The Tree of Life 9004423737, 9789004423732

Table of contents :
‎Contents
‎Foreword
‎Figures
‎Abbreviations
‎Contributors
‎Introduction (Estes)
‎Chapter 1. The Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Literature (Echols)
‎Chapter 2. The Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Iconography (Balogh)
‎Chapter 3. The Tree of Life in Genesis (Heard)
‎Chapter 4. The Tree of Life in Proverbs and Psalms (Osborne)
‎Chapter 5. The Tree of Life in Jewish-Christian Legendary Texts (Lanfer)
‎Chapter 6. The Tree of Life in Ancient Apocalypse (Stovell)
‎Chapter 7. The Tree of Life in Enochic Literature (Penner)
‎Chapter 8. The Tree of Life in the Apocalypse of John (Estes)
‎Chapter 9. The Tree of Life in Early Christian Literature (Edwards)
‎Chapter 10. The Tree of Life in Philo (Leonhardt-Balzer)
‎Chapter 11. The Tree of Life in Gnostic Literature (Smith)
‎Chapter 12. The Tree of Life in Medieval Iconography (Salonius)
‎Chapter 13. The Tree of Life in the North (Murphy)
‎Chapter 14. The Tree of Life in Modern Theological Thought (Treier, Keepers and Kieser)
‎Conclusion (Estes)
‎Bibliography
‎Ancient Sources Index
‎Hebrew and Greek Word Index
‎Modern Author Index
‎Place Index
‎Subject Index

Citation preview

The Tree of Life

Themes in Biblical Narrative Jewish and Christian Traditions

Editorial Board Jacques T.A.G.M. van Ruiten Robert A. Kugler Loren T. Stuckenbruck

Advisory Board Reinhard Feldmeier George H. van Kooten Judith Lieu Hindy Najman Martti Nissinen J. Ross Wagner Robyn Whitaker

volume 27

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/tbn

The Tree of Life Edited by

Douglas Estes

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: Menorah Token, lead, Israel, 4th–6th century. Credit: The Walters Art Museum, museum purchase, 1993. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Estes, Douglas, editor. Title: The tree of life / edited by Douglas Estes. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2020. | Series: Themes in biblical narrative, 1388-3909 ; volume 27 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019055512 | ISBN 9789004423732 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004423756 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Tree of life. | Tree of life–Biblical teaching. | Tree of life–Comparative studies. Classification: LCC BV168.T7 T74 2020 | DDC 246/.55–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019055512

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill‑typeface. ISSN 1388-3909 ISBN 978-90-04-42373-2 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-42375-6 (e-book) Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Foreword vii James H. Charlesworth List of Figures x Abbreviations xiii Contributors xviii Introduction 1 Douglas Estes 1

The Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Literature Charles L. Echols

5

2

The Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Iconography Amy L. Balogh

3

The Tree of Life in Genesis Christopher Heard

4

The Tree of Life in Proverbs and Psalms William R. Osborne

5

The Tree of Life in Jewish-Christian Legendary Texts Peter T. Lanfer

6

The Tree of Life in Ancient Apocalypse Beth M. Stovell

7

The Tree of Life in Enochic Literature Ken M. Penner

8

The Tree of Life in the Apocalypse of John Douglas Estes

9

The Tree of Life in Early Christian Literature Mark Edwards

32

74

100

134

166

183

217

122

vi

contents

10

The Tree of Life in Philo 236 Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer

11

The Tree of Life in Gnostic Literature Carl B. Smith II

12

The Tree of Life in Medieval Iconography Pippa Salonius

13

The Tree of Life in the North G. Ronald Murphy, S.J.

14

The Tree of Life in Modern Theological Thought 365 Daniel J. Treier, Dustyn Elizabeth Keepers and Ty Kieser

280

344

Conclusion 387 Douglas Estes Bibliography 389 Ancient Sources Index 427 Hebrew and Greek Word Index Modern Author Index 447 Place Index 452 Subject Index 455

249

445

Foreword The earliest authors of our Bible introduce us to the symbolic and living importance of trees. In the garden of Eden are “trees of every kind bearing fruit;” God created them (1:12; 2:9). When the story focuses on “the LORD God,” the reader is introduced to “the Tree of Life” and “the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.” Both seem to be centered in the middle of the garden of Eden (2:8–9; 3:3). The only tree from which those made “in the image of God” (1:27) are prohibited to eat is “the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” (2:17). The LORD God warns that “as soon as you eat of it, you shall die” (2:17). “The woman,” who came from Adam and eventually will be named “Eve,” ate of the wrong tree because she did not possess “knowledge.” The compiler of many diverse myths obviously intended for us to contemplate that she intended to partake of “the Tree of Life,” even though she saw the tree was “a source of wisdom” (3:6). She obtains knowledge because she ate of “the Tree of Knowledge;” hence, she obtains insight, not wisdom, but loses everlasting life. The garden of Eden story is about change. The androgynous Adam gives up a rib and a creature appears; Adam becomes Ish, a “he” and calls the creature Isha, “woman.” She denigrates into “Eve” who must suffer in childbirth and eventually die. Adam, now Ish, “man,” was created to name all animals and to enjoy tilling the Garden. He is unperceptive, simply obeys Isha, eats the forbidden fruit, blames Isha for his disobedience, and is condemned to till laboriously the dirt to which he will return, and is condemned to die. These creatures are transformed; but the Nahash is transmogrified. He is introduced as a “beast of the field,” created by God; and he is the most clever (or wise as in the Targumim) among them. He becomes a crawling serpent, losing his ability to speak and is disposed of feet and hands. He must now eat dirt (which is the source and destiny of Adam and Eve).1 Only one of the images featured in this stunning and complex story does not change. The featured fauna, “the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” has attractive and bewitching fruit and it loses one of its fruit. The other fauna, “the Tree of Life” is dead center in Eden. It is unseen and is not described as having attractive fruit, although at the end of the story it is imagined to have fruit. Neither the woman nor man is attracted to “the Tree of Life.” It does not change. It 1 If readers cannot perceive these transformations and losses in the Garden of Eden Story, they should read Genesis Rabbah and the Targumim. They should also study ophidian iconography and ponder the images of Iron Age serpents illustrated in The Good and Evil Serpent (Yale University Press, 2010).

viii

foreword

loses not one fruit. It is dead in the center, lost, unobserved. It cannot speak like the stone in 4Baruch 9. It cannot provide shelter like Gilgamesh’s tree, Jonah’s Qiqayon, or Zosimos’ tree that drops fruit upon the holy man. This tree, “the Tree of Life,” is described neither actively nor passively, and is finally shut up in the Garden so that Eve and Seth, according to an early Jew, on seeing Adam’s aging body, cannot find it to obtain the “oil of mercy.” The illusive fruit, the symbolic goal of the human search, is taken away, separated from all and guarded by “the cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword” (3:24), but it was never touched (as the woman may have reported) nor even appreciated. The object, “the Tree of Life” symbolizes the human’s lack of perception, feeble actions, and eventual loss: Life. The tree—“the Tree of Life”—does not transmogrify, or even transform; it does not change. It remains stately and alone, by itself, in the center of the inaccessible garden of Eden that will be replaced in Jewish consciousness by a foreign garden: Paradise, in which all trees are ripe with fruit; sometimes they are the planted righteous ones who have a wreath of immortality. But Paradise is not perceived as the abode of “the Tree of Life.” Early hominoids, like Hebrews and Jews, observed that the tree has the ability to descend deep into the earth. The tree sends its roots into the earth for nourishment and life. And it is from such regions that life-sustaining water bubbles forth and trees, as all plants, receive their origins and death-defying sustenance. Humans are not like trees. Humans can descend into caves that lead into the earth; but they cannot descend beneath ground like a tree. Humans cannot perceive such origins; they lack knowledge, not knowing the source of water and life. Thus, the symbol of the tree was positive and an object of envy for humans who sought to know about the origin of life. Thousands of humans are born and die during the time a tree may live. Humans look up to trees, knowing they sheltered great grandparents and will shade great grandchildren. Trees can symbolize life; hence, in the dark recesses of our origins someone originated the concept of “the Tree of Life.” In antiquity, the serpent appears in images and documents with the tree. That striking combination is obvious in three major myths: In the Epic of Gilgamesh, in the story of “the Woman” (soon to be the fallen Eve) in the garden of Eden, and in the account of Hercules in the Garden of the Hesperides. Ancient art and sculptures depict a tree with an entwined serpent, and the symbology reappears throughout the history of art and literature, as I demonstrated in The Good and Evil Serpent. The following studies of “the Tree of Life” in ancient thought from prehistoric times to modernity demonstrate the symbolic, central importance, and

foreword

ix

longevity of the multivalent concept known as “the Tree of Life.” Early humans, who seldom lived to 30, lamented the loss of life, perhaps feeling that they should be like the apparently eternal tree.2 Not surprisingly, therefore, a mysterious tree appears in almost all ancient contexts, rising prominently in most creation myths. During the beginnings of Christianity, brilliant minds ruminated on Jesus’ live-giving death on the cross. It was sometimes portrayed in light of the tree, perhaps the tree of life; recall Acts: “But Peter and the apostles answered (and) stated: ‘We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus whom you killed by hanging him on a tree’” (5:29–30). Today, the life-giving importance of “the Tree of Life” is highlighted in synagogues when Jews lift up Torah leather scrolls with elegant wooden (or silver) rollers, called Etzei Chaim, “Trees of Life.” James H. Charlesworth Princeton Fall 2016 2 When I was lowered into a paleolithic cave on the cliffs west of Jericho, I saw vast numbers of human bones. They were piled high. I thought that most likely early humans, who seldom lived to 30, were confused by the loss of life. Such burial caves, Maẓẓevoth, and monuments to the dead suggest that from earliest times our ancestors lamented that they were not like the apparently eternal tree.

Figures 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 12.1 12.2 12.3

12.4

Cylinder Seal, Akkadian Period (2360–2180BCE), Mari (Keel and Schroer, Creation, fig. 19). Line drawing by Othmar Keel 38 Cylinder Seal, ca. 2500BCE, Shadad (Iran; Keel and Schroer, Creation, fig. 18). Line drawing by Othmar Keel 39 Cylinder Seal, Old Syrian (1750–1550BCE; Keel and Schroer, Creation, fig. 21). Line drawing by Othmar Keel 42 Pendent, Tell el-ʿAjul, MB IIB (Keel, Goddesses and Trees, 17). Line drawing by Othmar Keel 42 Scarab, Gezer, MB IIB (Keel, Goddesses and Trees, 26). Line drawing by Othmar Keel 43 Terracotta plaque, Tel Harassim, LB (Keel, Goddesses and Trees, fig. 52). Line drawing by Othmar Keel 43 Pithoi, Kuntillet Ajrud, IA IIB (Keel, Goddesses and Trees, fig. 77). Line drawing by Othmar Keel 44 Tomb painting, Valley of the Kings: Tomb of Thutmose (r. 1502–1448BCE; Keel, Symbolism, fig. 253). Line drawing by Othmar Keel 48 Tomb painting, Deir el Medinah: Tomb of Sennudyem, 19th dyn. (1345–1200; Keel, Symbolism, fig. 254). Line drawing by Othmar Keel 49 Cylinder Seal, Bet-Shean, IA IIB (Keel, Goddesses and Trees, fig. 90). Line drawing by Othmar Keel 60 Scarab, Beth-El, IA IIA (Keel, Goddess and Trees, fig. 72). Line drawing by Othmar Keel 62 Sandstone relief: Complex of Ramses III, Medinet Habu, ca. 1165BCE (Keel, Symbolism, fig. 352). Line drawing by Othmar Keel 65 Painting on a sarcophagus, Dynasty 23 (Koemoth, Osiris et les arbres, 144) 66 Painting of Osirian mound, New Kingdom (Mariette, Dendérah, vol. IV, pl. 66) 66 ‘Reichenau Gospel Book,’ Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, MS. Clm 4454, fol. 20v, urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb00004502-1. Eleventh century 282 ‘Ampulla with the Cross as the Tree of Life,’ Monza, Museo e Tesoro del Duomo, Monza 11. Sixth century. Photo: Bildarchiv Foto Marburg 284 ‘Cross from a Prayer Niche in Kellia,’ Cairo, The Coptic Museum, Inventory No. 12549. Sixth or seventh century. Photo: Sandro Vannini (Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2012) 285 ‘Phela Treasure Silver Paten,’ Bern, Abegg-Stiftung. Sixth or seventh century 286

figures 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9

12.10 12.11 12.12 12.13 12.14 12.15 12.16 12.17 12.18 12.19 12.20 12.21

12.22

12.23 12.24

xi

‘Sarcophagus of Honorius,’ Ravenna, Mausoleum of Galla Placidia, right side of sarcophagus lid. Beginning of sixth century 288 ‘Tympanum with Tree of Life,’ Prague, Altneuschul. ca. 1260 289 Joseph Asarfati, ‘Menorah,’ Cervera Bible, Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal, MS. IL. 72, fol. 316v. 1299–1300 292 ‘Ruthwell Cross,’ Scotland, Cummertrees, Mouswald and Ruthwell Church. Early eighth century. South West Images Scotland / Alamy Stock Photo 293 ‘Reliquary of Saint Isidore,’ León, Museo de San Isidoro Real Colegiata. ca. 1063. Photo: Fundació Institut Amatller d’Art Hispànic. Mas Archive 296 ‘Sutton Hoo Byzantine Bowls,’ London, British Museum. Sixth or early seventh century. (Image id. 00950604001) 298 ‘Saint Luke,’ Lichfield Gospels, Lichfield Cathedral Library, MS Lich. 01, fol. 218r. ca. 730 299 ‘Harbaville Triptych,’ Constantinople, Paris, Musée du Louvre, reverse side. Mid-tenth century 300 ‘Tree of Jesse,’ Chartres, Cathedral of Notre-Dame, window 49. ca. 1150. FORGET Patrick / SAGAPHOTO.com / Alamy Stock Photo 303 ‘Tree of Jesse,’ Swabia, Germany. New York, Metropolitan Museum, Accession no. 22.25 a–f. 1280–1300 304 Lorenzo Maitani, ‘Orvieto Cathedral Façade Relief Sculpture,’ Orvieto. 1310–1330 306 Lorenzo Maitani, ‘Tree of Jesse,’ Orvieto Cathedral. 1310–1330 307 ‘Mosaic Pavement,’ Jordan, Mount Nebo, Uyun Musa, Church of the Deacon Thomas. Sixth century. Photo: American Center of Oriental Research 308 ‘Mosaic Pavement,’ Otranto, Cathedral of Santa Maria Annunziata. 1163–1165 309 ‘Apse Mosaic,’ Rome, Basilica di San Clemente. Twelfth century 312 ‘The Heavenly Jerusalem,’ Cambridge, Trinity College, MS. R. 16.2, fol. 25v. ca. 1260 314 ‘Creation of Eve, Temptation and Fall of Man,’ Salerno Ivories, Salerno, Museo Diocesano. Eleventh-twelfth centuries. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz (Max-Planck-Institut) 315 ‘Mantle of King Roger II of Sicily,’ Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Weltliche Schatzkammer. 1133–1134. (Inv. Nr. WS XIII 14). Photo: KHM-Museumsverband 316 ‘Lignum vitae,’ London, British Library, Harley MS 5234, fol. 5r. ca. 1274–1300 320 Master of the Dominican Effigies, Lignum vitae, Florence, Convent of Santa Maria Novella, Chiostro verde. ca. 1360–1370. Photo: Ulrike Ilg 321

xii 12.25 12.26

12.27 13.1 13.2 13.3

figures Lignum vitae, Orvieto, Church of San Giovenale. 1290–1310 323 Pacino di Buonaguida, Lignum vitae, Florence, Galleria dell’Accademia. ca. 1310. Reproduced with permission of the Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali 326 ‘Tree of Saint Francis,’ Mexico, Toluca, Zinacantepec, Monastery of San Miguel. 1580s 331 A view of the Borgund church from the west southwest. Photograph by Neve Nera 354 The magnificent portal now placed on the north side of the church at Urnes in Norway. Photograph by Micha L. Reiser 359 Close up of the deer eating at the tree of the vine-branch-snake as it in turn bites him in the neck. Photograph by G. Ronald Murphy, S.J. 360

Abbreviations AB ABD AcBib ACCS AcOr ACW AEL AIL AJA AMP ANEM ANEP ANET ANRW

AUS AYBRL BAC BaM BASOR BBB BCCT BDAG

BECNT BETL BibInt BibSem BK BBRSup BNTC

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 Academia Biblica Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Acta Orientalia Ancient Christian Writers Ancient Egyptian Literature. Miriam Lichtheim. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971–1980 Ancient Israel and Its Literature American Journal of Archaeology Ancient and Medieval Philosophy Ancient Near East Monographs The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Edited by James B. Pritchard. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by James B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969 Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Part 2, Principat. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972– American University Studies Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library The Bible in Ancient Christianity Baghdader Mitteilungen Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bonner biblische Beiträge Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblical Interpretation Series The Biblical Seminar Bibel und Kirche Bulletin for Biblical Research, Supplements Black’s New Testament Commentaries

xiv BSac BSIH BSMC BSOAS BTC BZAW CAHS CBET CBQ CC CCCM CCSL CCT CD CEJL CGL CHANE CNI ConcC COS CRINT CSCO CSCT CSEA CSEL CSR CTR CWS DJD DOML EJL EPRO EvQ FAT FC FCB FRLANT

abbreviations Bibliotheca Sacra Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History Bristol Studies in Medieval Cultures Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies Brazos Theological Commentary Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Clarendon Ancient History Series Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Continental Commentaries Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina. Turnhout: Brepols, 1953– Corpus Christianorum in Translation Church Dogmatics Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices. Edited by James M. Robinson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2000 Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Carsten Niebuhr Institute Concordia Commentary The Context of Scripture. Edited by William W. Hallo. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002 Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Edited by Jean Baptiste Chabot et al. Paris, 1903 Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition Corpus scriptorum Ecclesiae aquileiensis Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Contributions to the Study of Religion Criswell Theological Review Classics of Western Spirituality Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library Early Judaism and Its Literature Etudes préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain Evangelical Quarterly Forschungen zum Alten Testament Fathers of the Church Feminist Companion to the Bible Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

abbreviations HB HBM HdO HSM HTR HUT HvTSt IA ICC IMR JAJ JANER JAOS JBL JCPS JECS JNES JS JSB JSHRZ JSJ JSJSup JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup JSP JTSA KD LEC LHBOTS LNTS LSTS LXX MB MTS NAC NHC NHL

xv

Hebrew Bible Hebrew Bible Monographs Handbook of Oriental Studies Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie Hervormde teologiese studies Iron Age International Critical Commentary International Medieval Research Journal of Ancient Judaism Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series Journal of Early Christian Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Johannine Studies The Jewish Study Bible. Edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014 Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Supplements to Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal of Theology for Southern Africa Die kirchliche Dogmatik Library of Early Christianity The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies The Library of New Testament Studies The Library of Second Temple Studies Septuagint Middle Bronze Age Münchener theologische Studien New American Commentary Nag Hammadi Codices Nag Hammadi Library in English. Edited by James H. Robinson. 4th rev. ed. Leiden: Brill, 1996

xvi NHMS NHS NHScr

abbreviations

Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies Nag Hammadi Studies The Nag Hammadi Scriptures. The International Edition. Edited by Marvin Meyer. New York: HarperOne, 2007 NIB The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994–2004 NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997 NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis OECT Oxford Early Christian Texts OIMP Oriental Institute Museum Publications OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta OTL Old Testament Library OTM Oxford Theological Monographs OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985 OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly PG Patrologia Graeca [= Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca]. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886 PHSC Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Its Contexts PL Patrologia Latina [= Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina]. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844–1864 PPS Popular Patristics Series ProEccl Pro Ecclesia PRSt Perspectives in Religious Studies QFGD Quellen Und Forschungen Zur Geschichte des Dominikanerordens RB Revue biblique RBS Resources for Biblical Study ResQ Restoration Quarterly RevScRel Revue des sciences religieuses RGRW Religions in the Graeco-Roman World SAA State Archives of Assyria SAAB State Archives of Assyria Bulletin SAACT State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts SAC Studies in Antiquity and Christianity

abbreviations SAK SAOC SBFCMa SBL SBLDS SBLHS 2

xvii

Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio major Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Handbook of Style. 2nd ed. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014 SC Sources chrétiennes ScEs Science et esprit SemeiaSt Semeia Studies SGBC Story of God Bible Commentary SHR Studies in the History of Religions SJJTP Supplements of the Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy SP Sacra Pagina SRR Studies in Rhetoric and Religion SSEJC Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity SSN Studia Semitica Neerlandica SST Studies in Systematic Theology STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah StOR Studies in Oriental Religions Str-B Strack, Hermann Leberecht, and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. Munich: Beck, 1922–1961 SubBi Subsidia Biblica SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha TBN Themes in Biblical Narrative TynBul Tyndale Bulletin UUA Uppsala Universitetsårskrift VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum VWGT Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie WAW Writings from the Ancient World WBC Word Biblical Commentary WGRW Writings from the Greco-Roman World WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZAC Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum/Journal of Ancient Christianity ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZBK Zürcher Bibelkommentare ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft

Contributors Amy L. Balogh (PhD, University of Denver & Iliff School of Theology) is Lead Lecturer of Religious Studies for the Department of Liberal Arts at Regis University College of Contemporary Liberal Studies. She is the author of Moses among the Idols: Mediators of the Divine in the Ancient Near East (Lexington/Fortress, 2018) and essays including “The Mesopotamian Mis Pi Ceremony & Clifford Geertz’s ‘Thick Description’: Principles for Studying the Cultural Webs of the Deceased,” DWJ 4 (2019), “Negotiating Moses’ Divine-Human Identity in LXX Exodus,” JSCS 52 (2019), and “Reading Ritual with Rappaport: The Mesopotamian Mis Pi Ceremony in Ecological Perspective,” in Antropologia religiosa della Mesopotamia, eds. Claus Ambos and Gioele Zisa, Anthropologia religiosa (Palmero: Edizioni Museo Pasqualino, 2020). James H. Charlesworth (PhD, Duke University) is George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary. He specializes in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old and New Testaments, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, Jesus research, and the Gospel of John. Charles L. Echols (PhD, University of Cambridge) is Adjunct Professor at the College of Theology, South University, Columbia, SC. Charles is the author of books and essays including “Tell Me, O Muse”: The Song of Deborah ( Judges 5) in the Light of Heroic Poetry, LHBOTS 487 (New York: T&T Clark, 2008) and “Can the Samson Narrative Properly Be Called Heroic?” in Leshon Limmudim: Essays on the Language and Literature of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of A.A. Macintosh, ed. David A. Baer and Robert P. Gordon, LHBOTS 593 (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013). His research areas include ancient Near Eastern heroic poetry and literature, literary criticism of the Hebrew Bible, and the use of the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament. Mark Edwards (DPhil, University of Oxford) is University Lecturer in Patristics, and Tutor in Theology, Christ Church, University of Oxford. Since 2014 he has also been Professor of early Christian Studies. He is the author of numerous books and publications, including Origen against Plato (2002), John Through the Centuries (Blackwell, 2003), Catholicity and Heresy in the Early Church (2009), Image,

contributors

xix

Word and God in the Early Christian Centuries (Routledge, 2012) and Religions of the Constantinian Empire (2015). Douglas Estes (PhD, University of Nottingham) is Associate Professor of New Testament and Practical Theology at South University. Douglas has written or edited nine books; his most recent books are a Greek grammar resource, Questions and Rhetoric in the Greek New Testament (Zondervan, 2017), and an edited volume (with Ruth Sheridan) on narrative dynamics in John’s Gospel, How John Works: Storytelling in the Fourth Gospel (SBL Press, 2016). He is the editor of Didaktikos: Journal of Theological Education (Lexham Press). Christopher Heard (PhD, Southern Methodist University) is Professor of Religion at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California. Trained chiefly in literary-aesthetic studies of the Hebrew Bible, Chris has more recently focused on the reception history of Genesis, especially in late modern and postmodern popular culture. He is the author of numerous articles and essays, as well as Dynamics of Diselection: Ambiguity in Genesis 12–36 and Ethnic Boundaries in Post-Exilic Judah (SBL, 2001). Dustyn Elizabeth Keepers (PhD cand., Wheaton College Graduate School) is a PhD student and ordained minister in the Reformed Church of America. She received an MDiv from Western Theological Seminary (WTS) in Holland, MI, and is currently editing a festschrift in honor of Tom Boogaart, Professor of Old Testament at WTS. Her current research focuses on John Calvin, ecclesiology, and feminist theology. Ty Kieser (PhD cand., Wheaton College Graduate School) is a doctoral student and adjunct instructor at Wheaton College. He has an MDiv and MA in Systematic Theology from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He has published reviews in International Journal of Systematic Theology, Trinity Journal, and Nova et Vetera and an article in Journal of Reformed Theology. His current research focuses on divine and human christological action in the Reformed tradition. Peter T. Lanfer (PhD, UCLA) is a Lecturer in the Religious Studies Department at Occidental College in Los Angeles, CA. He received his doctorate in Hebrew Bible and

xx

contributors

Near Eastern Languages and Cultures under William Schniedewind at UCLA, and his Masters in Second Temple Judaism with John Collins at Yale Divinity School. His first book Remembering Eden: The Reception History of Genesis 3:22– 4 was published by Oxford University Press in 2012. He is presently working on a monograph about the reception history of ethically and morally problematic passages in the Hebrew Bible called Reading Sacredness into the Badly Behaving Bible. Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer (PhD, University of Cambridge) is an Honorary Senior Lecturer at the University of Aberdeen, having taught New Testament there for 11 years. Since her PhD on Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria she has published numerous articles on Philo. Her other research interests include evil in the New Testament and Second Temple Judaism, particularly the Gospel of John and the Dead Sea Scrolls. G. Ronald Murphy, S.J. (PhD, Harvard University) is George M. Roth Distinguished Professor of German at Georgetown University. He is the author or editor numerous books including The Heiland: The Saxon Gospel (translation and commentary) (Oxford University Press, 1992) and Tree of Salvation: Yggdrasil and the Cross in the North (Oxford University Press, 2013). William R. Osborne (PhD, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Associate Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at College of the Ozarks. He co-edited Riddles and Revelations: Explorations into the Relationship between Wisdom and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible (T&T Clark, 2018) and recently wrote Trees and Kings: A Comparative Analysis of Tree Imagery in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition and the Ancient Near East (Eisenbrauns, 2018). He has also published articles and reviews in a number of journals. At present, he is working on a biblical theology of divine blessing. Ken M. Penner (PhD, McMaster University) is Associate Professor in the Religious Studies department of St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia. He studied Biblical Languages at Regent College (Vancouver) and Religious Studies (Early Judaism and Early Christianity) at McMaster University under Eileen Schuller. His doctoral research, The Verbal System of the Dead Sea Scrolls was published by Brill in 2015. Always fascinated by the intersection of computers and biblical studies,

contributors

xxi

he is co-director of the Online Critical Pseudepigrapha site. He is now completing a commentary on the Greek text of Isaiah for Brill’s Septuagint Commentary Series. Pippa Salonius (PhD, University of Warwick) is an Adjunct Research Fellow in the Department of History within the School of Philosophical, Historical and International Studies at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. Pippa co-edited The Tree: Symbol, Allegory, and Mnemonic Device in Medieval Art and Thought (Brepols, 2014) and contributed to the volume Cristo e il potere: teologia, antropologia e politica (SISMEL, 2017). She has published a number of essays in edited volumes and her articles “Embodying the Medieval City: Personification and Gender in Sculpted Programmes on Cathedrals in Central Italy” in the Journal of Religious History and “The Medieval World of Wearable Art: Frames, Lineage, Nature, and the Law” (Officina di Studi Medievali) are forthcoming. She is currently co-editing a book on The Surrounding Forest: Trees in the Imaginary at the Time of the European Middle Ages (Boydell & Brewer). Carl B. Smith II (PhD, Miami University) is former Professor of Theology and Chair of the College of Theology at South University. His publications include a book, No Longer Jews: The Search for Gnostic Origins (Hendrickson, 2004), and chapter contributions to a number of edited volumes. His research areas are historical, theological, and practical developments in earliest Christianity, particularly those related to Gnostic origins and the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch. Beth M. Stovell (PhD, McMaster Divinity College) is Associate Professor of Old Testament and Chair of General Theological Studies at Ambrose Seminary of Ambrose University in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Beth has authored Mapping Metaphorical Discourse in the Fourth Gospel: John’s Eternal King (Brill), edited Making Sense of Motherhood: Biblical and Theological Perspectives (Wipf and Stock), and co-edited Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views (InterVarsity Press) with Stanley E. Porter. She has contributed articles to several edited volumes and academic journals. Beth is currently writing a two-volume commentary on the Minor Prophets (Story of God Bible Commentary, Zondervan), a commentary on Ezekiel (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament: Prophetic Books, Baker), and a book on Johannine Theology (Baker).

xxii

contributors

Daniel J. Treier (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is Knoedler Professor of Theology at Wheaton College Graduate School. He has authored five books, including Virtue and the Voice of God: Toward Theology as Wisdom as well as a theological commentary on Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. He has coedited another ten books, including the Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology.

Introduction Douglas Estes

The tree of life falls within the liminal vision inhabiting the thoughts of those readers familiar with the biblical story. In whatever section of a biblical text this kind of reader happens to find herself, never far off on the horizon of her thoughts is that one paradisal place of human origin, the garden of Eden—a place wherein stands a tree with fruit that she can no longer access. Likewise, in whatever section of a biblical text a reader happens to find himself, never far off on the horizon of his thoughts is that one eschatological place of a hopedfor future, the new heaven and the new earth—a place wherein stands a tree with fruit that he can hope to one day eat. At one horizon of biblical readers is paradise and at the other is heaven. And in both horizons, there stands one tree: the tree of life. Between those horizons, ancient biblical texts have little to say about the tree of life. This has led to an apparent lacuna in biblical scholarship; the tree of life has received little in the way of sustained evaluation in the modern era. One of the goals of this volume was to attempt to fill this lacuna with a constructive investigation of the tree of life from its origin in human history up to various modern theological perspectives. Even with limited biblical engagement with the tree of life, the goal of this volume was not to be exhaustive but rather present key steps in the evolution of this biblical concept. The first essay by Charles L. Echols searches for indications of the origin of the tree of life idea in ancient near eastern literature from Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Levant. While texts from each of these areas speak of trees and vegetation as symbolic of life and vitality, only in Egyptian texts does the concept appear explicitly. The occurrences of the tree of life motif in texts from these three regions do not exactly echo the tree of life motif found in biblical texts, but all share a common expectation in that they point their readers to the hope of life and immortality. A similar search marks the work of Amy L. Balogh, who likewise does not find any explicit mention of the tree of life among ancient near eastern icons. Yet, the frequency in the iconographic record of various trees which provide life suggests that the tree of life occupied an important cultural ideal for those who lived in that age. These trees are representations of what scholars refer to as the sacred tree—a tree that comes not with one distinct meaning but rather a whole host of meanings and contacts with both human and divine concerns. With copious examples, Balogh shows how the development of the symbol of

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423756_002

2

estes

the life-giving tree grew into an important cultural idea which allowed the tree of life to flourish in biblical imagination. The most prominent early usage of the tree of life motif is found in Genesis; but it is found in a section of the text that invites questions from modern critical scholars as to whether its meaning is hopelessly compromised by ancient editing practices. Challenging this notion, Christopher Heard looks at Genesis 2–3 with a synchronic lens hoping to yield a more fruitful understanding of the tree of life in its received context. With careful analysis and reconstruction, Heard demonstrates that a meaningful reading of this text is possible, and that this reading can give a fully coherent meaning to the tree of life in Genesis. Turning to Old Testament wisdom literature, the tree of life motif shows up in Proverbs (and allusively, in the Psalms). Using conceptual metaphor theory, William R. Osborne shows how trees functioned as “stock images” that evoked prosperity, deity, and kingship for ancient near eastern people. While Proverbs uses the tree of life motif in a manner of the old, standardized notions for life and vitality, the allusions to the tree of life in the Psalms suggest the motif begins to take on new, figurative meanings that enhance the sense of prosperity, deity, and kingship. In the Psalms, the allusions to the tree of life points readers to a right relationship with YHWH. With the advent of the second temple period, a number of texts make limited use of the tree of life motif. With a desire to capture the evolution of the motif, several chapters make use of artificial boundaries for the sake of capturing a sense of meaning within related texts and genres. The fifth essay by Peter T. Lanfer attempts to find common ground for the tree of life motif among the Jewish and Christian legendary texts. Four of these texts contain explicit reference to the tree of life: Pseudo-Philo, 4 Baruch, 4 Maccabees, and the Life of Adam and Eve. Lanfer notes we can find three movements in the tree of life motif as we reach these texts: a greater focus on healing, on God’s temple, and on an eschatological future. Each of these movements represents an idea that receives further development in later texts. Likewise, Beth M. Stovell investigates the tree of life in ancient apocalypses (4Ezra, Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, Apocalypse of Sedrach, and Apocalypse of Elijah), a number of texts with wide provenance but similar in genre. Similar to Osborne, Stovell employs conceptual metaphor theory to show that ancient apocalypses not only blended the tree of life concept with eschatological paradise but also, by way of agricultural themes, mothering. As she argues, these apocalypses associate maternal metaphors with God’s compassion for people, and one way that people feel compassion is nourishment—from which the tree of life is the final, ultimate source of nourishment for God’s people.

introduction

3

Reading from the literature of Enoch, Ken M. Penner examines the possible appearances of the tree of life in each of these three texts. Penner finds that the “sweet-smelling” tree of 1Enoch is inconsistent with the qualities of the tree of life; it is more of a tree that produces wisdom, which in turn promotes life in those that possess it. In contrast, 2 and 3Enoch explicitly identify the tree of life; in all three, the focus of the tree (and its echoes) are intended to reveal God’s divine presence that leads believers into a hopeful eschatological future of life and vitality. If Genesis remains the most prominent occurrence of the tree if life in biblical texts, its occurrences in the Apocalypse of John are perhaps a close second. In this essay, I find the tree of life in Revelation is inextricably linked to its visual depiction. Looking to an ancient handbook for interpreting visions, and with cues from a close reading, the writer of Revelation intentionally draws the tree of life as a multistable and polyvalent image for his readers. Thus, readers are invited to see the image of the tree of life from at least three distinct, but overlapping, angles: literal, metaphoric, and symbolic. Each of these angles comes together in the mind’s eye of the reader, leading to recognition of the need to partake of the fruit of the tree of life. The next essay by Mark Edwards spans the literature of the early church. Edward’s tack is to consider the tree of life from the fathers’ perspective along the lines of a literal, moral and spiritual reading. Along the way, he investigates the work of many, including Augustine, John of Damascus, Ephraem, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, and Caesarius of Arles. While the early church made somewhat wide usage of the tree of life, its most common custom was to tie the tree of life to wisdom, which comes from the Word. Philo of Alexandria also wrote of the tree of life in several of his works; it is a theme that scholars have fully overlooked in the modern era. In contrast to much biblical literature, Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer’s study of Philo reveals a very different take on the tree of life theme. In Philo’s thought, life is virtue, and thus when he reads of the tree of life, this leads him to conclude that it is a symbol of virtue. While Philo struggled with the literal versus symbolic nature of the tree of life (as all interpreters do), he remained rooted to his philosophical convictions, encouraging wisdom and piety leading to virtue, or true life. Similarly overlooked is the tree of life theme in Gnostic writings. Turning to the Nag Hammadi codices, Carl B. Smith II surveys a variety of new interpretations applied to the tree of life theme. Distinct from all previous scriptural mentions, most Gnostic texts are prone to describe the tree of life in disapproving terms, preferring instead the tree of knowledge for their readers. The sole exception is the Origin of the World; even though this text casts the tree of life in positive terms, it sublimates its benefits to the tree of knowledge. In all cases,

4

estes

Gnostic uses of the tree of life are made to fit within their unique theological perspective: true life is second to true knowledge. As the tree of life took on deeper and more varied meanings over time, so too did the beauty of its physical depictions continue to grow. From late antiquity to the late Middle Ages, artisans decorated objects as diverse as ampullae and apses, pavements and vestments with tree of life iconography. In her chapter, Pippa Salonius canvasses the many instances of the tree of life, noting how the image evolves from the idea of a living path to God, to a tool for instruction and reflection, to a representation of the Christian community in relation to God and itself. One of the most fascinating myths of a tree of life comes from the North, where Anglo-Saxon and Germanic cultures imagined a tree of life in Yggdrasil. When Christianity came to the North, Christians made use of the Northern tree of life to promote the Christian tree of life; as G. Ronald Murphy, S.J. explains, perhaps nowhere is this cultural and theological transformation more observable today than in the visual design of stave churches. Northerners designed these churches to look like a tree, so that when parishioners entered into the church, they entered into the tree of life, their sure hope from mortal fear and peril. The final essay of the volume moves the tree of life from medieval depictions into modern theological thought. Here Daniel J. Treier, Dustyn Elizabeth Keepers, and Ty Kieser trace modern views on the tree of life into four areas: historical-critical scholarship, “literal” readings, theological exegesis, and symbolic uses. Along the way they take note of the thoughts of Barth and Bonhoeffer, feminists and fundamentalists. It seems that in modern sensibilities, the tree of life occurs only with detail in more advanced studies of biblical texts and in broad symbolic representations that are often a bit afield from pre-modern usage. While these essays cover great swaths of time and culture, it is surprising how much overlap there exists between chapters—how the meaning of the tree of life ebbed and flowed between two primary poles (connection with God, whether past or future; and wisdom in this life) even as it changed hands throughout its usage. It is hoped this volume will provide a helpful survey of these recurring patterns for future readers. A final note of appreciation to Jacques van Ruiten, for his assistance in making the idea of this volume a reality. Thanks go to James H. Charlesworth, for kindly writing the foreword that helped launch the work on this volume. And, finally, much gratitude to Tessa Schild, and all the wonderful folks at Brill, for putting the reality into a more tangible form.

chapter 1

The Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Literature Charles L. Echols

1

Introduction

It is understandable why the concept of a tree of life arose in antiquity. As E.O. James observes, “the tree as the symbol of the resurrection of vegetation, or rebirth of the year in the spring (or its seasonal equivalent) became the Tree of Immortality giving a superabundance of life to the dead in blissful eternity.”1 The concept of a sacred tree appeared as early as the fourth millennium in the ancient NE and was ubiquitous by the second millennium.2 Throughout Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Levant, several species appear as sacred in images and texts, including the date palm, sycamore, terebinth, tamarisk, cedar, and pine. A study on the tree of life in ancient Near Eastern literature, however, immediately confronts the problem that the descriptor, “tree of life” (‫ֵﬠץ ַהַח ִיּים‬, ʿēṣ haḥayyîm) rarely occurs outside of the Bible. According to Helmer Ringgren, it is absent from Assyrian texts.3 The judgment of Heinze Genge is more sweeping. He finds no reference to a “tree of life” (Lebensbaum) in cuneiform texts of the ancient NE or in the Qur’an so that “the tree of life as a concept is biblical.”4 He regards the term as anachronistic and claims that the “sacred tree” in Sumerian and Akkadian pictures (Bildkunst) has nothing to do with the tree of life in Genesis.5 Terje Stordalen concurs: “The phrase ‫ ֵﬠץ ַהַח ִיּים‬is found

1 Edwin O. James, The Tree of Life: An Archaeological Study, SHR 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 246. Cf. the remark by Terje Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and the Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature, CBET 25 (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 288, “Every green tree would symbolise life, and a large tree—rooted deep in the soil and stretching towards the sky—potentially makes a cosmic symbol.” 2 Simo Parpola, “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy,” JNES 52 (1993): 161. 3 Helmer Ringgren, Religions of the Ancient Near East (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1973), 108. 4 Heinz Genge, “Zum ‘Lebensbaum’ in den Keilschriftkulturen,” AcOr 33 (1971): 321 (“Das Bemerkenswerte am ‘Lebensbaum’ in den Keilschriftkulturen ist die Tatsache, dass es ihn nicht gibt.”). 5 Genge, “Zum ‘Lebensbaum’ in den Keilschriftkulturen,” 323.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423756_003

6

echols

only in Genesis 2–3 and in Proverbs, and a similar expression is unknown in Oriental literature.”6 While Genge and Stordalen overstate the case, the exact phrase is infrequent. Still, a number of scholars see a qualified relevance between the tree of life in Genesis 2–3 and in ancient NE literature. Howard N. Wallace, for example, maintains that the tree “does have characteristics and associations with other elements familiar in the world of Ancient Near Eastern cult and myth,” including restoration of youthful vigor and immortality.7 William R. Osborne has argued similarly: extrabiblical references to a tree of life are “extremely rare,” but “numerous textual allusions and iconographical depictions from the ANE point toward a tree, plant, or leaf associated with life-giving power.”8 Moreover, detractors have conceded qualified relevance. Stordalen allows that there are iconographical parallels, and even Genge seems to allow that “plant of life” (Lebenspflanze, ú-ti) could be comparable with “tree of life” (Lebensbaum, giš-ti).9 Nevertheless, many scholars reject a one-to-one correspondence with the biblical tree of life and prefer alternatives such as “stylized tree” or “sacred tree” (heiligen Baum).10 Alternate descriptors do not, however,

6

7 8 9 10

Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 288. Others scholars agree with Ringgren, Genge, and Stordalen, e.g., Urs Winter, “Der Lebensbaum im alten Testament und die Ikonographie des stilistierten Baumes in Kanaan/Israel,” in Das Kleid der Erde: Pflanzen in der Lebenswelt des alten Israel, eds. Ute Neumann-Gorsolke and Peter Riede (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 2002), 138. Some scholars restrict the scope to cuneiform sources, e.g., Kazuko Watanabe, “Lebensspendende und todbringende Substanzen in Altmesopotamien,” BaM 25 (1994): 580. Howard N. Wallace, The Eden Narrative, HSM 32 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 114. William R. Osborne, “The Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt,” JANER 14 (2014): 114–115. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 288–290; Genge, “Zum ‘Lebensbaum’ in den Keilschriftkulturen,” 323. E.g., H. York, “Heiliger Baum,” in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, ed. Erich Ebeling (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1932–2014), 4:270; Genge, “Zum ‘Lebensbaum’ in den Keilschriftkulturen,” 332–333; Christine Kepinski-Lecomte, L’arbre stylisée en Asie Occidentale au 2e Millénair avant J.-C., vol. 3 (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1982); Wallace, Eden Narrative, 72, 110, 183; Martin Metzger, “Der Weltenbaum in vorderorientalischer Bildtradition,” in Unsere Welt, Gottes Schöpfung: Festschrift für Eberhard Wölfel, ed. Wilfried Härle, Manfred Marquardt, and Wolfgang Nethöfel, Marburger theologische Studien 32 (Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 1992), 6–7, 12; Ute Neumann-Gorsolke and Peter Riede, “Motive und Materialien: Der Baum als Symbol von Macht und Leben,” in Das Kleid der Erde: Pflanzen in der Lebenswelt des alten Israel, ed. idem (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 2002), 248; Winter, “Lebensbaum im alten Testament,” 138; Mariana Giovino, The Assyrian Sacred Tree: A History of Interpretations, OBO 230 (Fribourg: Academic Press, 2007), 5; Michaela Bauks, “Sacred Trees in the Garden of Eden and Their Ancient Near Eastern Precursors,” JAJ 3 (2012): 281, 288–292.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern literature

7

say what the tree is. Indeed, Simo Parpola finds the concept of the tree of life to be pervasive in antiquity, yet he finds its meaning unclear.11 Before turning to the ancient Near Eastern data, it is thus necessary to settle the meaning of the tree of life in Genesis 2–3. The phrase ‫ עץ החיים‬translates as “tree of life,” so the first step is classifying the genitive, ‫“( החיים‬life”). Genesis 2:9; 3:22 have in view a particular tree, the eating of whose fruit renders one immortal.12 Since the tree effectively bestows life, “life” is best classified as a subjective genitive, viz. a genitive of instrument.13 (One could perhaps also think in terms of a metonymy of the effect in that eating the tree’s fruit preserves life.) The classification compares with the phrase both in Rev 2:7, where the tree bestows immortality, and in Prov 3:18, where the tree is a metaphor for wisdom that brings longevity to its seekers. (The occurrence in Rev 22:2 is figurative. In the context it could mean immortality, but other interpretations are possible.) The tree thus has a functional dimension in promoting long life or immortality. It also has a taxonomical aspect: it is a type of plant; it is not a stone, or a river, etc. Function and taxonomy are useful criteria for evaluating the extrabiblical data vis-à-vis the tree of life in Genesis 2–3. In the Adapa myth, for example, the eponymous protagonist was the first semi-divine antediluvian sage to the first antediluvian king, Alulim. While fishing the south wind capsizes Adapa, who cursed it in response. The god Ea knows that Anu will summon Adapa to account for his action, and in the process offer Adapa the “food of life” and the “waters of life.” Ea counsels Adapa to refuse the food and drink. Events unfold as Ea had foreseen. When Adapa declines Anu’s offer of food and drink, Anu asks him, “Come now, Adapa, why did you not eat or drink? Won’t you live? Are not people to be im[mor]tal?”.14 Although scholars debate over the motive of Ea’s advice, the effect is clear: had Adapa consumed the “food of life” and “waters of 11 12

13

14

Parpola, “Assyrian Tree of Life,” 161. Scholars have probed the intriguing question of whether the man and woman in Genesis 2–3 had consumed the fruit of the tree of life before consuming the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or whether eating regularly from the tree of life warded off death such that the expulsion from the garden—and thus from the tree of life—ensured mortality by removing access to further consumption of the tree of life (see, e.g., Herman Th. Obbink, “The Tree of Life in Eden,” ZAW 46 [1928]: 110; Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 230– 232). The matter lies beyond present purposes, but attests to the power of the tree of life to convey immortality. Cf. the examples in Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), § 9.5.1.d. See also the discussion of genitive phrases in Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, rev. English ed., SubBi 27 (Roma: Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 2006), § 129j. “The Adapa Story,” trans. Benjamin R. Foster (COS 1.129:449).

8

echols

life,” he would have become immortal. Although the “food” and “waters” offer immortality, they are taxonomically different from a tree. Other texts fall wide of the mark in terms of function, as in the mere depiction of trees on the helmets of warriors for protection or the liminal role that sacred trees played in divine-human meetings.15 Function and taxonomy are also useful in adjudicating over the relevance of the world tree, which is discussed frequently in the literature.16 The basic concept is a tree whose roots extended from the surface of the earth to the primordial depths and whose branches rose to the heavens. Alternatives include the tree’s roots embedded in a heavenly/divine garden or mountain. The tree is frequently flanked by animals, persons, and deities, and in Egypt the winged disc often appears over it. Clearly, the tree compares taxonomically with the tree of life in Genesis 2–3, but its function must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There is also the kiškānû tree. Based on texts from Eridu, it was probably the black pine, resembling lapis-lazuli, rising to the heavens, and having lifegiving powers like the cosmic/world tree.17 James equates the tree of life with the kiškānû tree, and states that it was in the paradisiacal garden of Dilmun; but its mention is absent from the Sumerian myth of Enki and Ninhursag, which describes the creation of Dilmun.18 According to Mariana Giovino, some scholars eventually identified the world/sacred tree with the kiškānû tree.19 Debate 15

16

17 18 19

Respectively, Genge, “Zum ‘Lebensbaum’ in den Keilschriftkulturen,” 329; I. Kottsieper, “Bäume als Kultort,” in Das Kleid der Erde: Plfanzen in der Lebenswelt des alten Israel, ed. Ute Neumann-Gorsolke and Peter Riede (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 2002), 169–187. See, e.g., James, Tree of Life, 129–162, 245. Cf. B. Margulis, “A Weltbaum in Ugaritic Literature?,” JBL 90 (1971): 481–482; idem, “Weltbaum and Weltberg in Ugaritic Literature: Notes and Observations on RŠ 24.245,”ZAW 86 (1974): 1–23. The emendation, rearranged stichometry, and additional speculation make Margulis’s thesis questionable. Bauks, “Sacred Trees,” 282, remarks: “Both ‘world tree’ and ‘cosmic tree’ are modern coinages, unlike ‘tree of life,’ which can be deduced terminologically from several literary contexts.” James, Tree of Life, 12–13, 283, and passim. James, Tree of Life, 69. For the text see “Enki and Ninhursag: A Paradise Myth,” trans. S.N. Kramer (ANET, 37–41). Giovino, Assyrian Sacred Tree, 2, n. 6. Wallace, Eden Narrative, 105–106, regards it as identical with Sumerian giš-kin. Geo Widengren, The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion, King and Saviour IV (Uppsala: A.-B. Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1951, in York, “Heiliger Baum,” 270), sees it as comparable with the extrabiblical tree of life or sacred tree. This is essentially the view of Genge, “Zum ‘Lebensbaum’ in den Keilschriftkulturen,” 332–333, i.e. there is no correlation with the tree of life in Genesis. Rather, the kiškānû tree may be best thought of as a world tree. Henrik Pfeiffer, “Der Baum in der Mitte des Gartens: Zum überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Ursprung der Paradieserzählung (Gen 2,4b–3,24). Teil II: Prägende Traditionen und theologische Akzente,” ZAW 113 (2001): 5–6,

the tree of life in ancient near eastern literature

9

arises over whether the kiškānû tree is an equivalent for the tree of life. Ewa Wasilewska sees it as a “prototype” of the “Tree or Plant of Life.”20 However, Herman Th. Obbink observes: “The Kiskanu-tree in Eridu is not expressis verbis called a Tree of Life,” and Wallace regards the equivalence as “questionable.”21 The criteria offer a means to arbitrate here as well. For present purposes, evaluations of extrabiblical data vis-à-vis the tree of life in Genesis 2–3 will be based not on nomenclature, but on taxonomy and function. The scope is limited to ancient NE texts from roughly the fourth millennium BC to Israel’s monarchical period. Other texts that might compare lie outside these parameters. The Rig Veda, for example, mentions soma—a “mystic medicinal herb … imparting life, fertility, regeneration, and immortality. Its properties were obtained by the consecration of the branches of the sprigs, crushing them in a mortar and mixing the intoxicating juice with milk for sacramental consumption after it had been offered to the gods.”22 Immortality via soma is less direct than eating the fruit from the tree of life in Genesis, and the additional components of the “recipe” might be further grounds for rejecting it as a parallel with the Genesis tree. However, its locus in the Subcontinent is geographically outside present consideration. References to the tree of life also occur in the Qur’an (e.g., Sur. 2:34–36; 7:19–22), but this is late antiquity. The texts of the ancient Near East mention a tree of life and other types of vegetation which played a variety of roles. Applying the criteria of taxonomy and function to the literature of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Levant aids in comprehension as well as distinguishes one type of vegetation from another and highlights their various roles. This task is also foundational for comparing the extrabiblical writings with the tree of life in Genesis 2–3, whose writer conceived of it as a type of plant that bestowed immortality to those who ate its fruit.

20

21 22

14, sees the kiškānû tree in Eridu in the context of the Sumero-Babylonian “summoning ritual” (Beschwörungsritual). For a current appraisal, see Giovino, Assyrian Sacred Tree, 197–201. Ewa Wasilewska, Creation Stories of the Middle East (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2000), 167. Unfortunately, she does not state a specific text, but only refers to Eridu and the deity Enki. Obbink, “The Tree of Life in Eden,” 108; Wallace, Eden Narrative, 106. James, Tree of Life, 25.

10 2

echols

The Tree of Life in the Literature of Mesopotamia

While no unequivocal references to a “tree of life” per se occur in Mesopotamian texts, references abound to herbs of life, life-giving plants, and trees with life-restoring properties. The references appear in several genres, including myth, blessing, and epic.23 In the Sumerian myth, Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld, the eponymous goddess instructs Nincubura to make intercessions for her safety after she descends to the underworld. Inanna is confident: “Father Enki, the lord of great wisdom, knows about the life-giving plant and the life-giving water. He is the one who will restore me to life.”24 Her instructions are prescient: after her descent she dies, Nincubura faithfully intercedes, and Enki creates creatures from dirt under his fingernails to whom he gives the life-giving plant and water (lines 217–255): Father Enki answered Nincubura: “What has my daughter done? She has me worried. What has Inana done? She has me worried. What has the mistress of all the lands done? She has me worried. What has the hierodule of An done? She has me worried.” … He removed some dirt from the tip of his fingernail and created the kur-jara. He removed some dirt from the tip of his other fingernail and created the gala-tura. To the kur-jara he gave the life-giving plant. To the gala-tura he gave the life-giving water. The plant and water restore the goddess to life (lines 273–281): They were offered a river with its water—they did not accept it. They were offered a field with its grain—they did not accept it. They said to her: “Give

23

24

In the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian mis pî ritual, trees were made to personify a deity. However, the ritual is excluded from consideration here because it does not relate with bestowing immortality. (For a discussion of the ritual, see William R. Osborne, Trees and Kings: A Comparative Analysis of Tree Imagery in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition and the Ancient Near East, BBRSup 18 [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2017], 50–54.) Other literatures include the personification/embodiment of deities that do convey immortality (see, e.g., § 3). Lines 65–67. Translation: J.A. Black et al., The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/ (University of Oxford, 1998–). See also Watanabe, “Lebensspendende und todbringende Substanzen in Altmesopotamien,” 583–584. Interestingly, in the subsequent Akkadian version, where the deity is Ishtar rather than Inanna, there is no plant of life—only the waters of life. See “The Descent of Ishtar to the Underworld,” trans. Stephanie Dalley (COS 1:108:381–384 [383, lines 115, 118]).

the tree of life in ancient near eastern literature

11

us the corpse hanging on the hook.” Holy Erec-ki-gala answered the galatura and the kur-jara: “The corpse is that of your queen.” They said to her: “Whether it is that of our king or that of our queen, give it to us.” They were given the corpse hanging on the hook. One of them sprinkled on it the life-giving plant and the other the life-giving water. And thus Inana arose. The myth thus features the restoration to life of a goddess through administration of a certain plant and water. That a deity could die might strike one as odd, but the phenomenon also occurs in Egyptian literature; and it may evince the more anthropological ontology of deities in the minds of ancient Israel’s neighbors. The myth of Inanna and Genesis 2–3 overlap in taxonomy and function in that both feature vegetation as the means to eliminate death. However, there are also differences: the vegetation is plants and trees; and the myth features posthumous revivification, whereas in Genesis 2–3 the humans would have never experienced death had they eaten from the tree of life. In a seal from Uruk (ca. 3rd–2nd millennium BC), the goddess Inanna addresses her king, comparing him with a mes-tree: My [king], mes-tree [which] faithfully [bears fruit], [… sh]ining, full of allure (son) to his father and mother, . . . “[My king], I will make you shine like mes-tree! Amaušumgalanna, may An create [life for you]!”25 The text is in poor condition; but if the emendations are correct, it is a blessing by the goddess of her monarch. Any idea of immortality in the last line is implicit. Hence, the text compares taxonomically with the tree of life in Genesis 2–3, but the functions of both are different. Genge cites lines 8–9 from the text “Constantinople, Nr. 2828, of the inventory of the Babylonian-Assyrian Antiquities,” which are part of a prayer that mentions “the herb of life” (šam-me balāṭi):26

25 26

Text in Osborne, Trees and Kings, 60. Genge, “Zum ‘Lebensbaum’ in den Keilschriftkulturen,” 327.

12

echols

Adad-nirari the great king, the strong king, the king of the world, king of the land of Assur, a matchless king, shepherd to look up to [zum Aufschauen], the exalted lord of the city, who … desires his prayers and sacrifices, … whose guardianship would now let the Great Gods, like the herb of life, thrive for the benefit of the people of the land of Assur, so that they (thereby also) enlarge its land. The “herb of life” is a simile for the gods, who, so the king hopes, will bless his rule for the well-being of the nation. While there is a weak taxonomical resemblance with the tree of life in Genesis 2–3, the purpose is wholly different. The prayer is for national prosperity, with perhaps a propagandistic subtext for military campaign (“enlarge its land”) versus immortality in Genesis 2–3. An unspecified tradition from the Persian period mentions the midst of the Vourukasha Sea as the location of the Saena tree (the “Tree of All Remedies”) and the white hom (“the ‘mighty Gaokerena’ plant”), the latter of which rendered immortal “those who were resurrected from the dead.”27 The white hom is a plant, and the Saena tree compares especially closely with the tree of life in Genesis 2–3. Moreover, the function is also similar: conveying immortality. The main difference is that the Genesis tree ostensibly precluded death. The Epic of Gilgamesh is arguably the most important epic of early antiquity. It has a complex transmission history, with versions spanning from as early as the end of the third millennium BC to nearly 2,000 years later.28 The

27 28

Wasilewska, Creation Stories of the Middle East, 165, referring to V.S. Curtis, The Legendary Past: Persian Myths (Austin: University of Texas, 1993). A.R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), I: 4–6. The textual transmission of the text and the historicity of the protagonist lie beyond the scope of this essay (see, respectively, George, Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, I: 3–70, 71–137). The present analysis draws on the Standard Babylonian version. On this version, Tryggve N.D. Mettinger, The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-historical Study of Genesis 2–3 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 111, remarks, “According to ancient tradition, the SB [Standard Babylonian] is the version that can in some sense lay claim to being called the canonical version.” According to J. Hansman, “Gilgamesh, Humbaba and the Land of the ERIN-trees,” Iraq 38 (1976): 23, the Sumerian version has “the greatest detail,” though the basic story line is pre-

the tree of life in ancient near eastern literature

13

semi-divine29 eponymous hero and king is challenged by Enkidu, a feral “wild man.”30 Gilgamesh wins, but the two become close friends and travel to the Forest of Cedar to do battle with the monster Humbaba (Tablets II–V).31 Gilgamesh slays Humbaba, but Gilgamesh angers Ishtar and Enkidu offends her, resulting in Enkidu’s death. The death prompts Gilgamesh to embark on a quest for immortality. In Tablet XI Gilgamesh asks Ūta-napišti (who had been made immortal by the gods), “How was it you attended the gods’ assembly, and found life?”32 Ūta-napišti explains that it was a conciliar decision of the gods. Since another assembly was doubtful, he confides to Gilgamesh: “[I will] tell you a mystery of [the gods.] It is a plant, its [appearance] is like a box-thorn, its thorn is like the dog-rose’s, it will [prick your hands]. If you can gain possession of the plant, [...........].”33 Gilgamesh then ties heavy stones to his feet and descends to the bottom of the sea, where he finds the object of his quest.34 He takes the plant, removes the stones, and floats to the shore. He explains to Ur-šanabi, the boat-

29

30

31

32 33

34

served in most extant texts. In any case, in the judgment of Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Translated with an Introduction and Notes, rev. ed., Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 39, “the more text fragments come to light, the harder it becomes to produce one coherent edition.” Cf. George, Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, I: 418–419, 431. Technically, Gilgamesh is semi-divine (see I:48): his father was Lugalbanda, king of Uruk, and his mother was the goddess Ninsun. See, e.g., lines 89–94 in “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” trans. E.A. Speiser (ANET, 49), Nicole Brisch, “Ninsumun (Ninsun) (goddess),” Ancient Mesopotamian Gods and Goddesses, Oracc and the UK Higher Education Academy (2016), http://oracc.iaas.upenn.edu/amgg/listofdeities/ninsumun/. The phrase is that of Gregory Mobley, “The Wild Man in the Bible and the Ancient Near East,” JBL 116 (1997): 217–233, for liminal individuals whose domain is the wild, but who may briefly venture into civilization. (See also Gregory Mobley, The Empty Men: The Heroic Tradition of Ancient Israel [New York: Doubleday, 2005], 192). Of the three types of wild men in the ancient Near East, Mobley, “Wild Man,” 220, classifies Enkidu as “the hairy man” or “laḫmu” type. According to Obbink, “The Tree of Life in Eden,” 108, the tree of life is always in the sphere of deities, remote from humankind: “the forest of Humbaba, the garden of Irnini, the abode of Utnapishtim—all of these represent the divine abode with the Tree of Life, Plant of Life, etc.” P. 703, line 7. Unless otherwise noted, translations are those of George, Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, I: 531–735. P. 721, lines 281–286. Cf. the translation of Dalley (2000: 118): “And let me tell you the secret of the gods. There is a plant whose root is like camel-thorn, Whose thorn, like a rose’s, will spike [your hands]. If you yourself can win that plant, you will find [rejuvenation (?)].” Watanabe, “Lebensspendende und todbringende Substanzen in Altmesopotamien,” 581, notes the problem with a literal interpretation of a plant with thorns at the bottom of the ocean.

14

echols

man, “this plant is the ‘plant of the heartbeat,’ by which means a man can recapture his vitality.”35 He resolves to return to Uruk and try the plant on an old man before consuming it himself to “go back to how I was in my youth” (p. 723, line 300). However, on the way Gilgamesh pauses to bathe in a pool of water. While refreshing himself, “A snake smelled the fragrance of the plant, [silently] it came up and bore the plant off; as it turned away it sloughed a skin” (p. 723, lines 305–307). What exactly did Gilgamesh lose? Poetic expressions such as “plant of the heartbeat” and “recapture vitality” are capable of more than one interpretation. Was Gilgamesh simply seeking to regain youthful strength, or did he desire immortality? Complicating matters further is the content of the missing apodosis from line 285: “if you can gain possession of the plant, […]” A number of scholars are persuaded that Gilgamesh wanted to regain his youthful vitality, and would emend the text accordingly. T.D.N. Mettinger, for example, points to Gilgamesh’s resolution: “I will eat some myself and go back to how I was in my youth.”36 Others scholars find the immortality interpretation more convincing and would replace the lacuna with something such as “you will gain immortality.”37 After all, even if Gilgamesh were old, he has astonishing strength. He recently felled the cedar forest and, more impressive, he slew Humbaba. Surely any difference in strength from his younger years was marginal. Moreover, he was seeking to avoid the fate of Enkidu, and sought the plant precisely for that reason. Furthermore, while “heartbeat” (in the “plant of the heartbeat”) could refer to a stronger heart in one’s youth, the clearer meaning is that the plant restores a deceased heart (or keeps it from stopping). Another factor is whether one should interpret Gilgamesh’s resolution literally or figuratively. By “go back to how I was in my youth,” did he mean return to youth, or to enjoy youthful strength forever? Both sides have compelling points, but on balance the case for immortality is stronger.38

35

36 37

38

P. 723, lines 295–296. The lines that George translates as “recapture his vitality,” Wallace, Eden Narrative, 104, translates, “regain his ‘life’s breath,’” which he understands as “regaining one’s youthful vitality and strength.” Cf. the translation of Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 119: “Ur-shanabi, this plant is a plant to cure a crisis! With it a man may win the breath of life.” Mettinger, Eden Narrative, 119. E.g., Speiser, “Gilgamesh,” 72; Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 39. On a different matter, it is pointless to ask, as some have, why Gilgamesh delayed in consuming the plant. The function of the epic, or at least this part of it, is to explain the mortality of Gilgamesh, in particular, and humanity in general. Consuming the plant would undermine the purpose of the poet. One could ask whether the immortality Gilgamesh sought was of life or of name. To be

the tree of life in ancient near eastern literature

15

In comparing Gilgamesh with Genesis 2–3, the plant is not the same as the tree.39 The criterion of function is hampered by ambiguity over whether the plant brought rejuvenation or immortality.40 If the latter is the case, the parallel is strong. If the former is true, the comparison is relatively weak, although even if it simply restored youthful vigor, it is the opposite of decrepitude and death. While no exact parallels to the tree of life in Genesis obtain from Mesopotamian texts, there are some close resemblances. Taxonomically, most of the texts feature herbs and plants, but the Uruk and Persian seals mention trees. Functionally, the life-giving plant in the myth of Inanna’s Descent restores the goddess to life, and the Persia tree and plant preserve the life of the resurrected. Depending on how one interprets Gilgamesh, a plant has the potential either to bestow immortality or to rejuvenate the hero. The literature as whole attests to the ancient Mesopotamian understanding that certain plants promoted blessing and life, with a subset ensuring posthumous life.

3

The Tree of Life in the Literature of Egypt

The corpus of Egyptian writings is one of the few where the phrase “tree of life” occurs (transliterated variously, e.g., ḫt.n.Ꜥnḫ, ḫet.n.Ꜥnch). Not surprisingly this is because, at least in part, deities personified and indwelt trees. Several species of trees in ancient Egypt were regarded as sacred, including the Nile acacia, Christ’s thorn, Persia tree, perisa, Egyptian willow, sycamore, tamarisk,

39 40

sure, in the classical tradition heroes sought enduring fame (see, e.g., Charles L. Echols, “Tell Me, O Muse”: The Song of Deborah ( Judges 5) in the Light of Heroic Poetry [LHBOTS 487; New York: T&T Clark International, 2008], 142, 144). That is the case with Gilgamesh as well (see, e.g., pages 611, 613, lines 188–189, 244–245; though the tablet is broken, the context accords with immortal life; so also, Andrew R. George, The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation, Penguin Classics [London: Penguin, 1999], xiv). However, the aforementioned passages indicate that he was also pursuing immortal life. S.v. šammu(m), Jeremy Black et al., eds., A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, SANTAG 5 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1999; repr. 2nd [corrected]). Interestingly, if immortality is in view, then in both Gilgamesh and Genesis 3 a snake is the agent of humankind’s diversion from eternal life. In the epic the snake takes the means of immortality—the plant—and leaves Gilgamesh with a symbol of death—the shed skin. In Genesis 3, the serpent persuades the woman to eat of the forbidden fruit. There is also an irony in the epic, viz. whereas Gilgamesh had the means to immortality in his hands but let it go, the snake took the plant and shed its skin—surely a poetic expression of death now left behind in exchange for new life.

16

echols

palm, doum palm, and date palm.41 Of the deities associated with trees, the female deities Isis, Hathor, and Nut feature frequently, especially in conjunction with the sycamore, while the male deities Osiris and Thoth are associated with the Persia tree and išd-tree.42 Sacred trees functioned variously, but most importantly in the revival and sustenance of the dead in the afterlife which was expressed in several genres. The role of the tree in the present life can be illustrated in three hymns, the first being the Hymn to Ptah, a creator deity. The hymn was not found in situ, but was purchased in Luxor in 1845 and may date to the reign of Takelot I (ca. 889– 874BC).43 The hymn opens with praise to Ptah as the “father of the gods” and the “oldest of the gods” (lines 1–4). The relevant portion of the hymn occurs in lines 155–166: Hail, let us sing praise to him: who formed gods, men, and animals (?), who created all lands and the shore of the oceans in his name “Creator of the Earth!” Hail! Let us sing praise to him: who brings the Nile out of its cave, who leaves [läßt] the tree of life green and cares for those who have come from him, in his name “Nun”! Hail, let us sing praise to him: who lets Nun spring to the heavens, who lets water come forth on the mountain to preserve alive other people, in his name, “Life-Creator!”44

41

42 43

44

Osborne, “Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt,” 117; idem, Trees and Kings, 36, citing Ingrid GamerWallert, “Baum, heiliger,” in Lexikon der Ägyptologie, ed. Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1975–1989), 1:655, Sylvia Schoske et al., “Anch” Blumen für das Leben: Planzen im Alten Ägypten (Münich: Karl M. Lipp, 1992), 6–9. Osborne, “Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt,” 117; idem, Trees and Kings, 36; Neumann-Gorsolke and Riede, “Motive und Materialien,” 244. See, e.g., Koenraad Donker Van Heel, “The Scribbling-Pad of Djemontefankh Son of Aafenmut, Priest of Amonrasonter and Overseer of the King’s Treasury,” in Acts of the Seventh International Conference on Demotic Studies: Copenhagen, 23–27 August 1999, ed. Kim Ryholt, CNI Publications 27 (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2002), 139–140. Text by Jan Assmann, Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete: Eingeleitet, Übersetzt und Erläutert,

the tree of life in ancient near eastern literature

17

Clearly, the tree of life is regarded positively, but its precise role is unstated. Taking the preceding and following verses into context, the tree is one of the life-giving parts of the created order of which Ptah is the author. In this sense the hymn compares with Psalm 104, which scholars have long thought to reflect Egyptian influence.45 Hence, while the tree of life here could refer to posthumous life, the more reasonable interpretation is that it promotes life in the present age. The second hymn is the Great Cairo Hymn of Praise to Amun-Re. This text has a lengthy transmission history, the earliest version dating from the Second Intermediate period and portions appearing on ostraca from the New Kingdom. Mention of the tree of life occurs twice in the hymn, the first in a list of things created by Amun-Re: Section 1 Unique one, like whom among the gods? Goodly bull of the Ennead, Chief of all the gods, Lord of Truth, Father of the gods, Who made mankind, who created the flocks, Lord of what exists, who created the tree of life, Who made the herbage, who vivifies the herd, …46 The immediate context is praise to Amun-Re who created all things, including the tree of life. The writer does not indicate anything of the nature of the tree of life—why it is signatory or how it functions. The straightforward understanding is that it is simply part of the creation. The second occurrence is similar: You [Amun-Re] are the Sole One, who made [all] that exists, One, alone, who made that which is, From whose two eyes mankind came forth, On whose mouth the gods came into being,

45 46

Zweite, verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage ed., OBO (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 342–343, who, on p. 347, cites it as “Der sog. Berliner Ptahhymnus, pBerlin 3048, ii–xii, ed. G. Möller, in: Hieratische Papyrus aus den kgl. Museen zu Berlin II (1905), Tf. 36 ff.” Cf. the Great Hymn to the Aten, trans. Miriam Lichtheim (COS 1.28:44–46). “The Great Cairo Hymn of Praise to Amun-Re,” trans. Robert K. Ritner (COS 1.25:37–40 [38, col. 1]).

18

echols

Who made the herbage [for] the herds, The tree of life for the sunfolk,47 Who made that on which the fish live [in] the river, And the birds flying through heaven, …48 Here the tree of life was created by Amun-Re for a purpose: the “sunfolk.” Still, the precise function is unclear. Since the preceding and succeeding lines ostensibly pertain to sustenance in this life, it is reasonable to assign the same function for the tree of life. A posthumous revivification role is not impossible, but is unlikely.49 The Great Hymn to Osiris dates to the 18th Dynasty and appears on the Stela of Amenmose. The relevant stanza reads thus:50 The crown placed firmly on his51 head, He counts the land as his possession, Sky, earth are under his command, Mankind is entrusted to him, Commoners, nobles, sunfolk. Egypt and far-off lands, What Aten encircles is under his care. Northwind, river, flood, Tree of life, all plants. Nepri gives all his herbs, Field’s Bounty52 brings satiety, And gives it to all lands. Everybody jubilates, Hearts are glad, breasts rejoice,

47

48 49 50 51 52

The sunfolk were “the population of Egypt and mankind as a whole” (“The Great Hymn to Osiris,” trans. Miriam Lichtheim [COS 1.26:41–43 [42, n. 16]). However, Osborne (“Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt,” 125) remarks: “given the notorious ethnocentrism of ancient Egyptians, it is more likely that the Tree of Life in this second passage does not generically represent all life, but instead represents the source of life for the Egyptians.” Ritner, “Hymn of Praise to Amun-Re,” 39, col. 1. The same equivalence applies to an early, but undated hymn found in Thebes to Amun-Re (see Text 78 in Assmann, Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete, 187). Text from “Great Hymn to Osiris,” COS 1.26:41–43. Unless otherwise stated, notes to the text are also from this translation. I.e. Horus, the son of Osiris and Isis. I.e. “abundance of food personified as a divinity” (“Great Hymn to Osiris,” COS 1.26:41–43 [41, n. 12]).

the tree of life in ancient near eastern literature

19

Everyone exults, All extol his goodness: How pleasant is his love for us, His kindness overwhelms the hearts, Love of him is great in all. Clearly, the hymn addresses deities other than Osiris, and the tree of life is one of several life-giving agents under the control of Aten. Unlike the Hymn to Amun-Re, which attributes the tree of life to the deity, this text does not state that Aten (or Horus or Osiris) created the tree of life; rather the tree enjoys the oversight of the deity. Conversely, in Genesis 2:9a the writer ascribes to Yahweh God “every tree [that is] desirable in appearance and good for food.” However, while it is clear from Gen 3:22–24 that eating the fruit of the tree of life bestows immortality (or ensures that immortality continues), the same is not stated explicitly of the tree of life in this hymn. Like the previous two hymns, the tree’s precise significance goes unstated so that any capacity for conveying immortality is unlikely or, at best, implicit. Whereas the tree of life is differentiated from deities in the hymns, in other genres the two operate more collaboratively in bestowing immortality in the afterlife. For example, the tree is personified as Hathor in Spell 52 in the Book of the Dead, where the speaker states, “I eat under this sycamore of Hathor my mistress.”53 Since many texts in which the tree of life features occur in mortuary texts, a précis of the main bodies of that literature—especially the Book of the Dead— may be useful. To the ancient Egyptians, death was a transition from one life to another. However, the posthumous journey to the Field of Rushes (i.e. paradise) was fraught with danger, especially from the judgment in the Hall of Truth by a council that weighed the deceased’s heart against a feather. If the heart was as light as the feather, the deceased joined Osiris; if not, it was consumed by the goddess Amenet/Ammut. Although initially a privilege of kings, posthumous life was subsequently democratized to include all Egyptians, though scholars differ over whether the shift occurred during the Middle or New Kingdom. Mortuary texts such as the Book of the Dead, then, are something of an instruction manual to guide the deceased on what to say at each of the obstacles along the journey. The Book of the Dead is the third stage of a process that started at least 53

Thomas George Allen, The Book of the Dead, or Going Forth by Day: Ideas of the Ancient Egyptians Concerning the Hereafter as Expressed in Their Own Terms, SAOC 37, trans. idem (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), 52, cited by Christopher Hays, “‘There Is Hope for a Tree’: Job’s Hope for the Afterlife in the Light of Egyptian Tree Imagery,” CBQ 77 (2015): 45.

