DOCSLIB.ORG

The Forbidden Tree - Notes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Forbidden Tree - Notes £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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin Baker Academic, a Division of Baker Publishing Group, © 2014
    Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin Theological, Biblical, and Scientific Perspectives EDITED BY Hans Madueme and Michael Reeves k Hans Madueme and Michael Reeves, Adam, The Fall, and Original Sin Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, © 2014. Used by permission. (Unpublished manuscript—copyright protected Baker Publishing Group) MaduemeReeves_Adam_LC_wo.indd iii 9/17/14 7:47 AM © 2014 by Hans Madueme and Michael Reeves Published by Baker Academic a division of Baker Publishing Group P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287 www.bakeracademic.com Printed in the United States of America All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Adam, the fall, and original sin : theological, biblical, and scientific perspectives / Hans Madueme and Michael Reeves, editors. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8010-3992-8 (pbk.) 1. Sin, Original. 2. Adam (Biblical figure) 3. Fall of man. I. Madueme, Hans, 1975– editor. BT720.A33 2014 233 .14—dc23 2014021973 Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. ESV Text Edition: 2011 Scripture quotations labeled NASB are from the New American Standard Bible®, copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation.
    [Show full text]
  • Chimpanzees Share Forbidden Fruit Kimberley J
    Chimpanzees Share Forbidden Fruit Kimberley J. Hockings1*, Tatyana Humle2, James R. Anderson1, Dora Biro3, Claudia Sousa4, Gaku Ohashi5, Tetsuro Matsuzawa5 1 Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, 2 Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America, 3 Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 4 Department of Anthropology, New University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, 5 Primate Research Institute, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan The sharing of wild plant foods is infrequent in chimpanzees, but in chimpanzee communities that engage in hunting, meat is frequently used as a ‘social tool’ for nurturing alliances and social bonds. Here we report the only recorded example of regular sharing of plant foods by unrelated, non-provisioned wild chimpanzees, and the contexts in which these sharing behaviours occur. From direct observations, adult chimpanzees at Bossou (Republic of Guinea, West Africa) very rarely transferred wild plant foods. In contrast, they shared cultivated plant foods much more frequently (58 out of 59 food sharing events). Sharing primarily consists of adult males allowing reproductively cycling females to take food that they possess. We propose that hypotheses focussing on ‘food-for-sex and -grooming’ and ‘showing-off’ strategies plausibly account for observed sharing behaviours. A changing human-dominated landscape presents chimpanzees with fresh challenges, and our observations suggest that crop-raiding provides adult male chimpanzees at Bossou with highly desirable food commodities that may be traded for other currencies. Citation: Hockings KJ, Humle T, Anderson JR, Biro D, Sousa C, et al (2007) Chimpanzees Share Forbidden Fruit. PLoS ONE 2(9): e886.
    [Show full text]
  • Hawthorne Analysis
    I was left puzzled from our discussion on Wednesday about the metaphor surrounding Rappaccini's Daughter and the Adam and Eve Garden of Eden story. Olga and Lindsay both asserted that Hawthorne's style is to construct blatant and solid-to-a-fault metaphors, and I agree with that conclusion. So if that is true, then how come we had such a difficult time in class coming to a consensus on the roles from Rappaccini's Daughter within the analogy? I had my own opinions on the content of the metaphor and will clarify them here. Adam is a reasonable place to begin: Adam is the original figure of good and of humanity. God brings him into the world and sets him in a good situation for him to be happy. Later, Adam is given a companion whom he loves and cherishes, but who ultimately gives him a gift (as she sees it) that is actually detrimental to him. Giovanni seems to be the Adam within Hawthorne's story - he comes into Padua innocent and bright, young and beautiful, and is situated in a comfortable condition: the apartment and university. However, he is lonely and seeks companionship in Beatrice. Beatrice is the Eve because she is the companion of Giovanni, the one who is his first friend in the world of Padua. She also is the one who gives him a gift which she feels is agreeable. Just as Eve innocently gives Adam the apple, Beatrice gives Giovanni the poisonous cloud and lets it permeate his being. The other clear analogy is the garden.
