Adam and Eve: Matters of Original Sin

It’s the age old question: who actually sinned – Adam or Eve?

When we read Genesis 3, it can be difficult to decide who it was that was really responsible for the fall of creation. Satan was the first to display rebellion and Eve was the first to eat the fruit, yet Adam is placed with the blame throughout the bible. Who was at fault?

Eve

A common argument that Eve was blameless follows from the fact that the command was given to Adam before the creation of Eve;

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Though God did not directly command Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge, it is clear that she knew what the rules were;

And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’

Rather than deliberately disobeying, Eve allows herself to be deceived into thinking that she has misunderstood the command;

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Though she wasn’t present to hear the command directly given in Genesis 2, Eve knew what could be eaten and what couldn’t. In a moment of weakness, she allowed herself to be tricked into thinking that perhaps she could eat the fruit after all. The Apostle Paul wrote;

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Eve herself told God that “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

Satan

The serpent’s very presence in the garden makes it clear that sin, in one form or another, already existed. We know from prophets such as Ezekiel and Isaiah that Satan’s sin was steeped in pride and delusions of grandeur that led to his being cast out of the heavenly realm. The difference between original sin and the sin of Satan is the limitations on Satan’s sin. As an angelic being, Satan was never given dominion over creation as Adam was, nor was he ever going to produce any offspring who would be affected by his sin. Satan’s sinfulness affected only himself…UNLESS…he could deceive someone else and cause damage through them.

Satan needed Eve in order to carry out his destructive plans for the created order.

Adam

It is a common idea that Adam was the first sinner, responsible for the consequences of Genesis 3. This line of thinking has come from Paul;

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned

Adam is credited with the introduction of sin into the world, and the consequences that follow as a result. Why is Adam to blame?

One argument that Adam was blameless is that Eve took of the fruit while he was not aware. Where was Adam while all of this interaction was going on?

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

Right beside Eve. Adam was created from creation itself and Eve was created from Adam. These verses and others from Genesis make it clear that Adam’s role as husband was one of leadership. If Adam was privy to the conversation that took place between Eve and the serpent then he should have exercised his headship and corrected her misunderstanding, instead of passively standing by while she ate and then following in her footsteps. German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer once famously declared;

Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.

In remaining silent and inactive, Adam reinforces the serpent’s sin and fails to defend his household from sin. This does not mean that Eve was without sin, or that she does not share in the guilt, but as the head of his household, Adam had a responsibility to exercise this headship.

Adam was also responsible for stewardship over creation, another command given directly to him, and eating the forbidden fruit was surely a failure to live up to this directive. It’s interesting to note that when God calls out to them, he asks for Adam alone;

But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”

Though Satan initiated the event, and Eve was the first person to actually sin, it is Adam who must answer to God. Adam, as head of his family, was responsible for his own sin, as well as providing adequate protection for his wife – especially given that the account makes it clear he was standing by and watching the scene take place.

With that said, the Bible never regards Adam’s sin as more serious than Eve’s. Both were held accountable and punished for their sin, as was the serpent.

Serpent:

“Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life.”

Eve:

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children”

Adam:

“Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.”

To honour God’s creation, be sure to sign the petition to establish Creation Day as an official holiday!

Were Adam and Eve Created Twice?

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

Genesis 1

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul…but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

Genesis 2

The Problem

The accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 appear to offer two separate and somewhat contradictory accounts for the creation of Adam and Eve. Were Adam and Eve created twice?

The Solution

You might be surprised to see that Adam and Eve do not appear in the first creation account at all. We are simply told that God created people in his own image – male and female. In the second account we see that God fashions Adam from dust and places him in the garden he has previously prepared. Eve is created shortly after from one of Adam’s rib bones.

The two accounts are not intended to describe two different creation events. The two accounts are merely describing the same event, in a different way.

Source criticism seeks to establish the sources used by the authors of the bible and looks at editing work that was undertaken on biblical texts before the bible was composed into its current form. According to source critics, the two creation narratives found in Genesis derive from different sources – the account in Genesis 1 being composed in the sixth century by the ‘Priestly’ source and the account in Genesis 2 being composed in the tenth century by the ‘Yawhist’.

