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.

Finally, we come to the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil'.8 Now it is

possible that this doesn't mean what it is usually taken to mean; that it should really be translated 'good and bad' or 'pleasant and unpleasant‘, and that it is merely a Hebrew idiom, which occurs elsewhere in the Bible, for

'everything' (Deut. 1:39, 11 Sam, 14:17, 19:35, 24:50, 31:24, 29). In that case we are of course back with omniscience. But if the terms do have a moral connotation, then we must ask: why should God want to prevent Adam and

Eve from eating the fruit of the tree? Surely discrimination between right and wrong is precisely what God does desire! Is not the major purpose of the Bible to inculcate just that?

One possible answer is that what is here condemned is not genuine moral perception but the false and arrogant claim which hu'man beings, especially those in positions of powernare apt;..to make that they 'know' what is right and what is wrong, without reference to any Divine Will, that they are themselves the arbiters of morality, and that they are therefore entitled to impose their will on others. That theory was advanced a few years ago in a book entitled The Art of Political Deception by Charles Napper; but I can‘t say that I am entirely persuaded.

It seems to me more likely that what really matters in the story is not the nature of the tree and the kind of knowledge it was able to confer, but simply the fact that God, for whafever reason, gave a command which Adam and

Eve promptly proceeded to disobey. The point then is that any moral code involves restrictions, requires us to restrain our greed, and that, being human, we are always liable to resent these restrictions, to disregard them, and to violate them. If so, the story merely points to another fact of life, namely the fact of sin, and tries to explain it.

Although the explanation may not be entirely satisfactory as regards the cause of sin, it is certainly masterly in its description of the consequences.

First, the sense of shame, represented once again by the impulse which seizes

Adam and Eve to cover their nakedness. Then the desire to lessen the guilt by sharing it with others, for it is to be noted that Eve does not eat the forbidden fruit alone but persuades Adam to eat it with her. Then the tendency to 'pass the buck‘, for Adam blames Eve, and Eve blames the serpent; it is always somebody else's fault! Then the lies to cover up what has happened, as when Adam tells God that he has been hiding because of his nakedness, not because of his guilt. And finally the sense of alienation - from

God, from one's better self, and even from nature - which sin produces and which is symbolised in our story by the expulsion from Paradise. All these details are brilliantly depicted. . R 6 \

And yet we must return to the meaning of the story as a whole. In

Christian tradition it is known as the ‘Fall of Man‘, and that interpretation

has profoundly influenced European literature. But it is hardly to be found in

Jewish sources (exceptions: II Esdras 7:118, Sira 25:24; cf. Romans 5:12, 18). As

Chief Rabbi Dr J. H. Hertz wrote, 'Instead of the Fall of Man Judaism

preaches the Rise of Man; instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue

I The Golden Age of Humanity is not in the past, but in the future' (The

Pentateuch and atorahs, p. 196).

How is that view to be squared with the plain sense of our story? By seeing

it as symbolising a transition; Just as there is in the life of every individual a

transition from sexual kunawareness. to sexual awareness, which. our story

retrojects into the childhood of humanity, so there is a transition from moral

unawareness to moral awareness, which is likewise retrojected. Of course

neither must be taken literally. In the history of humanity there never was a

stage of complete innocence, either sexually or morally. What happened was

a growing awareness of the possibility of choice, and that is an ascent, not a

descent.

Admittedly, with the awareness of choice comes the opportunity, and the

temptation, to choose wrongly. But the possibility of choosing rightly

nevertheless exists. Far from being taken away from us by Adam's sin, as

Christianity has often taught, it is symbolically dramatised by it. God 'created

Adam in the beginning, and left him in the power of his own inclination. If

you will, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of

your own choice' (Sira 15:14f). That is what Judaism emphasises. And this

principle holds within it the possibility that one day human beings, both

individually andcollectively, will learn to use their freedom rightly, for good

and not for evil. Then they will enter the Garden of Eden, and it will be

much more glorious than the mythical Paradise of Genesis. That is the hope

of Judaism. It is in this sense that the Golden Age of Humanity lies in the

future. And to work towards it is the task which gives meaning and purpose

to our lives. 7

2 2 t N 2 : . :m z r». “e mm: mgr 2n 3,: net a? RE 90E” use? myth E? mmnbgg R: mpnb £5 pawn 33h, nowmn. paor. gang".

may flmzor «NAN 3e 555mm: a? :e ,

:zwnamr. pm: w m Ra“ w; n: p my on? v 56.9 fine

“En: ncrrbfl .0, fixer. a; my??? fig. avg an? HP. w a? 9-5e I.» p? mm? fight, EBB amp? QQEE mzor N :3” mgr nrncfirn a muhfir. RF RED myth E? a a En: czar. _ myth «fir 21. fibmfir. HP. p: war flfihmnmflog Fr. :Eg who BEEF .0»-n yr 2 nmnr, 2mm.” 5-2 RE $6. 63:3, E? nah? Fm you? 9%. abut mgr. Eta mrfi n, film: Fab £30» mzar 2 : mpbmwu 9e Era“ pm: fix . ackzru 5-3 m, DE > Ennz F? z??? n3 7 38 EB. wakmrflc amp, E2? mnFDoEwE: bx :9”?

an», :hmfi nzmp 5% w pzer . .: 9.5”. PAH 99 EL. nan? n. with ago 2» ,AFRHE nzar grub zen . Porn an,» :3; :w E: . Ewan

523. t 2.3 GE mamzma N $-52 Pi. E9 . DEE am? go? mar can” nzbE

50.; .mwu bx Exam, a, mama Era

can. Dawn F? my fig 75% warn? armnru “9% awn mnbmnn mpufi Ea mm: in EA: pap/fin. PH 2mm.” m, «Eh? mmfi E3 mar £3 moo? Ezmn. RE war $-52 fix an? HP. an fig Fm” "fin 2? “HE m mar 090” . mmran kn, Ear yam”: an"? any 55 EB nzar E9... a. p: m mm? as: a; Broflmzfirfi E9 an

t»: 6mm, .n, Humm+LZmDD~mmom fro fin. «N rirn mu mrgr a; BF. uwflcbrz any? nag: E fl 2on2“ «Anna mahwna 29%; V Em: 0% ,5 Giza a? fig “ 3-9% arch NN mu- fig czar” a? Ryan? Di. E. _ Earp Rm...“ m2 9E Fm, fin}? 5.5 mpnb :e E- as "HE- mar _

may

~