

0088 Yes, evil in Genesis, associates to design.

The same word, “yester”, appears in Genesis 2:7, when God designs a man from earthen materials.

Smith notes that “yester”, design, typically applies to craftsmanship. With the story of Noah, craftsmanship applies to thoughts. So I ask, “What tool shapes thought?” The answer is spoken words. This is an insight_2V.

0089 Various origin myths of the ancient Near East mention the Great Flood of Mesopotamia as a civilization-changing event. By the time of the flood, evil and design are already joined. Everyone knows it.

0090 As far as Mark Smith is concerned, by the end of chapter six, he covers the genesis of “evil”, “sin” and the fall(out). He has only “good” and “original sin” left.

01/14/22

Looking at Mark S. Smith’s Book (2019) “The Genesis of Good and Evil” (Part 15 of 16)

0091 In chapter seven, Mark Smith asks, “Are humans basically evil, according to Genesis?”

The question brings the reader back to the word, “good”, appearing in Genesis 1.

The question brings the reader forward to the term, “original sin”, a concept that swims right below the threshold of consciousness, after Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans.

0092 The condition of the early stories of Genesis is that of a family tradition, with enough continuity as to construct fairy tales about the thousands of years of increasing social complexity in the Ubaid and the Uruk, culminating in the Great Mesopotamian Flood, centuries before the start of the Sumerian Dynastic.

These stories are fairy tales, told to children in Seth’s family tradition for thousands of years. These stories are preserved by Sarah, who steps (along with Abraham) out of the Sumerian world, presumably during the tempestuous culmination of Ur III.

0093 There is something problematic about speech-alone talk. It facilitates unconstrained social complexity. It inclines humans towards sin and death.

Technically, if there is such a thing as original sin, then how could Abel and Enoch and Noah be good people from the start?

0094 What gives?

Original sin is all about the polarity between Adam’s greedy act and Jesus’s sacrifice. It is a way to describe the economy of salvation. Noah’s flood story says it all. The design of the thoughts of human hearts is continually evil. So, we sin. Plus, we repent of our sins. That is the nature of our current Lebenswelt.

0095 Smith proposes that the fairy tales of early Genesis are constructed backwards, within the Yahwist tradition, in order to provide a front end to the stories of Noah’s flood.

Such speculation seems viable when one is only looking at the Biblical text.

How easy it is to forget the oral traditions that leave no written trace.

How easy it is to erase such traces, for the ones who write the script.