Eve created from Adam... literally?

[Pious_Mat]

Much of the debate seems to revolve around metaphor, and I thank those who posted before who first showed that metaphor can accomplish a certain means, and second that literal and figurative are often one and same.

I’ve got to say, however, that if something is symbolic, or metaphorical, it needs to represent something. All scripture is inspired, and is word for word the way God intended us to read it. God would not expect us to read three chapters of Genesis if they had no meaning whatsoever, and could be entirely explained away by science. In other words, a symbol must stand for something, overwise it is wasted words.

As to why the rib might have been used to show that Adam derived from Eve, I believe Augustine made a few remarks about the rib being the closest bone to the heart, and therefore the most appropriate given Paul’s commandment regarding a husband’s Christ-like love for his wife.

Lastly, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the world was created either by creationism or theistic evolution–a one or the other way of thinking degrades the Sacred Mystery. God, through the inspired author (traditionally held to be Moses), gave a historical account best suited to our limited human understanding. How are we, fallible beings, supposed to know everything about the Beginning of the Human Race, let alone a 10th century BC Jew such as Moses. I guess we’re told all that we can handle.

That said, if I ever meet Our Blessed Lord, I’ll be sure to ask him about the rib thing… along with a thousand other questions.

 

[itinerant1]

Much of the debate seems to revolve around metaphor, and I thank those who posted before who first showed that metaphor can accomplish a certain means, and second that literal and figurative are often one and same.

I’ve got to say, however, that if something is symbolic, or metaphorical, it needs to represent something. All scripture is inspired, and is word for word the way God intended us to read it. God would not expect us to read three chapters of Genesis if they had no meaning whatsoever, and could be entirely explained away by science. In other words, a symbol must stand for something, overwise it is wasted words.

As to why the rib might have been used to show that Adam derived from Eve, I believe Augustine made a few remarks about the rib being the closest bone to the heart, and therefore the most appropriate given Paul’s commandment regarding a husband’s Christ-like love for his wife.

Lastly, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the world was created either by creationism or theistic evolution–a one or the other way of thinking degrades the Sacred Mystery. God, through the inspired author (traditionally held to be Moses), gave a historical account best suited to our limited human understanding. How are we, fallible beings, supposed to know everything about the Beginning of the Human Race, let alone a 10th century BC Jew such as Moses. I guess we’re told all that we can handle.

That said, if I ever meet Our Blessed Lord, I’ll be sure to ask him about the rib thing… along with a thousand other questions.

Just an observation here on the use of language:

When one says the world was in fact created by God, or, that the world was created by theistic evolution, the word “created” is being used in different senses.

First, to say simply that the world was created by God involves the belief in creationism. The word “creationism”, includes both the belief that (1) God created the world *ex nihilo, *as distinct from the atheistic assumption that the world was not created, and (2) that God created the world ex nihilo in a literal, direct creation in six days, or some such similar position. Thus, the word “creationism” is used in these two different senses. You can see an example of this dual usage in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia entry on “Creationism”.

Second, to say merely that the world was created by God using the means of evolution, the word created, as used here, also involves some ambiguity. That is, to say that the earth, galaxies, etc. were created by means of Providentially guided cosmic evolution, can means (A) "creation" by means of fashioning or forming things from pre-existing matter. The second part of this position is, (B) that theistic evolution also maintains creationism is the sense of #1 above, i.e. *creatio ex nihilo, *pure and simple.

These are two different meanings of the word “creation” that can and have been used in this particular context.

Clear as mud? :whacky:

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[BeyondDoubt]

OK I just read three pages… and the answer is… nobody knows.

Which is a little strange after 2000 years of guidance by The Holy Spirit.

Where do I - ordinary Joe Catholic - find an authorative pronouncement by the Church on the matter?

Am I allowed to make up my own mind?

Is the story of Adam and Eve literal truth or not?

If it’s subjective truth now why has it appeared to be taught as literal truth in the past?

If it’s allegorical/subjective now where does that leave the doctrine of original sin?

How could Adam and Eve be punished for doing wrong when they didn’t know right from wrong before they did it?

It appears to be a bit of a mess, the Church no longer has people blindly expected to believe what they are told and seem to back away from issues like this.

Why should Catholics be left to flounder in the dark over such basic teaching?

 

[buffalo]

OK I just read three pages… and the answer is… nobody knows.

Which is a little strange after 2000 years of guidance by The Holy Spirit.

Where do I - ordinary Joe Catholic - find an authorative pronouncement by the Church on the matter?

Am I allowed to make up my own mind?

Is the story of Adam and Eve literal truth or not?

If it’s subjective truth now why has it appeared to be taught as literal truth in the past?

If it’s allegorical/subjective now where does that leave the doctrine of original sin?