20

echols

as early as the Old Kingdom when prayers, spells, etc., expressed in writings and paintings in tombs, began to be collected in the Pyramid Texts (ca. 2400 BC), which developed in the Coffins Texts (ca. 2000 BC), and then to the Book of the Dead (ca. 1500BC). The composition process continued into the Ptolemaic period (ca. 300 BC). The title, Book of the Dead, is a modern construct, perhaps because the texts that comprise the Book of the Dead were found in burial chambers and tombs. It translates to the Book/Chapters of the Going/Coming Forth by Day.54 As the god of the underworld, there is little surprise that Osiris features prominently in mortuary texts. The deity and the tree have an especially close association with rejuvenation. For example, an inscription on a statue of Ibi, chief steward in the 26th Dynasty, indicates that his mistress, Nitocris, built a temple to Osiris-Onnophris with trees and irrigation so that the trees could revivify like Osiris.55 Trees also feature in conjunction with objects related with death and the afterlife. The tomb and necropolis were portals to the afterlife and thus sacred—all the more so when embodied by deities. The tomb could be symbolized as the womb of a goddess, who provided eternal sustenance to the deceased: “As nurse and nourisher, she [the sky goddess] manifests herself as a sycamore, the tree of life, who dispenses eternal nourishment to the deceased.”56 Deities appear frequently on coffin lids and interiors of coffins and sarcophagi. Nut, for example, appears on the lid of tombs of kings, brings the deceased monarch to life, and offers him food.57 The tree-tomb was efficacious even for deities. In Plutarch’s rendition of the Osiris myth, Osiris dies and is entombed; and when the tomb washes ashore and is covered in heather, the heather morphs into a huge tree with Osiris subsequently reborn from the trunk.58 According to James, Osiris was also represented by the Djed column/pillar, which was originally a sacred tree without branches (cf. the Asherah pole, §4).59 During the annual festival of Khoiak, which marked the death

54

55 56 57 58 59

For more on the nature, origins, and development of the Book of the Dead, see the first two essays in Foy Scalf, ed., Book of the Dead: Becoming God in Ancient Egypt, OIMP 39 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2018). Hays, “ ‘There Is Hope for a Tree,’ ” 52–53. Jan Assmann, Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt, abridged and updated, trans. David Lorton (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005), 171. Carolyn Graves-Brown, Dancing for Hathor: Women in Ancient Egypt (London: Continuum, 2010), 162, cited by Osborne, “Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt,” 120. Hays, “ ‘There Is Hope for a Tree,’ ” 55. James, Tree of Life, 39–40.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern literature

21

and revival of Osiris and which was celebrated in the fourth month as the flooded Nile began to recede, the Djed column was elevated, symbolizing Osiris’s rise from death. If James is correct, then the Khoiak festival is further attestation to the association between the sacred tree and objects in revivification. The Pyramid Texts hold at least three references to a plant of life, all in spells relating to Pepi I (ca. 2289–2255BC) of the Sixth Dynasty.60 Spell 467, located in a corridor of the king’s tomb, is an incantation in which Pepi I is given the “plant of life.”61 In the incantation, Osiris is told to fetch his barge since the pꝪꜤtcanal has been opened, allowing Pepi to pass through the now-flooded Marsh of Reeds and the Marsh of Rest to his “new state.” The plant of life has provided life for the gods, and the spell directs them to give it to Pepi as well. Two variant texts, Spells 359 and 547, are similar.62 The “plant of life” is to be given, respectively, to Nemtiemzaf Merenre (i.e. Merenre I, the first son of Pepi) and to Pepi Neferkare (i.e. Pepi, grandson of Pepi I). The spells in the Book of the Dead are formally regular. In most the spell has preceding and succeeding rubrics that were added subsequently. Spell 59 is typical. The introductory rubric informs the deceased that the spell is “for breathing air and having water available in the god’s domain.” The deceased is then to pray: O thou sycamore of Nut, mayest thou give water and the breath that is in thee. It is I who occupy this seat in the midst of Hermopolis. I have guarded this egg of the Great Honker. If it grows, I grow. If it lives, I live; if it breathes air, I breathe air.63 A sycamore is thus likened to Nut, who dispenses the “water” and “breath” that are essential for posthumous life.64 The frequent appearance of Nut, and sup-

60

61 62 63 64

“Tree,” in James, Tree of Life, 68; Samuel A.B. Mercer, The Pyramid Texts in Translation and Commentary, 4 vols. in one (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1952, web edition created and published by Global Grey, 2013, https://www.globalgreyebooks.com/content/ books/ebooks/pyramid‑texts‑mercer.pdf), 318; “plant,” in James P. Allen, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts: Translated with an Introduction and Notes, SBL WAW 23 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 161, 352. Spell 467, Allen, Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, 160–161. Allen, Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, 352 and 364, respectively. Allen, Book of the Dead, 55. The tree-goddess appears regularly in the Book of the Dead as Nut, Isis, Hathor, and the Goddess of the West (Rita Lucarelli, “Gods, Spirits, Demons of the Book of the Dead,” in Book of the Dead: Becoming God in Ancient Egypt, ed. Foy Scalf, OIMP 39 [Chicago: The

22

echols

plications to her, are due to her role as the goddess from whose womb the newly deceased is born.65 Similarly, Spell 152 has “the sycamore, lady of offerings,” offering her “bread,” with the supplicant replying to the “sycamore of Nut” to provide him with “cool water” in the context of eternal life.66 However, while the sycamore compares taxonomically with the tree in Genesis 2–3, water, breath, and bread are different than whatever particular fruit grew on the tree of life. Another contrast is the identification of the goddess with the sycamore as opposed to the clear differentiation between God and the tree of life in Genesis. However, the sycamore functions the same as the tree of life in Genesis. The various genres of Egyptian literature thus include references to a sacred “tree/plant of life.” The tree is a source of abundant life in this world and eternal life after death. Trees were embodied and personified by various deities, especially Osiris, Hathor, and Nut. The most significant role of the sacred tree was promoting and restoring life. In terms of function, there is something of a generic divide. In hymnody trees support human life, and there is little likelihood of a posthumous role. This is surely due to the purpose of the genre: to praise the monarch. The roles reverse in mortuary texts, where trees sustain the deceased in the hereafter. The mortuary texts address humankind’s desire for immortality. In the present age, trees were part of the created order, and thus far subordinate ontologically to deities. They are one of the gods’ implements for robust life in the present. In the afterlife, however, their status increases significantly. When used by deities, they are instruments of revivification. However, when they personify or embody deities, they become almost ontologically on par with deities, functioning as agents of new life—perhaps like a midwife— for the deceased, which includes both deities and mortals. The mortuary texts thus compare most closely—taxonomically and functionally—with the tree of life in Genesis, with two main distinctives: in Genesis, the tree is never figurative for or embodied by Yahweh God, and the prospect for immortality is in the present life since Genesis 2–3 do not address the afterlife explicitly.

65 66

Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2018], 130–131, referencing Nils Billing, “Writing an Image: The Formulation of the Tree Goddess Motif in the Book of the Dead, ch. 59,” SAK 32 [2004]: 35–50). Lucarelli, “Gods, Spirits, Demons of the Book of the Dead,” 129. Allen, Book of the Dead, 151. These examples can be multiplied, e.g., Spell 168A, lines 16–17 (p. 165); Spell 189, lines 1–3 (p. 211).

the tree of life in ancient near eastern literature

4

23

The Tree of Life in the Literature of the Levant

As the corridor between the more prominent civilizations, it is not surprising to find Egyptian and Mesopotamian influence on the tree of life in the Levant. Scholars differ, however, over whether Egypt or Mesopotamia was the originator. There is also the possibility that the tree of life was a “metametaphor” such that it arose in the Levant more or less concurrently with Egypt and Mesopotamia. If so, it could account for equivocation such as that by Bernd Ulrich Schipper, who states that the tree of life tradition comes from Mesopotamia, yet wonders if Egypt was not a contributor given the prominence of the tree of life in its imagery and literature.67 As with Mesopotamia and Egypt, the iconographic repository of sacred trees is richer than the epigraphic in the Levant, which has the least number of relevant texts of the three regions. The tree was employed by royal officials in the execution of their responsibilities, as in a Syrian cylinder seal (ca. 1800BC) of a treasurer that features two figures flanking what appears to be a tree of life with the winged disc overhead. Cuneiform on the right side of the seal reads KIŠIB ḫa-am-mu-rapi ša É ni-ṣi-ir-tim, “Seal of Hammurabi of the Treasure House.”68 The tree here serves a purpose distinct from the texts surveyed thus far, viz. facilitating courtiers in appropriating royal authority and power in the course of executing the monarch’s business. While the text and seal compare ontologically with the tree of life in Genesis 2–3, the function is dissimilar. The tree also appears in a ritual text from Ugarit wherein a mare petitions twelve deities for relief from snakebite. The twelfth, Ḥôrānu, responds with an effective remedy: She (the mare) turns (her) face to Ḥôrānu, for she is to be bereaved of her offspring. He (Ḥôrānu) returns to the city of the east, he heads for Great Araššiḫu. for well-watered Araššiḫu.

67

68

Bernd Ulrich Schipper, Israel und Ägypten in der Königszeit: Die kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall Jerusalems, OBO 170 (Freibourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 39, n. 166. Beatrice Teissier, Egyptian Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle Bronze Age, OBO 11 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 32, 34. For another seal associating Hathor with the tree of life, see fig. 202, p. 103.

24

echols

He casts a tamarisk (from) among the trees, the “tree of death” (from) among the bushes. With the tamarisk he expels it (the venom), with the fruit stalk of a date palm he banishes it, with the succulent part of a reed he makes it pass on, with the “carrier” he carries it away.69 That the petitioner was a horse is irrelevant for present purposes: the beneficiary of the incantation was a human being. The fragmentary condition of the text warrants caution with interpretation, and the descriptor, “tree of death” (ʿṣ mt), is antonymous with the “tree of life.” However, as maintained above, nomenclature is not necessarily determinative. By interpreting “tree of death” metonymically, the plant functions like the tree of life, viz. the “tree of death” rejuvenates the snakebite victims by displacing the poison or rendering it impotent. As with the previous text, the taxonomy is the same, but this text is functionally congruous with the tree of life in Genesis 2–3. The difference is that the incantation is a one-time remedy: the beneficiary would ultimately die. Not so the man and woman in Genesis 2–3, had they consumed the fruit from the tree of life.70 Many Old Testaments passages mention Asherah poles (e.g., Deut 16:21; Judg 6:25; 1Kgs 16:33), which scholars have seen in connection with the Canaanite fertility goddess Athirat(u), or, in Hebrew, Asherah (‫)ֲאֵשׁ ָרה‬.71 Were these poles symbols of a tree goddess as James claimed for the Djed column (§ 3)?72 Behind many of the OT references to an Asherah pole, Wallace also sees a connection with the sacred tree, finding further warrant from the tendency of the Greek to opt for √ἄλσος, “grove,” rather than √δένδρον, “fruit tree,” in translat69

70

71

72

“Ugaritic Liturgy against Venomous Reptiles,” trans. Dennis Pardee (COS 1.94:295–298 [297–298]). According to Pardee, the text (= RS 24.244) has two close equivalents, this text being the better preserved. Two other studies have been made of this text, both with similar translations: Johannes C. de Moor, “East of Eden,” ZAW 100 (1988): 105–111; and Baruch A. Levine and Jean-Michel de Tarragon, “ ‘Shapshu Cries Out in Heaven’: Dealing with Snake-Bites at Ugarit,” RB 95 (1988): 481–518. De Moor, “East of Eden,” 106, remarks: “these tablets seem to presuppose a Canaanite tradition about the Garden of Eden which in certain respects must have been quite close to the biblical story in Genesis.” On the Asherah in iconography and in contemporary theology, the essays by Balogh and Treier, Keepers, and Kieser, respectively, in the present volume. On the etymological connection, see Nicholas Wyatt, “Asherah ‫אשׁרה‬,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 99. James, Tree of Life, 17.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern literature

25

ing ‫ֲאֵשׁ ָרה‬.73 He concludes, “Thus it seems clear that the Greek translators have in general understood the cultic object known in Hebrew as ʾăšērâ to be associated with a sacred tree or grove.”74 In the context of Israel’s Wisdom literature, Mark S. Smith states that the tree of life “recalls the asherah.”75 Other scholars demur. Steven A. Wiggins, for example, sees no clear literary asherah-tree connection in Ugarit, Mesopotamia, or South Arabia.76 Michaela Bauks regards the Asherah-goddess as “problematic,” and offers other possible interpretations.77 Between Kuntillet ʿAjrud (northern Sinai) and Khirbet el-Qom (biblical Makkedah, ca. 30km east of Ashdod) are several inscriptions that mention Yahweh ( yhwh) and Asherah or Asherath (ʾašrth). Not all of the texts are in good condition, and debate has ensued over many aspects of the texts, not least of which is whether the h in ʾašrth is the third-person pronominal suffix (“his”) and, if so, whether the reference is to a goddess (“his Asherah”), a sacred pole (“his asherah”), or even to a Yahwistic cult that worshiped Asherah.78 Adjudication of the Kuntillet ʿAjrud and Khirbet el-Qom texts lies beyond the present scope. However, if they do express a connection between Yahweh and A/asherah, the texts simply convey a blessing.79 The asherah plays no clear role in revivification. Thus, the taxonomical correspondence would be close (Asherah pole/tree), but the functional proximity would not. A stronger case occurs with three other ancient Syrian cylinder seals (2000– 1600BC).80 In two the tree is flanked by a goddess, a royal figure, and a devotee, while birds and ibex appear in the third. All three seals have the hieroglyphic sign for “life” (i.e. the “handle cross”) associated with the sacred tree.81 Martin Metzger concludes that the seals represent the tree as the “giver” and “epitome”

73

74 75 76 77 78

79 80 81

In classical literature the noun can refer to a sacred grove, at times even without trees (s.v. Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 8th ed. [New York: American Book Company, 1897], 69). Wallace, Eden Narrative, 112. Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002; repr. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1990), 134. Steve A. Wiggins, “Of Asherahs and Trees: Some Methodological Questions,” JANER 1 (2001): 179–180. Bauks, “Sacred Trees,” 273. On a Yahweh-Asherah cult, see, e.g., B.A. Mastin, “Yahweh’s Asherah, Inclusive Monotheism and the Question of Dating,” in In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day, JSOTSup 406 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 326–351. Wiggins, “Of Asherahs and Trees,” 180–181, remarks that nothing from the Khirbet el-Qom inscription connects the goddess with a tree. Metzger, “Der Weltenbaum in vorderorientalischer Bildtradition,” 12–15. Metzger, “Der Weltenbaum in vorderorientalischer Bildtradition,” 12–15.

26

echols

of life.82 In terms of both taxonomy and function, the seals compare closely with the tree of life in Genesis 2–3. The question is whether the life in the seals is well-being or immortality. Clearly, the context is sacred, but that does not necessitate the latter. To summarize, textual Levantine attestations to a tree of life are sparse relative to Egypt and Mesopotamia. The tree was used by court officials to legitimate their authority, and it played a therapeutic role (healing from snakebite) in ritual texts. It is plausible that the tree collaborated with Yahweh as an instrument of blessing in the Kuntillet ʿAjrud and Khirbet el-Qom inscriptions, and the Syrian seals attest to the role of the tree in promoting life. There is thus close resemblance taxonomically with the tree of life in Genesis 2–3, but the texts of the region lack an unequivocal motif of immortality.

5

Conclusion

The longevity and self-revivifying capacity of the tree made it a symbol of life in the literatures of the ancient Near East, and the ancient writers recognized the same in other types of vegetation. Outside of the Bible, the phrase “tree of life” occurs unequivocally only in Egyptian texts, but the concept of a tree that enhanced life beyond mundane ways such as food, shade, and timber appears in the literature of all three regions surveyed. The criteria of taxonomy and function identify concurrence and discontinuity between the biblical and extrabiblical literature as well as distinguish the various types of vegetation and their roles. One of the roles is blessing and prosperity for the king, as in the seal from Uruk wherein Inanna compares the monarch with a mes-tree. Blessing extends to the king’s nation and to humankind in general in all three regions. In Mesopotamia the gods bless Adad-nirari, and the herb of life is figurative for national prosperity and expansion. The Egyptian hymns to Ptah, Amun-Re, and Osiris specify the tree of life, and two state that it was created by the respective deity as an instrument for the welfare of humankind. In Levantine texts ambiguity undermines the ability to determine with certainty the function of the Asherah pole, but it might have been an instrument of blessing by Yahweh (in non-canonical texts). Three Syrian cylinder seals feature a sacred tree that conveys well-being or perhaps has some connection with immortality. A tree plays two further roles in the Levant, the first being apotropaic where the tree of death heals snakebite in the Ugaritic text. The Syrian cylinder seal bearing

82

Metzger, “Der Weltenbaum in vorderorientalischer Bildtradition,” 12.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern literature

27

the name of Hammurabi, the king’s treasurer, demonstrates how a monarch’s officers could use the sacred tree to leverage authority. All of these purposes were important to the people of the ancient Near East, but perhaps the greatest was the ability of the tree to provide life in the hereafter—to humans and to deities. Thus, in Persia the Saena tree and the white hom offered posthumous immortality, and the unspecified plant in the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh epic could be interpreted as preempting death for its possessor. In Egypt trees were personified as deities, and were incorporated on liminal objects of the afterlife such as tombs and coffin lids. The tree of life in the Pyramid Texts resuscitated the deceased king in the afterlife. The same texts indicate that the life-giving power of the tree extended even to deities, and in the Mesopotamian Inanna myth a life-giving plant and water resuscitate the eponymous goddess in the underworld. Operating on the understanding that the tree of life in Genesis 2–3 precluded the death of the man and woman in the present life, there is no unequivocal parallel in function by any vegetation in the literature of the regions surveyed. However, as mentioned, correspondence occurs in the motif of immortality in general. Here, the Egyptian corpus is the most robust; but Mesopotamian texts attest as well, and the three Syrian seals could perhaps bear witness from the Levant. In coming to terms with the inexorability of death in this life, the tree of life and its equivalents were instruments of hope for immortality by people in most of the ancient Near East.

Works Cited Allen, James P. Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. SBL WAW 23. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Allen, Thomas George. The Book of the Dead, or Going Forth by Day: Ideas of the Ancient Egyptians Concerning the Hereafter as Expressed in Their Own Terms. SAOC 37. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974. Assmann, Jan. Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete: Eingeleitet, Übersetzt und Erläutert. Zweite, verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage ed. OBO. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Assmann, Jan. Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt. Translated by David Lorton. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005. Bauks, Michaela. “Sacred Trees in the Garden of Eden and Their Ancient Near Eastern Precursors.” JAJ 3 (2012): 267–301. Billing, Nils. “Writing an Image: The Formulation of the Tree Goddess Motif in the Book of the Dead, Ch.59.” SAK 32 (2004): 35–50.

28

echols

Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, J. Ebeling, E. Flückiger-Hawker, E. Robson, J. Taylor, and G. Zólyomi. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature. http://etcsl.orient.ox .ac.uk/ University of Oxford, 1998–. Black, Jeremy, Andrew George, and Nicholas Postgate, eds. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. SANTAG 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1999. Brisch, Nicole. “Ninsumun (Ninsun) (goddess).” Ancient Mesopotamian Gods and Goddesses. Oracc and the UK Higher Education Academy (2016). http://oracc.iaas.upenn .edu/amgg/listofdeities/ninsumun/ Curtis, V.S. The Legendary Past: Persian Myths. Austin: University of Texas, 1993. Dalley, Stephanie. Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Translated with an Introduction and Notes. Rev. ed. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Echols, Charles L. “Tell Me, O Muse”: The Song of Deborah ( Judges 5) in the Light of Heroic Poetry. LHBOTS 487. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Gamer-Wallert, Ingrid. “Baum, heiliger.” Pages 655–660 in vol. 1 of Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Edited by Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1975–1989. Genge, Heinz. “Zum ‘Lebensbaum’ in den Keilschriftkulturen.” AcOr 33 (1971): 321– 334. George, Andrew R. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. George, Andrew R. The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation. Penguin Classics. London: Penguin, 1999. Giovino, Mariana. The Assyrian Sacred Tree: A History of Interpretations. OBO 230. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Graves-Brown, Carolyn. Dancing for Hathor: Women in Ancient Egypt. London: Continuum, 2010. Hallo, William W., ed. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002. Hansman, J. “Gilgamesh, Humbaba and the Land of the ERIN-Trees.” Iraq 38 (1976): 23– 35. Hays, Christopher. “‘There is Hope for a Tree’: Job’s Hope for the Afterlife in the Light of Egyptian Tree Imagery.” CBQ 77 (2015): 42–68. Heel, Koenraad Donker Van. “The Scribbling-Pad of Djemontefankh Son of Aafenmut, Priest of Amonrasonter and Overseer of the King’s Treasury.” Pages 139–147 in Acts of the Seventh International Conference on Demotic Studies: Copenhagen, 23–27 August 1999. Edited by Kim Ryholt. CNI Publications 27. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2002. James, E.O. The Tree of Life: An Archaeological Study. SHR 11. Leiden: Brill, 1966. Joüon, Paul, and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rev. English ed. SubBi 27. Roma: Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 2006.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern literature

29

Kepinski-Lecomte, Christine. L’Arbre Stylisé en Asie Occidentale au 2e Millénaire Avant J. C. 3 vols. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1982. Kottsieper, I. “Bäume Als Kultort.” Pages 169–187 in Das Kleid der Erde: Pflanzen in der Lebenswelt des alten Israel. Edited by Ute Neumann-Gorsolke and Peter Riede. Stuttgart: Calwer, 2002. Levine, Baruch A., and Jean-Michel de Tarragon. “‘Shapshu Cries Out in Heaven’: Dealing with Snake-Bites at Ugarit.” RB 95 (1988): 481–518. Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. 8th ed. New York: American Book Company, 1897. Lucarelli, Rita. “Gods, Spirits, Demons of the Book of the Dead.” Pages 127–136 in Book of the Dead: Becoming God in Ancient Egypt. Edited by Foy Scalf. OIMP 39. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2018. Margulis, B. “Weltbaum and Weltberg in Ugaritic Literature: Notes and Observations on RŠ 24.245.” ZAW 86 (1974): 1–23. Margulis, B. “A Weltbaum in Ugaritic Literature?” JBL 90 (1971): 481–482. Mastin, B.A. “Yahweh’s Asherah, Inclusive Monotheism and the Question of Dating.” Pages 326–351 in In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. JSOTSup 406. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Mercer, Samuel A.B. The Pyramid Texts in Translation and Commentary. 4 vols. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1952. Mettinger, Tryggve N.D. The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-historical Study of Genesis 2–3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Metzger, Martin. “Der Weltenbaum in vorderorientalischer Bildtradition.” Pages 1–34 in Unsere Welt, Gottes Schöpfung: Festschrift für Eberhard Wölfel. Edited by Wilfried Härle, Manfred Marquardt, and Wolfgang Nethöfel. Marburger theologische Studien 32. Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 1992. Mobley, Gregory. The Empty Men: The Heroic Tradition of Ancient Israel. New York: Doubleday, 2005. Mobley, Gregory. “The Wild Man in the Bible and the Ancient Near East.” JBL 116 (1997): 217–233. Moor, Johannes C. de. “East of Eden.” ZAW 100 (1988): 105–111. Neumann-Gorsolke, Ute, and Peter Riede. “Motive und Materialien: Der Baum als Symbol von Macht und Leben.” Pages 244–249 in Das Kleid der Erde: Pflanzen in der Lebenswelt des alten Israel. Edited by idem. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 2002. Neumann-Gorsolke, Ute, and Peter Riede, eds. Das Kleid der Erde: Pflanzen in der Lebenswelt des alten Israel. Stuttgart: Calwer, 2002. Obbink, Herman Theodorus. “The Tree of Life in Eden.” ZAW 46 (1928): 105–112. Osborne, William R. “The Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt and the Book of Proverbs.” JANER 14 (2014): 117–128. Osborne, William R. Trees and Kings: A Comparative Analysis of Tree Imagery in Israel’s

30

echols

Prophetic Tradition and the Ancient Near East. BBRSup 18. University Park, PA; Eisenbrauns, 2018. Parpola, Simo. “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy.” JNES 52 (1993): 161–208. Pfeiffer, Henrik. “Der Baum in der Mitte des Gartens: Zum überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Ursprung der Paradieserzählung (Gen 2,4b–3,24), Teil I: Analyse.” ZAW 112 (2000): 487–500. Pfeiffer, Henrik. “Der Baum in der Mitte des Gartens: Zum überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Ursprung der Paradieserzählung (Gen 2,4b–3,24), Teil II: Prägende Tradition und theologische Akzente.” ZAW 113 (2001): 2–16. Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Ringgren, Helmer. Religions of the Ancient Near East. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1973. Scalf, Foy, ed. Book of the Dead: Becoming God in Ancient Egypt. OIMP 39. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2018. Schipper, Bernd Ulrich. Israel und Ägypten in der Königszeit: Die kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall Jerusalems. OBO 170. Freibourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Schoske, Sylvia, Barbara Kreißl, and Renate Germer. “Anch” Blumen für das Leben: Planzen im Alten Ägypten. Münich: Karl M. Lipp, 1992. Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Stordalen, T. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. CBET 25. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. Teissier, Beatrice. Egyptian Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle Bronze Age. OBO 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Wallace, Howard N. The Eden Narrative. HSM 32. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael Patrick O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Wasilewska, Ewa. Creation Stories of the Middle East. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2000. Watanabe, Kazuko. “Lebensspendende und todbringende Substanzen in Altmesopotamien.” BaM 25 (1994): 579–596. Widengren, Geo. The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion. UUA 4. Uppsala: Lundequist, 1951. Wiggins, Steve A. “Of Asherahs and Trees: Some Methodological Questions.” JANER 1 (2001): 158–187. Winter, Urs. “Der stilisierte Baum: Zu einem auffälligen Aspekt altorientalischer Baumsymbolik und seiner Rezeption im Alten Testament.” BK 41 (1986): 171–177.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern literature

31

Wyatt, Nicolas. “Asherah ‫אשׁרה‬.” Pages 99–105 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd ed. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. Leiden: Brill, 1999. York, H. “Heiliger Baum.” Pages 269–282 in vol. 4 of Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Edited by Erich Ebeling. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1932– 2014.

chapter 2

The Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Iconography Amy L. Balogh

As noted by Charles Echols in the introduction to the previous chapter, the phrase “tree of life” is rare in ancient Near Eastern texts outside of the Bible. When it comes to ancient Near Eastern iconography, the phrase does not appear on any extant images at all, and yet the prominence of sacred, life-giving trees in the iconographic record suggests that perhaps the symbol was so well known that one did not need labels or explanations to draw the connection between the tree and abundant life. It is fitting, then, that the authors of Genesis may have followed the example of many other ancient Near Eastern cultures in adapting the Sacred Tree motif to suit their own religious and cultural context as the “tree of life.” The difficulty of this approach is that it limits what we can learn about the Sacred Tree when we make a single reinterpretation of Gen 2–3 our primary end-goal. Instead, I analyze the Sacred Tree on its own accord as a multivalent image with multiple layers of meaning accrued over time, and shifting with each location, time period, and religious tradition. This gives the reader multiple options for re-reading the “tree of life” in Gen 2–3, which is taken up in the following chapter. The precise meaning of the tree of life or Sacred Tree motif in ancient Near Eastern iconography eludes its modern audience, as every depiction of the Sacred Tree is deeply embedded in a millennia-long tradition of iconographic language and activity that is no longer “spoken” in modern parlance.1 In general, modern scholarship interprets Sacred Tree iconography in one of two ways: either as symbolic of a nurturing goddess in charge of life-cycles or as symbolic of kingship, both of which carry connotations of provision and protection. In 1 Throughout this chapter, I use the generic designation “Sacred Tree” instead of the more specific “Tree of Life.” While there are iconographic indicators that the trees discussed are indeed sacred, one may only speculate whether they were known as a “Tree of Life,” as the phrase is extremely rare in inscriptions from the ancient world and has yet to be witnessed in any extant iconographic works. For further discussion of the specific titles by which the Sacred Tree has been known throughout the history of its interpretation, see Mariana Giovino, The Assyrian Sacred Tree: A History of Interpretation, OBO 230 (Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg, 2007), 5, 9–20.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423756_004

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

33

the process of tracing the development of the Sacred Tree across the ancient Near East and across the third through first millennia BCE, this chapter argues that the Sacred Tree bears not one meaning but a constellation of interrelated meanings that brings together terrestrial concerns and cosmic activities within the symbolic space of the tree, a symbol that each iconographer nuances in relation to his or her own historical context and artistic traditions. First and foremost, the image serves as a symbol of the nurturing aspects of the divine, most often personified as the mother-goddess, and this remains its primary significance through the third and second millennia BCE. As time moves forward and cultures shift, so too does the Sacred Tree. The association with the mother-goddess remains, but other associations are added that both complement and compete with the feminine symbolism—the most significant being the appearance of kingship in the first millennium as a major theme in Sacred Tree iconography. The development of the ancient Near Eastern Sacred Tree as an iconographic motif is intimately connected to the history of the region, in particular the region’s politics and religions. Since each geographic area, time period, and sample is marked by its own characteristics, artistic trends, and mythological or ideological backgrounds, examining the Sacred Tree as a consistent, central motif against the backdrop of ever-shifting cultural contexts highlights the multivalent and fluid nature of the Sacred Tree symbolism, a symbolism whose flexibility allows it to translate across space and time from deep antiquity through today. In order to arrive at a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the Sacred Tree image in ancient Near Eastern iconography, one must analyze it with an eye for the presence and interplay of multiple meanings and traditions, but in order to do so, one must first understand the meanings and traditions upon which an iconographer might draw. This chapter suggests that in order to move forward the conversation about the Sacred Tree and, by extension, its potential influence on the biblical “tree of life,” one must take an approach to iconography that makes three assumptions: The first is that understanding the millennia-long trajectory of a motif is key to understanding its symbolism; the second is that multiple meanings often exist simultaneously and in layers; and the third is that the core associations expressed through semiotic language do not disappear when new associations or language are added, but instead withstand cultural and artistic change from generation to generation.2 This chapter thus examines the millennia-long

2 On the ability of the semiotic language to withstand changes, see Mehmet-Ali Ataç, “Visual Formula and Meaning in Neo-Assyrian Relief Sculpture,” The Art Bulletin 88 (2006): 69–101.

34

balogh

development of the themes of the divine feminine and kingship, both separately and together, as well as the interplay between them in the iconographic records of ancient Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Egypt.3 The innumerable variations of the Sacred Tree motif as it appears across many miles and millennia are the result of continuous developments and expansions of iconographic language over space and time, adding to the complexity of the image from prehistory onward, and all while maintaining the image’s roots in the lived experience of trees.4

1

Identifying a Sacred Tree

Before delving into the specifics of the topic at hand, it is fruitful to first address how one identifies a Sacred Tree in the iconographic record of the ancient Near East. Irene Winter helpfully distinguishes between depictions of trees using the two categories “referential” and “symbolic.”5 Referential trees are depictions that refer to natural trees, as one would see them in a field or garden, and usually appear in the background of a scene. Symbolic (stylized) trees, on the other hand, are composite images that are simultaneously based on the reality of nature, and constructed in a way that renders them abstract.6 Most symbolic trees take on a “stylized” form in that they mimic certain elements of natural trees, sometimes multiple species at once, while also exhibiting unnatural sym3 The Sacred Tree motif also appears in other geographic areas of the Eastern Mediterranean, such as Greece and Cyprus, but examples are less frequent and beyond the scope of this chapter. For example, see Hans-Günter Buchholz, “Kyprische Bildkunst zwischen 1100 und 500 v. Chr.,” in Images as Media: Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millennium BCE), ed. Christoph Uehlinger, OBO 175 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 249. 4 For a catalog of Mesopotamian variations of the stylized tree from the second millennium, see Christine Kepinski-Lecomte, L’ Arbre Stylisé en Asie Occidentale au 2e Millénaire Avant J. C., Tome I–II (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1982). Such a thorough study of Levantine or Egyptian stylized trees is yet to be published. An abridged list of first millennium Mesopotamian variations is available in Simo Parpola, “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy,” JNES 52 (1993): 200–201; reproduced by Jerrold Cooper, “Assyrian Prophecies, The Assyrian Tree, and the Mesopotamian Origins of Jewish Monotheism, Greek Philosophy, Christian Theology, Gnosticism, and Much More,” JAOS 120 (2000): 433. 5 Irene J. Winter, “Tree(s) on the Mountain: Landscape and Territory on the Victory Stele of Naram-Sîn of Agade,” in On Art in the Ancient Near East: Volume II, From the Third Millennium B.C.E., CHANE 34.2 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 117. 6 Winter, “Tree(s) on the Mountain,” 117; Barbara Nevling Porter, “Sacred Trees, Date Palms, and the Royal Persona of Ashurnasirpal II,” JNES 52 (1993): 129–139.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

35

metry and proportions. All of these features come together to emphasize the orderly, otherworldly nature of the tree, and to elevate it to the realm of the divine.7 On Winter’s definitions, once the strange or unearthly nature of the tree is established, it is not a far step to associate the tree with the divine or sacred realm. All regions of the ancient Near East are home to a tradition in which the symbolic tree is rendered “sacred” through the incorporation of an anthropomorphic deity into the tree itself or through the appearance of tree imagery on the very body of deity, most often a mother-goddess as discussed throughout this chapter. While the deity-tree hybrid is not always the normative means of representing the sacredness of the Sacred Tree, traditions of deity-tree hybrids are evidenced in the archaeological records of Mesopotamia, the Levant, Egypt, and beyond. However, the deity-tree association does not disappear when anthropomorphic characteristics become absent, but rather is incorporated into the symbolic language common to the iconographer and his intended audience. This suggestion is supported by the enduring presence of accompanying motifs, to which we now turn, that remain consistent despite changes in the tree’s aesthetic. These accompanying motifs make possible a more nuanced understanding of the Sacred Tree than is made available by the tree itself. In contrast with referential trees, symbolic trees are essential to the overall composition of the piece, and the function of the supporting motifs to draw the viewer’s eye toward the tree while also supplementing the symbol in its most basic form. Within the scene, the tree is usually the center of attention. Artistically, this is accomplished in one of three ways: either the Sacred Tree is portrayed as the largest element of the composition, it is portrayed as the primary active agent (e.g., giving food or water to supplicants), or it is portrayed as being venerated or acted upon from both sides by one or more of a variety of beings. The latter option is perhaps the most common in the iconographic record, especially in Mesopotamia and the Levant. In the absence of anthropomorphic features, the Sacred Tree is often marked, even identified, as symbolic or “sacred” by the presence of figures flanking the tree, the most common of which are caprids (i.e., goat-like animals), fish, semi-divine hybrid creatures, deities, and humans. These flanking creatures most often appear in pairs, with one on either side of the tree, giving Sacred Tree iconography its classic symmetry. Other supporting 7 On the importance of symmetry toward expressing a divine or sacred nature, see Irene J. Winter, “Royal Rhetoric and the Development of Historical Narrative in Neo-Assyrian Reliefs,” in On Art in the Ancient Near East: Volume I, Of the First Millennium B.C.E., CHANE 34.1 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 10.

36

balogh

motifs that appear regularly throughout Sacred Tree iconography but generally do not appear in pairs include the lotus flower, an ancient Near Eastern symbol of eternal regeneration, and celestial motifs, which are intimately connected to the activities of those in the heavenly realm. Each of these and other recurring motifs, many of which are discussed throughout this chapter, have their own history, complications, and nuances. Additionally, almost every example of Sacred Tree iconography exhibits a combination of supporting motifs that are specific to the time, place, community, and artist to which it belongs. Therefore, the analysis that follows examines the use and symbolism of these supporting motifs only to the extent that it is useful for understanding the symbolic import of the primary motif, the Sacred Tree (and by extension, the tree of life). This process produces numerous insights that strongly suggest that if we are to develop a robust understanding of what the iconographer wishes to signify, it is important to attend to supporting motifs. In the particular case of the Sacred Tree, the supporting motifs emphasize the tree’s nurturing, protective, and sacred qualities, but perhaps more importantly, they also signal shifts in the iconographic language and imagination that cannot be observed through analysis of the tree image alone.

2

The Divine Feminine

Due to their reproductive, cyclical, and regenerative properties, as well as their ability to direct people to water and produce food, cultures across the ancient Near East associate trees with the motherly, nurturing aspects of the divine. This is attested through Sacred Tree images themselves, as Sacred Tree iconography in most periods and regions expresses a symbolic connection between tree and the divine feminine either by portraying both tree and anthropomorphic goddess in close relation, or by equating the goddess with a tree and communicating that equation through supporting motifs. It is seldom clear from the iconographic record alone, especially in the Levant where it is rare for image and text to appear together, which named goddess (if any) is affiliated with the Sacred Tree; therefore many scholars hold the assumption that the goddess associated with the Sacred Tree, whether Mesopotamian, Levantine, or Egyptian, is mostly likely the goddess described in contemporary texts as in charge of the fertility of all life.8

8 Othmar Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

37

Sometimes this assumption is supported by iconographic evidence, but most of the time the evidence is circumstantial. Regardless of the exact identification of the goddess pictured therein and regardless of the period and location to which an image belongs, the Sacred Tree motif expresses the conceptual connection between the bounty of the earth—water, air, produce, shelter, security—and the divine feminine. This connection is best pronounced in exemplars from the third and second millennia BCE discussed below; with the introduction of the theme of kingship in the first millennium, the tree-goddess connection undergoes significant transition. 2.1 Mesopotamia The motif of the Sacred Tree has provoked more discussion and controversy than almost any other element of Mesopotamian art, inspiring numerous volumes, countless articles, and endless speculation.9 This is in part because Mesopotamian texts, especially religious texts, are replete with tree imagery and metaphor, but there is no extant text that explains the meaning, association, theology, or mythology behind the Sacred Tree image. Research into the meaning of the Sacred Tree in the third and second millennia—which is the focus of this section—is limited by the nature of the evidence, leaving one to suggest only three matters: that the tree is increasingly stylized and therefore symbolic of at least one aspect or association, that it is most often accompanied by supporting motifs that are themselves symbolic and thus enhance our understanding of the central image, and that the Sacred Tree is most likely associated with the goddess Ishtar (Inanna in Sumerian) but may also be associated with other deities related to agricultural blessing or perhaps simply the nurturing aspects of the divine realm in general. In the prehistoric and Early Dynastic art of Mesopotamia, religious symbols and scenes of temples and worshippers are common features, but there are few representations of gods in anthropomorphic form until the Akkadian period (ca. 2350–2150BCE).10 Instead, elements of the natural world are trans-

9

10

Hebrew Bible, JSOTSup 261 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); Othmar Keel and Silvia Schroer, Creation: Biblical Theologies in the Context of the Ancient Near East, trans. Peter T. Daniels (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 40. Jeremy Black and Anthony Green, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992), 170; For examples of complete volumes, see Giovino, Assyrian Sacred Tree; E.O. James, The Tree of Life: An Archaeological Study, SHR 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1966). Anthony Green, “Ancient Mesopotamian Religious Iconography,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. Jack Sasson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 1842.

38

balogh

figure 2.1 Cylinder Seal, Akkadian Period (2360–2180 BCE), Mari (Keel and Schroer, Creation, fig. 19)

lated into symbols representing the divine and come to be understood as part of an iconographic language that withstands the advent of writing and exists alongside cuneiform throughout Mesopotamian history.11 The Sacred Tree is one example of this phenomenon. From the fourth millennium through the Achaemenid Period, trees are a popular symbol in all forms of Mesopotamian art with images of Sacred Trees scattered throughout the iconographic record, and achieving their greatest popularity in the first millennium BCE.12 The association of the Sacred Tree with regenerative life, agricultural abundance, and protection from the elements is rooted in the lived experience of trees from the terrestrial world as seasonal providers of sustenance and shade, but what is not as clear at the outset is the origin of the Sacred Tree’s association with the divine and, by extension, the cosmos. Most Mesopotamian examples of Sacred Tree iconography depict a stylized tree devoid of any anthropomorphic characteristics that would clarify its identity with a deity, yet there are enough iconographic examples of deity-tree hybrids and deities holding branches nibbled by caprids to suggest strongly that the Sacred Tree is symbolic of one or more deities related to agricultural blessing, including the goddess Ishtar (fig. 2.1–2).13

11 12 13

Ataç, “Visual Formula and Meaning in Neo-Assyrian Relief Sculpture,” 69. Particularly in the northern region, where its association with kingship is literally carved in stone. Keel and Schroer, Creation, 31–36, fig. 13, 18, 19; ANEP, fig. 528, 672; Dominique Collon, First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East (London: British Museum Press, 2005), fig. 6, 106, 135.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

39

figure 2.2 Cylinder Seal, ca. 2500 BCE, Shadad (Iran; Keel and Schroer, Creation, fig. 18)

Once the connection between symbolic tree and divine realm is established in the symbolic language of Mesopotamian iconography, it remains an active and viable connection throughout the ages, even in the absence of anthropomorphism. The cosmic significance of the tree is further accentuated by numerous supporting motifs, especially the use of astral symbols.14 In the third and second millennia, these astral symbols include the sun, moon, stars, and constellations, whereas Sacred Tree iconography of the first millennium favors the winged solar disc, which often doubles as a political symbol.15 What confirms that the celestial bodies are symbolic rather than referential is the appearance of both sun and moon or sun and stars within the same image. The direct association of the Sacred Tree with the divine in general and the divine feminine in particular comes to the fore when one notices the frequent appearance of the eight-pointed star (fig. 2.1).16 This eight-pointed star is identified throughout the ages as Ishtar herself. Thus, not only do the astral motifs clarify the connection of the Sacred Tree to the cosmos, they also connect the tree to the rhythm of that cosmos via association with the goddess of natural cycles.17 As a result, the aesthetically simple iconography of the Sacred Tree expresses a complex web of 14 15 16 17

Keel and Schroer, Creation, 37. The solar disc appears in a minority of examples from the second millennium. For example, see Collon, First Impressions, fig. 217–219. For example, Keel and Schroer, Creation, 36–37, fig. 19–21; Collon, First Impressions, fig. 216, 221, 245, 296, 345, 355. Ishtar’s lordship over natural cycles is the central theme of the Descent of Ishtar in which she journeys to the Netherworld and back in order to establish and ensure the maintenance of the earthly seasons.

40

balogh

ideas that interrelates the terrestrial concerns of humankind, the annual death and rebirth of plant life, and the cosmic activities of various deities, specifically Ishtar. The connection to Ishtar is furthered by the Sacred Tree’s date-like characteristics. Most scholars agree that even though the tree is stylized and therefore defies botanic identification, the majority of examples incorporate characteristics of the date palm that are important for understanding the symbolic import of the tree’s construction. The actual date palm reaches a height of 21– 23m. (69–75 feet) and yields more than one hundred pounds of sweet fruit per year for an average production life of over one hundred years.18 Dates were an important food not only because of their yield but also because they are easily transported and preserved. In a plentiful year, dates could remain a source of calories and sweetness year-round, and also be traded with communities outside of date-growing regions. It is therefore fitting that synonyms for the date palm include “tree of riches” (iṣ rašê) and “tree of abundance” (iṣ mašrê) since a good crop was destined to ensure both profit and provision for the community.19 It is also fitting that iconographers would use palmettes to refer to the fruiting top of the date palm, both referentially and symbolically, and frequently repeat the palmette motif upon the same Sacred Tree as a way of underscoring the symbolism of divine, even miraculous, provision. The palm is also perceived as having apotropaic qualities in its own right and is therefore incorporated into various rituals of protection.20 This symbolism is understood throughout the region of Mesopotamia, even in areas where date palms cannot grow.21 Due to its reproductive capabilities, the date palm is associated with the goddess Ishtar and also the female gender more broadly. From as early as the third millennium BCE, Ishtar’s Sumerian counterpart, Inanna, is considered “the one who makes the dates full of abundance.”22 Beginning in the Akkadian Period, when anthropomorphic representations of the gods become prominent, Ishtar is linked to the date palm both iconographically and textually, either through 18

19 20

21 22

W.H. Barreveld, Date Palm Products, FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 101 (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1993); online: http://www.fao.org/ docrep/t0681E/t0681e00.htm (accessed 7 Nov 2017). Porter, “Sacred Trees, Date Palms, and the Royal Persona of Ashurnasirpal II,” 134. Barbara Parker Mallowan, “Magic and Ritual in the Northwest Palace Reliefs,” in Essays on Ancient Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honor of Charles Kyrle Wilkinson, ed. Prudence O. Harper and Holly Pittmann (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1983), 37–39. E.g., Assyria, which will be discussed in the section on kingship. Paul Collins, “Trees and Gender in Assyrian Art,” Iraq LXVIII (2006): 99.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

41

visual proximity, holding a cluster of dates, or actually being called a “palm tree” or “mighty date palm, with heroic strength” (fig. 2.4–5).23 The symbolic connection of the date palm and Ishtar persists throughout the ages, yet at the same time a parallel tradition emerges in which the date palm also becomes a generic symbol of femininity and fruitfulness.24 These traditions carry over into Sacred Tree iconography of the first millennium, where they become central to the self-understanding of the early Neo-Assyrian empire and the identity of its kings. 2.2 Levant The connection between the Sacred Tree and the divine feminine in the iconography of the Levant is well documented in archaeological records from the Middle Bronze Age (MB) through the early Iron Age (IA).25 Numerous seals from the late third through early second millennia BCE (MB I or MB IIA) depict the Sacred Tree as a goddess-tree hybrid with branches emanating from her shoulders or with her body incorporated into its trunk. In other instances, the Sacred Tree appears as a stylized tree either accompanied by a goddess in anthropomorphic form or flanked with animals, namely fish and caprids, whose presence communicates to those familiar with the symbolic language of ancient Levantine iconography that the tree signifies the goddess and her life-giving qualities (fig. 2.3).26 These ways of communicating the association between goddess and tree form the basis of the symbolic language of Sacred Tree iconography, and continue to be in use through the Late Bronze Age (LB) and IA, with additional type-scenes added over time. Beginning in MB IIB, craftsmen incorporate the Sacred Tree image into precious objects such as metal work, cylinder seals, and scarabs, and expand the iconographic language of the goddess-tree association. Portrayals of an anthropomorphic goddess sprouting branches from her navel and/or pudenda, or

23

24

25 26

Collins, “Trees and Gender in Assyrian Art,” 99–101; Pauline Albenda, “Assyrian Sacred Trees in the Brooklyn Museum,” Iraq 56 (1994): 132–133; Porter, “Sacred Trees, Date Palms, and the Royal Persona of Ashurnasirpal II,” 138. Collins, “Trees and Gender in Assyrian Art,” 99–101; For examples, see Collon, First Impressions, fig. 112, 296, 621 (fig. 296 also includes an eight-pointed star); the date’s masculine counterpart is the conifer, which likely stands for Assyria and/or its chief deity, Assur. See Collins, “Trees and Gender in Assyrian Art.” For an illustrated survey of the development of goddess-tree iconography in the Levant, see Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh, 16–59. Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh, 20–24; for Mesopotamian examples of this same motif, see Collon, First Impressions, fig. 242, 248, 263–265, 464, 878, 916, 932.

42

balogh

figure 2.3 Cylinder Seal, Old Syrian (1750–1550 BCE; Keel and Schroer, Creation, fig. 21)

figure 2.4 Pendent, Tell el-ʿAjul, MB IIB (Keel, Goddesses and Trees, 17)

with branches flanking her sides or held in her hands constitute the major artistic trends that characterize Sacred Tree iconography of this period (fig. 2.4–6).27 There are also numerous examples of a stylized tree flanked by one or two worshippers, which suggests that the tree could stand alone as the symbol of the goddess in her role as provider.28 The stylized tree or goddess holding

27 28

Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh, 24–29. Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh, 24–29; for Mesopotamian examples of this motif, see Collon, First Impressions, fig. 112 (cj.), 243, 245, 257–259.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

43

figure 2.5 Scarab, Gezer, MB IIB (Keel, Goddesses and Trees, 26)

figure 2.6 Terracotta plaque, Tel Harassim, LB (Keel, Goddesses and Trees, fig. 52)

44

balogh

figure 2.7 Pithoi, Kuntillet Ajrud, IA IIB (Keel, Goddesses and Trees, fig. 77)

branches is also sometimes flanked by caprids, a motif carried over from earlier periods that emphasizes the life-giving nature of the goddess who the Sacred Tree symbolizes. In the LB, Sacred Tree iconography begins a two-fold shift that continues into the IA: the first aspect of this shift relates to how people represent the goddess-tree association, and the second aspect relates to the medium upon which people depict the Sacred Tree. While there are enough images of an anthropomorphic goddess holding branches nibbled by caprids to suggest that the goddess and stylized Sacred Tree remain interchangeable in the symbolic language of Bronze Age Levantine iconography, the popularity of anthropomorphic images of the goddess diminishes overall.29 As Sacred Tree iconographers shift away from anthropomorphic forms, they take the equally ancient, though less popular, image of the stylized tree flanked by two caprids and transition it into the dominant method of portraying the Sacred Tree (fig. 2.7).30

29 30

Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh, 30–36. Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh, 24–29.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

45

Often the caprid-flanked tree loosely resembles a fruiting palm, and the two creatures either rest in its shade or lift their front hooves onto its trunk in order to partake of the tree’s abundance, nursing on the leaves and fruit. In reality, caprids are much too small to pick fruit from date palms, which underscores the notion that the tree is symbolic and designed to communicate a particular meaning or association. With its impressive height, yield, and the sweet taste of its fruit, the date palm represents the goddess’ accomplishments in the area of agricultural abundance, while the caprids’ ability to rest under or feed upon the date palm signifies the peace, sanctuary, and satisfaction that the lifesustaining goddess provides. While the inclusion of the Sacred Tree motif on precious objects and materials continues into the LB and IA, painted ceramics and figurines become the primary medium on which the motif appears. In the southern Levant, the Sacred Tree is the most predominant motif attested on painted pottery, and in many cases demonstrates less artistic training than examples from previous eras, suggesting that most instances of the image in the LB Levant are not connected directly to cultic institutions or formal systems of worship, but either relate to common devotional practices or provide examples of cultural and artistic appropriation.31 Whether for reasons of theology, artistic ease, preference in style, or other concerns, the proliferation and popularization of the Sacred Tree image parallels a slow shift away from the use of anthropomorphic or hybrid goddess-tree images toward the use of a stylized tree. This enabled the religious imagination to adapt the Sacred Tree from a symbolic stand-in for the divine feminine in MB and LB to a generic symbol of blessing in IA I, and eventually a representation of the blessing of specific male deities (e.g., Yahweh, Kemosh, Milkom) by IA IIC—a shift discussed in more detail below.32 However, the transition from goddess-tree to generic symbol of plenty is by no means comprehensive, which brings us to a topic that arises consistently in discussions of Levantine tree imagery, the topic of A/asherah. While both iconographic and written evidence of a direct connection between the Levantine goddess Asherah and the Sacred Tree is ambiguous at best, available evidence does suggests that the object referred to in the Hebrew Bible as an

31 32

G.D. Choi, “Decoding Canaanite Pottery Paintings from the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I,” PhD Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2008. Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, “Acculturating Gender Roles: Goddess Images as Conveyors of Culture in Ancient Israel,” in Image, Text, Exegesis: Iconographic Interpretation and the Hebrew Bible, LHBOTS 588, ed. Izaak J. de Hulster and Joel M. LeMon (London: Bloomsbury, 2014); David T. Sugimoto, “ ‘Tree of Life’ Decoration on Iron Age Pottery from the Southern Levant,” Orient (2012): 125–146; Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh, 42–46.

46

balogh

asherah was at least made of wood, and may have even been a small, pruned, and living tree, perhaps the almond.33 Whether a tree, a tree-like object, or some other form of wooden entity, an asherah was not necessarily a visual form of the mother-goddess of the same name. Another option might be that the object represented her presence and participation in cultic systems concerned with life-giving, life-cycles, and humankind’s need to maintain divine favor in those areas of life.34 Furthermore, the continuation of the suckling caprid motif ensured then and now suggests that the feminine, nurturing aspects of the Sacred Tree image—rooted in a millennia-long iconographic association between goddess and plant—does not disappear from the iconographic vocabulary of the Levant, but persists beyond the IA.35 2.3 Egypt In Egypt, the tradition of a goddess-tree is not well established in the iconographic record until the fifteenth century BCE, centuries after the image was developed throughout Mesopotamia and the Levant.36 Thanks to the practice of pairing illustration with text in the Book of the Dead, Egyptologists are able to positively identify Nut as the goddess most commonly associated with trees—particularly sycamore fig trees—in the iconography of the New Kingdom (16th–11th centuries BCE) and beyond. According to Billing, the sycamore of Nut is designed to function as “a dominating iconographic realization of

33

34

35

36

Steve A. Wiggins, “Of Asherahs and Trees: Some Methodological Questions,” JANER 1 (2001): 158–187; Joan E. Taylor, “The Asherah, the Menorah and the Sacred Tree,” JSOT 66 (1995): 29–54; For arguments against the association of trees and A/asherah, see Christian Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch YHWHs: Beiträge zu literarischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion, 2 vols., BBB 94 (Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995); Jörg Jeremias and Friedhelm Hartenstein, “‘JHWH und seine Aschera’: ‘Offizielle Religion’ und ‘Volksreligion’ zur Zeit der klassischen Propheten,” in Religionsgeschichte Israels: Formale und materiale Aspekte, ed. Bernd Janowski and Matthias Köckert, VWGT 15 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 1999). Choi, “Decoding Canaanite Pottery Paintings from the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I,” 424; it is also noteworthy that if A/asherah worship was indeed associated with trees, then it is one of several forms of Levantine Sacred Tree imagery mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. Other examples include “mighty trees” such as the terebinth (Josh 24:26–27; Ezek 6:13) or special oaks (Gen 12:6; 13:18; 14:13; 18:1). Taylor, “Asherah, the Menorah and the Sacred Tree,” 40. Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 127, fig. 153–155; for examples from the Greco-Roman period, see Ray L. Cleveland, “Cherubs and the ‘Tree of Life’ in Ancient South Arabia,” BASOR 172 (1963): 55–60. Keel and Schroer, Creation, 43.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

47

the maternal … in which Nut, with her distinctive core attributes of space and water, is given a central, though not exclusive, role.”37 The New Kingdom expressions of Nut as divine mother and supplier of lifegiving air and water through her iconographic association with the sycamore fig is one of many manifestations of a tradition dating at least as far back the fifth dynasty (2494–2345BCE) in which the Egyptians first personified trees and associated them with divine provision and agricultural blessing.38 By the time of Pepi I (r. 2332–2287BCE), the Pyramid Texts describe one who “seizes the sycamores” as one who attains divine status in the afterlife, expressing a symbolic association between sycamore trees and eternal life long before the connection is forged to a specific goddess.39 While the goddesses Isis and Hathor are at times also associated with Sacred Trees, it is Nut’s manifestation within the sycamore that dominates the goddess-tree motif. Within Egyptian goddess-tree iconography, there are four major types, each with a great number of variations: with one or two arms protruding from the tree, with a woman’s upper body or breasts protruding from the tree, with an anthropomorphic figure carrying the tree on her head, and with the goddess standing in front of or beside the tree with her complete body in view (fig. 2.8– 9).40 In Egyptian mythology, Nut is not only the primeval mother and sustainer of all life; she is also the sky goddess. It then follows that the sycamore of Nut provides the essential elements of water and breath for all of the cosmos’ inhabitants, including those in the afterlife (see below). Therefore, many of 37

38 39

40

Nils Billing, Nut, the Goddess of Life in Text and Iconography, Uppsala Studies in Egyptology 5 (Uppsala: Uppsala University, 2002), 185. For a complete treatment of the history of the tree-goddess motif in Egypt with special attention to Nut, see Billing, Nut, 185–309. Billing, Nut, 224. James P. Allen, Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, SBL WAW 23 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 126, 176; Christopher Hays, “ ‘There is Hope for a Tree’: Job’s Hope for the Afterlife in Light of Egyptian Tree Imagery,” CBQ 77 (2015): 44; for an extensive analysis of goddess-tree images of this period, including 57 illustrations, see Othmar Keel, “Ägyptische Baumgöttinnen der 18.–21. Dynastie Bild und Wort, Wort und Bild,” in Das Recht der Bilder gesehen zu werden: Drei Fallstudien zur Methode der Interpretation altorientalischer Bilder, OBO 122 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 61–138. Adapted from Keel’s five types; Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh, 36–37. For a list of the distribution and general typology of the Nut iconographic corpus, as well as an alternate listing of the major and minor iconographic types, see Billing, Nut, 199– 200. For examples, see Richard H. Wilkinson, Reading Egyptian Art: A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Egyptian Painting and Sculpture (London: Thames & Hudson, 2001), 116; Lorna Oakes and Lucia Gahlin, Ancient Egypt: An Illustrated Reference to the Myths, Religions, Pyramids and Temples of the Land of the Pharaohs (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2007), 332– 333.

48

balogh

figure 2.8 Tomb painting, Valley of the Kings: Tomb of Thutmose (r. 1502–1448 BCE; Keel, Symbolism, fig. 253)

the extant images that portray sycamore-Nut include the supporting motifs of water flowing from the goddess’s pitcher, nourishment through suckling, the goddess presenting supplicants with a plate of food, or some combination of these motifs—all of which represent the goddess’ care for the needs of her supplicants. Lotus flowers, which are themselves symbolic of eternal life and regeneration, are also a common supporting motif.41 The association of the Egyptian Sacred Tree with eternal well-being, specifically, comes to the fore when one considers that the goddess-tree image appears most often on sarcophagi, on tomb walls, or in manuscripts of the Book of the Dead.42 Nut is, at times, presented in both text and iconography as one who

41 42

John Strange, “The Idea of Afterlife in Ancient Israel: Some Remarks on the Iconography in Solomon’s Temple,” PEQ 117 (1985): 36–39. William R. Osborne, “The Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt and the Book of Proverbs,” JANER 14 (2014): 128; see also Billing, Nut, 199–200.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

49

figure 2.9 Tomb painting, Deir el Medinah: Tomb of Sennudyem, 19th dyn. (1345–1200; Keel, Symbolism, fig. 254)

embodies the inner mummiform sarcophagus, where she embraces or spreads herself over the deceased and incorporates them into herself that she may bear them anew, unto eternal regeneration.43 This presentation of Nut reflects a broader practice of portraying death as a return to the womb, where one’s identity is reset for the next phase of existence.44 Nut’s ability to give rebirth to the deceased in the afterlife echoes in the dying-and-rising myth of Osiris, Nut’s firstborn son, who is suffocated inside a coffin and protected by a tcheret (tamarisk or willow) tree until his wife revives him. Invocations for Nut to use her plant-like abilities to provide water and breath to those in the afterlife are common feature in New Kingdom funerary prac43 44

Jan Assmann, Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt, trans. David Lorton (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001), 168–171. Assmann, Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt, 173–185.

50

balogh

tices, as they are repeated throughout funerary texts and written upon funerary objects, some of which are accompanied by illustrations.45 The symbolism of eternal well-being also appears in the form of funerary amulets shaped like sycamore leaves to protect the deceased on their journey.46 Other mentions of the sycamore of Nut describe the goddess-tree as provider of eternal nourishment and protector against the dangers of the netherworld, drawing from the tree’s ability to produce both sustenance and shade in a way that brings new meaning to the tree as both a literary and iconographic symbol.47 In the New Kingdom, people planted live sycamores near tombs for use in the afterlife, demonstrating that the symbolism of the Sacred Tree reaches beyond text and iconography, and extends to the natural world.48 In the following Ramesside Period (1295–1069 BCE), the connection of sycamore and goddess is yet again underscored when religious officials assign the sycamore as a location for festivals and thus deem it a sacred place.49 Many of these practices surrounding Sacred Tree symbolism continue into the first millennium, but the association of the tree with Nut shifts to her firstborn son, Osiris, primeval king of the cosmos and father of all who sit upon Egypt’s throne.

3

Kingship

In recent decades, much research in the field of archaeology has been dedicated to clarifying the nature and process of the transition from the LB to IA in the ancient Near East, and has unearthed a great deal of evidence of a marked shift in culture between the twelfth and tenth centuries BCE. This shift was most likely inspired by a string of catastrophic events in the twelfth century BCE that brought about a transitional period, which scholars once referred to as history’s first “Dark Age.”50 The cosmopolitan, globalized world of the fifteenth through twelfth centuries fragmented due to numerous natural disasters and societal responses to those disasters, leading to region-wide instability, 45

46 47 48 49 50

E.g., Book of the Dead, spells 59, 68; cf. 52. Nils Billing, “Writing an Image: The Formulation of the Tree Goddess Motif in the Book of the Dead, Ch.59,” SAK 32 (2004): 35–50. Osborne, “Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt and the Book of Proverbs,” 120–123. Wilkinson, Reading Egyptian Art, 117. Assmann, Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt, 129–130, 153, 224–225. Wilkinson, Reading Egyptian Art, 117. Assmann, Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt, 218–234; on sycamores planted near tombs, see Wilkinson, Reading Egyptian Art, 117. Eric H. Cline, 1177 B.C. The Year Civilization Collapsed (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), xv.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

51

conflict, and eventually collapse in 1177BCE.51 In many respects, this process reset the ancient Near East and Mediterranean as a forest fire resets an ecosystem; although much was destroyed, including many human lives, the process cleared the way for new communities to establish themselves and eventually thrive, and for new developments in thought, communication, technology, and governance to emerge and take hold.52 Most systems of thought and expression that flourished throughout the LB, including the symbolic language that informs ancient Near Eastern iconography, did carry over into the new era but underwent notable changes and increases in complexity as time moved on. Sacred Tree iconography provides a fruitful case study in the nature and complexity of the LB to IA shift in that, while the goddess-tree association that was widely popular in the LB carries over into the IA, the motif accrues additional layers of significance that suggest at least two shifts in thought. First, changes in the appearance and use of the Sacred Tree motif suggest that iconography’s communicative potential is heightened during this transition. The rich “lexicon” of symbolic language that informs ancient Near Eastern iconography expands exponentially in the first millennium, as new communities assign new associations and meaning to the symbols of former times, most often retaining ancient associations alongside new ones. First millennium Sacred Tree iconography is a prime example of this phenomenon, as it is marked by a dramatic increase in the presence of layers or strata of possible meaning, applied by craftsmen in a way that exponentially increases a work’s capacity to express complex ideas and associations. The most notable addition is the Sacred Tree’s association with kingship, which is especially pronounced in the iconography of Mesopotamia.53 The second shift that the Sacred Tree motif exemplifies is a shift in orientation toward the divine, specifically a decentering of the mother-goddess who provides agricultural well-being and the simultaneous elevation of the chief male deity who provides political well-being. The goddess-tree association persists, but is either placed alongside or dominated by the new association of the Sacred Tree with male deity or king.54 Early first millennium iconographers express this thinking by adjusting not the image of the Sacred Tree itself, but its supporting motifs. The two main differences between Sacred Tree iconography of second and first millennia are the increased frequency of male figures, both royal and divine, and the increased frequency of cherubs, genii, and other 51 52 53 54

Cline, 1177 B.C. Cline, 1177 B.C., 176. Keel and Schroer, Creation, 44. For example, see Collon, First Impressions, fig. 299, 340–341, 345, 347, 351, 355, 812, 879.

52

balogh

protective hybrid creatures as flanking motifs, often in place of the caprids of earlier times.55 Occasionally the emblem of a male deity appears atop the tree, but rarely in the IA does one find an example of the female-tree hybrid or female-tree juxtaposition of earlier eras. In contrast with previous trends in Sacred Tree iconography, first millennium forms of representation place the power over the bounty of the earth directly into the hands of the king, and indirectly into the hands of the deities he serves. In this context, the mothering attributes of the Sacred Tree are reconfigured. In the process of accruing significant layers of symbolism and meaning, sometimes the goddess connection is “buried,” but it is often the case that the goddess connection intersects these new layers in a way that is integral to understanding the entire web of symbolism at hand. The goddess-tree or neuter Sacred Tree no longer acts alone as provider and protector of all who live under her branches; instead her blessing is provoked and protected by the word and deed of the king or being(s) who tend her. Furthermore, the increased presence of guardian creatures implies that the tree is in need of protection, but at the same time underscores its sacredness.56 For all of the changes introduced in the first millennium, the Sacred Tree retains its ancient position as the symbolic, compositional, and sacred center of the works in which it is featured, communicating that kings, deities, and viewer alike are to dedicate themselves to its service. Perhaps the most emblematic example of this shift is the Nimrud reliefs of the ninth century BCE. 3.1 Mesopotamia In the middle of the second millennium, Mesopotamian iconography of the Sacred Tree underwent a series of aesthetic changes that produced the highly 55

56

E.g., Eric Gubel, “Multicultural and Multimedial Aspects of Early Phoenician Art, c. 1200– 675 BCE,” in Uehlinger, Images as Media, fig. 6, 8, 21, 25, 27; cf. Buchholz, “Kyprische Bildkunst zwischen 1100 und 500 v. Chr.,” fig. 9d. Cherubs, griffins, and sphinxes are parallel traditions of a hybrid, winged creature who protects the sacred from danger—including human interference. For more on the symbolism of hybrid creatures, see Giovino, Assyrian Sacred Tree, 39–45; Izaak J. de Hulster, “Of Angels and Iconography: Isaiah 6 and the Biblical Concept of Seraphs and Cherubs,” in Iconographic Exegesis of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: An Introduction to Its Method and Practice, ed. Izaak J. de Hulster, Brent A. Strawn, and Ryan P. Bonfiglio (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 156–159. The Stand A from Taanach is a good example of a piece that incorporates both caprids and cherubs rather than one or the other; Pirhiya Beck, “The Cult-Stands from Taanach: Aspects of the Iconographic Tradition of Early Iron Age Cult Objects in Palestine,” in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel, ed. Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na’aman (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1994), fig. 1–2. Keel and Schroer, Creation, 44.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

53

stylized and culturally specific Assyrian Sacred Tree.57 The hundreds of examples known exhibit a great deal of variation, yet all have characteristic features that mark them as belonging to the same motif: a crown, usually a palmette, a trunk, a stone base or stand, and a network of intersecting, horizontal or diagonal lines (with or without nodes where the branches intersect) that end with palmettes, pinecones, or pomegranates.58 The consistently straight and tidy appearance of the tree supports the interpretation that the Assyrian Sacred Tree is in fact a cultivated palm, and since palm trees were (and still are) cultivated not from seeds but from genetically identical basal offshoots, the Assyrian Sacred Tree is an effective symbol of both dynastic succession and eternal life.59 The repetition of these characteristics across exemplars, however, does not necessarily make it easier to gain insight into the complexities of Sacred Tree symbolism, but it does increase the incentive to uncover its layers of meaning. Described by Barbara Nevling Porter as “one of the classic problems of Assyrian art history,” the famous “Nimrud reliefs” of Ashurnasirpal II’s Northwest Palace picture the Assyrian Sacred Tree approximately 200 times, yet the exact use and nature of the symbolism remains one of art history’s most elusive mysteries.60 Built when king Ashurnasirpal II (r. 883–859BCE) relocated the capital of Assyria from Ashur to Nimrud (Kalhu) in 879 BCE, the Nimrud reliefs debuted a new palatial design characterized by interior walls lined with large slabs of alabaster, carved in relief and painted.61 These reliefs are the most written about exemplars of Sacred Tree iconography and are at the center of a decades-long, interdisciplinary debate over the meaning of the Sacred Tree image throughout the region, with each scholar contributing his or her own 57 58

59

60

61

Parpola, “Assyrian Tree of Life,” 163. Parpola, “Assyrian Tree of Life,” 163–164, 200–201. Kepinski-Lecomte, L’Arbre Stylisé en Asie Occidentale au 2e Millénaire Avant J. C.; cf. J.E. Curtis and J.E. Reade, eds., Art and Empire: Treasures from Assyria in the British Museum (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1995), 59. Norma Franklin, “The Assyrian Stylized Tree: Propagation Not Pollination” (paper presented at the American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, 16 Nov 2018). Porter, “Sacred Trees, Date Palms, and the Royal Persona of Ashurnasirpal II,” 129; William R. Osborne, Trees and Kings: A Comparative Analysis of Tree Imagery in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition and the Ancient Near East, BBRSup 18 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2017), 70. History of interpretation has focused largely on three competing possibilities: date palm, cult object, and artificial tree. For a full analysis of the debate, see Giovino, Assyrian Sacred Tree. Metropolitan Museum of Art, “Assyrian Relief Sculpture” wall plaque. In previous eras, the walls of palaces were simply painted rather than lined with stone.

54

balogh

nuance to the conversation.62 Despite all that scholarship has yet to conclude or to understand about the Nimrud reliefs, they are perhaps the strongest examples known today of multivalent symbolism in ancient Near Eastern iconography, and constitute a fruitful case study of the interplay between the themes of kingship and the divine feminine in the iconography of the Sacred Tree. The connection of the scenes carved upon the Nimrud reliefs to the divine feminine is by no means obvious to the modern eye, nor was it necessarily the first association that came to mind when ancient officials and dignitaries entered Ashurnasirpal II’s throne room. Through the interplay of convention and innovation, the reliefs of the throne room express a vision to honor Assyria’s rich past by reconstituting the kingdom’s traditions in new ways.63 All of the artistic motifs witnessed within the throne room are rooted in a deep iconographic past that carries over from the third and second millennia into the first millennium BCE, yet it is not until the throne room of Ashurnasirpal II that craftsmen bring them together as a unified whole and upon the new medium of carved wall relief.64 It is here, in the most important room of the aspiring empire, where the Sacred Tree surrounds its audience on all sides and is a major, if not central, motif on every available panel. This emphasizes the central importance of the Sacred Tree for Assyrian self-understanding, but especially the self-understanding of the king, his staff, and his guests. The continuity of the Assyrian Sacred Tree image, including the continued incorporation of aspects of the date palm, implies a certain degree of continuity in the symbol’s association with abundance and well-being, specifically as enacted through the celestial and terrestrial activities of Ishtar. The idea that the Sacred Tree continues to be associated with the goddess is further supported by a minority of panels within the corpus of Nimrud reliefs that portray the tree as flanked by two female or perhaps androgynous genii who bear items associated with the cult of Ishtar.65 Other Neo-Assyrian images of the Sacred Tree include anthropomorphic representations of Ishtar herself, often

62

63

64 65

Here I focus on the main themes of the discussion thus far, as it is beyond the scope of this chapter to give a full summary or account of the status of the question of the Assyrian Sacred Tree. Additional information may be found in references cited. On the Nimrud reliefs as an example of the interplay between convention and innovation in ancient Mesopotamian art, see Winter, “Royal Rhetoric and the Development of Historical Narrative in Neo-Assyrian Reliefs,” 8–9. Brian Brown, “Kingship and Ancestral Cult in the Northwest Palace at Nimrud,” JANER 10 (2010): 23–24. P. Albenda, “The Beardless Winged Genies from the Northwest Palace at Nimrud,” SAAB 10 (1996): 67–78.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

55

with the eight-pointed star positioned above her head for iconographic clarity and emphasis (fig. 2.3–5).66 Yet even if the viewer associates the Sacred Tree of the Nimrud reliefs with Ishtar, its supporting motifs simultaneously detract from and highlight the tree, as the “mirror” or semi-symmetrical composition of the individual panels and the position of the figures therein work together to direct the viewer’s eye from center to periphery and back again.67 It is possible that the Sacred Tree may also be understood as a more generic symbol of the nurturing, regenerative, and life-giving powers of the cosmos, but the interpretation of the Sacred Tree as goddess is supported within the panels in a variety of ways. Although she is not always directly represented, the goddess and tree are never disentangled in Mesopotamian thought. Among the Nimrud reliefs that feature the Sacred Tree, the most common supporting motif is a pair of genii, often portrayed with a pinecone-like object in one hand and a bucket in the other.68 These genii echo the caprids and cherubs that appear in the Sacred Tree iconography of earlier periods, with caprids representing the tree’s protective nature and cherubs representing its sacred nature.69 Like most Mesopotamian iconographic symbols, the genii and their tools each bear multiple affiliations. Genii are immortal, hybrid creatures with anthropomorphic bodies, bird-like wings, and heads that are either human (usually male) or resemble a bird of prey. The bird aspects of genii speak to their protective and powerful nature, as well as their innate ability to foresee both fortune and danger, while their divinized anthropomorphic aspects and accoutrements suggest the understanding of a sage.70 Genii are further affiliated with rituals of purification and protection.

66

67

68 69 70

Simo Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, SAA IX (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997), xxvii, fig. 8–9; cf. Collon, First Impressions, fig. 773. Using Assyrian prophetic texts, Parpola argues that Assyrian royal ideology, mythology, and iconography are all intertwined with the cult of Ishtar, with the central symbol of the prophetic cult being the Sacred Tree; Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, xiv–xv. Many scholars either reject or question the validity of his conclusions, yet they remain an active point of discussion in scholarship on the Sacred Tree. For example, see Cooper, “Assyrian Prophecies,” 430–444. On various options for understanding the compositional arrangement of Neo-Assyrian palace reliefs, see Chikako E. Watanabe, “Styles of Pictorial Narratives in Assurbanipal’s Reliefs,” in Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art, ed. Brian A. Brown and Marian H. Feldman (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 345–368. E.g., British Museum Collection Database, “Stone panel from the North-West Palace of Ashurnasirpal II (Room I),” museum number 124583, www.britishmuseum.org/collection. For example, see Collon, First Impressions, fig. 271, 273, 276, 383, 395, 402. Some suggest that genii represent the Seven Sages in human guise. Black and Green, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia, 87–88.

