Adam & Logic, Genesis 1, 2, 3, CCC teachings

[simpleas]

Actually, God didn’t tell Eve not to eat the fruit. He told Adam not to. There was nothing said by God as to what would happen if Eve ate the fruit and Adam did not.
Now notice, that when Eve alone had eaten of the fruit – her eyes were NOT opened.
The Septuagint Greek makes it very clear that first Eve ate the fruit (nothing happened), and then gave it to Adam. Immediately upon Adam eating, the curse took effect.

When God gives a law, he doesn’t interpret the punishment phase until the technicalities are fully met. This principle can be shown to be true in many different example cases throughout the whole bible.

Adam was the source of the body, or flesh, of his wife. So long as the original fountain and head of the body was not ill, it could continue to sanctify the wife; even if she ceased to be a believer.

St. Paul uses that very inference in 1Corinthians 7:14 “the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”

Notice: Holy or “clean” is not the same as saved; eg: Being clean but empty is not the same as indwelt by the Holy Spirit. See the parable in Luke 11:24-26.

Precisely because Adam was the source of the body of Eve, he was capable of regenerating/keeping his wife clean. Therefore, Christ Jesus, who comes to save us is able to cleanse the whole body, eg: the church. Why? Because Jesus becomes the source of pure flesh for the all those whom are saved. When we rise from the dead, we will be “like him.”

You’re not entirely wrong in saying that Eve received the punishment due to her own sin; but she transgressed, specifically, by giving the fruit to her husband who was with her.
That’s what triggered the punishment and curse. Eating it herself did nothing. That’s also additional evidence as to why Eve was so completely deceived. Notice also that Eve quotes the law given by God incorrectly in the first place. God did not say that touching the fruit would cause death. etc. Eve did not hear the law directly from God, but from Adam. Eve did not even exist when God told Adam the law.

There is more I could say, but I think this is enough to get you started thinking about the problem. Meditation is good.

St. Paul uses that very inference in 1Corinthians 7:14 “the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”

Far be it from me to challenge anyone on scripture quotes, but I don’t see the evidence as you suggest that the husband sanctifies the wife, the wife also sanctifies the husband according to 1 cor 7 12:16.

To point out only part of the verse seems a little miss leading IMO.

*12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?*

 

[grannymh]

Returning to post 65.

Is there anyone who can answer the question WHO IS ADAM? ? ? In simple sentences ? ? ?

Obviously, one can conclude that Adam is a man who has a mate (spouse) who is a woman. So …who is the man named Adam?

One of the first things I learned when I landed on CAF was that the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *is the greatest source of proper Catholic Church teachings. Spend some serious time at the CCC Index of Citations, *CCC *20-21, the cross-references in the margins, and chapter 14, Gospel of John.

In post 59, I presented an example which can be used to learn about Catholic teaching.
From post 59.

The nature of Adam’s temptation is in the first sentence of CCC 397. The temptation is to abuse his freedom.

The “Tree” in Genesis 2: 15-17 symbolically evokes Adam’s limits as a creature. To further understand CCC 397, there is *CCC *1707 as a cross-reference in the margin. Its first sentence is “Man, enticed by the Evil One, abused his freedom at the very beginning of history.”

Returning to chapter 1, book of Genesis, there is an amazing shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26. It is in this shift that the author signals the difference between material animals and human nature’s freedom to seek the Creator and more importantly to interact with the Creator. Genesis 1: 27. CCC 356-357. CCC 1730.

Genesis 1: 26 is a footnote to CCC 343.

**CCC 343 **Man is the summit of the Creator’s work, as the inspired account expresses by clearly distinguishing the creation of man from that of the other creatures.

All of the above is evidence for the Axioms in the opening post.

1. God as Creator exists. Genesis 1: 1
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human. Genesis 1: 26-27
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator. Genesis 1: 26-27

Interesting observation.
This morning, I discovered that I accidentally left out CCC 396. Apparently, readers accepted this sentence as Catholic truth without a citation.

The “Tree” in Genesis 2: 15-17 symbolically evokes Adam’s limits as a creature. .

