[LIBRARY OF GOD]

Tree of Life
By Catherine Gura
B.A./Religious Studies
Wellesley College
Master of Library Science Student
Kent State University
cagura@en.com
[Image]
Copyright 1995 THIS WORK IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF CATHERINE GURA.
NO PART OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE ELECTRONICALLY OR MECHANICALLY REPRODUCED
BEYOND FAIR USE.
[Image]
The first mention of the Tree of Life, as well as the Tree of Knowledge of
Good and Evil, occurs in Genesis 2:9: "And from the ground the Lord God
caused to grow every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for food,
with the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of
knowledge of good and bad." (1) One of the first and most basic questions
concerns the actual number of trees to be found in the text. Are there two
trees, and if so, are we dealing with two separate traditions fused into
one narrative, or a single narrative tradition with two trees? Or do we
have only one tree with two different names? After all, as some argue, how
can two trees both be in the same physical spot, in the middle of the
garden?
The argument in favor of one tree is not very convincing. The location of
both trees "in the midst of the garden" presents no real difficulties, for
the phrase need not be interpreted as the exact center. Conceptually, it is
unlikely that one tree should represent two different ideas, as "life" and
"knowledge" are hardly the same thing, or even two different aspects of the
same thing; rather it is more likely that there were two trees, each
representing one of the two concepts. The narrative does not readily
support the notion that there is only one extraordinary tree in the garden,
and this is further confirmed with the reappearance of both trees in
chapter three.
As for the other alternative, some believe that this duality of trees does
indeed point to two separate narratives, supported by the fact that it is
only the Tree of Knowledge that plays a significant role in the story of
the Fall. Also, there are syntactical difficulties; the Tree of Knowledge
is mentioned after the prepositional phrase b tok haggan "in the midst of
the garden", as if it were added as an afterthought, the prepositional
phrase referring only to the first tree.(2) However, Umberto Cassuto does
not understand this passage as syntactically difficult, rather he sees the
wording as "the rhythmic requirements of the verse", and that placing both
trees before the prepositional phrase would have been "unthinkable".(3) So
the question of syntax does not really seem to clear up the problem whether
we are dealing with two separate traditions or just one. There is no
conclusive evidence either way, and as the narrative maintains integrity
throughout with respect to both of the trees, there is no reason to suppose
that both trees were not part of the original tradition.
The second time the Tree of Life is mentioned in Genesis occurs in 3:22:
"And the Lord God said, `Now that the man has become like one of us,

knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also
from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!'" The last we hear of the
Tree of Life in Genesis is in the final verse of chapter three: "He drove
the man out, and stationed east of the garden of Eden the cherubim and the
fiery ever-turning sword, to guard the way to the tree of life."
What do these few short verses tell us about the nature of this mythical
tree? It is obvious, from the use of the definite article, and the lack of
explanation, that the audience must have been familiar with a tradition of
a fantastic tree whose fruits bestow eternal life to those who eat of it.
The tree reappears in Proverbs, further attesting to a widespread tradition
of a tree of life.(4) Proverbs 3:18, 11:30, 13:12 and 15:4 all describe a
tree with benevolent attributes; however, only one passage, 3:18, mentions
"length of days" in connection with the Tree of Life. In addition to the
verses in Proverbs, there are scholars who believe that Ezekiel refers to a
Tree of Life in passages 38:3-9 and 47:12.(5) The first section describes a
paradisiacal garden containing a wondrous tree without equal, and the
second passage tells of trees whose "leaves will not whither nor their
fruit fail...Their fruit will serve for food and their leaves for healing".
Miraculous trees and plants exist in abundance in other ancient Near
Eastern texts, mythology and imagery. When looking for parallels to the
Genesis tree, many point to the Babylonian creation story involving Enki,
the god of wisdom. In this account, Enki breathes life into the human forms
created from clay by the supreme god of the sky, Anu. After the act of
creation, Enki plants a black kiskanu-tree in the sacred grove of Eridu,
having an appearance of lapis lazuli, its limbs and roots stretching toward
Abzu, his subterranean domain. This tree derives its powers from the Waters
of Life.(6) The kiskanu-tree is identified by Edwin James as the black tree
of Dilmun, the Babylonian paradise. There is a precedent for this
kiskanu-tree in an ancient Akkadian incantation text from Susa, which
describes a giskin-tree growing "in a pure place" like the lord Enki, with
"the appearance of lapis lazuli" which "stretches across the sea".(7)
Numerous similarities are immediately apparent between Enki's tree and the
Hebrew Tree of Life: both are connected with the creative act, both are
situated within paradisiacal gardens, and both have qualities of a mythical
and spectacular nature. In Genesis, this tree has specific powers; whoever
eats its fruit will gain immortality. On the other hand, no special powers
are attributed to the kiskanu tree, nor does it exist within a narrative of
such explicit instruction on human nature. There are other differences that
could be pointed out; perhaps the most significant is that neither kiskanu
nor giskin can be literally translated as "tree of life", although there
are those who do so. In fact, nowhere in Babylonian literature is there
found a phrase which directly translates as "tree of life".(8)
Another important comparison to the Tree of Life is the plant of immortal
life in the Gilgamesh epic. Some scholars believe that the plant in
Gilgamesh was a vine. In the ancient Near East, the vine as an herb of life
and wine as the water of life was a common association.(9) Accordingly, the
divinity Siduri, described as sabitu (the woman with the wine) is stationed
near the plant of immortality. Similarly, we have the juxtaposition of
woman and tree/plant associated with immortality in Genesis, although here
she is a human and not divine.(10) There are other striking similarities
between the Gilgamesh epic and the Genesis narrative: both trees/plants are
endowed with the power of immortal life; both feature villainous reptiles;
and in both cases, humans are denied the possibility of living forever.
What is significantly different in Genesis is that the Tree of Life is part
of a narrative of instruction on human nature.

Sacred trees likewise appear in the iconography of the ancient Near East. A
sketch from Susa depicts a snake wrapped around a tree,(11) and a
reoccurring Egyptian scene shows the Pharaoh standing next to a tree with
divine beings who promise him "countless years of life".(12) As there is no
place for literary theory on influence and dissemination in this paper, let
it suffice to say that although these parallels may be interesting, they
are by no means conclusive evidence of borrowing of one group from the
other. Given the universal and very diverse nature of the symbolic use of
trees, these examples are not similar enough to really shed any light on
the nature of the Genesis tree. In the end, we are still left with the
question, "So what?"
In response to this question, we may look to what the French poet Francis
Ponge wrote, "What is important is to grasp, through analogies, the
differential quality...To name the differential quality...that is
progress."(13) So what illuminating differences are discovered among the
examples given? Within the limited scope of the myths presented in this
paper, the most significant difference between the Genesis tree and the
others is that it is inextricably bound up with an instructional history of
humankind. Furthermore, it is more accessible in Genesis; the Tree of Life
is initially not denied to Adam, only the Tree of Knowledge.
The Tree of Knowledge is something of an enigma; it is mentioned nowhere
else outside of Genesis(14), and it has no equivalent in other ancient Near
Eastern traditions. The closest analogy is the coupling of life and wisdom
in various myths, although wisdom is not associated with a tree in these
accounts. Such an association is found in the dual gift of wisdom and
eternity given to Ltpn by Aleion as described in a text from Ras
Shamra.(15) Likewise, Babylonian myth tells how Adapa, son of Enki, was
endowed with divine wisdom, but having refused the food of life offered to
him by Anu, was forced to return to life as a mortal.(16) The east entrance
to the Babylonian heaven was guarded by two trees, translated loosely by
some as the tree of truth and the tree of life.(17) However, the pairing of
wisdom and life is a such a basic and ubiquitous concept, that it provides
little in the way of understanding of either of the trees in Genesis,
especially the Tree of Knowledge, which presently stands peerless.
Although we can find no Tree of Knowledge outside the Hebrew Bible, it must
have been a well known tradition within Israel. As with the Tree of Life, a
definite article introduces the Tree of Knowledge, implying that the
audience well knew about the tree to which the author was referring. Nor is
there any explanation about the nature of this tree, which would suggest
that none was necessary.
So in order to understand the nature of the Tree of Knowledge, we can only
look to the Hebrew text itself. Because the Tree of Knowledge plays the
crucial role in the story of the Fall, many perplexing and engaging
questions surround it. Why did God prohibit this tree? What was the nature
of the knowledge it contained, that God should deny it to Her/His creation?
What made it so attractive to the first humans, that they should disobey
God and eat that fruit, when they could of had the fruit of any other tree
(including the Tree of Life)? The key to the puzzle lies in the nature of
the knowledge of good and evil.
There are several theories about the nature of the understanding with which
this tree was empowered. They can be summarized thus: the knowledge was of
a sexual nature; it was moral distinction, ethical good and bad; and
finally, the nature of that knowledge was knowing in its entirety, a sort
of scientific understanding of inner processes. It is this last
interpretation which proves to be most convincing and makes the best sense

