(urth) Original Sin and pagan gods

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes]

On 8/7/06, b sharp <bsharporflat at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well some interesting discussion points Dan'l (and wishing for an
> immediate improvement in the employment situation! Someplace
> must soon discover the valuable mind they are missing).

Thank you.

> I'm not a Biblical scholar or really much of a scholar at all but I'll do
> my best to respond.

I'm no scholar either; I'm a dilettante, an _amateur_ in the very
best (I hope!) sense of the word. But one of my _aimees_ is
Catholic theology, and it seems pretty clear to me that this is
one of Wolfe's starting points.

This can be kind of confusing for people raised in Protestant-
dominated American culture; the way Catholicism looks at some
of the _donees_ of Christianity is quite different from the way
Protestant culture does: sometimes deeply different, sometimes
subtly so. As a result what "everyone knows" is often wrong in
dealing with a Catholic writer.


> >      "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.")
>
> First thanks for The Matrix quote.

Technically a misquote -- Agent Smith actually says that to Morpheus,
but I love the way Weaving says "MISter ANDerson," and it _does_
make the quote easier to place. Oddly enough, I just rewatched it on
Saturday myself!

> Next, (sorry I couldn't find Jerusalem Bible) the next verses after 6:7
> say:

Jerusalem Bible is not necessary. Even a Catholic Bible isn't, though
it can be of subtle help in understanding Catholic writers: it includes
several books, and passages from a few other books, that the Protestant
version of the Bible excludes or puts in the back of the book as
"Apocrypha." (A bit of a misdesignation; the real Apocrypha are things
like the Gnostic Gospels, the Letter of Pilate, etc. These texts -- all of
the Old Testament, incidentally -- are better referred to as
"deuterocanonical.") At any rate, the text of the primary canon is going
to be identical except for translation artifacts.

> 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
> 6:9 These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and]
> perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.

There's a great deal of argument among Christians about just
what this _means_. Generally it's agreed that "perfect in his
generations" is not the same as "without sin;" for it to mean that
would entirely undermine the doctrine of Original Sin. Some
Protestant churches reject the doctrine by that name, but I don't
know any major church that would consider it possible for any
human other than Jesus to be completely without sin.

> Not sure where you got the part about Noah being a drunk

That would be the end of Genesis chapter 9. The first thing
Noah does when the ark lands -- well, after making sacrifice
to God (with what? There's only two of each animal!) is to
plant a vinyard and get plastered.

> but God seems to think Noah and his family are quite worth
> saving.  "Perfect in his generations" to me says "uncontaminated
> by matings with fallen angels".

Call me stupid -- go on! -- but until right here I actually hadn't
grasped the emphasis you were putting on the Nephilim. That
is, the idea that Noah and his family are apparently the only
humans without Nephil blood.

It's an interesting theory, but not one I've ever heard before,
anywhere. (Note: I have _not_ studied Talmud, let alone
the Kaballa.)

But there's certainly no clear indication in Scripture that the
Flood was to clear out Nephil blood from humanity. You've
got the bit about the Nephilim and their descendants, from 6:1
through 6:4, which reads as a mythical explanation of why the
human lifespan is limited to "no more than a hundred and twenty
years" -- note that this comes right after the generations of the
patriarchs from Adam to Noah, all of whom live outrageously
long times. The Nephilim passage ends: "These are the heroes
of days gone by, the famous men," which seems to me to refer
back to the long-lived patriarchs.

Then comes what certainly looks to me like a change of tone
and subject at 6:5-6, where
     Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great on the
     earth, and that the thoughts in his heart fashioned nothing
     but wickedness all day long. Yahweh regretted having made
     man on the earth...

> You said you don't think anyone understands what Nephilim
> are but how can that be?  What sort of Bible is incomprehensible
> to all people at all times in history?

Good question. Perhaps a Bible that has been accreted in layers
over thousands of years, such that the meaning of some words was
changed or simply lost over the generations?

As a Catholic, I (and Wolfe) am not dependent on the "divine
dictation" idea of Scripture, the Protestant idea that the text as
we have it is the exact Words of God. This doesn't deny that the
texts are "inspired by the Holy Spirit," but it's a very different model
of inspiration. A common Catholic description of this model calls
the Bible "the Word of God in the words of men."