 

[fhansen]

Going by Genesis and the Catechism we can surmise a variety of things about Adam. While gifted in ways that we cannot identify with, he was also very much like us in many ways. We share the same basic human nature and dignity, possessing reason, freedom and creativity, made in the image of God. We also share the capacity to sin. Adam was not God. Adam was “temptable”, capable of being enticed away from the perfection God would have for him. His knowledge and wisdom were apparently relative, not absolute and perfect as God’s. He could do wrong in any case, and experience guilt and shame because of it. We’re now born into a world lacking in innocence/righteousness/justice yet we’re also faced with temptations, with moral decisions; we can move closer to innocence and justice or further away from it. We can carry on the family tradition of Adam’s rebellion-repeating it- or turn back to the God he spurned.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Far be it from me to challenge anyone on scripture quotes, but I don’t see the evidence as you suggest that the husband sanctifies the wife, the wife also sanctifies the husband according to 1 cor 7 12:16.

To point out only part of the verse seems a little miss leading IMO.

No, not misleading.

Historically, Eve sinned before Adam. He did not actually eat the fruit until after she did. Therefore, His sanctification must still have been in effect when Eve had sinned.

If history had operated differently, and Adam sinned before Eve had; then we could test whether or not Eve could be the head of the human family. But as it is, we can not test that.

The law, again, was given to Adam directly by God. Eve did not exist. The asymmetry exists whether we like it or not. God said to “the man”, not “men” not “women”

I am amazed that you can look up the quote on sanctification, but can’t seem to find the quote on exactly how the law was given to Adam and Eve. Therefore, here it is in Genesis 2:16-17:

usccb.org/bible/genesis/2/

The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.h 16The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden*(“http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2/#01002016-i”) 17except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.* j 18The LORD God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him.* k

Notice that the woman is explicitly considered for creation only AFTER the man is given the law.

Nor is this a generic reference to men, but to a specific Man both in Hebrew and Greek. There is a definite article “The”, and the article is singular NOT plural.

biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/2-16.htm (Explicitly a singular “Ha Adam”, The Adam, or “The man” in Hebrew ).
ellopos.net/elpenor/physis/septuagint-genesis/2.asp?pg=2 (** καὶ ἐνετείλατο Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς τῷ ᾿Αδὰμ singular dative, “To-the Adam” )
**
Therefore: What I have said is not at all misleading.

Nor does 1 Corinthians 7 imply a complete historical salvation identity between the sexes; for the belief spoken of in those passages is in a male savior.

Note: The english CCC is not wrong either, for Eve was involved in Adam sinning. So his sin was affected by her being involved in the transgression.

so… now you tell me something that actually bears on the question at hand instead of bald accusations with little merit; What do you make of the fact that Eve ate the fruit first and her eyes were not opened during the time when she alone had eaten of the fruit? Do you have any logical inferences from scripture, or only speculation, as to why that happened ?

 

[grannymh]

Some helpful advice for those interested in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

CCC 396-406 needs to be seriously studied. It is also important to additionally study the Scripture references in the footnotes. More time can be used for the cross-references in the margins



Links to the universal Catechism of Catholic Church, Second Edition

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[grannymh]

Some helpful advice for those interested in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

CCC 396-406 needs to be seriously studied. It is also important to additionally study the Scripture references in the footnotes. More time can be used for the cross-references in the margins



Links to the universal Catechism of Catholic Church, Second Edition

usccb.org/beliefs-and-tea…tholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

​

 

[grannymh]

Going by Genesis and the Catechism we can surmise a variety of things about Adam. While gifted in ways that we cannot identify with, he was also very much like us in many ways. We share the same basic human nature and dignity, possessing reason, freedom and creativity, made in the image of God. We also share the capacity to sin. Adam was not God. Adam was “temptable”, capable of being enticed away from the perfection God would have for him. His knowledge and wisdom were apparently relative, not absolute and perfect as God’s. He could do wrong in any case, and experience guilt and shame because of it. We’re now born into a world lacking in innocence/righteousness/justice yet we’re also faced with temptations, with moral decisions; we can move closer to innocence and justice or further away from it. We can carry on the family tradition of Adam’s rebellion-repeating it- or turn back to the God he spurned.

Thank you.

Need clarification before I take a break from posting.

Just want to make sure that it is understood that Adam’s fully-complete human nature, with a conscience (CCC, Glossary, Conscience, page 872) included his knowledge of evil before he digested organic fruit.

The author of the first three chapters of Genesis absolutely knew that Adam knew. To understand the emphasize on the fact of Adam’s knowing both evil and good so that he could make an informed choice in Genesis chapter 3, one has to study Genesis 2: 15-17 from the Creator’s position and CCC 1730-1732 from Adam’s position.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you.

