Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.82 AVERAGE
3.82 AVERAGE
Greenblatt’s exploration of the Adam and Eve narrative suffers at once from being too narrow and too wide in its scope. Covering the thousands of years between the earliest extant creation myths through the development of evolutionary theory, Greenblatt dully chooses to focus on the usual culprits: Augustine, Milton and Darwin, privileging Western Christian thought, despite exciting nods to Islamic, Jewish and non-Abrahamic interpretations in the earlier chapters. As such, Greenblatt does little more than rehash the usual narrative of the story of Adam and Eve, which might, ironically, be called a grand narrative. Perhaps if Greenblatt had focused explicitly on Milton, a figure he devotes three chapters to, and had used the subjects of his other chapters as context for Milton’s interpretation of Adam and Eve, the book might be more cohesive and, in specificity, its lack would become judicious.
At times, I found this book actively annoying, such as in the overwhelming focus on select individuals (and often spurious speculation on their sexualities) which negates the far more interesting matter of how their ideas were conveyed to and received by the public. Likewise, although the misogynistic and racist interpretations of Adam and Eve are rightfully explored, particularly the former, there is a surprising dearth of engagement with feminist and anti-racist theologians, which might have moved this book beyond merely serviceable introduction. In the end, this shortcoming arguably finds its greatest expression in the incredibly tedious epilogue where Greenblatt tries to draw similarities between a group of chimpanzees and Edenic humanity. This task would not have seemed so bizarre if Greenblatt had not decided to negate his assured belief in evolution and in the difference between human and animal capacities being one of degree rather than ability by unquestioningly arguing that chimpanzees are not able to conceive of moral thought, unlike humans. Here, Greenblatt is, as with women and non-White people, able to acknowledge the existence of interiority within people somewhat unlike him, but he avoids ever exploring that interiority and its ramifications. If, as Greenblatt and I concur, we are, humans and chimpanzees both, produced atheistically through natural selection, there is no sense that morals should be uniquely human, and especially not concepts like fidelity and betrayal, as Greenblatt claims, which he himself seems to provide anecdotal evidence for.
Until the epilogue, I would have been content to assume that Greenblatt’s text, while lacking, was robust in the things it did include, but his blasé assumptions in the final hurdle have, for me, thrown into doubt, if not the conclusions of the text, then certainly the legitimacy of some of its details.
At times, I found this book actively annoying, such as in the overwhelming focus on select individuals (and often spurious speculation on their sexualities) which negates the far more interesting matter of how their ideas were conveyed to and received by the public. Likewise, although the misogynistic and racist interpretations of Adam and Eve are rightfully explored, particularly the former, there is a surprising dearth of engagement with feminist and anti-racist theologians, which might have moved this book beyond merely serviceable introduction. In the end, this shortcoming arguably finds its greatest expression in the incredibly tedious epilogue where Greenblatt tries to draw similarities between a group of chimpanzees and Edenic humanity. This task would not have seemed so bizarre if Greenblatt had not decided to negate his assured belief in evolution and in the difference between human and animal capacities being one of degree rather than ability by unquestioningly arguing that chimpanzees are not able to conceive of moral thought, unlike humans. Here, Greenblatt is, as with women and non-White people, able to acknowledge the existence of interiority within people somewhat unlike him, but he avoids ever exploring that interiority and its ramifications. If, as Greenblatt and I concur, we are, humans and chimpanzees both, produced atheistically through natural selection, there is no sense that morals should be uniquely human, and especially not concepts like fidelity and betrayal, as Greenblatt claims, which he himself seems to provide anecdotal evidence for.
Until the epilogue, I would have been content to assume that Greenblatt’s text, while lacking, was robust in the things it did include, but his blasé assumptions in the final hurdle have, for me, thrown into doubt, if not the conclusions of the text, then certainly the legitimacy of some of its details.
A sort of popular humanities book that charts the various responses to the Adam and Eve myth down through the millenia. I didn’t finish it. There’s nothing wrong with the book. It’s all very interesting. The problem for me is that I know a fair bit about some of the things he covered and he didn’t have anything to say that I hadn’t heard before. On those subjects where I’m ignorant there wasn’t enough depth to pique my interest. If you’re interested in the subject matter perhaps the time to read this is now, before you outgrow it. Very well written. The prose is asking to be read aloud, or at least mouthed along to so your neighbours don’t hear you talking to yourself again.
An engaging and at times ingenious piece of writing that nevertheless gets so much wrong about the theological implications and interpretations of the Genesis account of creation as to severely limit the value and usefulness of the book.
The epilogue is a piece of art. I just wish Greenblatt elaborated more on the modern theological takes on the story, as well as the Islamic point of view.
An informative look at the story of Adam and Eve - how it was handed down through the centuries, the argument of a literal versus an allegorical interpretation, the artistic impressions it influenced, and its fate following the publication of Darwin's theory of evolution. Stephen Greenblatt's writing is excellent, conveying a breadth of information in a readable manner, but with an ornate style that reveals his enthusiasm for a topic we have all heard of but whose cultural impact we may not fully appreciate.
**I won a copy of this book in a Goodreads Giveaway.**
**I won a copy of this book in a Goodreads Giveaway.**
Extraordinary. I anticipate I will be returning to this book many times throughout the course of my life
As iffy and up and down as "The Swerve" or more so
There's several reasons I say that. I'm going to talk about Greenblatt's down sides and even plain errors first.
First, he seems to assume that the entirety of the southern kingdome of Judah was exiled in 586 BCE. At the least, he writes in a way the average reader would infer that. And he's simply wrong. Most the "common folk" were left there. That, in turn, relates to how Israelite religion grew into proto-Judaism after the exiles returned.
Second, re Yahweh allegedly not having a consort, he is either ignorant of, or ignores, the ostracon of Yahweh and his Asherah at Kuntillet Ajrud. The fact that Yahweh WAS believed to have an Asherah at the time of the "J" section of the Torah, which includes Genesis 2-3, is a matter of importance in looking at the Eden background in the J context.
Third, also from J, he is either ignorant of, or ignores, that Yahweh had a "divine counsel," and other usage of the word "gods" in J and outside.
Fourth, he's wrong that the Garden story of Genesis 2-3 can be separated from the J tradition, and his hints at fusing it with the P tradition of Genesis 1 show that his wrestling with biblical criticism is superficial.
That said, he's right that Ezra is overlooked on skill level as editor of the Torah. Sure, there's doublets, contradictions and more. But, picture not only working without printed books, but with scrolls and not codexes to boot.
He's right on Augustine's sexual hang-ups, whatever the deepest of them were, in influencing his idea of original sin.
He's ignorant of the fact, or ignores the fact, that Orthodoxy, within Christianity, considers Augustine only a minor saint and rejects his idea of original sin.
And, "shockingly," but actually not at all, given problems in The Swerve, he's pretty well wrong that Augustine was responding to Epicureanism. Epicureanism as a philosophical school was just about dead by this time.
Finally, it's "interesting" that almost all of his critique was from Christian-based viewpoints. Now, both Jews and Muslims may be a small minority in the US, but Muslims certainly are not, worldwide. A more accurate title would have been "The Rise and Fall of Adam and Eve in the Western Christian and post-Christian Tradition."
There's several reasons I say that. I'm going to talk about Greenblatt's down sides and even plain errors first.
First, he seems to assume that the entirety of the southern kingdome of Judah was exiled in 586 BCE. At the least, he writes in a way the average reader would infer that. And he's simply wrong. Most the "common folk" were left there. That, in turn, relates to how Israelite religion grew into proto-Judaism after the exiles returned.
Second, re Yahweh allegedly not having a consort, he is either ignorant of, or ignores, the ostracon of Yahweh and his Asherah at Kuntillet Ajrud. The fact that Yahweh WAS believed to have an Asherah at the time of the "J" section of the Torah, which includes Genesis 2-3, is a matter of importance in looking at the Eden background in the J context.
Third, also from J, he is either ignorant of, or ignores, that Yahweh had a "divine counsel," and other usage of the word "gods" in J and outside.
Fourth, he's wrong that the Garden story of Genesis 2-3 can be separated from the J tradition, and his hints at fusing it with the P tradition of Genesis 1 show that his wrestling with biblical criticism is superficial.
That said, he's right that Ezra is overlooked on skill level as editor of the Torah. Sure, there's doublets, contradictions and more. But, picture not only working without printed books, but with scrolls and not codexes to boot.
He's right on Augustine's sexual hang-ups, whatever the deepest of them were, in influencing his idea of original sin.
He's ignorant of the fact, or ignores the fact, that Orthodoxy, within Christianity, considers Augustine only a minor saint and rejects his idea of original sin.
And, "shockingly," but actually not at all, given problems in The Swerve, he's pretty well wrong that Augustine was responding to Epicureanism. Epicureanism as a philosophical school was just about dead by this time.
Finally, it's "interesting" that almost all of his critique was from Christian-based viewpoints. Now, both Jews and Muslims may be a small minority in the US, but Muslims certainly are not, worldwide. A more accurate title would have been "The Rise and Fall of Adam and Eve in the Western Christian and post-Christian Tradition."
informative
reflective
medium-paced
"There is no progess in evolution, no march toward perfection."
I love that this book starts off with a brief summary of the history of Jewish people and the Torah. I would've loved if it stayed focused on Jewish people, but then that wouldn't've been accurate. In the section where we learn about Augustine, you really get the sense of "Oh yeah, now I get why Christianity is the way it is, how it devolved or spiraled into an extreme fanaticism that still plagues many people to this day." And because of that, that's why the author stuck with Christian interpretations and how Adam and Eve as concepts / mythos / people evolved. I'm not sure how Jewish people, or even Muslims (but they're barely mentioned), view the story, whether they see it as absolute historical fact or an allegory, but I know for a fact Adam and Eve can't have evolved in their communities the same way it has in Christianity.
This book really has every thing I love / am interested in. Or I should say, elements of history I'm very familiar with, whether they apply to me directly or I've learned a lot about them. From the history of misogyny to the history and religious justifications for slavery to the conquest of the New World to how Santa Monica, California got its name. Even how witch hunts became a thing. This book has everything!!! Even things you don't think are connected. The author is amazing with weaving history together whether it was how one man's abuse of power 1600 years ago lead to how we think and interact with the world now to the then mind bending idea of pterodactyls, he makes all the history feel present and certainly alive.
I love that this book starts off with a brief summary of the history of Jewish people and the Torah. I would've loved if it stayed focused on Jewish people, but then that wouldn't've been accurate. In the section where we learn about Augustine, you really get the sense of "Oh yeah, now I get why Christianity is the way it is, how it devolved or spiraled into an extreme fanaticism that still plagues many people to this day." And because of that, that's why the author stuck with Christian interpretations and how Adam and Eve as concepts / mythos / people evolved. I'm not sure how Jewish people, or even Muslims (but they're barely mentioned), view the story, whether they see it as absolute historical fact or an allegory, but I know for a fact Adam and Eve can't have evolved in their communities the same way it has in Christianity.
This book really has every thing I love / am interested in. Or I should say, elements of history I'm very familiar with, whether they apply to me directly or I've learned a lot about them. From the history of misogyny to the history and religious justifications for slavery to the conquest of the New World to how Santa Monica, California got its name. Even how witch hunts became a thing. This book has everything!!! Even things you don't think are connected. The author is amazing with weaving history together whether it was how one man's abuse of power 1600 years ago lead to how we think and interact with the world now to the then mind bending idea of pterodactyls, he makes all the history feel present and certainly alive.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Misogyny, Sexism, Antisemitism, Religious bigotry
Moderate: Racism, Slavery, Xenophobia, Murder, Cultural appropriation, Colonisation, War, Classism
Minor: Genocide, Violence
I tagged Cultural appropriation because... that's kinda what Christianity as a whole is... :/ If you mad fight ya mama
Greenblatt provides an insightful piece of scholarship with this history. The story of Adam & Eve has had religious scholars and artists puzzling over it for millennia. This book takes us on a trip through it's history; how it has evolved, how we have interpreted it, and the consequences those interpretations have had on our culture, society and history. It also contains a few mini-biographies of some of the more influential contributors to this story such as St. Augustine and John Milton. The demonstration of how our interpretation of the stories we hear can have such a significant impact on our view of the world is especially relevant today when interpretations and stories abound. For a scholarly work it is very accessible to the average reader and not daunting at 325 pages. The only part that may be slow going for readers are the detailed descriptions of paintings, but thankfully pictures of them are included in the paperback version which is very helpful. I would recommend this book to anyone that is curios about how our history has shaped our present.