£90 THE FORBIDDEN TREE - NOTES 1. Explained: mortality, sin, guilt, self-consciousness, clothes 2. Gilgamesh Epic. Final edn: 7th (Ashurbanipal); written: early 2nd m.;ora1perhaps c. 2500 )Homer 8th). Eden (steppe) rare in Akkadian, V. common in Sumerian, hencxe before 2300 when conquered by Akkadians. Non-Semitic, cuneiform, 3. Cf. RH. Pfeiffer's S Source. /‘ More 4. Tree ‘of life: 'also‘ Pro‘v. 3‘518;'11:30,‘ 13312,‘15:4 (mfl ,.m .‘ M 4a. See Gen. R. 15:7, which mentions wmn (cf. man), nuns: (cf effect), mm (:11 : desire in Rabb. Hebrew), mm (mentioned) 5, But see sequel in sermon 6. See Ibn Ezra who cf. Josh. 3:14 (nv'mn man) and II Chron. 15:8 (war: 11w nmmm). See also Ier. 22:16 (to Ieohoiachin: mm run-1n m “5.1) 7. 'There's a leaf missing' 8. On 'good and evil / bad' see Isa. 5:20 'Woe to them...'), Amos 5:14 (Seek good and not evil), I Kings 3:9 ('to discern between good and evil'), II Sam. 19:3 (Barzilai, 80: How can I distinguish...'), Isa. 7:16 ('when he knows to refuse evil 8: choose good'), Deut. 1:39 ('your children who do not yet know...'), Deut. 29:18 (moist and dry). See further E.A. Speiser, Nahum Sarna, Gunther Plaut, 'Paradise' in B}, Vol. 13 LEO BAECK COLLEGE ‘\ LIBRARY The Myth of the Garden of Eden Shabbat B'reshit, 20 October 197‘) The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden raises a number of difficulties. But before we examine it in detail, let us be clear about three things. _ origins of things. For First, that it is largely aetiological: concerned with the thOugh the Bible is mainly a history of the Jewish people, it begins with the history of humanity as a whole. Therefore, in these opening chapters all the most fundamental facts pf human life need to be explained: why it is that human beings,'1ike anixlhals; go through a cycle of birth, procreation and wear clothes, do death; and why it is that, unlike animals, they till the soil, wrong, and feel guilty.I Secondly, we need to remember that our story is mythological. The autgflor had no access to prehistoric records; indeed, by definition, no such re‘cords exist. Nor is he interested in 'facts' as we normally understand that term; the subject-matter of myth is truth in a much deeper sense than thefipurely historical. And thirdly we need to realise that the author did not draw merely on his own imagination, nor only on that of his own people, but on oral traditions of great antiquity which were current in the folklore of the Near East as a whole. In particular, he drew heavil on ancient Babylonian mythological traditions, such as the Gilgamesh Epic; and though he reworked these legends from his own standpoint, he did not invent them, and was to some extent restricted by them. Therefore we should not be surprised if we find in the narrative elements of a primitive, pre-Hebraic outlook which have not been entirely erased} With these preliminaries out of the way, let us now look at the story as we The. called the have it. Chief symbol it employs is a tree which is sometimes evil'.'*'What ‘tree of lifegpand sometimes the 'tree of knowledge 6f good and kind of a tree was it? According to Christian tradition, an apple tree; but that is only due to the linguistic coincidence that in Latin the word malum for ‘evil‘ is also the word for 'apple'. Jewish tradition suggests various species; among them, for obvious reasons, the fig tree. But of course all these identifications are quite beside the point since the tree is essentially a ‘ mythological one. The real question is: what does the tree symbolise? And about that there are I four possibilitiés. First, let us take the 'tree of life'. That would mean: the one that bestows eternal life. And as soon as we say that, we recognise that we are in the presence of a motif which runs all through human literature: the quest for immortality. In the Gilgamesh Epic it is the central theme, and the hero, after a long search, discovers a sea-plant which, though it does not actually make him immortal, as he had hoped, at least rejuvenates him. In another Mesopotamiam epic the substance that confers immortality is a magical kind of bread and water. In Egyptian mythology it is a sycamore tree. In Greek mythology it is the food of the gods called ambrosia, which actually means 'immortality‘. In Indian mythology it is a plant juice called 'soma'. European literature speaks of the elixir of life. And in Christian tradition eternal life is conferred by the eating and drinking of the sacramental