within the story of the fall as a whole.

The first interpretation, that the knowledge was of a sexual nature, looks
at the subsequent realization by Adam and Eve after they had eaten the
fruit that they were naked, and felt shame for the first time.(18)
Additionally, other images in the narrative, such as the fig leaves, and
the serpent even, are associated with fertility and procreation in various
ancient Near Eastern traditions.(19) Eve's punishment of painful child
bearing and a sort of self-contradicting desire for her husband, fits in
well with this understanding.(20) Furthermore, where the phrase "knowledge
of good and evil" occurs in 2 Samuel 19:36, it is a metaphor for sexual
desire.(21) Can this interpretation be applied to the Tree of Knowledge in
Genesis?
There are a number of problems with this reading. To begin with, God
prohibits the Tree of Knowledge even before She/He has created woman;
having declared its fruits off limit, She/He then proceeds to give Adam a
mate. Immediately following, we are told that they were unashamed of their
nudity, implying there was no guilt about their sexuality. It does not make
sense that God would forbid sexual knowledge and procreation before any
such knowledge or activity was possible, and then go ahead and create such
a temptation for Adam.(22) Moreover, this knowledge was attributed to God
as well,(23) which would render the interpretation of sexual knowledge
senseless. Although it could be argued that this knowledge, when applied to
God, was of procreation and fertility on a grand scale, as in cultivation
of the earth and creation. However, fertility and creation in the specific
sense of sexuality just does not apply.
A second sense of the knowledge of good and evil is ethical discernment, to
know right from wrong. But insofar as good can be described as what is
beneficial, and bad that which brings pain and harm, Adam and Eve, even in
their state of innocence, already knew this instinctively.(24) Humans, in
their natural state, instinctively chose good, or that which is beneficial,
and special discernment was not necessary. There was really no choice
involved; it was only after Adam and Eve were aware of alternatives, that
they needed powers of discernment. Herold Stern explains the Israelite
psychology of morality thus:
for the Israelite to be involved in a situation where he is torn
between alternatives, and must make a choice, is a sign of an
unhealthy, diseased organism. To be forced to chose between
alternatives, one of them good and the others evil, is a sign
that the organism has lost its simple direct orientation to its
natural good and is tempted with alternative modes of action.(25)
So this knowledge was not ethical distinction, since Adam and Eve were
already moral in their natural state. Thus "good and evil" in this
narrative must mean knowledge of unnatural acts, which would include, but
not be limited to, perverse sexual acts. Furthermore, "knowledge of good
and evil" is meant in the sense of knowledge as a whole, in the same way
that officers and men refer to an army, or dollars and cents mean cash.(26)
This all encompassing knowledge included secret processes and the inner
workings of things, an understanding that went beyond instinctual. Stern
likens it to the objective stance and understanding of a doctor or
scientist. Like a child, or an animal, Adam and Eve knew only that they
were hungry, for example, and needed food. A doctor, however, who possesses
an understanding of the inner workings of the human body, knows why the
body needs food, how it uses food, etc. So not only can the doctor, armed
with this type of knowledge, do good for the body and heal, he or she also
knows how to do harm and cause sickness. Thus knowledge creates