56

balogh

In the case of the Sacred Trees of Nimrud, the tools that the genii most often use are the bucket and pinecone, referred to in texts as banduddû, “bucket,” and mullilu, “purifier.”71 Historically, modern interpreters have assumed that the association of the implements with purification meant that the genii are purifying the tree, which begs the question of why the Sacred Tree might need to be purified.72 More recent scholarship suggests that the genii are not purifying the tree or providing it with beneficent attention; because the tree has its own apotropaic and purifying qualities, it is possible that the genii are instead collecting power from the tree that then enables them to purify other objects in other reliefs, such as doorposts, other hybrid creatures, and even the king.73 However, it is also possible that the symbolic action works in both directions, meaning that the purification process involves reciprocal action on the part of both genii and Sacred Tree. The reciprocal, cyclical nature of the cone and bucket symbolism is also suggested by the fact that this form of ritual mimics the process of artificial fertilization for actual date palms in which farmers shake male inflorescences into the female flower that they may, in turn, reproduce.74 The symbolic nature of this purifying and fertilizing gesture, and of the stylized Sacred Tree itself is further emphasized by the fact that it is unclear whether date palms could actually grow in the northern region of Mesopotamia, where Nimrud is located. Such context amplifies the gendered resonance of the Sacred Tree and bucketcone pairing, especially when combined with a gendered reading of the date (female) and conifer (male), thus drawing attention to the femininity of the Sacred Tree and its position as the center of attention for genii, king, and viewer alike. Another supporting motif that appears in Sacred Tree iconography of the first millennium is the solar disc.75 The incorporation of the solar disc into

71 72 73

74

75

Black and Green, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia, 46. Giovino, Assyrian Sacred Tree, 51, 56–58. John Malcolm Russell, “The Program of the Palace of Assurnasirpal II at Nimrud: Issues in the Research and Presentation of Assyrian Art,” AJA 102 (1998): 691. The idea that the beneficial energy moves from the tree to the implement is also inferred by the observation that trees are often an important component of Mesopotamian purification rituals; Osborne, Trees and Kings, 69. On the debate over the Sacred Tree and date fertilization, see Giovino, Assyrian Sacred Tree, 31–112; see also George Sarton, “The Artificial Fertilization of Date-Palms in the Time of Ashur-nasir-pal B.C. 885–860,” Isis XXI (1934): 8–13; Winter, “Tree(s) on the Mountain,” 117. E.g., British Museum Collection Database, “Alabaster wall relief, Nimrud: Palace of Ashurnasirpal II,” museum number 124531, www.britishmuseum.org/collection. The solar disc is

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

57

Sacred Tree images marks a continuation of the use of astral figures in the third and second millennia, but the more stylized version known by the specific term “solar disc” also bears a political aspect. Some variations, including those attested in the Nimrud reliefs, feature a male anthropomorphic deity sitting within the disc.76 This deity is almost unanimously interpreted as the god Assur, chief deity of Assyria.77 It then follows that in instances where the Sacred Tree and solar disc appear together, the image of cosmic fertility is politicized—it is not the Sacred Tree that stands at the center, but Assyria’s Sacred Tree.78 In the Sacred Tree iconography of earlier millennia, the celestial and terrestrial come together through the combination of Sacred Tree and astral motifs; with the addition of the solar disc, the celestial and terrestrial continue to come together, but with more specificity. The connection of the Sacred Tree to the fate of Assyria is made explicit through both solar disc imagery, which appears only occasionally in the Sacred Tree Nimrud reliefs, and the context in which that imagery appears—the king’s palace in the new capital. The combination of Sacred Tree and solar disc may represent a beneficent kingship in which the celestial and terrestrial (or cosmic and social) come together for the purposes of furthering the kingdom of Assyria, a concept best expressed through Assyriaspecific iconographic language.79 On this reading, the solar disc does not usurp the Sacred Tree’s central position but complements it, bringing cultural specificity to an image of cosmic importance.80 Finally, perhaps the most rare but significant of all of the supporting motifs of the Assyrian Sacred Tree is the king himself (fig. 2.14). From the amount of

76 77

78 79

80

another symbol in ancient Mesopotamian art whose precise meaning continues to elude scholars, despite the volume of writing dedicated to it. For an example of a solar disc with a male deity perched over a date palm, see Collon, First Impressions, fig. 747, 812, 879. Lambert and others identify the solar disc in the Nimrud reliefs as Ashur or, perhaps, Ninurta; W.G. Lambert, “Trees, Snakes, and Gods in Ancient Syria and Anatolia,” BSOAS 48 (1985): 438–439. Michaela Bauks, “Sacred Trees in the Garden of Eden and Their Ancient Near Eastern Precursors,” JAJ 3 (2012): 279. Celestial and terrestrial: Ataç, “Visual Formula and Meaning in Neo-Assyrian Relief Sculpture,” 87; cosmic and social: Bauks, “Sacred Trees,” 279; on the status of the Nimrud reliefs as a classically Assyrian art form, Irene J. Winter, “The Program of the Throneroom of Assurnasirpal II,” in Harper and Pittmann, Essays on Ancient Near Eastern Art and Archaeology, 15. Lambert and others describe the solar disc as dominating the Sacred Tree because it is hovering above it (Lambert, “Trees, Snakes, and Gods in Ancient Syria and Anatolia,” 439). One example of why this is not necessarily the most satisfactory interpretation comes from the glazed brick panel of Sennacherib’s palace, where the Sacred Tree is placed above the solar disc.

58

balogh

scholarship on the relation between king and Sacred Tree in Ashurnasirpal II’s palace, one might assume that the king and tree appear next to one another on the majority of panels. In reality, images of the king flank the Sacred Tree on only two panels—one positioned directly behind his throne, and one positioned directly across from the side-door that connects the ceremonial room to the throne room.81 These two strategically placed reliefs both speak to the king’s role as the chief-priest of Assyria who is tasked with representing and furthering the powers of life—in particular, Assyrian life—and elaborate upon the Standard Inscription incorporated throughout the room in which Ashurnasirpal calls himself “attentive prince, worshipper of the great gods.”82 In contrast with Sumerian and Akkadian literature, which describes kings as the Sacred Tree’s gardener, its possessor, or as the tree itself, iconography portrays the king solely as the tree’s attendant and as one who is attended to by genii or other divine beings in this venture.83 On this interpretation, the king’s success in his role as priest and advocate on behalf of his community depends on his ability to enter into and maintain a reciprocal relationship with the nurturing aspects of the cosmos or goddess symbolized by the Sacred Tree. The genii, protectors and sages of old, support the king in this matter but only the king himself can fulfill the obligations of cult and country that ensure that the divine powers will indeed provide for the prosperity and well-being of the king’s people. The force of this nuanced understanding of Sacred Tree symbolism also explains the scene’s wide popularity in Assyrian art, including its appearance on royal garments, jewelry, ivories, and contemporary cylinder seals belonging to royal officials—some of which include the eight-pointed star of Ishtar.84 81

82

83 84

Winter, “Program of the Throneroom of Assurnasirpal II,” 16–17; the panels picturing the king are rich in detail and highly stylized, with each element of his dress signifying an aspect of his office. According to Mehmet-Ali Ataç, there are enough differences between the two figures of the king (which are otherwise symmetrical) to suggest that these are two different images of the king(s) or kingship; Ataç, The Mythology of Kingship in NeoAssyrian Art (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 125–129. Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, trans. Timothy J. Hallett (New York: Seabury Press, 1972), 269–290; on the Standard Inscription as an organizing principle, see Winter, “Program of the Throneroom of Assurnasirpal II,” 24–25. For an in-depth analysis of Winter’s proposal, see Russell, “Program of the Palace of Assurnasirpal II at Nimrud.” On literature, see Geo Widengren, The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion, UUA 4 (Uppsala: Lundequist, 1951). On popularity, see Barbara Nevling Porter, “The Meaning of the Assyrian Tree Image: Iconographic Evidence,” in Trees, Kings, and Politics: Studies in Assyrian Iconography, OBO 197 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 21–30; on cylinder seals, see Irene

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

59

Thus, the complex web of associations borne by the symbol of the Sacred Tree as exemplified in the Nimrud reliefs, both on its own accord and in conversation with various supporting motifs, is best understood as an interweaving of cosmic and terrestrial concerns for the well-being of all life, particularly Assyrian life, and the king’s special role as mediator between the particular cosmic deities and human communities that he serves. In bringing together numerous multivalent motifs in close proximity to one another, the designers of the Nimrud reliefs both amplify the more ancient significance of the Sacred Tree as the cosmic and terrestrial provider of the people, and add to that significance a more specific meaning about the office of kingship and the kingdom of Assyria that was particularly relevant to a Mesopotamian audience in the early first millennium BCE. 3.2 Levant The land, cultures, and social systems of the MB and LB Levant were particularly hard hit by the difficulties of the twelfth century BCE, leading to the destruction of the cosmopolitan city of Ugarit and the overall diminishment of Levantine populations and material culture. Among many aspects of life, this situation affected the quantity and types of iconography that people produced. In IA I (1200–1000BCE) and IA IIA (1000–930BCE), the connection between the Sacred Tree and anthropomorphic goddess is not as explicit as it is in earlier periods, opening the possibility for viewers to interpret the tree as a generic symbol of abundance and provision or to associate the tree with male deities.85 However, the association—even identification—of the Sacred Tree with the mother-goddess persists. A prime example of the ambiguous nature of the Sacred Tree image in the Iron Age Levant and the ramifications of interpreting the motif one way or another comes not from the archaeological record, but from the biblical text. The author of 1Kgs 6:29–35 describes the interior of Solomon’s temple—all of its cedar-lined walls, the two olivewood doors of the nave, and the two bi-fold cypress doors of the inner chamber—as completely covered with engravings of “cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers” (6:29, 32, 35) overlain in gold. In light

85

J. Winter, “Le Palais Imaginaire: Scale and Meaning in the Iconography of Neo-Assyrian Cylinder Seals,” in Uehlinger, Images as Media, 65–68, fig. 13–14; Collon, First Impressions, fig. 340–341, 345, 347, 351, 355, 879; on garments and jewelry, see Parpola, “Assyrian Tree of Life,” 163; for examples of ivories, see Gubel, “Multicultural and Multimedial Aspects of Early Phoenician Art, c. 1200–675 BCE,” fig. 21, 27, cf. fig. 25. Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh, 42.

60

balogh

figure 2.10

Cylinder Seal, Bet-Shean, IA IIB (Keel, Goddesses and Trees, fig. 90)

of comparative materials from the ancient Near East, many interpreters suggest that the tri-fold symbolism of hybrid-creature (cf. Mesopotamian genii, Egyptian sphinx), palm, and flower draw upon contemporary Sacred Tree iconography. Yet, regardless of whether Solomon’s temple was a historical reality or the literary creation of a later author, it is not clear why one would symbolically envelope he who enters the holy place of Yahweh’s temple with images of the Sacred Tree. Perhaps it was to demonstrate the monarch’s regard for the divine feminine, perhaps it was to bring Yahwistic or king-centered imagery into the confines of the holy place, perhaps it was simply to inspire Yahweh to grant bounty and long-life to the people of Israel, or perhaps it was simply for aesthetics. Depending on one’s interpretation of the iconography, allusion to the Sacred Tree motif may serve as a point of either criticism or praise, but sometimes ambiguity is the author’s point. The biblical description of the interior of Solomon’s temple to Yahweh simultaneously foreshadows, sets precedent for, and reflects the presence of a Sacred Tree tradition witnessed in the archaeological records of Israel and Judah.86 The iconographic record of IA IIB includes a few examples of Sacred Trees accompanied by male deities, which may serve as evidence for the masculinization of the Sacred Tree image during this period. For example, Othmar Keel interprets the depiction of young male deity holding a palm tree in each hand,

86

Strange, “Idea of Afterlife in Ancient Israel,” 36.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

61

carved upon a bone handle excavated at Hazor, as a representation of Ba’al, and a cylinder seal from Bet-Shean as possibly El and his asherah (fig. 2.10).87 However, most examples from IA IIB–IIC (930–730; 730–600BCE) that depict male or androgynous figures show them facing the Sacred Tree, either seated with gestures of blessing, standing in supplication, or even dancing.88 Some scholars have interpreted the addition of the male figure as a masculinization of the feminine Sacred Tree image, but iconographically these male figures never become the Sacred Tree.89 They are associated with the tree through their proximity and behavior toward it, but they are not physically incorporated into, identified with, or equated with it as were the goddesses of earlier eras. This leaves room for the Sacred Tree to continue functioning as a symbolic representation of the goddess or as a generic symbol of provision, with male deities or rulers positioned by her side. Furthermore, examples of the goddesstree association never fully disappear from the iconographic record. Throughout IA I–IIB, images of female divinities increase in number with a wide variety of regional variation, particularly as one moves from the Mediterranean coast into the central highlands. Along the Phoenician and Philistine coast, nudes accompanied by a variety of supporting motifs, sometimes branches, are the preferred form of goddess representation, while those in the highlands prefer to depict the goddess as a Sacred Tree, replacing the divine nudes of other contexts with images of stylized trees.90 Extant images from the central highlands are few, but the pieces that are available—mostly scarabs and early Judean pillar figurines—suggest yet another transition in Levantine Sacred Tree iconography. As part of a larger IA IIB movement toward distancing animal motifs from the sphere of the goddess, partly through depicting animals without gender and partly through removing them altogether, iconographers no longer depict the Sacred Tree as flanked by caprids or cherubs.91 Instead, the tree towers over two human beings, thus adjusting the message of the iconography so that it now stands as an appeal to or declaration of Sacred Tree devotion rather than a general statement about the nature of the deity invoked (fig. 2.11). Such generalized images of the Sacred Tree begin to appear in IA I and become more widespread, even mass-produced, in IA II.92 87 88 89 90 91 92

Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh, 43–44. Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh, 42–46. On the addition of male figures as a masculinization of the Sacred Tree motif, see Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh, 42–46. Bloch-Smith, “Acculturating Gender Roles,” 6; Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh, 41–42. Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, 278. Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh, 39–41.

62

balogh

figure 2.11 Scarab, Beth-El, IA IIA (Keel, Goddess and Trees, fig. 72)

Judean pillar figurines perhaps function similarly. Given the archaeological and textual evidence for the continued worship of at least one female deity who may have been associated with some form of Sacred Tree, it is possible that the Judean pillar figurines serve as three-dimensional combinations of the goddess and her Sacred Tree.93 If this interpretation is correct, then the Judean pillar figurines constitute a new form of Sacred Tree iconography. Not only are they three-dimensional and made inexpensively enough to be found in domestic contexts, but more importantly they are devoid of supporting motifs. The figure’s trunk like body, often top-heavy composition, and gesture of offering her breasts, leave the viewer with but one interpretation: partake of what the Sacred Tree has to offer. These figurines appear in the archaeological record starting with the tenth and ninth centuries BCE, and become widely popular in the eighth and seventh centuries, especially in the area of Jerusalem.94 It is likely not a coincidence that the increased popularity of the pillar figurines happens to coincide with a renewed interest in goddess worship throughout the highlands.95 Any resurgence in goddess worship and the use of Sacred Trees, whether images or live plants, would have been at odds with attempts at the nationalization and forced expansion of the cult of Yahweh in Judah and Jerusalem in the eighth through seventh centuries BCE. Throughout the Torah and the parts of the Deuteronomistic History that are set in the more ancient past, trees and

93

94 95

Bloch-Smith, “Acculturating Gender Roles,” 10–13. Additionally, Bloch-Smith compares the truncated bodies and offered breasts of the pillar figurines to earlier images of sycamoreNut in which the tree trunk forms her lower body and she offers her breast(s) to supplicants. For examples of Judean pillar figurines, see Israel Museum, Jerusalem, “Astarte figurines,” accession number 68.32.4, 64.67/3, 64.67/4, www.imj.org.il/en/collections. Bloch-Smith, “Acculturating Gender Roles,” 13. There is an ongoing debate about the nature of Levantine religious life in the IA. One major point of contention is the existence and extent of goddess worship, specifically that of the goddess Asherah. Relatedly, scholars are also divided as to whether such a goddess was associated with a form of Sacred Tree or whether the association is a modern construct. For a summary of this debate, see William R. Osborne, Trees and Kings, 87–97.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

63

plants serve as an important element in the religious lives and ritual actions of Israel’s leaders.96 However, the imperial stressors and political threats of the eighth through sixth centuries BCE both effected and inspired change in Judah, including strong-handed attempts to promote worship of the national deity at his central shrine. According to ancient Near Eastern ideas about national deities, strengthening the cult of Yahweh would have strengthened both king and kingdom in turn; therefore, those kings under greatest threat make it a priority to promote the centralized cult at all costs. As part of this larger project, two of Judah’s kings made sweeping prohibitions and took action against all non-Yahwistic, noncentralized worship, including the use of the Sacred Tree. The reforms of both Hezekiah (2Kgs 18:3–8) and Josiah (2Kgs 23:1–27) include “cutting down” cult objects known as asherah/asherim, which again may have been a type of Sacred Tree, and also the cult of the goddess Asherah (2 Kgs 23:4), who may have been associated with trees as symbols of agricultural plenty. However, the success of these reforms appears to be short-lived and localized, as religious affairs return to their former state by the time of the next king and are certainly not enacted beyond Judah’s borders. In fact, King Manasseh, successor of Hezekiah, was an avid supporter of non-Yahwistic religion and did much to promote its flourishing in the aftermath of Hezekiah’s reform (2 Kgs 22:2–9). As late as the sixth century BCE—a century marked by exile and return throughout the Levant—stylized trees, with or without the motif of caprids, retain their identification with the mother-goddess.97 Thus, the symbolism of the divine feminine persists in the Sacred Tree iconography of the Levant from the MB through the IA and beyond, surviving the rise and fall of many kingdoms and cultures, including ancient Israel and Judah. 3.3 Egypt As early as the late third millennium BCE, the Egyptian Pyramid Texts speak of the tree as a life-giving principle from which gods may be born.98 For example, the jackal-god Wepwawet is said to have emerged from a tamarisk, and Horus, son of Osiris and Isis, is said to have come forth from the acacia; yet the idea that trees have the power to enliven even the divine is most promi-

96 97 98

For example, Gen 18:1; 30:37–41; Exod 3:1–5; Josh 24:26; Judg 4:5, 9:37; 1Sam 31:13; 1Kgs 19:5; Keel and Schroer, Creation, 40–41. Keel and Schroer, Creation, 43. Billing, Nut, 224. A similar statement is made of the mesu-tree in various Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian texts.

64

balogh

nent in the mythology and iconography of Osiris.99 Osiris is best known as the primeval king who taught the first Egyptians how to govern, create law, and work the land, and for the story of his death and resurrection. According to Osirian mythology, Osiris is the firstborn of Geb and Nut—earth and sky, respectively—and his success as king over humankind stirs great envy in his brother, Set. This inspires Set to trick Osiris, seal him in a wooden chest, and drown him in the Nile. Isis, Osiris’ wife and sister, later finds the chest in Phoenicia, where it is enclosed by a tcheret (tamarisk or willow) that has been incorporated into the architecture of the king’s palace. Isis receives permission to take Osiris home, where she revives him and conceives their first son, Horus. Once Set hears that Osiris is back in Egypt, he finds his body, cuts it into thirteen pieces and buries them throughout the land, but Isis again finds the body and revives Osiris through magic. At the end of the story, which is replete with references to agriculture, natural cycles, and seasons, Osiris’ peers judge him as pure and upright, and appoint him as ruler over the dead, while Horus assumes his father’s position as earthly king. The Osiris story serves as an origin story for civilization, law, agriculture, and kingship, with an emphasis on the ability of these institutions to endure persecution and hardship. The official theology of divine kingship begins here, with the idea that the kings and pharaohs of Egypt are incarnations of Osiris’ firstborn, Horus, and are therefore direct descendants of the primeval deity who first brought order and governance to humanity. There is even iconographic evidence that the king himself was associated with Sacred Tree through his intimate relation to Horus and Osiris (fig. 2.12).100 Like all myths, this one developed over time, and its popularity waxed and waned throughout the three and a half millennia that Osiris figured prominently in Egypt and abroad.101 Osiris’ association with trees, however, remains a constant part of his identity as god of regeneration and natural cycles. There are other male deities, such as Thoth and Amun-Re, who are associated with trees in various texts and prayers, but in the realm of iconography it is Osiris who dominates the motif. For many centuries, the Sacred Tree appears as two parallel and complementary traditions, with Nut and her sycamore on one side and Osiris and his willow

99

100 101

Oakes and Gahlin, Ancient Egypt, 333. The combination of the idea that trees may bear deities and the practice of carving divine images out of wood may have given rise to the practice of including wood carvings of the deceased within tombs. Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 262. Bojana Mojsov, Osiris: Death and Afterlife of a God (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005).

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

figure 2.12

65

Sandstone relief: Complex of Ramses III, Medinet Habu, ca. 1165BCE (Keel, Symbolism, fig. 352)

on the other. As the first son of the mother-goddess Nut, as one who is protected by a tree in death, and as the god of afterlife, resurrection, and regeneration, it then follows that the mythology and iconography of Osiris would overlap with that of Nut, including their mutual association with trees. For example, sycamore-Nut’s acts of revivification, provision, and protection on behalf of the deceased are also performed by Osiris but in the form of spells and prayers, and as Nut is associated with the sycamore and portrayed as a goddess-tree hybrid, so too is Osiris associated with the willow and portrayed as awaiting resurrection, nestled within its trunk and branches (fig. 2.13).102 Relatedly, just as live sycamores were placed near tombs as a symbol of Nut, so willow groves were planted at presumably empty tombs marking traditional sites where parts of Osiris’ body were once buried (fig. 2.14).103

102

103

For examples, see Pierre Koemoth, Osiris et les arbres: Contribution à l’étude des arbres sacrés de l’ Égypte ancienne, Ægyptiaca Leodiensia 3 (Liège: Université de Liège, 1994), 83, 141, 144, 146, 150, 155. Wilkinson, Reading Egyptian Art, 117; for examples, see Koemoth, Osiris et les arbres, 103, 172.

66

balogh

figure 2.13

Painting on a sarcophagus, Dynasty 23 (Koemoth, Osiris et les arbres, 144)

figure 2.14

Painting of Osirian mound, New Kingdom (Mariette, Dendérah, vol. IV, pl. 66)

These groves served as the location for the annual “raising of the willow” ritual celebration, which included libation offerings at the base of the tree and encouraged Osiris to bring forth vegetation in season.104 In iconography

104

Oakes and Gahlin, Ancient Egypt, 333.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

67

and perhaps also in reality, these tombs consisted of a chamber covered by an earthen mound with tcheret-trees growing beside or on top.105 While it is Isis who receives credit for revivifying Osiris in Osirian mythology, funerary contexts attribute his revivification to Nut, his mother.106 Recall from the previous section that Nut, in her dual identity as both primeval mothergoddess and inner sarcophagus, is responsible for the absorption and regeneration of the deceased, in addition to their provision. This responsibility applies to deceased humans and deities alike, thus marking Nut and her sycamore as having utmost power over natural cycles, including the life-cycles of the gods. Through divine genetics and turns of events, Osiris inherits some of Nut’s powers but he never supersedes her in her role as mother-goddess over all life. Yet over time, the sycamore of Nut, as well as many other species of tree, become associated exclusively with Osiris and resurrection. One reason is the steady decline of the use of funerary texts and objects, where sycamore-Nut figures most prominently, beginning in the twenty-first dynasty and coming to an end by the twenty-second (945–715 BCE).107 The main reason for the shift in Sacred Tree iconography, however, is the ever-increasing popularity of Osiris throughout Egypt and abroad. The process of what Pierre Koemoth calls the Osirianisation (“Osirianization”) of the Sacred Tree motif may be glimpsed as early as the New Kingdom, with a few examples appearing in the twentieth and twenty-fifth dynasties (1186–1169; 780–656BCE).108 Throughout the Third Intermediate Period (1069–656BCE), the number of temples dedicated to Osiris increased and with them the number of rituals involving trees. For example, some temples practice a form of tree-cult in which officiants place libations and food offerings under trees within sacred groves, many of which were planted near canals or other waterways symbolically reminiscent of the life-giving waters of the Nile.109 The goal of these and other offerings and rituals is to elicit Osiris, who dwells in the netherworld, so that he may promote vegetation growth and revivify hibernating plants using seasonal floodwaters.110 These ritual actions and contemporary images of tcheret-Osiris receiving offerings from devotees speak to a turn in the symbolic language related to

105 106

107 108 109 110

Wilkinson, Reading Egyptian Art, 117; Koemoth, Osiris et les arbres, 292–293. Assmann, Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt, 169–173. In some texts, Nut rebirths Osiris in the form of the sun, which adds yet another connection between Osiris and the natural cycles of “death” and regeneration. Mojsov, Osiris, 95. Koemoth, Osiris et les arbres, 179–224. Koemoth, Osiris et les arbres, 162–163. Hays, “There is Hope for a Tree,” 52–54.

68

balogh

Sacred Trees. Although the scenes are quite similar in terms of aesthetics, the action of the scene is opposite of that witnessed in sycamore-Nut iconography of the New Kingdom in which the deity-tree actively provides nourishment to supplicants, rather than the supplicants providing nourishment for the deitytree. Through these subtle differences, the message of the image shifts. Rather than communicating the nurturing nature of the deity who for all eternity provides for and protects all who rest under her shade, Sacred Tree iconography now communicates that offerings to Osiris, presumably at the local temple, are necessary for a season of agricultural well-being. This new orientation toward the Sacred Tree is part of a gradual increase in the popularity of Osiris, beginning in the New Kingdom and leading to the full Osirianization of the Sacred Tree motif by the Greco-Roman period.111 Alongside the flourishing of the Sacred Tree motif, with both Nut and Osiris as its center, the New Kingdom also saw the rise and fall of the world’s first known attempt at monotheism. Introduced by Amenhotep IV, who later renamed himself Akhenaten (r. 1352–1336BCE), the sole worship of the sun-god Aten disrupted Egypt’s longstanding traditions in which Osiris figured prominently, and was rejected upon the king’s death. However, as Bojana Mojsov states, “[Akhenaten’s monotheism] had such a profound effect on religious thought that it became impossible to return to the old ways without attempting a reformation.”112 Thus, reformation is exactly what Akhenaten’s young successor, Tutankhamen (r. 1336–1327BCE), enacted, with the rejuvenation, development, and spread of the cult of Osiris as his primary point of activism. Over the next 1,400 years, the popularity of Osiris shifted numerous times, along with the stability of the region and the state of politics in Egypt and the ancient world in general. By the Late Period (664–332BCE), Osiris and his trees figured prominently throughout the ancient Near East and Mediterranean, while images of sycamore-Nut remained literally underground until their excavation in the nineteenth century CE.

4

Conclusion

Ancient Near Eastern images of the Sacred Tree are symbolic entities where the lived experience of nature meets the iconographic imagination, and there flourishes a semiotic language, ripe with meaning and always open to yield-

111 112

Koemoth, Osiris et les arbres, 179–224. Mojsov, Osiris, 69.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

69

ing more. At its most basic level, the Sacred Tree symbolizes the relationship between the natural cycles and processes necessary for human life and flourishing, on one hand, and humankind’s dependence on the nurturing, protective activities of the divine realm, on the other hand. From place to place and era to era, this symbolism takes on different nuances and associations, and does so in a way that does not diminish its core definition but rather enhances it by meeting each audience anew—including the innumerable audiences of Genesis 2–3, where the Sacred Tree becomes known as the “tree of life.” To use the tree’s own metaphor, the symbol of the Sacred Tree is rooted in an ancient past while her branches sway in the shifting winds of history. This ancient past is one in which the terrestrial concerns of sustenance and protection, and the role of cosmic activity in addressing those concerns are central in the iconographic imagination. As time moves forward, these concerns endure and to them are added concerns over the fate of particular communities, kingdoms, and empires. This shift is evidenced by the changes in Sacred Tree iconography at the dawn of the first millennium BCE, when iconographers bring together for the first time the themes of kingship, the divine feminine, and cosmic provision. The fact that the Sacred Tree is accompanied by a wide variety of supporting motifs and is found on special objects dating from the fourth millennium onward, from professional seals, to household devotional objects, funerary objects, jewelry, sacred architecture, and more, speaks to the ability of the symbol to move fluidly through space and time, and to accrue new layers of significance in a way that renders it ever more timeless. It is fitting, then, that like all of the Sacred Tree’s iconographers, the biblical authors would maintain the symbol’s basic connection to eternal life and divinely sanctioned abundance, and at the same time add their own layers of significance, rendering it anew for their intended audience.

Works Cited Albenda, Pauline. “Assyrian Sacred Trees in the Brooklyn Museum.” Iraq 56 (1994): 123– 133. Albenda, Pauline. “The Beardless Winged Genies from the Northwest Palace at Nimrud.” SAAB 10 (1996): 67–78. Allen, James P. Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. SBL WAW 23. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Allen, Thomas George, ed. The Egyptian Book of the Dead: Documents in the Oriental Institute Museum at the University of Chicago. OIP 82. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.

70

balogh

Assmann, Jan. Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt. Translated by David Lorton. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005. Ataç, Mehmet-Ali. The Mythology of Kingship in Neo-Assyrian Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Ataç, Mehmet-Ali. “Visual Formula and Meaning in Neo-Assyrian Relief Sculpture.” The Art Bulletin 88 (2006): 69–101. Barreveld, W.H. Date Palm Products. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 101. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1993. Bauks, Michaela. “Sacred Trees in the Garden of Eden and Their Ancient Near Eastern Precursors.” JAJ 3 (2012): 267–301. Beck, Pirhiya. “The Cult-Stands from Taanach: Aspects of the Iconographic Tradition of Early Iron Age Cult Objects in Palestine.” Pages 352–381 in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na’aman. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1994. Billing, Nils. Nut, the Goddess of Life: In Text and Iconography. Uppsala Studies in Egyptology 5. Uppsala: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, 2002. Billing, Nils. “Writing an Image: The Formulation of the Tree Goddess Motif in the Book of the Dead, Ch.59.” SAK 32 (2004): 35–50. Black, Jeremy, and Anthony Green. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992. Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth. “Acculturating Gender Roles: Goddess Images as Conveyors of Culture in Ancient Israel.” Pages 1–18 in Image, Text, Exegesis: Iconographic Interpretation and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Izaak J. de Hulster and Joel M. LeMon. LHBOTS 588. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Brown, Brian. “Kingship and Ancestral Cult in the Northwest Palace at Nimrud.” JANER 10 (2010): 1–53. Buchholz, Hans-Günter. “Kyprische Bildkunst zwischen 1100 und 500 v. Chr.” Pages 215– 266 in Images as Media: Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millennium BCE). Edited by Christoph Uehlinger. OBO 175. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Choi, G.D. “Decoding Canaanite Pottery Paintings from the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I.” PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2008. Cleveland, Ray L. “Cherubs and the ‘Tree of Life’ in Ancient South Arabia.” BASOR 172 (1963): 55–60. Cline, Eric H. 1177B.C. The Year Civilization Collapsed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014. Collins, Paul. “Trees and Gender in Assyrian Art.” Iraq LXVIII (2006): 99–107. Collon, Dominique. First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. London: British Museum Press, 2005.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

71

Cooper, Jerrold. “Assyrian Prophecies, the Assyrian Tree, and the Mesopotamian Origins of Jewish Monotheism, Greek Philosophy, Christian Theology, Gnosticism, and Much More.” JAOS 120 (2000): 430–444. Curtis, J.E., and J.E. Reade, eds. Art and Empire: Treasures from Assyria in the British Museum. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1995. Franklin, Norma. “The Assyrian Stylized Tree: Propagation Not Pollination.” Paper presented at the American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting. Denver, CO, 16 Nov 2018. Frevel, Christian. Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch YHWHs: Beiträge zu literarischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion. 2 vols. BBB 94. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995. Giovino, Mariana. The Assyrian Sacred Tree: A History of Interpretations. OBO 230. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Green, Anthony. “Ancient Mesopotamian Religious Iconography.” Pages 1837–1881 of vol. 3 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jack Sasson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Gubel, Eric. “Multicultural and Multimedial Aspects of Early Phoenician Art, c. 1200– 675BCE.” Pages 185–214 in Images as Media: Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millennium BCE). Edited by Christoph Uehlinger. OBO 175. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Hays, Christopher. “‘There is Hope for a Tree’: Job’s Hope for the Afterlife in the Light of Egyptian Tree Imagery.” CBQ 77 (2015): 42–68. Hulster, Izaak J. de. “Of Angels and Iconography: Isaiah 6 and the Biblical Concept of Seraphs and Cherubs.” Pages 147–164 in Iconographic Exegesis of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: An Introduction to Its Method and Practice. Edited by Izaak J. de Hulster, Brent A. Strawn, and Ryan P. Bonfiglio. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. James, E.O. The Tree of Life: An Archaeological Study. SHR 11. Leiden: Brill, 1966. Jeremias, Jörg, and Friedhelm Hartenstein. “‘JHWH und seine Aschera’: ‘Offizielle Religion’ und ‘Volksreligion’ zur Zeit der klassischen Propheten.” Pages 79–138 in Religionsgeschichte Israels: Formale und materiale Aspekte. Edited by Bernd Janowski and Matthias Köckert. VWGT 15. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 1999. Keel, Othmar. “Ägyptische Baumgöttinnen der 18.–21. Dynastie Bild und Wort, Wort und Bild.” Pages 61–138 in Das Recht der Bilder gesehen zu werden: Drei Fallstudien zur Methode der Interpretation altorientalischer Bilder. OBO 122. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Keel, Othmar. Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 261. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Keel, Othmar. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography

72

balogh

and the Book of Psalms. Translated by Timothy J. Hallett. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Keel, Othmar, and Christoph Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Keel, Othmar, and Silvia Schroer. Creation: Biblical Theologies in the Context of the Ancient Near East. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Kepinski-Lecomte, Christine. L’Arbre Stylisé en Asie Occidentale au 2e Millénaire Avant J. C. 3 vols. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1982. Koemoth, Pierre. Osiris et les arbres: Contribution à l’étude des arbres sacrés de l’Égypte ancienne. Ægyptiaca Leodiensia 3. Liège: Centre Informatique de Philosophie et Lettres, 1994. Lambert, W.G. “Trees, Snakes, and Gods in Ancient Syria and Anatolia.”BSOAS 48 (1985): 435–451. Mallowan, Barbara Parker. “Magic and Ritual in the Northwest Palace Reliefs.” Pages 33– 39 in Essays on Ancient Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honor of Charles Kyrle Wilkinson. Edited by Prudence O. Harper and Holly Pittmann. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1983. Mariette, Auguste. Dendérah: Description Générale du Grand Temple de Cette Ville. 5 vols. Paris: Librairie A. Franck, 1870–1875. Mojsov, Bojana. Osiris: Death and Afterlife of a God. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Oakes, Lorna, and Lucia Gahlin. Ancient Egypt: An Illustrated Reference to the Myths, Religions, Pyramids and Temples of the Land of the Pharaohs. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2007. Osborne, William R. “The Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt and the Book of Proverbs.” JANER 14 (2014): 117–128. Osborne, William R. Trees and Kings: A Comparative Analysis of Tree Imagery in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition and the Ancient Near East. BBRSup 18. University Park, PA; Eisenbrauns, 2018. Parpola, Simo. Assyrian Prophecies. SAA 9. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997. Parpola, Simo. “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy.” JNES 52 (1993): 161–208. Porter, Barbara Nevling. “Sacred Trees, Date Palms, and the Royal Persona of Ashurnasirpal II.” JNES 52 (1993): 129–139. Porter, Barbara Nevling. Trees, Kings, and Politics: Studies in Assyrian Iconography. OBO 197. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Postgate, J.N., and M.A. Powell, eds. Trees and Timber in Mesopotamia. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 6. Cambridge: Sumerian Agricultural Group, 1992. Pritchard, James B., ed. The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

the tree of life in ancient near eastern iconography

73

Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Russell, John Malcolm. “The Program of the Palace of Assurnasirpal II at Nimrud: Issues in the Research and Presentation of Assyrian Art.” AJA 102 (1998): 655–715. Sarton, George. “The Artificial Fertilization of Date-Palms in the Time of Ashur-nasirpal B.C.885–860.” Isis XXI (1934): 8–13. Stolz, Fritz. “Die Bäume des Gottesgartens auf dem Libanon.” ZAW 84 (1972): 141–156. Strange, John. “The Idea of Afterlife in Ancient Israel: Some Remarks on the Iconography in Solomon’s Temple.” PEQ 117 (1985): 35–40. Sugimoto, David T. “‘Tree of Life’ Decoration on Iron Age Pottery from the Southern Levant.” Orient 47 (2012): 125–146. Taylor, Joan E. “The Asherah, the Menorah, and the Sacred Tree.” JSOT 66 (1995): 29–54. Watanabe, Chikako E. “Styles of Pictorial Narratives in Assurbanipal’s Reliefs.” Pages 345–368 in Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art. Edited by Brian A. Brown and Marian H. Feldman. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Widengren, Geo. The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion. UUA 4. Uppsala: Lundequist, 1951. Wiggins, Steve A. “Of Asherahs and Trees: Some Methodological Questions.” JANER 1 (2001): 158–187. Wilkinson, Richard H. Reading Egyptian Art: A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Egyptian Painting and Sculpture. London: Thames & Hudson, 2001. Winter, Irene J. On Art in the Ancient Near East: Volume 1, Of the First Millennium BCE. CHANE 34.1. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Winter, Irene J. On Art in the Ancient Near East: Volume 2, From the Third Millennium BCE. CHANE 34.2. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Winter, Irene J. “Le Palais Imaginaire: Scale and Meaning in the Iconography of NeoAssyrian Cylinder Seals.” Pages 51–87 in Images as Media: Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millennium BCE). Edited by Christoph Uehlinger. OBO 175. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Winter, Irene J. “The Program of the Throneroom of Assurnasirpal II.” Pages 15–31 in Essays on Ancient Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honor of Charles Kyrle Wilkinson. Edited by Prudence O. Harper and Holly Pittmann. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1983.

chapter 3

The Tree of Life in Genesis Christopher Heard

For many readers, the phrase “tree of life” will immediately evoke thoughts of the garden of Eden. Charles Echols has situated this tree for us among other lifegiving trees and plants mentioned in a variety of ancient Near Eastern texts, and Amy Balogh has explored the iconographical context surrounding such texts. With this rich context in mind, we may now turn to the most famous tree of life, the one that appears briefly and enigmatically within the biblical garden of Eden story (Gen 2:4–3:24, hereafter “Gen 2–3”).1 This particular tree of life casts a long shadow from Genesis, as the subsequent chapters will attest. Indeed, the attention paid to the tree of life outside of the garden story dwarfs the attention the tree receives inside the story, where it appears in only two passages (Gen 2:9; 3:22–24). Nevertheless, the tree has taken hold of readers’ literary and theological imaginations, and shows no signs of letting go. Narrowing our focus to Eden’s tree of life, however, moves us into a very different kind of inquiry. Confusion accompanies fascination with respect to the tree of life in Genesis. Three issues particularly stand out. First, when the tree of life is introduced in Gen 2:9, its name appears within a complex syntactical structure, prompting questions about the sentence’s coherence. Second, the prepositional phrase ‫( בתוך הגן‬bĕtôk haggān, traditionally “in the middle of the garden”) seems to designate the location of two different trees in perplexing ways, prompting questions about the phrase’s sense and usage. Third, the tree of life is absent

1 In my judgment, whoever incorporated the ‫( תולדות‬tôlĕdôt, “generations”) structure into the book of Genesis intended Gen 2:4a to be taken as the beginning of a literary unit, not the end of one. In this I am close to the assessments of John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, ICC (New York: Scribner, 1930), 40–41; Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, WBC 1 (Waco: Word, 1987), 55; Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 151; John F.A. Sawyer, “The Image of God, the Wisdom of Serpents and the Knowledge of Good and Evil,” in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden, ed. Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer, JSOTSup 136 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 64–66. For the contrary view see Hermann Gunkel, Genesis, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997), 4; Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary, CC (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 81. At any rate, whether we start reading with 2:4a or 2:4b does not materially affect the issues surrounding the tree of life.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423756_005

the tree of life in genesis

75

from the bulk of the narrative, mentioned by name only in Gen 2:9 and 3:22– 24, prompting questions about its integration into the overall story. Generally speaking, biblical scholars have taken two distinct approaches while seeking answers to these questions. Some have sought answers in the literary prehistory of Gen 2–3. While details of a reconstruction may vary from scholar to scholar, a general model of Gen 2–3 as a composite text blending two narratives, each with a different roster of special trees, still finds wide acceptance. Others have sought answers in the literary features of Gen 2–3 as it now stands. These critics constrain themselves to making sense of the text as we have it through a disciplined, rigorous reading process. Thus, we may contrast diachronic approaches primarily employing tradition, source, and redaction criticism with synchronic approaches primarily employing philological and narratological methods. I aim to show here that a synchronic approach to the conundrums of Gen 2–3 is superior to a diachronic approach.2 While the questions explored by a diachronic approach arise from genuinely problematic textual phenomena, subdividing Gen 2–3 into parallel strands or removing selected story elements as intrusive creates additional problems that require ever more speculative solutions. By contrast, a synchronic approach can yield a coherent reading that inspires more confidence in its resolutions of the same problematic phenomena. To put a fine point on it, it is both unnecessary and counterproductive to remove the tree of life from Gen 2–3 or to isolate it in one of several precursor texts and traditions—unnecessary because the tree of life does not disrupt the received narrative, and counterproductive because the tree of life is in fact deeply integrated into the whole.

1

Approaching the Tree of Life

When readers first encounter the tree of life in Gen 2:9, it stands out against the background of all the other trees in the garden. The tree’s name hints at special qualities, but no elaboration accompanies this notice. The existing story (as distinct from hypothetical precursors)3 names another special tree, the tree of

2 My thesis is specific to Gen 2–3 and cannot, by itself, warrant a broader skepticism toward source criticism. In source-critical terms, I will object here to unnecessary and counterproductive subdivision of J, not the identification of J as a distinct Pentateuchal source. 3 This unit differs only in very slight details of spelling or wording between the Masoretic Text (MT), Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), and Septuagint (LXX) versions. Indeed, the LXX sentence structure mirrors that of the MT and SP, suggesting that its base Hebrew text was very similar

76

heard

the knowledge of good and evil (hereafter “tree of knowledge,” with no intention to elide the specific character or content of that knowledge), alongside the tree of life in 2:9. From here the tree of knowledge takes center stage. The deity tells the first human not to eat from the tree of knowledge (2:17). However, after the deity has created a second human, the humans do eat from that tree. Once the deity has confronted the humans about eating from the tree of knowledge, the tree of life comes to the fore. The deity expresses concern about the humans eating from the tree of life and thereby living “forever” (‫לעלם‬, lĕʿōlām; 3:22). Subsequently, the deity expels the human couple from the garden and bars their access thereto (3:24). Many readers would find the foregoing paragraph frustratingly sparse, although it can justly claim to review all the explicit statements made in the garden story about the tree of life. What goes unsaid has often proven much more interesting. For example, the narrator does not tell readers what (if anything) the humans know about the tree of life, whether the humans intentionally or accidentally ate from the tree of life prior to the events of chapter 3, and what precise effects the fruit of the tree of life would have had on them. Pursuing such questions engages us in “gap-filling,” since none of the answers lie on the surface of the text.4 Others might find the summary paragraph hopelessly naïve, since it merely glosses the canonical form of the text without interrogating its origins. Since the advent of modern biblical scholarship, some careful readers have perceived so many doublets and contradictions in the garden story that they simply cannot give credence to a final-form interpretation thereof.5 For these critics, the garden story evidences signs of composite construction, traces of (at least) two earlier stories that must be distinguished and considered separately in order to receive satisfactory treatment. How else may one explain the double planting of the garden (2:8, 9), the double relocation of the first human (2:8, 15), the twin trees, the alternate post-expulsion food types (3:18, 19), the double expulsion of the humans from the garden of Eden (3:23, 24), and above all, why the narrator places the tree of life “in the middle of the garden” but the woman uses that to the MT and SP. Therefore, we may conveniently treat the MT as “the final form” without raising substantial text-critical concerns. 4 Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 186–229. 5 For the classic list of perceived doublets in Gen 2:4–3:24, see Paul Humbert, Études sur le Récit du Paradis et de la Chute dans la Genèse (Neuchätel: Secrètariat de l’Université, 1940), 9–10. Humbert himself argues that most of these are not genuine doublets. The most influential early explorer of textual and traditional precursors to Gen 2–3 was Karl Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen. 1–12, 5) (Giessen: J. Ricker, 1883).

the tree of life in genesis

77

phrase to describe the tree of knowledge? Pursuing such questions engages us in source criticism, and that of a particularly detailed variety. The synchronic practice of constructing coherence and the diachronic practice of excavating incoherence intertwine considerably. The points at which the source critic sees the clearest evidence of redaction are the very points at which the final-form reader must work hardest to read the story as a unity. Conversely, the final-form reader’s specimens of literary art—parallelisms, chiasms, and the like—may appear as doublets and redundancies to the source critic. They focus on the same phenomena, explore the same textual features, but ramify them differently. Baden highlights plot contradictions as the key phenomenon for sourcecritical study. “What makes the Pentateuch unreadable,” he writes, “is its thorough-going internally contradictory plot. The analysis that explains that unreadability is, by necessity, grounded in the resolution of those plot contradictions. That is why source criticism exists.”6 Baden speaks here of the Pentateuch as a whole, but his comments raise questions for smaller units as well. Does Gen 2–3 exhibit such intractable literary contradictions on the level of plot as to be unreadable? Is disassembling the canonical text into discrete approximations of its precursors the only way to resolve its problems? Or does Gen 2–3 present readers with an undeniably challenging but ultimately readable text? Several perceived contradictions cluster around the tree of life. As we have already seen, the tree of life appears in 2:9b, then disappears. The narrator and the woman use the same phrase, ‫“( בתוך הגן‬in the middle of the garden”),7 to describe the location of the tree of life (narrator, 2:9) and the tree of knowledge (woman, 3:3). The tree of life reappears in the narrative only at the end, where its role in motivating the humans’ expulsion from the garden seems disproportionate to its complete absence from the rest of the narrative. After almost 150 years of examination, most critical readers agree that the canonical text presents these features. To date, however, no single reconstruction of the text’s prehistory can claim the mantle of consensus. Each has proven unique in some respect of detail, emphasis, nuance, or method. Nevertheless, for convenience we may group the most prominent proposals into three clusters.

6 Joel Baden, “Why is the Pentateuch Unreadable?—or, Why Are We Doing This Anyway?” in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, ed. Jan Christian Gertz et al., FAT 111 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 250–251. 7 The various possible senses of the prepositional phrase ‫ בתוך הגן‬give rise to considerable discussion. For a brief survey of the issues, see Walter Vogels, “The Tree(s) in the Middle of the Garden (Gn 2:9; 3:3),” ScEs 59 (2007): 136–138.

78

heard

1.

The tree of life was added to a primary narrative that featured only the tree of knowledge. Proceeding from the classic Documentary Hypothesis, Budde’s seminal formulation of this model has J crafting the original version of Gen 2–3 with only the tree of knowledge.8 Budde recognizes that the biblical tree of knowledge seems unique among ancient Near Eastern literatures.9 Indeed, Budde celebrates “how heavenly the biblical narratives, deeply immersed in the Israelites’ knowledge of God, differ in their moral and religious truth and purity” from Mesopotamian conceptions.10 Yet a redactor found the Yahwist’s transcendent work incomplete, and felt compelled to incorporate the tree of life due to its popularity in “common folklore,” since “every child knew that there was a tree of life in paradise.”11 Pfeiffer extends this scholarly tradition into the twenty-first century.12 Parallel stories, one featuring a tree of life and the other featuring a tree of knowledge, were blended into a story featuring two trees. The proposed J source for the Pentateuch has often received additional subdivision of its own, such as the division of J into Je, which used Elohim as the divine name until the days of Enosh, and Jj, which used Yahweh as the divine name from the very beginning. Accepting this analysis, Gunkel envisions Je and Jj as both containing narratives rather similar to Gen 2–3; he thought Je the younger and more refined, Jj the older and more mythological. In Gunkel’s model, Je featured only the tree of knowledge and served as the “main source” for J, being “as far as we can see, completely preserved” in J. Elements from Jj, including the tree of life, were worked in to produce the composite text J.13 Gunkel further describes the origins of the Je version of Gen 2:–3 as the union between an origi-

2.

8

9

10 11 12

13

Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte, 46–65. Karl Jaroš, “Die Motive der Heilgen Bäume und der Schlange in Gen 2–3,” ZAW 92 (1980): 204–206 reverses Budde’s model, in a sense, and takes a hypothetical original featuring the tree of life as J’s starting point. Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte, 74–79; cf. Howard N. Wallace, The Eden Narrative, HSM 32 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 116; André LaCocque, The Trial of Innocence: Adam, Eve, and the Yahwist (Eugene: Cascade, 2006), 73; John H. Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015), 122. Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte, 74–75. Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte, 85, 82. Henrik Pfeiffer, “Der Baum in der Mitte des Gartens: Zum überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Ursprung der Paradieserzählung (Gen 2,4b–3,24), Teil I: Analyse,” ZAW 112 (2000): 487– 500. Cf. Jan Dus, “Zwei Schichten der Biblischen Paradiesgeschichte,”ZAW 71 (1959): 97–113; Jutta Krispenz, “Wie viele Bäume braucht das Paradies? Erwägungen zu Gen ii 4b–iii 24,” VT 54 (2004): 301–303. Gunkel, Genesis, 25–27; cf. Skinner, Genesis, 53.

the tree of life in genesis

3.

14 15 16 17 18 19

79

nally separate creation narrative and paradise-lost narrative,14 but does not outline a clear understanding of how Jj and Je came to include parallel narratives with different numbers of trees in the first place. Smend’s model eliminates this conundrum by positing two parallel sources, each with only one tree. Perceiving a distinction between “ground” and “dust,” Smend distinguishes between an older version in which humans ate from a prohibited tree of life and were expelled from the garden to become nomads, and a younger version in which humans ate from a prohibited tree of knowledge and were expelled from the garden to become farmers.15 Westermann stands in the tradition of Gunkel and Smend, though advocating fewer pre-J stages of composition and redaction.16 However, Westermann suggests that J intended for readers to disentangle the two trees; J “wanted to say that a similar event was linked with the tree of life as with the tree of the narrative,” that is, the tree of knowledge.17 The tree of life is original to the garden story, or at least so thoroughly integrated into it that the story could not survive its removal. Not all scholars who recognize Genesis 2–3 as a composite text have felt obligated by that recognition to focus on its literary prehistory. The assumption that the author or latest redactor thought of Gen 2–3 as a coherent text, along with the historical fact that Gen 2–3 was preserved and transmitted as it now stands, animates von Rad’s impulse to “turn once again to exegesis of the texts in their present form.”18 One could, of course, choose to focus one’s interpretive efforts on the existing text simply because that is the actual form in which readers encounter it. But Walsh, whose conclusions have been echoed by others, goes beyond this to argue that “the apparently ‘artless’ story of man and woman in the garden of Eden has in fact structures and intricate patterns of organization that involve even minor details of the text,” such that “the deletion of any part of the text (except, perhaps, 2:10b–14) would have significant repercussions for the whole passage.”19

Gunkel, Genesis, 27–28. Rudolf Smend, Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1912), 18–20. Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 192, 212–213. Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 212–213, 271. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973), 42. Jerome T. Walsh, “Genesis 2:4b–3:24: A Synchronic Approach,” JBL 96 (1977): 171–172. For similar opinions, cf. briefly James Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 59; Terje Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature, CBET 25 (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 187–201; Vogels, “Tree(s) in the Middle of the Garden,” 132.

80

heard

An irenic spirit might urge us to affirm, with Walsh, that diachronic and synchronic examinations should proceed hand in hand.20 But if, as Baden argues, it is “exclusively the literary contradictions on the level of plot” that call for source criticism,21 and if the only reason to reverse-engineer the text into hypothetical precursors is to resolve those contradictions,22 then a convincing demonstration of synchronic textual coherence contraindicates the need for any diachronic textual reconstruction. This question of coherence or contradiction therefore seems indispensable. Merely to ask whether the canonical form of Gen 2–3 can support a sensible reading seems too low a bar, insufficiently rigorous, since many generations of ordinary readers23 have found it so. Therefore, let us test whether Walsh’s claim that “the deletion of any part of the text … would have significant repercussions for the whole passage” holds for the tree of life.

2

The Necessity of the Tree of Life

Readers catch a glimpse of the tree of life in only two scenes within the larger garden story. In Gen 2:9b, the tree of life is mentioned as one of two special trees distinct from the more mundane trees throughout the garden. In Gen 3:22–24, both the deity and the narrator cite the tree of life to explain the humans’ expulsion from the garden. In both of these passages, the tree’s presence seems to disrupt, or at least disturb, the plot. 2.1 The Tree of Life in Genesis 2:9b and Its Absence from Genesis 3:3 In the canonical text, readers first encounter the tree of life and the tree of knowledge in Gen 2:9,24 which reads, “Yahweh Elohim caused to sprout from

20 21 22 23 24

Walsh, “Genesis 2:4b–3:24,” 161, 177. Baden, “Why is the Pentateuch Unreadable?,” 250, my emphasis. Baden, “Why is the Pentateuch Unreadable?,” 251. I borrow this phrase also from Daniel Patte, Ethics of Biblical Interpretation: A Reevaluation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 73–112. Proponents of a compositional model involving parallel sources often regard Gen 2:8a and 2:9a as doublets because of their parallel structure: ‫( ויטע יהוה אלהים גן‬vayyiṭṭaʿ Yhwh ʾĕlōhîm gan, “and Yahweh God planted a garden,” 2:8a) and ‫ויצמח יהוה אלהים מן האדמה כל עץ‬ (vayyaṣmaḥ Yhwh ʾelōhîm min hāʾădāmâ kol ʿēṣ, “and Yahweh God caused to sprout from the ground every [kind of] tree,” 2:9a). Yet 2:8a describes the aggregate result of the deity’s agricultural activity (a garden) while 2:9a describes the discrete results (trees). Additionally, ‫( נטע‬nātaʿ, “he planted”) and ‫( הצמיח‬hiṣmîaḥ, “he caused to sprout”) do not describe the same activity, but rather form a chronological sequence. Nor is ‫ נטע‬more anthropo-

the tree of life in genesis

81

the ground every [kind of] tree, desirable for seeing and good for eating, and the tree of life ‫ בתוך הגן‬and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” In 2:16– 17, the deity addresses the first human concerning diet, explicitly permitting the human to eat from any tree in the garden, with the exception of the tree of knowledge, specified by that name. When the subsequently-created snake and woman engage in a dialogue about dietary prohibitions, the woman indicates that only one tree, which she calls “the tree that is ‫בתוך הגן‬,” is forbidden to them. The subsequent narrative shows that the tree the woman identifies as ‫ בתוך הגן‬is the tree of knowledge. Thus the conundrum: 2:9 Narrator: the tree of life is ‫בתוך הגן‬ 2:17 Deity: the tree of knowledge is forbidden 3:3 Woman: the tree that is ‫ =( בתוך הגן‬tree of knowledge, per 3:5) is forbidden Proposals that reconstruct an earlier garden story by removing the tree of life from the existing story usually emend 2:9b to read “and ‫ בתוך הגן‬the tree of knowledge” or drop 2:9b altogether, and emend 2:17 to prohibit “the tree ‫בתוך‬ ‫ ”הגן‬rather than the tree of knowledge by name. These operations certainly smooth out the text and remove the referential conundrum of “the tree ‫בתוך‬ ‫הגן‬,” but are unnecessary to make sense of the text as it stands. One might begin by supposing that both trees stood ‫בתוך הגן‬. Gen 2:9 may even say as much, through a form of “split coordination” in which a prepositional phrase that stands within a list of noun phrases modifies them all.25 This understanding of the syntax bolsters the readerly intuition that the story locates both trees ‫בתוך הגן‬, thus resolving the apparent contradiction between the narrator’s words in 2:9 and the woman’s in 3:3. The problem is finding parallels in other biblical texts. Although examples where verb phrases are elided are fairly common, relatively few exhibit elided prepositional phrases in such constructions. Dillmann, however, points to 1Sam 6:11, “they set Yahweh’s ark on (‫אל‬, ʾel) the cart and the box,” to be understood as “they set Yahweh’s ark on

25

morphic than ‫חצמיח‬, as Pfeiffer, “Der Baum in der Mitte des Gartens,” 490–491 claims. Ps 104:14–16 predicates ‫ נטע‬and ‫ הצמיח‬of a single deity, and Eccl 2:4–6 collocates the two roots, specifically in the context of a royal orchard or garden. First one plants (‫)נטע‬, then the plants grow (‫)צמח‬, given sufficient irrigation—whether one is a king or a deity. Thus, the characterization of 2:8a and 2:9a as doublets falters. Andreas Michel, Theologie aus der Peripherie: die gespaltene Koordination im biblischen Hebräisch, BZAW 257 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997). Ziony Zevit, What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 93, calls this construction “forward gapping,” but his use of this term is imprecise.

82

heard

the cart and they set the box on the cart.”26 Mettinger, following Michel, cites as “especially similar to Gen 2:9” the end of Exod 24:4, “he built an altar at the foot of (‫תחת‬, taḥat) the mountain, and he set up twelve pillars at the foot of the mountain.”27 1Sam 7:3 may be worthy of special consideration because of its use of ‫( תוך‬tāvek, “midst”)—“set aside the foreign gods from your midst (‫מתוככם‬, mittôkkem) and set aside the Ashtoreths from your midst”—and 2 Kings 5:23 for its use of locative ‫( ב‬bĕ–)—“he tied up two talents of silver in (‫ )ב‬two bags, and he tied up two changes of clothes in [the same] two bags.”28 These syntactic parallels provide clear, though admittedly not copious, evidence for ellipsis of prepositional phrases similar to the much better attested phenomenon of verb phrase ellipsis within an instance of split coordination. At a minimum, then, Gen 2:9b can be read “the tree of life ‫ בתוך הגן‬and the tree of knowledge ‫בתוך‬ ‫הגן‬.” Certainly, the syntax does not compel readers to construe 2:9b as “the tree of life ‫ בתוך הגן‬and the tree of knowledge [anywhere but ‫]בתוך הגן‬.”

26

27 28

August Dillmann, Die Genesis (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1892), 56. In using strikethroughs to indicate elided words, I follow Andrew Carnie, Syntax: A Generative Introduction (Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013). Tryggve N.D. Mettinger, The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-historical Study of Genesis 2–3 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 22, n. 46. Among the other examples of split direct objects cited by Michel, 171, the following are most analogous to Gen 2:9, that is, their compound direct objects are split by prepositional phrases that are themselves subsequently elided within the overall verb phrase: 2 Sam 11:1, “David sent Joab and David sent his servants with him (‫ )עמו‬and David sent all Israel with him”; 1 Kings 5:9, “God gave wisdom to (‫ )ל‬Solomon, and God gave very great understanding to Solomon, and God gave breadth of heart to Solomon”; Jer 50:16, “Cut off the sower from (‫ )מן‬Babylon, and cut off the sickle-wielder from Babylon at harvest time”; Ezra 8:5, “those who had come from captivity, the descendants of the exiles, offered as burnt offerings to the God of Israel twelve bulls for (‫ )על‬all Israel, ninety-six rams for all Israel, seventy-seven lambs for all Israel, and as a sin offering twelve male goats for all Israel” (cf. 1 Chr 29:21); Neh 13:15, “and bringing heaps of grain and loading them on (‫)על‬ donkeys, and also loading wine on donkeys, loading grapes on donkeys, and loading figs on donkeys, and loading every kind of burden on donkeys”; 1Chr 2:23, “Geshur and Aram took Havvoth-jair from (‫ )מן‬them, and they took Kenath and its villages from them”; 14:1, “King Hiram of Tyre sent messengers to David, and he sent cedar logs to David, and he sent masons to David, and he sent carpenters to David”; 2 Chr 21:4, Jehoram “killed all his brothers with (‫ )ב‬the sword, and also he killed some of the Israelite officials with the sword”; 2 Chr 35:17, “The Israelites who were present enacted the Passover at (‫ )ב‬that time, and they enacted the festival of unleavened bread for seven days at that time.” Michel also includes Lam 3:61, “You have heard their taunts against me, Yahweh, you have heard all their plots against (‫על‬, ʿal) me” (cf. ‫אל ירושלם‬, ʾel Yĕrûšālāim, “against Jerusalem,” in 1Chr 28:1); if this analysis is correct, then even relocating ‫ בתוך הגן‬to the end of the sequence, as in “the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ‫בתוך הגן‬,” would not attach the prepositional phrase uniquely to just one tree.

the tree of life in genesis

83

If the narrator does place both trees in the middle of the garden, as Zevit asserts and I consider plausible but not provable, why does the woman speak of only one tree ‫ ?בתוך הגן‬Zevit suggests that this question demands too much precision, arguing that ‫ בתוך הגן‬can refer to almost any position within the confines of the garden except for the edges or the center.29 By extension, Zevit holds that “no information in Genesis 2:9 warranted the assumption that the two trees were even proximate to each other.”30 Zevit’s point is underscored by the fact that ‫ בתוך‬sometimes seems indistinguishable from a simple ‫ ב‬preposition, indicating the presence of something or someone within another thing without any greater specificity, as when the deity and Abraham discuss the number of righteous people who might be found ‫ בתוך‬Sodom. However, the woman’s speech distinguishes between the interdicted tree and all other trees only by the tree’s location. To make this distinction, then, the woman must understand ‫בתוך הגן‬ to name a fairly specific location.31 There seems no way to read 2:9b as “the tree of life ‫ בתוך הגן‬and the tree of knowledge ‫ ”בתוך הגן‬without also accepting the implication that both trees stood relatively near one another in a location that the phrase ‫ בתוך הגן‬could adequately distinguish from other possible locations. A few scholars have experimented with the notion that the woman actually does speak of the tree of life as a forbidden tree. This case hinges on the fact that the singular form ‫( עץ‬ʿēṣ), normally “tree,” can also have the collective sense of “trees.” The woman’s words in 3:2, “from the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat,” show that the collective sense of ‫ עץ‬lies within her linguistic repertoire. The singular pronominal suffixes in phrases like “eat from it” (3:3, 5) and “its fruit” (3:6) do not quash this interpretation; Lev 26:4b attests that singular pronominal suffixes are to be expected with the collective use of ‫עץ‬.32 However, the snake’s words in 3:4–5 focus only on gaining knowledge; there is no talk here of perpetual life. It may be, of course, that the snake has narrowed the conversational scope from the woman’s prior statement, but the woman shows no need to ask for clarification before plucking fruit from the tree of knowledge. Clever as it is, then, this understanding of the woman’s use of ‫ עץ‬does not inspire confidence. Explanations that deny the humans knowledge of the tree of life fare better. In the canonical form of 2:17, the deity prohibits the first human from eating

29 30 31 32

Zevit, What Really Happened, 94; cf. Hamilton, Book of Genesis, 162. Zevit, What Really Happened, 94. So too Wallace, Eden Narrative, 102; Vogels, “Tree(s) in the Middle of the Garden,” 137. Lev 26:4b reads “‫( ועץ‬vĕʿēṣ) of the field will give ‫( פריו‬piryô),” woodenly “and the tree of the field will give its fruit,” yielding “and the trees of the field will give their fruit” when the collective sense of ‫ עץ‬is recognized.

84

heard

from the tree of knowledge, calling the prohibited tree by name. Before they ate from the tree of knowledge, they lacked the cognitive capacity that the snake and the deity describe as “knowing good and evil.” Perhaps, similarly, the humans did not know the tree of life existed—the deity does not mention it in 2:16–17, after all—or perhaps it appeared to them to be just like any other tree.33 The deity’s use of “and now” in 3:22 may imply that eating from the tree of life had not previously occurred to the humans, whatever the reason.34 Perhaps, in order to ensure that the humans did not eat from the tree of life by happenstance,35 the deity actively restricted the humans’ access to the tree of life36 or concealed it from the humans.37 Any one of these scenarios could explain why the woman mentions only one tree in her conversation with the snake. If ‫בתוך‬ ‫ הגן‬has been elided from 2:9bβ, then none of these possibilities run afoul of the existing text. Nevertheless, these explanations seem insufficiently subtle, as if treating the characters too woodenly. In her conversation with the snake, the woman cites a dietary prohibition, but the narrator leaves it to readers to imagine how the woman came to know of this prohibition. The woman was not, after all, explicitly on stage when the prohibition was first issued. According to Genesis 2, the narrator split the first human into a man and a woman. Their relationship to the first human is asymmetrical, however, as the narrative presents the man as contiguous with the first human and the woman as a new being. The most obvious marker of this continuity/novelty pattern is the terminology used to refer to each. From her introduction in Gen 2:22, the female is consistently called “woman” (‫אשׁה‬, iššâ), while the male is called “the human” (‫האדם‬, hāʾādām) the

33 34 35 36 37

Arthur Ungnad, “Die Paradiesbäume,” ZDMG 79 (1925): 114. Humbert, Études sur le Récit du Paradis, 23; cf. Dillmann, Die Genesis, 83. Herman Theodorus Obbink, “The Tree of Life in Eden,” ZAW 46 (1928): 107. Ungnad, “Die Paradiesbäume,” 115. Humbert, Études sur le Récit du Paradis, 127, a view Humbert also attributes to Gressman. Mettinger, Eden Narrative, 23, 37, 52–55 frames the prohibition of 2:17 as a test, and imagines the revelation of the tree of life to be the reward for passing the test. This is not unlike the view expressed by S.R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (London: Methuen, 1943), 50. However, such a test seems ill-conceived. When could the deity ever say that the humans had passed the test? If the deity declared the humans to have passed the test and granted them access to the tree of life, and they ate from it, and then they ate from the tree of knowledge, would this not lead to precisely the situation that the deity seeks to avoid according to Gen 3:22? And if the deity declared the humans to have passed the test and then restricted their access to the tree of knowledge, would this not imply considerable uncertainty as to whether the humans had really passed the test, or had simply endured until the timer ran out?

the tree of life in genesis

85

same term used to name the first human since 2:7.38 The male human is called “man” (‫אישׁ‬, îš) in 2:23–24 and in 3:6, 16, where the phonetic echoes between “man” and “woman” (‫ איש‬and ‫ )אשה‬underscore the biological and social bonds between the two; a grammatical imperative may also be at work, since pronominal suffixes are never found attached to ‫ אדם‬in the Hebrew Bible.39 The man’s speech in 2:23 also lays claim to continuity of identity with the first human, making no real sense unless the man remembers the experiences described in 2:19–20. In no way does the narrative indicate that the woman retains memories transferred over from the first human’s experiences prior to the events narrated in 2:21. Indeed, the very fact that she refers to the tree of knowledge by its location rather than by the name the deity used to prohibit it hints that she heard about the prohibition secondhand. In sum, one may understand the existing text as follows. Statements set in Roman type are explicit in the canonical text; the italicized portions are inferences but supported by considerations outlined in the foregoing discussion. The inferences supplied here are not the only possible inferences; they function, rather, as one example of a reading that coheres with the existing text. The deity cultivated two special trees: the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge also in the middle of the garden. The deity showed the first human how to distinguish the tree of knowledge from the other trees and told the first human not to eat its fruit, but gave the first human no information or instructions concerning the tree of life. The deity split the first human into a man—presented as the same being as the first human—and a woman. In some fashion, the man told the woman about the dietary prohibition, without using the tree’s name. Perhaps he simply showed her the tree and said, “Don’t eat the fruit from this tree.” When the snake engaged the woman in conversation about dietary prohibitions, she called it “the tree in the middle of the garden,” using a description that was meaningful to her.

38

39

Joseph Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1–11 (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 68; Robert S. Kawashima, “A Revisionist Reading Revisited: On the Creation of Adam and then Eve,” VT 56 (2006): 46–49. Kawashima, “A Revisionist Reading Revisited,” 49–50; Beverly J. Stratton, Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 2–3, JSOTSup 208 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 102–104. Contrast LaCocque, Trial of Innocence, 114–127; Elliot R. Wolfson, “Bifurcating the Androgyne and Engendering Sin: A Zoharic Reading of Gen 1–3,” in Hidden Truths from Eden: Esoteric Readings of Genesis 1–3, ed. Susanne Scholz and Caroline Vander Stichele, SBL SemeiaSt 76 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014), 87–119.

86

heard

To be sure, the canonical text affords other readings, such as those that give rise to thoughts of supplementation or parallel sources. Nevertheless, the very fact that such a reading can be elucidated, consistent with the canonical text, answers one important question. It is not necessary to emend 2:9b or 2:17 in light of 3:3 for the canonical version of 2:4–3:24 to read as a coherent narrative. However, the commonly proposed emendations do not render the text incoherent. The garden story can live with or without the tree of life as far as 2:9 and 3:3 are concerned. 2.2 The Tree of Life in Genesis 3:22–24 For all that the tree of life goes unmentioned in the woman’s dialogue with the snake, it brackets the expulsion scene in Gen 3:22–24. Modern scholars have found it easy to perceive 3:23 and 3:24 as “literary contradictions on the level of plot,” to recall Baden’s formulation, or doublets at the very best. Since 3:22 and 3:24 share the quite obvious feature of mentioning the tree of life by name, while 3:23 shares with 3:17–19 and 2:7 the vocabulary of the man being “taken” from the ground, investigators with a surgical mindset tend to assign 3:22, 24 with 2:9bα to a different source from that contributing 3:23 along with 3:17–19 and other material. Whether the source that contributed 2:9ba and 3:22, 24 is understood to be a redactional layer or a parallel narrative varies from critic to critic. In 3:22, the deity urges some sort of action “so that he [the man] does not stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.” The opening of 3:23, “Yahweh Elohim sent him from the garden of Eden,” seems a fitting continuation, but then the narrator adds, “to till the ground from which he was taken.” Moreover, if one skips from the end of 3:22 to the beginning of 3:24, one reads there that the deity “expelled the man,” also a fitting continuation of 3:22. Perception of 3:23 and 3:24 as a doublet, fueled in no small measure by the semantic overlap between the verbs with which these verses begin, often forms part of a cumulative case for extracting the tree of life from Genesis 2–3.40 In the piel stem, both ‫( שלח‬šillaḥ, 3:23) and ‫( גרש‬gārēš, 3:24) convey the sense “to expel,” so their use here could seem redundant. However, multiple passages use both verbs without raising source-critical concerns. Exodus 6:1, for example— “with a strong hand he will send them away (‫ ;)שלח‬with a strong hand he will expel them (‫ )גרש‬from his land”—supports Humbert’s suggestion that when used together, ‫ שלח‬and ‫ גרש‬can express the same action, the latter being more

40

Skinner, Genesis, 88.

the tree of life in genesis

87

forceful.41 Readers who follow this cue need not read the opening verb clauses in 3:23, 24 as a redactional doublet, but instead as a purposeful parallel construction. More importantly, source critics typically find that 3:22 and 3:23 offer contradictory motives for the humans’ expulsion from the garden.42 In Gen 3:22, 24, the narrator indicates that the deity expelled the humans to prevent them from eating from the tree of life, while stating in 3:23 that the deity sent the humans away to till the ground outside the garden. Critics who assert that these statements contradict each other, however, rarely argue that claim with rigor, treating it rather as almost self-evident. To test this assertion, consider two possible answers to the question, “Why did the deity expel the humans from the garden?” One might answer, “Because the deity wanted to separate the man from the tree of life” (3:22), or “Because the deity wanted the man to till the ground” (3:23). Unless we suppose that the deity can have only one simple, straightforward motive per action, there is no obvious reason why the deity could not have wanted both.43 Indeed, these two motives do not occupy the same register. Humbert characterizes Gen 3:23 as “purposive” in this respect, 3:22, 24 as “prohibitive.”44 In other words, Humbert argues that expelling the humans to till the ground and to keep them away from the tree of life are harmonious intentions rather than mutually exclusive goals. Attention to the conversations within the narrative, direct and indirect, explicit and implied, sharpens Humbert’s analysis. In 3:22, the deity addresses other celestial beings, noting that “the man has become like one of us” and expressing a desire to keep the man from eating from the tree of life.45 Nothing in the narrative indicates that the humans receive word of this conversation. By the same token, 3:23 does not present any direct speech. However, verb phrases in the form “sent person to do x” necessarily imply that the sender has communicated their intentions to the one sent. In such cases, “send” (‫ )שלח‬can incorporate the function of an indirect discourse marker: “the deity sent the

41 42 43

44 45

Humbert, Études sur le Récit du Paradis, 36–37; cf. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 85–86. See also Gen 21:10, 14; Exod 10:10–11; 11:1. Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 270–271. Barr, Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, 4, seems to make just this supposition when he remarks that keeping the humans away from the tree of life was “the reason, and the only reason, why Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden” (my emphasis). Humbert, Études sur le Récit du Paradis, 37. Gunkel, Genesis, 23; E.A. Speiser, Genesis, AB (Garden City: Doubleday, 1964), 24; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 85. Less plausibly for an ancient Near Eastern context, Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 208, regards the plural as an indication of “interior dialogue.”

88

heard

man to till the ground” could be restated as “the deity told the man to go till the ground.” Strong justification exists, then, for regarding the difference in motives between Gen 3:22 and 3:23 as a difference in conversational context. Gen 3:22 describes the expulsion motive as the deity presents it to the divine council, Gen 3:23 as the deity presents it to the humans. The notion that a divine or human actor might have multiple motives known to different groups, or might have an ulterior motive not reflected in their overt communications, finds repeated expression in biblical narrative. King David’s suggestion that Uriah the Hittite go home and “wash his feet” (2 Sam 11:8) and Absalom’s faux judicial activism (2Sam 15:1–6) provide famous human examples. The deity also engages in similar behavior on more than one occasion. One thinks, for example, of the deity commanding David to take a military census, apparently seeking a pretext to act against Israel (2 Sam 24); of Micaiah ben Imlah’s vision of the deity seeking to entice Ahab into a losing battle (1 Kings 22); or of the celestial discussions about Job, about which Job himself remains unaware (Job 1–2). Furthermore, if 3:23 stands alone in elucidating the motive for the humans’ expulsion, that motive lacks a certain intensity. At the beginning of the story, the narrator—and presumably the deity—noted the lack of any human to work the ground (2:5). The deity supplied this need by forming a human from that same ground (2:7). But then the deity marked off a section of that ground for a garden (2:8), and assigned the human to work that limited portion of the ground (2:15). The deity gave the human one prohibition, with a death penalty attached to violating that prohibition (2:17). This much of the narrative obtains whether the tree of life is retained in the story or excised. But if we extract 3:22, 24 and rely solely on 3:23, the consequence for transgressing the prohibition is a vocational demotion: the human must now work the ordinary, uncooperative ground rather than the especially fertile land of the divine precinct until dying of natural causes (3:17–19, 23).46 This seems a bit far removed from ‫מות תמות‬ (môt tāmût, woodenly “dying you will die,” 2:17). Broaching the correspondence between announced and actual penalty entangles us in the vexed question of humanity’s default state with respect to mortality. To address this question without reference to the tree of life— lest we prejudge that tree’s primary or secondary entry into the story as we now have it—we must begin with 3:19. Here the deity tells the man that his new labor conditions will persist until he returns to the ground from which he was taken. Is the deity instituting something new, or mentioning a pre-existing

46

Barr, Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, 9.

the tree of life in genesis

89

condition? Importantly, 3:19 does not echo the ‫ מות תמות‬of 2:17, but rather the ‫( אדמה‬ʾădāmâ, “ground, earth”) and ‫( עפר‬ʿāpār, “dust, topsoil”) of 2:7, suggesting that the return thereto mentioned in 3:19 is no innovation but inherent to the human, “a fragile creature made of the dust of the earth”—absent some sort of additional influence.47 Budde, first among those who extract the tree of life from the canonical narrative, finds that additional influence in the ‫( נשמת חיים‬nišmat ḥayyîm) that enlivens the first human (2:7). Budde argues that the ‫ נשמת חיים‬would remain in the first human just as long as the deity wished; that human would not die, indeed could not die, unless the deity purposefully withdrew that animating spirit or set a general limit on how long that spirit could remain. The ‫נשמת חיים‬, indestructible but not irrevocable, therefore counteracts the inherent fragility of human flesh with its origins in ‫ עפר‬and ‫אדמה‬. The humans need no tree of life to render them immortal, for the divine breath does that, nor could any such tree render a human being immortal against the divine will.48 Budde’s argument invites two objections, one that seems to escape his notice and one to which he devotes considerable attention. The former concerns the inviolability of divine will with respect to human lifespans. Budde claims that the tree of life would be not only unnecessary but impossible, that its fruit could not extend a human lifespan beyond divinely-set limits. Conversely, however, biblical narrative provides copious examples of humans ending other humans’ lives prematurely, presumably in violation of divine will. The story of Cain and Abel, of course, immediately follows the garden story, is assigned to J by classic source-critical reconstructions, has many points of contact with Gen 2–3 (Cain himself is an ‫[ עבד אדמה‬ʿōbēd ʾădāmâ, “worker/servant of the ground”], for example), and centers on exactly such a plot point. Admittedly, the phrase ‫נשמת‬ ‫ חיים‬does not appear in Gen 4, but elsewhere the phrase ‫( כל נשמה‬kol nĕšāmâ, “everything that breathes”) is used precisely to mark targets for destruction in warfare. If mundane human violence can drive the ‫ נשמת חיים‬from a living creature without the deity’s specific intervention to withdraw it, what would stop a miraculous tree from preserving the ‫ נשמת חיים‬in a living creature despite 47

48

The quoted phrase is from Th.C. Vriezen, The Religion of Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967), 167, reflecting a discussion in his 1937 thesis which, to my knowledge, has not been translated into English. Cf. Barr, Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, 5; LaCocque, Trial of Innocence, 99; Arie van der Kooij, “The Story of Paradise in the Light of Mesopotamian Culture and Literature,” in Genesis, Isaiah, and Psalms: A Festschrift to Honour Professor John Emerton for His Eightieth Birthday, ed. Katharine Dell et al., VTSup 135 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 7; Zevit, What Really Happened, 125. For the opinion that “dust” need not imply fragility, see Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 158. Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte, 62. For objections, see Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 207.

