Add new comment

Hey Rich,

I wasn’t saying you were wrong.  I was asking for substantiation.

I could easily say that, when Genesis 2 says Adam and Eve were naked, it means that they were communist, and the clothing they tried to cover themselves with was capitalism.  You might well wonder what would substantiate such a view, and you would probably not be very receptive to my saying, “Oh, why does this assumption have to be proven, but yours doesn’t?”

Paul’s symbolic use of nakedness has no bearing on whether or not the author of Genesis 2 is using the concept the same way.  They are separated by centuries and addressing two different audiences for two different purposes.  That would be like saying every time Bob Dylan said the word “hurricane,” he was talking about a boxer just because he did that in one song.

Also, they are literally not speaking the same language.

The word in Genesis 2 is “arummim,” which is the same word used in Job 2:26 that specifically refers to removal of clothing.  The Septuagint has it as “gymnoi” which is one of the words Paul uses for nakedness in the passage you cited, and also the word used in James 2:15-16 where an actual lack of clothing is clearly meant.

In the Genesis story, Adam and Eve make coverings of leaves and God makes them coverings of animal skins.  This, to me, implies trying to cover a physical body, but I suppose you could say these materials are also allegorical, assuming there are reasons to believe that.

In Rabbi Hirsch’s 19th century commentary on Genesis, his commentary on Genesis 2 is on Adam and Eve’s feelings toward being physically naked.  He acknowledges no other more allegorical view, and I am unaware of any rabbis that do, which is why I asked if you could point me to such references.  All other commentaries I have read on Genesis have never taken an approach such as you describe, but I am open to understanding the scholarship behind such a view.

In the early church, Basil, Ephraim, and Anastasios all say the issue is physical nakedness.  Is there an early church father that supports your view?

What I’m trying to say is that internal consistency is not the measure of the truth of something, so I’m wanting to see the scholarship that supports your view.  I’m not saying it doesn’t exist.  I’m just saying that it’s different that what most have said, and I want to see the work.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.