Augustineontheoriginofevil:mythand metaphysics
JamesWetzel
Weknowvividlyfromthe Confessions thatAugustine’sstruggletoconceive oftheboundlessrealityofGodturnsonwhatheimagineseviltobe.His consideredviewofthematter,thatevilexistsonlyasa “privationofthe good” (privatioboni),aformofnon-being,isaNeoplatoniccommonplace.1 ButAugustineputshisownstamponthebaremetaphysics.Hespeaksin CityofGod ofthesplitwithintheangelicranksbetweentheangelswhofall intothemselvesandeternallydarkentheirmindsandthosewhoholdsteady tothedeliverancesofdivinelight;hespeaksofSatan,thepervertedlightbearerandfatheroflies,whoshowsupinEdeninaserpent’sguiseand seducesthewomanintoafatefultransgression;hespeaksofAdam,hermate andthemodelofahumansinner,whoseesthroughtheserpent’sdeception butgrievouslyunderestimatesthecosttohimandhisraceofhisobscurely motivateddisobedience.
In Confessions,theprivativenatureofevilisintimatedinAugustine’ s Adamicneedtobringhis fleshandspiritintosomesortofsaneconjunction. AtacriticalpointintheGenesisstoryofcreationandparting – astoryof troubleinagardenparadise(Gen. 2:4b–3:24) – Adam findshimselfhaving tochoosebetween fleshandspirit(Gen. 3:6):hispartner,the fleshofhis flesh,haseatenfruitfromthetreeofknowledge;sheoffershimatasteof whathisdivinemaker,thebreathofhisbreath,hasassociatedwithdeath. Adamtakeshistaste,defieshisGod,and,byAugustine’sreckoning, condemnsallofhisdescendantstoamortallifeandalifelivedoutof interiorconflict:fromnowontherewillbenoeasychoiceofspiritover flesh.Atthebeginningof Confessions 8,thebookwhereAugustinedetails histimeofanguishinagardenretreat,hetellsusthatwhilehelovedthe
1 Plotinus,thethird-centuryPlatonistwhosewritingsweretorevolutionizeAugustine’sconceptionof God,famouslyidentifiesevilwithmatter(seeesp. enn 1 8, 2 4),butthePlotiniannotionofmateriality isoneofconsummatedeprivation:notsolidstuff orindeedanykindofsubject,butabeckoning, formlessnullity,foreigntogoodness.Foranilluminatingentryintotheintricaciesofthisnotion, consultGerson 1994: 191–98.ForaclearstatementinAugustineofthe privatio thesis,see conf. 3.7.12.
fleshlessGodofpurespirit,hestillfoundhimselftightlytiedtohisorigins inawoman(adhuctenaciterconligabarexfemina; conf. 8.1.2);hestillwanted toembrace,withsomepartofhimself,thelifethattakesinsexanddeath. Thedeprivationtowhichhisrecalcitrantdesireattestshastwoaspectstoit: likeAdambeforehim,Augustinelackstheexperienceofwhatitmeanstobe fullyhumanandnotfeelcompelledtomakeachoicebetween fleshand spirit;alsolikeAdambeforehim,Augustine’sdeprivationis,insomeway, hisownchoice.AugustinebelievesthatallAdamicbeings – orallhuman beings,thatis,saveChrist(whoisAdamiconlyonhismother’sside2) – have deprivedthemselvesofaperfectionthatnohumanbeing,againsaveChrist, haseverexperienced.
In CityofGod AugustineaddsanangelicglosstotheAdamicplot.Before Adamevermakeshisfatefulchoiceof fleshoverspirit,renegadeangels abandontheheavenlychorus,fallintoself-obsession,andmakeforhell,the infernalcounterpartofGod’scelestialcity.Whenthemostself-obsessiveof theserenegadesintrudesupontheearthandusesaserpent’ stongueto temptEveintotradinglifeforknowledge(orwhatshewillseeasgreater life),heendsupplayingtwodistinctiverolesinAugustine’sexegesis.Onthe onehand,Satanisacharacterinastoryofhumanredemption.Hebegins thestorybyleadingtheoriginalprogenitorsofhumanityintosinanddeath; Christ,hisantitype,willendthestorybyleadinganumberoftheir descendants(thenumberofangelslost)backtoinnocence,albeitthis timeanincorruptibleone.Ontheotherhand,Satanstandsinforthe absolutenessofsinitself,forthesinthatexistspriortotemptationandso makesthetemptationtosinpossible.Satanhimselfisn’ttemptedintosin; heneedsnoofferof fleshbeforehewillacttocorrupthisownspirit.Hissin demonizeshim,situateshisself-corruptionalwaysinthe “before” ofany storyofredemption.NotevenChristcanalterthepriority.Andyetif,as Augustinewillargue,itisthesininAdamandEvethatleadsthemtofall intosin(seeesp. civ.Dei 14.13),howarehumanity’sprogenitorsnotdemons themselves?
Thereisaheadymixofmythandmetaphysicsinthe CityofGod account ofevil’sorigination.Iaiminthisessaytosortthingsoutandthenrevisit Augustine’scommitmenttothe privatio thesis:hissuppositionthatevilis anabsence,onlyashadowofsomethingreal,andsonotathingofitsown
2 Fromhismother,Mary,Christinheritsthemortalitythatcomesoforiginalsinbutnotthe concupiscence.Heisnevertrulytemptedtosubordinatehiseternalspirittothedesiresofhismortal flesh;throughouthislifeonearth,hisholyfather’swillreignssupremeinhim.Itmayhavereigned similarlysupremeinhismother,whosehumanityAugustine findsonlyslightlylessexceptionalthan Christ’ s;see nat.etgr. 36.42.
kind.Admittedlythespecterofirretrievablyfallenangels,workingwith Satantosowmiseryintocreation,suggestsanevilthatisbynaturemore thanprivative.Anabsenceisnotanagent,andstillAugustineinvitesusto imagineperpetuallyunsettledbeingswhoarealwaysseekingtosubvertthe good:wheredoesanabsencegetthelegsforthat?ButIamnotgoingtobe arguingthatAugustinetellsastoryaboutgoodandevilthatjust flatly contradictshispreferredmetaphysics.Thetruthismoreinvolved.His narrativeingenuity,muchondisplayin CityofGod,sustainstwosubtly differentreadingsofthe privatio thesis.OneIwillcallthe “presumptive” reading;theotherthe “preemptive.”
ThepresumptionbehindthepresumptivereadingisthatGod,being absolutelygood,neveractstodiminishgoodnesseitherinhimselforinthe beingswhomhehascreated.3 Thisisapresumptionwithcomplexandnot alwaysclearimplications,butoneimplicationitclearlycannothavefor AugustineisthatGodnevercreatesbeingswithlessthanabsolutegoodness. Suchanimplicationwould,ineffect,driveawedgebetweenbeingperfectly goodandbeingprocreative,leavingGodsublimelyself-enclosedandalone. ThealternativeistoassumethattheperfectlygoodGodcreatesbeings whoselessthanabsolutegoodnessadmitsofarelativeperfection.Neither angelsnorhumanbeingscan,ascreatures,havetheperfectionoftheir creator,buttherearebetterandworseangels,betterandworsehuman beings.Thebadangels,havingbecomedemonic,arecategoricallybad; thebadhumanbeingsareallbadbecauseofsin,butintheearthlyplane oftimeandtransformation,itisoftenhardtotellsaintsandsinnersapart (civ.Dei 1.35).
Thereisalsothecalculationoftherelativemeritsofangelicandhuman goodness,butthatcalculationdoesnotplayintoAugustine’squestionof evil’ s firstfoothold.Theretheconcerniswithwhatmakesrelativelyperfect beingsimperfect.IfthepresumptionisthatGodcannotbetheanswer,then thatmakescorruptionthebusinessoflessercreators.Someoftheoriginal angelshavedeprivedthemselvesoftheiroriginalgoodness;theyhave createddeprivationwherebeforetherewasnone.Analogouslyallhuman beings,bywayoftheirsolidaritywithAdam,theparadigmaticsinner,have inventedtheirownformofalienationfromGod.Self-corruptinghuman anddemoniccreatorshavetogetherbeencorruptingthebroadermaterial order,translatinginternaldeprivationsintoexternalformsofharm.
3 IrefertoAugustine’ssublimelyimmaterialGodasa “he” inrecognitionofAugustine’sreverencefor GodastheeternalFather.Iwritethepronouninthelowercase –“he” ratherthan “He”– inorderto suggestwhatthisformofreverenceleavesunresolved.
IwillsetoutthefurthertermsofAugustine’spresumptivereadingofthe privatio thesisinthesectionofmyessayIcall “metaphysics.” Imeanto signalbythisdesignationastarkcontrastwithamorenarrativerenderingof evil’semergence,amythorstoryofacharacter’slossofinnocence.(Andby “myth” Imeanapeculiarlytellingstory,thestorybehindmanystories,and notjustafancifultale.)Augustinereallyhasnostorytotellabouthowa goodangelgoesbad;hehasinsteadametaphysicalmysterythathetriesto dressupasastory.Thecruxofthedesiredstory,thetransitionfromgoodto evil,turnsouttobeimpossibletorelate.Foritisnotoutofgoodnessthatan angelgoesbad;itisnotoutofanything.Itisoutofnothing,infact,or,more precisely,itisoutofnotbeingGod.Anangel,likeanycreature,isgood beingofGod;iscapableofhavingitsgoodnessundone(possedeficere; civ. Dei 12.8)beingotherthanGodandofnothingness(exnihilo).Satanisthe angelwho,failingtorecognizehisownbeautyintheblindingdivinelight, seeksouttheperspectiveofdarkness,ofdecreation,wherehistiestoGod andtoallotherswillhavecomeundone.Butifthepresumptionbehindthe presumptivereadingisright,nodeprivationcomesfromGod:Satanmust have firstrejectedhisgiftofself-knowledgebeforechasingafteranempty, illusory,andunsatisfyingalternative.
WhenAugustineusestheangelicfalltoframethestoryofAdam,Eve, andtheserpent,hisdispositionistodepictSatanastheparadigmofsin, humananddemonic,andnotsimplyasanagentoftemptation.The assimilationofAdam’ssintoSatan’sbringsoutthechiefliabilityofthe presumptivereading:thatitrendersallsinirredeemable.ConsiderSatan’ s lossofgrace,hisdemotionfrombeingLucifer,thelight-bearer.Hisconditionisirredeemablenotbecauseheisauniquelyhorrifictransgressor,but becauseheretainshiscapacitytorejectwhatevergracehasbeengivenhim; heremains,asanindependentcontractorofdeprivation,foreverunstablein God.HowwouldanAdam,sinninglikeaSatan,beanydifferent?
InthesectionofmyessaythatIcall “myth,” Ilookcarefullyatthe opportunityAugustinegiveshimselftotelladifferentstoryaboutAdam –onethatdifferentiateshumansinfromitsdemonicparody.Thebare narrativedifferenceisobvious:Adamhasapartnerinsin,thewoman, Eve, “themotherofallthatlives” (Gen. 3:20);Satansinsunpromptedby ademoniccounterpartandwithoutneedofexternalencouragement.There isnowoman,nolureofthe flesh,inSatan’ sstory – nosolidarityinsin (hellbeingtrulytheantithesisofacity).
AugustinepaysattentiontothedifferentrolesthatAdamandEveplayin bringingaboutthe firsthumansinlargelybecauseofwhatPaulhastosay aboutthematterinhis firstlettertoTimothy(1 Tim. 2:13–14): “ForAdam
wasformed first,thenEve;andAdamwasnotdeceived,butthewomanwas andbecameatransgressor.” Inotherwords,Eveactuallybelievestheserpent whenhetellsherthateatingfromthetreeofknowledgeisagoodthing,a waytobecomemorelikeagod,whileAdamknowsfullwellthattheserpent islying.Butnotwishingtoabandonhispartnertoherfolly,AdamjoinsEve inhertransgression.MoresothaninhistwoearlierforaysintoGenesis – the commentaryagainsttheManichees(Gn.adv.Man.)andthegreatliteral commentary(Gn.litt.)4 – Augustinein CityofGod resolvestoalignhistake onAdam’stransgressionwithPaul’s.Thesignificanceofthisresolveisthat Augustine’sAdamactsoutofaprivationanddoesnotonlycreateone.Eve’ s transgressionseparateshernotonlyfromGodbutalsofromherhuman partner,andAdamfeelshisseparationfromherasaloss.HedisobeysGod andrisksdeathinordertobewithheragain.Certainlyitremainsopento AugustinetorefithisPaulineAdamtoaSatanicmold,discountthisAdam’ s loveforEveasamotiveforhissin,andleavehimnakedlyGod-defying. ThistackreturnsAugustinetohispresumptivereadingofthe privatio thesis,butitalsodistanceshimfromPaulandhisbestchanceofunderstandingtheoriginofevilinlightofastory.
The “preemptive” readingofthe privatio thesisavoidsresolvingmythinto metaphysics.Itstickswithastory,stillinthemaking,aboutthetransformationofhumansinintotheloveofGod.Adamchoosesthe fleshof his fleshoverthebreathofhisbreath – thewomanoverGod – andhisactof transgression,inkeepingwithbothreadingsofit,preemptiveandpresumptive,remainsinalienablyhisown.Itisnopartofthepreemptivereading simplytomovetheonusofsinbacktoGodandrenderAdamaninnocent victim;Adamdoeslosehisinnocence,buthisloss,freedfromtheframework ofthepresumptivereading,isnolongeressentiallydamning.
Considertheinnerlifeofhistransgression,thequestionofAdam’ s motive.Thepresumptivereadingpresumesthatattheendoftheanalysis, anAdamlookinginonhimselfwillhaverunoutofreasonsforhisdesireto transgress:hejustsins,andthat’sit.Thepreemptivereadingpreemptsthis conclusionandleavesopenthequestionofwhatAdam’ssin finallymeans. WhenhechoosesthewomanoverGod,Adamtransgresses,buthetransgressesagainsttheGodwhomhehasconceivedtobeantitheticaltohislove ofabeloved’ s flesh.Perhapsthisisanaïveconceptiononhispart,onehe
4 Somechronology: Gn.adv.Man.datesfrom 388;Augustineworkson Gn.litt.overanextendedperiod oftime,from 401 to 415.Hewrites civ.Dei,Books 13 and 14,severalyearsafterthecompletionof Gn. litt.,likelybetween 418 and 420.FordetailedchronologicalchartsofAugustine’slife,works,and historicalcontext,seeBrown 2000,thenewedition.
needstooutgrow;hestillknowstoolittleaboutspirittobeassumingthat hisGodisnotalsohersontoo,themotherofallthatlives.5 Onthe preemptivereading,Adamactstocreateadeprivationinhisself-knowledge, butthedeprivationisnothisultimatemotive.Hemaydiscover,God willing,thathehasbeenmovedbyGodtoseekGod.
Augustine’sangelologyin CityofGod istoothintosustainapreemptive readingoftheangelicfall.HegivesusfartoolittletoconceiveoftheGod thatafallofangelsportends.TheforgivenessofaSatanhastoremain,then, inconceivable.ButintheAdamicdrama,itisrelativelyclearwhatGodwill havetohavebecometoallowanAdamforgiveness:hismother’sson.Inthe weightymatteroftheoriginofevil,myargumentwillbethatwelearnmost fromAugustinewhenwefavorhisChristologyoverhisangelologyandlet CityofGod standastestimonytothelimitsofpresumption.
1metaphysics
WhenAugustinespeculatesabouthumanlifeinEdenpriortothe firstsin, heunderscoresitsperfection(civ.Dei 14.10):AdamandEveenjoyan untroubledlove(amorimperturbatus)bothforoneanotherandforGod; theirsisafellowshiplivedoutoftrustandhonesty(fidaetsincerasocietate); theytakegreatsatisfactionfromit,anditneverceasestobeavailableto them(nondesistentequodamabatur);consequentlytheyhavenotroublenot givingintosin – theiravoidanceofitisserene(devitatiotranquillapeccati). Onthelastpoint,Augustinefurtherspeculatesthatitcannotbefearof deaththatkeepsAdamandEvefromeatingfromtheforbiddentreeof knowledge.Fearisnotatranquilemotionbutasourceofagitation, especiallywhenmixedwithcuriosityandcarnaldesire,andAugustine insiststhatAdamandEvearefreefromagitationofanykind.Indeed theyhavethesortofintelligentandinwardlystablehappinessthatworldly philosopherspostEden – theStoicsespecially – tryvainlytoachieve.6
5 IamsuggestingthatEveinthegardenisbothhumananddivine:theman’sfemalecounterpart,andso subjecttoAdamicanxietiesaboutwhoGodisandwhatGodwants,butalsothefemaleimageofGod, orthataspectofdivinitythatisfriendlytomortallifeanditstransformativepossibilities.My suggestionisnotAugustine’sviewofthematter – hisEveisafallenwomanandonlythat – butI submitthatmysuggestionisbestinkeepingwithAugustine’ssenseoftheredemptivepowerof incarnatespirit.
6 Augustine’sdiscussionofEdeniclifein civ.Dei 14 10 formspartofhisbroaderreflectioninBook 14 on thepsychologyofhumanhappinessanditsearthlylimits.Inhisestimation,paganphilosophy, epitomizedbyStoicism,promisesmorethanitcanpossiblydeliver:avirtualrestorationoftheoriginal peaceofmindthatwaslostafterEden.SeeWetzel 1992: 98–111 formoreonAugustine’spolemical constructofStoicism.
Withtheirpsychologiesthusperfected,itbecomesimpossibletodeterminewhatwouldmoveanAdamoranEvetosin.Thesetwohumanoriginals haveeverythingtheyneedtobedisposedto findsteadfastobediencetoGod theirheart’sdesire.ButthisisjustAugustine’spoint.Iftheyhaveeverything theyneed – theinternalresourcesespecially – andtheysinanyway,then nothingthatGodhaswithheldfromthemcanpossiblybethemotivefor theirtransgression.Itisnotbecausetheyfeeldeprivedofthegoodofthefruit ofknowingthattheysin.Theonlygoodthatthisfruitrepresents,as Augustinetriestomakeclear(civ.Dei 14.17; Gn.litt. 8.6.12),isthegoodof neverhavingdisobeyedGod.AndthisisagoodthatAdamandEvehave alreadybeenenjoyinginabundance,beingsuchrichlyendowedcreatures. WhentheybreaktrustwithGod,eatfromthetree,andsettleintoafaithless self-awareness,somethinginthemwillhavemisconstruedwhatknowledgeis andwhatknowledgehastodowithlife.Thatsomethingcomesfromthem andnotfromGod,and,giventhefullnessoftheirlives,itisasomethingthat amountstolittlemorethantheirsheerwillingnesstobedeprived:itislittle more,thatis,thanthenothingnesstowardswhichittends.
TheproblemforAugustine’sexegesis – puttingasidefornowthe perplexityofanessentiallydeficientmotive – isthathehasabetter candidateforthefruitofknowingthantheironicalgoodofneverhaving disobeyed.(ObeyingGodisaplausibleenoughgood,butwhenitsgoodnessismadeouttobethefruitofknowing,thedivineprohibitionagainst eatingmakesforablindandimpoverishedobedience.)Thelureofthefruit ofknowingisthelureofadivinelife.Theserpenttellsthewomanthatsheis “notdoomedtodie” ifsheeats,thatsheandherpartner “willbecomeas gods” andknowgoodandevilasagoddoes;sheinturnlookslonginglyat thetree,whosefruithasnowbecomeforher “goodforeating” anda “lustto theeyes”– aneroticoffering.7 Augustineassumesinhisexegesisthatthe serpentislyingandthatEve,havingletherlustforlifegetthebetterofher judgment,fallsforthelie.ButevenAugustine’sundeceivedAdamhasa plausiblemotiveforwantingtoaddmorevitalitytohislife.Likehispartner, hebeginshisexistenceinabodyofclay.Ifhedoesnoteatregularlyfromthe treeoflife,thatclaybodywillageanddie;inandofitself,itismortalstuff (civ.Dei 13.23;cf. Gn.litt. 6.21.32).Adam’ srefinedspiritualmind,
7 ItisalsoworthnotingthatwhentheserpentsuggeststothewomanthatGod(Yahweh)hasforbidden hertoeatfromallthetreesinEden,shequicklyidentifiesthetree “inthemidstofthegarden” asthe onlyforbiddenitem(Gen. 3:1–3).Shenevermentionsthetreebyname.InGen. 2:9,wearetoldthat bothtrees,lifeandknowledge,are “inthemidstofthegarden.” Theimplicationofherambiguous referencetotheforbiddentreeisthatknowledgeandlifelookthesametoher.Formytranslationof Genesis,IamusingAlter 1996.
uncloudedbylust,willhavetoldhimthatheisdestinedforabetter incarnation,onethatbringsthesourceofhislife’svitalitymoreintimately intoconjunctionwithhis flesh.ButAdamcannotsimplygiveuponhis fleshinordertoabidemorefullywithspirit,forheisessentiallyanincarnate being:hencehisdilemmawhenhispartner,the fleshofhis flesh,exchanges knowledgeforlifeandbidshimtodolikewise.
Adam’smortalityisatrickysubject.ThereisaclearsenseforAugustine inwhichAdamisalreadymortalbeforeheeverpartakesofhispartner’sfruit andentersintothedoomofdeath.Heismortalbyvirtueofhis flesh.But AugustinealsowantstoinsistthatAdam’soriginalmortalityissomehow lessdoomedthanthemortalitythatcomestohimandhisdescendantswhen hejoinswiththewomanandweakensthehumancondition.
Augustinecueshissenseofthedifferencebetweenthetwomortalitiesto Paul’sdistinctionin firstCorinthians(1 Cor. 15: 44)betweenananimal body(corpusanimale; sômapsychikon)andaspiritualone(corpusspiritale; sômapneumatikon).Paulusesthedistinctiontomarkthedifference betweenthe firstAdamandChrist,thesecond,andalsotosuggestthe miraculoustransformationofanearth-bornbodyintoimmortal,resurrected flesh.Thespiritualizedbodyofaresurrectedsainthasnoneedof physicalsustenance;itissustainedbydivinelight,muchasanimmaterial angelinheavenis.Butunliketheangels,thesaintsinheavenallbeginin earth-sownbodies;andthatkindofbody,Paulsays(1 Cor. 15: 35–36),hasto diebeforeanythingspiritualcantakeitsplace.Augustineagrees,buthealso wonderswhetherthiswasalwaysso.ImagineanAdamwhoneversins. WhatbecomesofthisAdam’sanimalbody?Theansweristhatheandhis partner,thewoman,herepresumedsinlessaswell,bothmovetranquilly fromanimaltospiritualexistence,withouthavingtoundergoadeath – a violentsunderingofsoulfrombody.8 Adam’sanimalbody,accordingto Augustine,oncehadamiraculouscapacitytomorphdirectlyintospirit (civ.Dei 14.10; Gn.litt. 6.23.34).
AndsothebigdifferenceforAugustinebetweenoriginalmortalityand whatfollowsisthatoriginalmortalityisprovisional.AdamandEveareof mortalclay,butaslongastheyhaveaccesstothetreeoflife,whosefruitis sacramentalforthem(civ.Dei 13.20),theynotonlydonotdie;they transform.Theybecomespiritualbeings,stillembodied(albeitlightly),
8 Thesunderingisviolentbecauseinanincarnatesoul – whichiswhatAdamoranyhumanbeingis –thesoulisincompleteapartfromthebody.Deathviolatesthenaturalaffinitybetweensoulandbody; italwayscounts,forAugustine,asanunnaturalevil(see,e.g., civ.Dei 13 3, 13 6).Forfurther explicationofthisseeminglyanti-Platonicstanceofhis,seeCavadini 1999.
Originofevil 175
stilldependentonasourceoflife,butnolongerneedingtomakethat sourceapartofthemselves.Wherebeforetheyhadtoeat;nowtheyarefree tocontemplate.ButwhenthestillanimalAdamandEveviolatethe conditionsoftheirprovisionalmortalityandloseaccesstothetreeoflife, twothingshappenstothehumanexperienceofmortality:deathbecomesa necessity,andthedifferencebetweenspiritand fleshbecomesanantagonism(makingforanespeciallyconfusingexperienceofsex).Deathis necessarynotbecauseAdam’sdescendantshavebeendeniedasourceof life,butbecausethesourcetowhichtheydohaveaccess – Christonacross, atreeofhumanartifice – requirestheirdeath.Itrequiresitbecauseofthe sheerdepthofhumanresistancetotransformation.Wearetheoneswho turndifferenceintoantagonismandputChristuponthecross.
ToreadAugustineasclaiminganythinglessradicalthanthatistomiss thepointofhistwomortalities.Suppose,asdidPelagiusandmanyofhis sympathizers,thatthereisonlyonekindofmortality,thatitisnaturaltothe humancondition,andthathadAdamresistedtemptationandkepttohis virtues,hestillwouldhavediedatsomepointofnaturalcauses (cf. Gn.litt. 6.22.33).Ifthesuppositionisgranted,thenspiritualized flesh isnolongerahumanpossibility,oratbestitisanunnaturalpossibilitythat islessaboontohumanadvancementthanalossofnaturalbeauty.Sincethe ideaofaspiritualbodyislargelydefinedbytheideaofwhatitisnot – abody thateatsandhassex,comminglesandtransforms – itcanseema curiouslydispiritednotiontointerpreterswhovaluealimitedbut,for thatveryreason,keenlyfeltlife.9
Hereitisimportanttounderstandthat,forAugustine,aspiritualbodyis notagoodwhosedeprivationwecanexperienceorwhosesupplementto ourhappinesswecanreadilyimagine,ifatall.WhenAdamjoinsEveinsin, heisunambiguouslyanimalinhis flesh;consequentlyheisinnopositionto losebysinningasublimityofbodythathehasyettopossess.Itisnota spiritualbody(ortheideaofone),then,thatcandefineforAdamhis redemption(Gn.litt. 6.24.35).AdamloseshisfaithinEden,nothisspirit. Atsomepointheceasestotrustinhismaker’sabilityorperhapswillingness tolayholdofahumanlife,wrestitoutoftransgression,andrefigureitinto somethingnew.ItmighthavegoneotherwiseforAdam – hencethe unnaturalnessofhisdeath.Hisdescendants,bycontrast,arebornlocked intoananimalself-image.Tobreakfromit,theywillneedmorethana
9 Nightingale 2011 looksatAugustine’ s “transhuman” idealoflife firstinEdenandtheninheavenand basicallyconcludesthathistranshumanismisnothumanenough.Seeespeciallyherepilogueon “mortalinterindebtedness.”
mediatorwholivesanexemplarylifeofvirtueanddiesaheroicdeath;they willneedonewhomeetsthemindeath,wherenoself-imagecango.
Augustine findshimselfcommittedbothtothetransformativepossibilitiesofagracedhumanityandtotheoriginalperfectionofEdeniclife.AsI havebeentryingtosuggest,thisisnottheeasiestofconjunctionsforhimto sustain.HowcanAdamstartoff asabeingwhohasitallandalsobeabeing whoseperfectionawaitshim?Augustine’sexegeticalhurdleistheapparent imperfectionofEden.WhenasensualEveoffersAdamtheforbiddenfruit ofknowing,shemakeshimvividlyawarethathelackstheincarnationheis ideallymeanttohave:hisspirithasyettoexperiencefullcommunionwith the fleshofhis flesh,withher.InAugustine’sPaulineterms:Adamhasan animalbody,notyetaspiritualone.Hereisalackthatcanbeplausibly construedasthedeprivationthatmovesAdamtosin.IfAugustinewantsto sticktothepresumptivereadingofsin’sbeginning – areadingthatrulesout divinelycreatedimperfection – heneedstoidentifytheoriginalperfection thatAdamhaswillfullyabandoned.Itwillhavetobeaperfectionthat securesforAdamhisessentialhumanity,inallofitsfullness.Theonly plausiblecandidateforthisisperfectfaithinGod’sgoodness.Butwhatdoes itlookliketohaveandlosethat?
Augustine’sattemptatananswertakeshimintoangelicspeculation.At somepointinthehistoryofangels(thoughitishardtosaywhattimemeans here), “deserterangels” (desertoresangeli; civ.Dei 13 24),Satanchiefamong them,turnfromthelightofGodandenterintothedarknessoftheir separateselves.Meanwhiletheangelswhodonotdesertmaintaintheirfaith inGod’sunwithholdinggoodnessandsecuretheirplaceasthe firstcitizens oftheheavenlycity.Itisinthecontrastbetweenthedeserterangelsand theirsteadfastcounterpartsthatAugustineseekshisbiggestcluetoAdam’ s defection.
AsAugustinereadsGenesis,angelscometobe,andthencometobesplit intheirranks,withinthebriefcompassoftwoversesfromthePriestly creationnarrative.Inthepausebetween “Lettherebelight” (Gen. 1:3)and “Goddividedthelightfromthedarkness” (Gen. 1:4),he findsmatterforan entireangelicepic(civ.Dei 11 9, 11 19–20, 11 33).Itstartswithaluminous creation,lightfromlight,andquicklylapsesintoshadowanddarkness.The deserterangels,havingbecomeloyalonlytoself,mixdarknessintotheir originallight,andGod,withruthlessjudgment,dividesthelightfromthe darknessandsealstheantithesisbetweenangelsanddemons.Theformer aretheproven firstcitizensofheaven,thelattertheirairyspiritualparodies, lefttolanguishandventinthesublunarysky,thelowestpartofheaven (infimumcaelum).
Thelightatissuehereisobviouslynotthephysicaleffluenceofcelestial orbs(Gen. 1:14–19),notthelight,thatis,thatmakesforeyesight.Augustine’ s angelsprecedesunshine,moon-glow,andthecoldlightofthestars.Their lightisdivinewisdomitself,thesecondpersonoftheTrinity;suchwisdomis thebodilessintelligencethatcallsmatteroutofnothingnessandintobeauty andaccordsacreatedmindsufficientwittogetinontheact.Theangelsare notofthesameessenceasuncreatedwisdom(ortherewouldbenoquestion ofanangelicfall),buttheyareexquisitelyattunedintheirangelicnature to thelogicofcreation.Theyknow,whentheyaremindfulofGod,thatthereis nothingtocreationbutlove.Augustinelikenssuchknowledgetothebreakingofday,a “morning” knowing(et fitmane; civ.Dei 11.7);itcontrastswith beingmoredirectlyfocusedonthedistinctivenessofcreaturelylife,acrepuscularmodeofknowingthatAugustineidentifieswiththe firstadventof evening(factaestvespera).
Theintimacybetweenbeingmorningandeveningknowingisboth fundamentalandprecarious.Itisimpossibletoreferacreaturelyloveto Godapartfromsomeawarenessthatoneisirreduciblyacreatureandnot God.Buttoomuchfocusonthatdistinctiontendstodistorttheextentof creaturelyindependenceandlendsthefalseimpressionthattheself,when renderedintoanabstraction,isstillasomething.Eveningyieldstonight,a lossofknowing.InAugustine’sexegesisofthe firstsixdaysofcreation (Gen. 1:3–31),nightisnotGod’sdoing;onlyeveningis: “Nightneverfalls,” hewrites, “whiletheCreatorisnotforsakenbythecreature’slove. Accordingly,whenScriptureenumeratesthosedaysinorder,itnever includestheword ‘night’” (vocabulumnoctis; civ.Dei 11.7).10 Theangels whocreatenightforthemselvesarrogateselfhoodfromGodandendup becominglessself-awarethantheywerebefore.Butthisisnotanightfall thattheyarewillingtosee.Theycontinuetoclingtoanemptycenter,all thewhileimaginingthattheyembraceaselfthere;thetightertheycling,the moreviolenttheirpassionfordeprivationbecomes.11
Intheirfallencondition,thedeserterangelsaremorelikestorm-systems thanorganizedselves.Butbeforetheyeverbegintounravelpsychically, theyactoutofthesameGod-givenintegritythatanyotherangelhas.
10 Augustine’sclaimisnotthatthewordisneverusedinthenarrativebutthatitisneverusedinthe formulathatannouncesthecreationofeachnewday: “Anditwaseveninganditwasmorning,[first throughsixth]day.” Hisexegesisputsapremiumonthedifferencebetween vespera (evening)and nox (night).ForaprovocativereadingofthesignificanceofAugustine’sexegeticalstrategyin civ.Dei 11 7, seePranger 2006: 113–21;esp. 120–21
11 AugustinehasmoretosayaboutdemonicpsychologyinBook 9 of CityofGod,wherehetakeson Apuleius,afellowAfricanandapaganPlatonist,andtriestodiscountthepolytheisticpathtohuman wholeness.(Thegodsturnouttobefallenangels.)See civ.Dei 9.3, 9.5, 9.8–9.
Augustinebrieflyentertainsthenotionthattheremustbeadifference here – perhapsthedeserterswere,fromthestart,moreinsecure – buthe isinclinednottothinkso(civ.Dei 11.13): “Itishardtobelievethattheangels werenotallcreatedequalinfelicityatthebeginning,andremainedsountil thosewhoarenowevilfellawayfromthelightofgoodnessbytheirown will.” Thereisequalfelicityamongtheangels,then,butapparentlynot equalenough.Thenaggingperplexityofthepresumptivereadingcomesto thefore:whatinclinessomeperfectbeings,butnotothers,tobreakfrom Godandseektheirownself-generatedlight?Augustinewillclaimthatpride (superbia)isthebeginningofsin(civ.Dei 12.6, 14.13;cf.Ecclus. 10:13),but thisistodefinesin,notaccountforit.Letsinbedefinedasaformofillicit self-assertion.Thereisnothingpresentintheoriginalpsycheofoneangel butnotinanotherthatcanaccountforpride.
ThemostthatAugustinewillclaimaboutthecauseofanevilwill – awill tosin – isthatitisdeficient(deficiens),noteffective(efficiens).Heneatly encapsulateswhathemeansbythisinthefollowingpassage(civ.Dei 12.7):
Fortodefectfromthatwhichsupremelyis,tothatwhichhasalessperfectdegreeof being:thisiswhatitistobegintohaveanevilwill.Nowtoseekthecausesofthese defections,whichare,asIhavesaid,notefficientcauses,butdeficient,islike wishingtoseedarknessorhearsilence.Bothoftheseareknowntous,theformerby meansoftheeyeandthelatterbytheear:not,however,bytheirappearance,butby theirlackofappearance.
Theimageryisbothstrikingandmisleading.Theissueisnothowwesee darkness,butwhetherwecausethedarknessthatweknowbynotseeing. Whenitcomestosin,Augustineimaginesustohaveaspoiler’ spower, prototypicalinthedeserterangels,todefectfromGodandpursueimperfection.Wemovetowardsthenothingnessincreation exnihilo,tradein eternalperfectibilityforendlesslydiminishingreturns,andmodelforGod whatismeanstobeGod-bereftandwedtonon-being.Themoralfor Augustineofallthisironicself-assertionisthatwearesolelyculpableforour barreninventiveness;God,meanwhile,isfreetojudge.
Theproblemwiththemoraliswhatitseemstoimplyaboutthefracture increaturelydesire.IfanangeloranAdamcancometoloveanothingness that,asitwere,predatescreation,thenthereisnodivineself-offeringthat cansecureevenanunfallenangel’sdesire,letalonethelongingofoneof Adam’ sconflictedheirs.Anyofferoflifewillbedoggedbyapriorand perverselydesirabledeficiency.
Thelogicofdeficientcausality, fitted firsttoangels,perpetuallythreatens toundoaworldofpurelyspiritualbeings,wheretransparencyistherule.
ItposesthesamekindofthreatinanAdamicsetting,where fleshveilsspirit andmakesamuddleofmotive.ThequestionthatIintendtopursuenowis notwhetherthelogiccanberenderedmoresolidifyinginoneorbothof thosecontexts,butwhetherAugustinehas,inhisnarrativemusings,left himselfsomealternativetoAdam’sangelization.12
2myth
WhenIrefertoAdam’sangelization,IrefertoAugustine’stendencyto assimilateAdam’sspirittothatofadeserterangel:anangelablenottosin whosinsanyway,andfornogoodreason.Theassimilationiswhollyin keepingwithwhatIhavebeencallingapresumptivereadingofevil’ s origination.Atheartthisreadingisaformofmoralism.Itaimstokeep themoralfaultlinesbetweenGodandcreaturelydefectorsfromGod absolutelyclean.Godisnottheslightestbitresponsiblefordefectionand themiseryandchaositcauses;thecreaturelydefectorsarealtogether culpable.Fundamentallyforthisformofmoralism,defectionisaturn awayfromthegoodandnotachoiceofalessergoodoveragreater;thus theanalysisofsin,whetherangelicorhuman,mustalwayscomedownto deficiencies.Deficientlymotivateddefectorschoosedeficiency;anything elseisanathema.ThereistobenobleedofgoodnessfromGodtothe defectors,nogoodthedesireforwhichcanexcuseormitigatetheguiltof defection.
ItiswhenAugustineismostconcernedtojustifythedamnationof sinnersthatheismostapttoabsolutizesinanddiscounttemptation. Withsinsoconceived,Iamneverledintosin;itisalwaysmysinthat leadsmeintotemptation.In CityofGod,Augustinespeaksofsinasasecret transgression; “Itwasinsecret,” hewrites(inocculto; civ.Dei 14.3), “that AdamandEvebegantobeevil.” HemeansbythisthatbeforeAdamisever temptedtobewiththewomanandnotwithGod,hesecretlywillshimself tobereceptivetoaGod-bereftlife.SimilarlyforEve,beforesheisever temptedtobelievetheserpent’slies,shesecretlywillsherselftobereceptive toaGod-bereftknowledge.Allthiswillingisinsecret,andnecessarilyso, becausebythetimewehavesomethingevidenttonotice – somedramatic realignmentinarelationship – itisalreadytoolatetocatchthemomentof
12 MacDonald 1999 makesaplausiblegeneralcaseforthinkingofinattentiveness,asopposedto ignoranceorweaknessofwill,asthedeficientcauseofamorallapse.Butinparadisiacalcontexts (Eden,heaven),whereinattentiontoGodsuggestssomethingsinister – namely,aloveofdeprivation – thequestionofcausecontinuestonag.
sin’sinception.Theturnthatcountscomespriortoevenaself’srelationship withitself.AndsoalthoughAugustineissomewhatnotoriousforhis insistenceonthesexualtransmissionofsinandtheresultant “sin-heap” of infectedsouls(massapeccati; Simpl. 1.2.16),sin,bythelogicofdeficient causality,istheleastcatchableofcontagions.Isinsingularlywithinme,you sinsingularlywithinyou;thereisnocommonsinforustoshare.Inthat regard,thereisreallyonlyeveroneoriginalsinner,andeachofusisit.
ButstillAugustinehastopreservesomeroleinhistheology,infactalarge one,fortemptationasitismoretraditionallyconceived.Heneedstobeable tospeaksensiblyofanAdamwhoisable,inthefaceoftemptation,to preservehisinnocence;otherwise,meresusceptibilitytotemptationisgoing tobeevidenceenoughforanirredeemablycorruptdisposition.Thelogicof deficientcausality,whenpressedintotheserviceofapresumptivemoralism, leavesAugustinewithonlyoneoftwopossibilities:eitheraworldinwhich nooneistemptedwhoisnotalreadydamned,oroneinwhicheveryoneat alltimeslivesuntried.Theoneworldishell;theotherisdecreation,orGod reducedtosolitude.ThereisnofootholdforaChristologyineither possibility,nowaytobringGoddowntoearth.
Deficientcausalityshouldbynowseemillconceivedtoanyhopefulheir ofAdam.ButcanAugustinereallydowithoutitandstillbeabletoaccount forcreaturelyresponsibilityforsin,the sinequanon ofanytheological moralism?
Thegreatmetaphysicianofmorals,ImmanuelKant,givesusreasonto thinkthatAugustine’sdilemmamaybebothunavoidableandbeyond resolution.Inhislatework, ReligionwithintheBoundariesofMereReason, hisdefenseofatheologicalmoralism,Kantattemptstoaccountforthe possibilityofmoralpersonality.Hetriestoexplain,thatis,howitispossible forrectitudetoberestoredinapersonwhohaswilledcontrarytothe categoricaldemandsofthemorallaw.Thoughnotnormallygivento mixingbiblicalexegesisintohiscriticalphilosophy,Kantmakesanexceptionin Religion.ThereheiskeenlyinterestedinhowtheScriptures,ifread toaccordwithamoralhermeneutic(e.g.,thepresumptivereadingofevil), cansuggesttheappropriatelimitsofacriticalanalysis.
Takethecaseoftheserpentinthegarden.Kantunderscorestheabruptnessoftheserpent’sinsertionintotheGenesisnarrative,wherebefore harmonieshavebeentherule:maleandfemale,Godandhumanity,heaven andearth.Theserpentconnivestosubverttheseharmoniesandturnthem intoantagonisms.HedoesthisbytemptingAdam(throughEve)todisobey God’scommand,hereconstruedasthemorallaw.Kant’smoralhermeneuticinclineshim,likeAugustine,nottomakedeceptionthecauseofAdam’ s
lapse;thismeans,forKant(andforAugustineaswell),thatAdamretainshis dispositiontoreasonevenashegivesintothetemptationtosubvertthe rationalorder,theorderofGod’sgoodcreation.
Thesecretofareasonerwhoreasonsagainstreasonisnotamenableto furtheranalysis,andthislimit,thinksKant,ispreciselythepointofthe serpent ’sunprecedentedappearance.ItisScripture’swayofsignalingan aporia.Fornonarrativethatincludesa firstsin – anoriginalturnfromgood toevil,plenitudetoprivation – canbeginatthebeginning.The firstsin alwaysshowsupasaninterjection,adisruptionofnarrativetime.Itisthe sinstofollow(iffollowingmakesanysensehere)thatspeaktoastruggle overtimeagainsttemptation;theyarethehalf-heartedlyincarnatethings thatbothfuelandfrustrateahopeforredemptiveclosure.HereisKanton thelogicofsin’sdepiction:
Theabsolutely first beginningofallevilis ... representedasincomprehensibletous (forwhencetheevilinthatspirit?);thehumanbeing,however,isrepresentedas havinglapsedintoitonly throughtemptation;hencenotascorrupted fundamentally (inhisvery firstpredispositiontothegood)but,onthecontrary,asstillcapableof improvement,bycontrasttoatempting spirit,i.e.,onewhomthetemptationofthe fleshcannotbeaccountedasamitigationofguilt.Andsoforthehumanbeing,who despiteacorruptedheartyetalwayspossessesagoodwill,therestillremainshopeof areturntothegoodfromwhichhehasstrayed.13
Thisisstillthelogicofdeficientcausality.Noticewhyitsimplycannotbea logicofredemption.Ifthetemptationofthe fleshmitigatesguilt,thenthere must firstbeguilttomitigate.Thatguiltreturnsthe “tempting spirit” toits humanhost,andonceagainAdamishopeless.
IbringKanttothediscussionofAugustineprincipallyfortworeasons. BecauseKantissomuchmoreintentthanAugustineisonademythologizedmoralism,Kant’sconcessionstomythologypowerfullysuggestthe limitsofametaphysicalapproachtoevil.ItturnsoutnottobephilosophicallyotioseforanAugustineoraKanttobecomepreoccupiedwiththe intricaciesoftheGenesisnarrative.Oursenseoftheoriginofevilmaynot, afterall,besoindependentofourinabilityto finishastorythathasa doggedlyobscureandperhapsirreduciblysymbolicbeginning.Oncethisis recognized,Kant’sotherofferingstandsout.Becausehisreluctantlymythologizedmoralismisstillamoralism,Kantshowsuswhathabitsofexegesis tendtosustainmoralism.Onehabitinparticulardoesmostofthework. KantpaysnoattentiontothedifferentrolesthatAdamandEverespectively playinframingthe firstsin.EvedisappearsintohisAdam,andAdam,the
13 Kant 1793/1998: 65,originalemphasis.
mysteriouslyself-subvertingreasoner,directlyviolatesthelawofhisown highestnatureunderaveiloftemptation.
TheclosestanalogueinAugustinetothisKantianexegeticalpracticeis hisdecisioninhisearlyallegoricalinterpretationofGenesis,writtenagainst the flesh-hatingManichees,torelegateEvetotheunthinkingsenses (Gn.adv.Man. 2.14.51).HegivesAdamthepartofpurereason. ReasonableAdamissusceptibletounmanlyoverthrowbyhissensual wife,butheisnaturallyandideallyinapositionofrulershipoverher. WhenallegoricalAdamandEvegettogether,wegetoneindividual:awellfunctioningAdam.
Inhislatercommentaries,whereAugustineaimstobemoreliteraland lessallegorical,hisAdam,whoisasanimalinhis fleshasEveisinhers, comestohaveasensualityofhisown.14 AdamnolongersubsumesEve;he relatestoher.Whenshepartsfromhimthroughtransgression,hefeels distressaswellaslonging.Hecannotbearthethoughtofabandoninghis partnertoherseparatefate.InAugustine’sextendedliteralcommentary,it isnotlustoranyignoblefeelingthatmovesAdamtorejoinwithher,but “akindoffriendlybenevolence” (amicaliquadambenevolentia; Gn.litt 11.42.59).ThissameAdamreappearsin CityofGod,expectingfromhis maker,ifnotexoneration,atleastsomesympathyforthedifficultyofhis choice(civ.Dei 14.11).
ThechoicetodramatizeAdam’schoice,relativeto Eve’ s transgression, istheexegeticalpracticeofAugustine’sthatisleastlikelytosustainthe moralismthatheandKantmostlyshareincommon.15 Thisisnottosay thatAugustinecannot fightagainstthedriftofhischoiceand findhisway backtomoralism.Take,forexample,hisinsistencein CityofGod onan “undeceived” Adam(nonseductus; civ.Dei 14.11,cf. 1 Tim. 2:14).Hedoes
14 UnlikesomereadersofAugustineonGenesis,IdonotbelievethatAugustineeverthoughtofAdam ashavingspiritualized flesh.WhetherheisinterpretingGenesisallegoricallyorliterally,heconsistentlythinksofAdamiclifeinEdenasprobationary:themanandthewomanbeginwithunproven spiritualpromiseandsomeversionofananimalbody.Themostthatcanbesaidoftheirsomatic statusin Gn.adv.Man.isthattheiranimalityisvaguelymoreetherealthanitislateron.Augustine criticizeshimself(retr. 1.10.2)forhavingoncebeentoodelicateinhisaffirmationofAdam’soriginal animality,butnotforhavingentertainedaquasi-Plotinianfallofanimmaterialsoul,undividedly maleandfemale,intoamanandwomanofmortal flesh.Forcontraryreadingsof Gn.adv.Man.,see Teske 1991,whooutfitsAdamandEvewithcelestialbodies,andO’Connell 1991,whocombinestheir spiritswithinasingle,archetypical,trans-historicalsoul.
15 Inhispoignant “LettertoAugustine,” Connolly 1991: 151–52 blithelydismissestheimportanceofEve toAugustine’sreadingofthefall.Inthis,heshowshimselftobeoneofthemanymoderninterpreters whoarepreparedtooverstressAugustine’smoralismandassimilatehim,ineffect,totheKantof Religion.
Originofevil
notmeanabsolutelyundeceived.Afterhavingmanagednottoplaythe serpent ’sfool,Adamstraightawaybecomeshisown;hedeceiveshimself intothinkingthathissinisvenialandeasilyforgiven.Augustinesaysof thisAdamthatheis “unacquaintedwiththedivineseverity” (inexpertus divinaeseveritatis; civ.Dei 14.11).BearinmindthatAugustine’sGodis severe,notoutofanger(asifGod’sfeelingscouldbehurt),butoutofthe strictimperativeofjusticethatexpresseswhoGodis.Adamcannot transgressagainstdivinejusticewithouthaving firstseparatedhimself (insecret)fromthebeingthatmakesanorderofthegoodpossible.For anAdamalreadythusdeprived,thechoiceofEveoverGodisoneofpure pretence.Achoiceofanygoodwouldhaveservedaswell – maybeAdam justlikesthetasteofapples – andnochoiceofgoodwouldhavebeen forgivable.UndeceivedAdamisn’tseducedbySatanbecausehedoesn’ t needtobe:hislackofacquaintancewith “thedivineseverity” isdamning enough.
MoralismisalwaysavailabletoAugustineinhisreadingofGenesis.This isbecauseitisnot,strictlyconsidered,areading;itisthepresumptionofa reading.WhatifwesuspendthepresumptionandallowAugustine’sAdam thesubstanceofhishumanmotivation?Thestorymightgosomethinglike this.
PartI:Adamdoesnotwishtobeseparatedfromthe fleshofhis flesh.His animal fleshdoesnotinfactdisposehimtoseekself-enclosure;Eveis distinctivetohim,aseparatebeauty,andnotmerelyameanstoextendor sustainthesamenessofhimself.Heisgoodwithher,andotherwisebad, bereft(Gen. 2:18).HeassumesthatGod,whoknowsthetruemeaningof goodandbad,willunderstand,willforgivehimforhischoice.
PartII:ItisalsotruethatAdam,likeanangelabouttofall,cannotquite believethattrustinGod’sgoodnessisallthatknowledgeofGodcan possiblybe.Hetakeshistasteofknowledgeoutoftrust,butalsomistrust, anditisthemistrustthatsoonbegins toshow.HehidesfromGod,fearing retributionanddeath.WhenGodcallshimout,Adamisevasiveandselfveiling: “Thewomanwhomyougavebyme,” heexplains(Gen. 3:13), “she gavemefromthetree,andIate.” Augustinereadilyseesthesinbehindthe veil(civ.Dei 14.11; Gn.litt. 11.35.47):Adamisgivingoverhisresponsibility toEveandtoGod,thetwosourcesofhislife,andofferinguphispartner assacrifice;heimaginesthatheislesseninghisownpunishment.Having testedhistrustinhisdivinefatherinordertobewithEve, “themotherof allthatlives” (Gen. 3:20),Adamhasdoneanythingbutaffirmhisrenewed partnershipwithher.Withintheframeofhismistrust,histransgression looksshamefullynaked.GodsoondrivesAdamandthewoman,still
unrecognized(despiteherbeingnamed),fromthegarden,toblocktheir accesstothetreeoflife.16 Onebeginningisover.
Thetwopartsoftheproposedstoryarenotneatlychronological.Adam’ s mistrustdoesnotsucceedhistrustandtakeitsplace;itissuperimposed uponit.Thetrustandthemistrustgotogetherandseemtooccupythesame psychicspace,suggesting – falsely – thattherehavealwaysbeentwostories totellabouthim:oneofdamnation,theotherofredemption.Thetruthis thattherehasonlyeverbeenonestorytotell.Theotherstoryisn’ tevena story;itsnarrativeambitionsdisappearwithinasinkholeofdeficiency.But undoubtedlytheredemptiveturninAdam’sstoryiseverybitasradicaland hardtobelieveasAugustineandPaulhavemadeitouttobe,maybeeven moreso.WhereamoralistseesinAdamamistrustofperfectionandan inexcusablelossofmoralfaith,asainthastoconfrontamoreunsettling possibility:thatAdam’smistrustisthefaceofhisfaith,revealedindarkness – likethesunineclipse.Thefaithisstillthere,butdangerousto behold.
Consideroriginalknowledge,goodandevil.TheGodofpurespirit,asan objectofhumanknowing,isalwaysawithdrawal,anabsenceofpresence,a seconddeath.Thatistheevilpartofknowing – thedeprivation – anditis thepartthatAdamtastes first.Butthegoodnewsisthatheremains,while inthedoomofdeath,whollyapartofthedivineknowing.Thatiswhynot havingaspiritualbodyhasneverbeenasourceofdeprivationinEden.It doesnotsuddenlybecomeonewhenAdamseesdarknessandsuspendsthe generosityofhisanimal flesh.Outsidethegardenhewilllooknotfornew fleshbutforarenewedknowledge,throughher,themotherofgenerosity, ofthesinlessoriginal – mortalandredemptive,Christ’ s flesh.Returningto thegoodpartofknowledgeisonlyamatteroftime;indeeditisthevery meaningoftime.
In CityofGod,we findAugustine,theGenesisexegete,athismoralistic peak.HetrieshislevelbesttofoldAdamandEvewithinasinglesin,whose paradigmis fleshlessandSatanic.Butultimatelythesaintsurpassesthe moralist,andweareleftlesswiththeunforgivinglogicofself-willed deficienciesandmorewiththeshiftsinrelativegoodnessthatmakefora storyofredemption.IsaythisnottosanctifyAugustine – hehardlyneeds
16 Scripture(Gen. 3:24)speaksoftheexpulsionfromEdenofthe adam – not,thatis,Adamasthe distinctivelymalepartoftheoriginalhumancouple,butasthecreatureformedfromearth(adamah) andenlivenedwithdivinebreath.Alter 1996 isagoodsourceforthenuancesofBiblicalHebrew;see, forexample,p. 5,n. 26.Ioftenusethename “Adam” torefertothe firstman,butIamkeenlyawareof itsprimarydenotation.SimilarlyItake “Eve” torefertothe firstwoman,theman’scounterpart,and alsotothemotherofallthatlives.
Originofevil
meforthat – butinrecognitionofwhatmaybeapartofthelogicof sanctification:thatthesaintshowsupwhenthemoralistbeginstorelearn themeaningofperfection.
3privation
InmyattemptsbothtointerpretandextendAugustine’sthinkingaboutthe natureandoriginofevil,Ihavenotabandonedthe privatio thesis.Iaccept hisacceptanceofthebroadthesisthatevilisbasicallyaprivationofgoodness,or,intheologicallanguage,anabsenceofGod.Thethesisholdstrue evenforpositivelydemonicagentsofdeprivation.AlsoIhavenotentirely abandonedtheanalysisofdeficientcausalitythatAugustinesotightly associateswiththe privatio thesis.ButwhileIagreethatitisnotpossible togiveagoodreasonforaprivation,apartfromapriorprivation,Ihave resistedAugustine’sinclinationtoabsolutizedeficientagency.Iftheconditionsareperfectforthe flourishingofmybestself,andIcanstillbemoved towillmyself-corruption,thenIamnotjustadeficientagent;Iam irredeemablydeficient.
Butifitweresimplythecasethatresponsibleagentsneverwilldeficiently,thenevilinaprovidentialorderwouldbeanillusion.Iammore inclinedtothink,inkeepingwithAugustine,thatGodmakesagooduseof sin.Andsowhilewedosometimeswilldeficiently,wedonottherebyhavea specialpowerofagencythatisuniquetousandsealedoff fromGod.Weare notliterallyinthedeprivationbusiness.Havingtogiveoverthislast,rather pathetic,shredofautonomyleavesusperpetuallyopentoself-revision,but suchopenness,allmoralismaside,isitselfaformofresponsibility.Inthe faceofevil,wearecalledtobebettercitizensofa corpuspermixtum,an entangledbody,andnotarcheologistsofanabandonedperfection.This meansnolessthantoventurecompassionwhereexplanationhasfailed.The moreliesbeyondmycompetencetoenvision.