bread and wine of the Eucharist. , . _ 4‘ U . Since it is so universal, it is hardly surprising that this myth should have also found its way into the Hebrew Bible. But see what happens to it! God forbids Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree. Moreover, although they defy God and do eat it,6 nevertheless they do not become immortal. Here we have, indeed, one of the internal contradictions of the story; and in order to resolve it the narrator or editor suggests that there were really two trees, the tree of knowledge, whose fruit Adam and Eve did eat, and the tree of life, whose fruit they did not eat. That becomes explicit at the end of the Chapter, where God says: 'Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever' (Gen. 3:22), whereupon he is expelled from the Garden of Eden. But whatever we may make of the contradiction, the essential point is that Adam and Eve remain mortal. In other words, the Hebrew Bible sets its face against the whole concept of the quest for immortality; it declares it to be a vain quest. Why? Partly because of its monotheism. For in ancient times to become immortal meant to become divine, whereas Hebraism insists that there is only One God. And partly because of its realism. Human beings are mortal, and we had better face the fact. Rather than indulge in illusory hopes, let us accept our limitations and seek fulfilment within them. That is what the Bible seems to be saying; but it must be added that it is perfectly compatible with the belief in a purely spiritual immortality which came into Judaism in a later age. So much for mnn 7'31, 'the tree of life‘ (Gen. 2:9). But it is also called 9'11 :13 mm r9 (ibid.), and that phrase is grammatically very strange: so much so that it looks suspiciously like a combination of two originally separate terms of which the first is simply nmn w, 'the tree of knowledge'. That would -T'———’—" mean that to eat its fruit is to become omniscient. But once again, Cod forbids it. In other words, God does not desire human beings to become omniscient. And how is that to be understood? It may be yet another case of Hebraic realism We are not omniscient, and we had better recognise our limitation. But there is more to it than that. For knowledge is power, and power can be used for good or evil. Therefore the quest for more and more knowledge can be positively dangerous unless it is accompanied by a corresponding grth in moral responsibility. Perhaps that, too, is what the Bible is trying to tell us. If so, it should strike a responsive chord in our minds, for if ever an age illustrated that danger, it is surely ours. However, the Hebrew wogd 'I'VISJV'I glslo'hqs“ snuggle; Vconnotatipn: not only . knowledge in general, but also 'carnal knowledge' in particular, as when the Bible says that ‘Adam knew Eve'. So here we have a third motif which we must recognise, even if it doesn't appeal altogether to our way of thinking. In this interpretation the fruit of the forbidden tree had an aphrodisiac property; it aroused sexual desire. That is obvious from the fact that immediately after eating it Adam and Eve become aware of their nakedness; that is to say, their sexuality. It is perhaps also implied by the figure of the serpent; for in addition to symbolisi'ng immortality, because of the way it casts off its skin and grows another, the serpent is also a universal symbol of sex; and in our story that point is further reinforced by the pun on the word urum meaning ‘shrewd‘ or 'crafty', a proverbial quality of the serpent, and erom or mom, meaning ‘naked'. Why then should the ‘tree of carnal knowledge‘ be forbidden? We might say: because sexuality does tend to produce guilt feelings. Why that should be so, is yet another question. The causes may be partly irrational, and they may be wrongly exaggerated by an over-prudish morality; but equally, the sex drive, because it is so p0werfu1, is a major source of selfish, inconsiderate and cruel behaviour. However that may be, guilt is what Adam and Eve feel, and it is symbolised in our story by the need they feel to cover their nakedness7 Nevertheless, the point should not be pressed too far; for the Bible doesn‘t always moralise; sometimes it just describes. And to a large extent what it is doing here is merely to note the fact that in the life-cycle of every individual there comes a stage of sexual awareness, and then to transfer that process, as it were, to the childhood of humanity as a whole.