What was the purpose of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil

In My Humble Opinion
154

To my knowledge, that particular curse hasn’t gone away at any time and Eve never had a “before the curse” experience. In the real world that we live in, with women who are aware of and cannot avoid that curse, a year or two gap between children is pretty common. There’s no strong reason to think that Adam and Eve would be different - and that’s comparing Eve to enlightened, modern women who are not the subordinate of their partner. Based on God’s laws, as they were at the time, we’d expect that Eve’s ability to object to Adams advances were fairly negligible. And he couldn’t really sleep around.

That said, we’re close enough to a round 100 that there’s an argument to be made that the authors were trying to imply that Adam was in the Garden for an exact century.

I’m not too fussed on the issue. It’s all just counting how many angels can dance on the head of a needle, anyways.

155

Maybe hours hadn’t been invented yet.

156

He should have used a focus group:How Animals Got Their Names - YouTube

157

There was no “original writer”. Someone, at some point, was the first one to write it down, but the stories had been passed down orally for centuries before that. The person who first wrote it down presumably felt obligated to transmit the tradition as he received it and not to add his own material. Indeed, the redactor clearly preferred to err on the side of including everyone’s favorite version of the stories, even if that led to inconsistencies in the text. One example is Genesis 1 and 2, which can be reconciled if you strain hard enough, but which on plain text reading appear to be two slightly different versions of the same story

158

This is just some idle speculation on my part.

It seems that the thread is focused on individuals. Think about how the twelve tribes of Israel gave names to Abraham’s twelve sons. So it might’ve been with Adam and Eve. Wiki:

In Genesis 1:27 “adam” is used in the collective sense, and the interplay between the individual “Adam” and the collective “humankind” is a main literary component to the events that occur in the Garden of Eden, the ambiguous meanings embedded throughout the moral, sexual, and spiritual terms of the narrative reflecting the complexity of the human condition. Genesis 2:7 is the first verse where “Adam” takes on the sense of an individual man (the first man), and the context of sex is absent; the gender distinction of “adam” is then reiterated in Genesis 5:1–2 by defining “male and female”.

Cite

The same cite notes that adam is used collectively (mankind), individually (man), gender neutral and gender specific (male), depending on context.

Eve in turn can be translated to life giver:

“Eve” in Hebrew is “Ḥawwāh” and is most commonly believed to mean “living one” or “source of life” as it is phonetically similar to “ḥāyâ”, “to live”

The Hebrew for a single man, individual, is ish [איש], not adam. Note also that KJV plays fast and loose (Surprise!/s) by changing adam to Adam in Genesis 2:19, thus rendering an ambiguous use into a proper name, whereas the original doesn’t make that shift until Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam.

We can never know what the original writer(s) of Genesis aimed for with this fable, nor the redactors in the 6th century BCE. But ISTM that it could very well be a tale about humanity, and not individuals.

159

What was the purpose of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil?

It had no purpose. It was a MacGuffin.

160

I mean, I’m perfectly satisfied with my explanation from upthread. It’s not definitive but it seems self-consistent and self-contained within Genesis.

  1. The purpose of the Garden is to collect all kinds of trees that are pleasing to the sight and good for food. (Genesis 2:9)
  2. The Tree of Knowledge is a kind of tree that is good for eating and a delight to the eyes. (Genesis 3:6)

Like all explanations of literally anything, you could follow up with a “why” question (“why does the Garden have that purpose?”, “why place the Tree of Knowledge in the middle of the garden?”; see also “why is the sky blue?”, “why does the short end of the visible spectrum appear blue?”, and “why are S-cones sensitive to shorter wavelengths?”). But regarding the question of immediate purpose, I find this explanation satisfactory.

I have to speculate more to answer the followup questions.

Why is the Tree of Knowledge in the middle of the Garden of Eden?

The Tree of Life is also located in the middle of the Garden (Genesis 2:9), so I infer with some confidence that the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge share a common property which merits their central placement. What do these two trees have that other trees do not?

A) Magic Fruits

According to one predominant interpretation the fruits have special properties: the fruits of the Tree of Life bestow eternal life (Genesis 3:22) while the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge are a source of wisdom (Genesis 3:5-7). These special properties set the two trees apart from all other trees and merit their central placement in the Garden of Eden.