(One of my reasons for becoming a Catholic is that the "divine
dictation" model is so _brittle_. It relies on the obviously untrue idea
that the exact text is maintained generation after generation, and
the very questionable idea of a translation that's so perfect and
clear that anyone reading it can understand what the original
writer intended, when the translators are often none too clear on
the concept.

Two examples:

1. In old art, Moses is often portrayed with horns on his head. This
is because the translation used by the Medieval Church -- the
Vulgate Latin of Jerome, itself translated primarily from the Greek
Septuagint, so there's two layers of translation right there -- said so.
But somewhere in the generations of translation and copying,
something had gotten munged: when people went back to the
original Hebrew text, what it actually said was that after the encounter
with God at Sinai, Moses' face shone so that nobody could bear to
look upon it and he wore a veil afterwards.

2. This one really honks off a lot of literalists ... "Lucifer" is _not_ a
name of Satan. It's a kenning for Nebuchadnezzar. One of the
major prophets -- I _think_ it was Isaiah, but I don't have the reference
in front of me and don't have the energy to dig for it -- says in a long
prophecy against Babylon, "How you are fallen, oh Lucifer!" -- well:
the original Hebrew refers to Venus as the Morning Star, with which
Nebuchadnezzar, as King of Babylon, was associated. "Lucifer,"
"bearer of light," was a Latin translation of the Greek translation of
the Hebrew name for the Morning Star, functioning as the forerunner
of the Sun.)

> Anyway I think Gene Wolfe agrees with the pundits who think the
> nephilim, the "great men of reknown", were giants,(and thus Nod, in
> the play).

Now, the idea that the Nephilim were giants is exactly the kind of
translation artifact I'm talking about. The ancient translators had _not
a clue_ what Nephilim meant, but they had to put _something_. By
the time you get to the King James, the phrase was: "There were
giants in the earth in those days." But nothing in the original text
particularly suggests that the Nephilim were giants.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that GW _doesn't_ take this point of
view; it _does_ explain Nod the Giant rather nicely ... and notice
that Nod is also the name of the country "east of Eden" where Cain
went to live after killing Abel.

> I like one analyst who suggested this might be reference to the well
> known Sumerian giant/heroes Gilgamesh and Enkidu. I think ancient
> Hebrews would know of them, since we do.

I would not be terribly surprised if this were true; as I said, a lot of
the OT seems to be written "against" the beliefs of the surrounding
nations. But it seems simpler to me to suppose that the "heroes and
famous men" were the patriarchs. I like simple. Simple is good.

But again, I should not assume that Wolfe prefers the simpler
explanation...


> I should be more careful with my words, however, when describing
> the flood and WHICH flood I mean, (Urth or Earth).  I really am more
> interested in BotNS than the Bible. I only study the Bible, currently, to
> try to see the source that Wolfe twisted into the BotNS.

Okay, may I propose a model?

In _The Silmarillion_ (and its sequel, _The Lord of the Rings_) JRR
Tolkien, whom Wolfe clearly admires passionately, set out to create
a pagan-like mythology that did not actually contradict anything in
Catholic belief. I am inclined to think that Wolfe follows a similar
plan in his speculations -- Catholic doctrine always remains true, but
anything not covered directly by it (including anything Wolfe invents
out of whole cloth) is fair game. I've made the case that the _Whorl_
is a deliberate instantiation of a purely Gnostic (Valentinian) world
into an orthodox universe; the pagan gods of the _Soldier_ books
appear to be subject to the rule of the one God (presumably we will
learn more about this in _Sidon_); and the seven worlds of TWK are
all creations of the One God in the uppermost world, who is enough
like the Christian God to have a winged humanoid messenger
(angel) named Michael.

Furthermore, Wolfe's major works are replete with images of
Catholic and Christian history and ritual. One can easily point to
example after example of Eucharists and, especially, perversions
of the Eucharist, in the Solar books. Severian's first (on his personal
timeline) encounter with Typhon is a reenactment of Jesus'
temptation by Satan in the desert. Etc.

If (as I believe) this is the case, then, while Wolfe's books are NOT
works of Catholic theology, a knowledge of Catholic doctrine is
essential as a sanity check for interpretation -- any interpretation that
violates Catholic doctrine unambiguously is highly suspect.

