Talk:Expulsion from the Garden of Eden

The Masaccio Code?

So, where does this 'theory' come from? Sounds very, er, original to me:

This painting is quite indicative of the Renaissance mindset through the symbolism scattered throughout it. To understand the symbolism, one must understand that the painting consists predominantly of four things: Adam and Eve, the angel, the wilderness, and the arch. And all of these things work together to paint a sort of behind-the-scenes painting of the Classical and Middle Ages.

In this manner of interpretation, Adam and Eve are symbolic of the entirety of humanity (as, indeed, they were in their own time). The angel is the Catholic Church, standing in as the "messengers of God" (our word 'angel' comes from the Greek αγγελος or 'angelos', meaning "angel" or "messenger"). The arch (built in Roman or Classical style, similar to the Arch of Constantine in Rome) would then symbolise the glory of the Classical Age, contrasted in this picture with the desolation of Catholic-controlled Europe.

So, God (through his messenger the Catholic Church) evicts mankind from the perfect garden (the "paradise" of the Classic World) into the desolate wasteland (the Dark Ages).

Is there a source for this interpretation? If not, it must go (Wikipedia: No Original Research). Paul B 22:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

I put a request for a citation next to a direct Biblical quote because it different translations may read differently, so the one that was the source for this quote should be specified. -- Beland 21:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of a DATE here?

Johnbod 02:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration

Wow, this is a really bad example of restoration, it completely changed the picture. Especially the cherubim looks COMPLETELY different. The only positive aspect is removal of the leaves. Enemyunknown (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article relies on a single source

According to Wikipedia: “A single source is usually less than ideal, because a single source may be inaccurate or biased. Without other sources for corroboration, accuracy or neutrality may be suspect. By finding multiple independent sources, the reliability of the encyclopedia is improved.” Bluepenciltime (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're correct. Even worse, the single source in probably not WP:RS as it is a Khan Academy video. I will try to improve the sourcing.--FeralOink (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]