How could Adam and Eve be punished for doing wrong when they didn’t know right from wrong before they did it?

It appears to be a bit of a mess, the Church no longer has people blindly expected to believe what they are told and seem to back away from issues like this.

Why should Catholics be left to flounder in the dark over such basic teaching?

No - It is clear as seen in the Church’s Dogma -

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)

 

[itinerant1]

OK I just read three pages… and the answer is… nobody knows.

Which is a little strange after 2000 years of guidance by The Holy Spirit.

Where do I - ordinary Joe Catholic - find an authorative pronouncement by the Church on the matter?

Am I allowed to make up my own mind?

Is the story of Adam and Eve literal truth or not?

If it’s subjective truth now why has it appeared to be taught as literal truth in the past?

If it’s allegorical/subjective now where does that leave the doctrine of original sin?

How could Adam and Eve be punished for doing wrong when they didn’t know right from wrong before they did it?

It appears to be a bit of a mess, the Church no longer has people blindly expected to believe what they are told and seem to back away from issues like this.

Why should Catholics be left to flounder in the dark over such basic teaching?

One’s floundering in the dark be could be of one’s own making, especially if he tends to categorize things as literal/objective vs. allegorical/subjective. Here is an explanation from a non-literalist’s perspective:

Truth is truth, it is not objective or subjective, as if these are two different kinds of truth. This was Pilate’s problem, when he asked “What is truth?”

Something that is allegorically true is just as true as something that is literally true.

In the case of Adam’s rib, the literal sense of the words used are the basis for the allegorical or figurative sense. The truth that is taught by figurative language is absolutely and objectively true.

A writer can explain an event that happened some time ago by choosing from among various kinds of language. He can teach something about the event using scientific/historical language. Or, he may choose to teach something about the event using allegorical language. Modern man has a bias regarding language types. He prefers scientific language. He may not understand very well how allegorical language works, even thinking that an allegory is somehow not quite as true as a scientific description, as if the former is some kind of inferior truth.

We could re-write Eve’s creation from Adam using scientific language is we knew the specific details of exactly how Eve was derived from Adam. But there are two things to consider in this regard. First, assuming the all of the details of how Eve had been created from Adam had been revealed to the biblical author, and they man not have been, a description in scientific language may not have been understood by the primitive Hebrew culture. Second, assume that a scientific description was given that was understandable to the writer’s audience. This scientific description may not be able to teach about the event as well as an allegorical account. An allegorical account may even tell us more than a scientific one even though it does not tell us specifically how in literal scientifc terms that Eve was created from Adam.

The greatest teacher of all time, Christ, chose to teach many things using parables. Parables are an excellent teaching device. We do not ask of parables if they are subjectively true. Christ’s parables are true even though the event referred to may have never occurred in history. It is not necessary that a parable be based on an actual event in history for the parable to teach religious or moral truth. However, as a matter of fact there are parables that have an historical basis, one that may even be in the future. An example would be the parable of the Last Judgement, which uses the imagery of sheep and goats.

The figurative language of Eve’s creation has a basis in past history, i.e., there was a first man, and the first woman was somehow created from him.

So, I think the problem for us narrows down to a need to familiarize ourselves with the many functions of various types of language. Scientific or historical language is good, but it is not the best for every author’s purpose.

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[inthecloud]

Unto itself, the story of Adam and Eve is so silly it is boring. But the beauty of this story, for me, comes when you reconcile it with the Groom Jesus and His Bride, The Church.

Read the history of Adam and Eve in a Jewish commented study Torah and is far from boring. Very close to existentialism. Lots of subplots.
Why the animal was a snake? A huge treaty on that alone.
Was Satan or other female demon?
What kinds of trees were in the garden? Another huge treaty alone.
There was a previous Eve?
Was really Adam’s rib or was Adam hemafordite and JAH separated the male and female sides? Rib really meaning side?

 

[PeterK]

Sometimes the old Miller beer commercial kinda sums up these origins-debate threads.
The biblical-literalist would say “Sounds Great” instead of “Tastes Great” and the materialist inclined scientist would say “Less Filling” because Bible verses are not ‘filled’ with scientifically verifiable facts.

Sound Great
Less Filling
Sounds Great
Less Filling

The heart of the problem with the biblical-literalist-versus-scientist polemic in these origins debates is the absence of theology. Theology is basically the study of God. Biblical proof-texting is not theology and the scientific method’s dependency on matter is a self-imposed limitation in rational that excludes theology. But theology is the only way mutual understanding is to be had of the Bible, because it is primarily a theology book.

The Bible first and foremost is about God, and next, mankind’s relationship with God as the people of God - and that’s about it. This means the Bible is primarily a theology book, not a physics or biology or astronomy or sociology or archeology textbook.

