The Uncensored Bible Part 1

The Uncensored Bible.

The Bawdy and Naughty Bits of the Good Book.

John Kaltner, Steven L. McKenzie, and Joel Kilpatrick.

Acknowledgments.

Writing a book shouldn't be this much fun. From start to finish we've had a rollicking time, and along the way we've benefited from the feedback of friends and loved ones. First, we'd like to thank the "Eves" in our lives, Debra Bartelli and Aimee McCarley, for their suggestions and encouragement. They, better than anyone, know what it's like to put up with a middle-aged Bible scholar who's become obsessed with his latest project.

Several people a.s.sociated with Rhodes College, in Memphis, Tennessee, read drafts of some of the chapters and provided helpful comments on our work. A special thanks to Bob Johnson, Mike LaRosa, Spence and Becky Wilson, and Karen Winterton.

We tried out some of the material in this book with a group of adult students in Rhodes's Meeman Center for Continuing Education. "The Bawdy Bible" turned out to be one of those special experiences that teachers live for and convinced us that we were on the right track with the book. The cla.s.s, now a tight circle of friends, consisted of Phyllis and Tandy Brannon, Gloria Gang, Marshall Gordon, Jimmy Humphreys, Jim Johnson, Martha Kelly, Ed Murphey, Martha Robbins, and Norm Shapiro.

Steve has also been able to sneak sections of "The Bawdy Bible" into his course offerings for Rhodes students over the past two years. As is typical of our students, they taught him more than he taught them, with observations about these ancient texts and their modern interpreters that were innovative and insightful.

Our agent, Gary Heidt, is one of those rare individuals who believe there's a place in the world for a book on weird Bible stories and interpretations. He helped us give shape to our original concept and found the perfect publisher for the book. HarperOne was our "dream" choice from the beginning, and we're thrilled that Gary was able to land the book with them. It has been a great pleasure to work with Kris Ashley of HarperOne. She is an outstanding editor, and we very much appreciate her guidance and enthusiasm.

Finally, we are deeply grateful to our co-author Joel Kilpatrick, who has helped us turn unusual but still dry Bible scholars.h.i.+p into entertaining reading. We thought we were funny guys until we read our ma.n.u.script after Joel had spun it. We laughed out loud at least once on nearly every page, but we recognize that everyone may not share our perverted sense of humor. We take full responsibility for the discussions and judgments about Bible scholars.h.i.+p in this book. But Joel is to blame for any jokes that fall flat.

-John Kaltner.

Steve McKenzie.

Introduction.

"In the Beginning"; or, How John and Steve Got the Idea.

for Writing This Book.

There we were, enjoying the cool air and a couple of adult beverages in the middle of summer in Nova Scotia. We had escaped the sweltering heat of Memphis, Tennessee, where we live and teach, to attend a conference of Bible scholars. But we weren't exactly at the conference at the moment-we were in a nearby bar playing hooky and relaxing. Who could blame us? We had endured dust-dry seminars with names like "Observations on the Hebrew Narrative of Genesis 2:44:1" and worse. Even highly trained ancient language scholars like us can take only so much before heading for the nearest watering hole.

But instead of discussing the fine weather, sports, or the sad demise of the Canadian stubby, we found ourselves talking about the presentation we'd just heard. To our surprise, it had not been the tedious a.n.a.lysis of the Garden of Eden story we'd expected, as would have been typical fare for such a gathering. Rather, it was one of the most unusual, provocative, and-yes-s.e.xy presentations we had ever heard at a Bible conference.

The presenter was a guy named Ziony Zevit (great name, huh?), who is a well-known and respected scholar at the American Jewish University (formerly the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, California). In his a.n.a.lysis of the Adam and Eve story, Zevit suggested that the commonly held belief that Genesis describes Eve's creation from Adam's rib might be wrong. It is more likely, he argued, that the text refers to Eve's creation from another bone, the baculum. That probably doesn't sound shocking to you now, but just wait until you read chapter 1 and learn what the baculum is. We were blown away by Zevit's proposal. His idea was clever, creative, and off-color enough to make for interesting bar talk. It had the added benefit of being highly plausible.

Zevit had actually published his suggestive theory in an obscure medical journal, but it hadn't exactly gotten him on Letterman. As we enjoyed our margaritas and mojitos, we began to shoot the bull about how many other provocative and impolite interpretations of Bible pa.s.sages get published only to circulate briefly in the rarefied air of Bible scholars.h.i.+p before dropping from sight. Turns out, quite a few. That evening, perhaps intoxicated by the Canadian air and the bartender's liberal pouring methods, we decided to compile a collection of weird and bawdy Bible stories and interpretations for wider circulation-a sort of Baedeker to gross, risque, and deliciously disgusting Bible scholars.h.i.+p for the common man and woman.

