Judaism and Eden and Eve

[Ehav4Ever]

Was Eve a real person? Was she actually unaware of morality prior to eating the apple? And if so, how could she sin prior to having an understanding of sin?

Instead of "morality" a better way of framing is, based on the Hebrew text, is the following.

Hawwah knew that they two mitzvoth concerning the fruit. a) there are fruit that permissiable to eat, and b) there is one that has consequences to it that didn't exist for them at that time. There are Jewish texts that describe that Adam and Hawwah understood the concept of good and bad or evil, but they had no experiences with the consequences that come along with the bad and evil side of things.

The word in Hebrew (דעת) "knowledge" is often used in ancient Hebrew text to discuss something that one has intimate understanding / experience with. This according to some was a way of expressing their ability to have free will. I.e. without having something that they could choose to do that goes against their interest they could not have free will. There are also some Jewish commentators who express that based on the wording in Hebrew, the possibility of them eating from the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was given as an option. Just the option was expressed with consequences and that involved distances themselves from the good that the Creator has built for them.

There is of course more details provided in this consideration.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

For the Jewish adherents
Was Eve a real person?

According to ancient Torah based commentaries and modern day Yemenite, Sephardic, Mizrahhi, and Orthodox Jews Hawwah was a real historical person. Kind of like saying, the first of modern humanity - obviously there was a first version of modern humanity.

YET, only in the context of what the Torah states about her in Hebrew. One way to understand this perspective is that according to Yemenite, Sephardic, Mizrahhi, and Orthodox Jews the written Torah is the Creator's commentary to the Jewish people. There are times when one has to investigate what statements in the Torah mean based on using the Oral Torah, archeology, history, science, etc. in order to analyze what can be drawn from the Hebrew text to help Jews work through issues in life.

 

[ppp]

From a Jewish historical perspective the type of fruit is less of an issue. The main reason it does even come up, in Jewish discussion of the Torah, is normally based on investigating the entire breath of the Torah in Hebrew. There are some metaphors that are made from the type of fruit, as well as the langauge used to describe the leaves that they made clothing to partially cover themselves with.

Essentially, most of the Jewish focus is from commentators who are going line by line and describing different ideas about every word, sentence, and/or spelling used.

I get it. But it seems like a pointlessly pedantic talking point.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

There is no place in the Hebrew text of the Torah / Tanakh / etc. that claims that the Creator of all things only cares about Jews. Instead what Jewish texts claim is that all nations have a mission from the Creator. The mission of the Jewish people is the 613 mitzvoth of the Torah. The mission of the non-Jewish nations is the 7 mitzvoth known as the Noachide laws.

Someone may have misinformed you.

So just follow those seven laws and anything else you wanna do is ok with God?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Both the Jewish and Christian beliefs in all their variation are based on ancient mythology with no reference on what we know of the history of humanity and the evolution of humanity.

Some symbolically describe Adam and Eve as the First humans that evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago.

I believe most Jews and many Christians (Theistic Evolution) accept the sciences of evolution and the scientific history and origins of our universe

Yes we know your opinion.

You post the same exact thing in every thread.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Did he threaten their power? Seems to me that he was just one of a bouquet of apocalyptic preachers at the time with some "heretical" views. While his later impact was considerable, his contemporary impact was not particularly notable.

I disagree since he was written about by secular historians of that time.

The others weren’t.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Jesus was a quiet preacher that did not cause a stir among the people, but rather spoke of calming patience.

He killed some poor swineherd’s pigs and killed a fig tree. Animal cruelty and vandalism.

 

[ppp]

Sorry. I assumed your choice of the word "actually" indicated historicity, so I thought the question didn't apply.

In the story, did Adam and Eve know right from wrong before they ate the fruit? The only hint in the story is the following verse:
Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
This verse does imply that Adam and Eve did not have a concept of good and evil before eating of the fruit.

Could she sin prior to having this knowledge? It depends on the nuances of your particular definition of sin.

And this is where I was hoping you would go. Having been raised Christian, I am aware that the way I grok sin gives me a shaky grasp on the Jewish conception of the concept.

However, you can have an understanding that something is forbidden without being having your own internal understanding of right from wrong.

I am not sure that you can. I think you can have an understanding that forbidden means "wrong", but without an internal reference for wrong or ought or should, "forbidden" carries no obligation.