So, theologically, it doesn’t matter if the woman came from a rib or a toenail, maybe poetically, yes, theologically, no.
The theological significance is that the woman is brought forth into existence by a unique and determined action of God. It is God who decides it to be so. This thought doesn’t get much play in the discussions. It is theologically significant that man and woman are of the same ‘life-stuff’. It is theologically significant that God has mankind to be man and woman, it must be both to be at all.
Theologically, who cares where Cain got his wife.
Theologically, who cares who is threatening Cain.
The theological significance of the episode is the fact that God, in His mercy, doesn’t vaporize Cain out of existence right then and there. Forget Cain - what does this tell us sinners about our God? What does it tell us about our God that he is protecting (via the mysterious mark) a murderer?
One of the amazing characteristics of these origins conversations, and biblical literalist OT conversations in general, is the paucity of inquiry or wonder concerning God’s rationale or motives in a given episode.
For example, have you ever wondered - Why is God asking Pharaoh anything? Why does God owe Pharaoh the courtesy? (If you want to answer this please make a new thread as here it would be some serious thread drift) (As if that hasn’t happened already).
Just who is this God?
Without the theological perspective these discussions soon boil down to the all too common biblical-literalist-versus-scientist polemic ripe with frantic attempts to deny or dovetail the details of each camp.

What’s the solution to these ongoing quagmires? Show us the way, oh theologically significant one, right?

Well for a glimpse into the theology of a particular verse or passage at least try this. Get a resource produced by Catholic theologians. The Catechism is an excellent resource for arriving at a basic understanding of what is theologically significant in the Genesis narratives (or any biblical passage). In the back of the Catechism is a scripture verse index. This is a great reference because you can look up, say Gen 1:4, and see all the entries in the Catechism that reference that verse, directly or indirectly. After reading those related entries one would have at least a general idea of how a particular verse or passage is held to be theologically significant for the christian by the Catholic Church. The Catechism, for what it encompasses, is surprisingly thorough. To the degree that if a particular verse or passage is NOT found to be related to ANY entries in the Catechism via this index, then one might relax their concerns regarding their obligation or duty to hold that verse to be infallible truth.

I would like to think this above Catechism cross-reference procedure would be a prerequisite to entering into discussions concerning dogmatic truths in Bible passages.

I would like to say one more thing. I am not poo-pooing inquiries into the biblical narratives at all. It is interesting why certain details were left out. Where Cain got his wife is very interesting. The fact that this is just breezed over by the author is also very interesting. And I enjoy very much positing solutions to these perplexing textual situations. However, pondering this verse and others is not a do-or-die scenario for my faith in the fact that God is the source of all creation, or that within this creation mankind is elevated to a unique relationship with God.

If you have read all of this you have honored me with your generous endurance.
I hope it helps.

Peter

 

[BeyondDoubt]

No - It is clear as seen in the Church’s Dogma -

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)

1. 
   Pardon me… but that doesn’t make the issue of whether of not the story of Adam and Eve as told in the Bible is literally true.
   
   Anyway… It can’t be literally true because it makes no sense… Adam and Eve are punished for doing wrong before they know right from wrong!
   
   Where do I find the official Church position on the story that saves average Joe Catholic having to wonder about it and whether of not their own interpretation is correct.
   
   I thought the Church actually didn’t want people making their own interpretations, that’s what the Council of Trent was about.

 

[BeyondDoubt]

One’s floundering in the dark be could be of one’s own making, especially if he tends to categorize things as literal/objective vs. allegorical/subjective. Here is an explanation from a non-literalist’s perspective:
etc.

Thanks for that response itinerant.

My question still stands… where does the Church tell us what this story is… literal or allegorical?

To me it seems the Church has distanced itself away from the whole thing… I can not remember ever hearing about Adam and Eve from a priest in Church other than reading scripture.

Why is this important?

Because average Joe Catholic has to defend his faith in the workplace and on the streets, this story is easily dismissed as a ancient legend and due to it’s logical absurdities you can’t really argue with them.

Once average Joe Catholic is left to make his own subjective interpretations of the Bible (and he is it seems) then what’s the point of the Magisterium?

What’s that story in the Acts of the Apostles about and Philip and the Enuch?

“30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?
31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.”

It seems to me these days that the Church has abandoned the average Catholic in certain areas where it gets a little difficult… Adam, Eve, Noah…

They won’t specifically categorically state ‘allegorical’ because in the past they have insisted on ‘literal’.

If they state ‘allegorical’ then that begs the question about the literal truth of original sin.

 

[buffalo]

Pardon me… but that doesn’t make the issue of whether of not the story of Adam and Eve as told in the Bible is literally true.

Anyway… It can’t be literally true because it makes no sense… Adam and Eve are punished for doing wrong before they know right from wrong!

Where do I find the official Church position on the story that saves average Joe Catholic having to wonder about it and whether of not their own interpretation is correct.