possibilities hitherto unknown, and with these possibilities there is a

god-like power and a potential for evil. Knowledge of this sort introduces
evil into the world; this is why God forbid the fruit of this tree to Adam
and Eve. This, more so than the transgressions of the first two humans,
explains the existence of evil in the world.
This interpretation of "the knowledge of good and evil" in Genesis
corresponds to the meaning this phrase has in other parts of the Hebrew
Bible, with the exception of 2 Samuel 19:36, mentioned earlier. Deuteronomy
1:39 refers to "your children who do not yet know good from bad";
similarly, Isaiah 7:15-16, prophesies about a child and what will happen by
the time "he learns to reject the bad and chose the good". Clearly,
"knowledge of good and evil" signifies a state beyond innocence.
The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil also contained secret knowledge
possessed by God and the angels. This is what the serpent meant when it
tempted Eve in Genesis 3:5: "God knows that as soon as you eat of it your
eyes will be opened and you will be like divine beings who know good and
bad." God also worries that "Now...the man has become like one of us,
knowing good and bad". This sense, a god-like knowledge of all things, is
reflected in 2 Samuel 14:17: "my lord the king is like an angel of God,
understanding everything, good and bad."(27) In the book of Enoch, in a
parallel story of the Fall, the knowledge obtained by humans which leads to
their downfall is the secrets of magical and other black arts revealed by
the angel Azazel.(28) This knowledge creates an alienating stance of
objectivity; the observer rises above reality to contemplate it, and is
very self-conscious as a result. Thus, Adam and Eve realize that they are
naked after eating the fruit. It is an unnatural awareness, and their
sexuality, seen in this new light, becomes a reason for shame.
The punishment meted out as a result of Adam and Eve's transgression
confirms this understanding of the nature of the forbidden knowledge.
Having obtained the understanding of the secret processes of things, Adam
is shouldered with the responsibility of using this knowledge to care for
himself, whereas previously, in his state of natural innocence, God
provided for his needs.(29) Adam and Eve are banished from the garden, and
the Tree of Life is now guarded for their own protection; having this
knowledge and the sorrows it entails, and having to live forever in this
state, would have been eternal hell.(30)
The Genesis narrative involving the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge
is meant to explain the introduction of evil into the world. This narrative
points to knowledge as dangerous and unnatural. While to modern minds this
attitude seems strange, and unfounded even, given the tremendous advances
humanity has made through science, one needs only to look at some of the
consequences of this "progress" in order to appreciate the ancient
Israelite point of view; nuclear energy and genetic engineering are both
obvious examples of the potential evil introduced into the world through
knowledge. These two mythical trees, without equal in the ancient world,
offer important insight into ancient Israel's epistemology and sense of
morality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------ENDNOTES
(1) Tanakh (New JPS Translation, 1988). All future scripture quotations
will be from this edition.
--------------------------------------------------------------(2) Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John H. Marks

(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), p. 76.

