Page:A Jewish Interpretation of the Book of Genesis (Morgenstern, 1919, jewishinterpreta00morg).pdf/78

Rh However, from a purely scientific standpoint it is clear that the original story spoke of only one tree in the center of the garden, the fruit of which God had forbidden to the man and his wife. The references to the tree of life were inserted by a later writer, at some time after the original story was first written down. It is noteworthy that vv. 23 and 24 tell twice, and with differing motives, of the expulsion of the man from the garden. Manifestly v. 23 is the conclusion of the original story, and tells that in accordance with the terms of the curse, man was driven from the garden to till the soil. Vv. 22 and 24, and also the reference in II, 9 to the tree of life, are the insertions of the later writer. II, 15 was likewise inserted by him. For on the one hand, it repeats unnecessarily the thought already stated in v. 8, that God had placed the man in the garden, and it adds the statement that man was to dress the garden and keep it. But since tilling the soil and bitter toil are, in the story proper, the punishment for his sin, and the implication is therefore, that previously man did not have to work, but merely plucked his food of fruit from the trees without trouble, this statement that man had to dress the garden is clearly out of place. The story is complete, harmonious, and most effective if it is omitted.

Probably, too, the original story spoke only of "the tree which is in the midst of the garden", and did not at first indicate its nature by calling it "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". This was partially revealed by the serpent. But unfortunately the serpent knew nothing of the real consequences of eating of the tree.

Thus its true nature was learned only through bitter experience. All this is implied in the language of III, 3,11 and 17, which speak only of "the tree which is in the midst of the garden". Certainly the dramatic impression is heightened, if the tree be designated only as "the tree which is in the midst of the garden", and it be left for its true nature to be discovered only when its fruit is first tasted. We recommend that the teacher tell the story as it must have been told by the original author, and that she, too, call it only "the tree which is in the midst of the garden", until the dramatic crisis of the story is reached, when the man and the woman eat of the tree and learn its true nature to their sorrow. Thereafter it may be called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Of the tree of life as little as possible should be said, since reference to it merely confuses, raises unnecessary and difficult questions, and beclouds the real meaning of the story.

Vv. 10-15 are not an integral part of the narrative, but were inserted by some late writer. They disturb the continuity of the story,