Need clarification before I take a break from posting. I have done the best I can.

Just want to make sure that it is understood that Adam’s fully-complete human nature, with a conscience (CCC, Glossary, Conscience, page 872) included his knowledge of evil before he digested organic fruit.

The author of the first three chapters of Genesis absolutely knew that Adam knew. To understand the emphasize on the fact of Adam’s knowing both evil and good so that he could make an informed choice in Genesis chapter 3, one has to study Genesis 2: 15-17 from the Creator’s position and CCC 1730-1732 from Adam’s position.

 

[fhansen]

Thank you.

Need clarification before I take a break from posting.

Just want to make sure that it is understood that Adam’s fully-complete human nature, with a conscience (CCC, Glossary, Conscience, page 872) included his knowledge of evil before he digested organic fruit.

The author of the first three chapters of Genesis absolutely knew that Adam knew. To understand the emphasize on the fact of Adam’s knowing both evil and good so that he could make an informed choice in Genesis chapter 3, one has to study Genesis 2: 15-17 from the Creator’s position and CCC 1730-1732 from Adam’s position.

Adam could discern evil if and when he perceived it-which he had never done prior to his own sin. At that moment he, himself, stood outside the will and grace of God, which is an evil state by definition. So before that, he did not know evil as an* experience*-he had no need to-and I’ll continue to insist that knowledge here-in reference to the tree, means just that: the direct experience of evil. And without that knowledge of evil the term “good” had no meaning, as there was no evil to contrast it with; good was the norm.

Adam was intelligent, gifted, and innocent, as he should’ve been. The whole world that we now inhabit is no longer innocent. Innocence does not make one less, or inferior, in any capacity, even if we, like Adam, may well continue to covet the “knowledge” gained by sinning, may welcome and embrace our own loss of innocence, relatively speaking, every time we take a step towards the dark side. Happens every day.

Either way, this is the only way to make sense of verses such as the following, where a clear before and after change, pertaining to their knowledge, is indicated:

**“For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” **Gen 3:5

**“When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.” **Gen 3:6

**“Then the eyes of both of them were opened…” **Gen 3:7

"And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” Gen 3:22

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

The law, again, was given to Adam directly by God. Eve did not exist. The asymmetry exists whether we like it or not. God said to “the man”, not “men” not “women”

Just a brief comment here: there is, in modern society, a putative rejection of hierarchy (I say putative because folks who supposedly reject all hierarchies, inevitably end up establishing new hierarchies to replace the ones they’ve overthrown) There is a hierarchy in Heaven, there is a hierarchy (are hierarchies) on Earth and, as discussed there was a hierarchy in the Garden which mattered as to whom Original Sin is attributable to.

 

[Richca]

It is on CAF that I first heard about Adam and Eve determining for themselves what is good and what is evil and thus usurping the prerogative and authority of God Who created them.

I am still trying to understand the depths of that approach. Would you like to expand a bit? “determining for themselves” has me thinking about human free will, especially when I see doubt about humans being able to divorce themselves from God.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it." Gen 3:6

Yet one more reason to dislike the NAB and Nova Vulgate. Neither Jerome’s Vulgate or the Septuagint (or the Clementine Vulgate “Vidit igitur mulier quod bonum esset lignum ad vescendum, et pulchrum oculis, aspectuque delectabile: et tulit de fructu illius, et comedit: deditque viro suo, qui comedit”) or the Douay-Rheims, or the Challoner Douay-Rheims, have your underlined and highlighted reading.

I would be interested to know the origin of the change to Genesis 3:6 in the NAB and Nova Vulgate (just as I am about the change to Genesis 3:15 in the NAB and NV).

I will note that the CCC and AAS 68 cite the Council of Trent multiple times for the discussion of the Fall, and the Council of Trent stated that Jerome’s Vulgate was the authentic Vulgate. So we have some contradictions going on: we have citations by the CCC to the Council (which, one presumes based it’s promulgations on the Fall on the text of Jerome’s Vulgate) and then of course we have the NAB/Nova Vulgate with altered language.

By the way, thanks for citing this, while I was aware of the Gen 3:15 NAB change I honestly never noted this odd change despite having read the chapter once or twice in the NAB. I don’t read or refer to the NAB ever, except of course, the readings during Mass.