I thought the Church actually didn’t want people making their own interpretations, that’s what the Council of Trent was about.

No - God issued them instructions and told them what they should not do. They chose to disregard His command.

They knew right from wrong for it was written into their hearts.

 

[davidv]

My question still stands… where does the Church tell us what this story is… literal or allegorical?

It doesn’t tell us, because it is both. See PeterK’s response above.

 

[BeyondDoubt]

It doesn’t tell us, because it is both. See PeterK’s response above.

No… that is PeterK’s personal interpretation.

Where do I find the clear unequivacal Church teaching about the creation story?

 

[davidv]

No… that is PeterK’s personal interpretation.

Where do I find the clear unequivacal Church teaching about the creation story?

No, it not his personal interpretation. It a nice summary of the Church’s teaching on the matter. Have you consulted the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

 

[BeyondDoubt]

No, it not his personal interpretation. It a nice summary of the Church’s teaching on the matter. Have you consulted the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

No it’s his interpretation.

What does the CCC say?

Go on… this could be interesting!

 

[davidv]

No it’s his interpretation.

What does the CCC say?!

Since you haven’t read the CCC, then obviously this is simply an uninformed opinion. I suggest that you start here usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.htm and read articles 101-119.

 

[itinerant1]

My question still stands… where does the Church tell us what this story is… literal or allegorical?

They won’t specifically categorically state ‘allegorical’ because in the past they have insisted on ‘literal’.

If they state ‘allegorical’ then that begs the question about the literal truth of original sin.

The Church seldom makes official prouncements on specific texts in the Bible. Understanding the Bible requires in addition to faith, the requisite academic skills. At times, there were Catholics who could barely read. So, the Church, in addition to homilies, taught biblical accounts visually with religious art, paintings, mosaics, frescoes, statues, stained glass windows, and so on.

Do you have a good dictionary of the Bible?

It is not accurate to say that “in the past they have insisted on 'literal”. The history of bibilical exegesis is a little more complicated than that. Great biblical scholars have had various acceptable methods for interpreting Scripture. A particular exegetical method becomes problematic when it derives interpretions that conflict with offical Church teachings or does not build up faith, hope, and charity.

The method of the Jew, Philo of Alexandria, was that of philosophical allegory. This method had influence of some early Christian writers. Origen was the most influential Christian writer of his day. Whenever a literal interpretation would not yield a meaning worthy of God he used an allegorical interpretation. St. Augustine, the greatest of all Church Fathers, emphasized both figurative and literal meanings. One really needs to study his book, De Doctrina Christiana, On Christian Teaching, (alternatively translated On Christian Doctrine). Augustine includes a chapter on the rules of Tychonius the Donatist for interpreting Scripture. On Christian Teaching should be required reading for any serious student of the Bible.

Also, Catholics today are unaware that many Church Fathers insisted that an understanding of key neo-Platonic philosophical concepts is required to penetrate to the deeper meanings of Scripture.

The historical approach was emphasized by Syrians such as Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Cyrus. This method sometimes created conflicts between themselves and biblical exegetes elsewhere.

The Antiochene exegetes and apologists would typically give careful consideration to the literary genre of an Old Testament book, and they asked many questions about authorship, and the circumstances and occaison for a book’s composition. Quite ahead of their time these early medievals were.

St. Thomas Aquinas emphasized the multiple senses of a text, the literal, allegorical, and moral.

And the saga continues…

Now, you said, “If they state ‘allegorical’ then that begs the question about the literal truth of original sin.” I am not sure what you mean here. An acceptable allegorical interpretation teaches the truth about Original Sin. Allegorical does not mean that something is not true.

Perhaps is would help if I phrased an answer in terms of Aquinas’s recognition of multiple senses of Scripture. The literal sense, which is the basis for the allegorical, is also the basis for the theology of Original Sin.

Or, in terms of the Antiochene method (which compliments Aquinas’s method), we can say that the literary genre of this account in Genesis is that of an Ancient Near Eastern myth in which the figurative language teaches the truth of Original Sin as an historical fact. (I did a post somewhere on the correct meaning of “myth”. Did you see it?)

The story(s) of Adam and Eve was written to answer many questions, such as “Why do women experience pain in child birth?” Why is there death? What is the origin of man’s sinful nature? Why do we have to work so darn hard all the time? And so on. (Nota bene: St. Augustine addresses the question why we have to work so hard to understand the Scriptures.)

Genesis answers these and other questions very well using figurative language. In fact, figurative language is so rich with meanings that it is difficult or impossible to know everything that is implied. For example, the last word on any New Testament parable is far from being said. We can mine figurative language in the Bible for meanings till the end of time. When the last word on any parable is spoken, it will mean that we are in Heaven.

~The End~

itinerant1 :tiphat: