What do you think?
Rate this book
The Genesis of Good and Evil: The Fall(out) and Original Sin in the Bible
For centuries, the Garden of Eden story has been a cornerstone for the Christian doctrine of the Fall and original sin. In recent years, many scholars have disputed this understanding of Genesis 3 because it has no words for sin, transgression, disobedience, or punishment. Instead, it is about how the human condition came about. Yet the picture is not so simple. The Genesis of Good and Evil examines how the idea of the Fall developed in Jewish tradition on the eve of Christianity. In the end, the Garden of Eden is a rich study of humans in relation to God that leaves open many questions. One such question is, Does Genesis 3, 4, and 6, taken together, support the Christian doctrine of original sin? Smiths well-informed, close reading of these chapters concludes that it does. In this book, he addresses the many mysterious matters of the Garden story and invites readers to explore questions of their own.
201 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 1, 2019
23 people are currently reading
105 people want to read
About the author
Mark S. Smith
48 books60 followersMark S. Smith is Skirball Professor of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at New York University. He has served as visiting professor at the University of Pennsylvania, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. Smith was elected vice president of the Catholic Biblical Association in 2009.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
Read
April 14, 2025I read this for my undergraduate thesis on original sin. The author offers an unorthodox take on the scriptural origin of original sin, in questioning whether or not it can actually be found within the narrative of Gen 3. A work that I've read multiple times and will likely revisit as I progress further in my theological and scriptural intellectual development.
March 15, 2019
This was an okay book. It would have been a lot better if not for the many glaring flaws that really hindered my appreciation of it:
-It's a bit disjointed. It reads more like a random smattering of facts about (mostly) Genesis 3, with little effort at unifying or synthesizing it all or correlating the various facts with each other in anything like a coherent reading (the royal ideology stuff is discussed at length and then mostly dropped as if it had not been discussed, for instance).
-It doesn't pay much real attention to the role of Genesis 3 in Genesis 1-11, in the book of Genesis more broadly, or in the Torah as a whole (mostly only parts of Genesis 2, 4, and 6 are even considered). That broader context, which will affect the meaning/reading of the passage, is tellingly missing. Sure, the words in Genesis 3 may have been taken from some earlier source but they've been placed where they are to form a new narrative (or set of nesting narratives) and as such the meaning of the words together will acquire/shed significance or meaning accordingly in this new context or set of contexts.
-It often confuses facts about the text with facts about what the text is representing. For instance, Genesis 3 doesn't say that p so Smith claims it says that not-p; or the word 'x' doesn't appear in a part of the story, so x must be absent during those events (think "sin", "disobedience", etc.). And so on - so many of the arguments hinge on just this sort of illegitimate confusion, it's hard to take many of them very seriously.
-Despite the title of the first chapter, part of which is "What are 'Original Sin' and 'the Fall'?", Smith nowhere states how exactly he is using the terms "original sin" and "the fall". He gives a couple paragraphs of some descriptions of some things that some people have said about them, but nowhere does he specify how exactly he himself will be understanding the terms. This makes claims such as "There is no fall here" difficult to evaluate as he may simply be using the term differently from someone else who claims to see a fall happening in Genesis 3. After all, "original sin" could simply be used broadly to mean "whatever Adam and Eve did" and "the fall" to mean "the not-so-great consequences of that"!
-Despite (or because of or leading to) the above, Smith doesn't seem to understand the traditional Western Christian ideas about original sin - whether Catholic or Calvinist (odd being that he is in fact a practicing Catholic). He incorrectly thinks it requires the idea that human beings are utterly sinful, an idea that is explicitly rejected both by Catholics and Protestants - even Calvinists, who have arguably one of the strongest versions of original sin, will make a clear distinction between total and utter depravity and admit varieties of righteousness among the non-elect. This makes the entirety of chapter 7 one big head-scratcher (especially since, as a Catholic, he is committed to original sin and yet seems to be paradoxically arguing against it, which is a bit hard to understand).
-Sometimes he argues that a reading R is possible. Then he describes it a little more (offering no new evidence, mind you), then finally concludes that R is correct (again, with no further evidence!).
-Other times he states that he prefers A to B (without any specific reasons) and then simply assumes A in the following discussions, resting a lot on what is, at this point, a personal like (for instance, his stated preference to see the Ezekiel chapters in the scope of Genesis 3 rather than vice versa, this preference then being used both in his interpretation of Genesis 3 as well as key evidence in the dating of that same chapter).
-He seems to explicitly approve of going beyond the Bible in developing theology or in understanding the events or concepts represented therein (of course, he has to if he's a Catholic). After all, new information can be found, including things the biblical writers didn't know, etc. But then he seems to say things over and over that express disapproval of the same - and not just disapproval of these things masquerading as exegesis of original meaning (which is what he seems to have wanted to say in the introduction) but rather disapproval tout court (otherwise, some of his criticisms of, say, Augustine or Calvin don't make much sense).
-There's a lot more I could say here - more bad arguments, more unclarities, more places where it's not clear Smith has understood others or their theology - but hopefully the above will suffice to describe some of the things that hindered my appreciation of this work. This is not to say that it's all bad or that Smith doesn't say anything that I agree with, it's just that even when he does say something that seems to be right he either confuses things in some way or offers poor argumentation in its favor, which is a pity - on the surface, this book seems much clearer and more well-argued than it in fact is. Hence my disappointment.
-It's a bit disjointed. It reads more like a random smattering of facts about (mostly) Genesis 3, with little effort at unifying or synthesizing it all or correlating the various facts with each other in anything like a coherent reading (the royal ideology stuff is discussed at length and then mostly dropped as if it had not been discussed, for instance).
-It doesn't pay much real attention to the role of Genesis 3 in Genesis 1-11, in the book of Genesis more broadly, or in the Torah as a whole (mostly only parts of Genesis 2, 4, and 6 are even considered). That broader context, which will affect the meaning/reading of the passage, is tellingly missing. Sure, the words in Genesis 3 may have been taken from some earlier source but they've been placed where they are to form a new narrative (or set of nesting narratives) and as such the meaning of the words together will acquire/shed significance or meaning accordingly in this new context or set of contexts.
-It often confuses facts about the text with facts about what the text is representing. For instance, Genesis 3 doesn't say that p so Smith claims it says that not-p; or the word 'x' doesn't appear in a part of the story, so x must be absent during those events (think "sin", "disobedience", etc.). And so on - so many of the arguments hinge on just this sort of illegitimate confusion, it's hard to take many of them very seriously.
-Despite the title of the first chapter, part of which is "What are 'Original Sin' and 'the Fall'?", Smith nowhere states how exactly he is using the terms "original sin" and "the fall". He gives a couple paragraphs of some descriptions of some things that some people have said about them, but nowhere does he specify how exactly he himself will be understanding the terms. This makes claims such as "There is no fall here" difficult to evaluate as he may simply be using the term differently from someone else who claims to see a fall happening in Genesis 3. After all, "original sin" could simply be used broadly to mean "whatever Adam and Eve did" and "the fall" to mean "the not-so-great consequences of that"!
-Despite (or because of or leading to) the above, Smith doesn't seem to understand the traditional Western Christian ideas about original sin - whether Catholic or Calvinist (odd being that he is in fact a practicing Catholic). He incorrectly thinks it requires the idea that human beings are utterly sinful, an idea that is explicitly rejected both by Catholics and Protestants - even Calvinists, who have arguably one of the strongest versions of original sin, will make a clear distinction between total and utter depravity and admit varieties of righteousness among the non-elect. This makes the entirety of chapter 7 one big head-scratcher (especially since, as a Catholic, he is committed to original sin and yet seems to be paradoxically arguing against it, which is a bit hard to understand).
-Sometimes he argues that a reading R is possible. Then he describes it a little more (offering no new evidence, mind you), then finally concludes that R is correct (again, with no further evidence!).
-Other times he states that he prefers A to B (without any specific reasons) and then simply assumes A in the following discussions, resting a lot on what is, at this point, a personal like (for instance, his stated preference to see the Ezekiel chapters in the scope of Genesis 3 rather than vice versa, this preference then being used both in his interpretation of Genesis 3 as well as key evidence in the dating of that same chapter).
-He seems to explicitly approve of going beyond the Bible in developing theology or in understanding the events or concepts represented therein (of course, he has to if he's a Catholic). After all, new information can be found, including things the biblical writers didn't know, etc. But then he seems to say things over and over that express disapproval of the same - and not just disapproval of these things masquerading as exegesis of original meaning (which is what he seems to have wanted to say in the introduction) but rather disapproval tout court (otherwise, some of his criticisms of, say, Augustine or Calvin don't make much sense).
-There's a lot more I could say here - more bad arguments, more unclarities, more places where it's not clear Smith has understood others or their theology - but hopefully the above will suffice to describe some of the things that hindered my appreciation of this work. This is not to say that it's all bad or that Smith doesn't say anything that I agree with, it's just that even when he does say something that seems to be right he either confuses things in some way or offers poor argumentation in its favor, which is a pity - on the surface, this book seems much clearer and more well-argued than it in fact is. Hence my disappointment.
October 24, 2021
Original sin is perhaps one of the most important concepts in Christianity. It has critical soteriological and Christological consequences. Since ancient times, the doctrine has been debated and explored by a long line of authors. There are many dimensions to this question, an incomplete list is: 1) whether the original, ancestral sin is hereditary; 2) whether humanity is in the Calvanist state of Total Deprivation; 3) individual sin and societal sin; 4) the role of Satan in sin; 5) the origin of evil (in a moral dimension).
The Catholic Church and some Protestant denominations (such as Lutherans) hold a “strong form” of original sin, where humanity inherits the sin of Adam and Eve. Indeed, Adam “has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the ‘death of the soul’.” (CCC, 403) In contrast, the Eastern Orthodox tradition does not believe that ancestral sin would “impute their sin and guilt to all humanity”. (Smith, Introduction) Also curiously, Judaism does not hold the notion of ancestral sin. As Brevard Childs pointed out: “it is striking that the ‘fall tradition’ plays virtually no role in the rest of the Hebrew Bible until it was revived in the Hellenistic period”. (Smith, Chapter 1) Rather, “rabbinic tradition zeroed in on the notion of ‘the evil inclination’ of humanity suggested by Genesis 6:5”. (Smith, Introduction) A comparative study of the genesis of evil may reveal that prior authors and traditions may have interpreted the Fall retrospectively - imputing their own theology and context rather than understanding from the perspective of the original author.
Smith’s work embarks on such a journey. Through an exegesis of Genesis 3 (and some Genesis 2-6) and a comparative study of ANE literature, Smith arrived at the conclusion that Adam and Eve merely acquired the knowledge of good and evil. “Genesis 3 dramatizes how they disregard a divine prohibition and thereby acquire the very moral knowledge that makes them morally accountable agents.” (Smith, Chapter 3) “Rather than a story of sin, Genesis 2-3 explicitly relates a transferral of the knowledge of good and evil from the deity to the humans...Genesis 3 itself tells a story before sin or evil were actualized: humans had access to the source for knowing good and evil, they exercised desire toward acquiring that source, and it issued in human fear.” (Smith, Chapter 4) “Genesis 3 is not the story of original sin or the Fall. It may be characterized as the movement from huan desire to knowledge and then fear, knowledge again, difficulty, and ultimately death.” (Smith, Chapter 4) Fundamentally, Genesis 3 is a form of dramatization of a dual process - a historical process of exile from the Temple/palace complex (as discussed below) and a personal process of acquiring the knowledge of good and evil (as a consequence of desire).
To arrive at his conclusion, Smith laid out three central arguments: 1) Genesis 3 is “a deeply psychological portrait of human nature” (Smith, Introduction); 2) it intends to dramatize this psychological process; 3) Genesis 3-6 “does not delineate the Fall as much as the fallout from human desire in Genesis 3”. (Smith, Introduction) Ultimately, Smith de-emphasizes the moral dimension of the Fall. He contends that “the modern concern for moral or ethical evil (or ‘bad’) stands in inverse relationship to Old Testament representations of evil (or ‘bad’) that are often lacking in moral terms or characterization”. (Smith, Chapter 4)
In a way, Smith’s thesis is “contra-Calvin” - although he did argue against a long line of authors since ancient times. Some authors, such as Augustine, reason that evil intentions proceed evil acts. “Thus the evil act, the transgression of eating the forbidden fruit, was committed only when those who did it were already evil...this then is the original evil: man regarded himself as his own light”. (Smith, Chapter 2) Similarly, Calvin holds that “pride was the beginning of all evils”. Moreover, Calvin ended up with a more extreme version of original sin - Adam and Eve caused the total deprivation of humanity and only a predestined few could be saved. But Smith argues that while “the signs of human good in Genesis may be passing or fleeting (the very meaning of Abel’s name)...such signs of human good are no less real than humanity’s terrible evil”. (Smith, Chapter 7) He also took a significant step (if not a stride), by claiming that Adam and Evil did not commit evil (they merely acquired the knowledge of good and evil). Since they did not commit evil, it naturally follows that there is no hereditary original sin as alleged by some traditional authors.
Smith’s provocative conclusion partly stems from his methodology. He defines the scope of Genesis 3 differently from other authors. While some theologians would include Old Testament scriptures dated later than Genesis and look at the Hebrew scripture as a whole, Smith argues that these materials are out of the scope of an earlier writer. In contrast, he included other ANE pagan literature such as Gilgamesh into the scope of the writer - which may be controversial. Thus while it is informative to point out that other ANE literature does not view the creation of humanity as evil, it may be a weak form of evidence for a reader who believes such literature should not be included in the scope. Also, this methodology relies significantly on dating - which in many cases lack scholastic consensus. Indeed, Smith’s own dating may not be accepted by other scholars, as we shall see below.
Smith dates Genesis 2-3 to be sometime after the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC/BCE (as opposed to the Solomonic period typically held by the J-sources). This date forms the premise of his argument that Genesis 3 is a retrospective reading of Adam and Eve, in the eyes of an author that has recently been expelled from the Temple area in Jerusalem and imputed his understanding of etiology to an otherwise innocent story. He arrived at this dating primarily through the existence of an Akkadian loanword and the absence of a Persian loanword. However, it is arguably speculative to use only two words to date a document. Indeed, Smith himself conceded: “(regarding the Akkadian loanword for ‘stream’ in Genesis 2:6), it could be claimed that this loan was made earlier in the monarchy, but it does not seem particularly likely.” (Smith, Chapter 3, footnote 105) Similarly, while the Persian loanword pardes could be fitting in this context, the absence of which does not necessarily mean that the author was unaware of the loanword.
With this particular dating, however, Smith made a couple of further observations that are more speculative than scientific: 1) the story of Genesis 2-3 reflects the environmental landscape of the Temple-palace complex in Jerusalem; 2) the snake is a common mythical symbol in ANE, in the form of goddesses and iconography (and hence not necessarily a representation of evil); 3) Genesis 2-3 “seem to associate wisdom with the snake and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, suggesting that these are not complete or ideal sources of wisdom” (and hence forms as a critique of royal wisdom). He believes that “Genesis 2-3 uses royal motifs and elements drawn from the memory of a beloved Jerusalem and its monarchy”. (Smith, Chapter 3) These are indeed thought-provoking conclusions - but they are hasty conclusions at best.
Aside from some speculative historical conclusions, Smith also included some materials that seem disjointed from the main arguments. For example, the abruptive introduction of network theory in Chapter 4 did not seem to support any arguments. While it is informative to examine the power relationships among the subjects (Adam, Eve, God, snake), the examination did not seem to arrive at any explicit theological conclusion that supports his main arguments.
Despite the above shortcomings, Smith innovatively interpreted Genesis 3. The knowledge acquisition argument is well grounded - after all, why is the tree called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and not any other name? If the lesson is mainly Adam/Eve’s disobedience, why not use a pseudo fruit that does not have real benefits? Adam and Eve were able to “open their eyes”, after eating the fruit. The benefits of the fruit are real - despite its many negative consequences.
Smith’s work is also based on a very formidable list of materials, which he carefully cited with admirable scholastic precision and rigor. Thus while I do not agree with some of his arguments, I nonetheless regard this as a solid piece of work that added to our understanding of Genesis 3.
The Catholic Church and some Protestant denominations (such as Lutherans) hold a “strong form” of original sin, where humanity inherits the sin of Adam and Eve. Indeed, Adam “has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the ‘death of the soul’.” (CCC, 403) In contrast, the Eastern Orthodox tradition does not believe that ancestral sin would “impute their sin and guilt to all humanity”. (Smith, Introduction) Also curiously, Judaism does not hold the notion of ancestral sin. As Brevard Childs pointed out: “it is striking that the ‘fall tradition’ plays virtually no role in the rest of the Hebrew Bible until it was revived in the Hellenistic period”. (Smith, Chapter 1) Rather, “rabbinic tradition zeroed in on the notion of ‘the evil inclination’ of humanity suggested by Genesis 6:5”. (Smith, Introduction) A comparative study of the genesis of evil may reveal that prior authors and traditions may have interpreted the Fall retrospectively - imputing their own theology and context rather than understanding from the perspective of the original author.
Smith’s work embarks on such a journey. Through an exegesis of Genesis 3 (and some Genesis 2-6) and a comparative study of ANE literature, Smith arrived at the conclusion that Adam and Eve merely acquired the knowledge of good and evil. “Genesis 3 dramatizes how they disregard a divine prohibition and thereby acquire the very moral knowledge that makes them morally accountable agents.” (Smith, Chapter 3) “Rather than a story of sin, Genesis 2-3 explicitly relates a transferral of the knowledge of good and evil from the deity to the humans...Genesis 3 itself tells a story before sin or evil were actualized: humans had access to the source for knowing good and evil, they exercised desire toward acquiring that source, and it issued in human fear.” (Smith, Chapter 4) “Genesis 3 is not the story of original sin or the Fall. It may be characterized as the movement from huan desire to knowledge and then fear, knowledge again, difficulty, and ultimately death.” (Smith, Chapter 4) Fundamentally, Genesis 3 is a form of dramatization of a dual process - a historical process of exile from the Temple/palace complex (as discussed below) and a personal process of acquiring the knowledge of good and evil (as a consequence of desire).
To arrive at his conclusion, Smith laid out three central arguments: 1) Genesis 3 is “a deeply psychological portrait of human nature” (Smith, Introduction); 2) it intends to dramatize this psychological process; 3) Genesis 3-6 “does not delineate the Fall as much as the fallout from human desire in Genesis 3”. (Smith, Introduction) Ultimately, Smith de-emphasizes the moral dimension of the Fall. He contends that “the modern concern for moral or ethical evil (or ‘bad’) stands in inverse relationship to Old Testament representations of evil (or ‘bad’) that are often lacking in moral terms or characterization”. (Smith, Chapter 4)
In a way, Smith’s thesis is “contra-Calvin” - although he did argue against a long line of authors since ancient times. Some authors, such as Augustine, reason that evil intentions proceed evil acts. “Thus the evil act, the transgression of eating the forbidden fruit, was committed only when those who did it were already evil...this then is the original evil: man regarded himself as his own light”. (Smith, Chapter 2) Similarly, Calvin holds that “pride was the beginning of all evils”. Moreover, Calvin ended up with a more extreme version of original sin - Adam and Eve caused the total deprivation of humanity and only a predestined few could be saved. But Smith argues that while “the signs of human good in Genesis may be passing or fleeting (the very meaning of Abel’s name)...such signs of human good are no less real than humanity’s terrible evil”. (Smith, Chapter 7) He also took a significant step (if not a stride), by claiming that Adam and Evil did not commit evil (they merely acquired the knowledge of good and evil). Since they did not commit evil, it naturally follows that there is no hereditary original sin as alleged by some traditional authors.
Smith’s provocative conclusion partly stems from his methodology. He defines the scope of Genesis 3 differently from other authors. While some theologians would include Old Testament scriptures dated later than Genesis and look at the Hebrew scripture as a whole, Smith argues that these materials are out of the scope of an earlier writer. In contrast, he included other ANE pagan literature such as Gilgamesh into the scope of the writer - which may be controversial. Thus while it is informative to point out that other ANE literature does not view the creation of humanity as evil, it may be a weak form of evidence for a reader who believes such literature should not be included in the scope. Also, this methodology relies significantly on dating - which in many cases lack scholastic consensus. Indeed, Smith’s own dating may not be accepted by other scholars, as we shall see below.
Smith dates Genesis 2-3 to be sometime after the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC/BCE (as opposed to the Solomonic period typically held by the J-sources). This date forms the premise of his argument that Genesis 3 is a retrospective reading of Adam and Eve, in the eyes of an author that has recently been expelled from the Temple area in Jerusalem and imputed his understanding of etiology to an otherwise innocent story. He arrived at this dating primarily through the existence of an Akkadian loanword and the absence of a Persian loanword. However, it is arguably speculative to use only two words to date a document. Indeed, Smith himself conceded: “(regarding the Akkadian loanword for ‘stream’ in Genesis 2:6), it could be claimed that this loan was made earlier in the monarchy, but it does not seem particularly likely.” (Smith, Chapter 3, footnote 105) Similarly, while the Persian loanword pardes could be fitting in this context, the absence of which does not necessarily mean that the author was unaware of the loanword.
With this particular dating, however, Smith made a couple of further observations that are more speculative than scientific: 1) the story of Genesis 2-3 reflects the environmental landscape of the Temple-palace complex in Jerusalem; 2) the snake is a common mythical symbol in ANE, in the form of goddesses and iconography (and hence not necessarily a representation of evil); 3) Genesis 2-3 “seem to associate wisdom with the snake and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, suggesting that these are not complete or ideal sources of wisdom” (and hence forms as a critique of royal wisdom). He believes that “Genesis 2-3 uses royal motifs and elements drawn from the memory of a beloved Jerusalem and its monarchy”. (Smith, Chapter 3) These are indeed thought-provoking conclusions - but they are hasty conclusions at best.
Aside from some speculative historical conclusions, Smith also included some materials that seem disjointed from the main arguments. For example, the abruptive introduction of network theory in Chapter 4 did not seem to support any arguments. While it is informative to examine the power relationships among the subjects (Adam, Eve, God, snake), the examination did not seem to arrive at any explicit theological conclusion that supports his main arguments.
Despite the above shortcomings, Smith innovatively interpreted Genesis 3. The knowledge acquisition argument is well grounded - after all, why is the tree called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and not any other name? If the lesson is mainly Adam/Eve’s disobedience, why not use a pseudo fruit that does not have real benefits? Adam and Eve were able to “open their eyes”, after eating the fruit. The benefits of the fruit are real - despite its many negative consequences.
Smith’s work is also based on a very formidable list of materials, which he carefully cited with admirable scholastic precision and rigor. Thus while I do not agree with some of his arguments, I nonetheless regard this as a solid piece of work that added to our understanding of Genesis 3.
October 1, 2024
In this book, Smith is posing questions and making observations about the texts of Genesis 3, 4, and 6. While he compares these texts to Ancient Near Eastern texts, he does not seem to be interested in connecting his observations to each other or to other biblical literature. As a result of this methodology, he draws some very unsubstantiated conclusions.
His main point is that if some vocabulary is not present in a certain text, the concept it represents is not in the text. He applies this specifically to the lack of words for "sin", "punishment", and "disobedience" in Genesis 3, concluding that Genesis 3 is not about these concepts: "Genesis 3 is not the story of original sin or the fall" (p62). However, a few pages further, Smith acknowledges that "a notion of original sin, or at least ancient sin or primordial sin" (p76) is approached in Genesis 6:5 and 8:21, since the humans have now "a human "design" - literally "form, forming" ... toward evil", concluding that "the Flood story and not human creation becomes the seminal point at which humanity's evil is recognized" (p76).
It is unclear to me what Smith exactly argues for and why he does not seem to see that there is a difference between the first description of a phenomenon (e.g. sin or evil) and the pivotal moment at which these phenomena start to exist and infiltrate the world and human beings. In other words, while Genesis 3 does not explicitly mention sin and evil, it seems clear that these (in Genesis 4 and 6) are a result of what happened in Genesis 3, as the literary linkages between Genesis 3, 4, and 6 that Smith describes also suggest. Still, Smith refuses to call the events in Genesis 3 a "fall".
Ironically, Smith's own view on Genesis 3 is based on vocabulary that is not present in Genesis 3. He uses Psalm 19:8 & Proverbs 7:7, 9:4, 13, 16 to show that having knowledge of good and evil marks the maturity of a human being and without it, one would be "simple". Therefore, he considers the acquisition of this knowledge a development or progress of the human being, where he gains moral responsibility. However, there is no vocabulary of "childlike", "maturity", "development" or "simple" (p38-40) in the text of Genesis 1-3. So why deny that there is "sin", "punishment", or "disobedience" in Genesis 3 because of the lack of explicit wordings, while affirming "development" or "progress" or calling Adam and Eve "simple" without any such vocabulary in Genesis 3?
Anyways, the supposed progress, which is according to Smith supported by the occurrence of both good (Abel, Henoch, Noah) and evil (Cain) characters, seems to me a denial of the overall story line of Scriptures. Even though it is indeed still possible for human beings to do good after Genesis 3 (assuming no (hyper)calvinistic doctrine), the focus of Scriptures is on the downfall of human beings (e.g. the spiral in Judges), finding its climax in the Babylonian exile. Even those representing the "good" side (e.g. Noah) hopelessly fail. Jesus came to save, not to confirm the maturity of morally responsible humans.
Thus, despite a few sparse interesting (and unconnected) observations, the level of argumentation in this book makes it not really worth reading.
His main point is that if some vocabulary is not present in a certain text, the concept it represents is not in the text. He applies this specifically to the lack of words for "sin", "punishment", and "disobedience" in Genesis 3, concluding that Genesis 3 is not about these concepts: "Genesis 3 is not the story of original sin or the fall" (p62). However, a few pages further, Smith acknowledges that "a notion of original sin, or at least ancient sin or primordial sin" (p76) is approached in Genesis 6:5 and 8:21, since the humans have now "a human "design" - literally "form, forming" ... toward evil", concluding that "the Flood story and not human creation becomes the seminal point at which humanity's evil is recognized" (p76).
It is unclear to me what Smith exactly argues for and why he does not seem to see that there is a difference between the first description of a phenomenon (e.g. sin or evil) and the pivotal moment at which these phenomena start to exist and infiltrate the world and human beings. In other words, while Genesis 3 does not explicitly mention sin and evil, it seems clear that these (in Genesis 4 and 6) are a result of what happened in Genesis 3, as the literary linkages between Genesis 3, 4, and 6 that Smith describes also suggest. Still, Smith refuses to call the events in Genesis 3 a "fall".
Ironically, Smith's own view on Genesis 3 is based on vocabulary that is not present in Genesis 3. He uses Psalm 19:8 & Proverbs 7:7, 9:4, 13, 16 to show that having knowledge of good and evil marks the maturity of a human being and without it, one would be "simple". Therefore, he considers the acquisition of this knowledge a development or progress of the human being, where he gains moral responsibility. However, there is no vocabulary of "childlike", "maturity", "development" or "simple" (p38-40) in the text of Genesis 1-3. So why deny that there is "sin", "punishment", or "disobedience" in Genesis 3 because of the lack of explicit wordings, while affirming "development" or "progress" or calling Adam and Eve "simple" without any such vocabulary in Genesis 3?
Anyways, the supposed progress, which is according to Smith supported by the occurrence of both good (Abel, Henoch, Noah) and evil (Cain) characters, seems to me a denial of the overall story line of Scriptures. Even though it is indeed still possible for human beings to do good after Genesis 3 (assuming no (hyper)calvinistic doctrine), the focus of Scriptures is on the downfall of human beings (e.g. the spiral in Judges), finding its climax in the Babylonian exile. Even those representing the "good" side (e.g. Noah) hopelessly fail. Jesus came to save, not to confirm the maturity of morally responsible humans.
Thus, despite a few sparse interesting (and unconnected) observations, the level of argumentation in this book makes it not really worth reading.
September 30, 2024
This book is not great; just because “great” is not in the title.
This sentence mirrors the (astounding low) level of argumentation found in “The Genesis of Good and Evil”. Over and over again Smith states that because word “X” is not explicitly mentioned within the text, the text does not assign X to a certain situation: these form his “vocabulary” argumentations.
