Of course, the role of state-enforced religion is hardly only under Constantine. The power of religious authorities led to Jesus' death, but has a long precedent in the Hebrew Scriptures as well (albeit often with a prophetic counter critique back and forth).

Quite simply, for most of human history belief and state power were closely interwoven. The time we live in really is pretty unprecedented… as seen so clearly in hot issues around marriage and the last few vestiges of state-overseen sacraments in our society.

Elaine Pagel's book, "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent" offers some interesting insight on the history of this doctrine. Read a book review here:
http://www.southerncrossreview.org/14/pagels.htm

I've been doing some of my own studies, albeit casual, on Pelagius and the Celtic churches…it is, of course a huge black-out as far as what we actually know, but there IS evidence of numerous references to attempts to "root out Palagianism" among British (celtic speaking peoples in what is now England/Wales) and Irish Churches. They seem to have lasted centuries after Palagius, and one has to seriously wonder what lay beneath those vague descriptions– were we simply looking at actual use of his writings, or a deeper Irish or British thought-stream which was being simplified by heresiologists?

Its interesting that one of the few fairly accepted descriptions of Columcille (Columba), founder of Iona and one of the most influential monastic empires of Ireland/Scotland/Northern Britain includes reference to him being a scholar of John Cassian- who a few people have referenced as a counterpoint to Augustine on Original Sin. The Iona Abbots were well known for openly clashing with Rome over Easter and other matters, in ways very parallel to the Eastern churches, Columba's Abbocy almost resembles, as does Patrick and Brigid's, an Irish Patriarchate of sorts (Rome actually had to APPEAL to the Iona churches on the grounds of unity, it wasn't until they won over an Abbot at Whitby that anything changed),

We'll probably never know exactly what happened in the early Celtic church with any certainty… but there is evidence both of interest in the Eastern fathers AND an enduring commitment to ideas around free will which one could even, albeit speculatively build some case that it may have had some indigenous roots.

J. Philip Newell (not the most scholarly/a bit pan-Celtic in this thought, but very well read and a modern day former leader at Iona) pointed me to the works of John Scotus Eriugena in the 9th century. An Irish theologian and neo-platonist well read in the greek fathers, especially Pseudo-Dionysius, he came to teach in France and was actually at one time asked by the Catholic church to defend free will against some VERY extreme forms of predestination (sounds almost like a prelude to later Calvinist/Armenian debates). Seems he went too far for the liking of some– and his later works echoed Origin, though I'd be curious how he's received in the East, he worked extensively from their Fathers. But it is interesting that an Irishman was asked to defend the Catholic church's value of a balance of free will, despite ongoing fears of Palagianism out of Ireland too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Scotus_Eriu...

As a funny aside, in a comment I'm sure Peter Rollins would enjoy, he is quoted as responding to a King's anti-Irish racist question (my ancestors were "barbarians" for much of history) about what differs an Irishman from a drunkard: "Only a table."

Need to look more into his actual writings. It is interesting that his early works in Greek thought presaged later Reformation debates. I honestly have to wonder where the Reformation might have gone if there had been more knowledge of the Greek Fathers.

The "snake" of Genesis 1, as well as Satan within Job are both very fascinating and nuanced characters, far different from later 1st Century Jewish and Christian conceptions of Satan. Both actually fit well into a "Trickster" model of many near-Eastern, as well as other mythologies around the world, figures who, animal or divine (only in Job is Satan, a member of the Divine court clearly identified — in Genesis 1 one can argue, as many Jewish figures still do, that its simply a snake!). Its actually been interesting to study similar trickster/transgression stories from a number of traditions — many Native American mythologies, in fact have some sense of human or higher beings making mistakes at the dawn of time, messing creation up somewhat — but there is little to no sense of "sin" or moral backlash. It simply messes things up, but humanity often gets new instructions or almost convenental relation to the Creator afterward. (this is why, for so many Native American communities the Christian imposition of sin-thinking was so alien, and in many ways damaging to them. There are figures today in Christian indigenous theology, like Randal Balmer who argue for recognition of these earlier covenants with the Creator, and repentence for the ways Christian missionaries attacked their spirituality blindly instead of seeing the potential for a truly incarnated Gospel- see his piece in "Emergent Manifesto of Hope").

As you continue through the Genesis story, you see a shift from gardening to herding to city dwelling (and all the problems THAT causes!). Sounds like humans are evolving from a relationship with one, to family relationships, to community relationships. Now where Kushner says the real entry of "sin" is where Cain kills Abel. This is actually the FIRST place in the Hebrew Bible where the word "sin" is used. And what is this "first sin"? A sibling jealousy over possessions or love that culminates in murder. While animals will kill one another, it is done for food and not out of jealousy or hatred.

So, I see a progression in the complexities of what it means to be human in an ever growing and challenging world that continues to play out in Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and into the prophets, into the New Testament, and a world that conitues to grow and challenge us today!

Kushner sees it as a mythical description of how the first human beings left the world of animal existence behind (evolution?) and entered the problematic world of being human. In THIS light, God's might not have been giving Adam a "rule" or a "law" against eating the fruit – perhaps it was a warning: are you sure you WANT to leave the simple, non-complicated life similar to the animals and enter the emotional world of humanity? Think about it: WE have to deal with loss, dread, worry, frustration, jealousy, betrayal, but also love, joy, hope, achievement, faithfulness, and creativity. Do animals struggle (or rejoice) with those things to the degree humans do?

It makes total sense when you look at as a parent. A couple of years ago, our oldest daughter left for college (our youngest daughter is leaving this fall). Could they EVER become the adult they are created to become by staying in the safety and comfort of our home? NO! (We can see the effect of coddled 40-something, video-playing basement-dwellers, can't we?) We worry about our kids every day – that they will make the best (and safest) choices, but they WILL make mistakes…they WILL do things we would rather they not do – that is all part of maturing. But will we ever STOP loving them? Will we ever BANISH them from our home? Would I ever TORTURE them forever for making mistakes (the reformed theology of hell)?

Anyway, the Hebrew Bible that Jesus would have known did NOT have a "heading" called "The Fall" ahead of this story and I think we owe it to ourselves to at least consider this passage through Jewish eyes (that Jesus had).