We were not just interested in looking at odd interpretations of the Bible. There are plenty of those out there. Our focus was on interpretations that are unusual but viable and that have been offered by not just anybody but by people who are bona-fide Bible scholars. So we rigorously applied what we call the "Zevit Standard" to the long list of potentials that we initially compiled. The Zevit Standard consists of four criteria: The proposed interpretation has to be innovative and unusual. By "unusual" we mean outrageous, juicy, and ribald-the stranger the better.

It has to offer a new take on a familiar Bible pa.s.sage. Most of the stories and people we cover in this book will be familiar to you.

It has to be plausible-well argued and worth serious consideration.

It has to be auth.o.r.ed by someone trained in biblical studies. Usually this means a person with a PhD in biblical studies who makes a living teaching the Bible in a college, university, or seminary. The few exceptions in this book are people who are self-trained, have published books on the Bible, and have gained a certain expertise.

The Zevit Standard still left us plenty of interpretations to choose from, and we whittled those down to a manageable two dozen or so of our favorites-some of which will surely surprise you as much as they did us.

No Bible Bas.h.i.+ng, Please.

We want to make it clear that we're not trying to make fun of the Bible. We love the Bible. In fact, part of what we hope to accomplish with this book is to help people appreciate the Bible more. We agree that the Bible should be read with reverence. But part of the Bible's richness stems from the fact that it comes out of and reflects real life in all of its complex beauty and weirdness. The Bible deals with the sublime and the very mundane-important issues like the meaning of life and the majesty of G.o.d, but also such run-of-the-mill matters as breeding animals and managing your own s.e.x life. Since the Bible comes from a different time and culture, modern readers may tend to miss or misunderstand some of those earthy texts, especially if our focus is on the divine and holy. We hope this book increases readers' appreciation for the richness and diversity of the Bible's contents.

We also aren't out to ridicule Bible scholars.h.i.+p. Heck, we're Bible scholars ourselves. We have doctoral degrees from universities that, at least until this book was published, were respected inst.i.tutions of higher learning. We also teach Bible in a liberal arts college, although it's our wives who really earn a living for us. We love what we do. And we love our fellow Bible geeks, er...scholars.

Of course, just because a person is a scholar doesn't mean his or her interpretations are right. And just because an interpretation is new doesn't mean it's correct. Bible scholars sometimes float ideas that are lead balloons. We've included a few examples of these in this book because they're so odd and preposterous that we couldn't resist taking a swipe at them. But for the most part, each of the proposals we discuss has some merit and needs to be carefully evaluated before it gets a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down.

So how do we decide if an interpretation is right or not? Bible scholars.h.i.+p isn't math or rocket science, so the rules are less clear, but there are still plenty of ways to get at the truth by weighing the linguistic evidence, looking at archaeological findings, and using plain old common sense. Each case has to be evaluated in its own unique way, and when you make it through to the end of the book, you should have a pretty good sense of how Bible scholars earn their living.

It has been said that no other book has been read more throughout history than the Bible, and that no other book has been more misunderstood or misinterpreted. We agree with that sentiment, and with this book we wish to bring out from the shadows one of the least understood dimensions of the text-the bawdy side of the Bible, if you will. This book presents the Bible in its wide range of experiences, from the profound and beautiful to the weird, bizarre, and downright shocking. It s.h.i.+nes the bright light of scholars.h.i.+p on some of the s.e.xiest and strangest parts of the Bible. Beyond that, we have no other objectives or hidden agenda. Well, except to snare a guest spot on The Daily Show.... So hold your nose, tighten your gut, and get your "Oh, dear" expressions good and ready-'cause here we go.

1.

Which "Bone" Was Eve Made From?

AS FAMOUS as some Hollywood couples are, n.o.body can approach the fame of Adam and Eve, Earth's original celebrity couple. Almost everybody knows about Adam and Eve, even if they know nothing else about the Bible.

But a lot of people, Bible readers included, don't know that Eve's origins may have been quite different from what many of us learned in Sunday school. In fact, the true explanation for where Eve came from may be as scandalous as a tabloid headline ("Eve's Shocking Past!"). We'll get to that, but first, let's have a look at the traditional story most people know.

The biblical account of creation is told in the second chapter of the Book of Genesis, which describes how G.o.d made the earth and heavens and then planted an idyllic, tree-filled nature park-the Garden of Eden. This Garden apparently was the "it" place on planet Earth. Adam and Eve would hang out there, as would an a.s.sortment of amazing creatures, including a talking snake. G.o.d would even drop by in the evenings to liven up the party. In fact, Adam and Eve had a pretty good deal overall. They owned an entire planet (and paid no property taxes on it). The only requirements G.o.d placed on them were to (1) have s.e.x and (2) hold down fairly easy gardening and animal husbandry jobs. They blew it, of course, but that's another story.

