We have learned some new things recently about the story of Adam and Eve that I would like to share with you this morning. In the fall, I took a course in the Archaeology of the Bible at Stanford. I was quite surprised to learn that the professor, Patrick Hunt, knows approximately where the Garden of Eden was. I had always assumed it was a theoretical garden, but there is considerable evidence that Eden was in the Persian Gulf. Although the Gulf itself is not the source of the four rivers mentioned in Genesis, they once did flow into the gulf, and it is now known that this area was once a sub-tropical forest some 7000-8000 years ago. Some of this forest was submerged in the gulf at the end of the ice age and can still be seen under water. Both from archaeology and from ancient near eastern texts, there is evidence for gardens, which were planted, cultivated and watered by canals. The principal plants in the gardens were fruit-bearing trees. In particular on the islands and peninsula that is now Bahrain, in the Persian gulf there was a city called Dilmun, which controlled the trade routes in 2300 B.C. That city is the first to be referred to as a paradise, which means an orchard or a cultivated area. In the sacred literature of Mesopotamia, Dilmun had a sacred tree, and in the Gilgamesh epic, the hero makes a long journey to find the plant which gives eternal life, which turns out to be guarded by a serpent Whether or not Eden is another name for Dilmun, we now know that there is some historical accuracy to the description of the Garden of Eden.

Secondly, in recent years I have read about the pre historic religions of the mother goddess that seemed to have existed throughout the ancient world, until about 2500 B.C. It seems to me that the story of the fall, which we heard as our first lesson, might also be the story of the transition from matriarchal religion to patriarchal religion. Here is a woman in close association with a sacred tree and a snake. The worship of the mother goddess usually took place under trees, and the woman leading the worship may have held live snakes as signs of the vital energy of life. In the Genesis story Eve and Adam are sent away from the tree the and garden in disgrace, suggesting that the older goddess religion has been replaced by a new religion. In support of this interpretation is the odd reversal in the creation of Eve - new human beings are normally born to woman, not created from man's rib.

A third source of the new understanding for me, was the course I took last summer in Preaching Torah, and its introduction to Jewish interpretations of this story. As a result of our Christian tradition and art, we easily read into the story elements that are not there. The snake or serpent in Genesis is not Satan - that is a later, Christian interpretation. And the idea that this story describes an original sin that has been passed to all human beings is not in the book of Genesis either - it was an idea put forth by St. Paul in Romans, and further developed by St. Augustine in the 4th century A.D. So I have learned from Jewish scholars that our usual translation: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, probably over emphasizes the moral element. A better translation is the knowledge of "good and bad" which includes the moral qualities, but also covers a much broader scope that would include good and bad soil for planting, good and bad ways to make bread, good and bad methods for firing clay, and so forth. Apparently in the Hebrew text, there are many puns and plays on words. For example, the word used to describe the snake -translated as 'more crafty' is (arum), and the word used to describe the man after he has eaten the fruit -"naked" is (erum).

Then there is an important point about the prohibition against eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and bad. The prohibition was given to Adam before Eve was created. She didn't hear it from God. She heard it as translated by Adam, who told her not to eat the fruit, and not to touch the tree. Adam had decided to add something to God's prohibition. This may sound like a small point, but listen to what Rabbi Nathan said about it in the late 2nd century A.D. "The wicked serpent said to himself, since I seem to be unable to trip up Adam, let me go and try to trip up Eve. He sat down next to her and said; "Now you say that God has forbidden us to touch the tree. Well, I can touch the tree and not die, and so can you." What did the wicked serpent then do? He touched the tree with his hands and feet, and shook it so hard that some of its fruit fell to the ground. Then he said to her, you see? I can eat from it and not die. What did Eve think to herself? All the things that my husband has told me are lies. Where upon she took the fruit, and ate it and gave it to Adam."

In the rabbinic tradition, the result of the transgression was that each human being has a good impulse and a bad impulse and the capacity to follow either one. The ability to choose the good is not impaired or diminished. But in our Christian tradition, we believe, as St. Paul says, that all have sinned - our ability to choose the good is greatly diminished, until we are baptized and our old nature, our sinful nature dies, and we are given a new nature that is truly free to choose the good.

The irony of that statement is that we do need some knowledge of good and evil in order to choose the good. Whenever we are presented with a choice; we must look beyond the immediate alternatives and ask about the probable consequences. We must be able to imagine the bad consequences of each choice, as well as the good in order to choose wisely. Think of Jesus, sitting out there in the wilderness, hungry and thirsty. The stones nearby are shaped like loaves of bread, and it occurs to him that he could use his messianic power to turn them into bread. He could feed thousands of Jewish peasants who were near starvation, and that would be very good. But it would probably require all his energy to keep turning those stones into bread, day after day, and then he wouldn't be able to provide the spiritual nourishment they so badly needed. In the long run, the spiritual nourishment was more important and so he resisted that temptation.

But then perhaps he thought how difficult it is to get the attention of people who are hungry. Would they listen to his message? Would they accept the good news of God's love? Maybe he should do something dramatic to get their attention. If he leapt off the pinnacle of the temple and landed without injury, surely they would listen. Or would they? They would look at him with wonder and want to get some of his power, but would they hear the message of forgiveness, if they were thinking about his spiritual power? No, the miraculous leap would draw more attention to his person that to his message-better just to tell people than try to impress them.

Finally, he thought about the power of kings to create laws and give orders-perhaps he could change the power structure and the economic system so that everyone had what they needed to live. There would be an end to violence, to poverty and to class struggle - the people could live in peace together. The problem with that plan was that the Father had not called him to be King - the Father is King and he had sent Jesus to be his servant. So the means for achieving peace were wrong-it wouldn't work by power or by decree.

I have deliberately left the figure of Satan, the tempter, out of that analysis, just to see if I could make sense of the temptation of Jesus without him. I think it is unlikely that such an entity exists as we have pictured him traditionally. And I think some Christians have used the figure of Satan as an excuse. I do believe that there are evil influences operative in groups and institutions, and that there may be evil spirits as well. At this point in history, there seems to be a spirit of violence at work in the world, moving some to commit acts of terrorism, moving some to attack members of other ethnic groups, and moving others to create violent entertainment, which are all far removed from the love of the enemy that Jesus taught. But whether that spirit of violence is any stronger today than it was 10 years ago or 50 years ago, I cannot say.

What I hope you will take away from this sermon is a heightened awareness of your own freedom to choose the good. Despite the traditional translations of the Lord's Prayer, God does NOT lead us into temptation. The evil impulse is there within our hearts, and we have the power to turn away from it. Our contemporary version of the Lord's Prayer has a better translation: "Save us from the time of trial." Today I have invited you all to bring a stone to church. Let that stone carry the evil impulses that you are aware of, as well as the burdens of fear, anxiety, and disappointment. Feel the weight of those impulses and burdens in your hand and on your heart. Come forward now, and give those impulses and burdens to God, by placing your stone at the foot of the altar.