A Cosmocentric Account

Genesis 1, composed much later, describes the creation of humanity within the bigger picture – as part of creation week. It is cosmocentric. In this account, the male and female are both created on day six and given dominion over the earth. We are not told if the male and female creation is limited to one person, or what their names were. In this passage the word ‘adam’ is present, but Is used as a plural to describe humankind in the broader sense. The creation of the man and woman finalises the creative week before God steps back and declares that everything he has created is ‘good’. This account appears to place the creation of humanity, as a whole, at the culmination of the cosmic creation that has taken place, evident by the fact that the male and female are not named.

If this piece was indeed penned by the Priestly source, then it was written after the Hebrews had returned from captivity by the Babylonians. Regardless, its function is clear: creation is complete.

An Anthropocentric Account

Genesis 2, the earlier account, describes the creation of Adam and Eve in more detail, with a focus on the birth of humanity rather than the creation of the entire cosmos. It is anthropocentric. In this account the man is also referred to as Adam. In this setting the word is capitalized to indicate a proper noun – it is the name for the man. Adam is fashioned from the ground before God blows the breath of life into his nostrils. The woman, Eve, is then fashioned from Adam. This account ends with the establishment of primeval innocence, depicting the man and woman as both ‘naked’ and ‘not ashamed.’ This account differs from the cosmocentric account in several ways including using different names to describe God, using different methods of bringing about creation and ordering the creative activity differently.

Having been written by the Yahwist could place the composition of this story as early as 950 BCE. The function of this second account serves as a departure point for the subsequent narrative.

In Conclusion

What is being presented here is two different accounts of the same event, fashioned in different ways. The first account places the creation of humanity as the climax for the grandiose story where God creates on a cosmic level. The second uses the event as a ‘scene-setter’ for the narrative which is to follow, in which the man and woman will ‘fall’ through disobedience to God.

Each account uses its own choice of language, structure and detail in order to achieve the theological agenda of its composer. The first account was most likely written as a Jewish, monotheistic response to polytheistic beliefs being spread at the time. The second account holds many similarities to the Babylonian creation myth the ‘Enuma Elish’, suggesting that perhaps this account is a direct response to this, and a way of offering rebuttal to its polytheistic ideas.

What is clear is that regardless of the difference in time, author and agendas, Genesis 1 and 2 were meant to be read together. Each account provides a unique perspective on God’s creative nature and the origins of humankind, as well as God’s relationship with humanity.

To honour God’s creation, be sure to sign the petition to establish Creation Day as an official holiday!

Jesus: A New Creation

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!

2 Cor 5:17

Through Jesus Christ, we have become a new creation…but what does this mean?

The ‘new creation’ has a two-fold meaning – cosmic and personal. On a cosmic level, the new creation refers to the way in which Jesus’ life, death and resurrection ushered in the new created order. On a personal level, it refers to the changes that Jesus’ actions brought about within the believer.

The World as a New Creation

To understand ‘the new creation’ we must understand that it is a creation – it was created by God. This means that it was brought about solely by the will of God, and was not simply an accident or consequence of Jesus’ life, death or resurrection. The new creation was crafted by God’s hands, just as the original creation in Genesis 1 was, but this creation is greater – it brings about the fullness of God’s original creation.

The creation is also ‘new’, this means that the old creation has not simply been cleaned up. Jesus has inaugurated a brand new creation – fresh and never-seen-before. ‘The old has gone’. It has not been transformed or changed, it has passed away. The new creation establishes the fullness of Creation that has been introduced through Christ. It is an all-encompassing conversion that takes place over everything on earth. No aspect of the world is as it was before Christ –everything has died with him and has been renewed.

Believers as a New Creation

The new creation also refers to the way in which Jesus’ actions altered the way that humanity exists.

The old creation is our old sinful natures – our former habits, sinful behaviours and selfish deeds. The old creation has been replaced with the new creation – a new created order is full of new things and new life. As a new creation, you “have taken off your old self with its practices” (Colossians 3:9) and “put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 4:24). Through our new created-ness, we see the world through a different lens. The nature of the world and of ourselves has changed.

This does not mean that we have been perfected. We are renewed and redeemed daily by the crucified Christ, but we still have the capacity to sin. Though we have been changed, we are also still being changed. The new creation, however, gives us the ability to be freed from the bondage of sin, and loosens its power over us. We are now a new, empowered creation with the choice to continue on, dead in sin or living in the life that reigns through Christ and the new creation. We are not simply forgiven, but we have been changed, and continue to change.

Jesus’ life, death and resurrection renewed every person. We are renewed to live by new rules, in a renewed world, with a renewed faith.

To honour God’s creation, be sure to sign the petition to establish Creation Day as an official holiday!

Were Adam and Eve Vegetarians? The Biblical Basis for a Vegetarian Life

In recent years a movement has developed that explores the idea of Christianity as originally designed to be vegetarian. Authors who examine this idea encourage Christians to adopt a vegetarian diet and often claim that scripture itself demands it. Some people have even attributed the long lifespans seen in the early bible to the vegetarian diet prescribed by God.

What does the Bible really say about vegetarianism?

The Original Design

According to Genesis 1, at the end of the week, when God had finished his creation, he told Adam and Eve to eat plants.

^“Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.”

This directive suggests sufficiency in the finished creation. Human and animal life was able to consume freely from plant life, because God has supplied abundance as part of the original design.

Shortly after God created the perfect earth, He laid down the vegetarian mandate because death did not exist – it was not a part of the original creation design. Animals and humans were designed to live forever, and therefore could not survive by eating meat because ‘meat’ did not exist. There were only living things.

In Genesis 3, sin entered the world, and so did death. The creation was no longer perfect but was fractured and unable to function according to its original design. The paradisal state that prevailed in Genesis 1 and 2 was ruptured, ushering in a new age of death, cruelty and carnivory that was not intended as part of the original design.

As a result, animals began to eat other animals.

Cain and Abel

One question often asked when this issue is explored, is whether or not Abel was a meat eater. This is assumed since Cain was a produce farmer and kept vegetables but Abel is depicted as a shepherd who sacrificed his animals.

This alleged contradiction comes from assuming Abel was doing something that Scripture doesn’t say he was. The relevant passages are:

“Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat.”

Abel’s intentions for tending flocks were probably not for meat. His flock could have been raised for the various other goods that lambs can yield – wool, milk, leather and for sacrifice.

Those who assume Abel was a meat eater are assuming that after the sacrifice, Abel was eating the meat. Since we know that God commanded all human beings to eat only plants, and directed this at Abel’s parents, it seems likely that he would be familiar with God’s intentions for humanity.

Matthew 23:35 indicates that Abel was considered a righteous man, and we know from Genesis 4 that God favored Abel’s offering over Cain’s. This would be unlikely if after the offering Abel was doing something that would displease God. We must assume that Abel would not choose to be so blatantly disobedient, and that given the glowing reports that Abel is given later in scripture, he was not going against God’s directive from Genesis 1.

If Abel did not eat meat, which scripture certainly doesn’t indicate, then there is no contradiction.

The Changed Design

In Genesis 9, God establishes a new covenant, and offers a new directive;

“Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.”

The state of humanity in Genesis 6 prompted God to take action. Human corruption had once again shattered the original design, distorting God’s plans for humanity. He was forced to take action.

After the flood, God’s directive regarding the human diet was altered. Noah and his family were given permission to eat meat. Although people may have sinfully eaten meat during the pre-flood time of immorality and depravity, they were not given permission to do so. Genesis 9 is the first time that God gave permission for humans to eat animals.

The presence of this permission further reinforces the directive given in Genesis 1. Human life was not intended to eat meat – it was not a part of God’s original design. Here, in the midst of a post-flood world, and at the defining moment of a fresh start, God allows meat-eating to take place.

With some arguing that long lifespans were a direct result of the vegetarian diet in the pre-flood world, it has also been further suggested that the sharp decline in the length of life after the flood can be attributed to the introduction of meat into the human diet.

Since the directive in Genesis 1 suggests a sufficiency, it could be argued that God’s permission in Genesis 9 is due to an insufficiency. After the flood, there wouldn’t have been an abundance of plants as there was in Eden. God may have felt that he needed to incorporate meat into the human diet for survival. It’s also worth noting that at the fall, God’s original design was permanently damaged, leaving a scarcity. In Genesis 3 God says to Adam;

“…cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you…”

In a time of vegetation shortage, God made a concession.

So is a Vegetarian Diet Mandatory?

In the modern age, people have struggled to come to terms with the fact that God’s original design did not include meat eating. Scientists have attempted to explain it away by claiming that certain animals cannot survive without meat, and even theologians have argued that God’s statements are a generalisation with a theological agenda: we are all fed by God, one way or another. However, the command issued directly from God was clear: eating meat was not a part of the finished creation. We must take God at His word and accept that created creatures were intended to eat only plants.

God’s permission given in Genesis 9 allowed humanity to eat meat, but we should not regard this permission as a rescinding of the original mandate, or perceive God to have conceded in any way. However, this permission was given to a family who were starting a new life amongst scarce natural resources.

When we come to the Gospels, Jesus’ life is an indication that a vegetarian diet is not mandatory. Jesus caught fish with his disciples (presumably knowing those fish would be eaten), ate lamb, ate fish, cooked it for his disciples and used it to feed 5000 men.

So if it’s good enough for the savior of the earth, then it’s good enough for us…right?

Not necessarily. Jesus acknowledged and lived out of the permission given in Genesis 9, but ate meat sparingly, and often in religious contexts such as Passover. We should not regard this permission as a free pass to kill for eating pleasure. Just because we have been given permission does not mean we have to, unless you are suffering shortage.

However, decisions regarding personal diet choices in modern life involve many factors including health, doctor’s advice and personal conviction. The best choice for one person is not necessarily the best choice for another, and choosing to live a vegetarian diet should not become a test of orthodoxy for any Christian.

We must also remember that any issue that distracts from the Gospel message is probably not worth getting too troubled by.

The Future

“The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox”

“The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain”

Isaiah makes it clear that for animals, at least, the primeval decree shall prevail: vegetarianism will reign in the new creation. Christ’s second coming will usher in a reinstatement of the original design established in Eden, and will restore the intentions that God had at the beginning.

So today – eat, drink and be merry, for whether we like it or not…eventually…..we may ALL be vegetarians.

To honour God’s creation, be sure to sign the petition to establish Creation Day as an official holiday!

Finding Eden

“I made it beautiful with the multitude of its branches, and all

the trees of Eden, which were in the garden of God,

were jealous of it.”

– Ezekiel 31:9

One of life’s great mysteries for the inquisitive Christian is the location of the Garden of Eden. The Bible, our only evidence for the garden’s location and its very existence, is frustratingly silent in regards to the whereabouts of the garden.

The quest to find this geographical Holy Grail has become almost as consuming as finding Atlantis, Pandora’s Box or the creators of the statues that inhabit Easter Island. However, like many have found, trying to pinpoint the location of the purpose-built paradise has become like searching for a needle in a haystack.

Why Do We Want to Know?

Anyone who has read Genesis, or even heard of the story of Adam and Eve knows that Eden is the garden of God, and the place where all the magic (and disenchantment) happened.

The Genesis creation narrative depicts a creative God who fashions Adam from the ground and places him ‘eastward,’ in a garden crafted specially for him.

What is even more significant is that after Adam’s placement in the garden,

“…the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air…”

These creatures were formed out of the ground in the garden. Genesis 2 also tells us that:

“…out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”

The origins of every living thing on earth trace back to this garden.

Eden is also significant because it is where the first theophany takes place. Genesis 3 tells us that Adam and Eve;

“…heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day…”

God walked among humans in a very tangible way, making the garden not only the location of our human origins, but also a place of divine presence.

Eden was the birthplace for the human race, the place where God walked with man and woman, where the serpent appeared, where the Tree of Knowledge was placed, where humanity fell into wreckage, and where Adam and Eve were eventually cast out for eternity. It’s no wonder we want to know where it is.

What Does the Bible Say of Eden?

The Bible’s lack of proffered material when it comes to Eden’s location has been the cause of much irritation and disappointment among those searching for the lost paradise.

Most theorists claim the site’s location as somewhere in the Middle East. This is mainly due to the description given in Genesis which gives us the only geographical clues to the garden’s setting;

^“A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.”

This description has led many to believe that the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers mentioned in the passage refer to the same rivers that exist in the Mesopotamian area today.

Because the other two rivers are less known, determining the garden’s location based on this evidence is problematic. Jewish historian Josephus claimed that Pishon and Havilah referred to the Ganges and the Nile, a point which one scholar asserts was generally agreed upon until the renaissance. Since then, it has been largely questioned and discredited. For Josephus’ theory to work, the rivers would also have to flow to Ethiopia, to feed the Nile.

While the biblical text doesn’t actually name the ‘Tigris’ (it instead says ‘Hiddekel’), we know from elsewhere in scripture that it refers to the Tigris River. In a similar way, the river Euphrates is referred to as ‘Prat’. Most modern translations use the words ‘Tigris’ and ‘Euphrates’ so as to avoid confusion.

The problem with placing Eden in this area is that while it fits with two of the four rivers mentioned, it does not fit with the description of the rivers as emerging from the one head. While the Tigris and Euphrates both have their ‘head’ in the area that surrounds Mt. Ararat, they do not flow, filling the land as described in the text. There is also an absence of the other two rivers making this location implausible. Of course, it’s entirely possible that Tigris and Euphrates had offshoots that are no longer in existence, making this theory possible.

Given that we don’t know the size of the original garden, it is difficult to piece together a location with four rivers, but from the evidence, it appears that the descriptions given in Genesis and the geography as we know it, don’t match up.

What Do We Know of Its Location Now?

The biblical account remains ambiguous and open to much speculation. As a result, people have been venturing guesses for centuries as to the location of the Garden. However, most modern biblical scholars and archaeologists place Eden in or around ancient Mesopotamia.

This is a logical conclusion due to the location of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers as well as the biblical mention of Adam being placed in a garden ‘eastward’ (meaning, east of Israel). Placing Eden in Mesopotamia also stands to reason from a linguistic point of view. In Greek, the word ‘Mesopotamia’ means ‘the land between two rivers,’ a reference to the Tigris and Euphrates.

Science has discovered that crude oil forms from vegetation and animal life which has died and proceeded to decay. With this in mind, it has caused some scholars to argue that the oil reserves found in the Middle East could have formed from the decay of Eden. It stands to reason that the vast oil stores present in the Middle East could be a result of decomposition from the lushest garden that has ever existed. Of course, this is just a theory.

Here are some other theories which have been posed over the years;

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe Eden to be located in Missouri, USA. Founder Joseph Smith discovered a stone slab that he claimed was Adam’s hand-built altar and thus established the place as the location of the famed garden.
‘The Sky People’ by Brinsley LePoer Trench suggested Mars as a location since canals that fit the biblical description of the four river heads are theorized to have existed on Mars. He also claimed that Eden was created by Space People, and that descendants of Noah (who also lived on Mars) were eventually forced to come to Earth to live.
General Charles Gordon supported a theory that was developed that argued Lumeria– a continent that was over what is now the Indian Ocean – existed. Lumeria is claimed to have housed Madagascar and India on one continent. It was also maintained that the human race was started in Lumeria and thus, was the location for the garden.
Some scholars believe that Eden existed in Northeast Africa. This theory is built around the fact that the oldest human remains have been found there, as well as Josephus’ idea that Pishon is the Nile.
It has also been reasoned that Eden was located in the Holy Land, with the river Jordan being the water source in question. This is partly due to the prophet Ezekiel tying in his account of Eden with Jerusalem; “You were in Eden, the garden of God;” … “You were on the holy mount of God.” The mount being specified is generally regarded as Mount Moriah where the Dome of the Rock now sits.

Two Reasons We Will Never Find Eden

1) The Flood

In order to properly investigate the whereabouts of this paradisal Holy Grail, we need to take in a major factor: the flood.

The global flood that wiped out all of humanity, save for Noah and his family, changed the surface of the earth to the point that it was left unrecognisable.

If most of the sedimentary layers that rest on the earth’s surface were formed as a result of this catastrophic event, then how could we possibly know where the Garden of Eden was located? In a modern flood, land erosion occurs in one area, with the water moving and redepositing the sediments in another area. Because of the sheer size of the flood in question, we can assume that the effects of this were far more intense, and certainly global. No place on the Earth’s surface could have remained untouched.

We have no hope of logically pinpointing the original location for the Tigris, the Euphrates or Eden after the surface of the earth was completely restructured under water damage.

2) Guarded Entrance

“So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.”

This last sentence of Genesis 3 tells us everything we need to know about our quest to find Eden.

After the expulsion, Genesis tells us that God placed one of his angels at the entrance to Eden, in an attempt to keep humanity from re-entering. If the flood did not stop us from entering the garden, this precaution certainly would.

Even if we can determine the general location for the garden, the physical parameters of it, and can authenticate its existence, how can we get there?

Put simply: we can’t.

God has ensured that we cannot precisely locate or enter this garden of paradise. It has become the forbidden fruit for all humanity.

For fallen humans, Eden exists only with the pages of the Bible.

If you enjoyed this article, please subscribe or sign the petition to establish Creation Day as an officially recognized holiday. To sign, go here

Lenspiration photos courtesy of James Staddon