Let's go back a little further, to Adam's origins. G.o.d created the Garden of Eden, then formed the first man, Adam, from the ground, as a potter would form a vessel out of clay, and placed him in the Garden to take care of it. But at some point G.o.d appears to have decided that having one human being around, and n.o.body with whom that human could share his silly little observations, was a recipe for loneliness and depression. "It is not good for the man to be alone," G.o.d said, according to Genesis, so G.o.d took some mud, as he had done with Adam, and created other dirt creatures to be the man's companions. But these newbies were animals, not humans. G.o.d organized them into a pet parade, brought them before Adam, and invited him to name them. But as entertaining as this exotic animal collection no doubt was, none of the creatures suited Adam's need for a soul mate, a colleague, or even a drinking buddy. He was stuck with his loneliness problem, and no Mys.p.a.ce, eHarmony, or Prozac to turn to. He had a dog (and a lion, and a giraffe...), but he still didn't have a best friend.

So G.o.d administered the world's first anesthesia and put Adam into a deep sleep so G.o.d could perform surgery. While Adam was under, G.o.d removed one of his ribs, as the traditional story goes. From that rib, G.o.d then made the first woman, Eve, and brought her to the man. Adam's response upon seeing her, according to the Bible, was, "Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh," which can also be translated from the Hebrew as, "Va-va-va-voom!" He called her "Wo-man," a play on words, because she was taken from man and was a lot like him except in some key, very attractive regards. The story adds a postscript, explaining that this is the reason why a man leaves his parents and is united with his wife so that they become one flesh. Keep that postscript and that word "flesh" in mind. They will help us to see what this pa.s.sage really might be saying.

Problems with the Traditional Interpretation.

The traditional version of the story is accurate to the text except for one important detail. Though for centuries the term "Adam's rib" has been used in sermons, commentaries, and film t.i.tles (see "Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn, films of"), the original Genesis story does not necessarily mention a rib. The Hebrew word for the body part that G.o.d takes from Adam is tsela. But this word never means "rib" anywhere else in the Bible. It usually means "side," as in the side of a hill1 or the side of a structure like the ark of the covenant,2 the tabernacle,3 or an altar.4 In architecture, it refers to a side room or cell.5 It is also used for the planks or boards in a building wall6 and for rafters or ceiling beams.7 The common idea in all these different meanings seems to be that of a tangent or branch extending out from a central structure or body. Given this basic sense, Adam's tsela would seem to refer to a "limb" or "appendage"-something that jutted out from his body.

So where did the "Adam's rib" interpretation come from? The answer is the Septuagint. The Septua-what? The Septuagint (sep-TOO-a-jent) is the name of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible that was done in the third century BCE. The Septuagint translated the Hebrew word tsela with the Greek word pleura, which means "side" or "rib." (It's the word from which we get "pleurisy," an inflammation in the lining of the lung. Isn't that pleasant?) Another problem with the traditional translation of tsela as "rib" is that it doesn't serve the etiological agenda of the Genesis pa.s.sage. Yes, we just used the word "etiological." We're not smarter than you, we just hang around words like this for a living because we're college professors. An etiology is simply a story that explains the origin of something. It may explain a biological fact, a geological formation, a social custom, or the like. The story of Adam and Eve is full of etiologies. The very name "Adam" means "man/human," and "Eve" means "life." The story explains where humans came from. It also explains such things as why snakes crawl, why people wear clothes, and why women have labor pains. The reference to a man leaving his parents to join with his wife is an etiology for marriage.

(Now that you know what an etiology is, don't get superior about it. If it comes up in dinner conversation, politely explain the meaning, just as we have here, without making your listeners feel backward and uneducated. Remember, there was a time just, oh, two minutes ago, when you didn't know the meaning of "etiology" either.) Why does etiology matter to us here? Because the reader of the Bible expects the creation of woman from some part of man to tell a story as well. We want to know what it means, or what it explains about life as we know it. The traditional interpretation of the "Adam's rib" story included an etiology, and perhaps you have heard it. It says that G.o.d created Eve from Adam's rib, which explains why girls have one more rib than boys. At least some of you readers have undoubtedly believed that for an embarra.s.singly long time. But we (and the American Medical a.s.sociation) are here to tell you that it is not true. It is what highfalutin university types might call a "false etiology." If you don't believe us, count your ribs, if your figure and present location allow. Now count the ribs of someone nearby who is of the opposite gender (but only if this will not get you sued for s.e.xual hara.s.sment-see our disclaimer*). Or simply consult a trusted medical book (okay, fine-the Internet) and you will find that men and women have exactly the same number of ribs. They always have, and people in biblical times would have known it. (They could count ribs too, and back then n.o.body sued for s.e.xual hara.s.sment.) If there is an etiology, or explanatory story, in the creation of Eve, it has nothing to do with rib numbers.