Example:
Because the words “disobedience” and “sin” are absent in Genesis 1-3, and Adam and Eve eat from the forbidden fruit in Genesis 3, the Bible does not judge the eating of the fruit as “sinful” or as Adam and Eve being “disobedient”.
This is of course very shallow argumentation. He could be right, sure. But he might as well be wrong.
He himself acknowledges (soon after these statements) the importance and relevance of context for the interpretation of scripture, sometimes even himself applying arguments fully based upon context rather than “empirical” words…
In short:
In Genesis 2:17 God said to Adam and Eve that they shall not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They ate from that exact tree in Genesis 3:6.
Smith states that because “disobedience” is not in the text, it is not clear that the Bible describes the act as disobedience. I truly do not know what to say.
Moreover, he makes a point for Genesis being a retrospective description of the progression/development of humans which explains their current state while simultaneously not accepting Genesis 3 describing the climax of how sin entered a “perfect” world. However, even if Genesis is a dramatized version which describes our developing condition as humans, a fall could still fit the narrative? Maybe the fall is part of this “development” and tells us something about our current condition as well?
This is one of the moments he works very hard to make an argument for something he does not need to fight for. Some hills are worth fighting for. This wasn’t even a hill.
He also seems to simply ignore a certain abrupt fall by accepting genesis as a description of development of mankind, during which navigating potential sometimes brings forth chaos and evil. However, this development does not give an alternate explanation for the genesis of the ‘potential’ for evil itself.
The amount of repetition of certain statements (for example his “vocabulary” argumentation of the eating of the fruit in Genesis 3 not being explicitly described as “disobedient”) and ideas make the book truly feel like a fever dream. Rarely have I read such a disordered book.
I’ve got much more to say about the book, however someone named Ian already wrote a review which tells it all. Thanks Ian.
Lastly, of course the book has also interesting ideas. Unfortunately not too many.
Hope you all do well. God bless.
This sentence mirrors the (astounding low) level of argumentation found in “The Genesis of Good and Evil”. Over and over again Smith states that because word “X” is not explicitly mentioned within the text, the text does not assign X to a certain situation: these form his “vocabulary” argumentations.
Example:
Because the words “disobedience” and “sin” are absent in Genesis 1-3, and Adam and Eve eat from the forbidden fruit in Genesis 3, the Bible does not judge the eating of the fruit as “sinful” or as Adam and Eve being “disobedient”.
This is of course very shallow argumentation. He could be right, sure. But he might as well be wrong.
He himself acknowledges (soon after these statements) the importance and relevance of context for the interpretation of scripture, sometimes even himself applying arguments fully based upon context rather than “empirical” words…
In short:
In Genesis 2:17 God said to Adam and Eve that they shall not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They ate from that exact tree in Genesis 3:6.
Smith states that because “disobedience” is not in the text, it is not clear that the Bible describes the act as disobedience. I truly do not know what to say.
Moreover, he makes a point for Genesis being a retrospective description of the progression/development of humans which explains their current state while simultaneously not accepting Genesis 3 describing the climax of how sin entered a “perfect” world. However, even if Genesis is a dramatized version which describes our developing condition as humans, a fall could still fit the narrative? Maybe the fall is part of this “development” and tells us something about our current condition as well?
This is one of the moments he works very hard to make an argument for something he does not need to fight for. Some hills are worth fighting for. This wasn’t even a hill.
He also seems to simply ignore a certain abrupt fall by accepting genesis as a description of development of mankind, during which navigating potential sometimes brings forth chaos and evil. However, this development does not give an alternate explanation for the genesis of the ‘potential’ for evil itself.
The amount of repetition of certain statements (for example his “vocabulary” argumentation of the eating of the fruit in Genesis 3 not being explicitly described as “disobedient”) and ideas make the book truly feel like a fever dream. Rarely have I read such a disordered book.
I’ve got much more to say about the book, however someone named Ian already wrote a review which tells it all. Thanks Ian.
Lastly, of course the book has also interesting ideas. Unfortunately not too many.
Hope you all do well. God bless.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews