Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the Hebrew Bible's Book of Genesis, chapters 2 and 3, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Hebrew: עֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע) (and occasionally translated as the Tree of Conscience) was the tree in the middle of the Garden of Eden (2:9) from which God directly forbade Adam (and by extension Eve) to eat (2:17). The other tree in the middle of the garden was the Tree of Life. Genesis 2:16 states that God allowed them to eat of the fruit of any other tree in the garden, which would include the Tree of Life. When Eve, and then Adam, ate the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge (3:6), after being tempted by a serpent (3:1–5), they became aware of their nakedness (3:7), and were banished from the garden and forced to survive through agriculture "by the sweat of [their] face" (3:19-24).

Contents 1 Interpretations of the tree itself 1.1 In Judaism 1.2 In Christianity 1.3 Trees in other religions 1.4 Freudian (psychological) interpretation 2 Fruit of the tree 3 See also 4 Notes

[edit] Interpretations of the tree itself

[edit] In Judaism

According to the Jewish tradition, God's command not to eat from the Tree was to give Adam and Eve free choice and allow them to earn, as opposed to receive, absolute perfection and intimate communion with God, a higher level than the one on which they were created. According to this tradition, Adam and Eve would have attained absolute perfection and retained immortality had they succeeded in withstanding the temptation to eat from the Tree. After failing at this task, they were condemned to a period of toil to rectify the fallen universe. Jewish tradition views the serpent, and sometimes the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil itself, as representatives of evil. Evil's job was and is to mislead Mankind and give the appearance that God does not entirely control Creation. Adam's task was to see through this veil.^{[citation needed]} After his failure, this became humanity's task through history.

Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism see no "evil" other than the evil actions of human beings. Eve's only transgression was that she disobeyed God's order. Adam was with her the entire time and at no time stopped her. Therefore, it is incorrect to blame Eve alone. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden and had to live ordinary, human lives. In other words, they had to "leave home" and grow up and live as responsible human beings. If they had never eaten from the forbidden tree, they would never have discovered their capacity to act with free will in the world. God does not want human beings who have no choice but to always do what is good and right.^{[citation needed]}

Rabbi David Fohrman of Aish HaTorah, citing Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed, states that "the tree did not give us moral awareness when we had none before. Rather, it transformed this awareness from one kind into another." After eating from the Tree, humanity's innate sense of moral awareness was transformed from concepts of true and false to concepts of good and evil. Genesis describes the tree as desirable (3:6), and our concepts of good and evil, unlike our concepts of true and false, also have an implicit measure of desire. [4]

[edit] In Christianity

In Christian theology, the tree is closely connected to the doctrine of original sin. The Apostle Paul wrote that sin and death entered the world through Adam, but that Jesus saved us from the penalties of sin and death (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). Western Christianity generally affirms St. Augustine's doctrine that humanity has inherited both sin itself and the guilt for Adam and Eve's sin.^{[citation needed]} By eating of the fruit of the Tree, Adam and Eve chose to substitute their own knowledge of good and evil for God's. However, since human knowledge is limited, human morality is inherently flawed. From God's perspective, human morality is depraved, although different denominations debate whether this depravity is total or partial, and to what degree humanity can freely choose to follow God's morality.^{[citation needed]} By contrast, Eastern Christianity believes that the fruit of the tree distorted humanity's nature; sin itself is inherited, but not the guilt for Adam and Eve's sin.^[1] A minority of Christians affirm the doctrine of Pelagius, which states that while Adam and Eve set a bad example by eating from the tree, their sin does not directly affect the rest of humanity. Rather, Pelagianism states that every individual faces the same choice between sin and salvation that Adam and Eve faced.

According to a medieval Christian legend, the Tree of Knowledge was the source of wood for the True Cross. In other interpretations, the Tree of Knowledge represented the cross, while the Tree of Life represented Jesus Christ. Martin Luther's Christmas sermons used this analogy.

Gordon Hugenberger notes that courts were often set up near trees in the ancient Near East.^{[citation needed]} For capital offenses, the condemned was hung from a tree (Deuteronomy 21:22). Meredith G. Kline compares the Garden of Eden to a temple: The garden was a rectangle bounded by four rivers, and the temple was also a rectangle. God was present in the temple-garden, and Adam was the priest. The priest's duty was not only to obey God, but also to deal with offenders such as the serpent. Adam and Eve were thus meant to judge the serpent, but instead listened to the serpent and disobeyed God.^[2]

[edit] Trees in other religions

Similar trees appear in other religions. in the closest, most relevant comparison, the iconic image of the tree guarded by the Serpent appears on Sumerian seals; it is the central feature of the Garden of the Hesperides in Greek mythology, where the guardian serpent receives the name Ladon. In Buddhism, the Buddha became enlightened under the Bodhi tree. While the biblical tree is usually interpreted as representing sensual pleasure, the Bodhi tree gave pure transcendent knowledge.^{[citation needed]} In Vedic Hinduism, the Tree of Jiva and Atman is usually interpreted as a metaphor concerning the soul, mind, and body. In the Norse sagas, the ash tree Yggdrasil draws from the magic springwater of knowledge.

[edit] Freudian (psychological) interpretation

A rather Freudian interpretation is that knowledge of good and evil, or simply good and bad, refers to the recollection of a memory with an implied judgment. This is a natural process for neurological systems (humans and animals) to make to avoid pain or gain pleasure. However, human consciousness includes extensive recollection and teaching such as by the use of books, which could be called a fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. It is clearly distinguishable from the simple awareness of other animals. This allows human beings to make deliberate choices that they consider beneficial even if they include an element of pain. ^{[citation needed]}

The process of maturation occurring in the incidents around the tree describes, in an abstract way, the splitting of the human consciousness into the limited context of conscious thought and the underlying all-aware subconscious. It also implies the existence of an entheogen that lets humans experience a God-like state of oneness.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Fruit of the tree

The Book of Enoch 31:4, purporting to be written by the antediluvian prophet Enoch, describes the Tree of Knowledge: "It was like a species of the Tamarind tree, bearing fruit which resembled grapes extremely fine; and its fragrance extended to a considerable distance. I exclaimed, How beautiful is this tree, and how delightful is its appearance!" In the Talmud, Rabbi Meir says that the fruit was a grape.^[3] Another Talmudic tradition suggests that Eve actually made, and drank, wine.^[4]

Also in the Talmud, Rabbi Nechemia says that the fruit was a fig.^[3]Adam and Eve used fig leaves to cover themselves after eating the fruit (Genesis 3:7). Perhaps this was because the leaves were nearby, or perhaps it shows God creating the cure before the illness, i.e. the same tree that caused the problem was then used to remedy it. Another explanation lies within the "fruit" of the fig tree, the fig itself, which is not actually a fruit but rather a flower of sorts, serving as the tree's genitalia.

Another Talmudic interpretation, expressed by Rabbi Yehuda, is that the fruit was wheat.^[3]

In Western Christian art, the fruit is most commonly depicted as an apple. One possible reason for this would arise from a medieval pun if it were shown that a source of humor to monks lay in consonance of the Latin words for evil and for apple, and thus by eating the malus (apple), Eve contracted malum (evil). There is, however, no textual or historical evidence by which to argue the usage of this image.

Proponents of the theory that the Garden of Eden was located somewhere in what is known now as the Middle East suggest that the fruit was actually a pomegranate. This ties in with the Greek myth of Persephone, where her consumption of seven pomegranate seeds leads to her having to spend time in Hades.

Ethno-botanists have proposed the iboga plant (Tabernanthe iboga) as the Tree of Knowledge. The bark of the root contains a dissociative substance, ibogaine, which has been traditionally used in Bwiti religious ceremony in Central Africa.^[5] Other hallucinogens, in particular the Fly agaric mushroom, have also been proposed as the Tree.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] See also

• Adam and Eve
• Enlightenment (concept)
• The Fall of Man
• Forbidden fruit
• Knowledge
• Morality
• Original sin
• Pelagianism
• Tree of Life
• Christmas Tree
• Dream of the rood

[edit] Notes

1. ^ For a contrast between the Western doctrine of original sin and the Eastern doctrine of ancesteral sin, see Ancestral Versus Original Sin: An Overview with Implications for Psychotherapy. Accessed May 11, 2006.
2. ^ . Kline, Meridith G. "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 48:2-15 (1996). Accessed May 11, 2006.
3. ^ ^{a b c} Berachos 40a; Sanhedrin 70a. CF [1], accessed September 7, 2006.
4. ^ Bereishis Rabah 15:7; 19:1; Zohar Bereishis 36a and Noach 73a. CF [2], accessed September 7, 2006.
5. ^ Bwiti: An Ethnography of the Religious Imagination in Africa, Princeton University Press, 1982 [3]