For example, your dog knows very well it is going to get into trouble for eating the dinner you left on the coffee table. That's why the dog slinks away when you come back into the room LOL. Kohlberg calls this stage of moral development the Preconventional Stage. We all go through it between ages 0-8. During this stage, we accept the morality OF OTHERS and refrain from "bad actions" because we don't want to be punished.

I cannot say that I have read any Kohlberg. I may have, but don't recall. But he died when I was in college back in the 80's. Which was before the field of Ethology had evolved. I would argue that my (currently hypothetical) dog has a very evolved sense of morality. She understands obligation between member of a group. That her behavior (slinking away) shows this fact and falls under the rubric of the moral metrics - empathy, fairness, cooperation and reciprocity. She may not adhere to those metrics in the same way as I do, but that is a function of the facticity of our respective species. As it would be with any other social mammal. An adult dog is more morally mature than a human child.

The question would be, can a 4 year old sin? I think there would be some people who would say, YES a four year old does understand that stealing will get them into trouble, and is therefore responsible for their actions when they steal, which is why parents are correct to punish them when they steal. Other people would say NO, and the reason we send them to the time out chair is because we are TEACHING them, not punishing them.

I'm going to have to get you to define "sin". Is it merely doing what the Jewish god does not want you to do? Does it require a sense of obligation to another?

Suppose the four year old has not yet developed a belief in a god, but does have a sense of empathy, fairness, cooperation and reciprocity to their mother who is a practicing religious Jew? And the child steals their mother's piece of cake. The child has sinned against the mother. I guess? Have they sinned against the mother's god?

This is weird. I am sorry.

What is the criteria for sin?

 

[ppp]

Hawwah knew that they two mitzvoth concerning the fruit.

I am sorry, but I do not know what that means. I hesitate to try to respond as that seems important.

 

[ppp]

I disagree since he was written about by secular historians of that time.

The others weren’t.

That is both irresponsibly false and does not address my point.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And this is where I was hoping you would go. Having been raised Christian, I am aware that the way I grok sin gives me a shaky grasp on the Jewish conception of the concept.

My hebrew stinks -- I know just enough to follow along in the prayer book. But I'll share with you the little I know.

There are four words in Hebrew that are used for the concept of sin or iniquity. They tend to be used interchangeably, but each has its own nuance:

חַטָּאָה (ḥaṭṭā’āh): This word is commonly translated as "sin" and refers to an offense or transgression against God's law. This word is derived from the root חָטָא (ḥāṭā), which means "to miss the mark" or "to err." It can encompass various types of wrongdoing, including moral, ethical, and religious violations.

עָוֹן (‘āwōn): This word is often translated as "iniquity" or "guilt" and conveys the idea of moral or ethical distortion, perversity, or deviation from what is right or just. It refers to the consequences of sin and the guilt or liability incurred as a result.

פֶּשַׁע (peša‘): This word is typically translated as "transgression" or "rebellion" and denotes a willful and deliberate act of disobedience or defiance against God's commandments or authority.

רֶשַׁע (reša‘): This word is often translated as "wickedness" or "evil" and refers to behavior that is morally corrupt, unjust, or sinful. It can encompass a wide range of wrongful actions or attitudes.

I am not sure that you can. I think you can have an understanding that forbidden means "wrong", but without an internal reference for wrong or ought or should, "forbidden" carries no obligation.

Well, we may have to agree to disagree. While I think a dog or a 4 year old may have a very primitive morality, I just don't put them on the same level of responsibility. If the 4 year old swipes some candy at the corner store, we don't arrest them and put them in jail.

I cannot say that I have read any Kohlberg. I may have, but don't recall. But he died when I was in college back in the 80's. Which was before the field of Ethology had evolved.

I can tell you that he formed his stages of moral development from doing a longitudinal study with boys, in which he would meet with them periodically and interview them with the mind to analyze their moral reasoning.

I would argue that my (currently hypothetical) dog has a very evolved sense of morality.

"Very evolved"??? do you really put the morality of a dog on the same level as that of an adult human being?

An adult dog is more morally mature than a human child.

I don't see it.

I'm going to have to get you to define "sin". Is it merely doing what the Jewish god does not want you to do? Does it require a sense of obligation to another?

One needs to understand that there is seldom any consensus among religious Jews on any topic. I can share some basic ideas from Judaism, but in the end, my own conclusions will likely be different from this or that other Jew.