What makes the understanding of tsela as "rib" even more peculiar in the context of the Genesis story is that it does not relate to any of the obvious s.e.xual features that distinguish men and women from one another. Yet this story is full of allusions to human s.e.xuality. The first pair are naked and unashamed8 until they eat of the forbidden fruit. Then their eyes are opened, and they recognize that they are naked. They immediately cover their genitals with fig-leaf ap.r.o.ns.9 Given the s.e.xually rich nature of this context, readers naturally expect that the creation of woman from man might involve some physical characteristic that is clearly different between the two.

There is another puzzling feature of the story that needs to be explained. It's not clear what it means when it says that G.o.d closed up with flesh the place where Adam's tsela had been. Again, considering the etiological (explanatory) nature of the story, this statement seems intended to explain the existence of some suture-or scar-like mark on the torsos of human males that is not found on females. But there is no such mark on males-at least not near their ribs.

Splitting the Adam and Other Alternative Interpretations.

Because of these difficulties, some interpreters through the ages have preferred to understand the word tsela-"side"-in different ways. Early rabbis in particular sought out alternative explanations.10 Some of them theorized that "side" means a face (front side) or a tail (back side), which G.o.d used as a starting point to make Eve.

Other rabbis, somewhat more creatively, took the statement that G.o.d created "male and female"11 to mean that the first human was androgynous, that is, having both male and female characteristics. They believed that the creation of Eve was nothing more than splitting apart the male and female halves of the first human. G.o.d separated the two "sides" of this bizarre him-her being, giving each new person a separate back. Thus, the first distinct man and the first distinct woman were actually created at the same time. This interpretation is popular with some modern feminists, since the simultaneous creation of man and woman implies their equality.12 One recent feminist scholar, for instance, has theorized that "side" may mean "belly" or "womb," so that woman was created by separating the womb from the androgynous creature and using it as the beginning point for the formation of the woman.13 A New Solution.

But these interpretations have their own problems and don't fully solve the questions we've raised. A more intriguing and satisfying new interpretation of the word tsela in this story comes from a Hebrew Bible scholar named Ziony Zevit, who teaches at the American Jewish University in Los Angeles, California.14 Zevit points out the problems with the traditional interpretation that we have just noted. Then he suggests that tsela might refer not to a rib but to the "baculum." Those of you in the veterinary sciences already know what we are talking about, but the rest of you should brace yourselves because "baculum" is just a fancy way of saying "p.e.n.i.s bone." (p.e.n.i.s bone, p.e.n.i.s bone, p.e.n.i.s bone. Get used to it. The rest of the chapter is about it.) The p.e.n.i.s bone is an actual, nonmetaphoric bone, like the bones found in your leg or hand, but it is located in the p.e.n.i.s. Most mammals and almost all primates have a p.e.n.i.s bone. But by some weird coincidence, only spider monkeys and human males lack one. That's right, if you are a human (or a highly literate spider monkey) male, you have no p.e.n.i.s bone. You depend solely on hydraulics, and perhaps a prescription pharmaceutical, for your erections.

Ancient Israelites, Zevit observes, would have known that male animals possess a p.e.n.i.s bone and that human males do not, because they would have commonly seen both human and animal skeletons-animals in the field and humans after decomposition in cave-like tombs. This is another way that ancient people also would have been well aware that women have the same number of ribs as men. In fact, they were probably more aware of this than modern people. (When was the last time you saw an exposed human skeleton? CSI doesn't count.) Suddenly, with the p.e.n.i.s bone difference, we have the makings of a satisfactory etiology. If Adam is lacking one particular part that all other male mammals (aside from spider monkeys) possess, and if observation clearly shows that human males have no baculum, then, like Zevit, we may allow that the story in Genesis accounts for this difference by explaining that G.o.d removed Adam's p.e.n.i.s bone in order to make Eve from it.

Here's another brick in the wall. The Hebrew verb that describes G.o.d's creation of Eve literally means "to build." The image seems to be that of piecing together bones and other body parts to create Eve rather than forming her out of clay, as in the creation of the man and the animals. As Zevit further observes, there are no other stories or myths from the ancient world in which a rib serves a reproductive function. And of course, ribs do not exercise that function naturally. The p.e.n.i.s, on the other hand, is obviously a generative organ in reality as well as in myth and story.

As strange as Zevit's proposal might sound initially, he finds further support for it in other details of the Bible's story. The statement that G.o.d closed up with flesh the place from which he had taken Adam's tsela could be a way of explaining the "raphe" on the underside of the p.e.n.i.s and s.c.r.o.t.u.m in human males. A raphe is a seam joining two parts of a bodily organ. Everyone has a raphe on the roof of the mouth. You can feel it with your tongue and see it in a mirror. Men have an additional raphe on the p.e.n.i.s. Again, ancient Israelites would have known about this seam, and the story in Genesis explains how it got there. After G.o.d removed Adam's p.e.n.i.s bone to create Eve, he closed over the flesh again, leaving the raphe, or "surgery scar."

Another point Zevit makes in support of his new interpretation is Adam's own comment when he sees Eve that she is "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."15 This may simply be the man's way of recognizing the woman as his true kin, as opposed to the animals, who were a lot of fun but didn't possess Eve's particular je ne sais quoi. Indeed, later on in Genesis, when Laban discovers that he and Jacob are related, he tells Jacob, "You are my bone and my flesh."16 He means, "We are family." Or Adam's "bone of my bones" line may be a natural outburst of ecstasy at finally meeting someone with whom he can have s.e.x, spend time, go to the movies, and do all the other things G.o.d made people to do together. This fits with the etiology (story meaning) for marriage, which explains that a man leaves his parents and joins his wife to become "one flesh." To reinforce this point, Adam even makes a pun on the Hebrew words for woman (ishshah) and man (ish), which is similar to the play between the English words "wo-man" and "man." In other words, "We're the same, and yet we're different. How exciting! Let's see if we can make the nine o'clock show."

But the expression "bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh" fits particularly well with Zevit's interpretation of this story. Zevit observes that there is no single word for "p.e.n.i.s" in biblical Hebrew. Instead, the Bible uses several different words as euphemisms for the male organ; tsela may be one of these. "Bone" would be another one. Specifically, it would refer to the p.e.n.i.s bone observed in other animals and once possessed by Adam but taken from him as the starting material for the creation of Eve.

The word "flesh" also sometimes refers to the p.e.n.i.s in the Hebrew Bible. Many of these references pertain to the practice of circ.u.mcision.17 Ezekiel, for instance, speaks of non-Israelites as being uncirc.u.mcised in heart and "flesh."18 In another book, priests are commanded to wear undergarments to cover their naked "flesh."19 In yet another pa.s.sage dealing with bodily discharges, the word "flesh" is translated as "member."20 A couple of references to "flesh" in Ezekiel are almost obscene-so of course we thought we'd share them with you. Both refer to the Egyptians as being well endowed s.e.xually. In one case, the Egyptians are said to be "great of flesh."21 To match the crudeness of that remark, we would have to translate it as "well hung." (One popular Bible translation, the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV], waters this down by translating it as "l.u.s.tful." Prudes.) The other Ezekiel reference compares the "flesh" of the Egyptians to donkey p.e.n.i.ses and adds that their "emission was like that of stallions."22 Yes, we are still quoting from the Bible.

The Advantages and Appeal of Zevit's Interpretation.

Because people are so accustomed to the traditional interpretation, Zevit's proposal may seem far-fetched at first. But on closer examination, it has some compelling advantages over other interpretations, especially the traditional one. Its suggestion about the meaning of tsela takes into consideration the basic meaning of the word as "side." It is also based on an obvious difference between men and women and between human males and those of other species that would have been easily observable to ancient Israelites. Thus, it differs both from the traditional interpretation of tsela as "rib," which a.s.sumes a difference between women and men that doesn't really exist, and from the outlandish proposal of the rabbis and others that the story imagines the first human as androgynous.

Zevit's interpretation therefore fits both the s.e.xual content and the etiological nature of the story perfectly. Moreover, it explains the "place closed up with flesh," which other interpretations ignore. And it affords a fuller and more practical sense to the reference to the woman as "bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh."

Whether you find Zevit's proposal convincing or merely provocative, it is hard to deny its interpretive advantages, not to mention its s.e.x appeal. His explanation is not bizarre, outrageous, or unreasonable. To the contrary, it solves long-standing problems with the text and its interpretations and fits the etiological context. It may not soon become the Sunday school standard, but for adults curious about what this Bible story means, it offers real possibilities.

2.

Does "Knowledge of Good and Evil" Mean Having s.e.x?.