 

[simpleas]

No, not misleading.

Historically, Eve sinned before Adam. He did not actually eat the fruit until after she did. Therefore, His sanctification must still have been in effect when Eve had sinned.

If history had operated differently, and Adam sinned before Eve had; then we could test whether or not Eve could be the head of the human family. But as it is, we can not test that.

The law, again, was given to Adam directly by God. Eve did not exist. The asymmetry exists whether we like it or not. God said to “the man”, not “men” not “women”

I am amazed that you can look up the quote on sanctification, but can’t seem to find the quote on exactly how the law was given to Adam and Eve. Therefore, here it is in Genesis 2:16-17:

usccb.org/bible/genesis/2/
Notice that the woman is explicitly considered for creation only AFTER the man is given the law.

Nor is this a generic reference to men, but to a specific Man both in Hebrew and Greek. There is a definite article “The”, and the article is singular NOT plural.

biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/2-16.htm (Explicitly a singular “Ha Adam”, The Adam, or “The man” in Hebrew ).
ellopos.net/elpenor/physis/septuagint-genesis/2.asp?pg=2 (** καὶ ἐνετείλατο Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς τῷ ᾿Αδὰμ singular dative, “To-the Adam” )
**
Therefore: What I have said is not at all misleading.

Nor does 1 Corinthians 7 imply a complete historical salvation identity between the sexes; for the belief spoken of in those passages is in a male savior.

Note: The english CCC is not wrong either, for Eve was involved in Adam sinning. So his sin was affected by her being involved in the transgression.

so… now you tell me something that actually bears on the question at hand instead of bald accusations with little merit; What do you make of the fact that Eve ate the fruit first and her eyes were not opened during the time when she alone had eaten of the fruit? Do you have any logical inferences from scripture, or only speculation, as to why that happened ?

I am aware of the creation story.

I was pointing to the verse in 1 cor 7 12-16 which clearly suggests both male and female sanctify each other as they are one.

Both had to eat of the tree because they are of each other, one flesh.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Yet one more reason to dislike the NAB and Nova Vulgate. Neither Jerome’s Vulgate or the Septuagint (or the Clementine Vulgate “Vidit igitur mulier quod bonum esset lignum ad vescendum, et pulchrum oculis, aspectuque delectabile: et tulit de fructu illius, et comedit: deditque viro suo, qui comedit”) or the Douay-Rheims, or the Challoner Douay-Rheims, have your underlined and highlighted reading.

I would be interested to know the origin of the change to Genesis 3:6 in the NAB and Nova Vulgate (just as I am about the change to Genesis 3:15 in the NAB and NV).

There were many different Hebrew manuscripts in the time of Jerome.
If you look at the Hebrew manuscripts we have today, eg: the Masoretic text; typical Hebrew lexicons indicate Genesis 3:6 has a word that could mean “wisdom”: לְהַשְׂכִּ֔יל le-has-kil. Clearly, not all Hebrew manuscripts in Jerome’s day said “wisdom”; but given that all hebrew manuscripts except those saved by anti-Christian Jewish scholars were lost; there is no way to verify where Jerome got the word he chose to translate back around the year 400. Since the NAB ignores the Septuagint Greek, and the Vulgate, there is no surprise that they re-translated the word from the modern Hebrew available today.
I am not a Hebrew expert, and I would highly recommend cross referencing the Hebrew word mentioned, and see if any other instances of it are translated “wisdom” into the Greek, Latin, and English before coming to any final conclusions.

By the way, thanks for citing this, while I was aware of the Gen 3:15 NAB change I honestly never noted this odd change despite having read the chapter once or twice in the NAB. I don’t read or refer to the NAB ever, except of course, the readings during Mass.

