Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Robert Hagedorn]

For thousands of years, the identity of the forbidden fruit eaten by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden story has been unknown. If the fruit is the traditionally believed apple, or another literal fruit, it would simply be called by its literal name, and not the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Because eating a piece of this literal fruit would give only knowledge of the literal fruit's taste, not knowledge of good and evil. So...

If literal fruit is not the fruit in the world's oldest and greatest mystery story, then what is the fruit? Why are the two super secret trees assigned the mystical names "tree of life" and "tree of knowledge of good and evil?" Is the talking snake Evil Angel speaking words, or does the talk represent something more subtle? Could two men have yielded to Adam and Eve's temptation? Why would a smart man and woman eat from a forbidden fruit tree, instead of from one that is NOT forbidden, especially when both "trees" are right next to each other in the center of the Garden? How is the couple's disobedience of the very first commandment to be fruitful and multiply while in the Garden linked to their decision to make only fig leaf aprons, instead of complete clothing, in this incomprehensible narrative, with its guesswork of interpretations and its hints of sexual behavior?

A lone exegesis combines all six questions for one answer, using only evidence in the dreamlike Bible chronicle, for an intelligent and sensible explanation of the world's oldest and greatest fruit mystery. This evidence in the Genesis 2 and 3 Bible story identifies the fruit as carnal pleasure. The solid evidence offers no support for historical fruit identity opinions. But, even with the evidence, is this unique exegesis the correct exegesis?


*****
Bad Day in the Garden

They eat the fruit, but what do they eat?
We lift the veil, for a wary peek.
Through a forest of mystery hiding it all,
We see a body, naked and weak.

"The Random House Dictionary of the English Language" defines allegory as "a representation of an abstract, or spiritual meaning through concrete, or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another." It's difficult to imagine a better definition than this one. But it's even more difficult to imagine anyone making any sense of the second and third chapters of Genesis by taking everything in the two chapters literally. When was the last time someone went into a grocery store and bought some knowledge of good and evil fruit?

Although most elements in Genesis 2 and 3 represent something else, there are a number of facts in the story that can be taken at face value.

1. Adam and Eve have real human bodies.
2. Adam and Eve are not wearing any clothes.
3. God has forbidden them to do something.
4. They have disobeyed God.
5. God has punished them both for their disobedience.

The above five facts form the basis for the religious beliefs of many people who are not interested in allegories, and of many who are. But there is an all-important sixth fact, the knowledge of which would do no harm to anyone's religious beliefs.

This BODY is the Garden in whose center grow
The two famous trees, but nowhere a weevil.
Here is the tree of life and the one
Of knowledge of good and knowledge of evil.

This sixth fact is the key that unlocks the door, opens it, and solves the mystery: both trees are in the center of the garden. This fact is so important that it is mentioned, not just once, but twice: Genesis 2:9 and Genesis 3:3. (In Genesis 3:3 the tree of life is not specifically mentioned, but we know it is there, because we were told it is there in Genesis 2:9.) Technically, both trees could not occupy the center of the garden at the same time, unless they were entwined. But, there is no evidence for entwinement here. What these two verses tell us, is that both trees are very close to each other.

Because the two trees are right next to each other
Care must be taken to avoid the one bad.
For the fruit of both trees is pleasure,
So the pleasure is there to be had.

To be fruitful and multiply eat from the first.
But eat from the second and no one conceives.
So here we go now: one, two, three--
Pleasure, shame, fig tree leaves.

God's first commandment to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply. To be fruitful and multiply, eat from the first. But eat from the second and no one conceives. Adam and Eve eat from the forbidden second tree, and as a result, produce no children while in the Garden of Eden. Instead of engaging in the procreative process as commanded, they use, as a procreative organ, a delivery system designed for delivery, but not for delivery of children.

This material is not just a brain teaser, nor hopefully is it an example of sophomoric cleverness. It's really quite simple: explanations of certain fearful mysteries buried in the story for thousands of years, have been exhumed by using verse, rather than prose, to more easily reveal these explanations. The quality of the verse is both irrelevant and unimportant.