Genesis 2:9
And from the ground 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.

Genesis 3:4-5
And the serpent said to the woman, “You are not going to die, but 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.”

Genesis 3:6-7
When the woman saw that the tree was good for eating and a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave some to her husband, and he ate.
Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived that they were naked; and they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves loincloths.

Genesis 3:22
And God said, “Now that humankind has become like any of us, knowing good and bad, what if one should stretch out a hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!”

Or, No Magic Fruits

There is an alternative interpretation which says, rather than the fruits having any magical properties, they were simply normal fruits. Maybe a fig or etrog. “[T]he eyes of both of them were opened” (Genesis 3:7) refers to the first realization of wrongdoing, by virtue of having violated a divine command (Genesis 2:17). The fruit was simply a catalyst for the first human experiences of shame and self-consciousness (Genesis 3:7-10) and punishment (Genesis 3:16-19), and thus the first human understanding of morality (good and evil).

This interpretation warrants a re-evaluation of the temptation of Eve,

Genesis 2:16-17
And God commanded the Human, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die.”

Genesis 3:4-5
And the serpent said to the woman, “You are not going to die, but 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.”

In the former interpretation where the fruits had the magical property of bestowing knowledge, the serpent spoke the plain truth. And this is a strong point against that interpretation, because Eve’s impression was that the tree was itself a source of wisdom (Genesis 3:6); Eve later told God she had been duped (Genesis 3:13) which implies that the tree had no magical properties after all.

Genesis 3:6
When the woman saw that the tree was good for eating and a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable as a source of wisdom, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

Genesis 3:13
And God said to the woman, “What is this you have done!” The woman replied, “The serpent duped me, and I ate.”

Under this interpretation, where the fruits lack magical properties, the serpent deserves credit for its cleverness. Technically, the serpent is correct when it says “your eyes will be opened and you will be like divine beings who know good and bad”. But the statement was grossly misleading. Overall this I think this interpretation fits the narrative of Genesis better, which goes out of its way to mention the serpent’s cunning (Genesis 3:1).

But simply refuting the magical fruit interpretation does not answer the question of why the Tree of Knowledge is placed in the center of the Garden.

B) The Tree is a Test

Perhaps the Tree of Knowledge was placed in the middle of the Garden of Eden as a test for humankind? By placing the Tree of Knowledge in the center of the Garden, the test is put front and center.

This rationale could be either compatible or incompatible with the magical fruits interpretation. This interpretation seems to have some currency in the Christian world, mostly drawing on Biblical sources outside of Genesis.

Naturally one wonders, what purpose did God have in testing Adam and Eve if He is all-knowing? Which leads to the classic theological debates on free will, destiny, and the omniscience of God - all of which and much more must be resolved to answer the question. I don’t believe you will find anyone doing so based solely on Genesis.

C) Convenience, Aesthetics, or Utility

Assume that God created a Garden of various trees pleasing to the eyes and good for eating because He planned to take advantage of those good looks or good eats, either personally, or via other heavenly beings (i.e. angels).

This could be compatible with the magical fruits interpretation.

Closely examine the language used by the serpent and by God when describing the benefits of the Trees of Life and Knowledge,

Genesis 3:4-5
And the serpent said to the woman, “You are not going to die, but 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.”

Genesis 3:22
And God said, “Now that humankind has become like any of us, knowing good and bad, what if one should stretch out a hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!”

Genesis 3:23-24
So God banished humankind from the garden of Eden, to till the humus from which it was taken: it was driven out; and east of the garden of Eden were stationed the cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.

Take care not to stumble into pitfalls from the translation process, but note that most commentators agree that there do exist divine beings (angels). Mostly based on other biblical sources, there are varying accounts of the relationship between God and these divine beings, and particularly, of the necessity or propensity either to consume or otherwise derive benefit from food.

On the part of God, Genesis testifies to the fact that he accepts (or at least accepted) offerings (Genesis 4). We can speculate whether God derives utility or satisfaction from the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge; however, note that he appears to reject Cain’s offerings of fruits of the soil (Genesis 4:3-5).