    [Show full text]
  • The Angels Tarot for Ascension
    The Angels Tarot 78 Different Angels to Awaken Your Inner Powers MEANING OF TAROT ROTA – TARO – ORAT – TORA – ATOR (The Wheel – Of Tarot – Speaks – The Law – Of Hator/ Nature) Karma: How We Manifest Our Reality Through Vibrations (Beliefs, Thoughts, Desires, Feelings, Actions) 78 Cards: 5 Elements • Spirit: 22 Major Arcana (Higher Consciousness) • 56 Minor Arcana (4 elemental suits): – Swords: Air (Mental) – Wands: Fire (Will) – Cups: Water (Emotional) – Coins: Earth (Material) (10 number and 4 courts each) Reading the Angels Tarot • Focus upon the Issues at Hand • Make an Intention to Receive Accurate Guidance and Healing • Meditation to Connect with Higher Self and Angelic Kingdom • Reverse half the deck and Shuffle gently to Randomize cards Layouts • Spread the Cards into an Arch on a Smooth Surface • Intuitively Pick the Cards and place them face down • Open Sequentially in Meditative State and Bring Each Angel In Angelic Healing and Meditation • Visualize the Angel on the card appearing before you • Ask the Angel to Guide you and Listen to the Answer through all Senses • Channelling the energy of the Angel for any of the Chakras or Aura, or into the Situation Reversed Cards • Fallen Angels or Dark Aspects of any Card to be Transformed • Blocked Energy of the Card to be Healed • Meditation with the Straightened Card to Understand and Accept the Lesson Major Arcana Spirit’s Journey from The Fool to The World For Ascension of Collective Consciousness The Fool ADAMAEL (Earth God) 0 of Spirit – Unknown Self Uranus and Rahu: Search for
    [Show full text]
  • How Can Original Sin Be Inherited?
    DEAR FATHER KERPER Michelangelo, The Fall and Expulsion from Garden of Eden. Web Gallery of Art sinned against obedience. But this act How can original represents much more: they actually rejected friendship with God and, even worse, attempted to supplant God as God. sin be inherited? To see this more clearly, we must rewind the Genesis tape back to chapter ear Father Kerper: I’ve always had a huge 1. Here we find that God had created problem with original sin. It seems so unfair. I can the first human beings “in the image of God.” (Genesis 1:27) As such, they understand punishing someone who has broken a immediately enjoyed friendship and law. That’s perfectly just. But why should someone even kinship with God, who had Dwho’s done nothing wrong get punished for what someone else lovingly created them so that they could share everything with Him. did millions of years ago? Though Adam and Eve had everything that human beings could Many people share your understandable In the case of speeding, the possibly enjoy, the serpent tempted reaction against the doctrine of original punishment – say a $200 ticket – is them to seek even more. Recall the sin. As you’ve expressed so well, it does always imposed directly on the specific serpent’s words to Eve: “God knows in indeed seem to violate the basic norms of person who committed an isolated fact that the day you eat it [the forbidden fairness. But it really doesn’t. How so? illegal act. Moreover, the punishment is fruit] your eyes will be opened and you To overcome this charge of unfairness, designed to prevent dangerous and illegal will be like gods.” (Genesis 3:5) we must do two things: first, reconsider behavior by creating terribly unpleasant By eating the forbidden fruit, Adam the meaning of punishment; and second, consequences, namely costly fines and and Eve attempted to seize equality rediscover the social nature – and social eventually the loss of one’s license.
    [Show full text]
  • Chaos and Order, Order and Chaos: the Creation Story As the Story of Human Community
    Chaos and Order, Order and Chaos: The Creation Story as the Story of Human Community James E. Faulconer Extended prolegomenon Along with a number of other contemporary scholars, Walter Brueggemann has asked us to remember that God speaks to us in scripture most often through narrative and storytelling rather than systematic theological exposition. Speaking of the rst chapters of Genesis, he makes the following observation: The story is not explained. It is simply left there with the listening community free to take what can be heard. There is, of course, talk here of sin and evil and death. But it is understated talk. The stakes are too high for reduction to propositions. The story does not want to aid our theologizing. It wants, rather, to catch us in our living. It will permit no escape into theology.1 As Brueggemann says, the story is both concrete and imaginatively open-ended, allowing us the freedom to consider the variety of ways in which present events and those of the story may overlap.2 Scripture calls for a different kind of reading than what we use for a modern history, philosophy, or theology text. I will try to take the substance of Brueggemann’s warning to heart and read scripture differently than I would read a theology text. And I certainly hope not to read it merely as an aid to theologizing. Nevertheless, I will be doing scriptural theology. But I do so precisely because I think that is a kind of theology that can “catch us in our living” by helping us to read differently than we previously have.