I have nothing to say about the whole question of humanity strewn
across the Universe and the possible sterilization of Urth.

> Notice it wasn't just any old son of Adam who found a wife in
> Nod, but Cain the first murderer. So if Cain's wife was not a daughter of
> Eve, then she was someone like Lilith (or maybe Lilith herself).

Well, given the name of the giant Nod in E&G, I can't argue with
this as a likely interpretation on Wolfe's part.

> Not a special creation. No soul.  Notice the Catch 22 God sets up
> here with human creation.  Either you mate with your sister or mate
> with some soulless alternate, not really human, maybe a demon.

This is the strongest available argument against the idea that Adam
and Eve were alone. It supposes that God would deliberately set up
a situation where there were three choices:

1. Remain celibate, in disobedience to His command to multiply and
    fill the Earth.
2. Mate with a close relative, which God later describes as "an
    abomination."
3. Mate with an animal or demonic being, which is also an abomination.

So it involves God commanding humanity to commit "abomination,"
which seems to go against His character.

> Ah well, they say all successful religions are based on contradiction.

Who says this? Not me. Paradox, yes, but not contradiction.


> I still don't get this point about Original Sin not being sexual.

Yo: the original sin was _disobedience_. Plain and simple. God
commanded "Don't eat that." A&E knowingly went ahead and ate
it. Whether it was shame or fear that caused Adam to hide isn't
relevant to this point; it was a result, not the sin itself.

> He made a loincloth.  Doesn't that show he was afraid of his penis
> and what it could do.

I think it shows that he was aware that, unlike other animals, he
was vulnerable. He wasn't exactly in a position to make Kevlar
armor. But the key point is "I saw that I was naked, and I was
afraid." ***NOT*** "ashamed."


> >I'm good with saying that fallen angels/demons/pagan gods 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.

> I'm not sure of that.  I know free will is a strong component of most
> Christian faiths

"Strong component?" It's the prerequisite for sin to be meaningful
as a concept.

> but I am not sure Gene Wolfe fully believes that it
> dominates every decision in our lives.

I'm sure he doesn't. Nor do I. The fundamental idea behind Original
Sin is that our free will has been corrupted, so that we cannot, by
our own power, avoid sinning. (The contrary position -- that we can
-- is one of the most ancient heresies in Christianity, called
Pelagianism, condemned at the Councils of Carthage, which are
accepted as true "ecumenical councils" by most mainline Protestants.

And God bless Wikipedia!)


> Wolfe says he believes in pagan gods as real entities who interacted
> with humans.  These beings are superhuman, they can fool us
> completely sometimes if we are not armed with the proper knowledge.
> So we can be tricked into doing evil through ignorance. And
> sometimes God allows this.

OK, I've gone back and looked at that quote, and it's a perfect
example of what I'm talking about: the pagan gods (a) were real,
(b) weren't necessarily "demons" in the Christian sense, but (c)
were clearly not gods in the God sense. In fact, they're a lot like
the Overcyn in TWK.

If there's a "message" here, it might be: "There are more thinngs
in Heaven and Earth than humans, angels, and devils."


> Take for example, Dorcas.  Severian has sex with his own
> grandmother.  Is that sort of incest an evil act or not?

Again, Catholic doctrine comes in handy here. It distinguishes
between different kinds of "evil." There are "evils" that happen to
us, objectively evil acts, and sin. There are conditions for an act
to be a sin: you have to know it was wrong, and intend to do it
anyway.

Clearly Dorcas and Severian did not know they were close kin
when they were sleeping together. Therefore it was not sin. But
it was still "an abomination," an objectively evil act, which has
consequences for the agents.

> It has to be an evil act by any cultural defintion, yet we really don't
> blame Severian do we?  He didn't know at the time, and Dorcas was
> the most right and good thing ever in Severian's life.

Agreed.

Skipping Valeria.

Deleting your discussion of Severian's judgment, but I agree with
it. Severian's act in insisting on taking his own judgment instead
of allowing Zak to stand in for him is an act of moral courage --
and is so precisely _because_ he knows that "Zak is a better
choice."

-- 
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