[Milton-L] pre-fallen knowledge of sin
richard strier
rastrier at uchicago.edu
Tue Jul 1 18:18:27 EDT 2008
QUICK RESPONSE RE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN BEFORE THE FALL:
It is simply not true that "prior to the fall, there was no
sin to observe." It is true that "Adam and Eve did not see
other people sinning," but I take it that the whole point of
Raphael's narration of the war in heaven is meant to inform
Adam (and Eve, whether or not she hears the thing directly or
indirectly) about what sin is, and in some detail. Many
negative things can be and have been said about Milton's God
(some of them by me), but that He intended to keep Adam and
Eve ignorant of sin and Satan is not one of them.
---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:15:55 -0400
>From: "James Rovira" <jamesrovira at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Abdiel (thought-sins)
>To: "John Milton Discussion List" <milton-
l at lists.richmond.edu>
>
>Michael and Carol: I tried to explain these distinctions
from my
>divorce example in my previous post, but perhaps I was
not clear. The
>primary distinction I see in the Genesis account is that
prior to the
>fall, there was only one command, and all moral reasoning
and
>principles were embodied in that command, while after the
fall there
>were multiple commands, multiple principles, and far more
complex
>contexts. Furthermore, prior to the fall, there was no
sin to observe
>-- Adam and Eve did not see other people sinning.
>
>Consider the current extent of prohibitions and relevant
moral laws.
>Moses issued ten commandments (let's forget the entire
ceremonial and
>civil law for the moment); Jesus internalized them
(although there's
>an element of internalization in the Mosaic law as well,
for example,
>do not covet); Adam and Eve only had one rule which
served as the
>entire moral law: do not eat of the fruit of the tree of
knowledge.
>How can there be a division between the rule of
conscience, rule of
>reason, and rule of law when there is only one rule?
>
>As a result, I don't think it's relevant to compare
prelapsarian Adam
>and Eve to either Jesus or my own teenage daughters
(yes, I have
>two), and what I considered as a possibility between
reasoned
>disobedience and blind obedience works only for Adam and
Eve, not for
>Jesus or my teenage daughters. Both Christ and my
daughters have a
>history to confront, and sin to observe in the people
around them (not
>me! --ha) -- Adam and Eve did not -- my daughters are
fallen (Adam
>and Eve were not yet), etc. Now, when I say Milton may
have been
>Christianizing Adam and Eve, he may be having them act
and think as if
>they had this history, this knowledge, these divisions,
etc. -- when
>really, all they had was a single prohibition.
>
>To put it more simply, if Adam and Eve were not commanded
not to think
>about eating the fruit, not to resolve to eat the fruit,
not to touch
>the fruit, not to discuss the fruit, etc. -- only
commanded not to eat
>the fruit -- how can they be said to have sinned before
they actually
>ate the fruit? Yes, of course, mental acts precede
physical ones, but
>mental acts have not been forbidden -as of this point-,
only a
>physical act: eating the fruit.
>
>Christ's teachings, on the other hand, clearly forbid
mental acts such
>as lust and hatred, and the Mosaic law forbids coveting.
To apply
>these standards -- demands for perfect mental obedience
as well as
>physical obedience -- to Adam and Eve is therefore to
"Christianize"
>them. So this leads me to my question again -- did
Milton see a
>difference between the Christian and the unfallen Adam
and Eve, or did
>he believe that to become a Christian was to return to
the state Adam
>and Eve were in before the fall? Diane posted an
interesting
>quotation from OCD about regeneration, but it was unclear
to me from
>that short quotation if Milton understood regeneration as
a process or
>as something that happens instantaneously with perfect
and complete
>results upon reception of the Holy Spirit.
>
>Jim R
>
>On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Michael Gillum &
lt;mgillum at unca.edu> wrote:
>> Jim Rovira, could you explain a bit more what you
mean by Milton
>> Christianizing unfallen Adam and Eve? I'm not
following.
>_______________________________________________
>Milton-L mailing list
>Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
>Manage your list membership and access list archives at
http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
Richard Strier
Department of English
University of Chicago
1115 East 58th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
More information about the Milton-L
mailing list