LET'S RETURN to the world's first and best nudist colony, the Garden of Eden. We know its two original occupants did everything naked-played horseshoes, gardened, sipped virgin daiquiris, and checked on the animals. But that doesn't answer a key question: when, precisely, did Adam and Eve start having s.e.x?

Most of us would guess, "Within five seconds of seeing each other," but the real answer is more complicated than that. It hinges on some interesting turns in the ancient Hebrew language-a subject you now know can be quite t.i.tillating. Speaking of t.i.tillating, consider that Eve had no children until she and the man of the house left their Garden digs. Does this say something about their s.e.xual activity, or lack of it? Let's take a look.

Rules Are Made to Be Broken.

The Garden of Eden's founder-G.o.d-made only one rule, according to Genesis 2: don't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.1 Big deal, right? (It would turn out to be a very big deal.) The only downside to rule number one was the harsh punishment for breaking it: death. The upside was that anything else Adam and Eve wanted to do was copacetic, which was quite a deal. And again, they got to do it naked. The Garden of Eden was a great place to hang out.

But human nature-ah! human nature-intervened. Why couldn't they be happy obeying rule number one? Why get so curious? It seems to us that G.o.d didn't help them any when he placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil conspicuously in the middle of the Garden,2 instead of, say, on the top of Mount Everest. It wasn't long before Eve and then Adam did exactly what G.o.d told them not to do. So ended the world's first nudist colony/commune/wild animal park.

Here's how it went down. The wily serpent, who must have seen the memo about rule number one, approached the woman and asked her if G.o.d had told them not to eat from any of the trees in the Garden. The woman replied that they could eat from all of the trees in the Garden except for the one in the middle of the Garden-the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If they ate from it, they would die. "You won't die," the serpent cooed (or hissed, if you like). "G.o.d knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened and you will be like G.o.d,3 knowing good from evil."4 Keep that little phrase in mind, "knowing good from evil." It'll get a s.e.xy twist later.

Eve liked the idea of having her eyes opened. It would go with her nails. So she ate the fruit and gave some to Adam. Adam, like any man today, ate anything that was handed to him that didn't smell three days old. And a surprising thing happened. They didn't die after all-at least not right away. Instead, the serpent's promise proved to be true: their eyes were opened, and they realized that they were naked.5 Uh-oh. No more coed volleyball in the afternoons on the patio. Even worse, sin entered the world. And here we get to the part about s.e.x.

Suddenly Adam and Eve had "knowledge of good and evil." But what does this little phrase mean? Most people usually a.s.sume it means that their moral sense was awakened and they now had the ability to choose between right and wrong. According to this idea, before eating the fruit, Adam and Eve were like adult-sized children in the Garden, as innocent as newborn calves. They didn't know right from wrong. They were also unaware of their own nakedness, kind of like a two-year-old after bath time. They ran here and there with no thought of the crazy parts bouncing around. This was humanity in its toddler stage.

But when they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they immediately pa.s.sed through p.u.b.erty into adolescence (also called early adulthood), which is characterized by self-awareness and a sense of right and wrong. They suddenly developed a conscience and became responsible for their moral choices. This explains why humans alone, in contrast to the animals, can make moral decisions. Unlike dogs, which must simply be trained to stop humping people's legs, humans can distinguish right from wrong and stop humping people's legs all on their own, one would hope.

Another, different view of the meaning of "good and evil" is that the phrase is a "merism." We are sorry to introduce this annoying little word into your vocabulary, but it is useful for our discussion, and it will help you win at Scrabble. "Merism," which will net you a cool ten points on the little tiles, means expressing the totality of something by speaking of polar opposites or contrasting extremes. Common phrases like "from A to Z," "top to bottom," "East to West," and "young and old" are all merisms. In Genesis, "knowledge of good and evil" might be a merism that means "knowing everything." That would mean that by eating the forbidden fruit, Eve and Adam introduced humanity to the ability to cultivate knowledge, to learn and explore, and to develop wisdom and technology. That's not a bad thing, and that's what attracts some people to this interpretation. They think that humanity's full potential was unlocked by eating the fruit. Others would argue that this potential was unlocked prematurely and unwisely.

Let us ill.u.s.trate it this way-and at the same time answer the pressing question that has been weighing on many readers' minds: how does this all pertain to Star Trek? Turn your attention to Star Trek episode number 126, star date of 3417.3, ent.i.tled "The Other Side of Paradise." In this cla.s.sic episode, the crew of the Enterprise beams down to a planet where they are infected by spores from a mysterious plant. The spores render them pa.s.sive and blissful. Even Spock enters into a blissful state and takes a lover. This alone makes the episode worth renting. The crew is on the verge of abandoning their mission. Then Captain Kirk's devotion to duty kicks in (doesn't it always?), and he discovers that strong emotions overcome the spores. He gradually regains his crew by inciting their emotions. In the final scene, McCoy remarks that humans have been kicked out of paradise for a second time. Kirk responds that this time they left voluntarily. (Run credits, and thank you, Gene Roddenberry, for everything.) The point of this episode (which, like all Star Trek episodes, is available for sale, along with much slower-selling commentaries we've written, at our Web site, www.steveandjohn-thebibles.e.xguys.com), and the point of the Garden of Eden story according to this interpretation, is that human beings were not meant to live in paradise. We need challenges. We need problems to fix. We need leaky toilets, rusty gates, weedy lawns, and broken engines to give us something to do. We need a sense of accomplishment that goes beyond the satisfaction of watching Andy Griffith Show marathons. We need purpose. The Adam and Eve story explains these needs. It is a story about a trade-off. By eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve lost immortality for themselves and for the rest of us. But they gained a measure of self-determination-the ability to learn and explore, to understand and enhance life.

It's an unconventional interpretation, but not as unconventional as the next one we'll consider. Which, of course, has to do with s.e.x. You've been waiting. Here it is.

A s.e.xy Alternative.

Jacob Milgrom is a well-known biblical scholar, now retired from the University of California, Berkeley. He brings a great deal of skill and, as we shall see, perhaps an overactive imagination to his research.6 Milgrom thinks that "knowledge of good and evil" is a euphemism for having s.e.x. He was actually willing to say this in a published paper that is full of words like "pluperfect" and "coelenterates," which is how scholars try to obscure the fact that they have overactive imaginations.

But does Milgrom pull this idea out of thin air? No. The phrase "knowledge of good and evil" is used elsewhere in the Bible, so we can see what it means. One time it refers to children as not knowing good and evil.7 These "children" are defined as individuals who are younger than twenty years of age, and therefore presumably unmarried and s.e.xually inexperienced.8 (At twenty? Riiight.) In the other pa.s.sage where the phrase "knowledge of good and evil" is used, an eighty-year-old man says that he can no longer discern good from evil. It is not clear at first what he means by this, except that maybe he's demented and writing poetry. He goes on to say that he has lost his capacities for tasting and hearing so that he can no longer enjoy the pleasures of good food and music.9 In other words, he is too old to enjoy "wine, women, and song." The wine and song are explicit. By "discerning good from evil," our good friend Jacob Milgrom presumes that the writer means he (the old man in the Bible story, that is, not Milgrom) is too old to have s.e.x.

Milgrom further supports his theory by pointing out that Eve received her name, meaning "the mother of all living," after G.o.d handed out the punishments to the snake and the two humans. This happened just before G.o.d drove the couple out of the Garden, busting up the paradise party like a beat cop.10 Milgrom writes, "Before eating the fruit, she did not bear children-which suggests that Adam and Eve had no s.e.xual intercourse in the Garden."11 This sounds like a b.u.mmer situation-all look-y, no touch-y-and here we suspect that Milgrom's imagination has failed to engage. We think it's probable that the dynamic duo had s.e.x while in the Garden. The Bible says that Adam and Eve were naked but unashamed before they ate the forbidden fruit.12 As soon as they ate it, they realized they were naked.13 Well, what happens when you realize you're naked, and she's naked, and it's just the two of you? Bing, bam, boom. It's beyond us to guess who jumped whose bones, but this must have been like getting the keys to a Lamborghini for the first time. Their powers of resistance must have been no match for the urge to try out their newly discovered pleasure b.u.t.tons and levers. If Milgrom's theory has any credibility, it's got to a.s.sume they had s.e.x in the Garden before they made their garments of fig leaves and before G.o.d discovered their disobedience and punished them. Indeed, maybe one of the reasons G.o.d made clothes for them later14 was to curb their constant arousal. A dress made of freshly skinned sheep tends to do that.

Objections.

Is Milgrom right? Does "knowledge of good and evil" mean to have s.e.x? If we were as smart as he is, and we don't claim to be, we might make some objections to his theory. In fact, Milgrom is so smart that he antic.i.p.ates possible objections and tries to head them off at the pa.s.s. The first is based on the verse following the creation of Eve, which states that a man leaves his parents and joins with his wife.15 This statement may imply that Eve was intended from the beginning as Adam's s.e.xual partner. But as anyone who has ever been married for more than two weeks knows, marriage is not the same as s.e.x. (In fact, sometimes they seem totally at odds, but that's a subject for Dr. Phil's next book.) The second objection is that the first time the Bible explicitly states that Adam and Eve had s.e.x16 follows their expulsion from the Garden: "Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain...." This might be interpreted to mean that they did the nasty for the first time after the Landlord evicted them for not complying with the rental agreement. As Milgrom observes, the Hebrew verb at this point literally means "to know" and thus supports his case for "knowledge of good and evil" having a s.e.xual meaning. He also observes quite correctly that the Hebrew syntax here really demands that the verb be translated "Adam had known his wife Eve," making it likely that their s.e.xual relations.h.i.+p took place earlier-in the Garden when they first tried out their fun parts.

