The snake (of the trouser variety) tempts Eve with the forbidden fruit (hanky panky) that she shares with Adam. The consequence of which is painful childbirth.

They’re even specifically stated to be naked for this situation.

  • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
    463·
    9 months ago

    Which begs the question what the actual intention behind the allegory was.

    I suspect that pursuing knowledge is bad and you should not do it and trust in god instead? It fits with the church’s then (and partially now) stance I suppose.

    • novibeEnglish
      13·
      9 months ago

      It’s a much older story than the Catholic Church tho. Obviously older than Christianity as a whole right? It’s one of the oldest parts of the Torah/Old Testament. It did change over time, but I believe it has much more religious implications than political.

      In any case, I believe it’s a story to explain our difference from animals, our apparent separation from creation while also being a part of it. An attempt, within the metaphysics of early Semitic religions, to answer one of the most fundamental questions humans always had: what are we and what are we doing here?

      I also like some of the more esoteric interpretations, so idk

      • agent_flounder@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        9 months ago

        According to World History Encyclopedia, the story is adapted from non-Israelite, near eastern myths.

        … the concept of a “garden” of a god(s) was a very common metaphor in the ancient Near East of where the god(s) resided. For the narrator of Genesis, the “Garden in Eden” was imaginatively constructed for an etiological (origin or cause of things) purpose, not as a divine residence, but of the first man and woman on earth – Adam and Eve. As generally accepted in modern scholarship, Genesis 1-11 is labeled as the “Primeval History,” which includes mythologies and legends that were very common not just in Israel, but throughout the ancient Near East. These myths and legends are not Israelite in origin but were adapted by the biblical writers for either polemical or rhetorical purposes.

        • novibeEnglish
          1·
          9 months ago

          It’s the widely accepted theory yes

        • TheWeirdestCunt@lemm.eeEnglish
          2·
          9 months ago

          For Judaism it would be Synagogue rather than church, the more general term would be temple I guess? Or maybe there’s some word that encompasses any religious leaders in general.

    • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
      71·
      9 months ago

      I’ve heard a theory that it was a myth based on the transition from hunter gatherers to farming. In the Euphrates and Tigris triangle, living conditions were very favourable for humans and may have seemed like paradise in hindsight. Then population pressure triggered the transition to farming, i.e. toiling “by the sweat of your brow”.

      • Uruanna@lemmy.world
        5·
        9 months ago

        It’s the other way around. Agriculture was easier, not harder, it allowed rapid population growth with much less risk and improved survivability, making enough food for more people more easily, which led to a demographic explosion and the rise of cities. It’s the exact period of about 2~3000 years where population centers grew from hundreds of people, to thousands of people, to tens of thousands, having to build communal centers to store all the food to give out to those who can’t work.

        • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
          2·
          9 months ago

          While agriculture allowed for vastly larger supplies of food and surpluses large enough to sustain cities (and even non-working ruling classes) it wasn’t “easier” per se. If we look at modern day hunter-gatherer groups they expend about the same calories as they bring in, but they typically work fewer hours per day than do agricultural peoples, leaving them with more leisure time. A combination of sedentism and the ability to produce a surplus of food and probably some factors we are just not privy to in the historical record made agriculture more appealing, and it absolutely made it more capable of supporting cities and empires. But easier isn’t really a good descriptor.

          • Uruanna@lemmy.world
            2·
            9 months ago

            Easier on average, still. Of course the labor was different - more long lasting strain and stress that we can see in the bones and the teeth, but with less everyday danger from going out. One hunter-gatherer may have more free time, but half of the population of a city can straight up do something else for a living. I’m no expert in why hunter-gatherers couldn’t do the same, probably something to do with storing food all year round without rotting, but the massive difference in how many people could be fed with a lesser fraction of people doing the works, mathematically shows that agriculture was more energy efficient per head over the years. The population jump from hundreds to thousands to tens of thousands in cities like Eridu then Uruk during that period is insane.

            • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
              2·
              9 months ago

              Oh undoubtedly more efficient and better for a large group of people. I just mean to say in the matter of the person securing foods, hunting-gathering is less work per day/week than is farming. Or, at least, that has been the consensus of all my anthropology professors and the papers I’ve read. But if there’s counter evidence to it, I’d genuinely love to read it if you offer a keyword or two for the search. I love reading anthro papers so fricking much. Lol

      • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        2·
        9 months ago

        I do like this, but I can’t imagine how anyone would come up with this at a single point in time. Like if you were a farmer at that time, would you have any concept or understanding or even supposition that just a few thousand years ago your ancestors just swanned around plucking juicy apples from trees?