The traditional understanding of sin is the violation of the commandments. This violation can be intentional or unintentional. For example, let's say I take a nap on the Sabbath, and am groggy when I wake up and don't remember what day it is, and I do something that violates the Sabbath. That would be an example of an unintentional sin.

However, Judaism also has a fairly refined understanding of ethics. IOW, a sin isn't necessarily the violation of this or that religious law. More, it is a violation of certain values or principles, such as compassion, justice, or righteousness. I would argue that a dog or young child do not have principles, but most adult humans do.

Suppose the four year old has not yet developed a belief in a god,

Sin and ethics have nothing to do with belief in God. You can have a theist who chronically sins, or an atheist who is a good moral person.

What is the criteria for sin?

I hope I have helped to clear this up somewhat.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So just follow those seven laws and anything else you wanna do is ok with God?

They are more like seven categories, and by the time you see all the different applications of each law, you have a pretty exhaustive morality. There really isn't much of an "anything else" left over.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes we know your opinion.

You post the same exact thing in every thread.

You propose the same mythology in every thread. If the threads keep coming so will my responses.

I will acknowledge my opinion on the subjective aspects of belief, but as far as the scientific, historical and archaeological fasts of the history of evolution of humanity, life and our universe billions of years old I will fo with academic standards of factual knowledge. Thar is where ancient scriptures without profenance fail,

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes we know your opinion.

It's not actually just his opinion. All you have to do is check the statistics.


Among American Christians the following percents accept evolution as the most likely description of origins:
Catholic 58%
Orthodox 54%
Mainline Protestant 51%

Among those who are Jewish, the acceptance levels of evolution rise to 77%.

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ppp]

My hebrew stinks -- I know just enough to follow along in the prayer book. But I'll share with you the little I know.

There are four words in Hebrew that are used for the concept of sin or iniquity. They tend to be used interchangeably, but each has its own nuance:

חַטָּאָה (ḥaṭṭā’āh): This word is commonly translated as "sin" and refers to an offense or transgression against God's law. This word is derived from the root חָטָא (ḥāṭā), which means "to miss the mark" or "to err." It can encompass various types of wrongdoing, including moral, ethical, and religious violations.

עָוֹן (‘āwōn): This word is often translated as "iniquity" or "guilt" and conveys the idea of moral or ethical distortion, perversity, or deviation from what is right or just. It refers to the consequences of sin and the guilt or liability incurred as a result.

פֶּשַׁע (peša‘): This word is typically translated as "transgression" or "rebellion" and denotes a willful and deliberate act of disobedience or defiance against God's commandments or authority.

רֶשַׁע (reša‘): This word is often translated as "wickedness" or "evil" and refers to behavior that is morally corrupt, unjust, or sinful. It can encompass a wide range of wrongful actions or attitudes

Which one or ones apply in the Eden case? Which do not?

Well, we may have to agree to disagree. While I think a dog or a 4 year old may have a very primitive morality, I just don't put them on the same level of responsibility. If the 4 year old swipes some candy at the corner store, we don't arrest them and put them in jail.

That's fine. But on the subject of ,the nature of morality in dogs, I am going to go with the people who do the peer reviewed research on morality in dogs .

"Very evolved"??? do you really put the morality of a dog on the same level as that of an adult human being?

That question is ambiguous. If you are asking "better or worse" the question is pointless. I value human morality more because my tribe is human and I am human. If you mean more complex, I would say that human morality is more complex because it involves the the real, the concrete, the hypothetical, abstract and fictional. If you mean efficacious, then evidently yes, I would put them on the same level.

One needs to understand that there is seldom any consensus among religious Jews on any topic. I can share some basic ideas from Judaism, but in the end, my own conclusions will likely be different from this or that other Jew.

I think that is the case among any group that permits individuality.

The traditional understanding of sin is the violation of the commandments. This violation can be intentional or unintentional. For example, let's say I take a nap on the Sabbath, and am groggy when I wake up and don't remember what day it is, and I do something that violates the Sabbath. That would be an example of an unintentional sin.

However, Judaism also has a fairly refined understanding of ethics. IOW, a sin isn't necessarily the violation of this or that religious law. More, it is a violation of certain values or principles, such as compassion, justice, or righteousness. I would argue that a dog or young child do not have principles, but most adult humans do.

If we are going to agree to disagree on the dog, then continuing to bring up the dog flouts that agreement.

Regarding children, I would argue that putting a child in a situation where they could suffer and die as a result of their ignorant and underdeveloped decisions is the the immoral act. No?