Well, at least translating it “wisdom” merely increases the stupidity/ignorance/deceived nature of what Eve was doing. That whole passage is about how very misguided the woman’s understanding of the law was. Very obviously she did not become “wise” by eating the fruit; She also did not quote the law correctly, in that she feared “touching” the fruit when God had put man there to tend the garden. Man was clearly not forbidden to touch fallen fruit. He was merely forbidden to eat it.

eg: There was a “development” of the law’s doctrine by a very short lived and mistaken female tradition…

 

[simpleas]

But it wasn’t knowledge that caused them to die. Nor was knowledge the cause of their loss of grace/preternatural gifts. It was disobedience of the Perfect Will of the Universe; it was disobedience of God that was the cause of their loss. And the knowledge of good and evil was not really a gain either, even tho they lacked it before, but also a loss: they had never beforehand experienced sin/evil, either by witnessing it or by their own participation in committing it. Now they were iniated, now they had “arrived”; they, too, would from then on share in a knowledge that both God and the devil knew. They might have become rather more sophisticated with this new knowledge perhaps, in their minds, but somehow they now just looked beaten, drabber, sad and ashamed. They had lost the freshness and brightness and beauty of their innocence. Where peace and harmony had reigned, strife would now be their lot, to one degree or another.

So the knowledge they now possessed was no blessing; it was another consequence of their sin. But God could use this evil to ultimately bring about a greater good. With the knowledge gained they might learn to value and desire a return to that original innocence, if possible, to a world not dirtied by the ugliness of sin. They might learn to value obedience of God after all-and that the knowledge they coveted was nothing worth the giving up of what they had. They might learn to trust God, to believe in Him, in that Something greater than themselves, that something that they would always know existed but had then dismissed as an irrelevant obstacle to their own fulfillment, preferring themselves and their way to God. They might, in time, learn that they had, indeed, died, that they were in need of being born again, when the time was ripe. This other knowledge, of their need for God their Lord and only Savior, this wisdom to be acquired, would be truly valuable, turning them back to Him.

The knowledge of good and evil might, finally, drive them to pursue the true Good alone. Like touching a hot stove its only value lies in teaching us not to do that again! And to seek their Healer Who would come to reveal Himself, in time, as they and their descendants-all of us-were ready

Thanks
Yes I know it wasn’t knowledge that caused them to die and loose grace, it was disobedience of the command. Nor do I think it was any sort of new blessing.
The word “become like one of us, knowing good and evil” comes after they had infused knowledge (of what?) They now know what God is (good) and what the devil is (evil)?

When you said They might have become rather more sophisticated with this new knowledge (I note the word might)
Some people say they knew what good, bad, evil and death meant, to not know this would have been unfair to test them, so it would seem they had knowledge enough not to have eaten from the tree.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I am aware of the creation story.

I was pointing to the verse in 1 cor 7 12-16 which clearly suggests both male and female sanctify each other as they are one.

Both had to eat of the tree because they are of each other, one flesh.

No, they can not be shown to be of each other at the time of the original sin. :dts:
The first woman was taken from the man, not the other way around.
He is the source of their flesh, she is not.
The revelation of the origins of man’s flesh is unpleasantly asymmetrical.
I intend no offense to women’s rights movements.

Once Adam and Eve began having sexual intercourse, and ONLY then, did Adam receive anything back from Eve. I will agree that a woman gives her flesh to a man in sexual intercourse today, and in light of 1Cor 7, what you are saying could be argued now; but it absolutely was NOT true at the time of the original sin.

In terms of the body, even, we can still scientifically identify that a normal/nominal woman is a subset of a man’s body and not the other way around. A man has a “part” which a woman does not; the Y chromosome. In revelation, the same symbol is revealed when woman is created; God takes part of the man (not all of him), and forms the woman. She is demonstrably (on average) a subset of his flesh, no matter how that historically/scientifically arose.

( That’s not to say there can’t be exceptions, or that Eve absolutely could not have been a genetic exception. There are even some good reasons to believe she had to be genetically diverse from Adam; but in our present day understanding of what makes a male and a female, the preponderance of evidence is that the bodies of men and women are in general asymmetrical in terms of genetics. Their way of approaching the word is affected by the Y chromosome or lack of it. Man and Woman are Equal, but physically different and complementary creatures. )

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Setting the disciplinary issue aside (eg: I am purposely NOT quoting verse 12 which would be misleading and not universal truth. ) look at how Paul infallibly interprets scripture regarding how creation happened in verse 13 and 14.

1Timothy 2:13-14.

For Adam was formed first, then Eve.j 14Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.

The woman, when not yet named Eve, transgressed. Her sin can be partially excused because she was “deceived.” Sin can be mitigated. For a sin to be mortal three conditions are necessary…

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

the Masoretic text; typical Hebrew lexicons indicate Genesis 3:6 has a word that could mean “wisdom”: לְהַשְׂכִּ֔יל le-has-kil. Clearly, not all Hebrew manuscripts in Jerome’s day said “wisdom”; but given that all hebrew manuscripts except those saved by anti-Christian Jewish scholars were lost; there is no way to verify where Jerome got the word he chose to translate back around the year 400. Since the NAB ignores the Septuagint Greek, and the Vulgate, there is no surprise that the re-translated the word from the Hebrew available today.