90

heard

the deity’s imposition of a general constraint on the duration of the ‫נשמת חיים‬ in any such creature—especially if the deity personally planted that tree with precisely such a preservationist function in mind? The more difficult problem for Budde, of course, is that the deity has set no such general limit in Gen 2–3, at least not explicitly. Budde regards the deity’s statement in 3:19—“you are dust, and to dust you will return”—as sufficient explanation for the man himself of his newly mortal state, but not for readers, who must wonder how mortality squares with the presence of the divine spirit.49 Budde therefore proposes that Gen 6:3 once stood where Gen 3:22 now stands, displaced by the redactor who added the tree of life to the garden story.50 Budde takes pains to explain the bare use of ‫( יהוה‬Yhwh) in 6:3 over against the compound use of ‫( יהוה אלהים‬Yhwh ʾĕlōhîm) in the bulk of the garden story, but this is not the biggest impediment to his fanciful reconstruction. Budde’s case would be stronger if 6:3 read “‫( נשמתי‬nišmātî, “my breath”) will not reside in humanity forever, since they are ‫עפר‬,” but in fact it reads “‫רוחי‬ (rûḥî, “my breath/spirit”) will not reside in humanity forever, since they are ‫בשר‬ (bāśār, “flesh”).” Nothing in the garden story prepares readers to equate ‫ רוח‬with ‫ ;נשמת חיים‬indeed, since ‫ רוח‬appears in 3:8 with quite a different sense, such an equation would be quite jarring. Likewise, ‫ בשר‬features in the man’s introduction to the woman (2:23–24) but has no particular connection to ‫נשמת חיים‬ there. Budde’s relocation of Gen 6:3 to replace Gen 3:22 is therefore problematic in multiple ways, and does not enjoy much support. Without something along these lines, however, a garden story from which the tree of life has been excised seems to lack sufficient resolution of the death threat in 2:17. One could, of course, infer that the deity has graciously set aside the death sentence instead of actually carrying it out,51 or declare that the snake was right all along and the threat of 2:17 carried no real force,52 or simply appeal to divine freedom53—but none of these are demonstrably implied by the narrative as it stands. Readers who leave the existing garden story intact can instead regard the interdiction of the tree of life as the implementation of the death threat of 2:17. Since the deity explicitly excludes only the tree of knowledge when permitting the first human to eat ‫( מכל עץ הגן‬mikkōl ʿēṣ haggān, “from any tree of the garden,” 2:16), Obbink and later Stordalen infer that the deity placed the tree of 49 50 51 52 53

Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte, 63. Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte, 63–64. Gunkel, Genesis, 10; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 90, implicitly. Barr, Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, 8–9. Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 225.

the tree of life in genesis

91

life within the humans’ reach precisely so they could eat its fruit—which they did, enjoying its benefits until they were expelled from the garden.54 To sustain this thesis, Obbink must establish that ‫( פן‬pen, traditionally “lest”), in the sequence “‫ פן‬he stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live perpetually,” (3:22), can mark an action for cessation in addition to its more familiar function of marking an action for preemption. Obbink identifies (only) two other passages to support his case. He begins with Exod 1:10, where the king of Egypt says of the Israelites, “let us deal wisely with them, ‫פן ירבה‬ (pen yirbeh, ‘lest they multiply’).” Since Exod 1:7 already said of the Israelites, ‫( וירבו‬vayyirbû, “they multiplied”), Obbink takes ‫ פן ירבה‬in verse 10 as “lest they continue to multiply.”55 Budde objects that the sense of stopping an ongoing process derives from the context, not from ‫ פן‬alone, but this adds up to the same result, and Budde must fall back on source-critical arguments that miss the point.56 Obbink likewise points to 1Sam 13:19, “No smith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines said, ‫ פן‬the Hebrews make sword or spear.” He assumes, no doubt because of numerous passages narrating armed warfare set before this time, that smithing must have been going on among the Israelites until the Philistines put a stop to it. Budde’s rejoinder—that, to judge from 1Sam 13:22, the Philistines had deprived the Israelites of their weapons as well as their smiths—does not really address Obbink’s point. Both Obbink and Budde agree that there had previously been smiths in Israelite territory, but the Philistines removed them somehow, “‫ פן‬the Israelites make swords or spears.” At most, the distinction between Obbink’s understanding and Budde’s alleged rebuttal amounts to the small nuance between “lest they continue to make swords or spears” and “lest they start making swords or spears again.”57 54

55 56 57

Obbink, “Tree of Life in Eden,” 107–108, 111–112; Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 230–231, 291. Cf. Vriezen, Religion of Ancient Israel, 167; George W. Coats, Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 53; Wallace, Eden Narrative, 104; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 87. Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 209, seems unable to decide. Obbink, “Tree of Life in Eden,” 107. Karl Budde, “Zu H. Th. Obbinks Aufsatz ‘The Tree of Life in Eden,’” ZAW 47 (1929): 56; cf. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 230–231, n. 85. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 231 tries to support Obbink with a third passage, 2Sam 12:27– 28, where Joab reports to David, “I fought against Rabbah; I even took (‫לכדתי‬, lākadtî), the ‘city of water.’ Now gather the rest of the army, and camp against the city and take it (‫ולכדה‬, vĕlokdāh), ‫ פן‬I take (‫אלכד‬, ʾelkōd) the city.” However, “lest I continue to take the city” does not really fit the sense here; Joab does not suggest that the siege of Rabbah be abandoned, but rather that David personally take charge of (and thereby credit for) the attack. Moreover, the situation here does not seem to be parallel to those in Obbink’s examples, since Joab has already taken a portion of Rabbah designated ‫( עיר המלוכה‬ʿîr hāmmĕlûkâ, “the royal city”) by the narrator in 2 Sam 12:26 and ‫( עיר המים‬ʿîr hammāyim, “the city of water”)

92

heard

Barr objects on a different basis, that “the expression ‘put out his hand and do something’ is an inchoative expression and cannot easily mean ‘continue to do what he has been doing all along.’”58 However, Barr provides no substantiation for this claim, and support proves difficult to come by. There are only fifteen instances in the Hebrew Bible that match Barr’s description, where ‫שׁלח‬ takes ‫ ( יד‬yād, “hand”) as its object, immediately followed by a finite verb form.59 If we set aside Gen 3:22 and make appropriate allowances for anthropomorphisms, in ten of the remaining cases the extending of the hand is literally part of the bodily activity being described: “he put out his hand and took [the dove]” (Gen 8:9), “the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them” (Gen 19:10), and so on. Such is the case also for Gen 3:22, unless we wish to entertain the comical notion of the woman and man eating fruit while it still hangs on the tree, without using their hands. The remaining four cases describe the deity “stretching out” a hand to strike Egypt (Exod 3:20; 9:15) or Job (1:11; 2:5). The latter case makes Barr’s claim even harder to sustain, as in Job 2:5 the śāṭān urges the deity to continue, with changed parameters, the course of action launched in Job 1:11. Similarly, 2 Samuel 15:5 clearly uses “‫ושׁלח‬ ‫( את ידו‬vĕšālaḥ ʾet yādô, ‘he would stretch out his hand’) and grasp him and kiss him” to describe actions that Absalom took repeatedly. Barr’s characterization of “put out one’s hand and do something” as an “inchoative expression,” then, does not stand up under scrutiny. Obbink’s notion that the humans ate from the tree of life prior to their expulsion highlights a perennial question: would the tree’s fruit confer immortality upon a single eating, or would one have to return to the tree time and again? One’s answer seems to rely on where one looks for analogies. Those who, like Obbink, draw primarily on cross-cultural parallels tend to think repeated eating would be required to enjoy the tree’s life-giving effects. This line of reasoning usually parallels the biblical tree of life with the rejuvenating plant called “old man becomes young” which Gilgamesh briefly obtained but ultimately lost,60

58

59 60

by Joab himself in verse 27, whereas the ‫ פן‬clause relates to taking the city proper, or the whole city, designated simply ‫( העיר‬hāʿîr, “the city”). Barr, Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, 135, n. 2. Barr also claims to have “gone through all the 131 cases of Hebrew ‫‘ פן‬lest’ in the Hebrew Bible and found none which means ‘lest someone continues to do what they are already doing,’” but Barr does not respond to Obbink’s proposed examples. Gen 3:22; 8:9; 19:10; 22:10; Exod 3:20; 4:4; 9:15; Deut 25:11; Judg 15:15; 2Sam 15:5; 2Kgs 6:7; Jer 1:9; Ezek 8:3; Job 1:11; 2:5. Obbink, “Tree of Life in Eden,” 111–112; cf. Wallace, Eden Narrative, 103; Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation, 74.

the tree of life in genesis

93

or with the gods’ own diet.61 Since these foods would require repeated eating to sustain life perpetually, the argument goes, the same holds for the fruit of the tree of life. On the other hand, to judge from Gen 3:22, the fruit of the tree of knowledge seems to have affected in the humans an immediate, one-time, permanent change. Therefore, the nearest available analogy would suggest a similar change upon eating from the tree of life, as Budde argues against Obbink.62 The word ‫( גם‬gam) in Gen 3:22 draws an explicit parallel between the humans’ actions toward the two trees, perhaps implying a parallel in the trees’ functions as well. Then again, the trees are not under any obligation to mirror one another in function.63 Since the narrative takes no pains to disambiguate these manners, prudence might recommend leaving any decision about them in abeyance. It seems too convenient by half to simply say that if the humans did eat from the tree of life before their expulsion from the garden, then its life-giving property must be understood as rejuvenation along the lines of Gilgamesh’s “old man becomes young,” and if a single serving from the tree of life conferred immortality, then the humans did not eat from its fruit. Yet that also seems the greatest degree of certainty that the text will afford on this question, no matter how confidently various interpreters may state their respective opinions. Either way, loss of access to the tree of life ensures that the humans will die, and may in that light be regarded as a fitting execution of the death threat from 2:17.64 This is not to construe ‫ מות תמות‬as “you will become mortal,” for as previously discussed, the humans’ connection with ‫ אדמה‬and ‫ עפר‬already implies mortality by nature. Yet as long as the humans had access to the tree of life—whether they availed themselves of that access or not—the possibility of 61

62

63

64

Lyn M. Bechtel, “Rethinking the Interpretation of Genesis 2:4b–3:24,” in A Feminist Companion to Genesis, ed. Athalya Brenner, FCB (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 87; Edwin M. Good, Genesis 1–11: Tales of the Earliest World (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011); LaCocque, Trial of Innocence, 71, 75; Obbink, “Tree of Life in Eden,” 107–108. Budde, “Zu H. Th. Obbinks Aufsatz,” 56; cf. Skinner, Genesis, 88; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 62; Terence E. Fretheim, “The Book of Genesis: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 350. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 230 rejects the assumption of parallel functions for the two trees, in so many words, but the basis for this rejection remains opaque to me, unless it derives in the end from Stordalen’s notion of the tree of life as emblematic of “national and official religion” and the tree of knowledge as emblematic of “less organized cult oriented to the religious grammar of nature, often addressing chthonic forces” (470). Something close to this understanding is put forward, with varying nuances, by Speiser, Genesis, 17; Vriezen, Religion of Ancient Israel, 167; Th.C. Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1970), 410; LaCocque, Trial of Innocence, 75. Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 163, summarily rejects any such connection without arguing the point.

94

heard

surpassing the default mortality of their “earthy” bodies lay before them, just as the tree of knowledge held out the possibility of transcending their default cognitive limitations. Conversely, once the humans lost access to the tree of life, their death was assured. Among other readers, Barr finds this an unsatisfactory understanding of ‫ביום‬ ‫( אכלך ממנו מות תמות‬bĕyôm ʾăkālkā mimmenû môt tāmût, woodenly “in the day of your eating from it, dying you will die”), indeed “an evasion of the text and its evidence,” thinking that this phrase requires something more like an immediate cessation of life.65 Yet by itself, the construction ‫ מות תמות‬does not necessarily presage immediate death any more than ‫( אכל תאכל‬ʾākōl tōʾkēl, woodenly “eating you will eat”) in 2:16 presages immediate binge eating. In 2 Kings 1, Elijah repeatedly sends the message ‫ מות תמות‬to Ahaziah, in a process that would seem to have taken a few days at least, and Ezekiel 3:18; 33:8, 14 make no sense unless the divine decree ‫ מות תמות‬is followed by at least a brief period in which prophetic preaching and subsequent repentance may occur. More generally, this type of paronomastic construction “often emphasizes that a situation was, or is, or will take place”66—the certainty of the event, not its timing, is underscored. In the prohibition, the temporal frame derives not from ‫ מות תמות‬but from ‫ביום‬, which also need not connote absolute immediacy.67 Readers may find it better to regard the certainty of death (‫)מות תמות‬, rather than the death itself (‫ תמות‬alone), as the proximate result of transgressing the prohibition. Barr objects that “mortals know that they will die, eventually,”68 but these particular mortals, living in the garden of Eden in proximity to the tree of life, are arguably different. Until they ate from the tree of knowledge and were subsequently expelled from the garden, their deaths were only possible, not certain. Loss of access to the tree of life removed all doubt that they would, in time, die. Although Barr rejects this understanding, it comports perfectly with his insistence that the garden story’s main theme is “the notion of a human immortality, that might conceivably have been gained but was in fact missed.”69 Admittedly,

65

66 67

68 69

Barr, Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, 10. Cf. Gunkel, Genesis, 10 (who glosses “on the day” with “as soon as” even though he had previously ascribed a much looser sense to ‫ ביום‬in 2:4); Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 67–68, 87. Bruce K. Waltke and Michael Patrick O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 584. Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 224, rejects both the requirement that the penalty be carried out immediately and long-term deferral of the penalty, and remains rather unclear on what sort of outcome would, in his view, correspond to the threat (which he downgrades to a “warning” and thinks was not carried out in any case). Barr, Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, 10. Barr, Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, 19.

the tree of life in genesis

95

this reading would be easier had the author written ‫( תדע כי‬tēdaʿ kî, “know that,” cf. 1Kings 2:37) before ‫מות תמות‬, but otherwise this reading has the virtue of extracting readers from Budde’s dilemma. In sum, one may understand the canonical text as follows, using the same typesetting conventions as before. Again, I do not claim that this summary presents the only coherent reading of the existing text, only that it presents one such reading. The deity formed a mortal human from the soil. The deity cultivated two special trees: the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge also in the middle of the garden. The deity showed the first human how to distinguish the tree of knowledge from the other trees and told the first human not to eat its fruit. The deity may or may not have identified the tree of life to the human, who may or may not have eaten from its fruit while living in the garden, but the presence of the tree of life calls into question whether the human’s terrestrial origins would manifest themselves in death. After the humans ate from the tree of knowledge, the deity expelled them from the garden, after which, due to lack of access to the tree of life, their deaths were assured, though not immediate. To be sure, the canonical text can support several variations on this spare treatment, particularly with respect to the humans’ experience of the tree of life while in the garden. Yet as before, the very fact that such a reading can be elucidated, consistent with the canonical text, shows that it is not necessary to dismiss 3:22, 24 for the canonical version of 2:4–3:24 to read as a coherent narrative. Here, however, the case is different from that observed for 2:9 and 3:3. As Budde’s experiment with textual reconstruction shows, the garden story suffers without the tree of life, or some substitute for it, in 3:22, 24.

3

Conclusion

This study has been guided by the question of whether Gen 2:4–3:24 exhibits such intractable literary contradictions on the level of plot as to be unreadable, requiring disassembly into discrete approximations of its literary and traditional precursors, or whether it instead presents readers with an undeniably challenging but ultimately readable text. Due chiefly to differences in the narrator’s and the woman’s use of ‫בתוך הגן‬, the absence of explicit statements about the tree of life from Gen 2:10–3:21, and perceived doublets in 3:22–24 and elsewhere, scholarship on Gen 2–3 has tended toward the former conclusion,

96

heard

looking to the canonical text’s written and oral prehistory to explain these features. Typical reconstructions consider Genesis 2–3 to have originated as a story featuring only the tree of knowledge, to which the tree of life has been grafted in, or to have grown from the conflation of two stories, one featuring the tree of knowledge and the other the tree of life—in addition, possibly, to the joining of a creation story (mostly represented in Genesis 2) and a paradise story (mostly represented in Genesis 3) to form the canonical text. Some elements of such reconstructions may indeed approximate the process that eventually led to Genesis 2–3 as we know it. However, as the preceding analysis has shown, the canonical text does not require dissection in order to make good sense. Genesis 2–3, as it stands, does not in fact entangle its readers in a knot of plot contradictions that only textual surgery to remove the tree of life can cut through. The syntactical pattern of Gen 2:9b is attested elsewhere and places both the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life “in the middle of the garden,” at least as the narrator sees things. That the woman only mentions one tree “in the middle of the garden” does not invalidate or contradict the narrator’s better-informed claim that another unusual tree grew around there; it simply reflects a more limited focus. Genesis 3:22 and 24 do not somehow constitute redundant doublets of Gen 3:23—verse 22 doubling the motive for expulsion, verse 24 the report thereof—but function harmoniously with the verse in between. Moreover, excision of the tree of life leaves an important plot point, the death threat of Gen 2:17, without resolution, while the canonical text allows the very interdiction of that tree to serve as the mechanism by which the humans’ death moves from potential to certainty.

Works Cited Baden, Joel. “Why is the Pentateuch Unreadable?—or, Why Are We Doing This Anyway?” Pages 243–252 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Barr, James. The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Bauks, Michaela. “Erkenntnis und Leben in Gen 2–3: Zum Wandel eines ursprünglich weisheitlich geprägten Lebensbegriffs.” ZAW 127 (2015): 20–42. Bauks, Michaela. “Sacred Trees in the Garden of Eden and Their Ancient Near Eastern Precursors.” JAJ 3 (2012): 267–301. Bechtel, Lyn M. “Rethinking the Interpretation of Genesis 2:4b–3:24.” Pages 77–117 in A

the tree of life in genesis

97

Feminist Companion to Genesis. Edited by Athalya Brenner. FCB. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1–11. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Budde, Karl. Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen. 1–12, 5). Giessen: J. Ricker, 1883. Budde, Karl. “Zu H. Th. Obbinks Aufsatz ‘The Tree of Life in Eden.’” ZAW 47 (1929): 54– 62. Carnie, Andrew. Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. Coats, George W. Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Dillmann, August. Die Genesis. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1892. Driver, S.R. The Book of Genesis. London: Methuen, 1943. Dus, Jan. “Zwei Schichten der biblischen Paradiesgeschichte.” ZAW 71 (1959): 97–113. Fretheim, Terence E. “The Book of Genesis: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” Pages 319–673 in vol. 1 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994. Good, Edwin M. Genesis 1–11: Tales of the Earliest World. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011. Gunkel, Hermann. Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton: A ReligioHistorical Study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12. Translated by K. William Whitney, Jr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997. Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Humbert, Paul. Études sur le Récit du Paradis et de la Chute dans la Genèse. Neuchätel: Secrètariat de l’Université, 1940. Jaroš, Karl. “Die Motive der Heiligen Bäume und der Schlange in Gen 2–3.” ZAW 92 (1980): 204–215. Kawashima, Robert S. “A Revisionist Reading Revisited: On the Creation of Adam and then Eve.” VT 56 (2006): 46–57. Keel, Othmar, and Silvia Schroer. Creation: Biblical Theologies in the Context of the Ancient Near East. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Kooij, Arie van der. “The Story of Paradise in the Light of Mesopotamian Culture and Literature.” Pages 3–22 in Genesis, Isaiah, and Psalms: A Festschrift to Honour Professor John Emerton for His Eightieth Birthday. Edited by Katharine J. Dell, Graham I. Davies, and Y.V. Koh. VTSup 135. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Krispenz, Jutta. “Wie viele Bäume braucht das Paradies? Erwägungen zu Gen ii 4b–iii 24.” VT 54 (2004): 301–318. LaCocque, André. The Trial of Innocence: Adam, Eve, and the Yahwist. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2006.

98

heard

Lanfer, Peter Thacher. Remembering Eden: The Reception History of Genesis 3:22–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Mettinger, Tryggve N.D. The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-historical Study of Genesis 2–3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Michel, Andreas. Theologie aus der Peripherie: Die gespaltene Koordination im biblischen Hebräisch. BZAW 257. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Morris, Paul, and Deborah Sawyer, eds. A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden. JSOTSup 136. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Obbink, Herman Theodorus. “The Tree of Life in Eden.” ZAW 46 (1928): 105–112. Patte, Daniel. Ethics of Biblical Interpretation: A Reevaluation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. Pfeiffer, Henrik. “Der Baum in der Mitte des Gartens: Zum überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Ursprung der Paradieserzählung (Gen 2,4–3,24), Teil I: Analyse.” ZAW 112 (2000): 487–500. Pfeiffer, Henrik. “Der Baum in der Mitte des Gartens: Zum überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Ursprung der Paradieserzählung (Gen 2,4–3,24), Teil II: Prägende Tradition und theologische Akzente.” ZAW 113 (2001): 2–16. Rad, Gerhard von. Genesis: A Commentary. Translated by John H. Marks. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973. Sarna, Nahum M. Understanding Genesis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Sawyer, John F.A. “The Image of God, the Wisdom of Serpents and the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” Pages 64–73 in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden. Edited by Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer. JSOTSup 136. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. ICC. New York: Scribner, 1930. Smend, Rudolf. Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1912. Speiser, E.A. Genesis. AB. Garden City: Doubleday, 1964. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Stordalen, T. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. CBET 25. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. Stratton, Beverly J. Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 2–3. JSOTSup 208. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Tsevat, Matitiahu. “The Two Trees in the Garden of Eden.” ErIsr 12 (1975): 40–43. Ungnad, Arthur. “Die Paradiesbäume.” ZDMG 79 (1925): 111–118. Vogels, Walter. “The Tree(s) in the Middle of the Garden (Gn 2:9; 3:3).” ScEs 59 (2007): 129–142. Vriezen, Th.C. The Religion of Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967.

the tree of life in genesis

99

Vriezen, Th.C. An Outline of Old Testament Theology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1970. Wallace, Howard N. The Eden Narrative. HSM 32. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Walsh, Jerome T. “Genesis 2:4b–3:24: A Synchronic Approach.” JBL 96 (1977): 161–177. Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael Patrick O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Walton, John H. The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015. Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1–15. WBC 1. Waco: Word, 1987. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. CC. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. Wolfson, Elliot R. “Bifurcating the Androgyne and Engendering Sin: A Zoharic Reading of Gen 1–3.” Pages 87–119 in Hidden Truths from Eden: Esoteric Readings of Genesis 1– 3. Edited by Susanne Scholz and Caroline Vander Stichele. SBL SemeiaSt 76. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014. Zevit, Ziony. What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013.

chapter 4

The Tree of Life in Proverbs and Psalms William R. Osborne

1

Rings of Wisdom, Branches of Blessing

Metaphor is a powerful vehicle for ideological reorientation and recreation. When two concepts are forged together in unconventional ways, new horizons of meaning are created and alternate realities called forth. “In the metaphor, ‘seeing as’ and ‘saying’ converge in powerful ways to stimulate reflection and emotion.”1 The metaphorical relationship between trees and life in Psalms and Proverbs does just that. Bringing together the fundamental ancient Israelite concepts of creation, wisdom, and divine blessing, the biblical writers use tree imagery and tree of life references to reveal how they saw the world and experienced life in relationship to YHWH.2 While both Psalms and Proverbs speak to the relationship between tree imagery and life, unsurprisingly, they do so in different ways. The book of Proverbs makes explicit mention of a “tree of life” (‫)עץ חיים‬, while the phrase is entirely absent from the Psalter. However, there are psalms that utilize tree metaphors in what appears to be a wisdom-like setting that is not dissimilar to what is encountered in Proverbs (e.g. Pss 1:3; 37:35; 52:10 HB; 92:13 HB; 96:12; 104:16–17).3 This essay will explore the unique voices of the respective authors of these tree texts in Psalms and Proverbs, seeking to uncover the unique perspectives provided by these books. Despite the use of various lexemes, both books speak to the metaphorical concepts of trees and life and profoundly contribute to the Hebrew Bible’s presentation of wisdom, blessing, creation, and life.

1 William P. Brown, Seeing the Psalms: A Theology of Metaphor (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 5. 2 See Pss 1:1–4; 37:35; 52:9–10; 92:6, 13–16; 104:16–17; Prov 3:17–18; 11:30–31; 13:12; 15:4. 3 Katharine Dell identifies 1, 37, 92, 104, and 105 as wisdom psalms in her study “‘I Will Solve My Riddle to the Music of the Lyre’ (Psalm xlix 4[5]): A Cultic Setting for Wisdom Psalms?” VT 54 (2003): 445–458, and Stuart Weeks includes Psalms 1, 37, and 52 in “Wisdom Psalms,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. John Day, LHBOTS 422 (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 292–307.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423756_006

the tree of life in proverbs and psalms

2

101

Metaphor, Figurative Language, and the Cognitive Turn

The study of biblical metaphors has experienced something of a maturation process over the past fifty years.4 Whereas metaphor and figurative language5 were once viewed as a mere literary and rhetorical flourish, it is now frequently argued that such figurative associations actually arise from and shape the way we see and perceive the world. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson played an enormous role in this “cognitive turn” with their 1980 publication of Metaphors We Live By, where they espoused what has come to be known as Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT).6 Moving beyond I.A. Richards’s tenor and vehicle description of metaphor, where the former refers to the subject being communicated and the latter the symbol being used,7 CMT noted that we often blend and conceptualize disparate realms of existence in an attempt to understand and communicate. These multileveled figurative associations can then be mapped, highlighting the nuances and complexities of communicative acts. Consequently, Lakoff and Johnson stated that “the essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one thing in terms of another” (emphasis original).8 CMT helpfully highlighted the intersection of large-scale concepts that shape the way we think metaphorically, but it is limited in its ability to deal

4 For a quick summary of this development, see Job Y. Jindo, “Metaphor Theory and Biblical Texts,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation, ed. Steven L. McKenzie (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 2: 1–10. 5 While there is a grammatical and linguistic difference between a metaphor and a simile, frequently the two share a similar function of bringing together two disparate ideas and forging them in the grammar of the comparison. Since all similes do not function in this way, it is necessary to categorize such similes as “figurative similes.” Therefore, I group both grammatical features under the heading of figurative language. Andrea Weiss has also noted the figurative significance of similes: “These grammatical markers [i.e. comparative prepositions] remove the element of incongruity found in a metaphor, for there is nothing anomalous about saying that one thing resembles another. Nevertheless, this difference does not remove the artistic and rhetorical potential of a simile” (Andrea Weiss, “Figures of Speech: Biblical Hebrew,” in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, ed. G. Kahn et al. [Leiden: Brill, 2013], 1:896). 6 The Research Group on Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible of the European Association of Biblical Studies helpfully moved CMT forward with regard to biblical interpretation. The volumes produced by their work include: Pierre Van Hecke, ed., Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, BETL 187 (Leuven: Peeters, 2005); Pierre Van Hecke and Antje Labahn, eds., Metaphor in the Psalms, BETL 231 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010); Antje Labahn, ed., Conceptual Metaphors in Poetic Texts, PHSC (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013). 7 I.A. Richards, The Philosophy of Rhetoric (New York: Oxford University Press, 1936), 93. 8 George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 5.

102

osborne

with the linguistic reality of how we so often encounter metaphors.9 While the idea of figurative language cannot be encapsulated in a simple rhetorical “this is that” formula, the communicative and rhetorical force tied into the novelty of figurations cannot be overlooked. Therefore, in an effort to embrace both the linguistic and conceptual aspects of metaphor, Lakoff’s and Johnson’s “understanding and experiencing one thing in terms of another” should be expanded to a fuller definition, such as metaphor is understanding, experiencing, and communicating one thing in terms of another. The insistence on including communication as an integral feature of metaphor is based upon the simple fact that the only access we have to any type of conceptual framework in the ancient world is through communicated metaphors, either linguistically or visually.10 Figurative language creates cognitive dissonance, or gaps, that place demands upon the hearer or reader, and these gaps necessarily draw the receiver into an interaction with the images that non-figurative descriptions seem unable to do.11 CMT, while limited in its ability to deal with linguistic aspects of metaphor, significantly moved the biblical study of figurative language forward by illuminating the importance of worldview in accessing the significance of linguistic figurations. If metaphors arise out of conceptual frameworks of how one sees the world, in order to make sense of such frameworks, the interpreter must maintain a level of shared knowledge for the comparison to work. Without shared knowledge, figurative language simply does not work. One of my favorite illustrations of this is a colleague’s son who used to say something was “fast as a lemon.” He must have known something about lemons that I do not!

9 10

11

Alison Ruth Gray, Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures: A Reading through Metaphor, BibInt 127 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 24. William R. Osborne, Trees and Kings: A Comparative Analysis of Tree Imagery in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition and the Ancient Near East, BBRSup 18 (University Park, PA; Eisenbrauns, 2018), 21. “Durch metaphorische Rede wird damit ein Identifikationspotenzial für LeserInnen geschaffen, indem Metaphern Leerstellen und Lücken dahingehend lassen, wie ihre Bedeutung im Detail interpretiert werden soll. So geben sie den Lesenden die Möglichkeit, sich selbst mit jener Bedeutung zu identifizieren, die genau und individuell zur jeweiligen Lebenssituation passt” (Sigrid Eder, Identifikationspotenziale in den Psalmen: Emotionen, Metaphern und Textdynamik in den Psalmen 30, 64, 90 und 147, BBB 183 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018], 80).

the tree of life in proverbs and psalms

103

Bringing together a broader understanding of an ancient Near Eastern worldview with the developments of cognitive linguistics, Job Jindo provides a helpful cognitive framework for analyzing figurative language comparing human and divine existence to horticultural imagery.12 In this presentation of the conceptual metaphor (written in small caps), the target domain is the domain of the concept being described and the source domain is the source for comparison: human life (target domain) is horticulture life (source domain).

Source: horticulture Tree Fruit Seed Uprooted tree Soil Being cut off Water

Target: human life13 ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒

Person Child, or result of one’s deeds Descendants The one who lacks productive potency World, Land of Promise, or temple Death, annihilation Divine word or instruction

Taking Jindo’s mapping into account, it is quite easy to see how this ancient Near Eastern conceptual framework aligns with figurative biblical passages like “the seed of Abraham” (Isa 41:8), “fruit of the womb” (Gen 30:2), “fruit of his deeds” (Jer 17:10), and “cut off from his kin” (Exod 30:33). However, a broader look at the figurative use of tree imagery in the ancient Near East reveals some overlap, as well as some different conceptual associations between trees and people. In fact, there are three major conceptual metaphors that emerge from the ancient Near East: abundance and prosperity is a tree; a god is a tree; and a king is a tree.14 12 13 14

Job Y. Jindo, Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered: A Cognitive Approach to Poetic Prophecy in Jeremiah 1–24, HSM 64 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 32–33. Jindo, Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered, 32–33. This chart (Osborne, Trees and Kings, 113) is the culmination of analyzing numerous sources of data from both the Hebrew Bible and other ancient Near Eastern sources. Some of these sources are highlighted in the earlier chapters of this volume by Charles L. Echols and Amy L. Balogh. However, aside from the texts in Proverbs and Psalms discussed below, the reader can also consult the following passages in the Hebrew Bible to see how these conceptual metaphors are frequently employed: Judg 9:7–21; Isa 2:11–13; 10:33–34; 11:1; Jer 11:16; 17:5–8; 23:5–6; Ezek 17:1–24; 19:10–14; 31:3–9; Dan 4–12 (HB); Zech 4:12–14.

104

osborne

Source: tree tree(s) fruitfulness wither/dry out/cut down garden

Target: abundance and prosperity ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒

Source: tree tree fruitfulness seed/shoot long-living regional location garden chopped down

Target: god(s) ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒

Source: tree

tree fruitfulness seed/shoot uprooted/chopped down wither/dry root long-living garden height

15

land agricultural growth, order, divine blessing divine judgment upon the land center of the world

deity offspring/blessing descendants/worshippers continued presence of the deity domain of the deity dwelling of the deity defeat, threat to power Target: king (worshipper par excellence)15

⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒

king/worshipper prosperity and world order descendants defeat judgment legitimacy of dynastic rule enduring dynasty political empire superiority of ruler

Israel and the surrounding ancient Near Eastern cultures maintained what has come to be called a sacral kingship. Frequently in Mesopotamian sources, the deity is portrayed as the king, and the human monarch was seen as his earthly regent entrusted to care for the temple and lead the people in faithfulness. Passages such as 2Sam 6:14–15 and 1Kgs 8 present both David and Solomon respectively observing priestly duties, dedicating the temple, and leading the people in their cultic worship of YHWH. As YHWH’s regent among his people, the king was to epitomize faithfulness and establish justice (see Deborah W. Rooke, “Kingship as Priesthood: The Relationship between the High Priesthood and the Monar-

the tree of life in proverbs and psalms

105

Analyzing these three conceptual metaphorical targets (i.e., prosperity, deity, kingship) from biblical and ancient Near Eastern tree imagery, the relationship between the image of a tree and a holistic notion of life emerges. When addressing tree imagery, the reader’s interpretive focus can quickly affix upon the enigmatic tree of life, while missing the broader, worldview-driven, figurative associations that dominate the blending of the ideas of trees and life. Göran Eidevall states: “When the biblical writers needed a metaphor for blessed and blissful human existence, ordinary trees were apparently not good enough. They described trees that were forever green as well as fruitful (see Jer 17,8; Hos 14,9)—like the tree of life in paradise, which is employed as a metaphor Proverbs.”16 Examining tree imagery in Psalms and Proverbs highlights how Israelite wisdom associated the tree with life,17 even, at times, drawing specifically upon the culturally embedded notion of a tree of life, such as in Proverbs 3:17–18, 11:30–31, 13:12, and 15:4.

3

The Tree of Life in Proverbs

3.1 Proverbs 3:18: Lady Wisdom The first reference to a tree of life in Proverbs is found in 3:17–18:18 Her paths are paths of kindness and all her paths are wholeness

16 17

18

chy,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day, LHBOTS 593 [New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013], 187–208). Göran Eidevall, “Metaphorical Landscapes in the Psalms,” in Metaphors in the Psalms, ed. Pierre Van Hecke and Antje Labahn, BETL 231 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 14. The definition of wisdom in the Hebrew Bible is rather debated, and recent scholarship has strongly questioned the integrity and accuracy of the term “wisdom literature.” For fuller discussion on these issues, see the relevant essays in Mark J. Boda, Russell L. Meek, and William R. Osborne, eds., Riddles and Revelations: Explorations into the Relationship between Wisdom and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, LHBOTS 634 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2018) and Mark R. Sneed, ed., Was There A Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Tradition, AIL 23 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015). Urs Winter has argued that the symbolic use of tree imagery in the HB communicates blessing and nourishment in a way that is inseparably linked to the concept of wisdom (Urs Winter, “Der stilisierte Baum: Zu einem auffälligen Aspekt der altorientalischen Baumsymbolik und seiner Rezeption im Alten Testament,” BK 41 (1986): 174). All references in Proverbs to “tree of life” are anarthrous. Therefore, it is best to speak of “a” tree of life. This also seems to point toward the book’s presentation of the tree as a generic, stock term, not a specific tree.

106

osborne

She is a tree of life to those grasping her and those taking hold of her are called happy.19 Located within a larger textual unit speaking of Lady Wisdom, verses 3:13a and 3:18b establish the boundaries of an inclusio focused upon the theme of blessing or happiness.20 Similar to the torah-established person described in Psalm 1, “happy” (‫ )אשׁרי‬is the one who seeks and finds Lady Wisdom. While our interest here is in the tree of life mentioned in the passage, the text is more concerned about describing Lady Wisdom. However, a brief description of Lady Wisdom proves helpful in better understanding why the passage identifies her with a tree of life. The surrounding context communicates that Lady Wisdoms bestows numerous benefits to those seeking her: blessing/happiness (‫אשׁרי‬, 13a; ‫מאשׁר‬, 18b), contentment, (15b), long life (16a), prosperity (16b), and wholeness (‫שׁלום‬, 17). The imagery of her right and left hands holding objects is visually reminiscent of many iconographical representations of stylized trees and female goddesses in the ancient Near East. Numerous images from Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syria-Palestine include a scene with a centered tree (sometimes a heteromorphic deity in Egyptian sources), with outstretched arms extending towards animals, worshippers, dancers, or other mirrored images.21 These visually balanced scenes give the appearance of order and wholeness, which conceptually aligns with the description of Lady Wisdom in verses 13– 18. However, are we to identify Lady Wisdom with the tree of life literally? Is there any indication that the author envisioned her as a tree-goddess?22 While it is not difficult to find associations with tree imagery and goddesses in the ancient Near East,23 there is little in the context of Prov 3:18 that leads one toward such a mythopoeic understanding of the imagery.24 The two verses that follow the tree of life reference (3:19–20) take the reader quickly back to the

19 20 21

22 23 24

All translations are original to the author, unless otherwise noted. James L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction, 3rd ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010), 67. See figs. 6, 8, 10, 16, and 19 in Amy Balogh, “The Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Iconography” in this volume. See also the examples in Osborne, Trees and Kings, 41, 64, 65, 89, 90, 94, and 96. So Leo G. Perdue, Wisdom Literature: A Theological History (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 50. See Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998). William R. Osborne, “The Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt and the Book of Proverbs,” JANER 14 (2014): 134–136.

the tree of life in proverbs and psalms

107

context of YHWH’s wisdom manifested through his creation of the world, and likely give us reason to reflect on the reference in light of the established garden narrative in Genesis 2–3. While there were competing theological narratives working their way out in Israelite religion during the composition of Proverbs, the enduring echoes of the garden narrative reverberate in passages like 3:18. The passage uses something like a stock image, or even dead metaphor, to describe Lady Wisdom.25 Apparently, the novelty of the metaphor associating the concepts of TREE and LIFE had already been forged together to create a “literal” reality (i.e., a tree of life) that could then be used to describe something else—Lady Wisdom.26 The theme of the passage is describing how the abstract concept of wisdom is likened to a certain type of woman, and the ready notion of a tree that bestows life, health, and blessing stands as a source domain to illuminate the target domain (i.e. personification of wisdom). The importance of the metaphor is not to necessarily associate Lady Wisdom and the tree with ideas of “immortality.”27 The reference to a tree of life in 3:18 describes a certain quality of life experienced in relationship to wisdom, not necessarily its eternal continuation. 3.2 Proverbs 11:30; 13:12; 15:4: Peace, Restoration, & Healing Similar to the reference in 3:18, the remaining references to a tree of life in Proverbs employ the same stock image as illustrating a beneficial quality, or reward to be attained or pursued. In chapter 11 the metaphorical concept associating the righteous with a tree is already evident in verse 28 (“but as a leaf, the righteous will break out in bud”). Proverbs 11:30 then reads: The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, but the one who murders produces violence.28 25 26

27

28

See Ralph Marcus, “The Tree of Life in Proverbs,” JBL 62 (1943): 119–120; Michael V. Fox, Proverbs I–IX, AB 18A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 159. “A ‘dead metaphor’ is a figure of speech which once was metaphorical but has since become literal for the native speaker … These expressions are called ‘dead metaphors’ because they do not evoke any imagery from the semantic field to which they originally belonged.” Benjamin A. Foreman, Animal Metaphors and the People of Israel in the Book of Jeremiah, FRLANT 238 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 16. Cf. Zoltán Kövecses, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), ix. So Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 259. The reference to “length of days” (‫ )ארְך ימים‬earlier in 3:2 seems to indicate that there is an implied end to those days. Note also the parallel relationship between “length of days” and “all the days of my life” in Psalm 23:6. This translation reflects an emendation of ‫ חכם‬to ‫חמס‬. This slight consonantal change makes the most sense of this notoriously difficult verse and allows the phrase loqeaḥ

108

osborne

Located within a series of proverbs focused on the retributive consequences of a life lived, the tree of life referenced in the passage is describing the ensuing consequence of righteous living. By way of analyzing the antithetical parallelism, more can be said of this brief reference. Instead of a righteousness producing life and peace, the one who murders brings forth violence—a strong antithesis to a tree of life. In 3:18, the image of ‫שׁלום‬, “wholeness” or “peace,” is the reward of the one who pursues the tree-of-life-like Lady, while here the tree is the fruit of one who turns from violence and lives out righteousness. The tree of life image in Proverbs 13:12 also focuses upon instruction provided for the seeker of proverbial wisdom. In a fascinating combination of wisdom themes, 13:12–14 links the concepts of a tree of life, a fountain of life, wisdom, and instruction: Hope drawn out, sickens the heart, but a desire that has come29 is a tree of life. The one who despises the word will be ruined, but the one who fears the commandment will be rewarded. The instruction of wisdom is a fountain of life, in order to turn away from the snares of death. Approaching this text it is important to note that the phrase “sickens the heart” (‫ )מחלה־לב‬should not be confused with a Western notion of mere sentimentality. Prov 13:12 is speaking of a real sickness and the referent stands in antithetical parallelism to a tree of life. Interestingly, a similar life/death antithesis is presented in verse 14, but utilizing the imagery of a fountain of life. When read in relationship to the following verses, 13:12 presents a tree of life as a reward that will come to the one who fears the commandments of YHWH. The final reference to a tree of life in Proverbs (15:4) likens it to a gentle tongue. The passage reads: A healing tongue is a tree of life, but perversity in it is a collapse in the spirit.

29

nep̄ āśôṯ to be rendered with its standard negative connotation of “murder.” This change also mirrors the LXX (παρανόμων) and continues the contrastive parallelism that characterizes many of the immediate sayings. See, William McKane, Proverbs: A New Approach, OTL (London: SCM, 1970), 432–433; Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, NAC 14 (Nashville: B&H, 1993), 129. Cf. William H. Irwin, “The Metaphor in Prov. 11,30,” Biblica 65 (1984): 97–100. Taking ‫ באה‬as a Qal Qatal 3fs instead of a feminine singular participle, indicated by the accent.

the tree of life in proverbs and psalms

109

Verses 1 and 2 of chapter 15 also speak to the common wisdom theme of guarding the tongue, and the focus of the verses rests, once again, on the consequences of the student. The tree serves as a reward, something the prudent and wise can attain. Overall, in the book of Proverbs, the image associated with a tree of life is that of a sought-after reward of blessing, prosperity, wholeness, and fullness of life lived out in the pursuit of wisdom. The references are drawing on an awareness of a tree of life image circulating in the Israelite culture—likely through the garden narrative of Genesis—that is drawn into a larger conceptual metaphor like wise living is a tree of life.

4

The Tree of Life in the Psalms

While the tree of life functions as a stock image to be employed in other conceptual frameworks in Proverbs, the metaphorical associations between trees and life in Psalms are not as explicit but equally as significant for understanding the relationship between trees and life in the Hebrew Bible. In her study on animal imagery in Proverbs, Tova Forti exposes the difficult relationship that exists between so-called wisdom literature and the Psalms.30 Given the lack of consensus among scholars as to which psalms are indeed wisdom psalms and what the criteria are that establish them as such, Forti offers up an additional aspect for comparison—animal imagery. She states: I propose adding the use of animal imagery as a new criterion for identifying “Wisdom Psalms.” The dynamic between animal images and their contextual implications provides another point of entry into the thematic and conceptual framework of each wisdom book. When applied to Psalms, this method shows that the use of animal imagery correlates with “wisdom psalms” and their conceptual background.31 I believe Forti’s conclusion applies not only to animal imagery. The following analysis of tree imagery in the Psalter will demonstrate that arboreal/horticultural imagery also serves as a potential criterion for understanding the conceptual background of some oft-identified “wisdom psalms.”32 The goal here

30 31 32

Tova L. Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs, VTSup 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 157– 160. Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs, 160. Interestingly, Eidevall proposes two hypotheses for explaining vegetation and landscape

110

osborne

is not a hardened, form-critical, genre-based conclusion. Rather, the following discussion exposes the interconnectedness of the Hebrew canon, and if anything, perhaps slightly pushes against historically held categorical distinctions like cult versus wisdom or praise versus wisdom. Figurative tree imagery in the Psalms portrays a unified vision of YHWH’s blessing and wise torah-living meant to instruct and compel worshippers both then and now. The most evident example of tree imagery in the Psalter is that of a flourishing tree planted beside streams of water, as described in Psalm 1. While there are other significant passages that will be discussed below, the importance of this opening psalm cannot be overstated. Indeed, Psalms 1 and 2 have received an enormous amount of scholarly attention with regard to the editorial formation of the Psalter, and scholars frequently read these psalms as intentional, introductory texts that give shape to the Psalter as a whole.33 McCann goes so far as to say, “There is almost unanimous scholarly agreement that Psalm 1 was placed intentionally at the beginning of the Book of Psalms.”34 The didactic tone of Psalm 1 forges a relationship between the tree and the righteous worshipper of YHWH that reverberates throughout the rest of the book. 4.1

A Righteous Tree: Psalm 1 Happy is the man who does not walk in the council of wicked ones, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits on the seat of scoffers. But rather, in the torah of YHWH is his delight, and upon His torah he meditates day and night.

33

34

metaphors in the Psalms—wisdom conventions and worldview. See Eidevall, “Metaphorical Landscapes in the Psalms,” 18–20. See Gerald H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBLDS 76 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1986); Robert L. Cole, Psalms 1 and 2: Gateway to the Psalter, HBM 37 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2013); idem, “An Integrated Reading of Psalms 1 and 2,” JSOT 98 (2002): 75–88; Jamie A. Grant, The King as Exemplar: The Function of Deuteronomy’s Kinship Law in the Shaping of the Book of Psalms, SBL AcBib 17 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 41–70; Mark J. Whiting, “Psalms 1 and 2 as Hermeneutical Lens for Reading the Psalter,” EvQ 85 (2013): 246–262. J. Clinton McCann, Jr., “The Psalms as Instruction,” Interpretation 46 (1992): 118. For a brief but informative exploration of the fascinating reception history of Psalm 1, see Susan Gillingham, “An Introduction to Reception History with Particular Reference to Psalm 1,” RevScRel 85 (2011): 571–599.

the tree of life in proverbs and psalms

111

He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which gives its fruit in season, whose leaves do not whither, and all that he does finds success. vv. 1–3

The comparison offered up in Psalm 1:3 illustrates the antithesis described in verses 1–2. The simile of verse 3 describes in figurative fashion the happiness of the one who delights in the ways of YHWH. Unfortunately, numerous English translations continue to render ‫ ַאְשׁ ֵרי‬as “blessed,” despite recent studies pointing to the distinction between this term and the more common term for the notion of “bless,” ‫ברך‬.35 The happiness described in verse 3 might be called “living the good life,” or “flourishing.”36 However, any inclination to read this as a secular happiness over against a more cultic, divine blessing (cf. Jer 17:7) is misguided. Rooted in the nourishing water of torah, the righteous person of Psalm 1 is anything but secular. The opening colon establishes the figurative comparison—the righteous person is like a well-placed tree, then the following cola further describe this tree-person blending the target and source domains to create an extension of the original figuration.37 First, the righteous person is planted (divine passive). Both the act of planting and the continued idea of sustenance next to the water highlight that the righteous person is not a self-made individual. It is quite possible that the source of water here is connecting back to torah in verse 2, and this follows given the individual’s constant meditation upon it.38 However, the ultimate source of the tree’s flourishing is the One revealed in his divine planting and law-giving.39 Psalm 46:5 (HB) describes a river with a stream (‫ )פלג‬that gladdens the city of God, which is also called the holy dwelling of the Most High. The image conjures up pictures of a cultivated garden where God is dwelling and sustaining. In Psalm 36 the wicked are those who cease to act wisely with corrupt words and deeds, but the righteous feast in the House 35 36 37

38 39

Michael Brown, “‫ברך‬,” in NIDOTTE, 1:763. This is the same Hebrew root used in Prov 3:18, “She [i.e. Lady Wisdom] is a tree of life to those grasping her, and those taking hold of her are called happy.” The association between trees and kings in the ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible strengthens Jamie Grant’s “torah-kingship theme” for Psalms 1 and 2 (Grant, King as Exemplar, 43–65). The king is frequently presented as the wise and faithful servant of the deity. See Osborne, Trees and Kings, 31–111. Brown, Seeing the Psalms, 58. Else K. Holt, “ ‘… ad fontes aquarum’: God as Water in the Psalms?” in Van Hecke and Labahn, Metaphor in the Psalms, 82.

112

osborne

of God sustained by the spring of life.40 In the Psalter, if the faithful and wise worshipper is a tree, then YHWH is the source of life-giving water and nourishment. Next, the divine placement of the tree next to the life-giving source is further explained by the vitality, fecundity, and prosperity of the tree. The tree is productive and perpetually green. Interestingly, the comparison with the wicked in verse 4 is in sharp contrast to the vision of vitality in verse 3. The wicked one is the like the dried-up husks of wheat carried away by the wind. All that is pictured in the tree is taken away in the image of chaff: fruitful productivity becomes useless waste, longevity of life is contrasted with the transience of a puff of wind, and perpetually green leaves become dried up husks. While no clear textual or historical connection is evident, the shared themes and worldview between Psalm 1 and chapter 4 in Instruction of Amenemope are noteworthy. The text reads: As for the heated man in the temple, He is like a tree growing indoors; A moment lasts its growth of [shoots] Its end comes about in the [woodshed]; It is floated far from its place, The flame is its burial shroud. The truly silent, who keeps apart, He is like a tree grown in a meadow. It greens, it doubles its yield, It stands in front of its lord. Its fruit is sweet, its shade delightful, Its end comes in the garden. 4.6.1–1241 In an effort to explain the apparent resemblance between Psalm 1, Jer 17:5– 8, and Instruction of Amenemope, Jerome Creach has argued that Jeremiah seems to follow something of an established pattern, whereas Psalm 1 deviates more creatively from such a pattern.42 However, creativity aside, the patterns between Amenemope and Psalm 1 are striking. While there is no description of a water source, the place of growth is hospitable, the tree readily produces 40 41 42

Holt, “ ‘… ad fontes aquarum,’ ” 81. “Instruction of Amenemope” (AEL 2:150). Jerome F.D. Creach, “Like a Tree Planted by the Temple Stream: The Portrait of the Righteous in Psalm 1:3,” CBQ 61 (1999): 38.

the tree of life in proverbs and psalms

113

sweet fruit, it is green, it stands in front of its lord, and it comes to be at home in a garden. Unlike Psalm 1, this ancient Egyptian wisdom text compares two individuals—the heated person who is burned in flames and the silent one who flourishes in a garden. The Bible also frequently associates one’s status as wise by the words that are said—or left unsaid (cf. Prov 15:4). And while the tree similes of both passages seem to draw upon the same conceptual framework, the psalmist provides the Yahwistic, Deuteronomic, and sapiential “two ways to live” grounded in faithfulness to torah.43 Jeremiah 17:5–8 operates with the same figurative tree simile, but this text uses the comparative categories of those who trust in man and those who trust in YHWH. However, other psalms also utilize figurative tree imagery in their depiction of the “two ways” theology found in the Hebrew Bible. 4.2 A Trusting Tree in the House of God: Psalm 52 Similar to Jer 17:5–8, the tree imagery and comparison in Psalm 52 focuses upon the individual who trusts in their own abilities and strengths. The poem opens with a depiction of the wicked, focused upon both their destructive words and deeds, and ultimately their delusional self-sufficiency. See here, the man who did not make God his stronghold, but trusted in the abundance of his wealth, he sought refuge in his works of destruction. v. 9, HB

The consequence for this condition is revealed earlier in verse 7 (HB), when the text explains that God “will uproot you from the land of the living.” God is the one who plants and sustains, as well as the one who uproots and tears down. The wicked one will not know life in YHWH’s presence and will serve as an example to the righteous. Verse 10 (HB) begins with the disjunctive, comparing the status of the righteous “I” over against the wicked person previously described. But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God, I trust in the kindness of God forever and ever. I praise you forever, for what you have done. 10, HB

43

Aside from Prov 3:18, the other three references (11:30, 13:12, 15:4) to a tree of life in Proverbs are framed with the antithetical parallelism so characteristic of the book.

114

osborne

Instead of being uprooted from the land of the living, the righteous is grounded in YHWH’s presence like a lush olive tree. This figurative image need not lead us down the path of whether or not there were living olive trees in the tabernacle or the temple. Psalm 52 presents the image of an image. Exodus records that pure olive oil was to be used for lighting the lamp in the tabernacle, and the lamp on the altar was decorated with floral images. Further garden-like developments are recorded in the depiction of the temple in 1Kings. There were apparently two carved olivewood cherubim (1Kgs 6:23), carved images of cherubim, palm trees, and rosettes lining the interior walls (6:29), and two olivewood doors with engravings of cherubim, palm trees, and rosettes (6:32). The use of only olive oil with lamps, combined with the pervasive garden and tree imagery, makes it clear how the figurative image of a fruit-bearing olive tree in the house of God would make sense in an Israelite cultic context—even if not literal. The olive-tree-like worshipper of the psalm trusts in the kindness of God, and gives praise to him with a deep sense of dependence. It is God who has acted in a way that has established him to his current blessed state, not his own doing. Philipus J. Botha has argued that Psalm 52 leans heavily upon the Wisdom material found in the Hebrew Bible: “The Psalm, for instance, reflects the general Wisdom teaching that arrogance is especially hateful to Yahweh, that arrogance comes to a fall and that self-trust and self-reliance lead to eventual shame and disgrace.”44 Botha’s work highlights potential streams of compositional influence between the Psalms, the Prophets, and wisdom material, but one need not agree with all of his conclusions to appreciate the emphasis on shared themes and theology between this psalm and Proverbs 1–3. However, it is also worth noting that this is not only a general wisdom teaching. The book of Ezekiel records several texts that depict kings and leaders as trees that are selfdeceived in their hubris, only to then be uprooted and cut down (Ezek 17:1–24; 19:10–14; 31:1–12). 4.3 A Flourishing Palm, a Cedar in Lebanon: Psalm 92 Psalm 92 opens with a song of praise and thanksgiving, only to shift in verse 6 (HB) to explore the inscrutability of YHWH and how the fool fails to understand. The works and thoughts of God are deep and the fool cannot comprehend them. Consequently, in a mini-metaphorical theodicy, the psalmist explains their present “blooming” as a temporary one—they are like grass. The fool cannot understand that 44

Philipus J. Botha, “ ‘I Am Like a Green Olive Tree’: The Wisdom Context of Psalm 52,”HvTSt 69/1 (2013): article #1962, 8 pages; dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v69i1.1962.

the tree of life in proverbs and psalms

115

When the wicked bloom, they are like grass, and all those doing evil flourish, they are to be destroyed forever. Their present prosperity must be contemplated within the scope of their eternal destiny—similar to the musings of Asaph in Psalm 73:1–13. The fool fails to see the brevity of their bloom and the transience of their fruitfulness. While the MT is less clear, Psalm 37:35 seems to describe a wicked person exalting themselves as a “green cedar,” only to quickly pass out of existence. I saw a wicked, ruthless man and he exalted himself, like a green cedar (reading ‫)וִּמְתַﬠֶלּה ְכַא ְר ֵזי‬ But he passed away and see, he was gone I looked for him, but he was not found.45 Although the wicked in Psalm 37 is posturing himself as a thriving cedar, in reality his show is a temporary façade. This one lacks the true source of sustenance that gives life and prosperity beyond the immediate. In Psalm 92:13–16, the contrasting image of the righteous unsurprisingly highlights the permanency and longevity of those walking faithfully. The righteous bloom as the date palm, like a cedar in Lebanon they thrive. Being planted in the house of YHWH, they bloom in the courts of our God. Even in old age they produce fruit, they will be fat and fresh. The activity of the righteous is the same as the fool—they both bloom (‫)פרח‬, albeit in their own respective plants. Whereas the blooming grass exposed the brevity of the fool’s flourishing, the righteous one is a long-living tree that will produce fruit throughout its life (cf. Prov 11:28, 30). The parallelism found in verse 13 first compares the righteous to a date palm, then a cedar in Lebanon. The explicit reference to a date palm is quite fascinating given that “in Syria, the palm has long been grown to a limited extent, 45

The MT is quite unclear. The above translation is amending the MT following the LXX’s reading καὶ ἐπαιρόμενον ὡς τὰς κέδρους (“and lifted up like the cedars”). See Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1–59: A Commentary, trans. Hilton C. Oswald, CC (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 403.

116

osborne

but the climate is not suitable to its commercial culture, and its early importance was rather religious than horticultural.”46 However, date palms did thrive commercially throughout antiquity in Egypt and Mesopotamia, playing a significant role in the latter. The Babylonian Theodicy records a dialogue between friends on the account of one of them suffering. In what appears to be parallel stanzas, the text reads: Date palm, tree of wealth, my esteemed brother, sum of all wisdom, jewel of s[agacity], you are right (lit. permanent), but, like the land the counsel of (the) god prevails (prob. lit., strong). [suffering friend responds] Righteous one, one who possesses wisdom (lit., ear), what you have pondered is not rational. Have you forsaken truth? Do you despise order (lit. plan) of (the) god?47 It would appear from this text that the title of date palm bestowed upon the sufferer is also associated with the later descriptions of wisdom and permanence. Much like Job’s friends, the saccharine words of the comforter are meant for flattery, but the associations between the date palm and the supposed character traits still testify to a perceived relationship between the concepts. It is also interesting that both texts take up tree imagery in their exploration of the wicked prospering and the righteous suffering. Another relevant Mesopotamian text figuratively describing a date palm is found in the Utukkū Lemnūtu incantations. In this series of texts copied down into the first millennium BC, a passage is found that describes the cultural and royal significance of the date palm:48 The pure and resplendent young date-palm, planted in the orchard, a table ornament purifying the body, a mark of office, symbol of kingship, the mighty date-palm of heroic strength, stands in the water-channel of a pure place, 46 47 48

Paul Popenoe, The Date Palm (Miami, FL: Field Research Projects, 1973), 9. Takayoshi Oshima, The Babylonian Theodicy, SAACT 9 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 19–20. Markham J. Geller, Evil Demons: Canonical Utukkū Lemnūtu Incantations, SAACT 5 (Helsinki: Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy, 2007), 245–246.

the tree of life in proverbs and psalms

117

reaching to the heavens with its arms. Amurriqānnu, the great gardener of Anu, uprooted the date-palm frond with his pure hand. tablet 15, lines 122–129

The text states that the date palm was a symbol of kingship as it stood cultivated along pure channels of water. Its size and stature were an emblem of strength and beauty, and it was these trees—overlaid with gold—that lined the inside of the temple (1Kgs. 6:29). The broader ancient Near Eastern context provides a helpful conceptual background to how the image of a blooming date palm could come to be associated with individuals of wisdom and righteousness in a cultic setting. After the psalmist describes the righteous person as a date palm in verse 92:13 (HB), the next line of the psalm compares this individual to a thriving and growing cedar in Lebanon—the most sought after trees in all of the ancient Near East.49 Verse 14 (HB) then turns the reader’s attention from the mighty trees growing on the Lebanese heights to the ones metaphorically flourishing in the house of the Lord. The association between YHWH’s abode and the trees of Lebanon emerges from other passages as well. Isaiah 60:13 metaphorically describes YHWH’s restored glory and sanctuary as the trees of Lebanon, and Ezekiel 31 describes Assyria as a cedar in the garden in God. Ezekiel 28:13–14 describes the king of Tyre as one placed in Eden on the holy mountain of God. It seems possible that the author of Psalm 92 is also familiar with the tradition of YHWH dwelling in a garden in the cedar groves of Lebanon.50 This idea is also perhaps alluded to in the depiction of YHWH’s creative activity in Psalm 104:16–17: The trees of YHWH, the cedars of Lebanon which you planted are filled There the birds make their nests, the stork has her home in the fir trees. 49

50

Russell Meiggs, Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 55. According to evidence from inscriptions, the following Mesopotamian kings campaigned westward to harvest these mighty specimens: Sargon of Akkad, Gudea of Lagash, Naram-Sin, Tiglath-pileser I, Shalmaneser III, Sargon II, Sennacherib, Assurbanipal, Nebuchadnezzar II, Nabonidus, and Darius I (see J. Hansman, “Gilgamesh, Humbaba and the Land of the ERIN-Trees,”Iraq 38 [1976]: 31–32). Given the international precedent, it is not surprising that Solomon would seek out the most precious of building materials to build the temple, as well as his own palace which was called “The House of the Forest of Lebanon” (1 Kgs 7:2). Fritz Stolz, “Die Bäume des Gottesgartens auf dem Libanon,” ZAW 84 (1972): 141–156.

118

osborne

Fritz Stolz, by assembling a series of Hebrew Bible texts and some ancient Near Eastern sources, put forward a supposed synthesized popular myth that stood behind several of the various tree texts of the Bible. He has argued that there was a likely story about a special tree in the garden of the gods in Lebanon, and sometimes this tree was chopped down by a hero or an antagonistic treefeller. He also argued that these biblical text drew more from this image of a “Weltenbaum” (world tree) than the “Lebensbaum” (tree of life) in Genesis 2 and 3. While Stolz’s research contributed significantly to our understanding of these passages, he erred in his desire to create a fully developed narrative that—in actuality—did not completely line up with any of the biblical text he was using. Without a doubt, the biblical writers reused, alluded to, and transformed multiple traditions in their use of preexisting ideas relating trees and life.51 Psalm 92:13–16 weaves together these transformed traditions into a beautiful, poetic arboreal exemplar for the people of Israel, drawing in themes of righteousness, blessing, wisdom, and life.

5

Conclusion

The passages in Proverbs that make reference to a tree of life use the phrase as a generic, stock image to signify notions of health, wholeness, righteousness, and the fullness of life. In the Psalter, tree imagery is utilized to forge together the concepts of right relationship to YWHW and his torah, dependence upon YHWH for life, fruitfulness, and faith-filled trust in benevolent action toward his people. The observable patterns of using tree imagery to compare the

51

For example, the poet/prophet of Ezekiel 28 and 31 appears to blend together common ancient Near Eastern concepts in a way that assumes a familiarity with these extrabiblical, mythopoeic scenes, while using them as a polemical platform to launch their oracles against the nations. While it is not within the scope or the purpose of this article to discuss proposed dates for all of the texts being discussed, it is quite likely that the respective psalmists and the writers of Proverbs were familiar with both the Genesis Eden narrative as well as the broader world-tree traditions that appear to have shaped the conceptual framework of tree imagery in the ancient Near East. In fact, I believe it is no longer possible or necessary to pull apart the various sources that gave rise to the biblical data discussed thus far. Ziony Zevit notes: “After all the theorizing and close analysis that almost four centuries of scholarship have produced, the Garden story considered below, regularly assigned to the J source, is considered the distillation of a literary tradition whose oral antecedents took shape around two centuries earlier, around 1100 BCE, close to some of the dates proposed by the Mosaic-authorship approach” (Ziony Zevit, What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? [New Haven: Yale, 2013], 42).

the tree of life in proverbs and psalms

119

ways of the wicked or the foolish to the righteous also highlight the didactic nature of these passages. Provided the similarities with other ancient Near Eastern material, the biblical authors of both books were knowledgeable of broader conceptions of tree imagery as it related to cultic and wisdom contexts, yet for these writers, such traditions were always to be understood solely in a Yahwistic worldview. As Forti stated about animal imagery, the figurative relationship between trees and life in the Psalms appears to provide a helpful criterion for delimiting potential “wisdom psalms” and expose the interconnected of Israel’s wisdom traditions with the Psalter. While intertextual relationship cannot be established between the references in Psalms and Proverbs at the level of shared lexemes, reading these two books together reveals significant thematic overlap and reoccurring themes regarding tree imagery and the fullness of life in YHWH’s created order.

Works Cited Boda, Mark J., Russell L. Meek, and William R. Osborne, eds. Riddles and Revelations: Explorations into the Relationship between Wisdom and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible. LHBOTS 634. New York: Bloomsbury, 2018. Botha, Philipus J. “‘I Am Like a Green Olive Tree’: The Wisdom Context of Psalm 52.” HvTSt 69/1 (2013): article #1962, 8 pages. dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v69i1.1962. Brown, Michael. “‫ברך‬.” Pages 755–767 in vol. 1 of The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Willem VanGemeren. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. Brown, William P. Seeing the Psalms: A Theology of Metaphor. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Cole, Robert L. “An Integrated Reading of Psalms 1 and 2.” JSOT 98 (2002): 75–88. Cole, Robert L. Psalms 1 and 2: Gateway to the Psalter. HBM 37. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2013. Creach, Jerome F.D. “Like a Tree Planted by the Temple Stream: The Portrait of the Righteous in Psalm 1:3.” CBQ 61 (1999): 34–46. Crenshaw, James L. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010. Dell, Katharine J. “‘I Will Solve My Riddle to the Music of the Lyre’ (Psalm xlix 4[5]): A Cultic Setting for Wisdom Psalms?” VT 54 (2003): 445–458. Eder, Sigrid. Identifikationspotenziale in den Psalmen: Emotionen, Metaphern und Textdynamik in den Psalmen 30, 64, 90 und 147. BBB 183. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018. Eidevall, Göran. “Metaphorical Landscapes in the Psalms.” Pages 13–21 in Metaphor in

120

osborne

the Psalms. Edited by Pierre Van Hecke and Antje Labahn. BETL 231. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Foreman, Benjamin A. Animal Metaphors and the People of Israel in the Book of Jeremiah. FRLANT 238. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Forti, Tova L. Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs. VTSup 118. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Fox, Michael V. Proverbs I–IX. AB 18A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Garrett, Duane A. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. NAC 14. Nashville: B&H, 1993. Geller, Markham J. Evil Demons: Canonical Utukkū Lemnūtu Incantations. SAACT 5. Helsinki: Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy, 2007. Gillingham, Susan. “An Introduction to Reception History with Particular Reference to Psalm 1.” RevScRel 85 (2011): 571–599. Grant, Jamie A. The King as Exemplar: The Function of Deuteronomy’s Kinship Law in the Shaping of the Book of Psalms. SBL AcBib 17. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Gray, Alison Ruth. Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures: A Reading through Metaphor. BibInt 127. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Hansman, J. “Gilgamesh, Humbaba and the Land of the ERIN-Trees.” Iraq 38 (1976): 23– 35. Holt, Else K. “‘… ad fontes aquarum’: God as Water in the Psalms?” Pages 71–85 in Metaphor in the Psalms. Edited by Pierre Van Hecke and Antje Labahn. BETL 231. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Irwin, William H. “The Metaphor in Prov 11,30.” Biblica 65 (1984): 97–100. Jindo, Job Y. Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered: A Cognitive Approach to Poetic Prophecy in Jeremiah 1–24. HSM 64. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Jindo, Job Y. “Metaphor Theory and Biblical Texts.” Pages 1–10 in vol. 2 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Keel, Othmar, and Christoph Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Kövecses, Zoltán. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1–59: A Commentary. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. CC. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988. Labahn, Antje, and Pierre Van Hecke, eds. Conceptual Metaphors in Poetic Texts. PHSC 18. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973–1980. Marcus, Ralph. “The Tree of Life in Proverbs.” JBL 62 (1943): 117–120.

the tree of life in proverbs and psalms

121

McCann, J. Clinton, Jr. “The Psalms as Instruction.” Interpretation 46 (1992): 117–128. McKane, William. Proverbs: A New Approach. OTL. London: SCM, 1970. Meiggs, Russell. Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. Osborne, William R. “The Early Messianic ‘Afterlife’ of the Tree Metaphor in Ezekiel 17:22–24.” TynBul 64 (2013): 171–188. Osborne, William R. “The Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt and the Book of Proverbs.” JANER 14 (2014): 117–128. Osborne, William R. Trees and Kings: A Comparative Analysis of Tree Imagery in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition and the Ancient Near East. BBRSup 18. University Park, PA; Eisenbrauns, 2018. Oshima, Takayoshi. The Babylonian Theodicy. SAACT 9. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Perdue, Leo G. Wisdom Literature: A Theological History. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Popenoe, Paul. The Date Palm. Miami, FL: Field Research Projects, 1973. Richards, I.A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press, 1936. Rooke, Deborah W. “Kingship as Priesthood: The Relationship between the High Priesthood and the Monarchy.” Pages 187–208 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. LHBOTS 593. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Sneed, Mark R., ed. Was There A Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Tradition. AIL 23. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. Stolz, Fritz. “Die Bäume des Gottesgartens auf dem Libanon.” ZAW 84 (1972): 141–156. Van Hecke, Pierre, ed. Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible. BETL 187. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. Van Hecke, Pierre, and Antje Labahn, eds. Metaphor in the Psalms. BETL 231. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Waltke, Bruce K. The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Weeks, Stuart. “Wisdom Psalms.” Pages 292–307 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by John Day. LHBOTS 422. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Weiss, Andrea. “Figures of Speech: Biblical Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Edited by Geoffrey Kahn. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Whiting, Mark J. “Psalms 1 and 2 as Hermeneutical Lens for Reading the Psalter.”EvQ 85 (2013): 246–262. Wilson, Gerald H. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. SBLDS 76. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1986. Winter, Urs. “Der stilisierte Baum: Zu einem auffälligen Aspekt altorientalischer Baumsymbolik und seiner Rezeption im Alten Testament.” BK 41 (1986): 171–177. Zevit, Ziony. What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013.

chapter 5

The Tree of Life in Jewish-Christian Legendary Texts Peter T. Lanfer

With respect to their nature, composition, dating, diversity, etc., the Jewish and Christian Legendary texts are an artificial collection. These texts neither comprise a canon, nor contain uniformity in theological content or literary motifs. It is therefore unremarkable that the references to the tree of life in Jewish and Christian legendary texts lack thematic cohesion as well as chronological, geographic, or linguistic consistency. To further complicate the evaluation of these texts, they derive from diverse Sitze im Leben and span a large chronological range. Additionally, these texts typically depart in significant ways from the sources they expand or interpret, thereby complicating any systematic analysis. Therefore, it is difficult to assert their social and religious significance without a great deal of historical eisegesis. Despite the limitations of the corpus, there are several common expansions of the tree of life in the works of Pseudo-Philo, 4Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou), 4 Maccabees, and the various versions of the Life of Adam and Eve. For comprehensiveness, these texts will be discussed in light of shared themes found in contemporary comparative literature to situate the legendary texts within a larger interpretive context. In the Jewish and Christian legendary texts, there are three common themes of the tree of life worthy of further examination: 1) the functionality of the Tree as a sign of eschatological renewal or individual healing; 2) the association of the tree of life with God’s presence; and 3) the promise of the tree of life as a source of life/immortality for the righteous. In addition to these future functions of the tree of life in these legendary narratives, the tree of life is also given explicit purpose in revised versions of the garden of Eden and expulsion narratives where the tree of life was previously inert or inactive. Outside the garden narrative in Genesis, the tree of life, the garden of Eden, and its protagonists are nearly absent from the Hebrew Bible. However, in Jewish literature of the Second Temple period Adam, Eve, and the garden paradise experience a literary renaissance. Without making claims about the social or religious significance of the tree of life in these texts, it is possible to discern increasing attention to questions about immortality, hope for cosmic restora-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423756_007

the tree of life in jewish-christian legendary texts

123

tion, and post-mortem reward for the righteous.1 Some of the renewed literary interest in the tree and the garden gives shape to a more central and dynamic role of the tree of life in the Eden narrative, or assigns the tree new functions in the former or future Eden. I explored some of these expansions of the Eden narrative and the tree of life, such as the role of wisdom in the narrative, the garden of Eden as a temple, and Eden as a model for immortality in my monograph Remembering Eden: The Redaction History of Genesis 3:22–24 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). In examining the tree of life with particular engagement with the Jewish and Christian legendary texts, I hope to clarify and further our understanding of the early characteristics and interpretations of the tree of life in some useful way. One early expansion of the past and future tree of life in the Second Temple period is the characteristic of the tree’s life-giving or healing fragrance. Perhaps the earliest example of this expansion is found in 1 Enoch 24–25, which describes a fragrant tree located on the mountain of God’s throne. While this tree is never explicitly named the tree of life, this tree is unlike all others in its beauty, its fragrance and its height. Furthermore, the tree contains wood that will “never wither forever” (1En. 24:4) making a suggestive association between this tree and the tree of life. What is more, the fruit of this tree is explicitly reserved for the elect at the time of the great judgment “for life,” and the fragrance of the tree provides the elect with long life on earth. No detail about the fragrance of the trees in Eden is given in Genesis 2–3; rather, the trees are called “pleasing to the sight and good for food.” The life-giving fragrance of this cosmic tree in 1Enoch is a characteristic explicitly attached to the tree of life in Jewish and Christian legendary texts as an interpretive interpolation into the narrative of the garden.

