All my Friday promises are becoming Monday posts, but unless anyone complains I’m going to try not to worry about it. We have another solo pod as well, I hope more guests are coming soon.
I hope you guys watched the video with the Pageau brothers. Here is the link again. The video has two claims about the Book of Genesis that are particularly important, and I’m going to try and defend both.
The contents of the Bible are not metaphorical, they are both symbolic and literal
The Old Testament, from the very first story of Adam and Eve, has an account of consciousness
As for claim one, Matthew Pageau describes biblical literature as “fractal” which is defined as an “infinitely complex pattern that are self-similar across different scales.” To put this in plain English: the Bible has a number of narrative patterns that recur at every level of the story. In the Abrahamic stories, this recurrence often follows this progression: things are in a natural state (say Adam in the Garden), then a human subject acts against the natural order (Eve listening to the snake and eating the apple) and then there is some sort of resolution via returning to God’s law aka a more natural state.
Pageau’s view explicitly rejects the dichotomy that often animates Christian discourse in modern times re: is the Bible literally true or a series of metaphors? Pageau says that these stories are in some sense both literal retellings of Gods creation of the universe and mankind, and because of God’s capacity for infinite narrative recursion flowing from His acts, the stories also become powerful symbols. In other words, Adam is a literal being created by God and the account of what happens to him in the Garden is true. Nevertheless, the story of Adam also captures the nature of God’s relationship to man.
Matthew Pageau also tells us there is a sort of explanation of consciousness in the story of Adam and Eve. According to Pageau, it is clear that the “Heavens” represent God as well as breath aka the spirit (the soul). Man, on the other hand, represents the earth. God breaths his breath (wind) into earth (man) and gives man a soul and the capacity to reason. This reason flows from man’s soul, which is the portion of man that most closely resembles God. It may be considered by some a fanciful telling, but this story accounts for how a being made from dust (man the biological animal and the sum of physical processes) could possess reason.
“The Ever-Living God afterwards formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the life of animals. But man became a life containing soul.”
Pageau doesn’t say this explicitly, but I would add that this biblical view of consciousness explains why materialist science has failed to find a satisfying explanation of consciousness. Consciousness is bestowed upon the dust directly via God’s breath, and because this is distinct from the material world, we are unable to measure it. Without accounting for this divine gift of breath, our scientific tools which can only study the earth, cannot discover what connects man’s body (his physical processes) to his reason (or consciousness). Of course this is the position of modern science: that the unity of man is an illusion and he is in fact just a series of systems and processes.
I also want to say that Adam and Eve possesses the same narrative and psychological complexity I noticed in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The story offers a picture of human nature that is just as deep as complex as any other celebrated literature. The pivotal question of Adam and Eve, not answered explicitly but pointed at, is why does Eve listen to the snake despite her idyllic life in the Garden? Why is it difficult for man to obey God?
I don’t have a great answer to that question, but the presentation of human psychology in the story of Adam and Eve is amazing. In particular, the issue of “nakedness.” Before they eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve are not aware that they are naked, and are comfortable in their nakedness. In other words, they are comfortable in their natural state.
Regardless of why Eve decided to listen to the snake and eat from the tree, the immediate effect of the knowledge of good and evil is self-consciousness about nudity. In other words, Adam and Eve’s comfort in the world, their capacity to feel at home in their natural state, was compromised by knowledge. Specifically, this natural state was threatened by knowledge of good and evil.
I consider this a brilliant insight for pre-modern man. As recently as ten years ago, I would’ve said without hesitation that “knowledge was power” and I feel like this principle is central to the power of modern societies. However, the internet has taught us that knowledge of the world and our fellow man can be both dangerous and demobilizing. Being forced to constantly confront certain dark realities about human behavior and human emotion has paralyzed countless institutions and individuals who previously went about their tasks in blissful ignorance. I don’t know how pre-modern man could skip ahead to this insight without revelation.
The next story that stands out (at least in terms of its obvious relevance to modernity) is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The central theme of this story, in my view anyway, is that sexual energies have great destructive potential and once they are unleashed they are almost impossible to stop. This theme recurs in the Old Testament and is also present in the New. It is why we ask God to “lead us not into temptation.” The moral context recommended for Christians is not simply that we develop such a robust moral discipline that we can face every enticement towards sin and survive them. No, we are weak creatures, and we must acknowledge our weakness and avoid temptation (with God’s help).
This is an instance where I would say the Biblical and pre-modern perspective on sexuality is more sophisticated and developed than the modern one. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah acknowledges that sex can be a runaway train, and that total indulgence in sexual energy results in moral obliteration. The modern construct is that man should be able to be tempted constantly (pornography, sexual advertising etc.) but that even in this sexually saturated context he is expected to abstain except in the most precise circumstances. Unsurprisingly, the results of this approach are not particularly satisfactory to anyone, though I do find it surprising that there is such a resistance to connect our pornography steeped culture to the behavior of men. In Islam, a man is supposed to “lower his gaze” so as to not be distracted or tempted by the vision of an attractive women, and if you ever try this on a city street it will change the nature of your thoughts as you walk around. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has been interpreted by many as a specific criticism of homosexuality, but I think it is about sexual indulgence more generally.
The final story I want to discuss is the sacrifice of Isaac. God’s demand that Abraham kill Isaac is cited by many as proof that the God of the Old Testament is cruel and unjust. Those who argue this seem to take it as a given that a cruel or unjust God could not exist, but given the nature of our world I’m not sure why this is so obvious to them. Furthermore, I think this perspective fails to take faith or the concept of God seriously. When judging the behavior as cruel or unjust, there is a sort of anthropomorphizing of God taking place, where God’s actions are judged as we would judge another human. But it is not another human asking for this sacrifice, it is the creator of all things including Abraham and Isaac. If one really believes in God, believes that he is an all powerful, Ever-Living creator, then certainly it is his right to take back his gifts. This is in part why religious people accept the universality of death. In fact, if there is anything inexplicable in the story it is God’s mercy - that He is satisfied simply with the knowledge that Abraham would obey.
Furthermore, as Rene Girard tells us, Christianity, specifically through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, ultimately represents a sort of cultural innovation that precludes the need for ongoing human sacrifice. In pre-Christian Jewish tradition, animal sacrifices (as well as other forms) also came to replace human sacrifice (which was a common civilizational practice at this time on earth). In this sense, both Judaism and Christianity have a consistent and developing narrative that negates the need for human sacrifice that was so common in pre-modern religion, and the story of Abraham and Isaac is the origin point of this transition.
Next week we will look at Exodus. There is another good Pageau video on the topic if you want to check it out.