On the part of divine beings, consider the three divine agents through whom God visits Abraham and prophesies the birth of Isaac. The narrative goes into some detail as to the preparation of their food, and explicitly tells of their eating it (Genesis 18:5-8). Two messengers of God visit Sodom and are recieved by Lot. These two are said to consume food as well (Genesis 19:3).

Genesis 18:8
He took curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared and set these before them; and he waited on them under the tree as they ate.

Genesis 19:3
But he urged them strongly, so they turned his way and entered his house. He prepared a feast for them and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

There is some debate to have as to whether these angels are wholly divine beings, or if there is some distinction between being a vessel or avatar of God versus a cherubim. One also notes that none of these are described as actually eating fruit of a tree. In order to conclude that divine beings derive benefit from fruit, one must still make a significant leap of faith.

But once you assume divine beings do derive benefit from fruits, it is easy enough to speculate that the placement of the Tree of Knowledge in the middle of the Garden of Eden is expressly for their benefit. The placement might be aesthetically pleasing, or it might make it more convenient to access those particular fruits. This is especially relevent if the fruits of the Trees of Life and Knowledge have magical properties.

C) Other Arguments

The Garden of Eden is the source of four rivers, and it might be that these particular trees by their nature are better suited near the convergence of the rivers. Or supposing the center of the Garden is of higher elevation (hence how the rivers flow outward), this particular tree may be better suited for the higher elevation. They could also have simply been the first trees grown, and the garden was designed around them.

~Max

161

To add to what Miller said, I think the underlying concept there was that God is benevolent, but that benevolence is conditioned on obedience. This has obvious parallels with the real-world societies in which people lived. Obedience to authority was expected.

162

Yeah. The only sense it makes to me is that we became unlike the other creatures. We’re the only ones who wear clothes. We’re the only ones who actively work to make kinds of food grow where they wouldn’t otherwise. (We’re not, actually, but that’s a bit of another issue.) And – we’re probably the only ones who know that we’re going to die. Not as a matter of seeing the tiger too late in midleap, or as a matter of feeling horribly ill: but as a matter of knowing, when we’re feeling fine and in no imminent danger, that we’re certainly going to die, and within an imaginable amount of time.

The wages of eating from the tree of knowledge include the awareness of death. That’s the part that makes sense to me.

– I’m afraid that I tend to read the bit about nakedness entirely differently: when they realized they were naked, Adam and Eve reacted by being ashamed, and by covering up. They were ashamed of being as God made them – they dared to be ashamed of God’s handiwork. They should have stayed naked and unashamed, God would have been a lot less angry.

But then, I’m not a theist.

For bible literalists, that wouldn’t work. They think the whole thing actually happened.

But the cause and effect seem to me to be entirely unclear, and I don’t see how they wouldn’t be so to Adam and Eve.

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

But, as Mark Twain pointed out, until they ate of it they didn’t know what death was. And they certainly weren’t, in the story, told that they’d be thrown out of the garden, bear children in pain, have to work for their food. They had no idea of what the consequences would be, and no way of finding out other than by eating of the tree.

True. If considered as a Just So story, it makes more sense.

163

Thing is, the point of the allegory is that nakedness is wrong and bad and put something on fer chrissake. We can tell that no other creature has eaten of that tree, because they all saunter around with their junk on display, but humans are better than them because we know enough to keep it hidden. Well, except for that one Amazon tribe that must be evil because they all go around naked and someone needs to let them know they are doing it wrong.

164

That part mad zero sense to me. How can you be ashamed of being naked when all other creatures are naked and the very concept of clothing doesn’t yet exist in the first place?

165

But God’s angry that they covered up.

Which one?

Serious question. I didn’t think there was actually any known human group that doesn’t wear anything; though I think the Sentinelese may only wear belts.

166

I may have heard wrong or accepted flawed material. Seems to me there was a smart person on the radio who was talking about being embedded-ish with a tropical people, talking about their casual approach to nudity and how no one just hanging about showed signs of arousal. It may have been a second-hand description about Mead’s work in New Guinea, and my confidence, upon attempting to figure out the origin of my impression, is a bit shaky.

