The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality - Book Report/Review Example

The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality. James Barr, Minneapolis, Fortress, 1992 Choose a book from the bibliography  2. Quickly scan the book.  3. Re-read the book, giving attention to the authors major presuppositions, main  thesis, choice of methodology, and stated delimitations.  4. Determine whether the author accomplished what he/she set out to do. Lay out  three positive and three negative criticisms.  5 No shorter than five (5) double-spaced pages, please.  This book is based on a series of five lectures on “human immortality” presented by Barr in 1990 (1). These lectures have been redrafted and converted into a much larger more significant work. Essentially, Barr is arguing that rather than losing immortality humanity never had it to begin with; rather Adam and Eve almost gave us immortality but just failed to do so. He introduces his book with a discussion on how immortality has been treated in philosophical and theological circles in the twentieth century. He notes; “that while some traditions of theology . . . have continued to be very interested in the theme of immortality, others, and especially important trends in the use of the Bible within theology, have tended to become hostile to the entire idea of it and to disregard it as an element in biblical thought” (3). Barr strongly disagrees with this analysis concluding that the story of Adam and Eve in particular has been misrepresented. “Taken in itself and for itself”, argues Barr, “this narrative is not, as it has commonly been understood in our tradition, basically a story of the origins of sin and evil, still less a depiction of absolute evil or total depravity; it is a story of how human immortality was almost gained, but in fact was lost” (4) Essentially, this is the focus of the book. Barr concentrates on pure textual analysis, skirting around what he considers “non essentials” and focussing on what the Hebrew bible actually says about such things as sin, ever-lasting life and the soul. Barr concludes that the story of the Garden of Eden was not about the “Fall” but about how mankind almost lived forever under God’s grace. The work is thematically based on textual analysis and is broken down into four chapters. Chapter One is essentially an introduction. As well as the above discussion Barr adds that immortality was always a part of the creation story and that later Greek influences eschewed this fact for some later re-interpretation of the resurrection motif. Chapter Two continues with this theme. Barr argues that “death” has, despite what later writers such as Paul have written, never been the “enemy”; indeed, “death, so long as it was in proper time and in good circumstances, was both natural and proper in God’s eyes” (56). To successfully claim that death was not the punishment for Adam’s indiscretion in the Garden Barr has to argue that it was never God’s intention to curse humanity with mortality. Barr does in fact argue this well. His use of text is convincing and he is right in directing his argument away from semantics, instead concentrating in solid biblical interpretation. Chapter three concerns Barr’s textual interpretation of “the fall”, specifically the nature of the Garden itself, sexuality, sin and how it relates to immortality. The section on the “Tree of Life” is solid. He argues convincingly that this minor feature of the Genesis narrative has become “the sole express motivation for the expulsion from the garden” (59). However, there is tension in his argument when he enters into discussion over the “Tree of Knowledge”. Barr says that God by His very nature does not require another vehicle to deliver knowledge of ethics; “this”, he argues, “is something that belongs pre-eminently to deity”. Considering how careful Barr is to remain true to the text this answer is less than satisfying. Essentially he is offering an interpretation of text that does not actually exist – indeed, taken to the extreme, Barr is actually claiming to know the wishes of the divine. Indeed, he is almost apologetic; knowing he has to deal with the “Tree of Knowledge” lest his analysis of the Garden motif be incomplete, yet not really convinced by his best argument. Overall, the treatment is unsatisfactory. Barr’s brief discussion concerning “nakedness” and shame is equally brief and equally as unsatisfying. Barr argues that it was not the knowledge of “good and evil” that drove Adam and Eve to shameful nakedness; in other words, naked flesh is not symbolic of a greater shame. Rather he says that nakedness, at least according to the Hebrew Bible, was always an impropriety; that awareness of self was to do with “a coming of consciousness of lines that must not be crossed, of rules that must be obeyed, and in this sense a discernment of ‘good and evil’” (64-5). While Barr well be right, these sections highlight one of the major weaknesses in his treatment of the subject. In trying to cover all angles he has been very thorough, almost too thorough, because in only briefly covering certain sections he leaves himself open to critical cross-examination. It may have been better for him to have left certain doors unopened. Indeed, his speculative section on the origins of Eve, which immediately follows the above, may have been best left alone. Barr is on more solid ground when arguing that sexuality should not be tied directly into humanity’s knowledge of good and even. He notes, quite correctly that the Hebrew Bible discusses sex well before notions of sin and knowledge are introduced. Indeed, he raises an excellent point concerning the nature of shame and lust in the later Christian tradition. Barr concludes his work with an extensive discussion on Noah, the “second” fall and the true nature of immortality. While it is a little usual to bring in a completely different section of the Bible, the segment on Noah and the Fall works well. Essentially, Barr is arguing that the flood narrative – including its notions of punishment and redemption – are similar, if not identical, to the Garden narrative. Moreover, he argues that “death” and its inherent evilness has come directly from non-Hebrew interpretations of the ‘fall’ narrative; which includes Noah’s flood. It is an interesting argument, and one that appears convincing. With the reappearance of “death” Barr returns full circle and concludes the work by reiterating the non-Hebrew non-textual nature of the Garden story. He also returns to his reliance on textual analysis. The Hebrew text must, he argues, he allowed to stand alone; “It is useless to talk of the ‘authority’ of the Old Testament if in fact it is not allowed to say anything different from what Paul, or any other particular later interpreter, supposed it to be saying”(89). Therefore, he concludes, immortality was never something that was lost, it was something that humanity almost had, but failed to obtain. Overall, Burr’s proposition is an enticing one. Rather than a scene of downfall and punishment the Garden narrative instead becomes one of failed potential. This is a radical shift from what most Christians would attest to believe. Indeed, the sin motif is so ingrained into the Garden story that one wonders if it can be disassembled in the space of just one book. And this, perhaps, is the work’s greatest weakness. Given the theological implications of his argument Barr may have been better served with a short punchy journal article, or a considerably longer anthology. Naturally, this work is basically a series of linked lectures, unfortunately, at times, that is exactly what it feels like. However, while there are shortfalls, in the end Barr is quite convincing. Read More