1 There are a number of excellent treatments of the interpretation of paradise in the Second Temple period. For a comprehensive list, consult the bibliography in my monograph Remembering Eden, 219–248. Of particular note are: Martha Himmelfarb, “The Temple and the Garden of Eden in Ezekiel, the Book of the Watchers, and the Wisdom of ben Sira,” in Sacred Places and Profane Spaces: Essays in the Geographics of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, ed. J. Scott and P. Simpson-Housley, CSR 30 (New York: Greenwood, 1991), 63–78; George W.E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972); J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, “Eden and the Temple: The Rewriting of Genesis 2:4–3:24 in The Book of Jubilees,” in Paradise Interpreted: Representations of Biblical Paradise in Judaism and Christianity, ed. G. Luttikhuizen, TBN 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 63–95; and my article on the concept and characteristics of paradise in “Paradise in the Bible and the Pseudepigrapha,” in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality, LSTS 39, SSEJC 1 (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 96–108.

124

lanfer

The fragrance, or oil, of the tree of life is unambiguously assigned life-giving properties in 4Ezra, which recounts, “The Tree of Life shall give them fragrant perfume, and they shall neither toil nor become weary” (4 Ezra 2:12).2 While the fragrance of the tree in this passage does not explicitly “give-life,” the elimination of toil and weariness here is a clear reversal of the curse on Adam in Gen 3:17–19 restoring ideal life to the ones experiencing the fragrance of the tree of life. This renewal of ideal life as a reversal of the expulsion is also found in 4 Ezra 8:52–53 in which the planting of the Tree of life brings delight, rest, cessation of illness, and immortality. In the Life of Adam and Eve, Adam suffers from an illness and instructs Eve and his son Seth to beseech God to send an angel to paradise to “give me from the tree out of which the oil flows and bring it to me, and I will anoint myself and rest” (LAE 9:3).3 This tree with healing oils is never called a tree of life, or the tree of life in this section of the Life of Adam and Eve, but the life-giving properties of the oil of the tree suggest the identification is possible. In general, the Jewish and Christian legendary texts contain a strong association between life-giving fragrance/oils and trees (often called the Tree or trees of Life). These life-giving fragrant trees perform the same restorative function as the fragrance of the Lord in Odes Sol. 11:15; “And my breath was refreshed by the fragrance of the Lord.” Additionally, 2 En. 8:3 [J] also describes the glory of the fragrance of a life-giving tree declaring the tree “indescribable for pleasantness and fine fragrance and more beautiful than any other created thing that exists.” As the source of life-giving fragrance, the tree of life and the presence/fragrance of the Lord share characteristics and function, and the tree thereby becomes a preferred vehicle for the dissemination of and/or representation of God’s glory and life-giving fragrance. The first-century CE Jewish legendary text the Biblical Antiquities (LAB) of Pseudo-Philo contains a unique interpretation of the healing functions of the tree of life. In LAB 11:15, the tree of life is inserted into the Exodus story in connection with the bitter waters of Marah: “and there [God] commanded [Moses]

2 B.M. Metzger, “The Fourth Book of Ezra,” OTP 1:527. 3 The Life of Adam and Eve is found in Latin, Georgian, Armenian, and Greek versions. The relationship of these versions to the Vorlage of each is the subject of complicated scholarly debate discussed most extensively by Michael Stone in A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve, SBL EJL 3 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). See also G.A. Anderson and M. Stone, eds., A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve, 2nd ed., SBL EJL 5 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999). This text is also called the Apocalypse of Moses because one of the Greek manuscripts is presented as a revelation of Moses. On the fragrance and oil of the tree of life and the reception of the stories of Seth, consult E.C. Quinn, The Quest of Seth for the Oil of Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962). Quinn is most concerned with the combination of the stories of the tree of life from the Life of Adam and Eve with cross/rood-tree legends.

the tree of life in jewish-christian legendary texts

125

many things and showed him the Tree of Life, from which he cut off and took and threw into Marah, and the water of Marah became sweet.” Though this narrative intersection of the garden and the wilderness is unknown elsewhere, the life-giving properties of the tree of life gives it utility in the Exodus narrative. Here, the transformative powers of the life-giving tree are contained in even a small portion of the tree imbued with all the power of its source. The eschatological fecundity brought about by the tree of life in 4 Baruch also shares the theme of the transformative and life-giving fragrance and/or emanation from the tree found in the Jewish legendary texts. With the planting of the tree of life in the midst of paradise, “… the sweet waters will become salty, and the salty sweet in the great light of the joy of God” (4 Bar. 9:18).4 This transformation of sweet and salty waters with the return of the tree of life brings the text of 4Baruch here in dialogue with the tree of life in the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo. The restored tree of life, which sweetened the bitter waters of Marah in the Exodus narrative for Pseudo-Philo, will be recognized in the eschatological future by the sweetening of salty waters again. It is beyond the grasp of certainty to suggest any direct influence or borrowing of this concept of sweetened waters between these two texts, but the common theme of the life-giving transformation is consistent with expectations for the interpretive expansion of the tree of life and its eschatological characteristics and impacts. In addition to the close association between the life-giving-fragrant trees and the glory/fragrance of the Lord, the Jewish and Christian legendary texts frequently employ the motif of the tree of life as the place of God’s presence (or God’s theophany). For example, the late first-century CE 2 Enoch (Slavonic Apocalypse) records that “in the midst of the trees [is] that of life, in that place whereon the Lord rests, when he goes up into Paradise” (2 En. 8:3; A and J).5 The same association between God’s presence and the tree of life is made in 3 Enoch, in which God is enthroned on a cherub “beneath the Tree of Life.” The enthronement of God beneath the tree of life in 3 Enoch appears to be a static and permanent state since the expulsion: “From the day that the Holy One, blessed be he, banished the first man from the garden of Eden, the Shekinah resided on a cherub beneath the tree of life” (3 En. 5:1). This post-expulsion enthronement of God reappears with the description of the enthronement of God and the lamb/Jesus in Rev 22:2–3, “the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it [the Tree of Life].” The Life of Adam and Eve, similarly declares that

4 Robinson, “4 Baruch,” OTP 2:424. 5 F.I. Anderson, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” OTP 1:114–115.

126

lanfer

“the throne of God was made ready where the Tree of Life was” (LAE 22:4). In these passages (both those that fit within the corpus of Jewish and Christian legendary texts, and those without), there is a persistent connection between the presence and enthronement of God and the location of the tree of life. Additionally, in the larger context of these passages, the location or occasion of God’s enthronement is expressed with symbols of gardens, fruitfulness, and sacred trees. In one passing mention to the Tree of life in one of the legendary texts, God appears to be a tree of life rather than the tree merely representing the location of God’s presence. The proverbial nature of the citation makes any firm conclusion about the text elusive, but the interchangeability of the tree of life and God in 4Maccabees is built upon the foundation of persistent and diverse associations between the two in contemporary literature. 4 Macc. 18:16 refers to a proverb of Solomon that says “a tree of life is he [God] to the one who acts according to his will.” This modified quotation of Prov 3:18 is noteworthy in the exchange of “wisdom” in the book of Proverbs for the third-masculine singular referring to “God” in the context of the passage. This replacement of wisdom for God or the tree of life is also found in the Targum to Job 28:7 which translates the “way to wisdom” in Job as the “way to the Tree of Life.”6 The passage in 4Macc 18:16–18 adds that the fruit of the tree of life “is your life and the length of your days.” Thus, the acquisition of the fruit of the tree of life results in the present realization of abundant and extended life through direct engagement with the presence of God. There are several mentions of the tree of life in the Life of Adam and Eve. In a section of the Life of Adam and Eve in which Eve describes the experience in Eden from her perspective, she narrates a conversation between herself and the serpent, saying, And I said to him, I do not know what kind of oath I should swear to you. Only that which I know I will say to you. By the throne of the Lord, by the cherubim, and by the tree of life that I will give also to my husband to eat. LAE 19:2

In this dialogue, Eve claims knowledge of only three things by which to swear: the throne, the cherubim, and the tree of life. The throne of the Lord and the cherubim are not found in the core Eden narrative of Gen 2:4–3:21, with the cherubim only making an appearance in the expulsion narrative of Gen 3:22– 24. However, the throne and the cherubim are increasingly absorbed into the

6 See my discussion of this Targum in Remembering Eden, 49–50.

the tree of life in jewish-christian legendary texts

127

conceptual framework of early interpretations of the garden narrative and the tree of life in the Second Temple period. Eve’s dialogue with the serpent places the cherubim and God’s throne as integral components of the garden narrative alongside the tree of life prior to the expulsion of Adam and Eve. Though there is little to conclude from Eve’s dialogue with the serpent, it might be argued that the combination of all three elements in Eve’s description of her “known” world gives further evidence for the figurative combination of the tree of life, God’s throne, and God’s presence in other texts. Later in her version of the garden narrative, Eve locates (or relocates) the throne of God in the present (or former) location of the tree of life: “the throne of God was prepared where the Tree of Life was” (LAE 22:4). This passage propels the figurative association between the tree of life and God’s throne into an explicit physical connection, a common theme in the Jewish and Christian legendary material. Finally, God promises to the human pair that if they avoid every evil after leaving the garden, they will be raised to life and given immortality through the tree of life. God declares, … when you have gone out from paradise if you keep yourself from every evil as one about to die, at the resurrection, you will be born again. I will raise you up. Then it shall be given to you from the Tree of Life and you shall be immortal forever. LAE 28:4

With this possibility of resurrection to life, the righteous dead become coinheritors of this promise of new birth and immortality as the fruit of the tree of life becomes available for all the righteous dead who avoid evil and keep to the covenant outside the garden. The possibility of future immortality enjoyed as a benefit of/from the tree of life raises the interpretive question of Adam and Eve’s pre-expulsion enjoyment of the fruit of the tree of life. Various permutations of Adam and Eve’s pre-expulsion experience are found in the Life of Adam and Eve. In the Greek, Armenian, and Georgian versions of the expulsion narrative, God instructs Adam that he shall no longer eat of the fruit of the tree. In the Greek, God tells Adam, “You shall not take of it now,” as if Adam had taken the fruit previously or that his taking of it will be delayed further (LAE 28:3).7 In the Armenian text, Adam is told that he is barred from Eden, “lest you should eat more of it and become immortal” (Armenian LAE 28:3), as if Adam had gained some

7 Anderson and Stone, Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve, 70E.

128

lanfer

life from the tree, but not yet enough to receive immortality.8 Finally, in the Georgian text God tells Adam, “You will not take of it anymore in your lifetime” (Georgian LAE 28:3).9 This Georgian version presents two conclusions about Adam’s experience of the tree of life. Firstly, that Adam had formerly enjoyed the fruit of the tree of life in Eden prior to the expulsion. Secondly, that Adam is restricted from the tree of life for the duration of his lifetime, leaving open the promise of post-mortem enjoyment of the fruit of the tree of life as a reward for a life of righteousness. This interpretation of the past enjoyment of the fruit of the tree of life is also found in the midrash Genesis Rabbah. In particular, the midrash to Gen 3:22–24 adds the notion that God laments having to send Adam and Eve out of the garden. The midrash reads, “When he had sent him out [of the garden], he began to lament for him, saying, ‘Behold the man has been like one of us.’” This passage, like 2Esd 2:11 and the Life of Adam and Eve in all its versions, allows for the possibility that Adam previously enjoyed some measure of immortality in Eden. Thus, God’s lament in the expulsion narrative includes a lament for Adam’s former god-likeness (“the man has been like one of us”) rather than the explicit threat of Adam’s illicitly acquired god-likeness in Genesis 3 (“the man has become like one of us”). A further emendation of the garden and expulsion narratives is found in the version of the Life of Adam and Eve known as the Apocalypse of Moses which reads, And God returned to Paradise, seated on a chariot of cherubim, and the angels were praising him. When God came into Paradise, all the plants, both of the portion of Adam and also of my portion, bloomed forth and were established. Apoc. Mos. 22:410 As a result of God’s return to paradise, his throne is prepared “where the tree of life was” and there is a renewal of “all the plants” in paradise. In addition, the return of God to paradise portends the reversal of the expulsion both for Adam (who retains a portion in Eden) and for the righteous who will regain access to paradise in the eschaton. This eschatological restoration of access to the fruits of the garden is also found in 1Enoch which recounts, “(as for) this fragrant tree [the Tree of Life], no flesh is permitted to touch it till the great judgment … It then shall be given to the righteous and holy … it shall be transplanted to the

8 9 10

Anderson and Stone, Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve, 70E. Anderson and Stone, Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve, 70E. M.D. Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve: A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP 2:281.

the tree of life in jewish-christian legendary texts

129

holy place, to the temple of the Lord [1En. 25:4–5, Gk. (Panopolis)].”11 In this version of the eschatological judgment, the regaining of the tree of life is also the restoration of a reconfigured Eden, which will replace and transform the temple. A final expansion of the tree of life and the garden narrative in the Jewish and Christian legendary texts follows 1Enoch in reconfiguring the garden as a place of particular holiness, either designated Eden as a/the temple requiring sacrifice for entry, or removed entirely from the impurities of the earth. For instance, the Life of Adam and Eve (in the Greek and Georgian recensions) indicates that the garden of Eden was not even “on earth.” Rather, Adam is cast out of Eden and “brought from the garden onto the earth” (LAE 29:6). This interpretation is consistent with the imagination of Eden as a holy place devoid of impurities and the ideal original place of God’s interaction with mankind. Furthermore, in the Jewish and Christian legendary texts, the burning of incense establishes Eden as a place of ritual purity where God and the righteous can cohabitate. In the book of Jubilees, Adam makes an incense offering outside the gates of Eden. This indicates that the priestly offices and sacrificial exercises (derived from Exod 30:1–20 and Lam 2:6) were present from the beginning of creation and will be present in the eschatological future. The Life of Adam and Eve 29:3 suggests a similar priestly role for Adam, inserting the idea that Adam pleads with God to allow him to take herbs and incense from the garden to use for future offerings. Significantly, these herbs and incense are not from the tree of life which has either been removed from the garden or restricted and preserved as an eschatological reward for the righteous. The remainder of the garden however provides all that is needed to participate in the sacrificial practice for the present. In taking herbs and incense from the garden, Adam becomes the first priest, and the garden becomes the source for the incense of the daily offering. Some of these themes of the tree of life in the Jewish legendary texts are preserved in works that are Christian in their present formulations (many of which may be reworked versions of Jewish originals). For example, in the Testament of Levi, the tree of life grants its recipients holiness in addition to life. T. Levi 18:11 reads, “and he gave to the holy ones to eat from the Tree of Life, and the spirit of holiness was upon them.” In this passage exhibiting significant Chris-

11

“The Ethiopic adds ‘towards the north it shall be transplanted to the holy place’ [Ethiopic (+ Tana 9) 25:5]”; E.J.C. Tigchelaar, “Eden and Paradise: the Garden Motif in Some Early Jewish Texts (1 Enoch and Other Texts Found at Qumran),” in Luttikhuizen, Paradise Interpreted, 61. This addition may indicate the relative geography of Jerusalem vis-à-vis Ethiopia. See also P. Grelot, “La géographie mythique d’ Hénoch et ses sources orientales,” RB 65 (1958), 33–39.

130

lanfer

tian redaction (e.g. Jesus mediates access to the tree of life), the tree of life and its dual gift of life and holiness are offered as a reward for the righteous dead, a theme that takes on increasing significance in the Jewish and Christian legendary material. Another text aptly described as a Christian legendary text is 4 Baruch, (dating to the first or second century CE), which describes the time of Jesus’ second coming.12 At the return of Jesus in 4 Baruch 9, “the tree of life which is planted in the middle of Paradise will cause all the uncultivated trees [meaning the gentiles here] to bear fruit, and they will grow and sprout” (4 Bar. 9:16).13 This idea of the fructification of nature at the return of Jesus is reminiscent of the return of the divine warrior in ancient Near Eastern texts and the Hebrew Bible. What is unique about this text is that the immediate catalyst for the fructification of nature is not a divine king, but the tree of life. Of course, the tree of life returns only on the occasion of the triumphant return of Jesus, but this text conflates the impact of the returning victorious messiah with that of the tree of life itself. The tree of life in 4Baruch also acts as a counterpart to the cosmic trees (i.e., kings) that had exalted themselves. In this text, the tree of life “which is planted in the middle of paradise” as the “firmly rooted tree” will judge the “trees which had … boasted and said, ‘We raised our top to the air’” (4Bar. 9:17).14 In his translation and commentary, Stephen Robinson does not draw this parallel, but the comparison is quite natural between the haughty trees in this passage and the great trees that are cut down in Daniel 4; Ezekiel 17; Ezekiel 31; Isaiah 14; and the Dead Sea Scroll 4Q458.15 While the cosmic trees, or world trees, in these passages are not called trees of life, the interplay between the tree of life and the cosmic tree is made definitive in Christian interpretations of the cross of Jesus as the representation of both. According to Eliade, The Cross is described as a ‘tree rising from earth to Heaven,’ as ‘the Tree of Life planted on Calvary,’ the tree that ‘springing from the depths of the

12 13 14

15

Extant manuscripts of 4 Baruch are in Ethiopic (the most complete of the manuscripts), Armenian, Slavonic, Romanian, and Greek. S.E. Robinson, “4 Baruch,” OTP 2:424. Here as elsewhere this combination of the “firmly rooted tree” with the theme of judgment may be an allusion to Psalm 1. The firmly rooted tree in that context is frequently translated as a/the tree of life. Ezek. 31:3: “Look at Assyria: a cedar in Lebanon, whose beautiful branches overshadowed the forest.” 4Q458 1, 1:8–9: “to the Beloved … for life, and the first angel cast down … [a] destroying swor[d] and he struck the tree of evil.” Text and translation from E. Larson, “4Q Narrative A,” in Qumran Cave 4: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1: Miscellaneous Texts from Qumran, ed. S. Pfann, P.S. Alexander et al., DJD 36 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 355–357.

the tree of life in jewish-christian legendary texts

131

earth, rose to Heaven and sanctifies the uttermost bounds of the universe.’ In other words, in order to convey the mystery of universal redemption through the Cross, Christian writers used not only the symbols of the Old Testament and the ancient near east (reference to the Tree of Life) but also the archaic symbols of the Cosmic Tree set at the center of the world and ensuring communication between Heaven and earth.16 This intermingling of tree symbolism is also found in a Gnostic text named On the Origin of the World, which contains a further depiction of the tree of life as a comic tree (though in its Gnostic setting, the Tree of Knowledge containing the “strength of God” is clearly superior to the tree of life). The tree of life in On the Origin of the World is planted “to the North of Paradise,” colored “like the sun,” with height that goes “as far as heaven.” The purpose of this tree is to “make eternal the souls of the pure, who shall come forth from the modeled forms of poverty at the consummation of the age” (Orig. World 110.14–19). The tree of life here takes on the expected role of giving eternal life to the righteous. Notably, the dispensation of life is delayed until the end of the age, and reserved for those who have lived a life of poverty rather than avoiding evil or living according to the covenant as in most Jewish and Christian legendary texts. Another gnostic text called Pistis Sophia also preserves a Christian variation of the theme of the tree of life as a place of God’s presence in the Jewish and Christian legendary texts. In Pistis Sophia 99.246 and 134.354 Jesus reveals secrets of the universe to Enoch in the paradise of Adam. Enoch writes these secrets down in two books of Yew while Jesus speaks from the Tree of gnosis and the tree of life. In this text, the presence of Jesus in paradise is explicitly located in, or at least with, the two trees of Eden. The typical privileging of the Tree of Knowledge in gnostic literature over the tree of life makes the association between Jesus as revealer of secret knowledge with that tree unremarkable. On the other hand, Jesus speaking from the tree of life may indicate the preservation of the concept of the location of divine presence in the place of the tree of life across a broader spectrum of Jewish and Christian literature. In conclusion, the Jewish and Christian legendary texts represent significant diversity in their respective presentations of the Tree of the Life and garden of Eden (of the past, present, or future). Despite the multi-vocality of this artificial collection, there are a number of themes and trends that one might discern. The first of these themes gave the tree of life greater functionality as a past, present, or future source of healing and renewal through its fragrance, its oils,

16

M. Eliade, Birth and Rebirth, trans. W. Trask (New York: Harper & Row, 1958), 119–120.

132

lanfer

or through portions of the tree removed from the garden. The second theme aligned the tree of life with the location of the divine presence, throne, and holy temple. The third (and perhaps least surprising) theme of the Jewish and Christian legendary texts assured the righteous that the tree of life would be a source of life in the present (as it may have been already in the past) and the eschatological future. This body of literature reflects a noteworthy increase in speculation concerning the reward for the righteous in the tumultuous circumstances of the late Second Temple and early Roman period. These prophecies, parables, apocalypses, and philosophic treatises consistently employ the tree of life and garden as symbols of God’s holiness, his holy temple, and God’s presence (or the cross and presence of Jesus in Christian contexts). Finally, in the corpus of legendary texts, there is a discernable renewal of interest in the promise of Eden as a modeled holy place where God is present and immortality was and will be enjoyed. Whereas the symbols of Eden remained hidden in much of the Hebrew Bible, the Jewish and Christian legendary texts represent a movement within Jewish and Christian literature to bring Eden back from obscurity giving it and the tree of life a central place of honor in expectations of righteous reward, and eschatological restoration.

Works Cited Anderson, Gary A., and Michael E. Stone, eds. A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve. 2nd ed. SBL EJL 5. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Barr, James. The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Bauckham, Richard, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov, eds. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Bergren, Theodore. “Mother Jerusalem, Mother Church: Desolation and Restoration in Early Jewish and Christian Literature.” Pages 243–259 in Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone. Edited by Esther G. Chazon, David Satran, and Ruth Clements. JSJSup 89. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985. Eliade, Mircea. Birth and Rebirth: The Religious Meanings of Initiation in Human Culture. Translated by Willard R. Trask. New York: Harper & Row, 1958. Grelot, Pierre. “La géographie mythique d’Hénoch et ses sources orientales.” RB 65.1 (1958): 33–69. Gunkel, Hermann. Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton: A Religio-

the tree of life in jewish-christian legendary texts

133

Historical Study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12. Translated by K. William Whitney, Jr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Himmelfarb, Martha. “The Temple and the Garden of Eden in Ezekiel, the Book of the Watchers, and the Wisdom of ben Sira.” Pages 63–78 in Sacred Places and Profane Spaces: Essays in the Geographics of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Edited by Jaime Scott and Paul Simpson-Housley. CSR 30. New York: Greenwood, 1991. Kulik, Alexander. 3Baruch: Greek-Slavonic Apocalypse of Baruch. CEJL. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. Lanfer, Peter Thacher. “Allusion to and Expansion of the Tree of Life and Garden of Eden in Biblical and Pseudepigraphal Literature.” Pages 96–108 in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality: Volume 1: Thematic Studies. Edited by Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias. LNTS 391. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Lanfer, Peter Thacher. Remembering Eden: The Reception History of Genesis 3:22–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Larson, E. “4Q Narrative A.” Pages 353–365 in Qumran Cave 4: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1: Miscellaneous Texts from Qumran. Edited by Stephen J. Pfann, Philip Alexander et al. DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. Levin, Arnold G. “The Tree of Life: Genesis 2:9 and 3:22–24 in Jewish, Gnostic and Early Christian Texts.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1966. Luttikhuizen, Gerard P. Paradise Interpreted: Representations of Biblical Paradise in Judaism and Christianity. TBN 2. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Mettinger, Tryggve N.D. The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-historical Study of Genesis 2–3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Morris, Paul, and Deborah Sawyer, eds. A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden. JSOTSup 136. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Nickelsburg, George W.E. Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972. Quinn, E.C. The Quest of Seth for the Oil of Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Reed, Annette Yoshiko. Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Starke, Robert. “The Tree of Life: Protological to Eschatological.”Kerux 11:2 (1996): 15–31. Stone, Michael E. A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve. SBL EJL 3. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Stordalen, T. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. CBET 25. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. Wallace, Howard N. The Eden Narrative. HSM 32. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.

chapter 6

The Tree of Life in Ancient Apocalypse Beth M. Stovell

While scholars have explored the symbol of the tree of life in limited ways in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament, such exploration of the symbol of the tree of life in ancient apocalypse is even more scant.1 Yet the tree of life plays an important role in several ancient apocalypses. This chapter will explore the use of tree of life symbolism in 4Ezra 2:12, 8:52 (2 Esdras 2:12, 8:52); the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 2.11–14, 5.21; the Apocalypse of Sedrach 4.4, and the Apocalypse of Elijah 5.6. Using conceptual metaphor theories developed by Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, this chapter will demonstrate how the tree of life functions alongside other metaphors and symbols in these texts. By mapping the relationship of these metaphors and symbols, this chapter will examine how these metaphorical connections impact the interpretation of the tree of life imagery in these writings and within ancient apocalypse more broadly. This chapter begins by setting out its methodology, detailing in brief the major elements of conceptual metaphor theory and their value for this study. The subsequent section explores each example from ancient apocalypse, highlighting the specific context for these uses of tree of life imagery as part of their broader context in each text. The chapter then uses the data acquired from this exploration to examine related metaphorical networks in each apocalypse. This examination focuses on recurring conceptual networks surrounding the tree of life imagery. This includes the study of the networks spawned from the terms “tree” and “life” as well as “tree of life,” including creational/paradisal networks, birthing/mothering networks, and purity/impurity networks. This section examines each network as it relates to the concept of the tree of life. It focuses on how each network in these ancient apocalypses highlights particular aspects of the tree of life for their specific purposes. Finally, the conclusion of this chapter suggests potential avenues for future research that could generate from this study. It is important to note a limitation to this study. While this chapter examines the interpretation of the tree of life in a group of ancient apocalypses, it does not include all ancient apocalypses. For example, it excludes John’s Apoca-

1 I would like to thank Siniša Hamp for his editorial assistance on this article.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423756_008

the tree of life in ancient apocalypse

135

lypse from its study and other forms of apocalyptic literature studied elsewhere in this volume. The literature under review in this chapter also spans a wide swath of time from as early as the first century CE in portions of 4 Ezra to the final form of the Apocalypse of Sedrach dating potentially as late as the tenth or eleventh century CE.

1

Conceptual Blending Theory and the Tree of Life

Conceptual blending theory2 has several central features.3 Fauconnier and Turner describe their theory in terms of network. They are concerned with “the on-line, dynamical cognitive work people do to construct meaning for local purpose of thought and action.”4 According to Fauconnier and Turner, conceptual blending is the central process by which this cognitive work of meaning construction occurs. A key element of conceptual blending is “mental spaces.” Mental spaces are “small conceptual packets constructed as we think and talk, for purposes of local understanding and action.”5 These mental spaces contain partial elements from conceptual domains and from the given context.6 In conceptual blending theory, mental spaces make up the input structures, generic structures, and blending structures in the network. Generic space is the men-

2 At times, Fauconnier and Turner simply call this theory “conceptual blending” and at other times the “network model of conceptual integration.” See Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, “Mental Spaces: Conceptual Integration Networks,” in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, ed. Dirk Geeraerts, Cognitive Linguistics Research 34 (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006), 312; Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities (New York: Basic Books, 2002). 3 I have articulated a similar description of conceptual blending theory in several of my works including Beth M. Stovell, “Who’s King? Whose Temple? Divine Presence, Kingship, and Contested Space in John 1, 12, and 19,” in Johannine Prologue, eds. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew Pitts, JS (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming) and in Beth M. Stovell, “Son of God as Anointed One? Johannine Davidic Christology and Second Temple Messianism,” in Reading the Gospel of John’s Christology as a Form of Jewish Messianism: Royal, Prophetic, and Divine Messiahs, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini and Benjamin Reynolds, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 106 (Leiden: Brill, 2018). 4 Fauconnier and Turner, “Mental Spaces,” 312. 5 Fauconnier and Turner, “Mental Spaces,” 307–308. 6 Fauconnier and Turner, “Mental Spaces,” 331. For a more detailed discussion of the definition, use, and influence of “mental spaces,” see Fauconnier and Eve Sweetser, Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar: Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996); Fauconnier, Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985); Fauconnier, Mappings in Thought and Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

136

stovell

tal space that describes the connection drawn between the two input spaces allowing them to blend with one another. The blended space is the result of the connections created between the two input spaces. To put it another way, this new mental space called “blended space” contains the results of “blending” the two inputs, while the mental space called “generic space” contains the means for this blending. For example, in this chapter we will explore how ancient apocalypses commonly associate the concept of the tree of life with pictures of paradise and thereby associate it with rewards for righteous behavior. In this case, the hope for a return to the garden paradise depicted in Genesis 1–2, where the tree of life is first introduced, becomes the generic space that allows for the conceptual blending that a reward for righteousness would include return to something similar to this original paradise. Joining notions of paradise with reward is a new blending space that comes from the associations in Genesis with paradise and later in Genesis 3 with curse as punishment. When ancient apocalypses pick up this idea, they add to the simple notion of “paradise as reward” by exploring what such a reward would look like and who would receive it, and contrast this by exploring what punishment would look like (using the conception “curse as punishment”). While there is a dearth of scholarship using conceptual metaphor theory to study most ancient apocalypses, Karina Martin Hogan has used conceptual metaphor theory to study aspects of 4Ezra. In her 2011 article “Mother Earth as a Conceptual Metaphor in 4Ezra,” Hogan examines the metaphor of Mother Earth as a central metaphor in 4Ezra.7 Hogan’s exploration of the Mother metaphor (alongside other scholarly discussions of maternal imagery) provides helpful direction for our study of 4Ezra’s use of the tree of life in relation to this larger pattern of maternal metaphors.

2

Exploration of Each Ancient Apocalypse

This section begins our study by examining each of the ancient apocalyptic texts that use the tree of life as a key symbol. This section examines where the tree of life is located in the larger apocalypse and in its localized context in the passage. This examination moves from 4Ezra (2 Esdras), to the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, the Apocalypse of Sedrach, and the Apocalypse of Elijah.

7 Karina Martin Hogan, “Mother Earth as a Conceptual Metaphor in 4Ezra,” CBQ 73 (2011): 72– 91.

the tree of life in ancient apocalypse

137

2.1 The Tree of Life in 4Ezra The first texts to examine come from 4Ezra (2 Esdras) in 4 Ezra 2:12, 8:52 (2Esdras 2:12, 8:52). The relative dating of these two passages complicates the use of the tree of life imagery. While 4Ezra 8 is located within the section of 4 Ezra generally considered to date back to the first century–early second century CE, 4Ezra 2 is generally considered a later addition dating to the middle or second half of the third century CE. These two texts also represent two different religious contexts with 4Ezra 8 located within the Jewish community and 4 Ezra 2 located within a later Christian community. Thus, our reading of these texts will acknowledge the impact that 4Ezra 8 may have had on the later addition of 4Ezra 2 rather than reading these passages in linear order based on the final form of the text.8 2.2

The Tree of Life Planted in Paradise (4Ezra 8) 4Ezra 8:49–55: But even in this respect you will be praiseworthy before the Most High, [49] because you have humbled yourself, as is becoming for you, and have not deemed yourself to be among the righteous in order to receive the greatest glory. [50] For many miseries will affect those who inhabit the world in the last times, because they have walked in great pride. [51] But think of your own case, and inquire concerning the glory of those who are like yourself, [52] because it is for you that paradise is opened, the tree of life is planted, the age to come is prepared, plenty is provided, a city is built, rest is appointed, goodness is established and wisdom perfected beforehand. [53] The root of evil is sealed up from you, illness is banished from you, and death is hidden; hell has fled and corruption has been forgotten; [54] sorrows have passed away, and in the end the treasure of immortality is made manifest. [55] Therefore do not ask any more questions about the multitude of those who perish.9

The tree of life in 4Ezra 8 is located within a larger section entitled “The Third Vision” by B.M. Metzger.10 This section begins at 4 Ezra 6:35 and ends at 9:25. A key theme in this vision is God’s work in creation and its relationship to God’s eschatological purposes. Towards this end, 4 Ezra 6:38–54 retells God’s creation of the world leading into a discussion in 6:55–59 about Israel’s inheritance, which is then read in light of Adam’s sin (7:10–18). The expectation of a 8 9 10

B.M. Metzger, “The Fourth Book of Ezra,” OTP 1:520. Metzger, “Fourth Book of Ezra,” OTP 1:544. Metzger, “Fourth Book of Ezra,” OTP 1:517.

138

stovell

messianic kingdom (7:26–44) is depicted then as the renewal of creation (7:75). Two potential end points are also pictured: “the furnace of Hell” and “the Paradise of delight” (7:36–37). 4Ezra 7:75–101 then presents seven terrible ways of the wicked and seven orders for the faithful followed later with seven divine attributes (7:132–140), which appeal to God’s mercy in light of the fate of so much of humanity (7:102–131). Following this overarching theme of God as creator, 4 Ezra 8 begins by pointing to God’s creation of the world for many, but his creation of “the world to come for the sake of few.” The Lord provides a parable comparing this to clay and gold dust: one being abundant while the other being scarce: so are those created compared to those saved (8:1–3). As Ezra responds to the Lord’s parable starting in 8:4, he explores the way that human beings are formed by God and are sustained by God. This passage contains several associations with the female bodies that God uses for this process of forming and sustaining (4Ezra 8:7–12). God alone is the creator and “we are of your hands” (v. 7). As the work of God’s hands, humans are depicted as being given life in their bodies, which are “fashioned in the womb.” The womb becomes a place of redoubled creation: “for nine months the womb that you fashioned bears your creation which has been created in it.” Not only is the womb a created space, fashioned by God, but what is within that womb is also created by God. In the womb, creation doubles upon itself all by the work of God’s hands (8:7–9). Birth is then described as “the womb giv[ing] up again what has been created in it” (v. 10). Yet this is not the end of God’s work: God has another act of double creation: this time God supplies milk to breasts that in turn supply and nourish this one that God has fashioned (v. 12).11 Ezra points to all of this as signs of God’s mercy: God’s mercy is grounded in God’s creation. Yet 4Ezra 8:13 notes that because God is creator, he has the ability to either make a person live or to take away their life. Calling for God’s mercy, Ezra questions what purpose God would have in putting such great effort into fashioning a person and then destroying them (vv. 14–15). Verse 16 clarifies where Ezra’s chief concerns lie: what will happen to God’s people, the “seed of Jacob.” Because of this Ezra states that he will pray before the Lord because of the judgment that has already come and what will ensue based on his vision (vv. 17–18). 4Ezra 8:19 marks a shift to the prayer Ezra gives “before he was taken up.” This prayer speaks first of the Almighty power of God who is capable of indignation and “whose truth is established forever” (v. 24). To this God, Ezra sets 11

Karina Martin Hogan has demonstrated how this image fits within the larger framework of Mother Earth as a central conceptual metaphor in 4Ezra. See Hogan, “Mother Earth as a Conceptual Metaphor in 4 Ezra,” 83.

the tree of life in ancient apocalypse

139

out his plea to give mercy to the unrighteous on behalf of those of God’s people who have maintained righteousness. Yet here Ezra acknowledges that all people have transgressed and it is God’s mercy that transforms them into righteous ones. The Lord responds to Ezra’s prayer in 4Ezra 8:37–40 by acknowledging that aspects of what he has spoken are true. Most importantly for our study, the Lord states that he will “not concern [himself] about the fashioning of those who have sinned or about their death, their judgment, or their damnation” and instead he “will rejoice over the creation of the righteous” and particularly over them “receiving their reward.” As the tree of life language later in 4 Ezra 8:52 is concerned about the reward of the righteous, this comment points toward the climactic section of 4Ezra 8:46–63. Moreover, the rest of the Lord’s response to Ezra in 4 Ezra 8:41–45 is grounded in the language of agriculture and specifically the language associated with trees. One way of determining how a metaphor is framed in a passage is analyzing where terms within the same semantic domain arise. This is particularly helpful in spaces where authors cluster such shared semantic domains as we find in vv. 41–45. The passage begins with the language of simile “for just as …” setting up a comparison between God and a farmer who sows many seeds in the ground as well as planting many seedlings. The language of seeds, sowing, planting, seedlings, and rooted all sit in the shared semantic domain where trees also reside. The question in v. 41 is whether or not particular plants will take root. This draws a comparison to those who “have been sown in the world” who “will not be saved.” Ezra’s response in vv. 42–45 takes up this comparison between human beings and sown seeds by adding to the entailments of the metaphor and by pointing out where the analogy of seed and human being breaks down. Ezra makes the point that it is not the seed that determines all of its growth, but other factors such as the lack of or excess of rain. Unlike the seed and the farmer, the farmer does not make the seed, but God does make human beings and makes them like God and formed all things for their sake (v. 44). Thus, Ezra is pointing to the higher level of creation of human beings in comparison to the created world and questioning the simple analogy to ask for greater mercy on humanity than on the seed. Ezra’s emphasis is that humanity is God’s “own creation” and his “inheritance” (v. 45). God’s answer to Ezra leads into the key section where the tree of life imagery is used: 4Ezra 8:46–62. God points out that Ezra’s characterization of God has not fully understood God’s love for his creation that exceeds Ezra’s own love (v. 47). Yet here God divides the experiences of two kinds of people in the “last times” (v. 51): those who humble themselves and yet are actually righteous like

140

stovell

Ezra (v. 49) and those who have “walked in great pride” (v. 50) and are not righteous. The rest of the passage focuses on the rewards and punishments for these two groups in the last times. 4Ezra 8:52 depicts the experience of God’s rewards to the righteous using repeated conceptual noun + verb descriptions: Paradise opened Tree of life planted Age to come prepared Plenty provided City built Rest appointed Goodness established Wisdom perfected These words function in a similar way to parallelism, but this is more than a simple parallelism: “paradise opened” starts this list overturning the curse and its closing of paradise. Then the tree within paradise, the tree of life, is not simply present, but is planted. The time frame for this expectation is then depicted as the “age to come,” which is prepared in advance for this righteous one. Then the author provides a series of conditions often associated with the great Shalom of the age to come: plenty, rest, goodness, and wisdom. In their midst is the picture of the city, which is built. Notably, the verbal language mirrors the language associated with the city. While the city is “built,” rest is appointed and goodness like a building is established. The tree of life appears to be a key part of what is planted in this garden city. This picture of a garden city resonates in other Second Temple Jewish texts of apocalyptic character including John’s Apocalypse and the images of Jerusalem as a garden city in Qumran literature.12 It is also valuable to see the emphasis on the reward of the righteous in terms of negation (vv. 53–54). After the list of what the righteous will experience, there is an equal list of what they will not experience taking a similar conceptual noun + verb form. The shape of this negation is also valuable to explore:

12

Scholars have noted that such linkages between Jerusalem as the Garden of Eden and thereby as Edenic garden city in Second Temple Judaism is in part due to the depictions of the temple using the language of Genesis to depict it as an Edenic space. Lanfer draws connections with the Temple Scroll (11Q19 29:8–9), Jub. 1:29, and via the tree of life in 4Bar. 9:16–17. See Peter Thacher Lanfer, Remembering Eden: The Reception History of Genesis 3:22–24 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 146–154.

the tree of life in ancient apocalypse

141

The Root of Evil is sealed up Illness is banished Death is hidden; Hell has fled Corruption has been forgotten; Sorrows have passed away Unlike the positive depictions that focus on security, perfection, and firmness, these negative depictions emphasize either secrecy (sealed up, hidden), abandonment (banished, fled), and forgetting (forgotten, passed away). Each of the terms here is associated with different negative experiences: evil, illness, death, hell, corruption, sorrows. Many of these negative conceptions function as inverted mirrors to the list preceding them. The promise is that in place of death, life is planted; evil is sealed up and replaced with the establishment of goodness; hell has fled and instead paradise is opened; the time of illness and corruption are banished and forgotten and instead the age to come is prepared where plenty is provided and wisdom perfected. Rest can now be appointed and a city built because sorrows have passed away. This picture of paradise is set in contrast to those who have “defiled the name of him who made them” (8:60) “despising the Most High” who were “contemptuous of his Law and forsook his ways” (8:56–57). This language of defilement is consistent with the language in the seven terrible ways mentioned in 4 Ezra 7. As we will see, this language of defilement also plays into larger themes found in association with the tree of life in other ancient apocalypses. Ezra and “a few like him” (v. 62) are considered separate from these defilers and therefore eligible to receive a vision of paradise. 2.3

The Mother Israel and a Vision of Paradise (4 Ezra 2) 4Ezra 2:2–17: [2] The mother who bore them says to them, ‘Go, my children, because I am a widow and forsaken. [3] I brought you up with gladness; but with mourning and sorrow I have lost you, because you have sinned before the Lord God and have done what is evil in my sight. [4] But now what can I do for you? For I am a widow and forsaken. Go, my children, and ask for mercy from the Lord.’ [5] I call upon you, father, as a witness in addition to the mother of the children, because they would not keep my covenant, [6] that you may bring confusion upon them and bring their mother to ruin, so that they may have no offspring. [7] Let them be scattered among the nations, let their names be blotted out from the earth, because they have despised my covenant. [8] “Woe to

142

stovell

you, Assyria, who conceal the unrighteous in your midst! O wicked nation, remember what I did to Sodom and Gomorrah, [9] whose land lies in lumps of pitch and heaps of ashes. So will I do to those who have not listened to me, says the Lord Almighty.” [10] Thus says the Lord to Ezra: “Tell my people that I will give them the kingdom of Jerusalem, which I was going to give to Israel. [11] Moreover, I will take back to myself their glory, and will give to these others the everlasting habitations, which I had prepared for Israel. [12] The tree of life shall give them fragrant perfume, and they shall neither toil nor become weary.13 [13] Ask and you will receive; pray that your days may be few, that they may be shortened. The kingdom is already prepared for you; watch! [14] Call, O call heaven and earth to witness, for I left out evil and created good, because I live,” says the Lord. [15] “Mother, embrace your sons; bring them up with gladness, as does the dove; establish their feet, because I have chosen you,” says the Lord. [16] “And I will raise up the dead from their places, and will bring them out from their tombs, because I recognize my name in them. [17] Do not fear, mother of sons, for I have chosen you,” says the Lord.14 The prologue to 4Ezra in chapters 1–2 locates the call of Ezra in a broader picture of God who led his people out of bondage in Egypt (1:1–23) and God as the giver of the prophets to the people (1:24–40). 4 Ezra 1 includes a call to the people that depicts the Lord like “a father entreats his sons” and like “a mother [who entreats] her daughters,” that the people would acknowledge God as their “father” (1:28–30).15 Then this vision of God’s parenting turns to the people of Israel themselves as parents focusing on their sons and children (“your sons” (1:34) “whose children” (1:37)) and calling Ezra “father” in 1:38 and subsequently Israel “mother” in 2:1. Thus, while God is pictured as the Great Father and Mother to the people, the Lord calls the people of Israel to act as mothers and fathers to their children. The reference to the tree of life in 4 Ezra 2:12 comes in the midst of a word from the Lord regarding the people’s lack of attention to the Lord’s commandments and council (2:1). Despite being people who the Lord redeemed from bondage, Mother Israel who bore them is now a widow and forsaken (2:1–2, 4). Her status as widow and forsaken plays such a

13 14 15

It is possible that this is a reference to Isaiah 61. Similarly, the absence of toil is depicted in Isaiah 55’s depiction of God’s abundance (water and food without payment). Metzger, “Fourth Book of Ezra,” OTP 1:526–527. For more on motherhood imagery in 4 Ezra generally, see Hogan, “Mother Earth as a Conceptual Metaphor in 4 Ezra,” 72–91.

the tree of life in ancient apocalypse

143

key role in the passage that it is re-iterated twice in 2:2 and 2:4.16 As 2:1–9 represents a move toward destruction of those who have not listened to the Lord Almighty, 2:10 represents a shift when the Lord gives a new word to Ezra. The Lord’s new word is a word of hope for believers who have now taken the place of Israel. 4Ezra 2:10–14 depicts the hope of a reversal of fortunes. The Lord will give the kingdom of Jerusalem to those who have listened to him. Now “my people” refers to Christians in v. 10. They will receive the promises intended for Israel: the kingdom of Jerusalem, their glory, their everlasting habitations.17 Here in this transfer of Israel’s promises sits the tree of life. The tree of life shall give these people of God “fragrant perfume” and, as before the curse, they will no longer “toil nor become weary.”18 The believers are encouraged in words similar to those of Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel (Matt 25:34) to ask and they will receive, praying for only a few short days until this paradise is granted to them. The heavens and earth called to witness against Israel now become witness of the Lord’s removal of evil and creation of good. This is based on the Lord as the one who lives (2:14). Notably, mothers play a key role in 4Ezra 2’s depiction of the tree of life. Yet there is a tension implicit in this mothering because of the threat of evil ever-present in the passage. One might expect that as the audience has shifted from the mothers of Israel to the believers in the Lord (Christians), this mother metaphor would be at its end. But the figure “Mother” is addressed again in 2:15. The language of gladness lost in 2:3 is now returned in 2:15. Pictures of resurrection are aligned with pictures of death and loss. Here the tree of life is characterized not by its relationship to paradise or to judgment particularly, but to its ability to produce fragrance like a perfume (2:12). However, notably, the link to paradise and the curse being undone is also present in the next parallel verse: “they shall neither toil or become weary” (2:13). The undoing of toil undoes the promise of the curse against men who will toil for their food (Gen 3:17–19). The theme of mothering and how these children are 16 17

18

While “Mother” may refer to Israel in 2:1–4, Metzger argues that “Mother” probably refers to the Church in v. 15. See Metzger, “Fourth Book of Ezra,” OTP 1:527, footnote d. Scholars have noted the supersessionist tendencies in 4Ezra and the Christian supersessionism in 4 Ezra 2. See Lorenzo DiTommaso, “Penitential Prayer and Apocalyptic Eschatology in Second Temple Judaism,” in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday, ed. Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen, STDJ 98 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 132–133 and Metzger, “Fourth Book of Ezra,” OTP 1:517. Lanfer explores the reception of Gen 3:22–24 using 4Ezra 2. He builds on Carr’s exploration of the overturning of the curse by positive understandings of work that do not see work as toil or weariness, but instead as redeemed action, comparable to Eccl 3:9–22 and Ps 104:13–15. See Lanfer, Remembering Eden, 86–87.

144

stovell

mothered found in vv. 3 and 15 becomes central as the author uses the same phrase of the mother “bring[ing] them up with gladness.” Yet in v. 3, the result is loss and mourning, while in v. 15 the result is changed to a positive as the Lord raises up those children who have previously died and recognizes their place as chosen ones. Verse 17 emphasizes that there is no need for fear for the mother, because she has been chosen alongside her children. While Karina Martin Hogan does not place this particular passage within the larger trajectory of maternal metaphors, most likely due to its late addition to the main text of 4 Ezra, nonetheless, this passage may be added in part because it fits within this larger trajectory of maternal and birthing metaphors found throughout 4 Ezra (as demonstrated by Hogan).19

3

The Tree of Life in Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 2 and 5

The second text to examine is Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 2.11–14, 5.21. Dated somewhere between 150–850CE, this manuscript shows signs of incorporating Jewish and Christian sources into the final Christian composition. This is especially noticeable in chapters like the one under our examination, Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 4–5. It is not surprising to find similarities between 4 Ezra and the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra as the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra is a Christian apocalypse based on 4Ezra. Because these texts have an element of dependence, it is important to identify points of continuity and change from 4 Ezra to the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra in relation to their interpretation of the tree of life.20 As Michael Stone notes, while the relationship between 4 Ezra and the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra is “intimate,” and topics from 4 Ezra are treated in the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra often “treats or expresses” these topics “differently.”21 Besides 4Ezra, there are other Christian compositions that have a relationship with this writing including the Syriac Apocalypse of Ezra, the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Ezra, the Visio Beati Esdrae (“The Blessed Vision of Ezra”), Revelatio Esdras de qualitatibus anni (“The Revelation of Ezra concerning the Characteristics of the Year”), a Greek calendar attributed to Ezra, and notably for our study, 4Ezra 1–2 and 15–16 found only in

19 20

21

See Hogan, “Mother Earth as a Conceptual Metaphor in 4Ezra,” 72–91. For more on the interdependence of 4 Ezra and the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, see Michael E. Stone, “The Metamorphosis of Ezra: Jewish Apocalypse and Medieval Vision,” in Selected Studies in Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha: With Special Reference to the Armenian Tradition, ed. Michael E. Stone, SVTP 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 359–376. Stone, “Greek Apocalypse of Ezra,” OTP 1:569.

the tree of life in ancient apocalypse

145

the Latin Vulgate as well as similarities shared with the Apocalypse of Sedrach. As both 4Ezra 2 and the Apocalypse of Sedrach figure into our study of the tree of life motif in ancient apocalyptic literature, an awareness of their links to the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra is helpful.22 3.1 Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 2 The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 1 begins with a statement regarding the date and time that Ezra received his visions from the Lord after fasting and praying. In these visions Ezra is taken up into the heavens, the Lord reveals to Ezra his plans, and Ezra intercedes on behalf of sinners and learns of God’s desire to reward the righteous. The text of the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 1:12–24 provides a helpful grounding for the conversation about the tree of life in chapter 2 because it introduces the notion of rest for the righteous in paradise in relation to birth imagery. Gk. Apoc. Ezra 1:12 And God said: “I will give rest to the righteous in Paradise, and I am merciful.” 13 And Ezra said: “Lord, why do you show favor to the righteous? 14 For as a hired man completes his time of service and goes away, and again a slave serves his masters in order to receive his wage, thus the righteous man receives his reward in the heavens. 15 But have mercy upon the sinners, for we know that you are merciful.” 16 And God said: “I have no way to be merciful to them.” 17 And Ezra said: “(Be merciful) because they cannot sustain your anger.” 18 And God said: “(I am wrathful) because such (are the deserts) of such (men) as these.” 19 And God said: “I wish to have you as both Paul and John. 20 You have given me uncorrupted the inviolate treasury, the treasure of virginity, the wall of men.” 21 And Ezra said: “It were better if man were not born; it were well if he were not alive. 22 The dumb beasts are a better thing than man for they do not have punishment. 23 [You to]ok23 us and delivered us to judgment. 24 Woe to the sinners in the world to come for their condemnation is endless, and the flame unquenched.” 2:1 As I said this to him, Michael and Gabriel, and all the apostles came and said: “Greetings!” 2 [And Ezra said, Faithful man of God!] 3 Arise, and 22

23

Stone provides a helpful discussion of these other texts. See Stone “Greek Apocalypse of Ezra” on “Historical Importance and Literary Implications,” OTP 1:563. See also S. Agourides “Apocalypse of Sedrach,” OTP 607. Stone notes that “in Gk. only the beginning of the word is preserved by the MS and the restoration is uncertain.” Stone, “Greek Apocalypse of Ezra,” OTP 1:572, footnote 1.s.

146

stovell

come hither with me, O Lord, to judgment. 4 And God said: “Behold, I am giving you my covenant both mine and yours, so that you will accept it.” 5 And Ezra said: “We shall plead our case in your ear(s).” 6 And God said: “Ask Abraham your father what kind of a son presses suit against his father, and come and plead the case with us.” 7 And Ezra said: “As the Lord lives, I will never cease pleading the case with your account of the Christian people. 8 Where are your former mercies, O Lord? Where your long-suffering?” 9 And God said: “As I made night and day, I made the righteous and the sinner; and it were fitting to conduct yourself like the righteous man.” 10 And the prophet said: “Who made Adam, the protoplast, the first one?” 11 And God said: “My immaculate hands. And I placed him in Paradise to guard the region of the tree of life; 12 … Since he who established disobedience made this (man) sin.” 13 And the prophet said: “Was he not guarded by an angel? 14 And was life not preserved (by) the cherubim for the endless age? 15 And how was he deceived who was guarded by angels whom you commanded to be present whatever happened? Attend also to what to that which I say! 16 If you had not given him Eve, the serpent would never have deceived her. 17 If you save when you wish you will also destroy whom you wish.”24 Several key elements arise from this passage that overlap with 4 Ezra. These elements include: the nature of pleading of Ezra, the request for mercy/compassion, the insistence of God that his role as Creator is what determines his ability to judge. Yet we also find extrapolations on the idea of creation. God’s creation of Adam the protoplast, the first one, happens with “immaculate hands” and is set in contrast to Adam’s disobedience. The Gk. Apoc. Ezra 2 mentions Eve in similar ways to other references to Eve and mothers elsewhere in these apocalyptic texts, but here it is associated closely with Adam’s disobedience and judgment. The Gk. Apoc. Ezra makes several interesting adjustments from the Genesis text that are different from 4Ezra. The Gk. Apoc. Ezra describes Adam as the guard for the tree of life. It is unclear whether the tree of life and tree of the knowledge of good and evil are conflated as one tree here, but this may be the case. The Gk. Apoc. Ezra also adds angels as guardians of Adam in the garden, a detail which is not evidenced in the Genesis text. In terms of understanding the tree of life as a symbol in this text, it seems that Gk. Apoc. Ezra 2 primarily depicts the tree of life as a space in paradise,

24

Stone, “Greek Apocalypse of Ezra,” OTP 1:571–573.

the tree of life in ancient apocalypse

147

with Adam intended as the guard. Despite God making Adam with hands characterized for their purity (“immaculate”), Adam is characterized by his disobedience and likewise Eve is depicted in terms of disobedience as well at the close of the section (Ezra blames Eve in v. 17, while God appears to blame Adam in v. 13). Even God’s guardianship of Adam via angels could not keep Adam from this disobedience, which then seems to shape the judgment of all humankind as the rest of the section continues. Here the tree of life functions as part of God’s argument against Ezra to explain God’s reason for judging human beings. Ezra uses God’s response to point to a broader picture of judgment with the hope for God’s mercy. 3.2 Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 5 The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 5 shows marked similarities to 4 Ezra 8. Yet one of the major issues with discussing Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 5 is its compositional nature where Ezra flits between Paradise and Tartarus with little transitional clarity.25 Stone argues that 5:20–23 may have been an original fragment that was then linked together with other fragments to create its current form. Stone finds further credence to this theory because of the comparison between these sections with the Vision of Ezra (Visio Beati Esdrae) which shows similarities to the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, but notable differences on its depictions of Paradise (among other themes).26 Our analysis shows not only the shifts in the Gk. Apoc. Ezra’s depiction of Paradise, but also how the text adjusts surrounding themes related to birth/creation and farming/agricultural metaphors. Gk. Apoc. Ezra 5:1 And the prophet said: “Pity, O Lord, the race of Christians.” 2 And I saw a woman suspended and four wild beasts sucking upon her breasts. 3 And the angels said to me: “She begrudged giving her milk, but also cast infants into the rivers.” 4 And I saw terrible darkness, and night without stars or moon. 5 There is neither young nor old, neither brother with brother, nor mother with child, nor wife with husband. 6 And I wept, and said: “O Lord, Lord, have mercy upon the sinners.” 7 And as I said these things a cloud came and seized me, and took me up again to the heavens. 8 And I saw there many judgments; and I wept bitterly, and I said: 9 “It were better if man did not come out of his mother’s belly.” 10 Those who were in punishment cried out, saying: “Since you 25

26

Stone notes the complexity of the diverse compositions creating textual issues with reading location in the passage. See Stone “Greek Apocalypse of Ezra,” on “Composition,” OTP 1:562. See Stone “Greek Apocalypse of Ezra,” on “Composition,” OTP 1:562.

148

stovell

came here, holy one of God, we have obtained a slight respite.” 11 And the prophet said: “Blessed are they who bewail their sins.” 12 And God said: “Hear, Ezra, beloved one. Just as a farmer casts down the seed of corn into the earth, so a man casts his seed into woman’s place. 13 In the first (month) it is whole; the second it is swollen; the third it grows hair; the fourth it grows nails; the fifth it becomes milky; in the sixth it is ready and quickened; in the seventh it is prepared; [in the eight …], in the ninth the bars of the gateway of the woman are opened and it is born healthy on the earth.” 14 And the prophet said: “Lord, it were better for man not to have been born. 15 Alas, O human race, at that time when you come to judgment!” 16 And I said to the Lord: “Lord, why did you create man and give him over to judgment?” 17 And God said, in his exalted pronouncement: “I will not pardon those who transgress my covenant.” 18 And the prophet said: “Lord, where is your goodness?” 19 And God said: “I have prepared everything because of man, and man does not keep my commandments.” 20 And the prophet said: “Lord, reveal to me the punishments and Paradise.” 21 And the angels led me away to the east, and I saw the tree of life. 22 And I saw there Enoch, and Elijah, and Moses, and Peter, and Paul, and Luke, and Matthew, and all the righteous, and the patriarchs. 23 And I saw there the [punishment] of the air, and the blowing of the winds, and the storehouses of the ice, and the eternal punishments. 24 And I saw there a man hanging by his skull. 25 And they said to me: “This one transferred boundaries.” 26 And there I saw great judgments and said to the Lord: “O Lord, Lord, and which of men, man, having been born did not sin?” 27 And they took me farther down in Tartarus, and I saw all the sinners lamenting and weeping and evil mourning. 28 And I too wept, seeing the race of men punished thus.27 As was noted above, Gk. Apoc. Ezra 2 provides a negative depiction of the mother of all, Eve, and from Ezra’s perspective, blames Eve for the sin of mankind. Gk. Apoc. Ezra 5 similarly represents a symbolic woman figure in a negative vision as one who reluctantly nurses and casts infants into the rivers (5:2–3). She becomes a sign of a time of utter betrayal and the severing of all kinds of human relationships (v. 4). Yet this feminine language of breasts and

27

See Stone “Greek Apocalypse of Ezra,” OTP 1:576–577.

the tree of life in ancient apocalypse

149

the birthing female body also prepares the rest of the passage for a series of other images associated with birth. Ezra states repeatedly that “it were better if man did not come out of his mother’s belly” (v. 9, cf. v. 14). Here the space of birth becomes tainted by the experience of judgment against mankind. Links are also drawn between growing agricultural bounty and female bodies growing babies (seed/seed in v. 12), providing a link between creation/birth and the agricultural language associated with the same metaphorical framing as the tree of life. While 4Ezra 8 similarly depicts agricultural language of the farmer simile alongside creation imagery, the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 5 makes the links between agricultural and feminine conception and birthing imagery more explicit. After this depiction the prophet repeats “it were better that man not have been born.” This is then linked to the idea that human beings were created by God and yet delivered to judgment. This question is brought before the Lord: why create and then deliver to judgment? As in some of the other apocalypses, the prophet is taken to see the judgments for the righteous and the wicked. In this case, the two locations are Paradise and Tartarus. The long list of names of those the prophet sees in Paradise is notable in contrast to the lack of names in Tartarus. In Paradise the prophet lists seeing “Enoch, and Elias, and Moses, and Peter, and Paul, and Luke, and Matthew, and all the righteous, and the patriarchs.” In comparison, names are not given when the prophet is taken down to Tartarus; instead there is the depiction of one man who is hanging by his skull and all the rest are grouped under “all the sinners” who are found “lamenting and weeping, and evil mourning” (v. 27). Yet this may be because of the more ample depiction of Tartarus in Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 4. Verse 23 demonstrates a unique addition to Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 5 in its depiction of Tartarus in terms of meteorological imagery. Unlike Paradise, which Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 5 characterizes with minimal description, only as the place of the tree of life, Gk. Apoc. Ezra 4–5 and 5:23 depicts Tartarus more extensively in both chapters, describing it as a place where punishments are divided in the air, and where “blowing of the winds and the storehouses of the ice”28 characterize aspects of “the eternal punishments.”29 Yet this use of 28

29

Treasuries of snow, and storehouses of ice and wind are part of 2Enoch’s vision of the heavenly realm. Here it appears that Gk. Apoc. Ezra 5:23 views these same elements in terms of punishment. See 2 En. 40:10–11. For further comparison, see Richard Bauckham, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov, eds., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 1:730, footnote d. See Michael Stone’s comparison between 4 Ezra, Visio Beati Esdrae, and Greek Apocalypse of Ezra in terms of descriptions of Paradise and Tartarus in Stone, “Metamorphosis of Ezra,” 364.

150

stovell

natural imagery to describe Tartarus provides a contrast to the natural imagery of the tree of life in Paradise. Thus, as in 4Ezra, the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra locates the tree of life as a symbol of Paradise placed amidst the revelation of rewards and punishments to Ezra as he argues for the Lord’s compassion. In both cases, creational and birthing/feminine language are used to discuss these visions alongside agricultural metaphors. In both cases, a strong contrast is made between the experiences of paradise compared to the experiences of the damned. Yet the Greek Apocalypse intensifies the links between agricultural and creational/birthing imagery, points to Tartarus as the location for the damned, and depicts Paradise in terms of the many specific figures of the past who inhabit it and the meteorological conditions found in Paradise.

4

Tree of Life in Apocalypse of Sedrach 4

The third text to examine is the Apocalypse of Sedrach. The Apocalypse of Sedrach has been dated between the 2nd to 5th century CE,30 but may be joined in its final form as late as sometime after 1000 CE. Some scholars have argued that there is some relationship between the Apocalypse of Sedrach and 4 Ezra and the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra.31 Stone has gone as far as to describe this relationship as “the third member of this trio of writings” concerning Ezra.32 Stone argues this by way of a similarity in Greek naming (Esdras as Greek for Sedrach) and similarities in the Greek text particularly between Apoc. Sedr. 8 and 4Ezra 4:5–9 and 5:35–38.33 If Stone is correct, this would explain elements of similarity found around the concept of the tree of life in these various texts. As noted below, many see this particular interchange between God and Sedrach as building on aspects of 4Ezra. Similar to 4 Ezra, the tree of life in Apocalypse of Sedrach 4 is associated with God’s role as creator. Unlike 4 Ezra, the Apocalypse of Sedrach 4 does not depict the tree of life imagery alongside God’s creation of the world as deeply with maternal imagery, but this maternal

30 31

32 33

Agourides “Apocalypse of Sedrach,” OTP 1:605. Besides the links to 4 Ezra and the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, scholars have also explored how the Apocalypse of Sedrach is related to the Parables of Enoch and in turn to the Synoptic Gospels. See Leslie Walck, “The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels,” in Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift, ed. Darrell Bock and James H. Charlesworth, Jewish and Christian Texts 11 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013), 247. Stone, “Metamorphosis of Ezra,” 364. Stone, “Metamorphosis of Ezra,” 364.

the tree of life in ancient apocalypse

151

imagery reappears in Apocalypse of Sedrach 7 and 9 to describe the creation of Eve alongside Adam (7:6–9) and to speak of Sedrach’s placement in paradise as similar to the Father’s placement of Sedrach in his mother’s womb (9:2–3). Like the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, God’s purity in his creation contrasts with Adam’s disobedience in Apoc. Sedr. 4 in near proximity to the language of the tree of life. Reference to the tree of life in the Apoc. Sedr. 4 comes amidst a dialogue between Sedrach and God about the suit that Sedrach has against God that begins in Apoc. Sedr. 2:2. This dialogue is grounded in God’s role as creator of the earth and creator of Sedrach in Apoc. Sedr. 3. This suit quickly turns into a conversation about why God made the earth, including the sea and “every good thing on the earth” (3:6). This leads the Lord to respond that the purpose of the creation of the earth was for humankind. Moreover, the Lord asserts that his discipline is based on his creation, stating: “Man is my work and the creature of my hands, and I discipline him as I find it right” (3:8). In other words, it is God’s right to discipline humanity as he sees fit because he is their creator. This assertion provides the foundation for the discussion of punishment and the tree of life imagery described in Apoc. Sedr. 4. Apocalypse of Sedrach 4:1 Sedrach said to him, “Your discipline is punishment and fire; and they are very bitter, my Lord. 2 It would be better for man if he were not born. 3 Indeed, what have you done, my Lord; for what reason did you labor with your spotless hands and create man, since you did not desire to have mercy upon him?” 4 God said to him, “I created the first man, Adam, and placed him in Paradise in the midst of (which is) the tree of life, and I said to him, ‘Eat of all the fruit, only beware of the tree of life, for if you eat from it you will surely die.’ 5 However, he disobeyed my commandment and having been deceived by the devil he ate from the tree.”34 Apoc. Sedr. 4 begins as Sedrach asks about the harshness of the Lord’s punishment against human beings (4:1). As we find in the Gr. Apoc. Ezra 5, Apoc. Sedr. 4:2 states that, based on the harshness of God’s punishment, “it would be better for man if he were not born.” Similar to other ancient apocalypses studied above, Sedrach uses the notion of God’s “spotless hands” (4:3). Scholars have noted that Apocalypse of Sedrach appears to be building on 4 Ezra for this ref-

34

This section references the translation of Agourides “Apocalypse of Sedrach,” OTP 1:607– 611.

152

stovell

erence.35 The Apocalypse of Sedrach 3:4–5 tells us that creation was made for the purpose of mankind and 4:3 links God’s spotless hands with God’s act of creation. Not only does God create with “spotless hands,” but he places Adam in Paradise in the midst of the tree of life. Thus, God’s spotless hands in creation are linked to God’s placement of Adam in Paradise with the tree of life. The link between God’s purity is intensified when contrasted with Adam’s disobedience. Where God is spotless and pure in his creation, Adam’s disobedience mars this purity. While Apoc. Sedr. 4 is similar to the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 2 in this linking of God’s purity in creation with the tree of life imagery, it moves in a new direction in its conflation of the two trees in the garden of Eden. Reference to the tree of life in Apoc. Sedr. 4:4 retells the story of Genesis without distinguishing between the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as Genesis 2:9 does. By conflating the tree of life with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the Apocalypse of Sedrach locates the punishment for eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil with the tree of life. This heightens the impact of the tree of life as a decisive tree for punishment or reward. In this case, the emphasis is on the accusation against Adam for eating from the tree of life.36 Thus, the Apocalypse of Sedrach’s use of the tree of life emphasizes both the use of the tree by Adam as disobedience to the Lord, but this disobedience is placed in the wider context of God’s spotless hands creating humanity. The conflation of the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil adjusts the original story in Genesis by shifting the two trees into one, heightening Adam’s disobedience. If the tree of life is thereby more directly associated with Adam’s disobedience, this may intensify the difference between God’s purity in his act of creation to Adam’s impurity in his disobedience. While the Apocalypse of Sedrach 4 provides only a small link between maternal images and the tree of life imagery (as it questions whether humanity should have been born at all in 4:2), Apocalypse of Sedrach 7 and 9 speak of two maternal figures in similar ways to other apocalypses: the creation of Eve in 7:6–9 and the mother of the prophet and her womb in 9:3. Similar to the Gk.

35 36

Agourides notes this in the marginalia. See Agourides “Apocalypse of Sedrach,” OTP 1:610. Several scholars have pointed to the way in which themes of purity were overlaid on themes of the Edenic garden in Second Temple Judaism. See “The Purified Garden” in Lanfer, Remembering Eden, 139–140, and James Baumgarten, “Purification after Childbirth and the Sacred Garden in 4Q265 and Jubilees,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris, 1992, ed. G.J. Brooke and Florentino García Martínez, STDJ 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 3–10.

the tree of life in ancient apocalypse

153

Apoc. Ezra 2, the creation of Eve is part of this overall dialogue between the prophet and God regarding eternal punishment and God’s choice of creation. Whereas Ezra identifies Eve as integral to the sin in the Garden in Gk. Apoc. Ezra 2:16, Apocalypse of Sedrach 7:6–9 instead focuses on the beauty of the “wife of Adam” who “was brighter than the moon in beauty”37 and questions the use of these “beautiful things” if “they wither away to dust.” This depiction of Eve undergirds Sedrach’s questions of God’s harsh punishment. In God’s response to Sedrach in Apoc. Sedr. 8, God speaks of knowing the birth of all who have been born to speak of his love for humanity similar to other apocalypses that emphasize God’s compassion such as 4 Ezra.38 When God speaks to “his only begotten Son,” God asks for Sedrach to be “put in Paradise.” In turn, the Son asks for Sedrach’s soul using the maternal language similar to other apocalypses. He describes the soul as that which “our Father deposited in the womb of your mother in your holy dwelling place since you were born” (9:2). Again, we find that paradise and the womb of the mother are closely linked to one another. The Apocalypse of Sedrach 9 may hint at why this association is made: the soul is understood as placed in the womb and therefore the soul’s journey to paradise moves from the first place of life (the womb) to the other first place of life (the Garden/Paradise). If we read the tree of life imagery in Apoc. Sedr. 4 in light of Apoc. Sedr. 7 and 9, we may argue that maternal themes associated with creation and paradise inform the statements about birth in Apoc. Sedr. 4 in association with the tree of life. The goodness of God’s creation impacts God’s ability to judge his creation, but Sedrach questions whether birth itself is good if such creation comes with such severe punishment. The disobedience of Adam looms in contrast to God’s spotless creation, making an abiding inconsistency. The picture of Eve’s temporary beauty, which withers like a plant turning to dust, questions God’s goodness in his creation, while the Son’s response offering to bring to paradise Sedrach’s soul links the place of Sedrach’s soul in his mother’s womb to God’s holy dwelling place in paradise. Creation, birth, life, death, and judgement sit precariously beside each other throughout this debate between God and Sedrach, impacting how the tree of life and images of paradise are understood.

37

38

The wife of Adam is also described as giving life to the moon in a similar way to the sun and Adam being “of the same character” in Apoc. Sedr. 7:7–8. Agourides argues that this comparison between Adam and Eve and the sun and moon is “typically Jewish,” but does not provide additional evidence for the provenance of such themes elsewhere in Jewish thought. See Agourides, “Apocalypse of Sedrach,” OTP 1:606. Scholars have noted links between 4 Ezra and Apocalypse of Sedrach 8. See Stone, “Metamorphosis of Ezra,” 364.

154 5

stovell

The Tree of Life in Apocalypse of Elijah 5

The final text to examine is Apoc. El. (C) 5:6 in its wider context of Apoc. El. (C) 5:1–6. This passage is greatly influenced by Isaiah and Revelation, which may in turn impact its particular use of the tree of life. Wintermute has acknowledged the complexity of Apocalypse of Elijah 5 particularly as it seems to interweave Jewish and Christian sources with “two slightly different versions of the salvation of the saints.”39 This impacts the overall dating of the Apocalypse ranging between the 1st and 4th century CE. On the one hand, the text focuses in some sections on eschatological events that will occur in Jerusalem, while other aspects of the text reflect the Egypt Christianity that established the Coptic version of the text at a later stage.40 Scholars have argued that the text represents at least in its later stages a unique perspective on Elijah representing Egyptian Christianity41 and additional work has been done on how the Apocalypse of Elijah fits into the larger trajectories of the Elijah tradition flowing into the New Testament and beyond.42 Part of the embedded Jewish apocalyptic thought in chapter 5 is the concept of “on that day,” a similar phrase to the ones used in the “Day of the Lord” imagery found in much of biblical prophetic literature and particularly in the later portions of the Book of the Twelve Prophets.43 Apocalypse of Elijah 5 contains a series of oracles about this coming “day” and the events that would occur. The imagery of the tree of life in Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah sits in a key part of the Apocalypse’s overall narrative. Apocalypse of Elijah 5 begins with people fleeing from the Antichrist (5:1). The rest of Apocalypse of Elijah 5 divides judg-

39 40 41 42

43

O.S. Wintermute, “Apocalypse of Elijah,” OTP 1:726. Scholars debate to what degree an earlier version of this text existed in a prior form in Greek or even Hebrew. See Wintermute, “Original Language,” OTP 1:729–730. David Frankfurter, Elijah in Upper Egypt: The Apocalypse of Elijah and Early Egyptian Christianity, SAC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). See Hermann Gunkel, Elijah, Yahweh, and Baal, trans. K.C. Hanson (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2014), 69 and Richard Bauckham, “Enoch and Elijah in the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah,” in The Jewish World around the New Testament, ed. Richard Bauckham, WUNT 233 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 27–38. For more on the Day of the Lord, see James Nogalski, “The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart, BZAW 325 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 200–204; Rolf Rendtorff, “Alas for the Day! The ‘Day of the Lord’ in the Book of the Twelve,” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann, ed. Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. Beal (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 187– 197; and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers, and Apocalyptic, OtSt 35 (Leiden: Brill, 1996).

the tree of life in ancient apocalypse

155

ment into two sides: the response to the righteous (5:2–6) and the response to those who followed the Antichrist (5:7–14). Apocalypse of Elijah 5:1: And on that day the heart of many will harden against him [the Antichrist] and they will flee from him, saying, “This is not the Christ. The Christ does not kill the righteous. He does not pursue men so that he might seek them, but he persuades them with signs and wonders.” 2 On that day, the Christ will pity those who are his own. And he will send from heaven, his sixty-four thousand angels, each of whom has six wings. 3 The sound will move heaven and earth when they give praise and glory. 4 Now those upon whose forehead the name of Christ is written and upon whose hand is the seal, both the small and the great, will be taken up upon their wings and lifted up before his wrath. 5 Then Gabriel and Uriel will become a pillar of light leading them into the holy land. 6 It will be granted to them to eat from the tree of life. They will wear white garments … and angels will watch over them. They will not thirst, nor will the son of lawlessness be able to prevail over them. 7 And on that day the earth will be disturbed, and the sun will darken, and peace will be removed from the earth. 8 The birds will fall on the earth, dead. 9 The earth will be dry. The waters of the sea will dry up. 10 The sinners will groan upon the earth saying “What have you done to us, O son of lawlessness, saying I am the Christ, when you are the devil? 11 You are unable to save yourself so that you might save us. You produced signs in our presence until you alienated us from the Christ who created us. Woe to us because we listened to you. Lo now we will die in famine. Where indeed is now the trace of a righteous one and we will worship him. 13 Now indeed we will be wrathfully destroyed because we disobeyed God. 14 We went to the deep places of the sea and we did not find water. We dug in the rivers and papyrus reeds, and we did not find water.”44 Similar to many of our other apocalypses, in the Apocalypse of Elijah the tree of life is linked to a reward for the righteous. Here God provides this reward in the heavenly realms as Christ’s angels and/or Gabriel and Uriel take the righteous into the heavens.45 In contrast, cataclysmic events occur to those who 44 45

O.S. Wintermute, “Apocalypse of Elijah,” OTP 1:750–751. This double set of people present is often described as one of the examples of potential Jewish and Christian versions of the same text intertwined. The presence of Gabriel, Uriel,

156

stovell

have followed the Antichrist and proven themselves to be disobedient to God. Similar to the other apocalypses we have examined, which focus on God as Creator, the Apocalypse of Elijah describes these disobedient ones in terms of their alienation from the God who created them. Yet the Apocalypse of Elijah puts a uniquely Christian spin on this theme by focusing on Christ’s act of creation rather than the actions of God (5:11). In the Apocalypse of Elijah, the timing of the righteous being lifted up before utter destruction overtakes the unrighteous also bears a striking resemblance to other apocalyptic texts (5:11; cf. 4 Ezra 8:19–36). While a woman does play a key role in Apocalypse of Elijah as in the other apocalypses under our examination, the figure Tabitha in the Apocalypse of Elijah is explicitly a virgin who becomes healing to the people (4:1, 4–6) rather than the maternal figures found in association with the tree of life imagery in other apocalyptic texts. This marks a difference between the Apocalypse of Elijah and the other apocalyptic texts examined thus far. Yet the themes of creation, purity, and judgment found in other apocalyptic literature resonate in the Apocalypse of Elijah in association with the tree of life imagery.

6

Metaphorical Networks for the Tree of Life in Ancient Apocalypse

Moving from a close examination of the apocalyptic texts themselves, this section will explore how the creational/paradisal networks, purity/impurity networks, and birthing/mothering networks present in the text relate to the conception of the tree of life specifically. But first, we must examine the grounding of the “tree of life” as a functional metaphor with two key parts in itself: as “tree” and “life” as well as a “tree of life.” This metaphor itself functions as a dual network for metaphorical production, at times leaning towards the “tree” side of the metaphor and at other times leaning towards the “life” side of the metaphor. 6.1 “Tree of Life” as a Dual Network Conceptual theories of metaphor demonstrate that networks form from initial concepts into other related concepts. In the case of the “tree of life,” this is complicated by the fact that while “tree” and “life” can both function as dual means to form networks, the primary construction of this concept involves and Elijah in paradise demonstrates overlapping imagery with other ancient apocalypses including 1 En. 20:7 and Gk. Apoc. Ezra 5:22. See Edwin O. James, The Tree of Life: An Archaeological Study, SHR 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 76–77.

the tree of life in ancient apocalypse

157

both “tree” and “life” to direct a reader/hearer towards the “tree of life” as the specific tree mentioned in Genesis and elsewhere in biblical accounts. This means that “tree of life” has three ways to create networks: via “tree,” via “life,” and via “tree of life.” As a “tree” metaphor, the “tree of life” metaphor sits within the realm of agricultural metaphors joining itself with ideas such as seeds, planting, farming, and roots. Such language was present in our examination of 4 Ezra 8 and Gk. Apoc. Ezra 5. Meanwhile, as a “life” metaphor, the “tree of life” metaphor is commonly associated with aspects of creation, birth, and children (e.g., 4Ezra 8; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 5; Apoc. Sedr. 3–4, 7, 9; Apoc. El. (C) 5). Yet notably in some of our ancient apocalypses discussed above, these very agricultural metaphors and birthing/creational metaphors show conceptual overlap in the texts themselves via seed language. Such association between seed as agricultural metaphor and seed as birthing metaphor were found in our examination of Gk. Apoc. Ezra 5. Thus, the dual metaphorical components of the tree of life can form dual metaphorical concepts of agricultural and creational/birthing metaphors. 6.2 Creational/Paradisal/Purity Networks Throughout our examination of these ancient apocalypses, several core conceptions arose including: God as creator (as well as related pictures associated with mothering, birth, and Eve); an extension of God’s creation in terms of his pure hands (whether spotless or immaculate); and associations with Paradise as reward and death/Tartarus as judgment. Exploring the paradisal networks associated with the tree of life locates these ancient apocalypses in relation to Genesis and, where paradisal scenes are associated with judgment, with writings such as John’s Apocalypse. Elsewhere scholars have marked a shift in the reception of Genesis in the Second Temple period and in later Christian apocalypses. Edenic imagery in Genesis moves to depictions of temple imagery in the Second Temple literature when associated with the purity of the garden and temple. This shift flowed from prophetic literature such as Ezekiel’s revisions of the temple built on allusions to Genesis. This association between the temple purity and garden Paradisal imagery in turn impacted apocalyptic texts. These apocalyptic texts, like John’s Apocalypse, envision an end-time for Jerusalem as a garden city with elements of the temple, which include depictions of purity.46 In other apocalyptic writings like those examined in this paper, this leads to visions of Paradise in terms of a similar garden, temple, and cultic imagery of purity in contrast to visions

46

Lanfer, Remembering Eden.

158

stovell

of death/Tartarus/Hades. In these apocalyptic texts, the judgment that sinners receive contrasts directly the positive reward the righteous receive in paradise (e.g., 4Ezra; Greek Apocalypse of Ezra). Judgments against disobedience and impurity play a key role in contrasting the righteous who receive the tree of life in paradise from sinners who receive ultimate punishment. In the apocalypses studied in this chapter sometimes the tree of life plays a role in determining this judgment. For example, the tree of life is not guarded by Adam in Gk. Apoc. Ezra 2 and eaten against God’s warnings in Apoc. Sedr. 4:4 (conflating the two trees in Genesis). When discussing the dual frameworks of the “tree of life” metaphor and the combined phrase “tree of life,” the common association readers make is to Genesis (and in some cases, Revelation) with paradisal scenes and thus they associate these with positive forms of judgment. By extension, this leads to discussion of purity and impurity as God’s pure creation can result in impure creatures who do not receive paradise. Because the tree of life is first mentioned in the Hebrew Bible in the story of Genesis, the foundational creation story of Hebrew culture, it is not surprising to find creational and paradisal references in relation to pictures of the tree of life in ancient apocalypses. What is more surprising is how these creational and paradisal networks are uniquely formed in comparison to the story in Genesis. Essential to the distinction between the righteous and unrighteous is not simply a comparison between these two groups, but a comparison between God’s purity and man’s propensity to impurity. Thus, depiction of God as one with “immaculate” or “spotless” hands in Gk. Apoc. Ezra 2 and Apoc. Sedr. 4:3 emphasizes that God created in purity and is pure himself, but that human beings (via Adam) defiled the purity that God made. This is shown in Gk. Apoc. Ezra 2 where description of God’s immaculate hands is followed by extensive discussion of Adam’s sin. This defilement in turn leads to God’s judgement against humanity. Similarly, common linkages exist between Adam’s sin, judgement (Sodom and Gomorrah), eternal life/kingdom, and the tree of life in both 4 Ezra’s examples and in Gk. Apoc. Ezra. Gk. Apoc. Ezra 5:21 makes clear the joining of these two concepts: sin/judgement and paradise/tree of life/reward by the request of the prophet to reveal “the punishments and Paradise” (5:20). The Apocalypse of Elijah continues a similar theme found in the “trio of texts” connected via Ezra (4Ezra, Gk. Apoc. Ezra, Apoc. Sedr.). The Apocalypse of Elijah locates the story in more Danielic terms using the notion of “the son of lawlessness” as it explores the aftermath of the Antichrist and his followers. Like Adam’s disobedience that alienates him from the God who created him, the “son of lawlessness” alienates his followers from “the Christ who created” them (Apocalypse of Elijah 5:11). Instead of gaining the tree of life as the

the tree of life in ancient apocalypse

159

righteous do in Apocalypse of Elijah 5:6, the followers of the Antichrist will be “wrathfully destroyed” because of their disobedience to God (5:13), which is similar to those following in Adam’s disobedience in the other texts. Further, the language of God’s spotless hands in his act of creation is built on the picture of God’s hands forming Adam from the clay in Gen 2:7. This action of creation is frequently associated in these texts with other pictures of birthing language that will be discussed in more detail below. These texts emphasize the core recurring idea that the problem of disobedience and punishment is located in Adam’s actions of disobedience rather than in God’s act of creation. The exploration of humankind’s birth then becomes a repeated question that is crucial to conceptions of the tree of life. 6.3 Birthing/Mother and Agricultural Networks As noted above, the foundational conceptual grounding for the tree of life sits in both its conception as “tree” and its conception as “life.” The combined term “tree of life” is grounded in the metaphorical reception of Genesis. Thus, it should not be surprising to find that the themes of human life, its origins, its purpose, and its connection to human death would prove to be key facets in the conception of the tree of life in ancient apocalypses. As noted in our examination of each apocalypse above, birthing and mothering networks play a key role in apocalyptic passages associated with the tree of life. This section will suggest some of the implications of such birthing/mothering language for understanding the tree of life in these apocalypses. Scholars like Karina Martin Hogan have argued for the centrality of the mother metaphor in 4Ezra.47 Mother metaphors function by extension to other sets of birthing and life metaphors as mothers are commonly associated with giving birth and thereby creating life (or at least delivering it). Three of the apocalypses examined in this chapter include aspects of maternal metaphors associated with birth, life, and Eve, the mother of all life, or with creation, when they discuss the tree of life. These apocalyptic texts fit within the broader tradition of biblical literature that has extensive use of maternal metaphors to depict the fate of Israel in the Hebrew Bible and the experience of the Church in the New Testament. Further, one could similarly argue how these metaphors exist within rabbinic materials.48 47 48

Hogan, “Mother Earth as a Conceptual Metaphor in 4Ezra,” 72–91. For further exploration of this topic in the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic sources, Second Temple Judaism, and the New Testament, see Candida Moss and Joel Baden, Reconceiving Infertility: Biblical Perspectives on Procreation and Childlessness (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015); Beth M. Stovell, ed., Making Sense of Motherhood: Biblical and The-

160

stovell

One essential shared feature of the depiction of maternal figures in biblical texts is that they are often allegorically or metaphorically associated with Israel or the Church in figures like Mother Zion or they are depicted in negative terms such as the female figure of Babylon. The apocalyptic texts examined in this chapter show similar tendencies. In terms of maternal metaphors and birthing language, in 4 Ezra 8 humans are depicted as being fashioned by God and being birthed and nourished by the female bodies that God created. In 4Ezra 8 such birthing and creation is associated with God’s compassion for his people. The association between wombs and compassion is a common one in the Hebrew Bible, which in turn impacts later Jewish writings because the Hebrew words for “womb” and “compassion” use the same consonantal root.49 4Ezra 2 depicts a mother figure who represents Israel and the Church in turn (as a Jewish and Christian text). This mother figure goes through a process of loss and restoration and ultimately is provided with a picture of hope of a reward grounded in the depiction of the tree of life, which is both fragrant to God’s people, and also provides rest from their hard labor. The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 2 and 5 depicts maternal figures and birth negatively. In Gk. Apoc. Ezra 2:16–17, Ezra blames Eve for all of the problems in the world. In a similar vein to the negative depictions of the feminine figure Babylon in Revelation or Lilith in the Alphabet of Ben Sira,50 Gk. Apoc. Ezra 5:3 depicts a maternal figure who “begrudg(ing)[ly] giv[es] her milk, but also cast[s] infants into the rivers.” She is a sign of the encroaching darkness in which all relationships crumble (vv. 4–5). The negative impact of this judgement is cast in terms of a negative vision of birth (“It were better if man did not come forth from his mother’s belly,” v. 9). The Apocalypse of Sedrach 5 appears

49

50

ological Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016); Claudia D. Bergmann, Childbirth as a Metaphor for Crisis: Evidence from the Ancient Near East, the Hebrew Bible, and 1QH XI, 1–18, BZAW 382 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008); Theodore Bergren, “Mother Jerusalem, Mother Church: Desolation and Restoration in Early Jewish and Christian Literature,” in Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone, ed. Esther G. Chazon, David Satran, and Ruth Clements, JSJSup 89 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 243– 259. In her entry on “Deity: Hebrew Bible,” Peggy L. Day includes a section discussion “A compassionate womb?” where she explores these themes of wombs and compassion in light of the image of deity in the Hebrew Bible. See Peggy L. Day, “Deity: Hebrew Bible,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Gender Studies, ed. Julia M. O’Brien (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 74–80. See Alphabet of Ben Sira 78. Dated to the 8th–10th century CE, it is difficult to determine the dating of the Alphabet of Ben Sira in relation to the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, which is dated as late as the 9th century CE by some.

the tree of life in ancient apocalypse

161

to be using shared language with the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 5 as it states “It would be better for man if he were not born” (5:2) in reference to the judgment that will impact humanity. Yet its picture of Eve in the Apocalypse of Sedrach 7 emphasizes her transient beauty that questions God’s goodness in his creation and the depiction of the soul in Sedrach’s mother’s womb compares Sedrach’s future location in paradise to his primal location in his mother’s womb as two holy dwelling places of God. In each of these cases, depictions of motherhood and birth are associated with a request for God’s mercy and for an explanation for why judgment exists if God is the creator. The tree of life aspect of these texts extends the pictures of life included in the notion of motherhood and birth. 6.4 Agricultural and Maternal Metaphors While one could separate depictions of the tree of life related to agricultural metaphors from the birthing/maternal metaphors in these passages, these apocalyptic texts themselves frequently align these notions. This is primarily because one of the chief metaphors for conception in the ancient world was the idea of the “seed.” In both situations of agriculture and in situations of human conception, the initial step of conception is in the seed itself. The seed was conceived as containing the material necessary to determine what the seed produced. Thus, while modern thinkers might draw clear lines of delineation in their conceptual thinking between agricultural metaphors like roots, seeds, planting, etc. and birthing metaphors like birth pains, conception, intercourse, human fertility, etc., ancient thinkers often joined these ideas together using the notion of “seed” as the start of conception and “roots” and “branches” as metaphors for ancestors in relation to their progeny.51 We see a similar association in 4Ezra 8, which describes Israel as the “seed of Jacob (8:16),” then speaks of a farmer planting a seed in his field (vv. 41–45) and associates that with God’s act of creating and birthing his people (depicted with womb language) (vv. 46–51). This leads to the passage about the reward of paradise of the tree of life for the righteous. Similarly, Gk. Apoc. Ezra 5:12–19 provides a similar prelude to its introduction of the tree of life in vv. 20–21. The seed of the farmer is explicitly linked to the seed of human reproduction in v. 12 as the prophet and the Lord explore the relative merits of being born and the 51

Stromberg explores one such set of metaphors in his article Jake Stromberg, “The ‘Root of Jesse’ in Isaiah 11:10: Postexilic Judah, or Postexilic Davidic King?” JBL 127 (2008): 655–669. Brown provides a helpful extended conversation on tree, branch, and root metaphors in the Psalter in his chapter “The Transplanted Tree” in William P. Brown, Seeing the Psalms: A Theology of Metaphor, 1st ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 55–80.

162

stovell

ability of God, the creator, to judge among his created ones. All of these associations in turn inform how tree of life is understood in these texts. Both potential networks of agriculture and life are tapped into in these passages to describe the tree of life’s role in maintaining the life already given by God via creation and to demonstrate how the tree of life functions as a reward for those whose lives are well-lived.

7

Conclusion and Next Steps

Using the conceptual metaphor theories of Fauconnier and Turner, this chapter demonstrated that the tree of life imagery found in ancient apocalypses has shared metaphorical networks around several key themes of creation/paradise, purity/impurity, birthing/mothering, and agriculture. Further, this approach helped to identify that many of these networks of conceptual association come from the two input spaces of “tree of life” itself, at times associated more with the “tree” side of “tree of life” and other times more associated with the “life” side. Yet this chapter is only a beginning for many future scholarly conversations. For example, scholars within prophetic literature have recently explored the interrelationship between feminine birthing metaphors and agricultural metaphors in the prophetic corpus.52 It may prove helpful to explore their impact on the Jewish elements of these apocalypses as an avenue for future research. Further, this chapter only began a larger conversation around purity and impurity as related networks to paradisal and creational themes. As purity is a key theme within much apocalyptic literature, further research on how these themes develop could prove fruitful.

52

See Sharon Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel, OTM (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008); Beth M. Stovell, “‘I Will Make Her Like a Desert’: Intertextual Allusion and Feminine and Agricultural Metaphors in the Book of the Twelve,” in The Book of the Twelve and the New Form Criticism, ed. Mark J. Boda, Michael H. Floyd, and Colin Toffelmire, ANEM 10 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015), 21–46; John T. Willis, “ ‘I Am Your God’ and ‘You Are My People’ in Hosea and Jeremiah,”ResQ 36 (1994): 291–303; L. Juliana M. Claassens, “The Rhetorical Function of the Woman in Labor Metaphor in Jeremiah 30–31: Trauma, Gender, and Postcolonial Studies,” JTSA 150 (2014): 67–84; Richtsje Abma, Bonds of Love: Methodic Studies of Prophetic Texts with Marriage Imagery, Isaiah 50:1–3 and 54:1–10, Hosea 1–3, Jeremiah 2–3, SSN 40 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1999); Mary E. Shields, Circumscribing the Prostitute: The Rhetorics of Intertextuality, Metaphor, and Gender in Jeremiah 3.1–4.4, JSOTSup 387 (New York: T&T Clark, 2004).

the tree of life in ancient apocalypse

163

Works Cited Abma, Richtsje. Bonds of Love: Methodic Studies of Prophetic Texts with Marriage Imagery, Isaiah 50:1–3 and 54:1–10, Hosea 1–3, Jeremiah 2–3. SSN 40. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1999. Bauckham, Richard. “Enoch and Elijah in the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah.” Pages 27– 38 in The Jewish World around the New Testament. Edited by Richard Bauckham. WUNT 233. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Bauckham, Richard, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov, eds. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Baumgarten, James. “Purification after Childbirth and the Sacred Garden in 4Q265 and Jubilees.” Pages 3–10 in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris, 1992. Edited by G.J. Brooke and Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Bergmann, Claudia D. Childbirth as a Metaphor for Crisis: Evidence from the Ancient Near East, the Hebrew Bible, and 1QH XI, 1–18. BZAW 382. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Bergren, Theodore. “Mother Jerusalem, Mother Church: Desolation and Restoration in Early Jewish and Christian Literature.” Pages 243–259 in Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone. Edited by Esther G. Chazon, David Satran, and Ruth Clements. JSJSup 89. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Brown, William P. Seeing the Psalms: A Theology of Metaphor. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985. Claassens, L. Juliana M. “The Rhetorical Function of the Woman in Labor Metaphor in Jeremiah 30–31: Trauma, Gender, and Postcolonial Studies.” JTSA 150 (2014): 67–84. Day, Peggy L. “Deity: Hebrew Bible.” Pages 74–80 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Gender Studies. Edited by Julia M. O’Brien. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. DiTommaso, Lorenzo. “Penitential Prayer and Apocalyptic Eschatology in Second Temple Judaism,” Pages 115–133 in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday. Edited by Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen. STDJ 98. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Fauconnier, Gilles. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Fauconnier, Gilles. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Eve Sweetser. Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar: Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. “Mental Spaces: Conceptual Integration Net-

164

stovell

works.” Pages 303–372 in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Edited by Dirk Geeraerts. Cognitive Linguistics Research 34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books, 2002. Frankfurter, David. Elijah in Upper Egypt: The Apocalypse of Elijah and Early Egyptian Christianity. SAC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Gunkel, Hermann. Elijah, Yahweh, and Baal. Translated by K.C. Hanson. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2014. Hogan, Karina Martin. “Mother Earth as a Conceptual Metaphor in 4Ezra.” CBQ 73 (2011): 72–91. James, E.O. The Tree of Life: An Archaeological Study. SHR 11. Leiden: Brill, 1966. Lanfer, Peter Thacher. “Allusion to and Expansion of the Tree of Life and Garden of Eden in Biblical and Pseudepigraphal Literature.” Pages 96–108 in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality: Volume 1: Thematic Studies. Edited by Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias. LNTS 391. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Lanfer, Peter Thacher. Remembering Eden: The Reception History of Genesis 3:22–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Moss, Candida, and Joel Baden. Reconceiving Infertility: Biblical Perspectives on Procreation and Childlessness. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015. Moughtin-Mumby, Sharon. Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel. OTM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Nogalski, James. “The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 192–213 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Rendtorff, Rolf. “Alas for the Day! The ‘Day of the Lord’ in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 186–197 in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. Beal. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Shields, Mary E. Circumscribing the Prostitute: The Rhetorics of Intertextuality, Metaphor, and Gender in Jeremiah 3.1–4.4. JSOTSup 387. New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Stone, Michael E. “The Metamorphosis of Ezra: Jewish Apocalypse and Medieval Vision,” Pages 359–376 in Selected Studies in Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha: With Special Reference to the Armenian Tradition. Edited by Michael E. Stone. SVTP 9. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Stovell, Beth M. “‘I Will Make Her Like a Desert’: Intertextual Allusion and Feminine and Agricultural Metaphors in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 21–46 in The Book of the Twelve and the New Form Criticism. Edited by Mark J. Boda, Michael H. Floyd, and Colin Toffelmire. ANEM 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015. Stovell, Beth M. Making Sense of Motherhood: Biblical and Theological Perspective. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016. Stovell, Beth M. “Son of God as Anointed One? Johannine Davidic Christology and Sec-

the tree of life in ancient apocalypse

165

ond Temple Messianism.” Pages 151–177 in Reading the Gospel of John’s Christology as a Form of Jewish Messianism: Royal, Prophetic, and Divine Messiahs. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini and Benjamin Reynolds, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 106. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Stovell, Beth M. “Who’s King? Whose Temple? Divine Presence, Kingship, and Contested Space in John 1, 12, and 19.” In Johannine Prologue. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew Pitts, JS. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. Stromberg, Jake. “The ‘Root of Jesse’ in Isaiah 11:10: Postexilic Judah, or Postexilic Davidic King?” JBL 127 (2008): 655–669. Tigchelaar, Eibert J.C. Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers, and Apocalyptic. OtSt 35. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Walck, Leslie. “The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels.” Pages 231–268 in Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift. Edited by Darrell Bock and James H. Charlesworth. Jewish and Christian Texts 11. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013. Willis, John T. “‘I Am Your God’ and ‘You Are My People’ in Hosea and Jeremiah.” ResQ 36 (1994): 291–303.

chapter 7

The Tree of Life in Enochic Literature Ken M. Penner

1

Overview

A tree identified as the tree of life appears in 1En. 24.3–25.6; 2 En. 8.3–7; 3 En. 5.1; 23.18; 48D.8. In (Ethiopic) 1Enoch, this tree is not called the tree of life, but it is described in such sublime terms that scholars at least since Dillmann have identified it as such.1 The tree is located at the earthly throne of God. It is superlatively fragrant and inaccessible until the judgement day, after which the righteous and holy will enjoy it, and it will be planted toward the house of the Lord. The tree’s fragrance shall give the righteous long life on earth. In 2 (Slavonic) Enoch, the tree of life is indescribably and incomparably excellent and sweet-smelling. This cosmic Tree is in the paradise in the third heaven (8.1), where the Lord rests. In 3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch (5.1), the tree of life provides shelter for the cherub upon whom the Shekinah dwelled after the expulsion of Adam. The righteous and godly are to inherit the garden of Eden and the tree of life (23.18). The Tree is one of the creations made by the secret of Metatron (48D.8).

2

1Enoch

In the Book of Watchers, specifically 1Enoch 24–25, a tree is described as so extraordinary that Dillmann identified it as the tree of life.2 2.1 Trees in the Context of 1Enoch The Book of the Watchers opens (chapters 1–5) by juxtaposing the faithful natural order of creation (οὐ παραβαίνουσιν τὴν ἰδίαν τάξιν, 2.1) with the unfaithful arrogance of humans (Ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐνεμείνατε οὐδὲ ἐποιήσατε κατὰ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ ἀπέστητε καὶ κατελαλήσατε μεγάλους καὶ σκληροὺς λόγους ἐν στόματι ἀκαθαρσίας ὑμῶν κατὰ τῆς μεγαλοσύνης αὐτοῦ, 5.4). In the Greek version,

1 August Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch: übersetzt und erklärt (Leipzig: Fr. Chr. Wilh. Vogel, 1853). 2 Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch: übersetzt und erklärt.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423756_009

the tree of life in enochic literature

167

the penultimate example of nature’s order is the trees, in 3.1 (καταμάθετε καὶ ἴδετε πάντα τὰ δένδρα) and 5.1 (πῶς τὰ φύλλα χλωρὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς σκέποντα τὰ δένδρα, καὶ πᾶς ὁ καρπὸς αὐτῶν εἰς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν). The regularity of the trees’ leaves and fruit demonstrates the obedience of nature. Enoch indicates that humanity’s unfaithfulness will come under judgement in some future generation. The implied readers of 1Enoch are expected to identify themselves with that generation and seek to position themselves with the righteous in order to avoid that judgement. When the watchers rebelled (1En. 6–8), some of the secrets they revealed to humans were botanical (ῥιζοτομίας, 8.3). The damage they caused to creation extended to its produce as well. God’s merciful restorative response in 1 En. 9–11 includes a plant of righteousness to be planted instead of wickedness (ἀναφανήτω τὸ φυτὸν τῆς δικαιοσύνης καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· μετὰ χαρᾶς φυτευθήσεται, 10.16). This plant is a tree, according to 10.18 (τότε ἐργασθήσεται πᾶσα ἡ γῆ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ καταφυτευθήσεται δένδρον ἐν αὐτῇ, καὶ πλησθήσεται εὐλογίας). All other trees will rejoice because of this planting, which is the subject of the same singular verb φυτευθήσεται as in 10.16 (καὶ πάντα τὰ δένδρα τῆς γῆς ἀγαλλιάσονται· φυτευθήσεται, καὶ ἔσονται φυτεύοντες ἀμπέλους, 10.19). The abundance of wine and olives are mentioned specifically (10.19). It is in 1En. 12–36 that Enoch becomes involved in implementing God’s plan. He is commissioned (12–13) and reports to the Watchers what he experienced in his cosmic travels. The tree commonly identified as the tree of life appears in Enoch’s second account (1En. 21–36; the first account is in 17–19). The main point is that although the reader’s present experience might lead them to think otherwise, the hidden reality is God recognizes the evil in the world he made good, his righteous character leads him to have compassion on those suffering because of this wickedness, and he is prepared to eliminate this rebellion and restore the goodness of his creation and the prosperity of his people. According to 1En. 24.3, an incomparable tree is located among some wellshaped (εὐειδῆ) trees that surrounded the seventh mountain of seven that are beyond (24.2) the mountains of fire (24.1) in the west (23.1). This seventh mountain resembles a throne (ὅμοιον καθέδρᾳ θρόνου). The throne of God was mentioned earlier in 1En. 18.8, where the middle mountain of seven was “in heaven like the throne of God” (τὸ δὲ μέσον αὐτῶν ἦν εἰς οὐρανόν, ὥσπερ θρόνος θεοῦ). When Enoch asks about the incomparable tree (24.5), Michael answers first that the mountain is where God sits when he visits the earth (25.3). Michael then answers Enoch’s question about the tree: at the time of judgement, its fruit will be given to the elect, and it will be transplanted in a holy place by God’s house (μεταφυτευθήσεται ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ παρὰ τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ, 25.5).

168

penner

The superlatively fragrant tree of 1En. 24–25 is inaccessible (οὐδεμία σὰρξ ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ἅψασθαι αὐτοῦ) until the judgement day, after which the righteous and holy will receive it (25.4), and it will be planted toward the house of the Lord. It is described as having “a sweeter smelling fragrance than all other sweet spices, and its leaves and blossom and wood never wither; concerning the fruit, they were like clusters of date palms” (24.4, LES). The tree’s fruit shall give the righteous long life on earth (τότε δικαίοις καὶ ὁσίοις δοθήσεται ὁ καρπὸς αὐτοῦ τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς εἰς ζωὴν εἰς βοράν, 25.4–5). Another specific tree is mentioned in 1En. 26.1; it too is not called the tree of life, but this one is in the center of the world. The relevant passage reads, “and from there I traveled to the middle of the earth and I saw a blessed place in which there were trees with remaining and budding branches from a pruned tree.” The location of the pruned tree is not specified, but the holy mountain at this axis mundi is where the wicked and righteous will be gathered before being separated (27.4). 2.2 Identification of the “Tree” Although Dillmann identified the tree of 1Enoch 24–25 as the tree of life,3 that identification is not certain. As Nickelsburg noted,4 the apocalyptic travel narratives of Enoch typically describe the perceptions of all sorts of senses. For example, in the heavenly journey described in 1 En. 14 Enoch hears calls, sees flashes, and feels heat and cold. These sensory perceptions are expanded even more in his description of the tree in chapters 24–25. Enoch not only sees its beauty, but he especially smells the tree (24.4–5; 25.1, 4) and speaks of eating its fruit (25.5). In fact, the distinctive characteristic used to identify the tree is its scent (“why do you wonder at the smell of the tree” in 25.1; “this sweet-smelling tree” in 25.4). Consequently, when again tree aromas are mentioned in 30.2–3; 31.3; 32.4, and this time the tree is identified as the tree of wisdom, the question arises: how are these trees related? The interpretation given below follows Bachmann, who argued that the tree described in 1En. 24–25 can be considered the tree of life not because of its association with paradise but because the Tree of Wisdom brings life.5 In summary, the argument is that the tree described in 1 En. 24–25 does not recall the

3 Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch: übersetzt und erklärt. 4 George W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1Enoch, Hermeneia, ed. Klaus Baltzer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 38. 5 Veronika Bachmann, “Rooted in Paradise? The Meaning of the ‘Tree of Life’ in 1Enoch 24–25 Reconsidered,” JSP 19.2 (2009): 83–107.

the tree of life in enochic literature

169

tree of life from Eden since it has none of the attributes of the Edenic “tree of life”; but instead it represents the tree of wisdom (which brings life), since this symbol has precedent in wisdom literature’s imagery of Wisdom as a tree, and it functions to support the broader message of the Book of Watchers. Although the tree in 1Enoch 24–25 is not explicitly called the “tree of life,” the identification of this tree as the one from the Genesis story of Eden was made for three reasons, the first presented by Dillmann, who claimed that (a) both the Enochic tree and the Edenic tree of life give eternal life. Nickelsburg added the reasons that (b) both the Enochic tree and the Edenic tree of life are forbidden to all people (Gen 3:24); and (c) both trees are located in paradise (God transplanted the Enochic tree from the original paradise in the east to an inaccessible location until the final judgement). But there are two good reasons for rejecting this identification: the characteristics of the two trees do not in fact match, and the descriptions of the surroundings of the Enochic tree are inconsistent. The two trees do not in fact match in three ways: (a) regarding their provision of eternal life, (b) their inaccessibility to humans, and (c) their location in paradise. First, as Charles already pointed out,6 the tree in 1 Enoch is never said to provide eternal life, rather what it provides is a good long life (5.9; 10.17; 25.6). 1En. 5.9 οὐδὲ μὴ ἁμάρτωσιν πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς αὐτῶν, καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνωσιν ἐν ὀργῇ θυμοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν αὐτῶν ζωῆς ἡμερῶν πληρώσουσιν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ αὐτῶν αὐξηθήσεται ἐν εἰρήνῃ, καὶ τὰ ἔτη τῆς χαρᾶς αὐτῶν πληθυνθήσεται ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ εἰρήνῃ αἰῶνος ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς ζωῆς αὐτῶν.

1En. 5.9 nor will they ever sin all the days of their life. And they will ˻never˼ die in the wrath of anger, but the days of their life will be many. Their life will increase in peace, and the years of their joy will increase in great joy and peace of the age for all the days of their life.

10.17 Καὶ νῦν πάντες οἱ δίκαιοι ἐκφεύξονται, καὶ ἔσονται ζῶντες ἕως γεννήσωσιν χιλιάδας, καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ ἡμέραι νεότητος αὐτῶν, καὶ τὰ σάββατα αὐτῶν μετὰ εἰρήνης πληρώσουσιν.

10.17 “And now all the righteous ones will flee, and they will be the living ones until they beget thousands, and all the days of their youth and their Sabbath rest will fill with peace.

6 R.H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text and Edited with the Introduction, Notes and Indexes of the First Edition Wholly Recast, Enlarged and Rewritten, Together with a Reprint from the Editor’s Text of the Greek Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912), 53.

170

penner

25.6 τότε εὐφρανθήσονται εὐφραινόμενοι καὶ χαρήσονται καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον εἰσελεύσονται· αἱ ὀσμαὶ αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς ὀστέοις αὐτῶν, καὶ ζωὴν πλείονα ζήσονται ἐπὶ γῆς ἣν ἔζησαν οἱ πατέρες σου, καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτῶν καὶ βάσανοι καὶ πληγαὶ καὶ μάστιγες οὐχ ἅψονται αὐτῶν.

25.6 Then the joyful will be cheered and will rejoice. And they will go to the holy place. Its fragrance is in its bones and they will live much more life upon earth, such as your fathers lived. And in their days, tortures and blows and whips will not touch them.”

Secondly, Uhlig observed that in 1Enoch God never forbids the tree to humans, but rather 1En. 25.4 says humans have not the power (“Macht,” ἐξουσία) to access the tree until the judgement.7 25.4 καὶ τοῦτο τὸ δένδρον εὐωδίας, καὶ οὐδεμία σὰρξ ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ἅψασθαι αὐτοῦ μέχρι τῆς μεγάλης κρίσεως, ἐν ᾗ ἐκδίκησις πάντων καὶ τελείωσις μέχρις αἰῶνος· τότε δικαίοις καὶ ὁσίοις δοθήσεται

25.4 And as for this sweet-smelling tree, no flesh has power to touch it until the great decision, in which there is vengeance for all and a completion forever.

Finally, as Tigchelaar noted, never in 1Enoch is the tree transplanted from an eastern paradise to the west.8 On the assumption that the life-giving tree of 1 En. 24–25 must be in a paradise, Charles connected the northwest abode of the righteous mentioned in 1En. 70.3 with 1En. 24–25, and concluded that this paradise must be in the northwest.9 Bautch spoke of this transplanting as a move from a southern location to a northern one, depending on the phrase “to the north” in the Ethiopic (wa-mangala mesˁ),10 which as Charles noted,11 is a misreading of εἰς βοράν (for food) as εἰς βορρᾱν (to the north).

7 8

9 10 11

Siegbert Uhlig, Das äthiopische Henochbuch, JSHRZ 5 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1984), 560–561. Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, “Eden and Paradise: The Garden Motif in Some Early Jewish Texts (1 Enoch and Other Texts Found at Qumran),” in Paradise Interpreted: Representations of Biblical Paradise in Judaism and Christianity, ed. Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, TBN 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 44–47. Charles, Book of Enoch, 40, 59. Kelley Coblentz Bautch, A Study of the Geography of 1Enoch 17–19: “No One Has Seen What I Have Seen,” JSJSup 81 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 123. Charles, Book of Enoch, 53.

the tree of life in enochic literature 25.5 ὁ καρπὸς αὐτοῦ τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς εἰς ζωὴν εἰς βοράν, καὶ μεταφυτευθήσεται ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ παρὰ τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ βασιλέως τοῦ αἰῶνος.

171

25.5 Then its fruit will be given to the just and holy chosen ones for life and for food; and it will be transplanted to the holy place from the house of God, King of the age.

The result is that when the readers of 1Enoch first encounter the tree in chapters 24–25, they have no reason to think this tree is Edenic; in fact, the story of Eden is foreign to 1Enoch.12 If we are to imagine the tree in both chapters 24–25 and 32 is the tree of life from paradise, we must imagine either that paradise is in two distinct locations (the northeast described in chapter 32, and the northwest described in chapter 24–25, where the “tree of life” is temporarily transplanted until it finds its eschatological home in Jerusalem)13 or that the second, northwestern, location in chapters 24–25 is not paradise at all.14 Not only is the Enochic tree never called the tree of life, has none of the attributes of the Edenic tree of life, and comes from discrepant locations, there are also problems with that identification caused by the descriptions of its final location. As Bachmann pointed out, these differing descriptions make it difficult to consider the Enochic tree a physical tree at all.15 The place of God’s descent is described in both 1 Enoch 18 and 24–25. In chapters 24–25 this location is surrounded by trees. 24.3 καὶ τῷ ὄρει ἕβδομον ὄρος ἀνὰ μέσον τούτων, καὶ ὑπερεῖχεν τῷ ὕψει, ὅμοιον καθέδρᾳ θρόνου, καὶ περιεκύκλου δένδρα αὐτῷ εὐειδῆ. 4 καὶ ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς δένδρον ὃ οὐδέποτε ὤσφρανμαι καὶ οὐδεὶς ἕτερος αὐτῷ ηὐφράνθη,

24.3 And with the mountain, the seventh mountain was ˻in the midst of˼ these and was held above the height like the seat of the throne, and well-shaped trees encompassed it. 4 And a tree was among them that I never smelled, and no one was cheered by it and none other was like it.

But in chapter 18, no such trees are mentioned at God’s throne, only mountains made of precious stone.

12 13 14 15

Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 51. Pierre Grelot, “La géographie mythique d’ Hénoch et ses sources orientales,”RB 65.1 (1958): 33–69. Tigchelaar, “Eden and Paradise.” Bachmann, “Rooted in Paradise?” 93; citing Bautch, Study of the Geography of 1Enoch 17–19.

172

penner

18.6 Παρῆλθον καὶ ἴδον τόπον καιόμενον νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, ὅπου τὰ ἑπτὰ ὄρη ἀπὸ λίθων πολυτελῶν, τρία εἰς ἀνατολὰς καὶ τρία εἰς νότον βάλλοντα. 7 καὶ τὰ μὲν πρὸς ἀνατολὰς ἀπὸ λίθου χρώματος, τὸ δὲ ἦν ἀπὸ λίθου μαργαρίτου, καὶ τὸ ἀπὸ λίθον ταθέν, τὸ δὲ κατὰ νότον ἀπὸ λίθου πυρροῦ· 8 τὸ δὲ μέσον αὐτῶν ἦν εἰς οὐρανόν, ὥσπερ θρόνος θεοῦ ἀπὸ λίθου φουκά, καὶ ἡ κορυφὴ τοῦ θρόνου ἀπὸ λίθου σαπφείρου·

18.6 I passed by and I saw a place being set on fire night and day, where there are seven mountains made from costly stones, three placed in the east and three in the south. 7 And the ones toward the east were from colored stone and the other one was from pearl stone, and another from stretched stone, and the one against the south from red stone. 8 The middle one of these was in heaven like the throne of God from alabaster stone and the head of the throne from sapphire stone.

The discrepancy between the physical descriptions of the same geographic place (the mountain of God’s throne) in chapters 24–25 and chapter 18 indicate that the tree is not physical but referential. This symbolic function is not surprising given that the tree is described in a vision, which is inherently symbolic. The question of what the tree symbolizes was answered by Bautch that the tree symbolizes Torah.16 However, this interpretation is problematic since, as Bachmann noted,17 the giving of the tree is at the time of judgment, which is clearly future, and it is hard to imagine what a future giving of the Torah might have meant. Rather, parallels in wisdom literature and 1 En. 10 and 32 indicate that this future figurative “tree” symbolizes the prevalence of wisdom in the future. Trees generally in 1Enoch symbolize blessedness, and the absence of trees cursedness. In 1En. 10.18–19, the tree conveys blessing: τότε ἐργασθήσεται πᾶσα ἡ γῆ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ Then the whole earth will work in righκαὶ καταφυτευθήσεται δένδρον ἐν αὐτῇ, καὶ teousness and the tree will be planted in πλησθήσεται εὐλογίας. it and be filled with blessing.18

In its context in 1Enoch 24–25, the purpose the tree serves is to portray the postjudgement era as a happy time. The feature that makes this happiness possible is indicated by 1En. 5.8–9, which says wisdom will be given to all the chosen. That the abundant life due to the absence of pride (which entails an end to sin) is the result of this wisdom is confirmed by the mention of wisdom both before 16 17 18

Bautch, Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17–19, 123–124. Bachmann, “Rooted in Paradise?” 93. Rick Brannan et al., eds., The Lexham English Septuagint (Bellingham: Lexham, 2012).

the tree of life in enochic literature

173

and after the promise of life. A man who is wise will sin no more, and will live a full, peaceful, joyful life. τότε δοθήσεται πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς σοφία, καὶ πάντες οὗτοι ζήσονται, καὶ οὐ μὴ ἁμαρτήσονται ἔτι οὐ κατ’ ἀλήθειαν οὔτε κατὰ ὑπερηφανίαν, καὶ ἔσται ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ πεφωτισμένῳ φῶς καὶ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐπιστήμονι νόημα, καὶ οὐ μὴ πλημμελήσουσιν οὐδὲ μὴ ἁμάρτωσιν πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς αὐτῶν, καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνωσιν ἐν ὀργῇ θυμοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν αὐτῶν ζωῆς ἡμερῶν πληρώσουσιν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ αὐτῶν αὐξηθήσεται ἐν εἰρήνῃ, καὶ τὰ ἔτη τῆς χαρᾶς αὐτῶν πληθυνθήσεται ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ εἰρήνῃ αἰῶνος ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς ζωῆς αὐτῶν.

Then wisdom will be given to all the chosen. And all these will live and will ˻never˼ sin, neither against truth nor according to arrogance. There will be among enlightened man a light, and perception to a knowing man. And they will ˻never˼ go wrong, nor will they ever sin all the days of their life. And they will ˻never˼ die in the wrath of anger, but the days of their life ˻will be many˼. Their life will increase in peace, and the years of their joy will increase in great joy and peace of the age for all the days of their life.19

That a tree symbolizing Wisdom was a contemporary motif is confirmed by Sirach. In Sirach 24:12–17 Lady Wisdom describes herself as a tree: 12 καὶ ἐρρίζωσα ἐν λαῷ δεδοξασμένῳ, ἐν μερίδι Κυρίου κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ. 13 ὡς κέδρος ἀνυψώθην ἐν τῷ Λιβάνῳ, καὶ ὡς κυπάρισσος ἐν ὄρεσιν Ἁερμών· 14 ὡς φοίνιξ ἀνυψώθην ἐν αἰγιαλοῖς, καὶ ὡς φυτὰ ῥόδου ἐν Ἰερειχώ· (19) ὡς ἐλαία εὐπρεπὴς ἐν πεδίῳ, καὶ ἀνυψώθην ὡς πλάτανος. 15 ὡς κιννάμωμον καὶ ἀσπάλαθος ἀρωμάτων δέδωκα ὀσμήν, καὶ ὡς σμύρνα ἐκλεκτὴ διέδωκα εὐωδίαν, (21) ὡς χαλβάνη καὶ ὄνυξ καὶ στακτή, καὶ ὡς λιβάνου ἀτμὶς ἐν σκηνῇ· 16 ἐγὼ ὡς τερέμινθος ἐξέτεινα κλάδους μου, 19

12 And I took root among an honored people, in a portion of the Lord, his inheritance. 13 I was raised up like a cedar in Lebanon and like a cypress in the mountains of Hermon. 14 I was raised up on the seashore like a palm tree and like rose bushes in Jericho, like a beautiful olive-tree in the field, and I was raised up like a plane tree. 15 I gave a sweet smell like cinnamon and camel thorn, and I gave a sweet smell like choicest myrrh, like galbanum and onyx and myrrh oil, and like the vapor of frankincense in a tent. 16 I stretched out my branches like a terebinth tree,

Brannan et al., Lexham English Septuagint.

174

penner

καὶ οἱ κλάδοι μου κλάδοι δόξης καὶ χάριτος. 17 ἐγὼ ὡς ἄμπελος βλαστήσασα χάριν, καὶ τὰ ἄνθη μου καρπὸς δόξης καὶ πλούτου.

and my branches are branches of glory and grace. 17 I am like a vine sprouting grace, and my blossoms are fruit of glory and wealth.

Yet this identification of the Tree as Wisdom does not preclude it from also being the tree of life because the tree of wisdom brings life, as shown by 1 Enoch 5 above. This presentation of Wisdom as a tree of life has its roots already in Proverbs 3:18: ‫ֵﬠץ־ַח ִיּים ִהיא ַלַמֲּח ִזיִקים ָבּהּ‬ ‫תְמֶכיָה ְמֻאָשּׁר‬ ֹ ‫ְו‬

She is a tree of life for those who seize her; those who take hold of her are considered happy.

Therefore, this tree symbolizing wisdom is still a tree of life because according to the worldview of the Book of Watchers, wisdom brings life. The purpose of the Book of Watchers is to show the difference between bad “knowledge” and good “wisdom.” The story of the Watchers makes the point that there are two kinds of knowledge: appropriate and inappropriate; there are things God intended humans to know, and there are things (revealed by the Watchers) better left unknown. The message for the readers is that the “new” knowledge provided by the Hellenists is like the knowledge provided by the Watchers; it is not the wisdom God intended humans to have for a harmonious life. Once wisdom is restored so that it permeates the world, order will be restored to the presently disordered world. 2.3 Literary Influences Of the two tree of life traditions Aune identified in Judaism, one developed from the stories of paradise in Gen 2:9; 3:23–24, and the other is “a metaphor for the elect community.”20 It is the first of these two traditions from which the Enochic literature draws; it holds that the access to the tree of life that had been revoked in Adam’s time would be restored at the eschaton. This tradition is picked up by Ezekiel (31:2–9; 28:1–19; 47:6–12). Ezekiel 31:8 says the tree (Assyria) was incomparable beyond any tree in God’s paradise (‫ָכּל־ֵﬠץ ְבּ ַגן־ֱאֹלִהים‬ ‫ || ל ֹא־ ָדָמה ֵאָליו ְבּ ָיְפיוֹ‬πᾶν ξύλον ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ὁμοιώθη αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ κάλλει αὐτοῦ). Ezek 28:13–14 addresses Tyre, who had been in Eden, the garden of God (‫ || ְבֵּﬠ ֶדן ַגּן־ֱאֹלִהים‬ἐν τῇ τρυφῇ τοῦ παραδείσου τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγενήθης) with every precious stone, full of wisdom and beauty, with a cherub, on God’s holy moun20

David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5, WBC 52A (Dallas: Word, 1998), 152–153.

the tree of life in enochic literature

175

tain among stones of fire (‫ַאְתּ־ְכּרוּב ִמְמַשׁח ַהסּוֵֹכְך וּ ְנַתִתּיָך ְבַּהר קֹ ֶדשׁ ֱאֹלִהים ָה ִייָת ְבּתוְֹך‬ ‫ || ַאְב ֵני־ֵאשׁ ִהְתַהָלְּכָתּ‬μετὰ τοῦ χερουβ ἔθηκά σε ἐν ὄρει ἁγίῳ θεοῦ, ἐγενήθης ἐν μέσῳ λίθων πυρίνων). But this tree was taken away from God’s mountain (‫ָוֲאַחֶלְּלָך ֵמַהר‬ ‫סֵּכְך ִמתּוְֹך ַאְב ֵני־ֵאשׁ‬ ֹ ‫ || ֱאֹלִהים ָוַאֶבּ ְדָך ְכּרוּב ַה‬ἐτραυματίσθης ἀπὸ ὄρους τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἤγαγέν σε τὸ χερουβ ἐκ μέσου λίθων πυρίνων, Ezek 28:16). In Ezekiel 47:6–12, Ezekiel is shown a stream described as follows: “And along the stream will go up on its banks ˻from both sides˼ every tree ˻producing food˼; its leaf will not wither and it will not cease producing its fruit. Every month it will bear early fruit, for its waters are going out from the sanctuary, and its fruit will be as food, and its leaf for healing” (Ezek 47:12 LEB). These eschatological tree of life traditions influenced the Enochic literature. Alluding to the inaccessibility of the tree according to the Genesis narrative, 1 En. 25.4–5 presents restored access to the tree. But the traditions from Ezekiel shaped the Enochic literature even more than the Genesis account. The image of a tree of incomparable beauty that never withers (1 En. 24.4), on a mountain surrounded by fire (1En. 24.1) with precious stones (1 En. 24.2) is derived from these passages in Ezekiel.

3

2Enoch

The main message of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch is that the Lord is the only creator. Only He is to be worshipped. Ethical behavior typically includes the diatribe (familiar from Hellenistic Jewish literature) against idolatry and sexual immorality. In this context, the tree of life is presented as a reward for the righteous. The tree of life is named in 2Enoch 8.3, for which Andersen’s translation reads, 1 And those men took me from there, and they brought me up to the third heaven, and set me down |there|. Then I looked downward, and I saw Paradise. And that place is inconceivably pleasant.21 2 And I saw the trees in full flower. And their fruits were ripe and pleasantsmelling, with every food in yield and giving off profusely a pleasant fragrance. 3 And in the midst (of them was) the tree of life, at that place where the Lord takes a rest when he goes into paradise. And that tree is inde-

21

F.I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” OTP 1:91–221.

176

penner

scribable for pleasantness and fine fragrance, and more beautiful than any (other) created thing that exists. 4 And from every direction it has an appearance which is gold-looking and crimson, and with the form of fire. And it covers the whole of Paradise. And it has something of every orchard tree and of every fruit. And its root is in Paradise at the exit that leads to the earth. The location of this tree is therefore in paradise, visible from the third heaven (2En. 8.1). The third heaven is also where Paul locates paradise, in 2 Cor 12:2, 4 ἁρπαγέντα τὸν τοιοῦτον ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦ … ὅτι ἡρπάγη εἰς τὸν παράδεισον. The paradise of 2Enoch is described as “inconceivably pleasant” with flowering, aromatic trees bearing every fruit, surrounding the tree of life. The abundant fruit matches 4Ezra 7.123 (Et quoniam ostendetur paradisus, cuius fructus incorruptus perseverat, in quo est saturitas et medella), and the location of the tree of life in paradise matches 4Ezra 8.52 (Vobis enim apertus est paradisus, plantata est arbor vitae). Specifically in 2Enoch 8.4, the tree of life is at the Lord’s resting place when he ascends/returns to paradise. Its root is at the exit (iskhodŭ, representing ἐξοδος) of paradise toward earth.22 The tree of life is described in 2Enoch as having the same attributes of all the other trees in paradise, namely it is fruitful, and pleasant and fragrant beyond words (although flowers are not specifically mentioned on the tree of life). Whereas the visual appearance of the other trees is not mentioned, the tree of life is superlatively beautiful, more so than other creation. Its fiery appearance is “gold-looking” and crimson (črŭvenno may mean dark red or purple).23 Its expanse covers all of paradise. Its fruit is varied, encompassing every type of fruit. The purpose of the tree is not stated explicitly, but its effect is to render paradise an exceedingly pleasant place, along with the angelic song (2 En. 8.8). The place is pleasant in order to reward the righteous, who are described as those who suffer on earth, oppose injustice, walk blamelessly, worship only the Lord, and help the hungry, naked, fallen, injured, and orphaned (2 En. 9.1). This paradise is an eternal reward for these righteous, but there is nothing in the text to indicate that the reason the reward is eternal has anything to do with the tree of life. In fact, a different “eternal reward” awaits the wicked; 2 En. 10 describes the opposite of this paradise, a dark prison apparently also in the third heaven, that certainly has no tree of life.

22 23

Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” OTP 1:116. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” OTP 1:114.

the tree of life in enochic literature

177

Because 1Enoch and 2Enoch share literary features, it is agreed that 2 Enoch depends on 1Enoch. Structurally, 1Enoch 12–36 influenced the ascent, vision, and commissioning in 2Enoch 3–37. Formally, the eschatological visions in 2 Enoch 7–10; 18 use the same components (journey, vision, comment/question, interpretation) as 1En. 18.6–19.2; 21–27; 32. In particular, the seer expresses amazement rather than question in 2En. 8.8; 10.4. Like 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch distinguishes the “watchers” (2En. 18.1) from the apostate “brothers” (2 En. 18.7). But 2Enoch also draws directly and independently from the same passages of Ezekiel that 1Enoch does, as evidenced by the extent of the tree’s span (“in its shadow all the many nations lived,” Ezekiel 31:6 LEB). The righteous are described in the following paragraph, according to Andersen’s translation: This place, Enoch, has been prepared for the righteous, who suffer every kind of calamity in their life and who afflict their souls, and who avert their eyes from injustice and who carry out righteous judgment, who give bread to the hungry, and who cover the naked with clothing, and who lift up the fallen, and who help the injured and the orphans, who walk without a defect before the face of the LORD, and who worship him only— even for them this place has been prepared as an eternal inheritance. Although the set of behaviors ascribed to the righteous resembles those listed in Matthew 25, the similarity is not likely due to literary dependence because the similarities are not specific.

4

3Enoch

3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch is presented as the journeys of Rabbi Ishmael through the levels of heaven. Although Alexander dated 3 Enoch after the Talmud,24 according to Lanfer,25 pointing to I. Gruenwald26 and Tigchelaar,27

24 25

26 27

Philip S. Alexander, “3 Enoch and the Talmud,” JSJ 18 (1987): 40–68. Peter T. Lanfer, “Allusion to and Expansion of the Tree of Life and Garden of Eden in Biblical and Pseudepigraphal Literature,” in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality: Volume 1: Thematic Studies, ed. Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias, LNTS 391 (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 101. Ithamar Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism, 2nd rev. ed., Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 90 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 50–51. Tigchelaar, “Eden and Paradise,” 61.

178

penner

3 Enoch is likely from the 5th century CE, and this date is retained by Odor.28 The tree of life is named in 3Enoch 5.1, which in Alexander’s translation reads, “R. Ishmael said: Meṭaṭron, Prince of the Divine Presence, said to me: From the day that the Holy One, blessed be he, banished the first man from the garden of Eden, the Šekinah resided on a cherub beneath the tree of life.”29 The second mention of the tree of life in 3Enoch appears in a description of the source, route, and destination of the winds. The winds come from the wings of the cherubim and circle the sun before reaching the mountains and hills. The passage from 3Enoch 23.18 then says, From the mountains and hills they go round and fall upon seas and rivers; from the seas and rivers they go round and fall upon towns and cities; from towns and cities they go round and fall upon the garden, and from the garden they go round and fall upon Eden, as it is written, “He walked in the garden at the time of the daily wind.” In the midst of the garden they mingle and blow from one side to the other. They become fragrant from the perfumes of the garden and from the spices of Eden, until scattering, saturated with the scent of pure perfume, they bring the scent of the spices of the garden and the perfumes of Eden before the righteous and the godly who shall inherit the garden of Eden and the tree of life in time to come, as it is written, Awake, north wind, come, wind from the south! Breathe over my garden, to spread its sweet smell around. Let my beloved come into his garden, let him taste its rarest fruit. Even if Eden and the garden are separate locations, they both have the same function in 3En. 23.18, namely to provide the aroma spread by the winds, and to be inherited by the righteous and godly (as the “garden of Eden”), along with the tree of life. In 3En. 5.1, the tree of life provides shelter for the cherub upon

28 29

Judith A. Odor, “Enoch, Third Book of,”Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry (Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2016). Philip S. Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” OTP 1:223–316.

the tree of life in enochic literature

179

whom the Shekinah dwelled after the expulsion of Adam. The Shekinah stayed on earth for three generations, until Enosh introduced idolatry to earth (3 En. 5.10–12). Although not stated explicitly, the tree of life can be located on the basis of this function, namely to provide the aroma that the wind draws from the “garden” of “Eden.” The evidence is ambiguous whether the garden and Eden are distinct places (as indicated by the phrases “the perfumes of the garden and from the spices of Eden” and “the scent of the spices of the garden and the perfumes of Eden” in 3En. 23.18), and in 3En. 5.5 (as indicated by the statement “When the Holy One, blessed be he, went out and in from the garden to Eden, and from Eden to the garden, from the garden to heaven, and from heaven to the garden of Eden, all gazed at the bright image of his Šekinah and were unharmed”). To explain the distinction between Eden and the garden, Alexander pointed to b. Ber. 34b,30 which in Neusner’s translation (b. Ber. 5:5, II.2.Q-S) reads, “Now should you say, ‘But are the garden and Eden not the same?’ [The answer is no,] for Scripture says, ‘And a river went out of Eden to water the garden’ (Gen. 2:10). ‘The meaning is that the garden was one thing, Eden another.’”31 In one of the appendices to 3Enoch, the tree is one of the creations made by the secret of Metatron (3En. 48D.8), the last in an initial list, along with heaven and earth, the sea and the dry land, mountains and hills, rivers and springs, Gehinnom, fire and hail, and the garden of Eden. The second list of things created by this secret names Adam, the cattle and the beasts of the field, the birds of heaven and the fish of the sea, Behemoth and Leviathan, the unclean creatures and reptiles, the creeping things of the sea and the reptiles of the deserts, Torah, wisdom, knowledge, thought, the understanding of things above, and the fear of heaven. The first list of the secret’s creations consists of cosmological or topographic features, i.e., places, except for fire and hail, and the tree of life. The second list consists of animate creatures and metaphysical things, primarily human faculties. The translation by Alexander reads, “YHWH the God of Israel is my witness that when I revealed this secret to Moses, all the armies of the height, in every heaven, were angry with me. They said to me, 8* ‘Why are you revealing this secret to mankind, born of woman, blemished, unclean, defiled by blood and impure flux,

30 31

Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” OTP 1:260 n. f. Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2011), 1:230.

180

penner

men who excrete putrid drops—that secret by which heaven and earth were created, the sea and the dry land, mountains and hills, rivers and springs, Gehinnom, fire and hail, the garden of Eden and the tree of life? By it Adam was formed, the cattle and the beasts of the field, the birds of heaven and the fish of the sea, Behemoth and Leviathan, the unclean creatures and reptiles, the creeping things of the sea and the reptiles of the deserts, Torah, wisdom, knowledge, thought, the understanding of things above, and the fear of heaven. Why are you revealing it to flesh and blood?’” I said to them, “Because the Omnipresent One has given me authority from the high and exalted throne, from which all the sacred names proceed with fiery lightnings, with brilliant sparks and flaming ḥašmallim.” 3 En. 48D.8

The traditions in 3Enoch reflect knowledge of Enochic traditions, especially in its angelology, ascent narratives, and the glorification of Enoch (in 3 Enoch as Metatron; in 1Enoch as the Son of Man).32 The same tree of life traditions from Ezekiel that influenced 1 and 2Enoch influenced 3 Enoch directly, as evidenced from the mention of the cherub in 3En. 5.1, derived from Ezekiel 28:16. 3 Enoch can be located within the tradition of Merkabah mysticism, but it is difficult to argue that it influenced other texts.

5

Conclusion

In all three books named after Enoch, a superlatively marvelous and sweetsmelling tree appears. Although in 1Enoch it is not named the tree of life, that label is given to the fragrant tree in 2En. 8.3 and 3 En. 5.1. In all three books, the divine presence at the tree of life is noted: at 1 En. 24.3 (the divine throne), 2 En. 8.3 (where the Lord rests), and 3En. 5.1 (shade for the cherub of the divine presence). Similarly, in all three (1En. 25.4; 2En. 9.1; 3 En. 23.18), the righteous will be refreshed by its fragrance. The Enochic literature thus provides the background that John’s Revelation assumes when using the tree of life to symbolize the eschatological reward for the righteous (Rev 2:7; 22:14, 19).

32

Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” OTP 1:247; Nickelsburg, 1Enoch, 81.

the tree of life in enochic literature

181

Works Cited Alexander, Philip S. “3Enoch and the Talmud.” JSJ 18 (1987): 40–68. Alexander, Philip S. “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch.” Pages 223–316 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 1. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Andersen, F.I. “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch.” Pages 91–221 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Vol. 1. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Auffarth, Christoph, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, eds. The Fall of the Angels. TBN 6. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Aune, David E. Revelation 1–5. WBC 52A. Dallas: Word, 1998. Bachmann, Veronika. “Rooted in Paradise? The Meaning of the ‘Tree of Life’ in 1Enoch 24–25 Reconsidered.” JSP 19 (2009): 83–107. Barker, Margaret. The Lost Prophet: The Book of Enoch and Its Influence on Christianity. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005. Bauckham, Richard. “Enoch and Elijah in the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah.” Pages 27– 38 in The Jewish World around the New Testament. Edited by Richard Bauckham. WUNT 233. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Bauckham, Richard, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov, eds. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Bautch, Kelley Coblentz. A Study of the Geography of 1Enoch 17–19: “No One Has Seen What I Have Seen.” JSJSup 81. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Bockmuehl, Markus, and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds. Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Brannan, Rick, Ken M. Penner, Israel Loken, Michael Aubrey, and Isaiah Hoogendyk, eds. The Lexham English Septuagint. Bellingham: Lexham, 2012. Charles, R.H. The Book of Enoch or 1Enoch: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text and Edited with the Introduction, Notes and Indexes of the First Edition Wholly Recast, Enlarged and Rewritten, Together with a Reprint from the Editor’s Text of the Greek Fragments. Oxford: Clarendon, 1912. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985. Dillmann, August. Das Buch Henoch: übersetzt und erklärt. Leipzig: Fr. Chr. Wilh. Vogel, 1853. Grelot, Pierre. “La géographie mythique d’Hénoch et ses sources orientales.” RB 65.1 (1958): 33–69. Gruenwald, Ithamar. Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism. 2nd rev. ed. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 90. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Lanfer, Peter Thacher. “Allusion to and Expansion of the Tree of Life and Garden of Eden in Biblical and Pseudepigraphal Literature.” Pages 96–108 in Early Christian

182

penner

Literature and Intertextuality: Volume 1: Thematic Studies. Edited by Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias. LNTS 391. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Marcus, Ralph. “‘Tree of Life’ in Essene Tradition.” JBL 74 (1955): 272. Neusner, Jacob. The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary. 22 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2011. Nickelsburg, George W.E. 1Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1Enoch. Hermeneia. Edited by Klaus Baltzer. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Nickelsburg, George W.E. Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972. Odor, Judith A. “Enoch, Third Book of.” In Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry. Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2016. Otzen, Benedikt. “The Paradise Trees in Jewish Apocalyptic.” Pages 140–154 in Apocryphon Severini: Presented to Søren Giversen. Edited by P. Bilde, H.K. Nielsen, J. Podemann Sørensen. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1993. Reed, Annette Yoshiko. Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Tigchelaar, Eibert J.C. “Eden and Paradise: The Garden Motif in Some Early Jewish Texts (1Enoch and Other Texts Found at Qumran).” Pages 37–62 in Paradise Interpreted: Representations of Biblical Paradise in Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Gerard P. Luttikhuizen. TBN 2. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Uhlig, Siegbert. Das äthiopische Henochbuch. JSHRZ 5. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1984. Walck, Leslie. “The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels.” Pages 231–268 in Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift. Edited by Darrell Bock and James H. Charlesworth. Jewish and Christian Texts 11. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013.

chapter 8

The Tree of Life in the Apocalypse of John Douglas Estes

The tree of life stands as one of the more striking images within the Apocalypse of John, a text that is itself a dense woodland of striking images. ‘Striking’ in the sense that it is memorable, and not in the sense that the image of the tree seems challenging to interpret. In fact, the tree of life stands out from many of the other striking images in the Apocalypse because the image seems—at first read—to be rather unassuming. Unlike many of the other symbols in the Apocalypse, the tree of life appears to be a well-drawn and pleasant visual that enchants readers as it signals the end of a death-oriented existence (marked by images such as bowls, Beast, and a war in heaven) and the beginning of a new, life-fulfilling existence for those who taste its fruit.1 As unassuming as the tree of life seems, it is still merely one image within a grand narrative comprised of decidedly much more perplexing images (such as the bowls, the Beast, and a war in heaven). Whether clear-cut or puzzling, all of the images are in place to fulfill the narrative and rhetorical goals of the Apocalypse; not only because of the power imbued in each image but also because these images work together to reveal the complete vision of John.2 Among the images in Revelation, the tree of life takes a prominent place in readers’ memory not only due to its past place in scriptural imagination but also its role as a multistable and polyvalent focal point for the σκηνογρᾰφία (“set painting with perspective”) of the new heaven.3

1 The καὶ εἶδον in Rev 21:1; and cf. the list of 4 Ezra 8.50–52. 2 Austin Farrer, A Rebirth of Images: The Making of St. John’s Apocalypse (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2007), 18; and László Attila Hubbes, “Revolution of the Eye: The Spectacular Rhetoric of the Apocalyptic,” in Virtual Reality—Real Visuality: Virtual, Visual, Veridical, ed. András Benedek and Ágnes Veszelszki, Visual Learning 7 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2017), 167. 3 Rev 1:1 identifies the writer of Revelation as John; I follow this designation in this essay.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423756_010

184 1

estes

The Tree of Life in Biblical Context

The tree of life image occurs explicitly only eleven times in canonical context.4 When the tree of life occurs explicitly, it occurs either as a direct reference (three times in Genesis and four times in Revelation) or as part of a simile (four times in Proverbs).5 Beyond this, there are a few non-explicit allusions to the tree of life in canonical context (for example, two in Ezekiel).6 The Apocalypse is unique among New Testament texts as there are no other occurrences or allusions to the tree of life in the remainder of the NT. Therefore, outside of Revelation, the only other direct, canonical reference to the tree of life is in Genesis. Only by including deutero- and extracanonical texts (that may predate Revelation) does explicit, direct, non-metaphorical past use of the tree of life surpass the frequency of use in Revelation.7 These numbers help demonstrate the importance of the tree of life image in Revelation for biblical interpretation: the four direct mentions of the tree of life in this one text actually exceeds the total number of similar mentions throughout the rest of the canonical Scriptures. Revelation’s explicit correlation of the tree of life with Genesis, coupled with the reception history of the tree of life image, suggests that the tree of life in the garden of Eden (Genesis) and the tree of life in the New Heaven and the New Earth (Revelation) are the two most prominent images that stick with biblical readers. These images far surpass their frequency of mention; clearly, the importance of the tree of life outweighs its limited, explicit occurrences. It is a result of the creation, and depth, of the tree of life visual that these texts produce in readers’ minds that allows the tree of life a significant and unique place among biblical images.

4 The tree of life occurs in Gen 2:9, 3:22, 3:24 and Rev 2:7, 22:2, 22:14, 22:19 as direct reference. The image occurs as part of a simile in Prov 3:18, 11:30, 13:12, 15:4. 5 Cf. 4 Macc. 18:16; Sir 19:19 LXXb. 6 The image occurs as an allusion in Ezek 47:7, 47:12. In Proverbs, the tree of life only occurs as part of a simile, thus I differentiate this non-explicit usage from the type of usage that occurs in Genesis and Revelation; for similar argument, see Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol. 3, The Doctrine of Creation, Part 1, ed. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, trans. J.W. Edwards, O. Bussey, H. Knight (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 282–283. Jewish literature’s use of “transposed” ideas from Genesis (e.g., tree of life to torah) is common; see Paul Morris, “Exiled from Eden: Jewish Interpretations of Genesis,” in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden, ed. Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer, JSOTSup 136 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 117–118. 7 Notably, 4 Ezra 2.12, 8.52; 1 En. 24–26; and possibly 2 En. 8.3; and Apoc. Mos. 28.2, 4.

185

the tree of life in the apocalypse of john

The tree of life occurs only four times in John’s Apocalypse (Rev 2:7, 22:2, 22:14, and 22:19). As stated, the significance of the tree of life image for the narrative artistry of the apocalypse is greater than its limited use within the text. This is all the more striking when we look closely at the four explicit uses of the tree of life in Revelation. Of the four, three of these occurrences (2:7, 22:14, 22:19) are tangential to the larger narrative. In each of these three tangential uses, John refers to the tree of life rhetorically—as a pretense to make theological points. Since three of the four uses are rhetorical, this suggests that the writer anticipated early readers would already be familiar with the tree of life image.8 Only in Rev 22:2 does the writer bring the tree of life into the world of the narrative. This provides an almost exact counterbalance to the use of the image of the tree in Genesis 2:9.9 In fact, the ways in which John employs the tree of life image in Revelation closely mirrors the ways it appears in the Genesis text:

Genesis texts

Usage

Revelation texts

Gen 2:9 Gen 3:22 Gen 3:24

Existent in Narrative World Reference in Direct Speech Reference in Divine Warning

Rev 22:2 Rev 2:7 Rev 22:14, 22:19

8 This is internal evidence that early readers would have understood the tree of life image. There are also two forms of external evidence: First, already mentioned, are the explicit references in ancient works such as Genesis and Ezekiel that would serve as cultural background information for readers coming from Hebraic culture. Second, for those outside of Hebraic culture, there were Greek cultural vectors such as the cult of Artemis; on this, see Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, JSNTSup 11 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 42–50; and Charles Brütsch, Die Offenbarung Jesu Christi: Johannes-Apokalypse, ZBK (Zürich: Zwingli, 1970), 1:126. But against any direct parallels between Greek cults and John’s Apocalypse, see e.g., Thomas Witulski, Die Johannesoffenbarung und Kaiser Hadrian: Studien zur Datierung der neutestamentlichen Apokalypse, FRLANT 221 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 102. Either way, this does not seem to be a requirement for interpretation of the text; the Apocalypse contains other symbols such as the bowls or the Beast that may not have been explicitly understood by those outside of Jewish culture (or even inside). 9 Of the three explicit mentions of the tree of life in Genesis, only the use at 2:9 is situated firmly in the narrative world. The other two mentions (3:22 and 3:24) are similarly tangential to the larger narrative. For example, compare the referential use of the tree of life in Gen 3:22 and Rev 2:7, and also the referential use in Gen 3:24 and Rev 22:14, 19.

186

estes

In each case, John follows a general pattern reminiscent of the Genesis text. Further, both Genesis and Revelation share one, and only one, statement where the tree of life is mentioned as an existent of the narrative world, outside of descriptive speech or theological reference. These two direct statements serve as the two poles that guide the creation of the best possible representation for readers of the tree of life image in biblical context.10 Therefore, this singular explicit, non-metaphorical usage of the tree of life is the starting point for understanding the meaning and purpose of the tree of life in the Apocalypse. Given the grammatical ambiguity that occurs in Rev 22:2, I follow the Vulgate as opposed to many modern translations, and read the relevant section as: And he showed me a river of living water, bright as crystal. In the midst of the city’s street—and the river to either side—a living tree, bearing twelve fruits (yielding its fruit according to each month); and the leaves of the tree—for healing of the nations. Here the author of the apocalypse describes the tree as part of a larger scene that depicts God’s eschatological throne.11 This mirrors the setting in Genesis (and, less explicitly, Ezekiel), and is set up by the writer in such a way as to create an intricate visual image in the eye of the reader.

2

Visuals and Visions in Biblical Texts

The tree of life in the Apocalypse of John is a purposeful visual texture that occurs within the text in order to add theological depth to the story and accentuate its narrative artistry. In order for a group of words in a text to constitute a narrative, they must tell a story—something must occur in time. “I am” is not a narrative, but “I went to the store” is an incipient narrative. Thus, a narrative must contain two or more events—a progression—in order to be a narrative. It is not a requirement that narratives have visual texture, though all narratives must create a minimal amount of visual texture if only because they use words,

10 11

This is not meant to understate the importance of Ezekiel 47; Genesis is the primary referent, and Ezekiel is the secondary. For a medieval visual depiction of this reading, see fig. 12.20, ‘The Heavenly Jerusalem,’ Cambridge, Trinity College, MS. R. 16.2, fol. 25v. ca. 1260; and see also the discussion by Pippa Salonius, in this volume.

the tree of life in the apocalypse of john

187

and words are symbols that evoke ideas in the minds of readers. “I went to the store” is as much a narrative as “I bunny-hopped to the store,” but only the latter evokes a memorable image in the mind of the reader. The choice of the word bunny-hop creates a visual image that affects how the reader understands the story; it is a part of the narrative artistry that creates a rhetorical effect on the reader. To be successful, a narrative writer must be an εἰκονοποιός (“image-maker”).12 In order for John to achieve his narrative and rhetorical goals that includes mentioning the new heaven and the new earth, John must depict the new heaven and new earth scene in such a way that entices and engages readers. Thus it was necessary for John to use φαντᾰσία (“visualizations”) to describe his visions.13 However, because John’s goal is not to merely describe a version of his vision, but to influence his hearers and readers through the φαντᾰσία, the images created take on a rhetorical effect as well as satisfying their narrative purpose. Ancient rhetoricians understood this, noting that one of the prime rhetorical effects that entices readers/hearers is ἔκφρᾰσις (“description”).14 Ἔκφρᾰσις “is descriptive language, bringing what is portrayed clearly before the sight.”15 The use of description in storytelling goes back to the beginning; “it is hardly an exaggeration to say that ekphrasis is as old as writing itself in the western world.”16 Ancient writers used description to create visual images not only of people and events but also of locations.17 For example, the rhetorician Libanius (AD314–393) uses a garden setting as one example of the use of ἔκφρᾰσις (“description”) to create an image for readers.18 The primary goal of description is to create with “clarity and a vivid impression of all-but-seeing what is described.”19 One indicator that the author uses description (rather than another rhetorical effect) is a ‘neutral’ presentation of the image, without

12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19

Aristotle, Poet. 1460b8. Longinus, Subl. 15; and also Quintilian, Inst. 8.3.88. As it occurs in all extant progymnasmata. Description is also universal to all forms of speech and rhetoric; see for example, Ronald F. Hock, The Chreia and Ancient Rhetoric: Commentaries on Aphthonius’s Progymnasmata, WGRW 31 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2012), 261. Aelius Theon, Progymn. § 118 [Kennedy]. James A.W. Heffernan, Museum of Words: The Poetics of Ekphrasis from Homer to Ashbery (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 9. Aelius Theon, Progymn. § 118; Hermogenes, Progymn. §22; Aphthonius the Sophist, Progymn. § 37R; and Nicolaus the Sophist, Progymn. § 68. Craig A. Gibson, Libanius’s Progymnasmata: Model Exercises in Greek Prose Composition and Rhetoric, WGRW 27 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2008), 446–449. Aelius Theon, Progymn. § 119 [Kennedy].

