This is a response to the original post.
Your question is very broad. Others have pointed you to resources that can paint the Catholic perspective on this.
I read a book from the Jewish Publication Society titled “Subversive Sequels” which offers a 1) Jewish and 2) feminist explanation of the Fall. I will try to give you a short overview of the explanation in this book.
In the first creation account, man and woman are portrayed as equals and made in the image and likeness of God. (Gen 1:1 -2:3).
In the second creation account starting at Gen 2:4, Eve seems to feel second-class, the author says, because until the sin itself, God does not address Eve, but only Adam. So, there is kind of a tension there, Eve being the supposed feminist that she was. And, the special reason for her disobedience is what I (not the author) would describe as that put forth in the New Testament, in James 1, namely, temptation beguiled by opportunity. So, the serpent (Jews don’t take the serpent as representing Satan) provided the opportunity, but Eve was anxious to regain her status (supposedly) as a co-equal with Adam, as originally depicted in the first creation account.
The author distinguishes that Solomon, for example, achieved a “knowledge of good and evil” by study and prayer, supposedly, NOT here as Adam and Eve did, by disobeying God.
The author’s explanation is much more expansive, going into several details, including how Eve may have perceived her childbearing as partially restoring her status, by participating in the divine act of creation. To support this, the author notes the particular expression of Eve in Gen 4:1: " The man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have produced a man with the help of the LORD.” NAB.
See? See how Eve SEEMS to elevate herself to the level of God, not giving Adam any credit for the birth of her son!! just her and God!!
In my usual hasty first reading of this book, I may have overlooked a lot, and so I offer my apology to the author and to anyone that I may be misleading. The author analyzes the Biblical accounts of other (Jewish) women, who seem also to be longing for a restoration of that idyllic, unmitigated equality asserted in Gen 1.
So, now you have the sense of the book’s title, where the author is looking for a later Biblical account to subvert or overthrow an earlier account. I don’t recall that she asserts that any women manage to overthrow the disparaging account of Eve in Genesis.
An easier subversive sequel to relate is that of God’s statement or condemnation of Adam, that he will till the soil by the sweat of his brow and barely eek out an existence. But, the subversive or overturning sequel comes up pretty quickly, because Abel is Adam’s son, and he is a herder of animals. This offers the hope of overturning the curses of God on Adam and Eve for their disobedience. But, that does not completely overturn the effects of the Fall, any more than does Eve’s childbearing.
but according to this author, we sense the movement, the unmistakable movement towards a subversive sequel.
And, of course, the author being Jewish, her horizon is limited by the Jewish faith, and she hasn’t offered any perspective on the possibility of subversive sequels in the New Testament. For example, the barring of the path of mankind to the Tree of Life (which the Jews interpret as the Torah) which occurs in Genesis may have as a subversive sequel the discussion in the last chapter of Revelation, which mentions the TOL explicity.
Anyway, this discussion of “the Fall” gives a lot more complexity to it than perhaps a casual reading would suggest. running out of space, see my following post.
