The Tree of – ‘the Knowledge of’/’the Knowing of’ – Good and ‘Evil’/Good and ‘Bad’

Image from en.wikipedia.org

[First posted in 2010.  We have since updated to adding yet another translation, this time by Richard Elliott Friedman who authored THE HIDDEN BOOK IN THE BIBLE which we will be featuring soon in the category MUST READ/MUST OWN.  The reason his translation is mentioned here is because he uses a different word for this tree, calling it “the tree of knowledge of good and bad” — not to be different or unique, but with a claim that the original shortened version of the first prose narrative imbedded in the regular translations of the Torah used that kind of simple language.  What is the difference between ‘evil’ and ‘bad’?  This early, without having read Friedman’s book, hazard a guess. Then check out the MUST READ/MUST OWN feature that will be posted later. Curious?—-ADMIN1.]

———————–

Three images from which we can infer a non-literal reading and interpretation of Genesis 3:

• the talking serpent
• the tree of life
• the tree of ‘the knowledge of’/’the knowing of’ good and evil

We do not encounter these in the natural world where we function so a basic reading rule (if not plain common sense) tells us to resort to thinking metaphorically.

We have dealt with the serpent symbolism; we consistently refer to the Tree of Life as the Torah; but we haven’t really expounded on this third tree—third, because there were all the other unnamed real and natural tree species from which Adam and Eve could freely eat. If the prohibition involved only one tree, then they could also have partaken of the Tree of Life which is at the center of the garden surrounded by all the other species of trees.

Genesis/Bereshith  2:9

[RA] And the LORD God caused to sprout from the soil every tree lovely to look at and good for food, and the tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge, good and evil. 

[EF]  YHWH, God, caused to spring up from the soil

every type of tree, desirable to look at and good to eat,

and the Tree of Life in the midst of the garden

So this tree against which the Creator issues the first prohibition bears a particular fruit:  knowledge; not just knowledge of anything or everything, but specifically “good” and “evil.”  Everett Fox’s wording is interesting:  “the Tree of the Knowing” — of what?  “of Good and Evil” (capitalized).  It makes one think, is there a difference in “Knowledge of” and “the Knowing of”?  

The dictionary defines “Knowledge’ as: 

• Philosophy true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion.

2 awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation

As for “Knowing”:

• showing or suggesting that one has knowledge or awareness that is secret or known to only a few people: a knowing smile.
•  chiefly derogatory experienced or shrewd, esp. excessively or prematurely so : today’s society is too knowing, too corrupt.
• done in full awareness or consciousness : a knowing breach of the order by the appellants.

One can begin to understand and appreciate the difficulty translators face because ultimately when the language of translation does not have the exact equivalent for the word/meaning in the original language, translators turn into interpreters as well. And we, readers, are dependent on them to gain an understanding of the text, meaning, we either buy their spin or not.

Why the fuss over Knowledge/the Knowing here? Because it is strange that the testing of the first couple, representative humanity, is about gaining ‘knowledge’.  Is it so wrong to want to know two sides of any issue, is that not what having free will is all about, choosing between a minimum of two, whether right choice or wrong choice?  Do the words “good” and “evil” mean the same as “right” and “wrong”?

Now how could one tree contain two opposite fruits? That’s like eating something that could make you healthy enough to live longer and at the same time sick enough to shorten your life. But that’s not fair, is it?  Unless what is meant is that the tree bears two kinds of fruit: a good fruit different from an evil fruit. Depending on what we happen to pick,  it’s like a “hit or miss” guessing game where every fruit looks alike so that you can’t tell which is which; in effect, the consequence betrays which one you happen to pick. But that’s not fair either, plus —where is free choice if this is the case?

Choice was already made in partaking of the fruit, so what does it matter which fruit is picked? The evil is in the exercise of free will to disobey a divine command, not in the fruit.  In fact, a lot of things in nature are neutral — not good or bad — but depending on how man uses it, it could turn one or the other. Ponder that. 

Here are a few other points to chew on:

• First the “good.” 
  •  Is the “good” in the tree the same quality as the “good” and “very good” that the Creator pronounced on His whole creation?  Why use “good” when it can be outdone by “very good”?  Or better and best? Why not “perfect” as befitting divine standard?  Ever wonder if the original Hebrew is translatable to a word other than “good”?  Perhaps “right” is the better word, since right is right, period, can’t be more or less right and most or least right, right?