    [Show full text]
  • Amazing Facts Study Guide-02 Did God Create the Devil
    Amazing Facts Study Guide 2 - Did God Create the Devil? Most people in the world are being deceived by an evil genius bent on destroying their lives - a brilliant mastermind called the devil, or Satan. But this dark prince is much more than what you might think... many say he's just a devious mythical figure, but the Bible says he's very real, and he's deceiving families, churches, and even nations to increase sorrow and pain. Here are the Bible's amazing facts about this prince of darkness and how you can overcome him! 1. With whom did sin originate? "The devil sinneth from the beginning." 1 John 3:8. "That old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan." Revelation 12:9. Answer: Satan, also called the devil, is the originator of sin. Without the Scriptures, the origin of evil would remain unexplained. 2. What was Satan's name before he sinned? Where was he living at that time? "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" Isaiah 14:12. Jesus said, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." Luke 10:18. "Thou wast upon the holy mountain of God." Ezekiel 28:14. Answer: His name was Lucifer, and he was living in heaven. Lucifer is symbolized by the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14 and as the king of Tyrus in Ezekiel 28. 3. What was the origin of Lucifer? What responsible position did he hold? How does the Bible describe him? "Thou wast created." Ezekiel 28:13, 15. "Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth." Ezekiel 28:14.
    [Show full text]
  • A Tree in the Garden
    MAIER BECKER A Tree in the Garden The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge are one and the same tree. When the verse states ‘God caused to sprout the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge’ (Gen. 2:9) it should be understood to mean, God caused to 1 sprout the Tree of Life which is also the Tree of Knowledge . R. J OSEPH KIMHI THIS COMMENT SEEMS to fly in the face of the basic details of the creation story in the Bible. In fact, it appears to contradict outright an explicit Biblical verse where God says “now (that man has eaten from the Tree of Knowledge), lest he partake from the Tree of Life as well” (3:22). 2 If the trees are one and the same, then by eating from the Tree of Knowledge man had already partaken of the Tree of Life! This essay proposes a reading of the Genesis story which provides a textual and conceptual basis for R. Kimhi’s explication, based on midrashic sources. I will suggest that R. Kimhi’s com - mentary sheds light on fundamental issues relating to man’s mortality and his relationship with God. 3 The Textual Starting Point The Bible introduces the Tree of Life stating; “God caused to sprout from the ground every tree that was pleasing to the sight and the Tree of Life betokh— within, the garden” (2:9). The text could have simply stated “the Tree of Life bagan —in the garden.” What does the word betokh , come to add? Onkelos translates the word betokh in this verse to mean bemitsiut— in the middle of the garden.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpretation of the Quran- Surat Al-A'raf (7)- Lesson(12): Satan Has No Influence on Mankind- Some Characters of Jinn
    Interpretation of the Quran- Surat Al-A'raf (7)- Lesson(12): Satan has no Influence on Mankind- Some Characters of Jinn Praise be to Allah, the Lord of Creations, and Peace and blessings be upon our prophet Muhammad, the faithful and the honest. Oh, Allah, w e know nothing but w hat You teach us. You are the All- Know er, the Wise. Oh Allah, teach us w hat is good for us, and benefit us from w hat You taught us, and increase our know ledge. Show us the righteous things as righteous and help us to do them, and show us the bad things as bad and help us to keep aw ay from them. O Allah our Lord, lead us out from the depths of darkness and illusion, unto the lights of erudition and know ledge, and from the muddy shallow s of lusts unto the heavens of Your Vicinity. Dear brothers, w e w ill start lesson 12 of Surat Al Araaf interpreting the Ayah (verse) 27: ”O Children of Adam! Let not Shaitan (Satan) deceive you, as he got your parents [Adam and Haw w a (Eve)] out of Paradise, stripping them of their raiments, to show them their private parts. Verily, he and Qabiluhu (his soldiers from the jinns or his tribe) see you from where you cannot see them. Verily, We made the Shayatin (devils) Auliya' (protectors and helpers) for those who believe not.” [Surat Al-A’raf 7, verse 27] Kinds of Objects in Terms of Methods of Perception Dear brothers, it is a revelation matter in regard of Jinn, w hile all the materialistic objects that have entity and trace, are perceived by the five senses or their extensions such as Telescopes and Microscopes.
