(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes]

B --

I certainly did read your post regarding "the need for Ushas"; I
thought I had responded to it! Perhaps not. I'm having a kind of
weird time right through here, between depression and lack of
employment, and sometimes my mind wanders.


> Dan'l, you seem to agree with the main point of this thread, that
> the pagan gods, the competitors to Judeo-Christianity, were
> incestuous.

Right, and that this is particularly true of Egypt, the single culture
that Israel seems most to have defined itself _against_; indeed,
much of the Mosaic "Law of Cleanliness" can be seen as reactions
against the practices of Egypt and, to an almost-as-great extent,
their nearer neighbors (Phoenicia, Philistia, Moab, etc.). I honestly
think you can't understand ancient Israel without understanding
ancient Egypt.


> Whether this is important to Urth and especially Severian remains
> to be seen, but I think it is.  I have one or two essay-like posts left in
> me on this topic, then I'm done.  So this next part is just hair-splitting,
> for fun.

Understood and will respond appropriately 8*)

> Regarding your alternate interpretations of Genesis I can only
> note that the ones I used are certainly not my own. Seeing the
> talking serpent as representing the Devil, the flood as God's
> cleansing of evil from earth, and Adam and Eve as the parents of
> all humanity are all fairly standard interpretations I think.

Talking serpent as representing (or possessed by, etc.) the
Satan, absolutely, this is standard stuff.

Regarding the flood, a small distinction between what you
just said here and what you said before, what I argued with:
earlier, you said it was to "purify humanity from contamination."
That's rather different from cleansing evil from the Earth, which
I don't argue with at all. The difference being, of course, that the
cleansing of evil from the Earth would have involved wiping out
all of humanity.

     "I will rid the earth's face of man, my own creation,"
     Yahweh said, "and of animals also, reptiles too, and
     the birds of heaven, for I regret having made them."
          Gen. 6: 7, Jerusalem Bible.

This isn't about purifying humanity; it's about removing humanity.

("You are a disease, Mister Anderson, and I am the cure.")

Adam and Eve as the parents of all humanity? No argument
there, provided we take it to mean "all humanity is descended
from them." But _only_ from them? Again, I refer you to Cain,
who seems to have found a wife in "the land of Nod, east of
Eden." Yes, traditionalists insist that there were no other humans,
but they kind of waffle on the whole idea that A&E's kids actually
committed incest. The escape hatch they never seem to find is
that Genesis describes creation twice, and one of these makes
it clear that God created humanity in the plural (Gen. 1:26-30).
Adam was special and set apart -- the one into whose nostrils
God breathed ("breath" being "ruach," eq. to "pneuma" or
"spiritus" -- in English, breath-wind-spirit) the breath of life.


> I find
> plenty of references, anyway.  Your view of
> the fig leaf as a surrogate protective fur coat for a "naked ape" is pretty
> radical and anthropological

Sorry; I was borrowing a phrase, but didn't intend anything
particularly radical or anthropological by it. What Genesis actually
says is, first, "...they realized that they were naked. So they
sewed fig leaves together to make themselves loincloths." Note
that they didn't realize they were naked and start having monkey
sex; being naked _bothered_ them. Why? "I was afraid because
I was naked, so I hid," Adam tells God.  The key point here being
that he was _afraid_, not ashamed. The knowledge granted by the
fruit -- knowledge of good and evil, not biology -- brings _fear_.


> I think the interpretation of the fig leaf representing sexual shame
> is more mainstream.  Other opinions on this, anyone?

Ummm. So, since when is Wolfe all that mainstream?


> But to me the main point isn't about finding true word of God or the
> majority Christian or secular scholarly opinion of the Bible but rather
> Gene Wolfe's interpretation.  In the past, when I read Dr. Talos' play
> I loved it but I didn't have much of a clue as to what it meant.  Now,
> almost every line makes sense interpreted within the Genesis/Pagan
> god/Christianity framework I'm trying to build.

Strangely, I think this is entirely likely. However, I don't see the
necessity of traditional-but-not-scripturally-based interpretations
of Genesis to make this work.

> I think Wright addresses BotNS from a socialist perspective, with a
> strong implied criticism of imperialism and colonialism.

How very interesting ... Wolfe himself seems to be rather more
conservative politically; but then, I've seen socialist interpretations
of "Atlas Shrugged."

> I am comfortable with this interpretation within my own framework,
> as I think BotNS might be implying that such evils of humanity are
> derived from the same source as all evil, that being interaction with
> fallen angels/demons/pagan gods.

Yesno. I'm good with saying that fa/d/pgs make suggestions that
humans act on. But the evil comes from our own freely made choices,
or we're automata, which I'm pretty sure my fellow-Catholic Wolfe
would not wish to suggest.

> In the text, the corrupt Autarch of Eschatology and Genesis and the
> multi-world monarchy of Typhon are examples of social evil in
> contrast to more personal sins.

Well, Typhon, at least, has his full share of personal sin as well...

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, writer, trainer, bon vivant
-----
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer
"Shovels are essential to the fantasy genre.
However, they are primarily used by the authors rather than the
characters." -- Stephen R. Donaldson