167

I often see references to people ‘going naked’ that upon further investigation turn out to mean that they wore only penis sheaths and thongs, or something similar, or even somewhat more than that but still considerably less than the Europeans writing the description were used to seeing people wear.

Also of course a lot of people go naked while bathing, sometimes in mixed groups, even if they wear clothing during most of their activities. That could easily be described as a ‘casual approach to nudity’.

It occurs to me that in the picture I saw of Sentinelese wearing only belts they were on the beach (though not swimming at the time); I’ve no idea (and I don’t know whether anybody does) whether they wear more clothes in some circumstances. But in any case they were all wearing belts, even people who didn’t appear to be using them as tool belts; so to them “naked” might be “without a belt on”.

I am really curious whether there’s any human group that doesn’t use clothes. And if any other species has been known to do so (other than maybe leaves on the head in hot weather.) To be semi-on-topic: the immediate jump to wearing clothes in Genesis might be referring to something essential, and very old, about being human. Though I don’t understand why we do it – it’s not weather, as people in hot places often wear less but they wear something; it’s not protecting the body from damage, as some people wear so little they’re not getting any protection. And it’s hardly necessary for decoration – if it were that, I’d think we’d get some people who only wore tattoos; and the minimal clothing some people wear isn’t particularly decorative or varied.

Maybe it was specifically to distinguish us from other creatures, way back when the distinction didn’t seem otherwise clear? That hominin must be a person, they’ve got clothes on? (the distinction now looks a lot less clear in many ways than a lot of humans have insisted and many are still insisting, for that matter.)

168

I see it as a combination of things. The human anatomy devotes a very large part of our brains to visual processing: we are very vision-centric. Add to that the persistent sex drive, which is kind of unusual for an animal that has such long gestation (rodents copulate a lot, but their gestations are comparatively short, and they often tend to be prey animals, so they need to breed a lot to maintain their populations).
       Left to base desires, I suspect a group of humans will rather quickly outbreed the local resource base, so we need to moderate the breeding impulse with modesty. Hence religious structures are built to rein in our natural lust in order to keep us from starving ourselves out. This, of course, is aided by our social hierarchy wiring that tends to establish leadership positions within a community.
       Of course, the confounding problem with modesty is that it also amplifies lust. The thing you are not allowed to view becomes more attractive to you, because humans are naturally curious. After a day or two of looking at crowds of naked people, you lose interest in their nudity and their features. It just becomes part of the landscape (the person whom I heard talking about the naked tribe said that she never men walking around with erections).
       In the end, the clothing thing is difficult to suss from a practical standpoint. Either it is about getting us to breed less, or it is about raising desire/pleasure, or maybe it has to do with achieving a balance. Of course, I will not be going outside naked today, because, brrrr.

169

Indeed. If anything, it would seem to go with increasing desire, not reducing it.

Which, admittedly, might match with a religion which forbade sexual intercourse during and for a week after menstruation, and then (between married partners) strongly encouraged it. Seems more like they were having trouble keeping the population up than having trouble keeping it down – or they wanted to be able to overwhelm their neighbors.

But the use of some sort of clothing is way too widespread to pin on any particular religion; though the enforcement of specific clothing has certainly been done by particular religions.

170

Does the camouflaged looper caterpillar count?

171

Considering the reason for the use of clothing in Genesis, wouldn’t a more accurate question be “Are/were there a people that don’t wear clothing out of a sense of shame?”

172

My question is why should they feel ashamed by their nakedness? Couples are naked around each other all of the time with no shame. And there is no one else around to see their nudity, unless you count Yahweh. So were they ashamed of God seeing them naked?

173

For the same reason “we” do? I admit, I don’t know what that reason is. But it is, if not universal, at least extremely common across times, places, and cultures for human beings to feel that there is something wrong, taboo, or shameful about being naked “in public.” So I think the story takes that feeling as a given, and says that it didn’t use to be that way, but then Something Happened.

I suspect you may be thinking about this from a modern point of view. How often would people several thousand years ago, in the kind of society where this story arose, have been alone together as a couple without any other people around?