The Tree of Knowledge

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

So what makes you think they had no knowledge of right and wrong, good or bad?

Might help if we henceforth use specific terms so as to avoid confusion? Moral good/right and moral bad/evil/wrong and consequential good and bad are being considered.


My brief response to your question is that the (con)text doesn't suggest they had any knowledge of moral good/bad. As we shall see later, your argument that they had this knowledge isn't based on the text itself - rather it's based on a particular ex-textual definition of sin.

More positively for my position, their knowledge of good and bad is described only in consequential terms. Both the prohibition and enticement are couched that way (this will occur vs. that will occur) as is her understanding of both the prohibition ("but God did say that on the day...") and enticement ".. saw it was desirable for gain..."). The sense that there is any moral awareness on their part is utterly absent.

Such is exegesis.

The tree was not a Tree of Knowledge, nor was it a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad, nor was it a tree of Knowledge of Morality. It was a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

When the serpent spoke to them he did not say "you will learn morality" nor did he say " you will learn of good and bad", he said "you shall be like gods knowing good and evil"

I know.

Are you suggesting we consider "good and evil" to refer to something other than moral good and evil? If not, then the term morality is but a short way of saying moral good and evil.

Let's not suppose that a "knowledge of right and left" can be taken to mean a knowledge of moral right and directional left. No, we take the term as a pair. And so, the very presence of the moral term 'evil' informs us that the good being referred to is moral good. Thus the tree is providing a knowledge of morality.

Prior to that had Eve responded the serpent that they had been commanded not to touch or eat of the tree lest they die. If Adam and Eve did not know that death was bad then the command from God was lost on them.

I agree.

However, the bad need only be understood as a bad consequence in order to exert effect. There need be no moral bad componant involved in their knowledge - in order that a restraining effect exist.

So we can draw from this that they know what bad was - death is bad. They knew that to disobey God was bad, for if they did not know this then they could not commit the sin of disobedience and take and eat the fruit.

The text permits us to conclude they knew disobeying God would have a negative consequence. They don't have to know it is morally bad to disobey in order to disobey. Disobedience merely means 'wilfully not doing what you're told to do'.

We are not justified in saying they have to have an awareness of moral good and bad in order to sin. Not without support for that definition of sin.

They committed an intentional and willful act of disobedience...

No argument here.

..If they had no knowledge of good and bad then they could not have committed a sin as a sin can only be committed with full knowledge that it is a sin...

It would depend on how you define sin. If it is defined only as " knowlingly and wilfully disobeying God" then there is no need for a moral knowledge per se - a consequential knowledge would be sufficient, the kind of knowledge we can extract as theirs from the pre-Fall text.

... and that it has consequences.

Indeed, the text suggests they knew there would be negative consequences.

Quite simply if they had no moral knowledge then they could not sin. They did sin therefore they had moral knowledge. After their sin they knew evil, though they appear to have shunned it but by then the damage was done and could not be undone. They physically knew evil. They had committed an evil act. An act they knew was wrong otherwise it could not have been a sin, the Original Sin.

I've questioned the opening assertion of this paragraph above. You also seem to be drawing a distinction between knowing moral wrong and knowing moral evil. Could you clarify what the different is and why you suppose this to be the case?

Before eating the fruit their knowledge of good and evil was theoretical. After eating the fruit their knowledge of good and evil was physical.

Can I suggest that there is no evidence in the text to suggest this?

Quite aside from their pre-fall theoretical knowledge of sex not being mentioned, a theoretical knowledge of sex can't be extrapolated into them having a theoretical knowledge of morality.

Where do you want to go next antiskeptic? - the logical conclusion of your argument is that Adam and Eve did not sin.

As we have seen, that conclusion is based not on the text but on a particular (unsupported btw) assertion regarding sin.

Do you want to apportion blame to God for creating the serpent or Lucifer?

No. But I would suggest that God is responsible for permitting the serpent access to the garden. I mean, it's not as if God didn't know what the serpent was up to.