The third objection is that the punishment laid upon Eve significantly increased her pain in childbirth,17 which implies that she had the potential to bear children before she ate the forbidden fruit. Milgrom agrees that the potential was there. But he contends that s.e.xual awareness was not. It was only with the eating of the fruit that Eve and Adam became aware of their nakedness and their s.e.xuality and were able to be s.e.xually aroused. Without s.e.xual arousal, there is no s.e.xual activity. Just ask any guy who's found himself in a doctor's office trying to give a s.e.m.e.n sample while looking at medical equipment. As Woody Allen once wrote, having s.e.x unaroused is like trying to stuff a clam into a parking meter.

Milgrom's opinion here clashes with the interpretation of the influential Christian saint Augustine, who wrote a lot of discouraging things about s.e.x.18 It was Augustine who, based on his interpretation of the Garden of Eden story, came up with the doctrine of original sin, which has had such an enormous impact on Christian history. Many people think original sin is a Bible doctrine. It's not. It's Augustine's idea, but it became a doctrine of the church. He believed (and tell us when we start sounding Catholic here) that Eve was created for the purpose of having babies. This meant that Adam and Eve probably had s.e.x in the Garden-or at least Augustine thought they could have. But Augustine also thought that eating the forbidden fruit brought l.u.s.t (which he called "concupiscence," because when you add more syllables it sounds less vulgar) into the world. In fact, Augustine wrote that l.u.s.t was the original sin that was pa.s.sed on to every newborn baby, including your latest bundle of joy. So Adam and Eve might have had s.e.x in the Garden before they experienced l.u.s.tful desire.

But Augustine's theory b.u.mps up against this not-so-hard physical fact: a soft p.e.n.i.s can't inseminate anyone. Being a fourth-century prude without the benefit of modern s.e.xual openness, Augustine kept mum on how exactly an unaroused Adam was supposed to doink Eve. The best he could do was to suggest that Adam could have raised his p.e.n.i.s just like he raised his arm. Animals-except for poor, dear spider monkeys-can have s.e.x with or without arousal because of their p.e.n.i.s bone. But could Adam really bang away with no arousal whatsoever? No. So Augustine's view is impossible (unless Augustine himself had a p.e.n.i.s bone and was extrapolating from personal experience). But Milgrom's view makes sense: l.u.s.t is exactly what was missing before Adam and Eve ate the fruit. They had the equipment for s.e.xual reproduction but not the hot-blooded drive that enabled them to get it on.

There are two more possible objections to Milgrom's idea, and then we'll lay this one to rest. Note that G.o.d prohibited eating the fruit before Eve was ever created. Hmm. Why tell a man he can't have s.e.x when there's no one to have s.e.x with but himself? (Don't say it.) And finally, how did eating from the tree make Adam and Eve "like G.o.d,"19 since Israel was monotheistic and the G.o.d of the Bible is not a s.e.xual being?

Milgrom dodges these objections by appealing to the "deeper meaning" of the story-which is a scholar's way of leaving the debate early. s.e.x, he claims high-mindedly, was a manifestation of a larger and more profound characteristic-the creative impulse, which can be either constructive (good) or destructive (evil). The original sin led to s.e.x in the sense of creative power, and in that way humans became like G.o.d. This might sound like blather, but Milgrom could point for further support to the birth of Cain, at which time Eve said, "I have acquired a man with Yahweh."20 The verb "acquire" here means "create" elsewhere in the Bible, so that one could argue that s.e.x and creativity are explicitly identified here as the same thing. Eve apparently saw herself as cooperating with G.o.d in the production of a son.

Ho hum. Not a very rousing ending from ol' Milgrom, but he tried. His equation of s.e.x with the creative impulse may be a stretch, and we don't mean stretch marks. But overall his interpretation has real advantages. The expression "knowledge of good and evil" is used elsewhere in the Bible to mean s.e.x. And it fits the s.e.xually charged context of the Adam and Eve story better than other interpretations.

You may cling to the traditional notion that "knowledge of good and evil" means a moral sense or a capacity to create and explore. But if you choose to think it means s.e.x, you have the support of at least one well-respected Bible scholar.