188

estes

narrator interference.20 Further, description should be straightforward and not encumbered with complicated language.21 It paints its picture by moving step by step in an orderly description of what the writer wants the reader to see.22 Therefore, one feature of memorable narratives is the meaningful use of description to paint settings (esp. σκηνογρᾰφία) in the minds of hearers. The goal of a narrative is to progress from event to event, but description brings pause to narrative in order to make the story ‘cling’ to the reader. Modern biblical scholars also understand this, as they have slowly begun to pay more attention to how visual effects work within texts.23 One recent foray by scholars into this area has been in the study of rhetography, a term coined by Vernon K. Robbins and slowly seeing greater usage in biblical interpretation.24 Robbins’ term is meant to give interpretive power to “the graphic images people create in their minds as a result of the visual texture of a text.”25 These graphic images start with simple forms of φαντᾰσία (“visualizations”), such as ἔκφρᾰσις (e.g., “bunny-hop”), and move toward more overt visual textures placed within a text (e.g., the visual symbols in Revelation).26 These types of visual textures use description to place the image in the reader’s mind but go beyond this by launching a range of intertextual vectors. For example, in a typical case of ἔκφρᾰσις (“description”) in ancient literature, the description may subconsciously trigger ideas in the hearers’ minds based on either personal experiences recalled from memory, or from others stories with similar descriptions. In contrast, texts such as the Apocalypse of John use description to not only subconsciously trigger ideas in the hearer’s minds based on general experiences, but also in very conscious connections with other ancient texts, imperial politics, eschatological thought, and Christian theology (to name but a few possibilities in such a complicated text). The study of rhetography is there-

20 21 22 23

24 25

26

Aelius Theon, Progymn. § 119. Aphthonius the Sophist, Progymn. § 37R. Aphthonius the Sophist, Progymn. § 37R; and Nicolaus the Sophist, Progymn. §69. Christoph Auffarth finds the root of the problem in the focus on the “the word” and an overly-Aristotelian examination of biblical texts; see “The Invisible Made Visible: Glimpses of an Iconography of the Fall of Angels,” in The Fall of the Angels, ed. Christoph Auffarth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, TBN 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 261–262. For example, B.J. Oropeza, “Rhetography: Seeing Biblical Texts through Visual Exegesis,” Didaktikos 2:1 (2018): 35–36. Vernon K. Robbins, “Rhetography: A New Way of Seeing the Familiar Text,” in Words Well Spoken: George Kennedy’s Rhetoric of the New Testament, ed. C. Clifton Black and Duane F. Watson, SRR 8 (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008), 81. To be clear, ancient writers would not have understood the singular use of a descriptive verb as ἔκφρᾰσις, but for modern readers it is a basic extrapolation from an ancient idea.

the tree of life in the apocalypse of john

189

fore fruitful because of images such as the tree of life, images which are based on—but go beyond—mere description. Another issue at play in understanding visual images such as the tree of life in Revelation is that the image occurs in a peculiar type of narrative: ἀποκάλυψις (“apocalypse”; Rev 1:1). Apocalypse, as it has come to be known as a genre, includes “revelational writings that depict in mysterious images and visions the course of history to its end as well as the future of the world and humanity” (emphasis mine).27 More specifically, the image of the tree of life occurs as part of a προφητεία (“prophecy”; Rev 1:3, 22:7, 22:10, 22:18–19) within an eschatological ὅρᾱσις (“vision”; Rev 9:17) as a result of the author being ἐν πνεύματι (“in the Spirit”; Rev 1:10). All of these various terms point to the incontrovertible fact that the tree of life is embedded in a text that eschews typical narrative conventions in favor of provocative visual textures. As a result, even though the tree of life may appear to be an image that is relatively easy to understand, readers should be wary whether this is in fact the case. Dreams and visions as we find in Revelation “figure prominently in many ancient texts.”28 Just as there were rhetoricians who analyzed and described various forms of rhetoric within speeches, there were also diviners who analyzed and described various forms of dreams and visions, including those that were prophetic. The only extant handbook on the interpretation of visions is the Oneirocritica of Artemidorus (fl. late 2nd century AD).29 Similar to the authors of the progymnasmata, Artemidorus wrote the Oneirocritica for pedagogical purposes.30 In the Oneirocritica, Artemidorus argues that visions can be subdivided into five categories: ὄνειρος (“prophetic dream”); ἐνύπνιον (“stressful dream”); χρημᾰτισμός (“oracle”); φάντᾰσμα (“apparition”) and ὅρᾱμα (“vision”).31 Of these five, three are focused on the future: prophetic dreams, oracles, and visions.32 Artemidorus also adds that among dreams, there are two kinds: θεω27 28 29 30 31

32

Jürgen Roloff, The Revelation of John, trans. John E. Alsup, CC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 3. John B.F. Miller, “Exploring the Function of Symbolic Dream-Visions in the Literature of Antiquity, with Another Look at 1QapGen 19 and Acts 10,” PRSt 37 (2010): 441. Dreams and visions were the subject in passing in other ancient texts; see for example, Cicero, Div. 1.6. Daniel E. Harris-McCoy, Artemidorus’ Oneirocritica: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 40. Harris-McCoy, Artemidorus’ Oneirocritica, 13. Demonstrating the reach of Artemidorus’ work, Macrobius (mid-5th century AD) uses five similar categories; see Macrobius, Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, trans. William Harris Stahl, Records of Western Civilization (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952), 88. Artemidorus suggests prophetic dreams, oracles, and visions are related phenomena; see Artemidorus, Oneir 1.5.

190

estes

ρημᾰτικός (“literal”) and ἀλληγορικός (“figurative”). Artemidorus further subdivides figurative dreams into five different types, one of which is κοσμικός (“cosmic”).33 Beyond this, there are also further, less relevant subdivisions in the Oneirocritica. The most salient point here is that some ancient thinkers did try to analyze visions in a similar way as other ancient thinkers might analyze rhetoric or genre.34 Therefore, modern attempts at rhetography and the analysis of visual images in texts as well as dreams and visions does reflect ancient concerns. There are also several areas where we should compare and contrast John and Artemidorus. On the one hand, John and Artemidorus are both engaging a similar genre of speech and text. Though they do not use the exact same terms, the meaning and use of terms related to prophetic visions was very fluid in the ancient world (again, akin to the fluidity of rhetorical terms).35 Artemidorus shows a willingness to treat his subject matter with skill and precision, and in a manner that is aware of other cultures and traditions.36 In addition, John and Artemidorus worked in a similar milieu—John likely completed his Apocalypse in Ephesus at the end of the first century AD,37 and Artemidorus was from Ephesus, and likely completed his Oneirocritica in the mid to late second century AD.38 Thus, the authors of both texts likely worked in the same city (of Ephesus), perhaps within forty years of one another, and certainly before one hundred years had passed. On the other hand, John and Artemidorus come from very different traditions. John, who perhaps originated in Palestine, wrote with a clear eye toward Hebraic thought and culture, with distinct religious topics,39 whereas Artemidorus wrote for a wider Hellenistic culture, perhaps even with an eye to catering to popular interest.40 Although John may not have been aware of Greek ideas about dreams and visions, some of his early readers were likely familiar with this material. Artemidorus is highly critical of

33

34 35 36 37 38 39 40

The term κοσμικός is not well captured in English with “cosmic,” at least to Artemidorus, who seems to consider it partly in the sense of “astrological” and partly in the sense of “eschatological,” but not in an early Christian sense. Artemidorus, Oneir 1.2. For example, little distinction can be made between ὅρᾱσις and ὅρᾱμα (BDAG, 719). See also Harris-McCoy, Artemidorus’ Oneirocritica, 13–14. Artemidorus, Oneir 1.1; and Harris-McCoy, Artemidorus’ Oneirocritica, 18. Craig R. Koester, Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 38A (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 71. Patricia Cox Miller, Dreams in Late Antiquity: Studies in the Imagination of a Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 77. Wilfrid J. Harrington, Revelation, SP 16 (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2008), 17. Artemidorus, Oneir 1.2.

the tree of life in the apocalypse of john

191

those who are opposed to divination,41 a position that would place him at odds with early Christians.42 Finally, ancient Jewish apocalypses highly influenced the visual world of John’s visions. This is especially true of Ezekiel and Daniel, given John’s apparent familiarity with the Old Testament texts.43 The visual image of the tree of life in Revelation echoes earlier depictions of the tree of life in Genesis and Ezekiel. Therefore, John’s creation of visual texture relied on a scriptural, Hebraic way of thinking about prophecy as well as making use of traditional Greek language description that connects, in at least a general way, with a largely Hellenistic audience (since John writes in Greek). As a result, there are five parameters we can draw from this background survey as it relates to the tree of life as a visual texture in the Apocalypse: a) John was aware of the expectations of apocalyptic literature (e.g., Ezekiel, Daniel, and perhaps Enoch); b) John understood that narrative writing in general, and apocalypse and prophecy in particular, require strong, descriptive visual texture (e.g., thought-provoking visual images) and often use scene-setting; c) John wrote in a culture that took visions, dreams, and prophecies seriously (e.g., both Hebraic and Greek); d) John wrote in a culture that allowed for the analysis of images, visions, dreams, and prophecies, meaning that their exact interpretation could be thought of as the subject of serious scrutiny (e.g., θεωρημᾰτικός [“literal”] or ἀλληγορικός [“figurative”]); and e) the study of visual imagery is both an ancient and modern concern (e.g., Artemidorus to Robbins).44 We use these five parameters as a starting point to consider the purpose of the tree of life in the Apocalypse.

41

42 43

44

In fact, Artemidorus is ready “to go into battle” to defend the art of divination against “those seeking to do away” with these arts (Artemidorus, Oneir 1.1, Harris-McCoy). One may speculate that among those in Ephesus standing against divination were Jews and Christians (cf. Lev 19:26; Deut 18:10; 1 Sam 15:23; 2 Kgs 17:17; 2Kgs 21:6; 2Chr 33:6; Acts 16:16– 18). For example, Origen, Hom. Jos. 7.1; and cf. Francis C.R. Thee, Julius Africanus and the Early Christian View of Magic, HUT 16 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984), 338, 432. Harrington, Revelation, 1–5; and Martin Karrer, Die Johannesoffenbarung als Brief: Studien zu ihrem literarischen, historischen und theologischen Ort, FRLANT 140 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 213. Artemidorus and Robbins (as examples) are working with different types of texts (remembered dreams and written narratives), but both are attempting to discover meaning for images embedded in texts.

192 3

estes

Visualizing the Tree of Life

The tree of life in Revelation is a visual image embedded within a larger narrative that the author uses to describe a scene so that the reader can imagine an idea much greater than mere words can convey. When a reader reads John’s Apocalypse, it is possible for the reader to visualize the tree of life, but this doesn’t mean that the full meaning or purpose of the tree of life will be apparent. Many readers will relate the tree of life to eternal life, but as with all images in the Apocalypse, first impressions can be deceiving. A cursory scan of the history of interpretation of the tree of life makes this truth apparent: interpretations of the tree of life range from the literal to the sacramental, from the ecclesiological to the cosmological. What may seem a relatively simple image at first glance becomes less clear upon closer inspection. Why is this? I believe it will be helpful to compare the situation with the tree of life with other prominent visual textures in the Apocalypse. For example, in Rev 3:5, John refers to a “book of life.” A close reading of the text does not suggest that this book is anything other than a book. But, when we consider this book contains many names, the idea of a “book” starts to become nebulous. How can one book contain all those names? Is it a large book? Or does “book” somehow refer to something else? In contrast to this book, God possesses a “book with seven seals” that, in narrative context, appears to function as one might expect a book to function (a large sealed codex; Rev 5:1–9). Later in Revelation there is a little book that John eats (Rev 10:9–10), an act that signals to the reader that this book is a tangible book. But who eats books? Or are these books misunderstood visual textures on the virtual landscape of the grand Apocalypse— hidden among the more obvious textures that are full of meaning (the bowls, the Beast, a war in heaven)? This brings us to a fundamental question—does John intend the tree of life as a real tree? Or is it something like a tree (but not actually a tree)? Or is it merely a metaphor or a symbol for something else (and therefore, not actually a tree at all)? And, how can the reader know amidst the interpretive difficulty of a text as Revelation? How is the reader to visualize and understand the tree of life in the Apocalypse? In his Oneirocritica, Artemidorus intentionally avoids studying visions—the term likely closest in meaning to John’s term—“since I do not believe it is possible for any interpreter to understand them to whom they are not already clear.”45 In John’s vision of Jesus in Revelation 1, John sees seven stars and seven

45

Artemidorus, Oneir 1.5, Harris-McCoy.

the tree of life in the apocalypse of john

193

lampstands, and the vision of Jesus gives John the key to interpreting those visual images (Rev 1:12–20). This is useful—necessary, in Artemidorus’ mind— for the reader to follow John’s intent. And it demonstrates that at least some of his vision has a key to interpretation. However, there is no apparent key to interpreting many of the images in the Apocalypse, including the tree of life. If we trust Artemidorus’ understanding, there is no answer to this. However, that has not stopped interpreters from trying to interpret the tree of life and other images in the Apocalypse for the last two millennia. To interpret better the tree of life we must not read it as a movement of the text (in the narrative sense) but must see it as an image created for the reader (in the visual sense). This requires a very different reading strategy than a reader needs for almost all of the other parts of the New Testament. Only in Revelation does the image depiction surpass narrative development or rhetorical effort.46 And, for the tree of life, the depiction occurs in only one verse (Rev 22:2). In its scene setting and visual texture, the tree of life is one figure among many that John recreates for his narrative, rhetorical, and theological purposes in Revelation. Yet, the tree of life occupies center stage of the people-dwell-with-God scene. As a result, the tree of life is the figure to which all eyes are drawn in the paradisiacal scene—it is the focal point. Much like a stage setup, or even a painting, however, the image in the foreground may shift depending on the angle in which it is viewed. This is because the tree of life in Revelation is both multistable and polyvalent. 3.1 The Tree of Life as Multistable Image A multistable image is an image that warrants more than one valid visualization.47 It is one that intentionally exploits ambiguity in the image, typically through the angle of perception. The creation of a multistable image is in almost all cases an intentional act of the creator. In the modern era, the most prominent examples of multistable images are commonly found in various forms of visual illusions, such as a drawing of a Necker cube, the smile on Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa (1503), the halo of Jesus on the anonymous Novgorod Christ in Glory (ca. late 15th century), and likely the eyes and facial

46

47

Other NT texts have images and use description, but I argue that those are supplemental to narrative and rhetoric goals whereas in Revelation the visual texture at times are meant to surpass the narrative and rhetorical goals of the text. For discussion, see for example W.J.T. Mitchell, Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1994), 45–51. Multistable images are also known as dialectical images, although I avoid the latter term due to Walter Benjamin’s popularization of that term with different meaning.

194

estes

expressions of Jesus in the oldest extant Christ Pantocrator at Saint Catherine’s Monastery (late 6th or early 7th century). These images have more than one stable interpretation, depending on the perspective of the viewer. Though these modern images are sophisticated in their use of perspective to create multistability, the use of perspective to create depth and illusion in visual images extends back to the beginning of recorded history.48 Though Revelation is a written text, its heavy reliance on images suggests that the writer has given at least some minimal thought as to how to convey eschatological images experienced in an ὅρᾱσις / ὅρᾱμα (“vision”) mode. These types of images are often notorious for their seemingly indeterminate nature. However, the genre of visions means there is more at play than just simple indeterminacy in their images. Instead, in order for interpretation to occur, there must be some indication of how to proceed.49 At the same time, the nature of prophetic vision suggests there is intent to create ambiguity in such a way that the visual created in the text in not actually indeterminate but has more than one stable perspective (and therefore, likely multiple meanings). As this type of multistable scenario is present in the word play of several New Testament texts, I suggest that a multistable scenario is also present in the tree of life visual texture in the Apocalypse.50 I also suggest John’s sketch of the tree is intentionally multistable because the reception history of the tree of life visual, predating the writing of Revelation, is itself multistable.51 In depicting the tree of life, John signals to the reader that he intends to draw a multistable image. First, John explains to his audience that an angel carries him away in the Spirit to a high vantage point in which John can see the new Jerusalem (Rev 21:10). Then John describes in great detail the majesty of the city (Rev 21:11–22), and offers insight into its theological meaning (Rev 21:23–

48 49 50

51

This was well-established knowledge at the time of the writing of Revelation; see for example, Quintilian, Inst. 2.17.21. Artemidorus, Oneir 1.5. For example, the use of πέτρα in Matthew 16:18, and use of ἄνωθεν in John 3:3; in both situations, there is not one ‘correct’ interpretation, multiple interpretations share similar stability; and cf. Demetr. Eloc. 291. For the suggestion that art and language share similar illusions, see James I. Porter, The Sublime in Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 90. For example, singular conceptions of the tree of life include Gen 2:9; 3:22, 24; 4Ezra 2.12, 8.52; 1 En. 24.4; 2 En. 8.3–4; 3 En. 5.1, 23.18, 48D.8; Apoc. Mos. 19.2, 22.4, 28.2–4; 4Bar. 9.16; Philo, Leg. 1.59; and LAB, 11.15; Apoc. El. 5.6; whereas plural conceptions include Pss. Sol. 14.3; 1QHa XVI, 5–6; and possibly Ezek 47:7; plus, there are other subtle hints of multistability in late antiquity, see G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 1106.

the tree of life in the apocalypse of john

195

27). Next, John refocuses his audience by painting a σκηνή (“scene”) of the new eschatological throne room of God in the resurrection.52 Whereas the first part of the vision of the heavenly city is marked by exacting details, the heavenly throne room is focused more on a kind of ἐνάργεια (“vividness”).53 The tree of life, in its scene, helps to create a visual image in the ear of the hearer/eye of the reader. This scene is an example of ekphrasis, or “descriptive language,” and a key part of the rhetorical movement of the text.54 Visual images in texts, especially those that utilize descriptive and figurative language, are created by writers to communicate something that a simple listing of objects cannot communicate well. This is especially noticeable in the Apocalypse, with its stress on what John sees (and the reader’s invitation to see what John sees).55 Whenever the tree of life occurs explicitly (non-simile) in canonical literature, it is always set in a similar scene that communicates visually and figuratively, to supplement the rhetorical goals of the writer. After John describes the river of life, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, he then describes the tree of life in relation to the central street, the river of life, and the banks of the river. As we try to visualize this image, the tree of life appears in the foreground, and the throne of God is in the background, surrounded by the other elements of the visual texture.56 The position of the

52

53

54

55

56

For further discussion on the scene as victorious conclusion, see Douglas Estes, “The Last Chapter of Revelation? Narrative Design at the End of the Apocalypse,” CTR 17 (2019), 97– 110. I say, “kind of ἐνάργεια,” because ancient writers ἐνάργεια more often employed this term to describe vividness of action than vividness of scene; see esp. Plutarch, Art. 8.1; and cf. Caryn A. Reeder, Gendering War and Peace in the Gospel of Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 110–112. In addition, other ancient apocalypses employed more ἔκφρᾰσις that provided a greater ἐνάργεια in depicting the tree of life; for example, see 1 En. 24.4–5; 2 En. 8.3–4. Robyn J. Whitaker, “The Poetics of Ekphrasis: Vivid Description and Rhetoric in the Apocalypse,” in Poetik und Intertextualität der Johannesapokalypse, ed. Stefan Alkier, Thomas Hieke, Tobias Nicklas (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 228. David A. deSilva, “Seeing Things John’s Way: Rhetography and Conceptual Blending in Revelation 14:6–13,”BBR 18 (2008): 278. Further, Robyn J. Whitaker notes that “The entire book is framed by the claim that God gave the revelation ‘to show (δεῖξαι) his servants what must happen soon’ (1:1; 4:1; 22:6). Four further uses of δείκνυμι intimate it is used to indicate the most important elements of the overall vision: the judgment of the great prostitute (17:1); the bride of the Lamb (21:9); the holy city of new Jerusalem (21:10); and the river of life (22:1). It is a verb that implies an emphasis on the sensory, on seeing and experiencing something represented or imaged”; see Whitaker, “Poetics of Ekphrasis,” 231. Alternatively, the throne of God is in the center of the image, obscured at least in part by the tree of life; either way, the tree of life is foregrounded in the image for the reader. Natasha O’Hear and Anthony O’Hear note that this scene “presents a real challenge for

196

estes

tree of life was important to ancient readers.57 What is difficult in forming the mental image is that John describes the tree of life (ξύλον ζωῆς, in the singular) with two distinct and contrastive spatial references: the tree of life is both ἐν μέσῳ τῆς πλατείας and ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐκεῖθεν by the river of life. Thus, the hearer expects either one tree ἐν μέσῳ τῆς πλατείας or many trees on ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐκεῖθεν along both banks. How can one tree be in multiple places? As Jürgen Roloff notes, this creates a “disturbing effect” on the reader.58 Unusual spatial effects are a common motif in ancient apocalypses, and require special attention.59 Because of this effect, the placement of the tree of life represents a longstanding problem of interpretation.60 Most modern English translations retain the singular reading of ξύλον ζωῆς (“tree of life”) but depict the scene as if there are many trees of life that thrive on either side of the river.61 A frequent, modern argument that attempts to resolve this disparity suggests that the singular ξύλον is meant in a collective sense.62 This is an argument that is compatible with the singular reading of Ezekiel 47:12 in the LXX (and cf. 1QHa XVI, 5–6). However, there is a minority reading (that I follow above) dating to the Vulgate that depicts this scene as one where there is one tree that is bounded on both

57 58 59

60

61

62

artists,” in Picturing the Apocalypse: The Book of Revelation in the Arts over Two Millennia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 214. For example, when Philo answers questions, the position of the tree is second only to the nature of the tree; see QG 1.10. Roloff, Revelation of John, 246; for a similar comment, see Harrington, Revelation, 219. Todd R. Hanneken, The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees, SBL EJL 34 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2012), 51; and cf. Leif Hongisto, Experiencing the Apocalypse at the Limits of Alterity, BibInt 102 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 159. For a more technical discussion of the problem, see Roger L. Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), 550–551; and cf. Jerome, The Homilies of Saint Jerome (1–59 on the Psalms), ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Marie Liguori Ewald, FC 1 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1964), 9–10. The same is true in modern art; works such as William Blake’s River of Life (c. 1805) depict the tree of life as many trees along the bank, as part of an open landscape. This is in part a reaction against medieval depictions that tended toward the inclusion of all elements of the new heaven and new earth in an attempt to work out Apocalyptic spatiality; see O’Hear and O’Hear, Picturing the Apocalypse, 214, 233–234. For example, see Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 772; David E. Aune, Revelation 17–22, WBC 52C (Dallas: Word, 1998), 1177; Roloff, Revelation of John, 246; Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse (London: SPCK, 2005), 562; J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, AB 38 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 345–346; Beale, Book of Revelation, 1106; R.H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St John, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920), 2:176.

the tree of life in the apocalypse of john

197

sides by the river of life.63 In fact, some of the oldest discussions on the tree of life suggest that the tree is meant in a singular sense (cf. Gen 2:9, 1 En. 24.4).64 Is the tree of life one tree, in the center of the street, or is the tree of life many trees that grow on both banks? Yet, when we consider that the tree is an image, there is a third option: John is intentionally ambiguous in his wording in order to create a multistable image.65 By using the singular ξύλον, juxtaposed spatially across the other elements of the eschatological scene, John is able to present a visual texture that appears both simple (singular) and complex (plural) to the hearer.66 The tree of life “stands out” in the image as the hearer sees the tree both in front and to the sides of the throne. It is an attempt at creating depth, as if viewing a σκῐᾱγρᾰφία (“painting with shadows”).67 In this case, the first spatial descriptor of the tree of life puts it into focus, and the second spatial descriptor creates the shadow effect. More importantly, by using this technique, John is able to connect this depiction of the tree of life to both the Genesis account (singular tree) and the Ezekiel account (many trees).68 The infocus tree of life in Genesis becomes superimposed over the verdant trees of life in Ezekiel. This allows John to create a sense of depth in his visual texture and to add perspective in the mind of the reader. It also signals to the reader that this image is not merely basic ἔκφρᾰσις (“description”), but instead is a multistable

63 64

65 66

67

68

For example, Louis A. Brighton, Revelation, ConcC (St. Louis: Concordia, 1999), 623. Jerome, Homilies, 9–10; Venerable Bede, The Explanation of the Apocalypse, trans. Edward Marshall (Oxford: James Parker and Co., 1878), 165; Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse, ed. David G. Hunter, trans. Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou, FC 123 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2011), 233; Oecumenius, Commentary on the Apocalypse, trans. John N. Suggit, FC 112 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006), 195; and for modern commentators who also ascribe to a singular tree, see David Mathewson, A New Heaven and a New Earth: The Meaning and Function of the Old Testament in Revelation 21.1–22.5, JSNTSup 238 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 189; Koester, Revelation, 823; and Harrington, Revelation, 216. Besides Roloff, another close argument to this is by Eric J. Gilchrest, Revelation 21–22 in Light of Jewish and Greco-Roman Utopianism, Bib Int 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 238–239. Of course, a similar ambiguity of simplicity and complexity arises in the reading of the tree of life in Genesis; see the essay by Christopher Heard in this volume, as well as Ute Dercks, “Two Trees in Paradise? A Case Study on the Iconography of the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life in Italian Romanesque Sculpture,” in The Tree: Symbol, Allegory and Mnemonic Device in Medieval Art and Thought, ed. Pippa Salonius and Andrea Worm, IMR 20 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), 143–158. In fact, this is taken to a literal extreme in a few accounts of the tree of life such as Gen 2:9; 4 Bar 9.16; 1 En. 24.3–4; and Philo, Leg. 1.59, where a singular tree of life is framed by numerous lesser trees around it (but, cf. 1QHa XVI, 5–6). For further discussion of σκῐᾱγρᾰφία, see Eva C. Keuls, Plato and Greek Painting, CSCT 5 (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 72–87. And potentially, the numerous extracanonical accounts to which John was likely exposed.

198

estes

image with possible polyvalency; in this case, both θεωρημᾰτικός (“literal”) and ἀλληγορικός (“figurative”) options that encourage hearers and readers to pause and consider the image for a greater duration. 3.2 The Tree of Life as Polyvalent Image A polyvalent image is an image with more than one valid interpretation. It is one that intentionally exploits ambiguity in an image. The term “polyvalent” is common in biblical interpretation, where it means that readers can understand an utterance (e.g., a parable) on more than one level.69 My use of polyvalent is similar, though not exactly the same; here, polyvalent refers to an intentional creation of more than one meaning by the writer in order to evoke a shifting image in the mind’s eye. Because the image is multistable, it aids in the creation of a polyvalent interpretation.70 Both perspective of the image and the assumptions of the audience influence the interpretation of a polyvalent image. The result is an image that is not just open to more than one interpretation, but demands more than one interpretation.71 The tree of life in the Apocalypse is a polyvalent image.72 It is also possible that the tree of life in Genesis is polyvalent as well.73 The multistable and polyvalent nature of the tree of life image in Revelation has resulted in a rather wide range of not just possible, but probable,

69

70

71

72 73

For example, Paul Anderson, “From One Dialogue to Another: Johannine Polyvalence from Origins to Receptions,” in Anatomies of Narrative Criticism: The Past, Present, and Futures of the Fourth Gospel as Literature, ed. Tom Thatcher and Stephen D. Moore, RBS 55 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 93–95. An image may be multistable but not necessarily polyvalent; for example, the Necker cube (though one could argue it is polyvalent to a small degree). However, most images that are multistable are likewise polyvalent. David E. Aune make a similar argument in his reading of Rev 3:20, in which he argues: “The imagery in this passage is polyvalent, a feature suggested not simply through the unremarkable fact that commentators disagree on its interpretation, but rather because individual commentators frequently suggest two, three or more possible meanings sideby-side without insisting on the priority of any one reading”; see David E. Aune, “The Polyvalent Imagery of Rev 3:20 in the Light of Greco-Egyptian Divination Texts,” GrecoRoman Culture and the New Testament: Studies Commemorating the Centennial of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, ed. David E. Aune and Frederick E. Brenk, NovTSup 143 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 168. For another example of a polyvalent image in biblical literature, see James H. Charlesworth, The Good and Evil Serpent: How a Universal Symbol Became Christianized, AYBRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010). Salonius and Worm, preface to The Tree, xvii. For example, see Philo, Opif. 154; and Michaela Bauks, “Erkenntnis und Leben in Gen 2– 3: Zum Wandel eines ursprünglich weisheitlich geprägten Lebensbegriffs,”ZAW 127 (2015): 39.

the tree of life in the apocalypse of john

199

interpretations—many of which seem to be equally valid. This is an intended result of the “disturbing effect” created by John. In order to examine the range of interpretations, and understand how John wants readers to understand his image, we turn back to the parameters defined by Artemidorus. In the Oneirocritica, Artemidorus suggests prophetic dreams and visions can be characterized in two ways, as θεωρημᾰτικός (“literal”) and ἀλληγορικός (“figurative”). And then figurative visions can be further subdivided. Following Artemidorus, I suggest John intended his audience have the space to interpret the tree of life image both literally and figuratively, and within a figurative view, both as a μεταφορά (“metaphor”) and a σύμβολον (“symbol”).74 Generally speaking, each of these three perspectives feature prominently in apocalyptic literature such as Revelation; for example, Visual textures in the Apocalypse

Literal seeming

Metaphorical seeming

Symbolic seeming

Books

Lamb who was Slain

Seven Stars/Seven Lampstands

Since the tree of life in Revelation is an intentionally polyvalent image, it also seems to shift in meaning depending on the angle or perspective of the reader. The result is several strong interpretations of the tree of life, with no consensus. This is due to readers interpreting the tree often without acknowledging these angles (and how they relate to each other). Though there may be other angles, we will consider the three most notable angles: the literal angle, the metaphoric angle, and the symbolic angle.75 3.2.1 The Θεωρημᾰτικός (“Literal”) Perspective From a literal perspective, a hearer visualizes an image in such a way that it comes to pass “as is” (e.g., a tree is or will be a tree). The literal perspective allows for a fixed visual image to appear in the eyes of the audience. In the 74

75

For a brief, general discussion of the relationship between allegory, metaphor, and symbol in the ancient world, see Peter T. Struck, Birth of the Symbol: Ancient Readers at the Limits of Their Texts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 1–4. For example, Oecumenius (early 6th century), in what may be the earliest Greek commentary on Revelation, implicitly discusses all three of these options—he rejects the literal, and then proposes both a metaphorical and later a symbolic interpretation; see Oecumenius, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 37–38, 195, 198. Thus, Oecumenius is aware of all three options.

200

estes

Oneirocritica, Artemidorus explains that θεωρημᾰτικός “dreams are those [that are] identical to their appearance.”76 This means that in this type of vision, what John visualizes (and describes for his audience) is an actual tree. From this perspective, John intends that his audience will also visualize an actual tree—with fruit, leaves, roots, bark; one that drinks water, undergoes photosynthesis, breathes in CO2 and exhales O2—before the throne of God and the Lamb in paradise. This image is the reality of what will come to pass. This tree will be one that when God’s servants arrive in the eternal city, they will actually go to the tree, pick fruit off of its limbs, and eat the fruit (Rev 22:3). Likewise, these people of God will use the leaves for healing (Rev 22:2). The literal perspective of the tree of life is the most foregrounded and most apparent perspective of the three perspectives. From the literal perspective, the tree of life visual is meant to describe simply one, singular tree of the sort that strongly alludes to (or, more likely, is) the original tree of life from Eden. More importantly, the audience is meant to see in John’s vision an actual living tree that stands before the heavenly throne room. Because the image is multistable, even as the audience visualizes one tree, the spatial descriptors and the echoes of Ezekiel create σκῐά (“shadow effect”) for the audience.77 The descriptive power of the tree of life scene is the author’s way of making the audience believe this is a place they want to be. The implied reader can envision the setting in their mind, and they can hope to go there in the future (cf. Rev 22:14). It also allows for a sacramental reading of the text, where the fruit of the tree provide eternal nourishment.78 This perspective is the privileged one; it is the perspective of the implied reader, and the one that naïve, first time readers will see first. To suggest that the tree of life here is “not real” seems to damage one of John’s goals as well as the power of the image.79 The literal perspective

Strength

Weakness

Plain Reading of the Text

Limited Viewpoint

76 77 78 79

Artemidorus, Oneir 1.2, Harris-McCoy. Longinus, Subl. 17.3. Those suggesting a sacramental role for the tree of life include Otto Böcher, “Die JohannesApokalypse und die Texte von Qumran,” ANRW 25.5: 3897. Contra Edwin Goodenough, who argues that the reality of a biblical symbol “is unimportant,” see Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, abridged ed., ed. Jacob Neusner, Bollingen 37 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 44.

the tree of life in the apocalypse of john

201

The weakness inherent in this perspective is its limited and simplistic viewpoint. The more times a reader looks at the tree from this perspective, the more discontinuities arise. What type of tree does John visualize? Is it an olive tree?80 Or a palm tree?81 Or a cedar?82 Or a pomegranate?83 Or an almond?84 Or a baobab?85 Or a sycamore?86 Or a tamarisk?87 Or some genus yet unknown? Will all the servants of God go to the tree regularly (once a month) to eat the fruit? How much fruit would the tree need to produce? Just how large is this tree? How will so many people get access to the same tree? And why place the tree in that spot, almost as if it is between the throne of God and people? Once a reader begins to stare at the image of the tree closely, the perspective starts to weaken and the eyes start to wander to a new perspective. The idea that eternal life—dwelling with God—is tied to eating a singular tree with special fruit seems less like divine design and more like magic—inconsistent with the rest of the NT.88 Once the eyes wander and the perspective changes, and the reader no longer visualizes the tree of life as an actual tree, this perspective change undermines other assumptions about the σκηνή. It becomes more difficult for the audience

80

81

82 83

84

85

86 87 88

For example, see the suggestion in Str-B 3:792. Alexander Kulik argues this would be the view of the writer of 3 Baruch; see 3 Baruch: Greek-Slavonic Apocalypse of Baruch, CEJL (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 290; and from the view of Greek followers of Athena, in E.O. James, The Tree of Life: An Archaeological Study, SHR 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 193. For example, from a later Babylonian myth, see Mariana Giovino, The Assyrian Sacred Tree: A History of Interpretations, OBO 230 (Fribourg: Academic, 2007), 13–14; cf. Daria PezzoliOlgiati, Täuschung und Klarheit: Zur Wechselwirkung zwischen Vision und Geschichte in der Johannesoffenbarung, FRLANT 175 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 89; and H.C. Barlow, “The Tree of Life,” Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record 2:3 (1862): 68–70. Likewise, the suggestion in Str-B 3:792. For example, from an earlier Babylonian myth, see Giovino, Assyrian Sacred Tree, 13–14. For example, from certain depictions of sacred trees in Assyria, see Emanuel Bonavia, The Flora of the Assyrian Monuments and Its Outcomes (Westminster: Archibald Constable, 1894), 55–58. This could be the case if John intends to tie the tree of life to a tree which could resemble the Menorah; see for example, Margaret Barker, The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem (London: SPCK, 1991), 93. The baobab is the tree of life in African tradition; see for example, Dorothy B.E.A. AkotoAbutiate, Proverbs and the African Tree of Life: Grafting Biblical Proverbs on to Ghanaian Eʋe Folk Proverbs, SST 16 (Brill: Leiden, 2014), 2–5. Barlow, “The Tree of Life,” 67. Cf. Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, “Burials, Israelite,” ABD 1:785–789. Cf. Oecumenius, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 38. Likewise, Philo raised the same questions as to the literalness of the tree in Genesis, concluding that the tree was συμβολικός; see Philo, Opif. 154.

202

estes

to still see the tree as merely a tree. As the angle shifts, the other physical elements also begin to fade from view; the river of life is no longer a river, but another ἀλληγορικός (“figurative”) image with a different interpretation. Likewise, the throne, the fruit, and all other existents within the image make a shift away from an eschatological paradise that the audience can envision to a new vision from which they try to glean ἀλληγορικός meaning. Considering the great vision John saw, describing such a sight in literal details may prove impossible. Thus, a metaphor or symbol for what he saw may prove stronger to the average reader. 3.2.2

The Ἀλληγορικός (Μεταφορικός) (“Figurative” [“Metaphorical”]) Perspective From a metaphorical perspective, a hearer visualizes an image in such a way that a new meaning replaces the literal meaning (e.g., a ‘living tree’ becomes ‘living eternally’). The metaphorical perspective allows for a transferred meaning of a visual image to appear in the eyes of the audience. In the ancient world, a metaphor occurs when meaning was transferred from one concept to another, as if A to B.89 This concept of metaphor is related to, but distinct from, modern definitions.90 In the Oneirocritica, Artemidorus uses metaphorical interpretation regularly to describe the meaning of dreams and visions; for example, in visions a well-defined nose means the person will have wisdom about public affairs.91 The visual image of the well-defined nose transfers meaning to a public sense of wisdom. Thus, what John sees is a literal tree, but a metaphorical angle allows readers to transfer the image of the tree to a new meaning. The metaphorical perspective of the tree of life offers the reader the most expansive perspective of the three perspectives. From the metaphorical perspective, the audience is meant to see in John’s vision a sense of something much greater than an actual living tree that stands before the heavenly throne room. The tree of life visual is meant as an idea or concept that John intends his audience to internalize. Because the image is multistable, even as the audience visualizes one tree, the allusions and echoes in the rest of the Apocalypse create multiple metaphors for the audience. When readers transfer this visual image into a metaphor, it suggests to readers that they have understood the “real” meaning of the image. The descriptive power of the tree of life scene is the

89 90 91

Notably, Aristotle, Poet. 1457b7–32. E.g., David Punter, Metaphor, New Critical Idiom (London: Routledge, 2007). E.g., Artemidorus, Oneir 1.27.

the tree of life in the apocalypse of john

203

author’s way of making the implied reader feel as though there is great meaning in the image. The implied reader can envision the setting in their mind, and they can hold onto this new meaning. The reception history of the Apocalypse suggests a number of metaphorical perspectives of the tree of life visual, two of which I note here: – Connection to God One metaphorical meaning that the audience may discern as they visualize the tree of life is a connection to God.92 In this way, when John’s audience visualizes the tree, they are meant to understand the tree as the summation of all the ways that God connects to people. In visualizing the tree of life image this way, the spatial descriptors suggest this meaning to the audience: if the tree stands in front of God’s and the Lamb’s throne, then it stands between God and people; and if the trees stand on either side of the river, then they form a visual corridor that points to the throne of the Lamb and of God. Either way, the visual image of the living tree may create a sense of connection between God and people, eternally alive. – Eternal Life Another metaphorical meaning that the audience may discern as they visualize the tree of life is eternal life.93 In this way, when John’s audience visualizes the tree, they are meant to understand the tree as fulfillment of the resurrection—an always vibrant tree creates a sense of an always vibrant life with God. In visualizing the tree of life image this way, it fits closely with the three tangential references to the tree of life in Revelation (especially Rev 2:7, where John ties the tree explicitly to eternal life). In biblical perspective, the tree that Adam and Eve may have eaten from in the garden, but after the fall, were banned from eating in the garden, makes for a notable metaphor for eternal life. In this perspective, the implied reader of the Apocalypse will visualize not a tree but something more that will advance the theological goals of the text.

92 93

Those suggesting this view include Kornelis Heiko Miskotte, Wenn die Götter schweigen: Vom Sinn des Alten Testaments (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1964), 360. Those suggesting this view include Oecumenius, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 37– 38; Koester, Revelation, 130; Charles, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 1:54; J. Webb Mealy, After the Thousand Years: Resurrection and Judgment in Revelation 20, JSNTSup 70 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 82; and Daniel K.K. Wong, “The Tree of Life in Revelation 2:7,”BibSac 155 (1998): 212.

204

estes The metaphorical perspective

Strength

Weakness

Theological Context

Nebulous

The weakness inherent in this perspective is the nebulous meaning that this perspective creates. A metaphorical meaning of a visual image suggests a lack of definition for the metaphor in the text itself; as the audience tries to transfer meaning from the image to the metaphor, the metaphor quickly starts to lose focus. Readers of the Apocalypse are left little doubt of the power of the metaphorical angle on the tree of life. But such a perspective rejects the foregrounded image. To some readers, who remember their first naïve reading, this angle may not satisfy over the long term; or, the theological context may push the visualizer back to the literal perspective. The Ἀλληγορικός (Συμβολικός) (“Figurative” [“Symbolic”]) Perspective From a symbolic perspective, a hearer visualizes an image in such a way that a substitute image replaces the literal image (e.g., a ‘tree of life’ becomes the ‘cross of Jesus’).94 The symbolic perspective allows for a transformed visual image to appear in the eyes of the audience. In the Oneirocritica, σύμβολα fall within ἀλληγορικός (“figurative”) visions as a visual image requiring further interpretation.95 In the ancient, Greek-speaking world, the word σύμβολον (“symbol”) started out as an indicator of a contract, but by the Hellenistic period, it changed in meaning—perhaps the best way to express its meaning in English today would be “sign.”96 Thus, a σύμβολον is an image that serves as a sign for something of a different sort.97 As a result, the symbolic meaning is not present within the visual image itself. Therefore, a σύμβολον is not exactly the same thing as a “symbol” in the modern sense (one that is heavily influenced

3.2.3

94 95 96

97

Struck, Birth of the Symbol, 162–164. Example of a symbol in Artemidorus, Oneir 1.29. Paraphrasing Ovid, Edwin Goodenough explains that “a symbol is an image or design with a significance … beyond its manifest content … and causes effect in [people], beyond mere recognition of what is literally presented”; Jewish Symbols, 40. For example, a vision of an old woman by the sick is a σύμβολον of death (Artemidorus, Oneir 4.24). Likewise, a gymnasium is a σύμβολον of good health (Artemidorus, Oneir 5.3).

the tree of life in the apocalypse of john

205

by Romanticism and modern literary theory).98 Yet, early readers applied this concept to their attempts to understand the tree of life.99 The symbolic perspective of the tree of life offers the reader the most rewarding perspective of the three perspectives. From the symbolic perspective, the audience is meant to see in John’s vision a sign of something much more important than an actual living tree that stands before the heavenly throne room. The tree of life visual is meant as an idea or concept that John intends his audience to grasp. Because the image is multistable, even as the audience visualizes one tree, the allusions and echoes in the rest of the Apocalypse create a tension for the audience over what the writer intends the symbol to be a sign. When readers see this visual image as a symbol, and they transform it into what it is a sign of, it suggests to these readers that they have unlocked the “real” meaning of the image. The descriptive power of the tree of life scene is the author’s way of making the implied reader feel as though there is hidden meaning in the image. In fact, those writers who employed an ἀλληγορικός literary design “claim that unclear language, whose message is by definition obscured, is the chief marker of great poetry.”100 The implied reader can envision the setting in their mind, and they can hold onto this hidden symbol. The reception history of the Apocalypse suggests a number of symbolic perspectives of the tree of life visual,101 five of which I note here: – Saints One symbolic meaning that the audience may discern as they visualize the tree of life is that it is meant as a sign of saints.102 From this perspective, when a reader visualizes the tree, these readers believe they see all of those people in the resurrection and who are a part of God’s kingdom. These people are living and planted around the throne of God. Readers may detect this

98

99 100 101

102

For extended discussion, see Struck, Birth of the Symbol, 1–4, 162–163. For a discussion of the various definitions of symbol in Johannine context, see Ruben Zimmerman, “Symbolic Communication Between John and His Reader: The Garden Symbolism in John 19–20,” in Anatomies of Narrative Criticism: The Past, Present, and Futures of the Fourth Gospel as Literature, ed. Tom Thatcher and Stephen D. Moore, RBS 55 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 221–226. For example, Philo, Opif. 154; Justin, Dial. 86. Struck, Birth of the Symbol, 4. Readers have proposed many more than just these five; for example, Philo discusses several options including that the tree of life is a symbol of the heart or of perfect virtue (Leg. 1.59, 61). Those suggesting this view include Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 233.

206

estes

sign from an allusion to Psalm 1:3, or possibly a direct reference to Psalm of Solomon 14.2.103 – Wisdom Another symbolic meaning that the audience may discern as they visualize the tree of life is that it is meant as a sign of wisdom.104 Ancient readers seem to have derived this sign from a reading of Prov 3:18. This view is closely related to the view that the tree of life was meant as a sign of torah.105 In this way, readers transform the tree of life into a sign of obedience. – Menorah Another symbolic meaning that the audience may discern as they visualize the tree of life is that it is meant as a sign of the menorah.106 In this way, the tree of life is a sign of the Spirit or presence of God.107 Readers may unlock this sign in two ways: either a) by perceiving the tabernacle lampstand as a tree design (based upon certain readings of Exod 25:31–40)108 or b) by reading later depictions of the menorah (such as the vision in Zech 4) into the Apocalypse’s tree of life.109 Either way, the menorah has an “ever living” light on it (the Ner Tamid, cf. Exod 27:20, Lev 24:2; cf. Rev 21:23).110 The reader may take additional justification in interpreting the tree of life image as a sign of a lampstand as there are direct mention of lampstands in Revelation (Rev

103

104 105 106

107 108

109

110

Psalm 1:3 speaks of those who follow the law of the Lord: “They are like trees planted by streams of water, which yield their fruit in its season, and their leaves do not wither” (NRSV). Psalm of Solomon 14.2 reads, “The pious of the Lord shall live by it for ever; the Paradise of the Lord, the trees of life, are His pious ones” (Charles). Those suggesting this view include Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. Ps. 1.14; and cf. Sir 19:19 (LXXb). A view popular in later rabbinic interpretation; see e.g., b. Ber. 32b and b. Arak. 15b. Those suggesting this view include Christopher A. Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24, BAC 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 37, 144; Margaret Barker, The Lost Prophet: The Book of Enoch and Its Influence on Christianity (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005), 55; Beale, Book of Revelation, 1111; Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, 59, 113; Andrei A. Orlov, Heavenly Priesthood in the Apocalypse of Abraham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 136; and Daniel Santos, “A Plantação da Igreja no Éden,” Fides Reformata 19 (2014): 55. Among ancient readers, see Zohar Leviticus 34b. From the sense of the menorah in Zech 4:2; see Ralph L. Smith, Micah–Malachi, WBC 32 (Dallas: Word, 1998), 204. Contra this, Rachel Hachlili argues the weaknesses of “comparing the menorah to a stylized tree”; see The Menorah, The Ancient Seven-Armed Candelabrum: Origin, Form and Significance, JSJSup 68 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 36–39. For example, Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 25B (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 233. Hachlili, Menorah, 177.

the tree of life in the apocalypse of john

207

1:12–13, 20, 2:1, 4:5, 11:4),111 not to mention that the text contains allusions to the tabernacle and the temple.112 – Jesus Another symbolic meaning that the audience may discern as they visualize the tree of life is that it is meant as a sign of Jesus.113 In this way, the living tree that bears fruit is akin to the living water that gives life (John 4:10) and the living bread that came down out of heaven (John 6:51). In both cases, the emphasis is on the life-giving that comes from feeding on the tree (John 6:57), which is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus, and the reader may envision sacramentally.114 – Cross Another symbolic meaning that the audience may discern as they visualize the tree of life is that it is meant as a sign of the cross of Christ.115 In this way, the writer builds the tree of life visual on the polyvalent use of the word ξύλον (“wood”) which in various early Christian texts can refer to a tree (e.g., Luke 23:31; 1Clem. 23.4), lumber (e.g., 1Cor 3:12; Rev 18:12), and also the cross (e.g., Acts 5:30; Gal 3:13; Barn. 8.5). Due to the strength of the word play, this symbol is strongly held by many readers both ancient and modern. From this perspective, the implied reader of the Apocalypse will visualize not a tree by something more that allows the reader to visualize a symbol created of their own theological imagination.

111

112

113

114 115

In Rev 1:12–13, there is one like a son of man in the middle of the lampstands, just as the tree of life is in the middle of the plaza before the throne of God and of the Lamb. If there is an overlap in these images, the tree of life is a sign of the menorah, both of which are signs for the Messiah. E.g., Margaret Barker, King of the Jews: Temple Theology in John’s Gospel (London: SPCK, 2014), 37; and Robert Hinckley, “Adam, Aaron, and the Garden Sanctuary,”Logia 22.4 (2013): 8–12. Origen, Comm. Rom. 5.9.3; Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. Ps. 1.14; Oecumenius, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 195, 198; Evagrius Ponticus, Kephalia Gnostika 5.69; and Joseph L. Mangina, Revelation, BTC (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2010), 247. Otto Böcher, Kirche in Zeit und Endzeit: Aufsätze zur Offenbarung des Johannes (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1983), 7. Those suggesting this view include Justin, Dial. 86; Hemer, Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia, 41–44; Ian Boxall, The Revelation of Saint John, BNTC (London: Continuum, 2006), 311. In fact, Justin Martyr uses the term σύμβολον to describe how the tree of life serves as a sign for the cross.

208

estes The symbolic perspective

Strength

Weakness

Rewarding

Lacks Clues

The weakness inherent in this perspective is the lack of a clear indicator for which symbol the tree of life represents. From this perspective, John intends that his audience will not visualize a tree but something else entirely. With the exception of the cross, the text does not offer clues as to which symbol is the best one for interpretation. This has led historical readers to suggest several different symbols that are at odds with each other—though one could argue that seeing multiple symbols is merely another layer of the visual artistry of the Apocalypse. At times, these perspectives seem to work against the visual imagery of this text’s pretexts, Genesis and Ezekiel, and may also suggest anachronistic readings for these pretexts (such as readers who then find the cross or the menorah in the Garden). Since there is no key, the reader may focus so strongly on one symbol that they begin to visualize something in contradiction to other elements in the scene. For example, there is a visual contradiction created by seeing the cross (a human-created device of pain and death) standing forefront in the place where pain and death are no more (Rev 21:4).116 Visualizing the scene this way, why would the cross or the menorah stand in front of the throne? Finally, the limitation of this perspective is, like the metaphorical perspective, one where the more a reader tries to hold on to this perspective, the more discontinuities will arise. For example, if the tree of life is a symbol, is the river of life also a symbol? It could be a sign of the Holy Spirit. Yet that would imply that third element in this vision, the throne of God and of the Lamb, is also a symbol. A reader may also claim the new heaven and the new earth are symbols. As the eye of the audience follows this trajectory, quickly every existent in the text could be seen as a symbol, and therefore a devolution of the meaning of the text as a whole occurs.117

116 117

Wong, “Tree of Life in Revelation 2:7,” 216. For example, Oecumenius transforms both obvious and less obvious visual images into symbols that at times seem overdrawn; see John N. Suggit, introduction to Commentary on the Apocalypse, by Oecumenius, 3–13.

the tree of life in the apocalypse of john

4

209

The Fruit of the Tree of Life

The tree of life in the Apocalypse is a multistable and polyvalent image that the writer intends for the reader to see as a tree, and yet, so much more than a tree. The more times a reader tries the visualize the tree, from different perspectives, the more the reader notices that different types of images appear. The fruit that the image bears is the many different perspectives and interpretations; like the various fruit on the real tree of life that are all good, all of these fruits of interpretation are good as well. This is part of the specific visual artistry that the writer seems to intend in his heavenly throne room scene that stretches from the very beginning of the story in Eden (Α) to John’s vision of the end (Ω); John uses spatial references as ἔκφρᾰσις in order to create a kind of illusory ἐνάργεια (“vividness”) for his audience. The result is an ὅρᾱσις / ὅρᾱμα (“vision”) with both θεωρημᾰτικός (“literal”) and ἀλληγορικός (“figurative”) perspectives. There is one final factor, though, in discovering the visual artistry of the tree of life in the Apocalypse. Again, there are four statements in the text at hand that make direct mention of the tree; one is descriptive and three are tangential: He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of God. Rev 2:7, NASB, emphasis mine

… was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. Rev 22:2, NASB, emphasis mine

Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. Rev 22:14, NASB, emphasis mine

And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. Rev 22:19, NASB, emphasis mine

In all four instances where John invokes the tree of life, there is one common feature. First, for those who overcome, God will allow them to eat of the tree of life (Rev 2:7). Second, the tree of life will bear twelve kinds of fruit for those

210

estes

in the new heaven and new earth to eat (Rev 22:2). Third, for those who wash their robes, they will have the right to eat of the tree of life (Rev 22:14). Fourth, if anyone takes away from John’s prophecy, God will take away their chance to eat of the tree of life. Though ‘eating’ from the tree is only explicitly mentioned in the first instance, the primary purpose of a fruit tree is to eat from it. The fruit that the people of God are to eat is then described in some detail in the singular explicit, non-metaphorical usage of the tree of life in this text. Thus, all four instances of the tree of life in the Apocalypse are tied together as a result of the eating of the fruit of the tree.118 In conclusion, the Apocalypse sets up the tree of life as a crucial visual texture for the imagination of its audience so that they may visualize this living tree centered in the plaza of God’s throne room in the new heaven and new earth (just as it was once centered in the garden of Eden). Whether the reader visualizes the tree literally, or, after further imagination, perceives the tree metaphorically or symbolically, the reader must come to realize they must somehow partake of this tree. As Artemidorus discovered in his study of dreams and visions, a flourishing tree is a sign of blessing.119 Based on a close reading of all four references in the Apocalypse, John’s primary point for his readers is not that there is a literal tree (though there may be), nor what the tree is a metaphor for (though it may be a metaphor), nor what the tree is a symbol of (though it may be a symbol), but that his audience must take and eat of the tree, not just observe it.120

Works Cited Akoto-Abutiate, Dorothy B.E.A. Proverbs and the African Tree of Life: Grafting Biblical Proverbs on to Ghanaian Eʋe Folk Proverbs. SST 16. Brill: Leiden, 2014. Anderson, Paul. “From One Dialogue to Another: Johannine Polyvalence from Origins to Receptions.” Pages 93–119 in Anatomies of Narrative Criticism: The Past, Present, and Futures of the Fourth Gospel as Literature. Edited by Tom Thatcher and Stephen D. Moore. RBS 55. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. 118

119 120

These instances may echo Sir 19:19 (LXXb), Ezek 47:12, possibly T. Levi 18:11, and even 1En. 25.5 (though see Penner’s essay, this volume), all of which point to the negative consequence in Gen 3:22. Artemidorus, Oneir 1.73. For example, John Scotus Eriugena (ca. 815–877) believed that while all of humanity will return to paradise (restauratio), only those who eat of the tree can become like God (deificatio); see Peter Dronke, “The Completeness of Heaven,” in Envisaging Heaven in the Middle Ages, ed. Carolyn Muessig and Ad Putter (London: Routledge, 2007), 49.

the tree of life in the apocalypse of john

211

Andrew of Caesarea. Commentary on the Apocalypse. Edited by David G. Hunter. Translated by Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou. FC 123. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2011. Aristotle. Poetics. Translated by Stephen Halliwell. LCL 199. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. Auffarth, Christoph. “The Invisible Made Visible: Glimpses of an Iconography of the Fall of Angels.” Pages 261–285 in The Fall of the Angels. Edited by Christoph Auffarth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. TBN 6. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Aune, David E. “The Polyvalent Imagery of Rev 3:20 in the Light of Greco-Egyptian Divination Texts.” Greco-Roman Culture and the New Testament: Studies Commemorating the Centennial of the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Edited by David E. Aune and Frederick E. Brenk. NovTSup 143. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Aune, David E. Revelation 1–5. WBC 52A. Dallas: Word, 1998. Aune, David E. Revelation 17–22. WBC 52C. Dallas: Word, 1998. Barker, Margaret. King of the Jews: Temple Theology in John’s Gospel. London: SPCK, 2014. Barker, Margaret. The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem. London: SPCK, 1991. Barker, Margaret. The Lost Prophet: The Book of Enoch and Its Influence on Christianity. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005. Barlow, H.C. “The Tree of Life.” Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record 2:3 (1862): 64–74. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, III/1, The Doctrine of Creation. Edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958. Bauks, Michaela. “Erkenntnis und Leben in Gen 2–3: Zum Wandel eines ursprünglich weisheitlich geprägten Lebensbegriffs.” ZAW 127 (2015): 20–42. Beale, G.K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Bede, Venerable. The Explanation of the Apocalypse. Translated by Edward Marshall. Oxford: James Parker and Co., 1878. Böcher, Otto. “Die Johannes-Apokalypse und die Texte von Qumran.” ANRW 25.5: 3894– 3898. Part 2, Principat, 25.5. Edited by Wolfgang Haase and Hildegarde Temporini. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988. Böcher, Otto. Kirche in Zeit und Endzeit: Aufsätze zur Offenbarung des Johannes. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1983. Bonavia, Emanuel. The Flora of the Assyrian Monuments and Its Outcomes. Westminster: Archibald Constable, 1894. Boxall, Ian. The Revelation of Saint John. BNTC. London: Continuum, 2006. Brannan, Rick, Ken M. Penner, Israel Loken, Michael Aubrey, and Isaiah Hoogendyk, eds. The Lexham English Septuagint. Bellingham: Lexham, 2012.

212

estes

Brighton, Louis A. Revelation, ConcC. St. Louis: Concordia, 1999. Brütsch, Charles. Die Offenbarung Jesu Christi: Johannes-Apokalypse. 3 vols. ZBK. Zürich: Zwingli, 1970. Charles, R.H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St John. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920. Charlesworth, James H. The Good and Evil Serpent: How a Universal Symbol Became Christianized. AYBRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985. Cicero. On Divination, Book 1. Translated by David Wardle. CAHS. Oxford: Clarendon, 2006. Demetrius. On Style. Translated by Doreen C. Innes. LCL 199. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. Dercks, Ute. “Two Trees in Paradise? A Case Study on the Iconography of the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life in Italian Romanesque Sculpture.” Pages 143–158 in The Tree: Symbol, Allegory and Mnemonic Device in Medieval Art and Thought. Edited by Pippa Salonius and Andrea Worm. IMR 20. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014. deSilva, David A. “Seeing Things John’s Way: Rhetography and Conceptual Blending in Revelation 14:6–13.” BBR 18 (2008): 271–298. Dronke, Peter. “The Completeness of Heaven.” Pages 44–56 in Envisaging Heaven in the Middle Ages. Edited by Carolyn Muessig and Ad Putter. London: Routledge, 2007. Dus, Jan. “Zwei Schichten der biblischen Paradiesgeschichte.” ZAW 71 (1959): 97–113. Estes, Douglas. “The Last Chapter of Revelation? Narrative Design at the End of the Apocalypse.” CTR 17 (2019), 97–110. Evagrius Ponticus. Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from the Syriac. Translated with introduction and commentary by Ilaria L.E. Ramelli. WGRW 38. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. Farrer, Austin. A Rebirth of Images: The Making of St. John’s Apocalypse. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007. Ford, J. Massyngberde. Revelation: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. AB 38. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Freedman, David Noel, ed. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Gibson, Craig A. Libanius’s Progymnasmata: Model Exercises in Greek Prose Composition and Rhetoric. WGRW 27. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2008. Gilchrest, Eric J. Revelation 21–22 in Light of Jewish and Greco-Roman Utopianism. BibInt 118. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Giovino, Mariana. The Assyrian Sacred Tree: A History of Interpretations. OBO 230. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Goodenough, Erwin R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 4 vols. Bollingen Series 37. New York: Pantheon, 1953–1968.

the tree of life in the apocalypse of john

213

Graham, Christopher A. The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24. BAC 12. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Gryson, R., ed. Commentaria minora in Apocalypsin Iohannis. CCSL 107. Turnhout: Brepols, 2003. Hachlili, Rachel. Ancient Synagogues—Archaeology and Art: New Discoveries and Current Research. HdO 105. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Hachlili, Rachel. The Menorah, the Ancient Seven-Armed Candelabrum: Origin, Form and Significance. JSJSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Hanneken, Todd R. The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees. SBL EJL 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2012. Harrington, Wilfrid J. Revelation. SP 16. Collegeville: Liturgical, 2008. Harris-McCoy, Daniel E. Artemidorus’ Oneirocritica: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Heffernan, James A.W. Museum of Words: The Poetics of Ekphrasis from Homer to Ashbery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. Hemer, Colin J. The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting. JSNTSup 11. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986. Hilary of Poitiers. Tractatus super Psalmos I: Instructio Psalmorum, In Psalmos I–XCI. Edited by J. Doignon. CCSL 61. Turnhout: Brepols, 1997. Hinckley, Robert. “Adam, Aaron, and the Garden Sanctuary.” Logia 22.4 (2013): 5–12. Hock, Ronald F. The Chreia and Ancient Rhetoric: Commentaries on Aphthonius’s Progymnasmata. WGRW 31. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2012. Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Hongisto, Leif. Experiencing the Apocalypse at the Limits of Alterity. BIS 102. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Hubbes, László Attila. “Revolution of the Eye: The Spectacular Rhetoric of the Apocalyptic.” Pages 159–173 in Virtual Reality—Real Visuality: Virtual, Visual, Veridical. Edited by András Benedek and Ágnes Veszelszki. Visual Learning 7. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2017. James, E.O. The Tree of Life: An Archaeological Study. SHR 11. Leiden: Brill, 1966. Jerome. The Homilies of Saint Jerome (1–59 on the Psalms). Edited by Hermigild Dressler. Translated by Marie Liguori Ewald. FC 1. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1964. Justin Martyr. The First Apology, The Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to the Greeks, Discourse to the Greeks, The Monarchy or the Rule of God. Translated by Thomas B. Falls. FC. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1948. Karagiannis, Christos G. “The Assyrian Tree of Life and the Jewish Menorah.” Pages 459– 470 in Tradition and Innovation in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 57th Ren-

214

estes

contre Assyriologique Internationale at Rome 4–8 July 2011. Edited by Alfonso Archi. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Karrer, Martin. Die Johannesoffenbarung als Brief: Studien zu ihrem literarischen, historischen und theologischen Ort. FRLANT 140. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Keble, John. “Old Testament Types of the Cross: The Tree of Life.”ProEccl 9 (2000): 429– 433. Kennedy, George A. Invention and Method: Two Rhetorical Treatises from the Hermogenic Corpus. WGRW 15. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Kennedy, George A. Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric. WGRW 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Keuls, Eva C. Plato and Greek Painting. CSCT 5. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Koester, Craig R. Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 38A. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014. Kulik, Alexander. 3Baruch: Greek-Slavonic Apocalypse of Baruch. CEJL. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. Longinus. On the Sublime. Translated by W.H. Fyfe. Revised by Donald Russell. LCL 199. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. Macrobius. Commentary on the Dream of Scipio. Translated by William Harris Stahl. Records of Western Civilization. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952. Mangina, Joseph L. Revelation. BTC. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2010. Mathewson, David. A New Heaven and a New Earth: The Meaning and Function of the Old Testament in Revelation 21.1–22.5. JSNTSup 238. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. Mealy, J. Webb. After the Thousand Years: Resurrection and Judgment in Revelation 20. JSNTSup 70. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992. Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25B. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Miller, John B.F. “Exploring the Function of Symbolic Dream-Visions in the Literature of Antiquity, with Another Look at 1QapGen 19 and Acts 10.” PRSt 37 (2010): 441– 455. Miller, Patricia Cox. Dreams in Late Antiquity: Studies in the Imagination of a Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Miskotte, Kornelis Heiko. Wenn die Götter schweigen: Vom Sinn des Alten Testaments. Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1964. Mitchell, W.J.T. Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1994. Morris, Paul. “Exiled from Eden: Jewish Interpretations of Genesis.” Pages 117–166 in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden. Edited by Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer. JSOTSup 136. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.

the tree of life in the apocalypse of john

215

Neusner, Jacob. The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary. 22 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2011. Oecumenius. Commentary on the Apocalypse. Translated by John N. Suggit. FC 112. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006. O’Hear, Natasha, and Anthony O’Hear. Picturing the Apocalypse: The Book of Revelation in the Arts over Two Millenia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Omanson, Roger L. A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Origen. Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 1–10. Translated by Ronald E. Heine. FC 80. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989. Origen. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1–5. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. FC 103. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001. Orlov, Andrei A. Heavenly Priesthood in the Apocalypse of Abraham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Oropeza, B.J. “Rhetography: Seeing Biblical Texts through Visual Exegesis.” Didaktikos 2:1 (2018): 35–36. Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. Pezzoli-Olgiati, Daria. Täuschung und Klarheit: Zur Wechselwirkung zwischen Vision und Geschichte in der Johannesoffenbarung. FRLANT 175. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Philo. On the Creation of the World, Allegorical Interpretation. Translated by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929. Philo. Questions and Answers on Genesis. Translated by Ralph Marcus. LCL 380. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953. Plutarch. Plutarch’s Lives, Vol. 11: Artaxerxes. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962. Porter, James I. The Sublime in Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Primasius. Commentarius in Apocalypsin. Edited by A.W. Adams. CCSL 92. Turnhout: Brepols, 1985. Punter, David. Metaphor. New Critical Idiom. London: Routledge, 2007. Quintilian. Institutio Oratoria. Translated by H.E. Butler. 4 vols. LCL 124–127. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920–1921. Reeder, Caryn A. Gendering War and Peace in the Gospel of Luke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Robbins, Vernon K. “Rhetography: A New Way of Seeing the Familiar Text.” Pages 81– 106 in Words Well Spoken: George Kennedy’s Rhetoric of the New Testament. Edited by C. Clifton Black and Duane F. Watson. SRR 8. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008. Roloff, Jürgen. The Revelation of John. Translated by John E. Alsup. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

216

estes

Salonius, Pippa, and Andrea Worm, eds. The Tree: Symbol, Allegory, and Mnemonic Device in Medieval Art and Thought. IMR 20. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014. Santos, Daniel. “A plantação da igreja no Éden.” Fides Reformata 19 (2014): 49–59. Smalley, Stephen S. The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse. London: SPCK, 2005. Smith, Ralph L. Micah–Malachi. WBC 32. Dallas: Word, 1998. Spero, Shubert. “The Menorah: A Study in Iconic Symbolism.” Tradition 14:3 (1974): 86– 93. Strack, Hermann L., and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. Munich: Beck, 1922–1961. Struck, Peter T. Birth of the Symbol: Ancient Readers at the Limits of Their Texts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Thee, Francis C.R. Julius Africanus and the Early Christian View of Magic. HUT 16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984. Tyconius. Commentaire de l’ Apocalypse. Edited by R. Gryson. CCT 10. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011. Victorinus of Petau. Sur l’Apocalypse: Suivi du fragment chronologique et de La construction du monde. Edited by M. Dulaey. SC 423. Paris: Cerf, 1997. Whitaker, Robyn J. Ekphrasis, Vision, and Persuasion in the Book of Revelation. WUNT 2.410. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Whitaker, Robyn J. “The Poetics of Ekphrasis: Vivid Description and Rhetoric in the Apocalypse.” Pages 227–240 in Poetik und Intertextualität der Johannesapokalypse. Edited by Stefan Alkier, Thomas Hieke, and Tobias Nicklas. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Witulski, Thomas. Die Johannesoffenbarung und Kaiser Hadrian: Studien zur Datierung der neutestamentlichen Apokalypse. FRLANT 221. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Wong, Daniel K.K. “The Tree of Life in Revelation 2:7.” BSac 155 (1998): 211–226. Yarden, Leon. The Tree of Light: A Study of the Menorah. London: East and West Library, 1971. Zimmerman, Ruben. “Symbolic Communication Between John and His Reader: The Garden Symbolism in John 19–20.” Pages 221–235 in Anatomies of Narrative Criticism: The Past, Present, and Futures of the Fourth Gospel as Literature. Edited by Tom Thatcher and Stephen D. Moore. RBS 55. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008.

chapter 9

The Tree of Life in Early Christian Literature Mark Edwards

According to an early Christian recipe for interpreting the Old Testament, every narrative admits of a literal, a moral, and a spiritual reading.1 The first elucidates, amplifies, and perhaps defends the history as related in the text; the second elicits a lesson for our own conduct, as a modern teacher might still do in a sermon; the third; taking due account of the inspiration of the book, explains how it prefigures truths that have been revealed more openly in the gospel. Taking the Old and New Testaments together, we encounter the tree of life in three distinct forms, each corresponding to one of these levels of exegesis. At Genesis 2:8 it is placed in the middle of the garden of Eden, only to be put beyond human reach at 3:22 after Adam and Eve have flouted God’s command by plucking the fruit from the neighboring tree of knowledge. The moral sense is introduced at Psalm 1:3, where the righteous man is likened to a tree planted by a river which brings forth fruit in due season, and again at Revelation 2:8, where the simile is applied to those who persevere to the end under persecution. This text looks forward to the last epiphany of the tree at Revelation 22:2 by the waters of the new Jerusalem, where “its leaves are for the healing of the nations.” Just as the three levels of exegesis are not hermetic—the lower being the bedrock of the higher and the higher an augmentation or sublimation of the lower—so the tree was seldom studied under one of these three representations without some reference to at least one of the others. It will none the less be convenient in this paper to consider it first as a subject of narrative, then as a moral simile and finally as an eschatological symbol. Under each heading the tendency to read scripture as an integral revelation, in which no word or motif is repeated without a didactic purpose, will be constantly in evidence, whether the relevant passages are marshalled with the analytical clarity of an exegete or the kaleidoscopic fancy of a poet.

1 Origen, First Principles 4.2.4 = Werke, ed. P. Koetschau (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1913), 5:312–313. On the durability of this and cognate models of exegesis see H. de Lubac, Exégèse Mediévale: Les quatre sens de l’ Écriture (Paris: Aubier, 1959), 1:198–304.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423756_011

218 1

edwards

The Botany of Paradise

1.1 Text and Dogma Greek, Latin, and Syriac translations of the Old Testament were more often employed among Gentile Christians than the Hebrew; all, however, concur with the original narrative in the Book of Genesis in relating that the tree of life was planted by the tree of knowledge in the midst of Eden, and that it never appears again until Adam and Eve are expelled from the garden to prevent their eating from it. The majority of early Christian authors therefore hold that the tree of life would have been the prize for abstaining from the tree of knowledge. This is not so, however, of the earliest Christian reference to the trees in the anonymous Epistle to Diognetus (c. 140), where the juxtaposition is said to show that knowledge is possible only for the living and life attainable only through knowledge.2 Since, however, the tree of knowledge proved fatal to those who ate from it, it is more commonly contrasted with the tree of life, or rather with the Cross which restored what our parents lost in Eden. Thus Cyril of Jerusalem assures candidates for baptism that the tree of Calvary will convey them to paradise as swiftly as the tree of knowledge caused the expulsion of Adam.3 Gregory Nazianzen (c. 329–390), doyen of eastern theology, labors the paradox that Christ has transformed the instrument of death into a tree of life for his murderers; in this, as in other typological speculations, the Cross is an avatar of the tree of life and an antitype to the tree of knowledge.4 His fellow-Cappadocian Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–395), who also assumes two trees, distinguishes two kinds of fruit, one of which sustains the outer, and one the inner, man. The nature of the fruit that Adam forfeited is revealed by wisdom’s invitation to eat her bread in the Book of Proverbs, where Solomon commends her as a tree of life to those who partake of her. In according this typological significance to the tree of life, interpreters were inevitably raising the possibility that Eden has only a spiritual topography and is not a place on earth. It has been the custom of scholars to associate literal reading with the Syrian metropolis of Antioch, and the allegorizing method with Alexandria, capital of Egypt and the principal seat of philological stud-

2 Epistle to Diognetus 12.3–5, in The Apostolic Fathers, ed. M.W. Holmes, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 717. See also Chrysostom, PG 53, 110. 3 Catechetical Lectures 13.31 in Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses ad Illuminandos, ed. J. Rupp (Munich: Lentner, 1848), 90. 4 Oration 29.20 in Gregory of Nazianzus, Five Theological Orations, ed. A.J. Mason (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899), 105.

the tree of life in early christian literature

219

ies in the Greek world.5 On this view it is no surprise that Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–c. 460), the last of the Antiochenes, should contend that both trees sprang from the soil that supports every other plant, and that the designations “tree of life” and “tree of knowledge” denote their effects without implying any peculiarity of nature.6 And on the same view, we could easily persuade ourselves that Origen of Alexandria doubts the very existence of the garden when he exclaims that only a fool would imagine God as a planter of trees. From the rest of his writing, however, it is evident that this is merely a protest against an anthropomorphic concept of divine action: God does not engage in husbandry as we understand it, but Eden has a physical location as the future abode of souls. Theophilus, bishop of Antioch in the late second century, argues from the text that Paradise is a place under heaven, notwithstanding his previous application of a figurative reading to the seven days of creation.7 The tree of life and the tree of knowledge were living organisms, though of a species that is not found outside Eden. Theophilus warns us not to imagine the tree of knowledge as a deadly antitype to the tree of life: it became so because the human pair were nêpioi, not yet mature enough to taste the fruit which in due course they could have plucked with impunity. Until this time they were not by nature mortal or immortal, but receptive to both conditions, and it was therefore by the abuse of their own free will—with God’s permission but not by his design— that they were cut off from the tree of life. A contemporary of Theophilus, Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202), maintains the same position, though without naming either tree.8 Perhaps he was afraid of giving a handle to the enemy, for his fellow-heresiologist Hippolytus of Rome is equally reticent, except when he records that a certain Justin had identified the tree of life with the third of the angels who jointly constitute that which is called paradise in the Scriptures.9 5 For a critique of this tradition see F.M. Young, “Traditions of Exegesis,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible, ed. J. Carleton Paget and J. Schaper (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 1:734–751. 6 Theodoret, The Questions on the Octateuch, vol. 1, On Genesis and Exodus, ed. J.F. Petruccione, trans. R.C. Hill, LEC 1 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2007), 65–67 (question 26). 7 Theophilus, To Autolycus 2.25–27, in Ad Autolycum, ed. R.M. Grant, OECT (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 67–70. 8 At Against Heresies 5.17.1 he contrasts the Cross with the fatal tree of knowledge without alluding to the tree of life in Eden. So also the Latin apologist Firmicus Maternus (c. 345), On the Error of Profane Religions 27.1, p. 254 in the edition of A. Pastorino (Florence: Nuova Italia Editrice, 1956). 9 Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 5.26.5, in Refutation of All Heresies, ed. M.D. Litwa, WGRW 40 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 337.