Please note: some parts of the story are totally acceptable as both symbolic and literal narrative, at least up to a point. For example, the symbolic garden can be juxtaposed with a literal garden, complete with fruit trees. Other sections can be taken as literal accounts, extra material such as Genesis 3:20-21, in which Adam gives Eve her name and God shows compassion for the pair by clothing them in animal skins for warmth, before evicting them from the garden, symbolic and literal, into the graceless and cold outside world where they forfeit their gift of eternal life they would have had if they had eaten only from the tree of life. (Genesis 3:22)

*****
Preliminary Wrap

The Genesis story tells us in Genesis 2:9 and 3:3 both trees are in the center of the Garden. So the forbidden Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is right next to the allowed tree, the Tree of Life, and its fruit. If the forbidden fruit from the forbidden tree is literal fruit, the eating of this fruit would give only knowledge of the fruit's taste, not knowledge of good and evil. But the covering of the genitals with fig leaf aprons following the eating of the "fruit" does indicate sudden acquisition of knowledge of good and evil, a knowledge that results in a certain type of shame. It is difficult to understand how eating literal fruit results in this type of shame. And it is difficult to understand how normal and necessary physical relations between Adam and Eve result in this type of shame, since the first and only specified commandment to them is to "Be fruitful and multiply" in the Garden, a commandment they disobey, because no children are produced until after the eviction from Eden, and after they have normal and necessary physical relations for the first time in Genesis 4:1. But their obedience is too late: guardian cherubim and a flaming sword prevent reentry into the Garden.

Adam and Eve execute a double disobedience when they eat of the forbidden fruit--they fail to procreate, by doing what they are forbidden to do. And they fail to procreate, by not doing what they are commanded to do. Both failures occur simultaneously. The fruit in the Garden of Eden is not forbidden carnal pleasure, but forbidden nonprocreative carnal pleasure--nonprocreative carnal pleasure derived from a specific forbidden physical act.

*****
Postscript: Traditional Identity of The Fruit Persists

The widespread belief that the fruit is an apple has its genesis in the 12th century, based on Saint Jerome's earlier 4th century Vulgate translation, in which he substituted the later corrected "malum," meaning "apple," for "malus," meaning "evil," to identify the forbidden fruit Adam and Eve ate. And this error remains the apex identity reaching us in the 21st century, still based on no evidence for the existence of a literal fruit. But to end on a positive note, the acceptance of the evidence-based exegesis of the identity of the fruit in the world's oldest mystery story is at last making headway, as increasing numbers of people manage to set aside the emotions and feelings spinning them in circles, and acknowledge--at least until a better exegesis appears--the evidence in the Bible story of the talking fruit snake. This long-forgotten exegesis explains everything as it superimposes the allegorical Eden Garden upon its literal counterpart. The exegesis offers enlightenment for the untrue and oft repeated, "Only God knows what fruit they ate." Yes, a Deity would know what "fruit" they "ate," but the evidence in the Genesis story reveals the Deity's knowledge of the fruit's identity to anyone who wishes to know, and has the courage to overcome their emotional resistance and uneasiness resulting from being exposed to this knowledge. Would this exposure be eating forbidden knowledge once again? Would a Deity want us to remain ignorant of the Genesis story's meaning? No to both questions, because our garden is not their Garden--we are not living in the Garden of Eden's state of grace. And secondly, the evidence in the story clearly tells us that Adam and Eve did not disobey the "be fruitful and multiply" Genesis 1:28 commandment for the purpose of acquiring knowledge of good and evil. Their acquisition of this knowledge was a byproduct of their disobedient behavior, which was to experience nonprocreative physical pleasure by eating allegorical fruit from the allegorical wrong tree in the center of an allegorical garden, while at the same time quite possibly living in a literal garden with literal fruit trees and literal snakes that do not talk to women.

*****
Just Another Doctrinal Neologism?

Is this exegesis beginning with Genesis 1:28, continuing through Genesis 2 and 3, and concluding with Genesis 4:1 just another neologism? No, it is not. If the exegesis is only another neologism, but not the exhumation and revelation of the original story, then not only do the individuals who first hear the story have absolutely no idea what the story means, but neither does the original storyteller. Imagine the storyteller saying, "Sometimes I just say things. I don't know what they mean." It is somewhat difficult to imagine this event happening.

If it does happen, then the original storyteller tells the story while having no understanding of the words being said, unless the storyteller decides to deliberately disguise and beautify the story, to hide its true meaning. This will certainly require complex ability, to intentionally mystify at the very dawn of human consciousness. It will also require the original listeners to not ask the original storyteller any questions about this new story--a story that makes no sense. So, the mystification probably happens later. And, of course, when it does, everyone will know the meaning of the entire story. For a while.

*****
Summary and a Question

They disobey the Genesis 1:28 commandment--the first commandment--to "be fruitful and multiply [in the Garden]" when they become one flesh incorrectly (Genesis 2:24) by eating from the wrong tree in the Garden's center (Genesis 2:9).

The entire evidence-based exegesis is included in the preceding one-sentence summary you have just read. But why was this confusing allegory, whatever its meaning, constructed in the first place, as the original literal story most certainly came first, a story which confused absolutely no one, unlike the allegory into which it evolved?

[Stoppelmann]

For thousands of years, the identity of the forbidden fruit eaten by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden story has been unknown. If the fruit is the traditionally believed apple, or another literal fruit, it would simply be called by its literal name, and not the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Because eating a piece of this literal fruit would give only knowledge of the literal fruit's taste, not knowledge of good and evil. So...

If literal fruit is not the fruit in the world's oldest and greatest mystery story, then what is the fruit? Why are the two super secret trees assigned the mystical names "tree of life" and "tree of knowledge of good and evil?" Is the talking snake Evil Angel speaking words, or does the talk represent something more subtle? Could two men have yielded to Adam and Eve's temptation? Why would a smart man and woman eat from a forbidden fruit tree, instead of from one that is NOT forbidden, especially when both "trees" are right next to each other in the center of the Garden? How is the couple's disobedience of the very first commandment to be fruitful and multiply while in the Garden linked to their decision to make only fig leaf aprons, instead of complete clothing, in this incomprehensible narrative, with its guesswork of interpretations and its hints of sexual behavior?

A lone exegesis combines all six questions for one answer, using only evidence in the dreamlike Bible chronicle, for an intelligent and sensible explanation of the world's oldest and greatest fruit mystery. This evidence in the Genesis 2 and 3 Bible story identifies the fruit as carnal pleasure. The solid evidence offers no support for historical fruit identity opinions. But, even with the evidence, is this unique exegesis the correct exegesis?

You seem to have many problems with a text that is essentially mythological and symbolic. It seems to me that it is clear that the fruit of a “tree of knowledge of good and evil” cannot be anything but a metaphor for the awakening of humankind out of immediate participation, caused by curiosity. The story suggests that the innocence was intended, but others have said that it is inevitable and therefore expected that the trees would awaken curiosity. The snake has come to mean more than the story suggests, which is a suggestion of subtlety, shrewdness, and even prudence, which is the way the word ā·rūm (that describes the snake) is used in the Bible in 7 other places.

The trees are not secret, just forbidden, though they stand in the middle of the garden as though it is expected for Adam or Eve to enquire. When we awaken to a differentiating awareness of the world, we encounter the facts that we are exposed, that we misinterpret the dangers, that women are predisposed to childbirth and its discomfort and dangers, and that we must work endlessly to survive. These physical facts were always there, but it is the awareness of them that causes us more suffering. DT Suzuki wrote in his book, I think it was essays on Zen Buddhism, that the story of Buddha has similarities. Siddhartha Gautama is a prince in a palace where he is shielded from the suffering of the world. When he left the palace with Channa, a royal servant and head charioteer of Prince Siddhartha, he saw an old person, a sick person, a corpse, and finally, someone attempting to follow a spiritual path. Having been so protected, he was shocked by the suffering he saw. When Channa explained to him that all people grew old, grow sick, and die, the prince went on further trips beyond the palace and finally, after many trials, he “awoke” and became the Buddha.

That is why I believe that the Christian story is also one of enlightenment and coming to terms with suffering. I find it interesting that the Buddha is 29 when he goes off to seek enlightenment, a similar age to the 30-year-old Jesus. Although Christian theology says he was divine from the beginning, there is a line of thought that says that we are all divine, but lost in suffering and we yearn for the innocence of childhood (or paradise), which will never return in the same way, but as a synthesis of the experience of childhood and the awakening to the reality of being, which provides us with enlightenment.

Bad Day in the Garden

They eat the fruit, but what do they eat?
We lift the veil, for a wary peek.
Through a forest of mystery hiding it all,
We see a body, naked and weak.

"The Random House Dictionary of the English Language" defines allegory as "a representation of an abstract, or spiritual meaning through concrete, or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another." It's difficult to imagine a better definition than this one. But it's even more difficult to imagine anyone making any sense of the second and third chapters of Genesis by taking everything in the two chapters literally. When was the last time someone went into a grocery store and bought some knowledge of good and evil fruit?

Since the age that is called the enlightenment, which we can see as a step back from the confusion of confrontation with suffering, and a rational enquiry into what the truth is of the natural world, we tend to fall into the other extreme to the superstitions that had caused more suffering rather than healing. Our narrowing of our observations to single phenomenon, dissecting and examining in the attempt to explain the world, has to some degree taken away our ability to still see the mystery of existence as a whole. We are allergic to ambiguity, we can’t accept the vagueness of our perceptions, or the opacity of consciousness. But without a holistic view of existence, we see things as the accumulation of single phenomena, and fail to see that the whole is more than the sum of the parts.

So too with the story of the garden, the five “facts” you mention are just aspects of a allegorical narration, which enable us to identify with the story. As always with allegory, it doesn’t help to dissect it, but must as a whole take its course.

This sixth fact is the key that unlocks the door, opens it, and solves the mystery: both trees are in the center of the garden. This fact is so important that it is mentioned, not just once, but twice: Genesis 2:9 and Genesis 3:3. (In Genesis 3:3 the tree of life is not specifically mentioned, but we know it is there, because we were told it is there in Genesis 2:9.) Technically, both trees could not occupy the center of the garden at the same time, unless they were entwined. But, there is no evidence for entwinement here. What these two verses tell us, is that both trees are very close to each other.

Because the two trees are right next to each other
Care must be taken to avoid the one bad.
For the fruit of both trees is pleasure,
So the pleasure is there to be had.

To be fruitful and multiply eat from the first.
But eat from the second and no one conceives.
So here we go now: one, two, three--
Pleasure, shame, fig tree leaves.

This is an interesting poem, and worth consideration, but I tend to like the whole story as it is. I have always been a literature and poetry nut, and have interpreted many poems in the past, but I often felt the way a biologist said he felt, who had chosen his profession because he liked animals and found himself at the beginning of his studies killing and dissecting them. Stories and poems live from the movement they suggest, which is incorporated into the language and the reason why translations must be very good to work, and rarely do in the same way as the original. Being an allegory, the centrality of the trees probably alludes to the centrality of their importance rather than a physical position, and the tree of life is taken away until humankind is ready – enlightened and awake to the “ground of being” and the nature of existence.

Matthieu Pageau says in his important book: “At first glance, the narrative implies that these trees are opposites, but there are also suggestions that they are one and the same.” He sees it more in the symbolism that the editors of the OT adopted throughout and connects it with. “I have set before you today life and good, and death and bad... I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, and the blessing and the curse. Therefore, choose life, that you and your seed may live (Deut. 30:15-19). He says, “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad is based on the same fundamental pattern as Mount Ebal and Gerizim. The only difference is that the axle of time, or “tree of death,” is not mentioned explicitly in the Garden story. Instead, death and exile are viewed as the natural consequences of losing the tree of life. In other words, the “tree of death” is merely the absence of the “tree of life” in that context […] In biblical cosmology, humanity’s purpose in the universe is to know God as the perfect answer to the riddle of life and death. However, in the story of the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were not fully prepared to deal with this paradox at greater scales. Therefore, they were strictly forbidden from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge.”
Pageau, Matthieu. The Language of Creation: Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis.

God's first commandment to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply. To be fruitful and multiply, eat from the first. But eat from the second and no one conceives. Adam and Eve eat from the forbidden second tree, and as a result, produce no children while in the Garden of Eden. Instead of engaging in the procreative process as commanded, they use, as a procreative organ, a delivery system designed for delivery, but not for delivery of children.

This material is not just a brain teaser, nor hopefully is it an example of sophomoric cleverness. It's really quite simple: explanations of certain fearful mysteries buried in the story for thousands of years, have been exhumed by using verse, rather than prose, to more easily reveal these explanations. The quality of the verse is both irrelevant and unimportant.

The command “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” is part of another story, and I think shouldn’t be conflated with the story of the “fall”. Many have said that the first story should, if it were to fit in with the second, follow the second, which would then be associated with the expulsion, but that wouldn’t fit either, because the stories are written with a different intent.

Preliminary Wrap

The Genesis story tells us in Genesis 2:9 and 3:3 both trees are in the center of the Garden. So the forbidden Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is right next to the allowed tree, the Tree of Life, and its fruit. If the forbidden fruit from the forbidden tree is literal fruit, the eating of this fruit would give only knowledge of the fruit's taste, not knowledge of good and evil. But the covering of the genitals with fig leaf aprons following the eating of the "fruit" does indicate sudden acquisition of knowledge of good and evil, a knowledge that results in a certain type of shame. It is difficult to understand how eating literal fruit results in this type of shame. And it is difficult to understand how normal and necessary physical relations between Adam and Eve result in this type of shame, since the first and only specified commandment to them is to "Be fruitful and multiply" in the Garden, a commandment they disobey, because no children are produced until after the eviction from Eden, and after they have normal and necessary physical relations for the first time in Genesis 4:1. But their obedience is too late: guardian cherubim and a flaming sword prevent reentry into the Garden.

Adam and Eve execute a double disobedience when they eat of the forbidden fruit--they fail to procreate, by doing what they are forbidden to do. And they fail to procreate, by not doing what they are commanded to do. Both failures occur simultaneously. The fruit in the Garden of Eden is not forbidden carnal pleasure, but forbidden nonprocreative carnal pleasure--nonprocreative carnal pleasure derived from a specific forbidden physical act.

The allowance to eat of the tree of life is included in the “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,” but this was only acceptable for as long as humankinds’ innocence is preserved. The suggestion is that “living forever” in the condition they had assumed by their partial awareness and the consequent suffering, should not persist. Therefore, a limit was set. Once again, in need of interpretation, because the mythological element of the story is telling us of an occurrence in every one of us, and not an “inheritance” from times long gone.

Although there has been a lot of speculation on the story, I think that the allegorical, mythological and symbolic nature of the story is lost in much of modern interpretation, even to theologians, who tend to follow traditions without considering others, like Buddhism, who after all are living the same life and have essentially the same questions.

[Sculptor1]

For thousands of years, the identity of the forbidden fruit eaten by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden story has been unknown.

You know this fruit is a metaphor?

[Robert Hagedorn]

It would be helpful if someone would comment on the entire exegesis as a whole work, avoid deflection, and put philosophical skills to use by attempting to answer the final question of why the original literal story, whatever it may be, evolved into an allegory that confuses everyone and forces the creation of conflicting opinions.

[Alias]

It's a very old story, passed from culture to culture, handed down from generation to generation, translated from language to language, altered at every telling until some Hebrew scholar wrote it down, but after that, it was still re-translate and transcribed for different cultures.
It's a story.

[Greatest I am]

For thousands of years, the identity of the forbidden fruit eaten by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden story has been unknown.

An apple tree gives apples.

An orange tree gives oranges.

I do not believe that you would think that most people could be so stupid that they could not dither out that a tree of knowledge, --- would give knowledge, --- just as the bible says it does.

In fact, given that all knowledge is subject to being good and or evil, the TOK could be read as the tree of all knowledge.

Just like the tree of life in Kabballa and other ancient religions.

I hope you are wise enough to recognize that the heroes of Eden are both female. Eve and Satan, the Light Bringer.

Regards
DL

[Stoppelmann]

It's a very old story, passed from culture to culture, handed down from generation to generation, translated from language to language, altered at every telling until some Hebrew scholar wrote it down, but after that, it was still re-translate and transcribed for different cultures.
It's a story.

This is really a typical statement of our time, when narratives are not appreciated as anything but “just a story”. The fact that stories can have meaning seems lost to many people today, which is a phenomenon that Iain McGilchrist associates with a habitual use of the left brain hemisphere, that can’t cope with narrative. The neglect of right hemispheric abilities, he says, occurs every now and again in history, and constitutes a cultural regression and meaning crisis.

It is the right hemisphere that understands the emotional or the humorous aspect of a narrative; it is also better able to appreciate irony and sarcasm – all that is not explicit but radically alters meaning. There is a large literature showing that the right hemisphere is crucial for appreciation of cartoons, jokes and humour of every kind, and that damage to the right hemisphere impairs all forms of humour comprehension and generation. In fact, right hemisphere-damaged patients find it hard to tell the difference between jokes and lies – neither of which, after all, are factually correct. The right hemisphere alone can infer the overall meaning of both conversation and narratives; and it is the right hemisphere that makes judgments about the truth or plausibility of these narratives, either as regards story elements, or as a whole. Right hemisphere damage leads to difficulty in understanding or deriving the theme of a story, organising sentences into stories, recalling connexions between story elements, and above all in getting the ‘gist’. It also leads to problems understanding non-literal meaning, eg, metaphor; and figurative language, which is common in narratives of all kinds, places particular demands on semantic integration, which requires the right temporal cortex to be intact. Even just mentally rearranging words into a sentence is impaired in right hemisphere damage.
McGilchrist, Iain . The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (p. 313). Perspectiva Press. Kindle Edition.

If you look around, you find that there are enough voices telling us that the meaning crisis is upon us, one of them, Dr John Vervaeke, has done a great deal of work on this subject, much of it available online (https://www.meaningcrisis.co/the-introd ... %E2%80%8B/). He writes:

The Meaning Crisis is at the root of modern crises of mental health, the response to environmental collapse, and the political system. We are drowning in ******** – literally “meaninglessness”. We feel disconnected from ourselves, each other, the world, and a viable future…. Many people are talking about The Meaning Crisis, but what I want to argue is that these problems are deeper than just social media problems, political problems, even economic problems… they’re deeply historical, cultural, cognitive problems.”

The meaning crisis is also visible in modern entertainment, especially in adaptions of classical sources, which have a large following, and expresses itself in the pointless re-interpretation of time-tested stories, revered for generations, and newly presented with nonsensical and incoherent storylines, contradicting the original material, and resembling a banal soap-story rather than the epic drama it seeks to emulate.

[Baby Augustine]

I taught Bible at a seminary so I immediately recall several points

1) Apple did not mean 'apple' when it entered the discussion of the Bible

In Middle English and as late as 17c., it was a generic term for all fruit other than berries but including nuts (such as Old English fingeræppla "dates," literally "finger-apples;" Middle English appel of paradis "banana," c. 1400). Hence its grafting onto the unnamed "fruit of the forbidden tree" in Genesis.

2) Even if there is a correct answer there is no De Fide Faith answer. You can think it was a watermelon and be a good Christian

3) More important is the location : The two trees are in the middle of creation, in the middle of human existence, and reality. Good and evil, reminders of God and our duty and love are in the CENTER of everything.

[Alan Masterman]

This is the brief exegesis? Pls spare us the long version...

[Pattern-chaser]

It would be helpful if someone would comment on the entire exegesis as a whole work, avoid deflection, and put philosophical skills to use by attempting to answer the final question of why the original literal story, whatever it may be, evolved into an allegory that confuses everyone and forces the creation of conflicting opinions.

Literal? You think the original source of the story is literally true? Not an allegory from the start?

[Baby Augustine]

There is no doubt it was literal from the start. See Fr Cornelius a Lapide's commentary on Genesis 1-3

[Alan Masterman]

I'm staying out of this!

[Pattern-chaser]

It would be helpful if someone would comment on the entire exegesis as a whole work, avoid deflection, and put philosophical skills to use by attempting to answer the final question of why the original literal story, whatever it may be, evolved into an allegory that confuses everyone and forces the creation of conflicting opinions.

Literal? You think the original source of the story is literally true? Not an allegory from the start?

There is no doubt it was literal from the start.

Then I withdraw. There is no discussion to be had with those who have "no doubt" about anything.

[Stoppelmann]

It would be helpful if someone would comment on the entire exegesis as a whole work, avoid deflection, and put philosophical skills to use by attempting to answer the final question of why the original literal story, whatever it may be, evolved into an allegory that confuses everyone and forces the creation of conflicting opinions.

Literal? You think the original source of the story is literally true? Not an allegory from the start?

There is no doubt it was literal from the start.

Then I withdraw. There is no discussion to be had with those who have "no doubt" about anything.

I completely understand, and lacking an interaction with the comment I made, it seems that Robert wants a specific answer, which is not helpful ...

[Sculptor1]

For thousands of years, the identity of the forbidden fruit eaten by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden story has been unknown. If the fruit is the traditionally believed apple, or another literal fruit, it would simply be called by its literal name, and not the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Because eating a piece of this literal fruit would give only knowledge of the literal fruit's taste, not knowledge of good and evil. So...

No.
This is wrong because you start with a misconception. The fruit has no identity. There was no "literal" fruit.
It's not "brief" either.
The story of Eden is just an old myth that has grown to absurd proportions, and those that originally brought it to the oral tradition had no idea that a person would be writing "brief exegesis" about it 3000 years later.
It's probably more likely to be the invention of some mean old guy who wanted to keep people out of his orchard, than some amazing cryptic message from Gawd.

Myths thrive because of how they function in society. They rely on reproduction through the generations before they get written down and it is not until then that they stop growing and evolving.
What is the moral of this story?
1) Mind your own business and stay in your lane. Knowledge is for the elders and not for the young.
2) Keep your clothes on and leave our daughters alone. Girls stop temping men with your nakedness, so stay in the home.
So we can say at the time on writing a literate person was interested to record a traditional old story from the oral history of his (probably not a women) culture.
It does not deserve the time you spent writing this "brief" exegesis.



If literal fruit is not the fruit in the world's oldest and greatest mystery story, then what is the fruit? Why are the two super secret trees assigned the mystical names "tree of life" and "tree of knowledge of good and evil?" Is the talking snake Evil Angel speaking words, or does the talk represent something more subtle? Could two men have yielded to Adam and Eve's temptation? Why would a smart man and woman eat from a forbidden fruit tree, instead of from one that is NOT forbidden, especially when both "trees" are right next to each other in the center of the Garden? How is the couple's disobedience of the very first commandment to be fruitful and multiply while in the Garden linked to their decision to make only fig leaf aprons, instead of complete clothing, in this incomprehensible narrative, with its guesswork of interpretations and its hints of sexual behavior?

A lone exegesis combines all six questions for one answer, using only evidence in the dreamlike Bible chronicle, for an intelligent and sensible explanation of the world's oldest and greatest fruit mystery. This evidence in the Genesis 2 and 3 Bible story identifies the fruit as carnal pleasure. The solid evidence offers no support for historical fruit identity opinions. But, even with the evidence, is this unique exegesis the correct exegesis?


*****
Bad Day in the Garden

They eat the fruit, but what do they eat?
We lift the veil, for a wary peek.
Through a forest of mystery hiding it all,
We see a body, naked and weak.

"The Random House Dictionary of the English Language" defines allegory as "a representation of an abstract, or spiritual meaning through concrete, or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another." It's difficult to imagine a better definition than this one. But it's even more difficult to imagine anyone making any sense of the second and third chapters of Genesis by taking everything in the two chapters literally. When was the last time someone went into a grocery store and bought some knowledge of good and evil fruit?

Although most elements in Genesis 2 and 3 represent something else, there are a number of facts in the story that can be taken at face value.

1. Adam and Eve have real human bodies.
2. Adam and Eve are not wearing any clothes.
3. God has forbidden them to do something.
4. They have disobeyed God.
5. God has punished them both for their disobedience.

The above five facts form the basis for the religious beliefs of many people who are not interested in allegories, and of many who are. But there is an all-important sixth fact, the knowledge of which would do no harm to anyone's religious beliefs.

This BODY is the Garden in whose center grow
The two famous trees, but nowhere a weevil.
Here is the tree of life and the one
Of knowledge of good and knowledge of evil.

This sixth fact is the key that unlocks the door, opens it, and solves the mystery: both trees are in the center of the garden. This fact is so important that it is mentioned, not just once, but twice: Genesis 2:9 and Genesis 3:3. (In Genesis 3:3 the tree of life is not specifically mentioned, but we know it is there, because we were told it is there in Genesis 2:9.) Technically, both trees could not occupy the center of the garden at the same time, unless they were entwined. But, there is no evidence for entwinement here. What these two verses tell us, is that both trees are very close to each other.

Because the two trees are right next to each other
Care must be taken to avoid the one bad.
For the fruit of both trees is pleasure,
So the pleasure is there to be had.

To be fruitful and multiply eat from the first.
But eat from the second and no one conceives.
So here we go now: one, two, three--
Pleasure, shame, fig tree leaves.

God's first commandment to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply. To be fruitful and multiply, eat from the first. But eat from the second and no one conceives. Adam and Eve eat from the forbidden second tree, and as a result, produce no children while in the Garden of Eden. Instead of engaging in the procreative process as commanded, they use, as a procreative organ, a delivery system designed for delivery, but not for delivery of children.

This material is not just a brain teaser, nor hopefully is it an example of sophomoric cleverness. It's really quite simple: explanations of certain fearful mysteries buried in the story for thousands of years, have been exhumed by using verse, rather than prose, to more easily reveal these explanations. The quality of the verse is both irrelevant and unimportant.

Please note: some parts of the story are totally acceptable as both symbolic and literal narrative, at least up to a point. For example, the symbolic garden can be juxtaposed with a literal garden, complete with fruit trees. Other sections can be taken as literal accounts, extra material such as Genesis 3:20-21, in which Adam gives Eve her name and God shows compassion for the pair by clothing them in animal skins for warmth, before evicting them from the garden, symbolic and literal, into the graceless and cold outside world where they forfeit their gift of eternal life they would have had if they had eaten only from the tree of life. (Genesis 3:22)