Why do we need to “verify” the received wisdom from a Saint? I think we can assume he did the best job possible, guided by the Holy Spirit, and any changes to his text should have been thoughtful, measured, and limited. The Clementine, as I understand it, was mostly concerned with correcting errors in the Vulgate that had crept in over time. Using the Masoretic text as a baseline is using a text that had it’s own errors creep in between the Fall of Jerusalem until the text was in it’s final form.

/aside
As you are aware, the Masoretic text is from the ninth or tenth (someone can correct me) Centuries, or five or six centuries after St. Jerome. Who not only had access to different Hebrew manuscripts (including, supposedly the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew) but also to the Hexapla with different Greek translations). The NAB and Nova Vulgate are mistakes: which, AFAICT, have created an intra-faith contradiction between the current Catholic scriptures and those approved at the Council of Trent, I do not suggest the Jerome/Clementine Vulgates were perfect, or that the Magisterium couldn’t improve upon them, it wasn’t, and of course they could, but if Genesis 3 is any indication the NAB and the Nova Vulgate are devolutions from those Vulgates not improvements. I have little doubt they will fall by the wayside in the future. The NAB/NV are one of the three main reasons I’m dubious about pursing a vocation as a priest and taking Holy Orders.
/end aside

Well, at least translating it “wisdom” merely increases the stupidity/ignorance/deceived nature of what Eve was doing. That whole passage is about how very misguided the woman’s understanding of the law was. Very obviously she did not become “wise” by eating the fruit; She also did not quote the law correctly, in that she feared “touching” the fruit when God had put man there to tend the garden. Man was clearly not forbidden to touch fallen fruit. He was merely forbidden to eat it.

The wisdom translation (insertion? Remember Jerome abandoned the Septuagint for the Hebrew and he didn’t see fit to add this in) can’t be right because the key issue, as I mentioned, is not that she’s being stupid or ignorant, but that she’s making her decision to eat the fruit based on her senses and not God’s commands. Three times her senses are mentioned: (1) saw it was good to eat (2) and fair to the eyes and (3) delightful to behold. Three is an important number in the Bible (as we all know), the translation/insertion takes out the third instance of her use of her senses to observe the fruit/tree. The fruit looks good, therefore, in Eve’s now doubting mind, it must be good.

Eve’s initial sin is one of unchastity, feeling drawn to something sensually and following through on those desires despites God’s command to the contrary. Furthermore, the wisdom insertion/translation, doesn’t make any sense because the Serpent’s comment “thou shalt be as gods knowing good and evil” is not understandable to Eve in her pre-fallen state. It would be like me telling a blind man, eat this fruit and you’ll see the colors green and red and blue. The blind man has no conception of green, red and blue, just as Eve did not know the difference between good and evil, so me telling the blind men about green and red and blue and the Serpent telling Eve about “the difference between good and evil” is so much static to the respective hearer.

Eve does seem to understand something about death, but not enough to control her doubts and ignore the serpent. To put it another way: Eve can’t possibly eat the fruit because she desires wisdom as the translation/insertion has it because she doesn’t know what wisdom is.

And in this sense, Eve is representative of all of us, none of us (save the rare Catholic mystic) can say they’ve directly communicated with God (before I get jumped on I mean the way that God talked to Adam, to Moses, or the way Christ talked to the Multitudes and the Apostles). That is to say we all get our information “second hand”, and too often ignore God’s commands because our senses are telling us that that what looks good or feels good, must be good. So we ignore God’s commandment and follow our senses.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks
Yes I know it wasn’t knowledge that caused them to die and loose grace, it was disobedience of the command. Nor do I think it was any sort of new blessing.
The word “become like one of us, knowing good and evil” comes after they had infused knowledge (of what?) They now know what God is (good) and what the devil is (evil)?

When you said They might have become rather more sophisticated with this new knowledge (I note the word might)
Some people say they knew what good, bad, evil and death meant, to not know this would have been unfair to test them, so it would seem they had knowledge enough not to have eaten from the tree.