• Next, the word “evil.” 
  • Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of right, in effect all that is not right; in a word “wrong” in God’s eyes.
  • Sin is the word we use for—-
    •  violation of God’s command, 
    • disobedience to His expressed will for any situation; 
    • sometimes explained as “missing the mark,” 
    • not hitting the target,  
    • missing the bullseye (God’s requirement) which is obedience.

If, after creating man in His image and likeness, God never spoke to man, never gave instructions, left man to follow his own instincts and inclination, then God cannot fault man for not knowing what is right or wrong in His eyes.  The profile we have of the Creator at this early stage of the book of beginnings is that just like a loving father would instruct his innocent and naive children to keep them from doing harm to themselves and others, the Creator God did exactly that.  

 

Notice however that in this context, unlike in the Sinai comprehensive revelation, He did not spell out blessings for obedience, only consequences for disobedience. Why?

 

Obviously, the first couple were enjoying unlimited blessings just from living in Eden. Would Adam balk at performing any of the DO’s? Name the species, reproduce your own kind, eat a vegetarian diet, enjoy the Edenic environment and best of all, direct access to the Creator Himself—one blessing after another, what’s not to like! Why would the first couple even want to change a situation like that?  God has provided everything they would ever need outside of themselves. . . and more . . . within themselves, within each one of us is that spark of divine’ image and likeness which is most likely connected to free will and responsible choice to enable us to align our will with God’s will.

 

Knowledge of the good, Adam and Eve already had.  They knew the very source of all good and blessing, the Creator Himself.  The one thing lacking in their perfect life? Knowledge of ‘evil’, perhaps we could use “wrongdoing” (since “right” as in sync with God’s revealed will).

 

In the setting of this story, that knowledge is not only available but readily accessible through the fruit of a particular tree right beside the Tree of Life in the middle of the garden. The text does not say if they partook of the Tree of Life which was among the permitted species to eat from; instead their attention, or let’s be accurate, the woman’s attention turned toward the ‘can’t-have’.  Is this a typical human pitfall, an initial curiosity moving toward attraction and growing to obsession on what is prohibited?  For those who do allow themselves to go that route, it is. A simple resolution to go on a diet is already fraught with potential failure, and anyone who has allowed himself to reach the point of addiction where he gets in bondage to any substance can understand the beginning of Havva/Eve’s desire for self-satisfaction.

 

Self is ultimately where the struggle is resolved: self above all, self over others, self over God.  No wonder the Torah constantly re-directs our focus on God first, and others next, for through selflessness ultimately comes self-satisfaction. 

 

To wrap up:

 

• The tree of knowledge of good and evil could actually be a literal tree, any of the existing species but which is labeled by God as such for a purpose only within this context;
• The purpose as it turns out is to use it as a prohibition to test the obedience of the first couple.
• It symbolizes two choices in life connected with one’s relationship with God—right as in obedience to His command and wrong or evil or sin,  a violation;
• The tree being outside of man and not within him is not to be confused with the two inclinations within man that give him the chance  to exercise his free will;
• We have within ourselves free will to make one choice: a consistent pattern of rightful behavior is good for self and others and is pleasing to God.
  • Right is aligned with God’s standards for human behavior toward Him and fellowmen.
  • Wrong thinking leads to wrong actions that are harmful to self and others.
  • Is there a place for neutrality and what does it ultimately stand for? Probably not:  when you abstain from voting for a candidate, could that be construed as—you are not FOR that candidate?

www.alc.com.pt

 In the end, there is nothing magical or mystical about this tree, just as there is nothing healing about the bronze serpent of Numbers 21:1; it is the God Who uses these symbols Who deserves our focus and fixation.

The Tree of Life leads to knowledge of Him; the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil leads to knowledge of ourselves, what is in us, what we are capable of doing.   

How well do you know yourself?

Be aware of the inherent good in you to choose and do what is right in YHWH’s eyes, and even more so, beware of your potential to choose and do evil which has consequences for yourself and others.  

 

That ‘serpent of desire’, remember?