Sin and ethics have nothing to do with belief in God. You can have a theist who chronically sins, or an atheist who is a good moral person.

I would agree about the ethics. But sin (even in the ways you defined it above) seem laden with god belief. Which of the definitions you provided would be a thing if there was no, and never had been, any god of any sort?



.

 

[ppp]

They are more like seven categories, and by the time you see all the different applications of each law, you have a pretty exhaustive morality. There really isn't much of an "anything else" left over.

I didnt follow here thread back. I assumed, perhaps erroneously, that she was referring to Noachide law.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I get it. But it seems like a pointlessly pedantic talking point.

I agree, but again for Jews it is not really a major talking point. We Jews don't spend a lot of time on that particular point.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So just follow those seven laws and anything else you wanna do is ok with God?

The consideration is that for the non-Jewish nations each category of the 7 mitzvoth involves development and practical application within their societies.

For example, when one says "don't steal" that allow requires what does it mean to steal. When one delves into setting systems fo justice / judicial systems that involves a lot of work especially when dealing with jurisdiction, what is considered proper evidence in a court of a law, what are the proper venues for justice, etc. That is why there are some Jewish sources that state that the 7 mitzvoth are the basis for non-Jewish society and the basis for building a system of morality.

Below are a few examples of extrapulating additional laws from the basis oft he 7 mitzvoth.

It is also recognized that most humans would conclude that setting up systems of justice, not murdering, not stealing / kidnapping, etc. are basic principles that humans build their societies on because it is built into the programming so to speak. The main issue, for Jews, is that is not our job to build these system for the non-Jewish nations nor is it our place to force the non-Jewish nations into doing them.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

And this is where I was hoping you would go. Having been raised Christian, I am aware that the way I grok sin gives me a shaky grasp on the Jewish conception of the concept.

This is a very good point you make. In ancient Hebrew there are several words that in English are often translated as "sin" and each of the Hebrew words have different connotations. When describing this incident most Jewish commentators describe it as a (חטא) which at its core means "missing the mark." This goes back to what I mentioned earlier that in the Hebrew, it is written as if they had an option to eat it or not. Just that by eating it there were certain consequences involved to making that particular free will choice.

There is also another word called (תאוה) which is used in the text which denotes a type of desire or appetite for something.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Regarding children, I would argue that putting a child in a situation where they could suffer and die as a result of their ignorant and underdeveloped decisions is the the immoral act. No?

An arguement could be made that bringing a child into the world is dangerous in and of itself. When my first child was born 11 years ago the hospital didn't feed her for 8 hours by mistake, due to a shift change in the nursing. I didn't find this out until later. This caused an initial iron defiency for a while. Further, she was born during time of missle attacks in the area I was living in and we had to leave there and go to a hospital outside of missle range. Further to that she was born with food allergies we didn't find out about until she was one years old. etc. so just getting a child to survive to 5 years has been a miracle throughout most of human history.

That being said, I remember when I was a teen and before no matter how good the stuation my parents put me in was I made a number of bad "free will decisions" that put me in danger just because of the fact that had the ability to make free will choices. I didn't make of those decisions because I was ignorant and underdeveloped, I fully understood what I was getting into, I simple chose a path that had no benefit. Once experienced the lack of benefit I eventually chose to go back to the path that parents put me on. Yet, I know peers of mine who didn't choose to go back.

One perspective on this, from Jewish sources, is that the Creator of all things made humanity different in giving us the ability to make free will choices, even ones that go against our best interest. On the flip side, the Creator gave use the ability to logically work our way out of situations that go against our best interests and these are called mitzvoth in Hebrew.

Last point, Jewish sources are very clear that Adam and Hawwah were not ignorant nor were they underdeveloped. They had free will and this dictates that you have the ability to choose a path, even if it doesn't benefit you. (i.e. the desire to do the negative has to be just as strong as the negative or else you are just following a programming that doesn't allow you to deviate. Most humans want to choose rather than their choices forced upon them.)

If you lack this possibility then you don't have free-will and in turn you are not human. i.e. based on Jewish sources the definiton of being an (אדם) adam is the power to freely choose from available paths with logic or the lack there of. In the Hebrew text, this is exactly what the snake was getting at by stating that eating the fruit would make them into "elohim" not ot be confused with god or like gods, but according to Jewish commentators "rulers, leaders, powerful, controllers of their own destiny, able to choose between experiencing good and bad, etc."