Ok, but then you have to be ready to answer the question, did they want to die? And, again, their brave new world, out of Eden, would be a rebellious one, in a state of separation from God. They and all humanity would know (by direct experience) both the good of God’s creation and the evil of sin intimately, continously, thereafter. We all share this knowledge. We all lack innocence, manifested by a certain age, universally.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Why do we need to “verify” the received wisdom from a Saint?

Well, 1st, he wasn’t pope. 2nd he’s not speaking ex-cathedra. 3rd, we have no guarantee the Holy Spirit was protecting his translation from errors not related to teaching. His translation is “good” enough for teachings necessary for salvation; but that doesn’t mean that alternate meanings weren’t omitted which were known in the “originals” or in other translations. The church has never definitively stated that God meant one and only one thing in every passage of the bible.

The existence of a translation which does not teach error doesn’t mean that translation is to be preferred to other languages which the bible was written at the time Jesus lived. Both Hebrew copes of the bible and the Greek Septuagint have always been considered inspired by the church in a constant tradition from the time of Jesus. (ordinary infallibility presumably applies.) St. Paul even quotes variations of scripture only found in the Septuagint, claiming the quotes as authentic scripture even though no Hebrew variant ever showed the exact quote that the Septuagint has in some places.

I think we can assume he did the best job possible, guided by the Holy Spirit, and any changes to his text should have been thoughtful, measured, and limited. The Clementine, as I understand it, was mostly concerned with correcting errors in the Vulgate that had crept in over time. Using the Masoretic text as a baseline is using a text that had it’s own errors creep in between the Fall of Jerusalem until the text was in it’s final form.

I do not know the history of the later Vulgate(s) in any detail. I don’t know enough to make a judgment. I merely intended to answer your question as to the origin of the word “wisdom” in the NAB by pointing out that the NAB chooses to translate from the Hebrew, and that’s exactly where a typical lexicon definition says that “wisdom” is the proper translation.

The NAB and Nova Vulgate are mistakes: which, AFAICT, have created an intra-faith contradiction between the current Catholic scriptures and those approved at the Council of Trent,

I am unsure. The difference in translation of the Hebrew word for “wisdom” doesn’t seem to me as something which affects any church doctrine. Even if it was somehow “wrong”, I don’t see that it introduces an error in faith or morals. As I am not a Hebrew scholar, I am also unsure if the word might have multiple connotations that could have been translated multiple ways. That’s why I recommended checking the contexts in which the word is used to see if the typical lexicon definition is misleading. That does happen more often than I would like to admit.

The wisdom translation (insertion? Remember Jerome abandoned the Septuagint for the Hebrew and he didn’t see fit to add this in) can’t be right because the key issue, as I mentioned, is not that she’s being stupid or ignorant, but that she’s making her decision to eat the fruit based on her senses and not God’s commands. Three times her senses are mentioned: (1) saw it was good to eat (2) and fair to the eyes and (3) delightful to behold.

I’m looking at the Septuagint.

The main ideas in the Greek is that (1) she recognized the tree (not the fruit) as a particular kind/species of tree which was “good” (eg: perhaps she ate from another tree of the same species, before.) (2) Then she notices that the tree itself was beautiful to the eyes / eg: healthy, well formed, shapely. (3) then she considers in her mind, not in her eyes or senses about the tree ( κατα-νοη-σαι ) I haven’t studied the final word in Greek, but it looks suspiciously like it might be a variation of “nous”, which is a kind of knowing; eg: not of sensing or seeing physically. I see most Greek translations say “contemplate” which also indicates use of the human intellect to consider or grasp the meaning of something. So I am pretty sure you are mistaken about the sensory part of the word’s meaning. It is assuredly going to be more about “wisdom” or mental intellectual grasping, than to merely “beholding”. kata-naous, would indicate something like “comparing against the intellect”, or “agreeing with the intellect.”

Where do you get the idea that it means to “behold” ?

I will spend a little time, perhaps Monday, seeing if I can figure out a more precise translation for the word. But as a cursory guess (don’t quote me on it), I would read up on nous: nous: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous

Three is an important number in the Bible (as we all know), the translation/insertion takes out the third instance of her use of her senses to observe the fruit/tree. The fruit looks good, therefore, in Eve’s now doubting mind, it must be good.

Yes, three is a significant number; but I’m not sure how it applies here.
What significance do you attach to the number three in this particular passage?