*****
Preliminary Wrap

The Genesis story tells us in Genesis 2:9 and 3:3 both trees are in the center of the Garden. So the forbidden Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is right next to the allowed tree, the Tree of Life, and its fruit. If the forbidden fruit from the forbidden tree is literal fruit, the eating of this fruit would give only knowledge of the fruit's taste, not knowledge of good and evil. But the covering of the genitals with fig leaf aprons following the eating of the "fruit" does indicate sudden acquisition of knowledge of good and evil, a knowledge that results in a certain type of shame. It is difficult to understand how eating literal fruit results in this type of shame. And it is difficult to understand how normal and necessary physical relations between Adam and Eve result in this type of shame, since the first and only specified commandment to them is to "Be fruitful and multiply" in the Garden, a commandment they disobey, because no children are produced until after the eviction from Eden, and after they have normal and necessary physical relations for the first time in Genesis 4:1. But their obedience is too late: guardian cherubim and a flaming sword prevent reentry into the Garden.

Adam and Eve execute a double disobedience when they eat of the forbidden fruit--they fail to procreate, by doing what they are forbidden to do. And they fail to procreate, by not doing what they are commanded to do. Both failures occur simultaneously. The fruit in the Garden of Eden is not forbidden carnal pleasure, but forbidden nonprocreative carnal pleasure--nonprocreative carnal pleasure derived from a specific forbidden physical act.

*****
Postscript: Traditional Identity of The Fruit Persists

The widespread belief that the fruit is an apple has its genesis in the 12th century, based on Saint Jerome's earlier 4th century Vulgate translation, in which he substituted the later corrected "malum," meaning "apple," for "malus," meaning "evil," to identify the forbidden fruit Adam and Eve ate. And this error remains the apex identity reaching us in the 21st century, still based on no evidence for the existence of a literal fruit. But to end on a positive note, the acceptance of the evidence-based exegesis of the identity of the fruit in the world's oldest mystery story is at last making headway, as increasing numbers of people manage to set aside the emotions and feelings spinning them in circles, and acknowledge--at least until a better exegesis appears--the evidence in the Bible story of the talking fruit snake. This long-forgotten exegesis explains everything as it superimposes the allegorical Eden Garden upon its literal counterpart. The exegesis offers enlightenment for the untrue and oft repeated, "Only God knows what fruit they ate." Yes, a Deity would know what "fruit" they "ate," but the evidence in the Genesis story reveals the Deity's knowledge of the fruit's identity to anyone who wishes to know, and has the courage to overcome their emotional resistance and uneasiness resulting from being exposed to this knowledge. Would this exposure be eating forbidden knowledge once again? Would a Deity want us to remain ignorant of the Genesis story's meaning? No to both questions, because our garden is not their Garden--we are not living in the Garden of Eden's state of grace. And secondly, the evidence in the story clearly tells us that Adam and Eve did not disobey the "be fruitful and multiply" Genesis 1:28 commandment for the purpose of acquiring knowledge of good and evil. Their acquisition of this knowledge was a byproduct of their disobedient behavior, which was to experience nonprocreative physical pleasure by eating allegorical fruit from the allegorical wrong tree in the center of an allegorical garden, while at the same time quite possibly living in a literal garden with literal fruit trees and literal snakes that do not talk to women.

*****
Just Another Doctrinal Neologism?

Is this exegesis beginning with Genesis 1:28, continuing through Genesis 2 and 3, and concluding with Genesis 4:1 just another neologism? No, it is not. If the exegesis is only another neologism, but not the exhumation and revelation of the original story, then not only do the individuals who first hear the story have absolutely no idea what the story means, but neither does the original storyteller. Imagine the storyteller saying, "Sometimes I just say things. I don't know what they mean." It is somewhat difficult to imagine this event happening.

If it does happen, then the original storyteller tells the story while having no understanding of the words being said, unless the storyteller decides to deliberately disguise and beautify the story, to hide its true meaning. This will certainly require complex ability, to intentionally mystify at the very dawn of human consciousness. It will also require the original listeners to not ask the original storyteller any questions about this new story--a story that makes no sense. So, the mystification probably happens later. And, of course, when it does, everyone will know the meaning of the entire story. For a while.

*****
Summary and a Question

They disobey the Genesis 1:28 commandment--the first commandment--to "be fruitful and multiply [in the Garden]" when they become one flesh incorrectly (Genesis 2:24) by eating from the wrong tree in the Garden's center (Genesis 2:9).

The entire evidence-based exegesis is included in the preceding one-sentence summary you have just read. But why was this confusing allegory, whatever its meaning, constructed in the first place, as the original literal story most certainly came first, a story which confused absolutely no one, unlike the allegory into which it evolved?
[/quote]