Neanderthals (or pre-modern man) probably had a morality of so called direct reciprocity: I will treat you like you treat me, so both of us can be better off. This works well in small groups. But when our modern ancestors started to live together in larger groups, people did not know all groups members by name anymore. In such cases word language offered a novel way to cooperate: on the basis of a good reputation. If you treat other people well, you’ll get a good reputation and strangers will support you in turn when needed. This is called indirect reciprocity. People are starting to realise that it is beneficial to look after one another even beyond the circle of family and friends.
Yet this mode of cooperation is quite fragile. A single profiteer, free rider who minimizes his own effort and sponge on others is enough to raise suspicion. People start watching eachother. Who can be trusted? Who should be monitored? The intense focus on behaviour renders conflicts very personal. Animals compete for things, mostly food and sex. People do so too but there is a new kind of rivalry, shifting from the object to the person: ‘playing the man instead of the ball’. And too easily this leads to jealousy, violence or even murder.
For our early ancestors morality was already much more than quid pro quo (or ‘collecting on a debt’). Yet good meant success, fame or skill. Bad was failure, sickness, plainness or weakness. The idea of ‘sin’ did not exist yet. That came into existence much later, when the Old Testament was put in writing – around 500BC when after many thousands of years various aspects had evolved:
– a changing image of God (from animal spirits to human gods and eventually to Israels one transcendent God)
– the importance of obedience (in a social hierarchy)
– the concept of justice (initially the right of the mighty, then the rule of the elite and ultimately justice for all)
– a growing sense of individual identity (Gods covenant with Abraham)
– a growing sense of human responsibility (Zoroasters good and evil)
All these themes play an implicit or explicit role in Genesis 3 and one by one they will come up for subsequent review.
The Genesis story is generally interpreted in terms of death as a punishment for sin. In the bible much is written about sickness and guilt. But we know that sickness and death is part of life, then and now. Both villains and virtuous may fall victim to illness and misfortune. Not biological death but the end of a relation is the consequence of sin. Jealousy, deceit and violence make relations wane. Sin destroys human relations.
In the end the Fall is a leap as well. The fundamental idea is not God’s punishment but human responsibility (which can be tough). Man is becoming aware of his responsibility for the quality of living (together) – a gift as well as a burden. How do we choose? In any case let’s try to play the ball and not the ,man. Condemn injustices instead of perpetrators, starting with ourselves.