--------------------------------------------------------------(3) Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, trans. Israel
Abrahams (Jerusalem: Central Press, 1961), I, 111.
--------------------------------------------------------------(4) Cassuto, p. 109.
(5) Paul Watson, "The Tree of Life," Restoration Quarterly, 23, No. 4
(1980), 234.
--------------------------------------------------------------(6) Edwin O. James, "The Tree of Life and the Water of Life," in Religion
und Religionen, (Bonn: Ludwig Rohrscheid Verlag, 1967), p. 118.
--------------------------------------------------------------(7) Ake W. Sjoberg, "Eve and the Chameleon," In the Shelter of Elyon,
(Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1984), pp. 219-20.
--------------------------------------------------------------(8) Sjoberg, p. 219.
--------------------------------------------------------------(9) Mircea Eliade, in Patterns in Comparative Religion, notes that in the
Mishna, the Tree of Knowledge was said to be a vine (p. 285).
--------------------------------------------------------------(10) Mircea Eliade, Patterns in Comparative Religion, trans. Rosemary Sheed
(New York: New American Library, 1974), p. 284.
(11) Eliade, p. 272.
--------------------------------------------------------------(12) Theodor H. Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament (New
York: Harper & Row, 1969), p. 34.
--------------------------------------------------------------(13) Le Grand Recueil, vol. 2 Methodes (Paris, 1961), pp. 41-2 quoted in
Jonathan Z. Smith, Imaging Religion ed. Jacob Neusner (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1982), p. 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------(14) von Rad, p. 76.
--------------------------------------------------------------(15) Eliade, p. 287.
--------------------------------------------------------------(16) James, p. 121.
--------------------------------------------------------------(17) Pamela R. Frese and S.J.M. Gray, "Trees," in Encyclopedia of Religion,
XV, 28.
--------------------------------------------------------------(18) Bo Reicke, "The Knowledge Hidden in Paradise," Journal of Semitic
Studies, I, No. 3 (1956), 196.
--------------------------------------------------------------(19) Reicke, pp. 196-7.
--------------------------------------------------------------(20) Reicke, p. 197.
--------------------------------------------------------------(21) Herold Stern, "The Knowledge of Good and Evil," Vetus Testamentum,
VIII (1958), 406.
--------------------------------------------------------------(22) Stern, pp. 406-7.
--------------------------------------------------------------(23) Cassuto, p. 111.
--------------------------------------------------------------(24) Stern, p. 409.
--------------------------------------------------------------(25) Stern, p. 410.
---------------------------------------------------------------

(26) Gaster, p. 34.

--------------------------------------------------------------(27) Stern, p. 406.
--------------------------------------------------------------(28) Stern, p. 413.
--------------------------------------------------------------(29) Cassuto, p. 113.
--------------------------------------------------------------(30) Stern, p. 412.
WORKS CITED
Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Trans. Israel
Abrahams. Jerusalem: Central Press, 1961.
[Image]
Eliade, Mircea. Patterns in Comparative Religion. Trans. Rosemary Sheed.
New York: New American Library, 1974.
[Image]
Frese, Pamela R. and S.J.M. Gray. "Trees." Encyclopedia of Religion.
[Image]
James, Edwin O. "The Tree of Life and the Water of Life," in Religion und
Religionen. Bonn: Ludwig Rohrscheid Verlag, 1967.
[Image]
Reicke, Bo. "The Knowledge Hidden in Paradise." Journal of Semitic Studies,
1 (1956).
[Image]
Sjoberg, Ake W. "Eve and the Chameleon," in In the Shelter of Elyon.
Sheffield: Univeristy of Sheffield Press, 1984.
[Image]
Smith, Jonathan Z. Imagining Religion. Ed. Jacob Neusner. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1982.
[Image]
Stern, Herold. "The Knowledge of Good and Evil." Vetus Testamentum, 8
(1958).
[Image]
von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis: A Commentary. Trans. John H. Marks.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961.
[Image]
Watson, Paul. "The Tree of Life." Restoration Quarterly, 23 (1980).
[Image]
[Image] Return to Devir menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------[Image] CLICK TO RETURN TO THE TEMPLE MAP
THANK YOU FOR USING THE LIBRARY OF GOD!