    [Show full text]
  • Explaining the Evils of the Nephilim
    Explaining The Nephilim Giants ‘When mankind began to multiply on the earth and daughters were born to them, the ‘sons of God’ (fallen angels) saw the daughters of men (human women) were beautiful and they took (raped) all the women they desired and chose. (As a result) there were Nephilim on the earth in those days and also afterwards when the ‘sons of God’ (fallen angels) lived with the daughters of mankind and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown’ (Genesis 6:1,2 & 4). ‘The people who dwell in the land are strong and the cities are fortified and very great. We saw the children (descendents) of Anak there … Amalek dwells in the land of the South … They brought up an evil report of the land they had spied out to the Children of Israel saying, “The land where we spied out is a land that eats up its inhabitants. All the people who we saw in it are men of great stature (giants). There we saw the Nephilim, the sons (descendents) of Anak who come of the Nephilim and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers and so we were in their sight’” (Numbers 13:28, 29, 32 & 33). These evil beings called the Nephilim were the wicked giant offspring born to the women who had been raped by the fallen angels referred to as ‘the sons of God’. The Nephilim ‘men of renown’ were not decent men who were well known, they were vicious, violent, wicked half human, half fallen angels who later brought into existence the Amalek and Anakim (plural of Anak).
    [Show full text]
  • The Jewish Symbols
    UNIWERSYTET ZIELONOGÓRSKI Przegląd Narodowościowy – Review of Nationalities • Jews nr 6/2016 DOI: 10.1515/pn-2016-0014 ISSN 2084-848X (print) ISSN 2543-9391 (on-line) Krzysztof Łoziński✴ The Jewish symbols KEYWORDS: Jew, Judaism, symbol, archetype, Judaica SŁOWA KLUCZOWE: Żyd, judaizm, symbol, archetyp, judaica In every culture, people have always used symbols giving them sense and assigning them a specific meaning . Over the centuries, with the passage of time religious sym- bols have mingled with secular symbols . The charisms of Judaism have tuallymu in- termingled with the Christian ones taking on a new tribal or national form with in- fluences of their own culture . The aim of this article is to analyze and determine the influence of Judaic symbols on religious and social life of the Jews . The article indicates the sources of symbols from biblical times to the present day . I analyzed the symbols derived from Jewish culture, and those borrowed within the framework of acculturation with other communities as well . By showing examples of the interpenetration of cultures, the text is anattempt to present a wide range of meanings symbols: from the utilitarian, through religious, to national ones . It also describes their impact on the religious sphere, the influence on nurturing and preserving the national-ethnic traditions, sense of identity and state consciousness . The political value of a symbol as one of the elements of the genesisof the creation of the state of Israel is also discussed . “We live in a world of symbols, a world of symbols lives in us “ Jean Chevalier The world is full of symbols .
    [Show full text]
  • <I>Paradise Lost</I>
    Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College Honors Theses Florida Atlantic University Libraries Year Paradise impaired: duality in Paradise Lost Katherine Bernhard Florida Atlantic University, This paper is posted at DigitalCommons@Florida Atlantic University. http://digitalcommons.fau.edu/wilkes theses/45 PARADISE IMPAIRED: DUALITY IN PARADISE LOST by Katherine Joy Bernhard A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Wilkes Honors College in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences with a Concentration in English Literature Wilkes Honors College of Florida Atlantic University Jupiter, Florida May 2006 i PARADISE IMPAIRED: DUALITY IN PARADISE LOST by Katherine Joy Bernhard This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s thesis advisor, Dr. Michael M. Harrawood, and has been approved by the members of her supervisory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of The Honors College and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences. SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: ____________________________ Dr. Michael M. Harrawood ____________________________ Dr. Laura Barrett ______________________________ Interim Dean, Wilkes Honors College ____________ Date ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My never-ending gratitude to my loving parents, Jennifer and Steve Bernhard, who have always supported me so much, and motivated me to succeed. I deeply appreciate everything you have done for me to get me where I am today. To Michael Harrawood, who helped me become a much better writer and reader since I began, and has been such a source of encouragement, I can’t thank you enough. Thank you so much to Laura Barrett for working with me, who inspires and impresses me, and whose wisdom I’ll never forget.
    [Show full text]