220

edwards

As a recent editor notes,10 this heretic may have been echoing the Psalms of Solomon, where the trees are styled “the holy ones of God.” John Chrysostom (c. 349–407), the most famous preacher of Antioch, is not suspected of allegorizing the story when he too declines to take the verb “planted” in its literal sense. Its place in the midst of the garden, he argues, testifies that God wished us to be happy, but our subsequent exclusion shows that all enjoyment of God’s gifts depends on his gracious will.11 Both Gregory of Nyssa, the pioneer of Christian mysticism,12 and Jerome (c. 347–420), the translator of the Bible into Latin, thought it possible to honor both the letter and the spirit, deducing the nature of the historical tree from Solomon’s saying that wisdom is a tree of life.13 Augustine of Hippo (354–430), for whom the literal sense is mandatory though the spiritual is often more edifying, is not sure whether Eden is a corporeal or an incorporeal place, for on the one hand Adam’s body was fashioned there while on the other it is the destination of souls when they quit this world. As we shall see in comparing Antiochene and Alexandrian glosses on the first Psalm, the difference is not so much that the first is literal and the second allegorical as that the first allows the meaning to be limited by the historical situation of the author, while the second maintains that every syllable is addressed to the reader in his own time.14 For Augustine there are manifestly two trees, and two faithful interpretations of each, the literal and the allegorical.15 As Scripture never repeats itself in vain, we must identify the tree of life in paradise with the wisdom of which Solomon writes, she is a tree of life to those who partake of her. It does not follow, however, that the garden or its contents are figures of allegory, which never had any location in this world. Some difficulties arise when we consider that the penitent thief was translated straight to paradise from the Cross, and would therefore seem to have inhabited that place without a body; but whether the abode of souls before the second coming is corporeal or incorporeal, we know that it was in Eden that God formed the body of Adam from the dust of the earth, performing a greater miracle at that time than he has since performed 10 11 12 13 14 15

Refutation of All Heresies, 337 n. 392, citing Psalms of Solomon 14.3. Chrysostom, On Genesis, Homily 13 (PG 53, 108–110). On the Making of Man 18, in Gregory of Nyssa, De Hominis Opificio, ed. L. Sels, Bausteine zur Slavischen Philologie und Kulturgeschichte B/21 (Vienna: Böhlau, 2009), 215–216. Jerome, Commentariolus in Psalmum 1, in Opera Exegetica 1, ed. P. Antin, CCSL 72 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1959), 180. See M.J. Edwards, “Figurative Readings: Their Scope and Justification,” in Carleton Paget and Schaper, New Cambridge History of the Bible, 1:729. See especially On Genesis according to the Letter 8.5.9–11 in Obras de San Agustín, ed. B. Martín (Madrid: Biblioteca des Autores Cristianos, 1957), 15:958–960.

the tree of life in early christian literature

221

in the raising of the dead. In fact, even wisdom is a tangible being, for when this appellation is given to Christ by Paul, he is speaking of the crucifixion. Just as the earthly Jerusalem has its sublime counterpart in heaven, just as the rock which nourished the wandering Israelites prefigured the living streams which flow today from Christ the rock of our salvation, so the tree of life which at first eluded and now awaits us can be said both to prefigure and to prefigure in its turn the man-made scaffold of Calvary. Its fruit, had we been permitted to taste it, would no doubt have nourished both soul and body in a spiritual manner, just as we believe that the Savior’s body was sustained in the wilderness without mortal bread. We observe not so much a confusion as a purposeful fusion of the two trees in the Book of the Mysteries of the Heavens and the Earth, an Ethiopic work of the fifteenth century which is generally thought to incorporate older traditions.16 Here the forbidden tree of which Adam ate has a name that signifies flour of wheat, and every ear of wheat that it bears contains 150,000 grains. It is surrounded by four others, representing not only the points of the compass but the cherubs who appear first in the opening chapter of Ezekiel, then around the throne of the Lamb in the Book of Revelation. In the Ethiopic work their task is to keep watch over the tree of life. This is the body of Christ, “which none of the seraphim touch without reverent awe.” With no change of subject, we read in the following sentence that Adam ate of this tree at the third hour of the day. As he caused the tree to suffer, so Christ suffered on the Cross, after undergoing forty lashes at the behest of Pontius Pilate. We are left to infer that this bruised body of Christ is the eucharist which the elect consume in sorrow and without the pride of Adam. Ethiopia cherishes its own form of Christianity, but the touchstone of sound doctrine for the Greek church was John of Damascus (c. 675–749). In his compendious work On the Orthodox Faith John holds that paradise was at once a spiritual and a physical locality.17 Adam dwelt there in the body, yet his soul lived on a plane that now exceeds our comprehension. In that taste he already enjoyed the sweet fruit of contemplation which, because it confers immortality on those who partake of it, is fittingly named the tree of life. While he could find precedent for attributing this unmediated vision to Adam and Eve, he seems to innovate not only on the tradition but on the plain sense of the biblical narrative in allowing them to eat from the tree of life before their expulsion. In 16 17

The Book of the Mysteries of the Heavens and the Earth, ed. E.A. Wallis Budge (Berwick, ME: Ibis, 2004), 26. On the Orthodox Faith 2.23 = Esposizione delle fede, ed. B. Kotter, I Talenti 13 (Bologna: San Clemente, 2013), 354–356.

222

edwards

the commentary on Genesis by the Venerable Bede (672/673–735), we find little originality, except in his synthesis of the standard readings, both literal and typological. The tree of life deserves its name because it would have given inexhaustible strength of body to those who ate of it; at the same time, it represents Christ, the embodied wisdom of God, and prefigures its counterpart in Revelation, which is the wisdom of the blessed and the immortal food of souls.18 1.2 Imaginative Reflections For poets Scripture is not so much a chronicle or a manual of doctrine as an argosy of symbols, which can be invested at a high return by a sufficiently venturesome imagination. In his third hymn on paradise,19 the Syrian virtuoso Ephraem (c. 306–373) places the tree of life at the summit of the garden, surmising that it acted as a sun to the other denizens because its leaves were irradiated by spiritual graces. The tree of knowledge stands at distance from it, in the very midst of paradise, where it hides the supernal mystery as the veil of the Temple hid the Holy of Holies. By contrast, in the twelfth hymn the tree of life and the tree of wisdom (as it is now styled) are a pair of blessed fountains; by drinking from both of which a human being can become the likeness of God, with the attendant gifts of immortality and immutable wisdom. In a commentary on Genesis attributed to Ephraem and preserved in his native Syriac,20 Ephraem declares that immortality would have been living death for those who were severed from God by sin. Adam and Eve did not possess immortality at the time of their creation, but had they resisted the overtures of the serpent, they would have eaten with God’s blessing from both trees, one bestowing infallible knowledge, the other eternal life (2.23).21 Whereas the tree of knowledge was forbidden the tree of life was concealed, for had the reward been manifest there would have been no merit in obedience. It was also to be feared that the sight of beauty would quicken desire and hence redouble the force of temptation (2.17). In the primal state, their eyes were open inasmuch as the entire garden was visible to them, but closed in as much as they saw neither the tree of life nor the nakedness of their own bodies (2.22). After they sinned, their expulsion before they could pluck another fruit from the tree of life was an act of mercy, for the eternal prolongation of the pains of sin would be death without release

18 19 20 21

Bede, Opera Exegetica, ed. C.W. Jones, CCSL 118A (Turnhout: Brepols, 1967), 1:46–47. In this paragraph I follow the numeration of Ephraem, Hymns on Paradise, trans. S. Brock, PPS 10 (New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990). Commentary on Genesis 35.2, in Ephraem, Selected Prose Works, trans. E.G. Matthews and J.P. Amar, FC 91 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2010), 122. See also Commentary 35.3, in Ephraem, Selected Prose Works, 123.

the tree of life in early christian literature

223

(34). Hence the gate to Eden must be barred by a flaming sword, for if humanity were ever to eat of the tree of life, then either God’s sentence of death on the sinful body would be annulled or the life imparted by the tree would prove to be no life at all. The closure of Eden is a recurrent motif in Ephraem’s poetry; at the same time, he was heir to a long tradition of verse and homily which proclaimed that what humanity lost in paradise has been restored with interest on the Cross.22 According to one of his poems, the wound that follows the crucifixion is the unbarring of the gate: as the iron pierces the flesh of Christ, the flaming sword that severs us from the tree of life is withdrawn.23 While he excelled as a poet, he was also an accomplished dogmatician, and in his commentary on the harmony of the gospels which is known as the Diatessaron, we read that Christ himself has become our food in place of the fruit that is now denied to us.24 This no doubt an allusion to the eucharist, but every Christian has his own tree of life in the daily mastication of the Word of God.25 Paul’s admonition that those who receive the sacrament unworthily eat and drink to their own condemnation may have been in the mind of Ephraem when he argued, with Theophilus of Antioch, that to those who are pure in heart the tree of knowledge will be no more deadly than the tree of life.26 Here, as in his poems, Ephraem clearly opposes the salutiferous plant to the tree of knowledge. In another commentary which is ascribed to him by its Armenian translator, the trees appear to coalesce.27 We are told first that the good and evil resided not in the tree of knowledge itself, but in the keeping or transgression of God’s command. The tree of life was planted because it was necessary that at the end of the world the saints should eat from it and so be delivered from the curse of death. Had Adam withstood his tempter, God would have vouchsafed to him not only the right to eat from this tree, but a perfect understanding of good and evil. The commentary, without saying that this knowledge would have been conveyed by a different fruit, now makes the surprising statement that Adam saw the tree of life by a secret vision, and was 22 23 24 25 26 27

For a simple equation of the tree of life with the Cross in Syriac literature, see The Book of the Cave of Treasures, trans. E.A. Wallis Budge (London: Religious Tract Society, 1927), 63. Hymns on the Crucifixion 9.2, quoted in Sebastian Brock, The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Press, 1985), 81. Commentary on the Diatessaron 21.25, quoted in Brock, Luminous Eye, 96–97. 1.18–19, quoted in Brock, Luminous Eye, 50–51. Cf. Commentary on the Diatessaron 1.18–19, quoted in Brock, Luminous Eye, 50–51. Brock, Luminous Eye, 151. The Armenian Commentary on Genesis attributed to Ephraem Syrus, trans. E.G. Matthews, CSCO 572 (Louvain: Peeters, 1998), 37.

224

edwards

enamored. The leaven of life flew into him and passed to his descendants, in whom it will go on fermenting until the consummation. It might be thought that the tree of life was also tree of death; Ephraem, however, demurs on the grounds that where there is death there can be no knowledge. Furthermore, God would surely have issued a different command to Adam if death had been a natural consequence, rather than the judicial penalty, of transgression. No “deadly root” has a place in such a garden; on the contrary, the name “tree of life” confutes those who maintain that the body is irredeemably subject to corruption. It is we who have inflicted death on ourselves, as it is we who by our abuse of it make knowledge a source of evil. It is interesting to note that Bishop Ambrose of Milan (c. 340–397), writing a little later than Ephraem but independently, should feel the need of a similar proviso;28 Ambrose, however, equates the tree of life with the infusion of spirit into the nostrils of Adam at Genesis 2:7,29 whereas in the Armenian commentary this tree is as visible and as perilous as the tree of knowledge, and the two are never contrasted or juxtaposed. The replanting of the tree of life on Calvary is the subject of a canticle on the victory of the cross by the greatest of Byzantium’s liturgical poets, the melodist Romanus (c. 490–c. 556).30 As ever, it is an exercise in the ramification of biblical typology, and because the tree of life is its pervasive theme, this is almost the only ligneous emblem that is never called by its proper name. Romanus imagines a dialogue between Satan and Hades as they contemplate the death of Christ. Hades laments that this will oblige him to disgorge Adam and Eve who were given to him by wood and are now being led back by wood to paradise. Satan retorts that this wood is his own handiwork, designed for the second Adam, whom he will slay by the same means as he slew the first. Hades will not be comforted, for the root of this wood has penetrated his soul, and will draw Adam forth as Elisha once drew an axe from the bed of a river. Again Satan mocks him: what is there to fear from this dishonored and unfruitful wood, prepared by the Roman governor for the destruction of wrongdoers who delight in the shedding of blood? All your wisdom, Hades replies, has been swallowed by this wood, for I have seen the fruit of this dry and unfruitful bough, as you would call, and the mere taste of it sufficed to convey the penitent thief from his cross to paradise. 28 29

30

Ambrose, On Paradise 7.35 in Opera, ed. C. Schenkl, CSEL 32.1 (Vienna: Tempsky, 1897), 1:292. Ambrose, On Paradise 5.28–29, in Opera, 1:284–286. At On Paradise 1.5 he opines that the being fashioned in the garden is the corporeal outer man, not the inner man of Genesis 1:26–27; it is not so clear, however, that he maintains the corporeality of the two trees. Romanus, Cantica genuina, ed. P. Maas and C.A. Trypanis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 164–171.

the tree of life in early christian literature

225

Satan assures him that Christ will be taken down from his cross and buried, but Hades is dismayed by the eclipse that follows Christ’s death and the rending of the veil in the Temple. Satan scoffs that if he fears the cross he must fear the crucifixion of Haman, the impaling of Sisera, and the punishment which Joshua administered to his enemies. Hades again recalls the words of Christ to the thief, and Satan now becomes conscious of his error. Having witnessed the flow of blood and water from the side of Christ, he perceives that while the blood signifies death the water betokens the restoration of life. Together he and Hades bewail the planting of the wood that will undo them, the wood whose sweetness they cannot adulterate; they remember how Noah was saved by a ship of wood, and how the rod of Moses sweetened the waters of Marah. Now they hear with consternation the words of Christ, coming forth as though the rood were sprouting leaves: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). This is the utterance that will bring Adam back from Hades to Eden; the tree which they have planted has become a shelter for robbers and murderers, publicans and harlots. In comic impotence, Hades exhorts the devil never to crucify another and the devil in turn entreats him not to contrive another death. But all is finished, the thief has received his flawless pearl from the treasury of salvation, and the priceless wealth of the cross is ours as the ships of Tarshish once brought riches to Solomon, a prototype of Christ.

2

The Righteous Man as Tree of Life

We have seen above that more than one interpreter of the tree of life repeats the aphorism at Proverbs 3:18 that wisdom is a tree of life to those who partake of her. Commentaries on Proverbs are not numerous, and the verse is not so often expounded as claimed for other uses, as when Gregory of Nyssa applies it to temperance rather than wisdom.31 Origen (c. 185–252), the father of both literal and allegorical commentary, thinks it synonymous with the bread of life, which is also styled in Scripture the bread of angels.32 His Latin translator Rufinus (c. 340–410) detects an allusion to the blessing of Naphtali, son of Jacob, as a sprouting terebinth tree in the Greek and Latin translation of Genesis 49:21.33

31 32 33

Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity 24, in Opera VIII.1, ed. W. Jaeger et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1952), 340.13. Origen, On Prayer 10, in Werke, ed. P. Koetschau (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1899), 2:369–370. Rufinus, On the Patriarchal Blessings 2.24 in Opera, ed. M. Simonetti, CCSL 20 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1961), 218.

226

edwards

The fourth-century preacher Chromatius of Aquileia (d. 406/407), building a sermon on the antithesis in the gospels between the good tree which bears good fruit and the bad tree which bears evil fruit, quotes the Solomonic adage to prove that the good tree is Christ.34 More commonly it plays an ancillary role in the exposition of other texts, and it proved especially serviceable to Christian interpreters of the first psalm, since it enabled them to elucidate and embellish the otherwise fanciful comparison of the righteous man to a tree which is planted by running waters, bringing forth its fruit in due season and never bare of leaves (Ps 1:3). Tertullian (c. 160–c. 240), turning the psalm against the Jews, transforms the parable into an archetypal mystery. This fruitful plant, he avers, is not the fatal wood of Eden, but the wood of the passion, on which life was suspended, had his murderers only had the eyes to see it.35 Gregory of Nyssa forgoes the typological for the moral interpretation: the true joys being those of intellect, we must root our thought and conduct in the law to preserve ourselves from a repetition of the fall.36 The first extant commentator on the opening psalm is Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–339/340), who is generally assigned to the Alexandrian tradition.37 Defining the righteous man as one whose days and nights are devoted to the study of God’s law, he cites Proverbs 3:18 as a clue to the Psalmist’s choice of metaphor. He infers that in the psalm as in Proverbs the tree is a symbol of wisdom, and hence that it represents Christ, the true bearer of this appellation. Once this is understood, it will be apparent that the waters which flow by the tree are the Scriptures, and hence that the true definition of righteousness is to think and live in accordance with the divine revelation. As the psalm goes on to promise that the fruit will come in due season, and that in the meantime the leaves of the tree will not fail, Eusebius construes the leaves as works in the present world which bring us temporal prosperity but will not be blessed with fruit till God translates us after death to our proper abode. All the biblical references to the tree of life are brought together by Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310–c. 367) in the first extant Latin commentary on the Psalms.38 Those who judge by the wisdom of this world, he says, will no doubt think

34 35 36 37 38

Sermon 35.8 in Chromatius, Opera, ed. R. Étaix and J. Lemarié, CCSL 9A (Turnhout: Brepols, 1975), 372–373. Tertullian, Against the Jews 13.11, in Opera II: Opera montanistica, ed. A. Gerlo et al., CCSL 2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1954), 1357. On Paradise, in Gregorii Nysseni Opera, Supplementum, ed. H. Hörner (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 83–84. PG 23, 77. PL 9, 254–256.

the tree of life in early christian literature

227

the tree a ludicrous image of beatitude; those who study the teaching of the prophets, however, will know that God, according to Moses, populated Eden with every tree that was good for food, planting at its center the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eden was then watered by a river which was subsequently divided into four streams. The symbolism of the tree of life is explained at Proverbs 3:18. The Psalmist sets it juxta decursus aquarum, just at the point where the waters begin their course, and thus at the wellspring of the four paradisal rivers, where God planted the tree of life. All exegetes of Proverbs understand wisdom as Christ; it is with respect to her future incarnation, however, that Solomon styles her a tree of life, as Christ reveals when he tells the Pharisees that good and bad trees are recognized by their fruits (Luke 6:43–45). Isaiah 5:2 and Matthew 15:13 refine the metaphor, one declaring that thorns do not produce grapes and the other that a bad tree cannot yield good fruit. Christ takes up the comparison of a righteous man to a tree when he warns that every tree not planted by his Father will be torn up by the roots (Matt 7:19). From all this we can infer that when the saints are translated to paradise—the paradise in which Christ on his Cross foretold that he and the penitent thief would meet that day (Luke 23:43)—they will have bodies like the one in which Christ was glorified; this then is the fruit that the tree is said to bear in its season. As for the leaves, their botanical function is to shield the fruit. This is the office of the word of God, which acts as a shelter to our hopes amid the afflictions of this world; and just as the word of God will not pass away when heaven and earth have passed away, so the foliage of this evergreen tree can never fail. There is enough in common between Eusebius and Hilary to prompt the suspicion that both have borrowed from Origen.39 This conjecture is strengthened when we find that Ambrose also pursues the Christological reading with same collation of passages from the Old Testament.40 The blessing pronounced on the righteous man in the first verse of the psalm portends the restoration of the image and likeness of God, which dwelt in the unfallen souls of Adam and even again without distinction of age or sex. The familiar equation of Christ with wisdom, coupled with Proverbs 3:18 reveals that Christ is the Psalmist’s paradigm of the righteous man; supplementary proofs can be drawn from his own saying in the gospel, “I am in the midst of you” (Luke 17:20), for the tree of life stood in the middle of the garden. The fact that the tree stands beside, but

39 40

See C.S. Blaising and C.A. Hardin, eds., Psalms 1–50, ACCS OT 7 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), xxiv–xv. Exposition 1.35–44 = Opera, ed. M. Zelzer (Vienna: Akademie der Wissenschaft, 1999), 30– 37.

228

edwards

not beneath, the waters of paradise signifies that he entered the realm of flesh but was not submerged. The same trials await his disciples, but the corruption of the flesh that prevents the tree from bringing forth its fruits at once. Christ himself, though sown in the womb of the virgin for our salvation, complied his ministry only when transplanted from the Cross to paradise. The fruits of righteousness are “peace, faith, learning, the excellence of true knowledge, good intent and an understanding of the mysteries.” These are internal, whereas the leaves that enfold them signify the outward works that give evidence of inward regeneration. In a common tree the leaves perish, though it is also possible— as Jesus found on inspecting the fig-tree outside Jerusalem—for the leaves to grow thick in the absence of the fruit. They stand to the fruit as the moral to the mystical; when Christ told the busy Martha that her sister Mary had found the one thing needful, he was not only asserting the primacy of the mystical over the moral, but intimating that only the mystery of the incarnation can afford a secure ground for the moral life. Only of Christ can it truly be said, as the Psalmist says of the righteous man, that his works will always prosper; he is the tree whose leaves cannot fall and whose boughs are thick with fruit throughout the year. Hence the tree in this simile “gives” its fruit, whereas the common tree merely “bears” its fruit because it is not the source of its own abundance. The more circumspect Antiochenes, as we have noted, are not so inclined to eke out a text with comparable matter from other portions of the Scriptures. In this case there is no evidence that will allow them to follow their customary method of ascertaining a particular place or purpose of composition; it remains true none the less that the author is writing for his own time, not for the era of the church. Diodore of Tarsus (c. 330–c. 390) confines himself to elucidating the simile: as a tree flourishes and displays its beauty so long as it goes on drawing its nutriment from the waters, so the beauty of holiness will be evident in those who mediate constantly on the Scriptures.41 When he declares that all their works will prosper, the Psalmist passes from the figurative to the literal mode of speech. Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–c. 428), by contrast, permits himself some elaboration. Characterizing the psalm as a moral homily rather than a description of any real person, he explains the tree as a simile which conveys a more lucid impression of “that good man whom it styles blessed.”42

41 42

Diodore of Tarsus, Commentary on Psalms 1–51, ed. and trans. R.C. Hill, WGRW 9 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 6. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on Psalms 1–81, ed. and trans. R.C. Hill, WGRW 5 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 10.

the tree of life in early christian literature

229

The tree is now not only well-watered and fruitful, but suffers no harm from “the atmosphere, the locality or the season”—a conceit recalling the famous, and much-imitated, eulogy of the Elysian Fields in Homer. We find a similar idyll in a homily on Genesis 3 attributed to Basil of Caesarea (c. 330–379),43 but in case we should fail to associate this Greek paradise with Eden, Theodore now alludes to the tree of knowledge, extolling the righteous man as one who abstains from evil and lovingly binds himself to good endeavors. Among Latin Christians, the paradisal imagery is more vivid when the tree of life is not expressly named. For Jerome, the tree is Solomon’s image of wisdom, whose leaves correspond to the mere words of instruction and its fruit to the salutary meaning of those words.44 His friend Augustine, tacitly equating the tree with that of Revelation 22:2, and hence with Christ, deduces that, as the waters in that book signify peoples, the tree which slakes its thirst from the stream is a cipher for Christ as he draws back home the nations who have flowed away through sin.45 Most florid, though most oblique, in its allusions is a poem which is doubtfully attributed to the apologist Lactantius (c. 250–325). Its title, Phoenix, plays on the fact that in Greek the word phoinix denotes not only the mythical bird but a palm tree.46 It is set at the outset in a far-off land of the ancient east, on which the sun pours down the rays of perpetual spring. Below him he sees his own grove, thick with foliage throughout the year and unmenaced at any time by age or sickness, famine or poverty, storms or morbid airs.47 In the midst there is a fountain called “the living,” which gushes forth once a month to irrigate the fertile land. A solitary priestess tends this haunt, but after a vigil of a thousand years she takes flight to another grove where she nests in a lofty palm. Here she is in a better place than paradise, secure from the malice of serpents and wild beasts. As she dies, her body breaks into flame and is consumed, but in the ashes there lies a limbless egg from which she will hatch again as the newborn phoenix. Thus the tree is both cradle and tomb to its namesake, the miraculous bird who perishes that she may live. The appellation “tree of life” does not occur in the poem, but the perennial font and the

43 44 45 46 47

Basilii Opera Omnia, ed. J. Garnier (Paris: Gaume, 1839), 493–494. On p. 497 paradise is declared to be both a physical and an allegorical place. Homily on Psalm 1 in Jerome, Opera Exegetica 2, ed. D.G. Morin, CCSL 78 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1978), 8–9. Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos, ed. D.E. Dekkers and J. Fraipont, CCSL 38 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1956), 1:3. Lactantius, On the Phoenix Bird, in Opera, ed. S. Brandt (Vienna: Tempsky, 1893), 2:135–147. Phoenix, 1–24. On the originality of this passage see R. van den Broek, Myth of the Phoenix according to Classical and Early Christian Tradition, EPRO 24 (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 311.

230

edwards

everlasting foliage are striking concomitants of the tree of life in the Apocalypse, and the following section will leave no doubt that the mind of the church was regularly exercised by the imagery of this book.

3

The Tree at the End of Time

The tree of life returns in the chaotic and dazzling vision of the last judgment which now forms the peroration to the New Testament. While the Apocalypse, or Revelation, may have been one of the earliest works of Christian literature, and was certainly one of the first to acquire authority, its status was contested in the epoch that witnessed the composition of monumental commentaries on the gospels and epistles. The commentaries that have come down to us are late and many cases lapidary. Many are variations or epitomes of those that were written before them, and not all have elected to comment on both occurrences of the tree first as a metaphor at 2:7 for the saint who perseveres at 22:14, and then as symbol of universal and everlasting life at 22:2. The first Latin commentator was Victorinus of Petau, but it is in Jerome’s continuation that the tree of life is said to betoken the advent of Christ in the flesh, bringing food to those who hungered for the spiritual doctrine which is represented by the sacred river.48 A certain Apringius, writing two centuries later, contrasts the state of the righteous who eat from the tree with that of Adam, who was expelled from paradise before he could taste it.49 In this haven of the elect, their ears inhale life (that is, we presume, by hearing the voice of God), their virtues are quickened by the revelation of mysteries, and the fruit of the tree of life imparts to them eternity without decay. The bifurcated stream that encircles the tree of life at Revelation 22:2 signifies the two testaments, old and new, in which the acts of Christ are recorded for our edification.50 The leaves are the words which communicate the gospel of salvation to all peoples; the twelve months of the year in which it flourishes are the apostles, each of whom feeds a multitude with the fruit of the proclamation. A later and terser work, the anonymous Commemoratorium, is content to repeat that the tree of life is Christ, both at 2:7 and at 22:2, and that the twelve fruits are the apostles.51

48 49 50 51

Victorinus of Petau, Sur l’ Apocalypse: Suivi du fragment chronologique et de La construction du monde, ed. M. Dulaey, SC 423 (Paris: Cerf, 1997), 128. Apringius, Treatise on the Apocalypse I.543–550 in Commentaria minora in Apocalypsin Iohannis, ed. R. Gryson, CCSL 107 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003), 50. Apringius, Treatise 7.557–565, in Commentraia minora, 94. Commemoratorium, in Commentaria minora, 202, 227. For theories on the date and milieu

the tree of life in early christian literature

231

By contrast, the great compiler Cassiodorus (c. 485–c. 585) ignores the qualifying genitive, and speaks in the plural of trees which adorn both banks of the sacred river, bringing forth their fruits in abundance month by month.52 When the Donatist Tyconius (c. 330–c. 390) identifies the tree as Christ and hence as the font of baptism,53 we may be inclined to detect a sectarian undertone, for Donatists did not admit the validity of the catholic sacrament;54 in their view only the bishops of their own communion were true successors to the twelve apostles who, according to Tyconius are represented by the twelve months of verdure. We may compare the catholic Primasius (c. 400–c. 460), for whom once again the waters that flow from the tree are once again those of the font, but the unwithered foliage stands for the unbroken course of time and hence for eternity. This is the tree of Psalm 1:3 of which Jeremiah says that it thrusts its roots into the waters (Jer 17:8), by which he means that the man who reposes his hope and faith in the Lord will never die.55 In his comment on Revelation 2:7 Primasius employs another contested image, identifying the church—that is the catholic, not the Donatist church—with the first abode of Adam, and the tree both with the Cross and with Christ himself, the second Adam, who gives the heavenly bread to his true saints first in the church on earth and then in the paradise of the spirit.56 We may think it remarkable that the tree is so seldom interpreted as the Cross.57 Perhaps the first to propose this was Caesarius of Arles (468/470–542), who writes that there is no other tree that bears fruit in every season, and that the saints partake of it once they are laved by the waters of the church.58 An anonymous work, On the Riddles in the Apocalypse of John, offers two interpretations at 2:7: the fruit symbolizes either the unending life that was forfeited by

52 53 54 55 56 57 58

of composition see Commentaria Minora, 180–181. Nothing is added to these comments in the augmented version of the text at Commentaria minora, 307 and 336. Cassiodorus, Complections 32.11–13, in Commentaria minora, 128. On the title see Commentaria minora, 100. Tyconius, Commentaire de l’ Apocalypse, ed. R. Gryson, CCT 10 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), 226. See W. Harmless, “Baptism,” in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. A. Fitzgerald (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 87–89. Primasius, On the Apocalypse, 5.22, in Commentarius in Apocalypsin, ed. A.W. Adams, CCSL 92 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1985), 303. Primasius, On the Apocalypse 1.2, in Commentarius in Apocalypsin, 25. It appears in a roll of promises to martyrs in Cyprian (d. 258), To Quirinus 3.16.67–68 = Opera, ed. K. Weber and M. Bévenot, CCSL 3 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1972), 1:110–111. PL 2451. Commenting on the same verse in Sermon 103, he declares that the elect will be those who murmur least against god in the ordeals of the present world: Sermones, ed. D.G. Morin, CCSL 103 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1953), 425.

232

edwards

Adam or the eating of the body and blood of the crucified Christ in the church which is prefigured by the biblical paradise.59 At 22:2 (the author opines) the tree is the Cross, foreshadowed before baptism in the Old Testament and after baptism by the new law; it bears fruit in the twelve apostles, whose teaching about the Passion is represented by the leaves.60 Bede, who asserts that the tree of life at Revelation 2:7 signifies Christ, both as the eucharist on earth and as the spiritual food of the saints in paradise, allows that at 22:2 it may also represent the glory of the Cross.61 The first extant commentary in Greek is that of Oecumenius, now held to have been writing late in the sixth or early in the seventh century. As he is also one of the fullest, he takes notice of both references to the tree of life, though without harmonizing his comments on the two texts. The promise that the victorious saint will eat from the tree of life at Revelation 2:7 is predictably construed in the light of Proverbs 3:18. Oecumenius adds that for the apostle John (whom he takes to be the author of Revelation), this accolade is more applicable to Christ himself, since he is the everlasting life that the saints will enjoy in paradise. To be a tree of life is thus to inherit the blessed eternity which the name “paradise” signifies.62 At the end of the Apocalypse, the tree of life is Christ as apprehended through and with the Holy Spirit. Its twelve fruits are the apostles, who impart to us the fruit of divine knowledge, in order that we may welcome the year of the Lord and our reward may be proclaimed. The leaves represent Christ’s therapeutic correction of those who have yet to escape from ignorance and sin.63 Another Byzantine commentator on Revelation 2:7, setting this verse beside Proverbs 3:18, interprets wisdom as perseverance in adversity, and holds out the promise of life to those who stand fast in the conflict with the demons.64 Andrew of Caesarea (563–637) collates the opinions of his predecessors, adding a bold conjecture that the leaves may represent the saints themselves when they have been crowned with imperishable life.65

59 60 61 62 63 64 65

On the Riddles in the Apocalypse 16.6–10 in Commentaria minora, 250. On the title and provenance of the work see Commentaria minora, 233. On Riddles 99.99–108 in Commentaria minora, 295. On the Apocalypse 26.429–439 in Bede, Explanatio Apocalypseos, ed. R. Gryson, CCSL 121A (Turnhout: Brepols, 2001), 563–565. Catena in Epistolas Catholicas etc., ed. J.A. Cramer (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1840), 204. Cramer, Catena, 491. Cramer, Catena, 503, quoting the Codex Coisliana. The comment on Rev 22:2 at p. 578 adds nothing to Oecumenius. J. Schmid, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes, MTS 1 (Munich: Zink, 1955–1956), 281–282.

the tree of life in early christian literature

4

233

Conclusion

It is of course no riddle that the planting of the tree of life in Eden should engage the attention of Christian scholars more than any poetic or figurative allusion to it in other passages of Scripture. At the center of all Christian preaching is the crucified redeemer, the second Adam whose death revokes humanity’s fatal inheritance from the first. It was also to be expected, the historicity of the Cross being indisputable, that a Christian would uphold the literal truth of the story in Genesis 3, insofar as one can imagine a literal reading of a narrative whose moral and causal logic is so elusive. Of the reality of the tree of life in the future paradise there could also be no doubt, though it might be asked how one tree could feed so many, or indeed what it means to eat at all in a state that requires no physical sustenance. The nature of the fruit, the withholding of it and its restoration in the eternal paradise were mysteries of the Word that could be plumbed by the Word alone: as we have seen, the commonest gloss was Solomon’s dictum, “wisdom is a tree of life,” a metaphor which became a branching parable when it was grafted into commentaries on the church’s favorite text, the Book of Psalms.

Works Cited Ambrose. Opera. Vol. 1. Edited by C. Schenkl. CSEL 32.1. Vienna: Tempsky, 1897. Ambrose. Opera. Edited by M. Zelzer. Vienna: Akademie der Wissenschaft, 1999. Augustine. Enarrationes in Psalmos. 3 vols. Edited by D.E. Dekkers and J. Fraipont. CCSL 38–40. Turnhout: Brepols, 1956. Augustine. Obras de San Agustín. Vol. 15. Edited by B. Martín. Madrid: Biblioteca des Autores Cristianos, 1957. Basil of Caesarea. Opera Omnia. Edited by Juliani Garnier. Paris: Gaume, 1839. Basil of Caesarea. Opera Exegetica. Vol. 1 of Libri quatuor in principium Genesis usque ad nativitatem Isaac et eiectionem Ismahelis adnotationum. Edited by C.W. Jones. CCSL 118A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1967. Basil of Caesarea. Opera Exegetica. Vol. 5 of Explanatio Apocalypseos. Edited by R. Gryson. CCSL 121A. Turnhout: Brepols, 2001. Blaising, C.S., and C.A. Hardin, eds. Psalms 1–50. ACCS OT 7. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008. Brock, Sebastian. The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Press, 1985. Budge, E.A. Wallis, ed. The Book of the Cave of Treasures. London: Religious Tract Society, 1927.

234

edwards

Budge, E.A. Wallis, ed. The Book of the Mysteries of the Heavens and the Earth. Berwick, ME: Ibis, 2004. Chromatius of Aquileia. Opera. Edited by R. Étaix and J. Lemarié. CCSL 9A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1975. Cramer, J.A., ed. Catena in Epistolas Catholicas: Accesserunt Œcumenii et Aretha Comment. In Apocalypsin. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1840. Cyprian. Opera I: Ad Quirinum. Ad Fortunatum. De lapsis. De ecclesiae catholicae unitate. Edited by K. Weber and M. Bévenot. CCSL 3. Turnhout: Brepols, 1972. Cyril of Jerusalem. Catecheses ad Illuminandos. Edited by J. Rupp. Munich: Lentner, 1848. Diodore of Tarsus. Commentary on Psalms 1–51. Edited and translated by R.C. Hill. WGRW 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Edwards, M.J. “Figurative Readings: Their Scope and Justification.” Pages 714–733 in vol. 1 of The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Edited by James Carleton Paget and Joachim Schaper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Ephraem. The Armenian Commentary on Genesis attributed to Ephraem Syrus. Translated by E.G. Matthews. CSCO 572. Louvain: Peeters, 1998. Ephraem. Hymns on Paradise. Translated by S. Brock. PPS 10. New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990. Ephraem. Selected Prose Works. Translated by E.G. Matthews and J.P. Amar. FC 91. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2010. Firmicus Maternus. On the Error of Profane Religions. Edited by A. Pastorino. Florence: Nuova Italia Editrice, 1956. Gregory of Nazianzus. Five Theological Orations. Edited by A.J. Mason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899. Gregory of Nyssa. De Hominis Opificio. Edited by Lara Sels. Bausteine zur Slavischen Philologie und Kulturgeschichte B/21. Vienna: Böhlau, 2009. Gregory of Nyssa. Opera VIII.1. W. Jaeger et al. Leiden: Brill, 1952. Gryson, R., ed. Commentaria minora in Apocalypsin Iohannis. CCSL 107. Turnhout: Brepols, Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies. Edited by M.D. Litwa. WGRW 40. Atlanta: SBL Press, Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Jerome. Opera Exegetica 1: Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos. Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum. Commentarioli in psalmos. Commentarius in Ecclesiasten. Edited by P. de Lagarde, G. Morin, and M. Adriaen. CCSL 72. Turnhout: Brepols, 1959. Jerome. Opera Exegetica 2: Tractatus sive homiliae in psalmos. In Marci evangelium. Alia varia argumenta. Edited by D.G. Morin, B. Capelle, and J. Fraipont. CCSL 78. Turnhout: Brepols, 1958.

the tree of life in early christian literature

235

John of Damascus. Esposizione delle fede. Edited by B. Kotter. I Talenti 13. Bologna: San Clemente, 2013. Lactantius. Opera 2. Edited by S. Brandt. Vienna: Tempsky, 1893. Origen. First Principles. Edited by Paul Koetschau. Vol. 5 of Origenes Werke. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1913. Origen. On Prayer. Edited by Paul Koetschau. Vol. 2 of Origenes Werke. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1899. Patrologia Graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886. Patrologia Latina. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844–1864. Primasius. Commentarius in Apocalypsin. Edited by A.W. Adams. CCSL 92. Turnhout: Brepols, 1985. Romanus. Cantica genuina. Edited by Paul Maas and C.A. Trypanis. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963. Rufinus. Opera. Edited by M. Simonetti. CCSL 20. Turnhout: Brepols, 1961. Schmid, J. Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes. MTS 1. Munich: Zink, 1955–1956. Tertullian. Opera II: Opera montanistica. Edited by A. Gerlo, et al. CCSL 2. Turnhout: Brepols, 1954. Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentary on Psalms 1–81. Edited and translated by R.C. Hill. WGRW 5. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Theodoret of Cyrus. The Questions on the Octateuch. Vol. 1, On Genesis and Exodus. Edited by J.F. Petruccione. Translated by R.C. Hill. LEC 1. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2007. Theophilus of Antioch. Ad Autolycum. Edited by Robert M. Grant. OECT. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. Victorinus of Petau. Sur l’Apocalypse: Suivi du fragment chronologique et de La construction du monde. Edited by M. Dulaey. SC 423. Paris: Cerf, 1997. Young, Frances M. “Traditions of Exegesis.” Pages 734–751 in vol. 1 of The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Edited by James Carleton Paget and Joachim Schaper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

chapter 10

The Tree of Life in Philo Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer

1

Introduction

Philo of Alexandria has left an extensive exegetical oeuvre, as his writings span about 1500 pages, and he spent much of his work interpreting the biblical text allegorically. The tree of life of LXXGen 2:9 and 3:22–24 is interpreted in the context of Philo’s exegesis of the whole text of Gen. 1–2 in the Legum Allegoriae (I 56–59; III 52, 107) and in the Quaestiones in Genesim (QG I 9–11, esp. 10; 54–57, esp. 55). The tree of life however also appears in other allegorical works (Cher. 1; Plant. 36–45; Migr. 36–37; Som. II 70). The allegorical treatises read the biblical text as an instruction to the moral improvement of the human life. The tree of life in Philo has so far been largely ignored in scholarship.1 The only more detailed recent discussion of the tree of life occurs in Maren Niehoff’s comparison of certain exegetical questions in Philo and the Genesis Rabbah,2 and in her chapter on paradise in Philo in a book on paradise in antiquity.3 She focuses on the Quaestiones and works on Philo’s allegorical discussion which mentions the interpretation of the tree as a plant which counteracts the poison of plants (QG I 8,10) in refutation of other readings of the story as myth.4 The present chapter examines Philo’s exegesis of the tree of life not only as exegesis of the biblical text, but also in the context of his view on life as a whole.

1 There is only one PhD thesis on the topic from 1966, which looks at the Philonic material, A.G. Levin, “The Tree of Life: Genesis 2:9 and 3:22–24 in Jewish, Gnostic and Early Christian Texts” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1966), esp. 74–101, and E.R. Goodenough, in his Jewish Symbols, makes some use of Philonic texts when looking at the tree symbolism, E.R. Goodenough, “Tree Symbolism,” in Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, ed. E.R. Goodenough, Bollingen Series 37 (New York: Pantheon, 1953–1968), 9:107–110. 2 Maren R. Niehoff, “Questions and Answers in Philo and Genesis Rabbah,” JSJ 39 (2008): 337– 366, esp. 350–356, on the tree of knowledge: 341–350. 3 Maren R. Niehoff, “Philo’s Scholarly Inquiries into the Story of Paradise,” in Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views, ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Guy G. Stroumsa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 28–42. 4 Niehoff, “Philo’s Scholarly Inquiries,” 29–30.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423756_012

the tree of life in philo

2

237

The Tree of Life in Legum Allegoriae

Allegorical interpretation was already used and debated centuries before Philo—rejected by Plato (Politeia 2:378d) but embraced by Aristotle (Aporemata Homerica frag. 175).5 2.1 Leg. I 56–59(60–61): Virtue in General In Leg. I 56–59 Philo interprets the tree of life allegorically, relating to the properties of the soul. Quoting Gen 2:96 Philo identifies the unnamed trees, which God plants in paradise with the “trees of virtue, which he plants in the soul” (ἃ φυτεύει ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ δένδρα ἀρετῆς, 56).7 These unspecified trees represent the “particular virtues, and their corresponding energies and the good deeds, which are called appropriate by the philosophers” (αἵ τε κατὰ μέρος ἀρεταὶ καὶ αἱ κατ’ αὐτὰς ἐνέργειαι καὶ τὰ κατορθώματα καὶ τὰ λεγόμενα παρὰ τοῖς φιλοσοφοῦσι καθήκοντα, 56).8 However, individual virtues are part of a whole: “virtue is theoretical and practical; for it comprises theory, when its path is philosophy through its three parts—the logical, the ethical and the physical—and actions: for virtue is the art of the whole life, in which are also all actions” (ἡ δὲ ἀρετὴ καὶ θεωρητική ἐστι καὶ πρακτική· καὶ γὰρ θεωρίαν ἔχει, ὁπότε καὶ ἡ ἐπ’ αὐτὴν ὁδὸς φιλοσοφία διὰ τῶν τριῶν αὐτῆς μερῶν, τοῦ λογικοῦ, τοῦ ἠθικοῦ, τοῦ φυσικοῦ, καὶ πράξεις· ὅλου γὰρ τοῦ βίου ἐστὶ τέχνη ἡ ἀρετή, ἐν ᾧ καὶ αἱ σύμπασαι πράξεις, 57). Philo sees the theoretical and practical aspect of virtue expressed when the biblical text calls these trees pleasant to the sight as well as good to eat (58). Finally Philo turns to the tree of life, planted in the centre of the garden: “The tree of life is the most general virtue, which some call goodness, from which the particular virtues are derived, for which reason it is placed in the middle of paradise, inhabiting the most comprehensive place, so that it might be guarded, like a king, by those on either side” (τὸ δὲ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς ἐστιν ἡ γενικωτάτη ἀρετή, ἥν τινες ἀγαθότητα καλοῦσιν, ἀφ’ ἧς αἱ κατὰ μέρος ἀρεταὶ συνίστανται τούτου χάριν καὶ μέσον ἵδρυται τοῦ παραδείσου, τὴν συνεκτικωτάτην χώραν ἔχον, ἵνα ὑπὸ τῶν ἑκατέρωθεν βασιλέως τρόπον δορυφορῆται, 59). At this point, Philo appreciates, even if somewhat critically, the allegorical reading of the tree of life as

5 Niehoff, “Questions and Answers,” 344. 6 LXXGen 2:9: καὶ ἐξανέτειλεν ὁ θεὸς ἔτι ἐκ τῆς γῆς πᾶν ξύλον ὡραῖον εἰς ὅρασιν καὶ καλὸν εἰς βρῶσιν καὶ τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς ἐν μέσῳ τῷ παραδείσῳ καὶ τὸ ξύλον τοῦ εἰδέναι γνωστὸν καλοῦ καὶ πονηροῦ. 7 Just before this, in Leg. I 48–52, this planting activity of God is contrasted to human attempts to plant impious impressions, vices, in the soul, which Philo rejects with reference to the Deuteronomic prohibition to plant (sacred) groves (Deut 16:21). 8 All the translations in this chapter are the author’s.

238

leonhardt-balzer

the heart, the cause of life;9 he prefers the aretological to the “medical” interpretation, because it is more “physical” (ἀλλ’ οὗτοι μὲν ἰατρικὴν δόξαν ἐκτιθέμενοι μᾶλλον ἣ φυσικὴν, 59). Philo ends the discussion of the tree of life by contrasting its position in the middle of Eden to that of the tree of knowledge (60).10 The dual character of the tree of knowledge—in- and outside paradise—derives from the ambivalent character of knowledge, either for virtue or vice: Philo compares the soul to a wax tablet, “for the uncountable impressions of everything which is comprised in the universe, are stamped on the soul, which is one. Therefore, when it receives the impression of the perfect virtue, it becomes the tree of life, but when that of evil, it becomes that of knowledge, knowing good and evil” (ἐπὶ γὰρ μίαν οὖσαν τὴν ψυχὴν αἱ ἀμύθητοι τυπώσεις ἁπάντων τῶν ἐν τῷ παντὶ ἀναφέρονται· ὅταν μὲν οὖν δέξηται τὸν τῆς τελείας ἀρετῆς χαρακτῆρα, γέγονε τὸ τῆς ζωῆς ξύλον, ὅταν δὲ τὸν τῆς κακίας, γέγονε τὸ τοῦ εἰδέναι γνωστὸν καλοῦ καὶ πονηροῦ, 61). Thus, Philo displays an openness to other interpretations, but nevertheless a clear preference for the interpretation of the tree of life as the symbol of goodness, as the most basic virtue and therefore the centre of the human soul. He presents his reading as one of several which were proposed in the Alexandrian Jewish community. Its identification of the tree of life with goodness stems from Platonic philosophy, which identifies goodness with virtue as the focus of a good, a successful life. Thus, it is evidence of the interaction between philosophy and exegesis in first century Alexandria. As unusual as it may be in the context of other Jewish and Christian interpretations of the tree of life, in the Alexandrian context it is evidence of the practice of allegory, especially the attempt to read the trees in the garden of Eden as virtues: If Eden is the place of true happiness, which is axiomatic for Philo based on the LXX translation and a recurring theme in his reference to Eden,11 its trees must be the virtues, and the main virtue is goodness. 2.2 Leg. III 52, 107: Virtue and Wisdom The interpretation of the tree of life as virtue in general is repeated in Leg. III 52 as the second of three readings in Philo’s interpretation of God’s call for Adam

9 10 11

Niehoff, “Philo’s Scholarly Inquiries,” 30. The tree of knowledge is also mentioned in Leg. I 90, 97, 100, 101(–108); QG I 11. On Eden as the place of happiness and virtue, see J. Leonhardt-Balzer, “Philo and the Garden of Eden: An Exegete, his Text and his Tools,” in Die Septuaginta—Orte und Intentionen: 5. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 24.–27. Juli 2014, ed. Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser, and Marcus Sigismund, WUNT I 361 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 244–257. See also below, on Plant. 44–45, p, 181.

the tree of life in philo

239

in Gen 3:9: “Where are you?” The first one reads “there” instead of “where” and contrasts God’s lack of place to Adam’s precise position. The third is the normal question, but the second asks: “Where have you been, o soul? Which evil have you chosen over which virtues? Although God had called you to the participation in virtue and the tree of life, which is a life of wisdom, by which you may live, you have pursued vice” (ποῦ γέγονας, ὦ ψυχή; ἀνθ’ οἵων ἀγαθῶν οἷα ᾕρησαι κακά; καλέσαντός σε τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς μετουσίαν ἀρετῆς κακίαν μετέρχῃ, καὶ τὸ τῆς ζωῆς ξύλον, τουτέστι σοφίας ᾗ δυνήσῃ ζῆν, 52). Here the tree if life is not identified with goodness in general, but specifically with virtue and wisdom. Nevertheless, it is contrasted to vice and its relation to virtue depends on its location inside paradise. Thus, the core meaning is the same, while the individual depiction varies marginally. Here the wisdom of the tree of life, which leads to virtue, contrasts to the knowledge of the other tree, which may lead to vice. The contrast to vice also plays a part in Leg. III 107, the interpretation of God’s curse of the snake. In this context, Philo interprets the prohibition to move a neighbour’s land mark in Deut 17:17 as relating to the paradise story: “for God also set virtue, the tree of life, as a land mark and law for the soul, but pleasure has removed this, setting wickedness as landmark, the tree of death” (ὅρον γὰρ ἔθηκε καὶ νόμον ὁ θεὸς τὴν ἀρετὴν τῇ ψυχῇ, τὸ τῆς ζωῆς ξύλον· τοῦτον δὲ μετατέθεικεν ὁ πήξας ὅρον κακίαν, ξύλον θανάτου). The tree of life is contrasted to its opposite, the tree of death. This is not a different concept to the trees in paradise, because the punishment for the transgression against God’s commandment not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was death. Thus in the Legum Allegoriae Philo consistently interprets the tree of life as a life of virtue and the resulting reward in contrast to the futility of the life of vice.

3

The Tree of Life in the Quaestiones in Genesim

The Quaestiones genre interprets a text successively, asking specific questions on “text-critical, exegetical, educational and rhetorical” matters,12 and the Jewish exegesis of the biblical text is no exception. Philo leans towards a conservative, exegetical approach to Scripture, and in this he is similar to rabbinic approaches, such as the Genesis Rabbah, and occasionally they discuss the same questions.13 The method of the Quaestiones is comparable to Philo’s

12 13

Niehoff, “Questions and Answers,” 338. Niehoff, “Questions and Answers,” 338–341.

240

leonhardt-balzer

approach in the Allegorical Commentary, and consequently there is much similarity in his approach in both kinds of books, but in the Quaestiones Philo seems to provide a wider range of alternative readings. 3.1 QG I 9–10: Different Options for Reading the Tree of Life The discussion of Gen 2:9 is introduced using a question taken from Homeric scholarship, τί ἐστι, used to enquire into details of the texts or particular problems:14 What is the meaning of the tree of life and why is it in the middle of paradise (I 9)? Philo proceeds by pointing out in QG I 10 that paradise is “a garden where a special tree grants life by reversing the effects of poisonous plants.”15 This literal interpretation is not his main focus, and consequently he adds a number of allegorical interpretations of the tree of life: as earth, the cause of growth, as sun, the cause of the seasons, and the rule of the soul over the senses. Philo already praises the identification of the tree with the rule of the soul. His preferred proposition, however, is that the tree of life is the highest virtue, piety, which provides immortality.16 Thus, again, the tree of life is associated with the ultimate virtue, but this time it is not goodness, ἀγαθότητα, or wisdom, σοφία, but piety εὐσεβεία. The two positions which Philo praises have been called “allegorical-psychological” explanations,17 however they are different in that piety transcends the human level and includes an aspect of the divine, something which is very important to Philo, but different to the mere idea that the soul governs human life. Unlike in the Allegorical Commentary, in the Quaestiones Philo does not criticise the other allegorical views, but lists them as options and expresses a preference. The only view that is explicitly criticised is the literal reading, and that has methodological reasons: As always when interpreting the biblical text, Philo begins by listing the literal meaning: a plant granting immortality. He rejects this based on the fundamental philosophical tenet, that decay and death are inherent in life,18 therefore, a plant granting immortality does not make sense. This blatant contradiction in the literal meaning of the text is the methodological signpost for the introduction of an allegorical reading, and consequently he feels justified to turn to allegorical explanations and lists a few. 14 15 16 17

18

Niehoff, “Questions and Answers,” 344. Niehoff, “Philo’s Scholarly Inquiries,” 29. Niehoff, “Questions and Answers,” 351; Niehoff, “Philo’s Scholarly Inquiries,” 30. Niehoff, “Questions and Answers,” 353. Niehoff does not distinguish explicitly between the interpretation of the rule of the soul and that of piety as the virtue which grants immortality. Niehoff, “Questions and Answers,” 352.

the tree of life in philo

241

Philo’s list of answers suggests that there is a vibrant discussion about the meaning of the tree of life in the Jewish community before Philo, and Philo’s non-exclusive approach listing a range of options corresponds more to Greek philosophical practice, Homeric scholarship and rabbinic argument, rather than the exclusive exegesis as found in Jubilees or the pesharim of Qumran.19 It is likely that Philo draws on existing collections of interpretations of the tree of life here, but with a novel exegetical approach, which cannot simply be derived from Homeric scholarship or Stoic interpretation, and which balances literal and allegorical readings.20 There are also other early Jewish interpretations of the tree of life, not mentioned by Philo. Particularly missing is the eschatological reading based on Isa 65:22 and Prov 3:18, which can be found, e.g., in 1 En. 25:1–5: the seer is shown a tall tree in the form of a throne and the angel explains that God will sit in judgment there and the righteous will receive its fruit for life.21 An eschatological reading does not fit into Philo’s world view at all, and it does not seem to feature in the Alexandrian debate around the meaning of the tree of life. 3.2 QG I 55,57 In the context of the discussion of Adam’s expulsion from paradise in Gen 3:23– 24,22 Philo also discusses the tree of life mentioned in the text. Philo wonders in QG I 55 whether God’s reasoning behind the expulsion “lest perchance he put forth his hand and take of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever” (Gen 3:23) indicates uncertainty or envy in God. Philo rejects this suggestion from the beginning, but admits that although God is unlike humans, he sometimes uses anthropomorphic terms. Most of the discussion relates to rejecting the suggestion of envy, wickedness, or uncertainty in God, but in this context Philo also mentions the tree of life in passing: The unrequested planting of the tree of life is seen as a sign of the benevolence of God’s intentions towards mankind. Philo immediately adds that God, without any request by another being, provided human beings with incorruptibility while they were in the intelligible world—pure intellect without sense perceptible influence from evil actions or 19 20 21 22

Niehoff, “Questions and Answers,” 351. Niehoff, “Philo’s Scholarly Inquiries,” 30–31, 35–36. Similar in 4 Ezra 8:52 and 4Q385 2, cf. Niehoff, “Questions and Answers,” 354. LXXGen 3:22–24; 22 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Ἰδοὺ Αδαμ γέγονεν ὡς εἷς ἐξ ἡμῶν τοῦ γινώσκειν καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν, καὶ νῦν μήποτε ἐκτείνῃ τὴν χεῖρα καὶ λάβῃ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ φάγῃ καὶ ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. 23 καὶ ἐξαπέστειλεν αὐτὸν κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τοῦ παραδείσου τῆς τρυφῆς ἐργάζεσθαι τὴν γῆν, ἐξ ἧς ἐλήμφθη. 24 καὶ ἐξέβαλεν τὸν Αδαμ καὶ κατῴκισεν αὐτὸν ἀπέναντι τοῦ παραδείσου τῆς τρυφῆς καὶ ἔταξεν τὰ χερουβιμ καὶ τὴν φλογίνην ῥομφαίαν τὴν στρεφομένην φυλάσσειν τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς.

242

leonhardt-balzer

discourse—as a guide to piety, the reliable path to immortality (55). The tree of life is not explicitly mentioned, but piety leading to immortality represents the preferred interpretation of the tree in QG I 10. In QG I 57 Philo quotes the third biblical reference to the tree of life in Gen 3:24, but he does not interpret the tree at all, instead he focuses on the two cherubim as symbols of God’s benevolent and royal powers, and their flaming sword which guards paradise. The fact that he identifies paradise with wisdom at this point could indicate that the interpretation of the tree of life as wisdom of Leg. III 52 plays a role here, but the reference is too vague to be certain. On the whole, the interpretation of the tree of life in QG is quite consistent and identifies the motif with piety as the highest virtue and a certain way to immortality.

4 4.1

The Tree of Life in Other Treatises

Opif. 151–156: The Only Reference to the Tree of Life in a Non-allegorical Treatise Philo describes the fall of Adam as proof of the principle that nothing lasts forever and all life is subject to change (151), the principle which in QG I 10 led him to reject the literal interpretation of Gen 2:9. The creation of the woman turned the intelligible man into a sexual being and introduced pleasure into the human frame of mind (151–152). As in Leg. I 56–58 Philo proceeds with the interpretation of the biblical paradise: “the paradise made by God contains plants, all endowed with souls and reason, carrying the virtues as fruit and, moreover, imperishable understanding and prudence, by which the good is recognised and the bad, and also a life free from disease and corruption and all other qualities, if they are similar to these” (κατὰ δὲ τὸν θεῖον παράδεισον ἔμψυχα καὶ λογικὰ φυτὰ πάντ’ εἶναι συμβέβηκε, καρπὸν φέροντα τὰς ἀρετὰς καὶ προσέτι τὴν ἀδιάφθορον σύνεσιν καὶ ἀγχίνοιαν, ᾗ γνωρίζεται τὰ καλὰ καὶ τὰ αἰσχρά, ζωήν τ’ ἄνοσον καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν καὶ πᾶν εἴ τι τούτοις ὁμοιότροπον, 153). Turning to Gen 2:9 Philo points out that the literal interpretation of the tree of life does not make sense as trees which grant immortality have never been observed in real life, for which reason he argues that an allegorical interpretation is called for (154). This he immediately adds: “but as it seems, [Moses] envisages by the paradise the dominance of the soul, which is as full of opinions as that is full of plants, by the tree of life the best of the virtues, piety towards God, by which the soul becomes immortal, by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the reason and moderation, by which the things which are contrary by nature are distinguished” (ἀλλ’ ὡς ἔοικεν αἰνίττεται διὰ μὲν τοῦ παραδείσου τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικόν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ κατάπλεων οἷα φυτῶν μυρίων ὅσων δοξῶν, διὰ δὲ τοῦ δένδρου τῆς ζωῆς τὴν μεγίστην τῶν ἀρετῶν

the tree of life in philo

243

θεοσέβειαν, δι’ ἧς ἀθανατίζεται ἡ ψυχή, διὰ δὲ τοῦ καλῶν καὶ πονηρῶν γνωριστικοῦ φρόνησιν τὴν μέσην, ᾗ διακρίνεται τἀναντία φύσει, 154). In this interpretation, it is quite clear that the government of the soul is the interpretation of paradise, not of the tree of life, as in QG I 10. It seems that Philo moved the interpretation of the government of the soul into the reading of paradise in order to focus more clearly on piety as the interpretation of the tree of life. The soul fits to the interpretation of the garden full of virtues, but it clearly is secondary, as there is no idea of governance in the references to the plants in the garden. Philo proceeds with the expulsion of Adam and Eve from paradise because God recognised that their nature leans towards vice, and “with little inclination towards piety and holiness, from which an immortal life results” (εὐσεβείας δὲ καὶ ὁσιότητος ὀλιγωροῦσαν ἐξ ὧν ἡ ἀθάνατος ζωὴ, 155). Here the allegorical interpretation of the tree of life as piety and holiness is repeated. Then Philo narrates the story of the serpent’s temptation of the woman and then the man, adding “for the deed was worth his anger, because they passed by the tree of immortal life, the perfect virtue, by which they could have reaped a long and happy life, they preferred a fleeting and mortal—not life but time—full of unhappiness” (ἡ γὰρ πρᾶξις ὀργῆς ἀξία, ἐπεὶ παρελθόντες τὸ ζωῆς ἀθανάτου φυτόν, τὴν ἀρετῆς παντέλειαν, ὑφ’ ἧς μακραίωνα καὶ εὐδαίμονα βίον ἐδύναντο καρποῦσθαι, τὸν ἐφήμερον καὶ θνητὸν οὐ βίον ἀλλὰ χρόνον κακοδαιμονίας μεστὸν εἵλοντο, 156). Thus the transgression was not to eat of a forbidden tree, but to choose the wrong tree. Again, the tree of life is identified with perfect virtue. After this, Philo embarks on a long allegory of the snake symbolising pleasure and pleasure’s negative influence on human lives (157–167). Philo’s rather developed interpretation of the tree of life in Opif. 151–156 exhibits aspects from all the previous allegorical references to the passage. In this treatise, which is not part of the allegorical commentary, he nevertheless provides an allegorical reading, introduced by a clear reasoning why this passage needs to be interpreted allegorically: the literal meaning of a tree which gives eternal life or knowledge does not make sense to him as these trees do not exist anywhere (154). Philo presents here not just one possible exegesis out of many, but his preferred reading of the tree of life. 4.2 Cher. 1: References without Any Interest in the Tree of Life In Cher. 1 the tree of life is mentioned in a quotation of Gen 3:24, however there is no interpretation of the tree at all, neither is there a reference to any of the allegorical interpretations found in other allegorical treatises. The focus throughout the treatise is on the expulsion of Adam and Eve, the cherubim and the flaming sword. This shows that the tree of life was not relevant for Philo’s interpretation of the verse; an indication that the tree was an interesting con-

244

leonhardt-balzer

cept that warranted a number of different propositions for its interpretation in Gen 2:9, but not sufficiently important to draw attention every time the word occurred, unlike the term Eden, which Philo consistently interprets as “joy” whenever it occurs in any text he interprets.23 4.3 Plant. (36–)44–45 In the context of an interpretation of Adam Philo uses the tree of life as a methodological hint that the whole paradise narrative needs to be read allegorically: “We must therefore go towards allegory, the favoured option for those men who can see; for the oracles also most obviously reach out to us indicating towards it; for they say that in paradise there are trees not like those among us, but trees of immortality, of knowledge, of comprehension, of understanding, insight into good and evil. These are never growths of barren land, but necessarily of the reasoning soul, one of which is a road towards virtue, itself having life and immortality as the goal, the other a flight towards evil and death” (ἰτέον οὖν ἐπ’ ἀλληγορίαν τὴν ὁρατικοῖς φίλην ἀνδράσι· καὶ γὰρ οἱ χρησμοὶ τὰς εἰς αὐτὴν ἡμῖν ἀφορμὰς ἐναργέστατα προτείνουσι· λέγουσι γὰρ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ φυτὰ εἶναι μηδὲν ἐοικότα τοῖς παρ’ ἡμῖν, ἀλλὰ ζωῆς, ἀθανασίας, εἰδήσεως, καταλήψεως, συνέσεως, καλοῦ καὶ πονηροῦ φαντασίας. ταῦτα δὲ χέρσου μὲν οὐκ ἂν εἴη, λογικῆς δὲ ψυχῆς ἀναγκαίως φυτά, ἧς ἡ μὲν πρὸς ἀρετὴν ὁδὸς αὕτη ζωὴν καὶ ἀθανασίαν ἔχουσα τὸ τέλος, ἡ δὲ πρὸς κακίαν φυγήν τε τούτων καὶ θάνατον, 36–37). Philo adds that God plants the virtues in the soul out of his benevolent intentions. Then he adds an interpretation of the meaning of Eden as “joy” (Ἐδέμ ἑρμηνεύεται δὲ τρυφή, 38), representing the soul’s delight in the virtues (38–39)24 and of the position of paradise “in the East” (40–42). Then Philo (as in Leg.) includes an interpretation which contrasts the intelligible human being created in Gen 1 to the material human of Gen 2 (43–45). In this context he parallels the immaterial man, to the tree of life: “for the one [the immaterial human], who is imprinted after the image of God with the spirit does not differ at all from the tree who provides immortal life, as it appears to me, for both are imperishable and are in the middle of that which is regarded as worthy of the central and governing position; for it is said that the tree of life is in the middle of paradise” (ὁ μὲν γὰρ τῷ κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα θεοῦ χαραχθεὶς πνεύματι οὐδὲν διαφέρει τοῦ τὴν ἀθάνατον ζωὴν καρποφοροῦντος, ὡς ἔμοιγε φαίνεται, δένδρου ἄμφω γὰρ ἄφθαρτα καὶ μοίρας τῆς μεσαιτάτης καὶ ἡγεμονικωτάτης ἠξίωται· λέγεται γὰρ ὅτι τὸ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς ἐστιν ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ παραδείσου, 44). Consequently, here Philo does not

23 24

Cf. Leonhardt-Balzer, “Philo and the Garden of Eden,” 244–257. Leonhardt-Balzer, “Philo and the Garden of Eden,” 249–250.

the tree of life in philo

245

interpret the tree as representing piety or other virtues, but the human mind itself: “Therefore, it was right to place the mind in the middle in paradise, the whole world” (τιθέναι οὖν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ, τῷ παντὶ κόσμῳ, ῥιζωθέντα εἰκὸς ἦν τὸν μέσον νοῦν, 45), because the mind is capable of discerning between opposites and capable of distinguishing between them. Nevertheless, Philo returns to the familiar interpretation of paradise as a place of the virtues in the following discussion (46). Thus, in Plant. 44 there is a singular interpretation of the tree of life as mind, which is related to the identification of paradise with the domination of the soul over the senses found in Opif. 156. It seems to be a development of Philo’s based on previous motifs. Together with the emphasis on the need to read the motif allegorically which is expressed together with this there is a clear sense that Philo is struggling to find a satisfactory interpretation of the tree of life. 4.4 Migr. 36–37: Goodness In the context of a discussion of perfect goodness (Migr. 36) following an account of Philo’s mystical experiences (34–35), Philo quotes the piece of wood which Moses throws into the water to make it sweet again (Ex. 15:25) as an image of the effect of goodness (36). Then he improves on this image by referring to the tree of life: “This tree promises not only nourishment, but even immortality; for he says that the tree is planted in the middle of paradise, goodness guarded by the particular virtues and their deeds; for virtue it is who inherits the most central and best place in the soul” (τὸ δὲ ξύλον τοῦτο οὐ μόνον τροφήν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀθανασίαν ἐπαγγέλλεται· τὸ γὰρ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς ἐν μέσῳ τῷ παραδείσῳ φησὶ πεφυτεῦσθαι, τὴν ἀγαθότητα δορυφορουμένην ὑπὸ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἀρετῶν καὶ τῶν κατ’ αὐτὰς πράξεων· αὕτη γὰρ τὸν μεσαίτατον καὶ ἄριστον ἐν ψυχῇ κεκλήρωται τόπον, 37). Philo returns here to the basic interpretation of the tree of life as goodness, as generic virtue, found in Leg. I 56–59. It is likely that he followed the order of the biblical books when writing his allegorical commentary, which would mean that he wrote on the migration of Abraham much later than on Gen 2. This indicates that he did not reject his basic reading after all his other interpretations and returns to it when it suits his context, which here contains his mystic vision of God as perfect goodness. 4.5 Som. II 70: The Number Two In Som. II 70 there is a completely different interpretation of the tree of life. As in many of the other texts Philo interprets it together with the tree of knowledge, but here he joins the two trees to a single concept and argues that Adam died “when he touched the two trees” (ὅταν ἅψηται τοῦ διδύμου ξύλου) because

246

leonhardt-balzer

he preferred the number two to the number one, the created to the creator. This seems to be an impromptu association with the number two rather than a detailed, reflected interpretation of the tree of life motif. It is not picked up anywhere else in the extant Philonic writings. The main interpretation of the tree of life circles around the virtues, especially piety. It now remains whether this reflects Philo’s idea of life in general or is specifically related to this text.

5

Life in Philo

Philo sometimes uses “life” simply for one’s physical existence (Contempl. 13; Legat. 192). More often, however, he uses life in the sense of true life, successful existence. Philo describes a number of traditional ideas about life. In the context of the successive creation he uses well known philosophical ideas: God first creates air, and air is described as life-giving (Opif. 30). In accordance with the Bible Philo calls the blood the life of the body, but is quick to add that this is only the physical existence, and that the soul is the spirit and reason which is rooted in heaven (Det. 84; Som. I 34; Spec. IV 123; Virt. 204–205). The contrast between the earthly and the intelligible human being is expressed in the interpretation of the inbreathing of life into the man of clay in Gen 2. Here Philo argues that it is the heavenly Man, created in the image of God, who infuses the earthly form with life (Leg. I 31–32; Plant. 19). The divine breath of life is interpreted as the inherent knowledge about virtue (Leg. I 35; cf. also Abr. 6, 271). At the very end of his treatise on creation Philo summarises its content and describes the insight of the wise: God is one, he created the world and continues to care for it: “he forever looks after the created, that it lives a blessed and happy life imprinted by the teachings of piety and holiness” (ἀεὶ προνοεῖ τοῦ γεγονότος, μακαρίαν καὶ εὐδαίμονα ζωὴν βιώσεται δόγμασιν εὐσεβείας καὶ ὁσιότητος χαραχθείς, 172). This corresponds to Philo’s interpretation of the tree of life and shows that its identification with piety is not a side issue for Philo’s overall theology. This corresponds to the most fundamental idea of life as virtuous life in communion with the living God, for only the good man has real life, a life without reason and virtue is dead (Post. 9, 45, 68; Mut. 213–214; Abr. 84; Virt. 177; Her. 290, 292). True life lies beyond the body, a virtuous life in the presence of God (Fug. 58–61, 78, 97, Spec. I 31; II 262; more specifically, a virtuous life is a life in the love of God: ἡ ζωή σου τὸ ἀγαπᾶν τὸν ὄντα, Post. 69), which is equivalent to piety. An ascetic life, intent on subduing the body, is the highest form of philosophy “in

the tree of life in philo

247

order to obtain the incorporeal and imperishable life with the uncreated and imperishable one” (ἵνα τῆς ἀσωμάτου καὶ ἀφθάρτου παρὰ τῷ ἀγενήτῳ καὶ ἀφθάρτῳ ζωῆς μεταλάχωσιν, Gig. 14; cf. also Som. I 148). There is also the idea, that the government of the mind can control the negative impulses of the body in such a way that a virtuous life is possible, which is a middle way between the life of the body and the life of God (Her. 42–49). The commandments of God, the Torah, are interpreted as the guide to the true life, and therefore to virtue (Congr. 87; Mut. 223; Spec. I 345; IV 169), for the “highest divine word […] is the source of wisdom” (πρὸς τὸν ἀνωτάτω λόγον θεῖον, ὃς σοφίας ἐστὶ πηγή, Fug. 97). Quoting Jer 2:13 Philo also calls God the “fountain of life” (πηγὴ[] ζωῆς, Fug. 197f).

6

Conclusion: The Tree of Life in Philo

Thus, Philo’s interpretation of the tree of life is entirely consistent with his idea of a successful life as a life in virtue and love of God. If a successful life is a virtuous and pious life, the biblical tree of life must, above all, be read as referring to virtue, goodness and piety. There is evidence that Philo struggled with the interpretation of the tree of life; he was dissatisfied with a literal interpretation and he developed new interpretations over time. However, he was also able to go back to older interpretations. What is also evident, is that the motif of the tree of life, while undeniably interpreted in a range of ways in the Alexandrian context before Philo and used by Philo occasionally to explain certain theological topics, was not so central to his thought that he felt he needed to include it every time the tree was mentioned in a text. When he did, his basic reading was influenced by the axiomatic identification of life and virtue in Greek philosophy.

Works Cited Barker, Margaret. The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem. London: SPCK, 1991. Barlow, H.C. “The Tree of Life.” Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record 2:3 (1862): 64–74. Brannan, Rick, Ken M. Penner, Israel Loken, Michael Aubrey, and Isaiah Hoogendyk, eds. The Lexham English Septuagint. Bellingham: Lexham, 2012. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985.

248

leonhardt-balzer

Goodenough, Erwin R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 4 vols. Bollingen Series 37. New York: Pantheon, 1953–1968. Leonhardt-Balzer, Jutta. “Philo and the Garden of Eden: An Exegete, his Text and his Tools.” Pages 244–257 in Die Septuaginta—Orte und Intentionen: 5. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 24.–27. Juli 2014. Edited by Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser, and Marcus Sigismund. WUNT I 361. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Levin, Arnold G. “The Tree of Life: Genesis 2:9 and 3:22–24 in Jewish, Gnostic and Early Christian Texts.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1966. Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. 8th ed. New York: American Book Company, 1897. Niehoff, Maren R. “Philo’s Scholarly Inquiries into the Story of Paradise.” Pages 28–42 in Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views. Edited by Markus Bockmuehl and Guy G. Stroumsa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Niehoff, Maren R. “Questions and Answers in Philo and Genesis Rabbah.” JSJ 39 (2008): 337–366. Tucker, Gordon. “The Tree of Life.” Vol. 4 of Dictionary of Daily Life in Biblical and PostBiblical Antiquity. Edited by Edwin M. Yamauchi and Marvin R. Wilson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2014. Wallace, Howard N. “Tree of Knowledge and Tree of Life.” Pages 656–660 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

chapter 11

The Tree of Life in Gnostic Literature Carl B. Smith II

The tree is an important motif in Gnostic literature.1 It is used as a metaphor for the natural connections between root and fruit,2 the concept of spreading out (Tri. Trac. 74.10–13), and the ascetic’s need to expose the root of evil desire to eradicate its fruit (Gos. Phil. 83.3–5). Specific trees mentioned in the Nag Hammadi codices include the tree of Jesus’s cross3 and the olive tree as a source of chrism for various sacramental functions (Gos. Phil. 73.17–19; Orig. World 111.2–8). The most prominent are those in paradise, particularly the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. The Gospel of Thomas is unique with its indication of five unnamed trees in paradise (Gos. Thom. 36.17–25). In certain Nag Hammadi codices, the tree of knowledge takes ascendency as a positive motif vis-à-vis the tree of life, which may be viewed as a deceptive tool of the archons (Ap. John, NHC II 21.24–22.2) or remain obscure with focus on obtaining gnōsis. In fact, eating of the tree of knowledge often equates to the achievement of life for the present and future age or serves as the primary gateway to life’s attainment. Of the forty-six distinct Nag Hammadi tractates, six mention the tree of life: NHC I 5 Tripartite Tractate NHC II 1, III 1, IV 1 Secret Book of John (Apocryphon of John; “tree of their life”) NHC II 3 Gospel of Philip NHC II 5, XIII 2 On the Origin of the World (Untitled Treatise; “tree of eternal life”) NHC VII 4 Teachings of Silvanus NHC IX 3 Testimony of Truth

1 Translations from James M. Robinson, ed., The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, 5 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2000); hereafter CGL. Significant variations in NHScr are noted. Names and abbreviations for tractates follow SBLHS 2, 134–135. 2 Bk. Thom. 142.14–15; Tri. Trac. 51.15–19; Gos. Thom. 40.23–25, 31–33; and Apoc. Peter 76.4–8. 3 Gos. Truth I 3 18.24–26, 20.23–21.2; Gos. Phil. 73.9–15; Disc. Seth 58.22–28; Apoc. Peter 81.10–21; Ep. Pet. Phil. 139.15–22.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423756_013

250

smith

The tree of knowledge, frequently without “of good and evil,” plays a prominent role in seven Nag Hammadi tractates: NHC I 5 Tripartite Tractate (“tree of double fruit”) NHC II 1, III 1, IV 1 Secret Book of John (“of good and evil”) NHC II 3 Gospel of Philip (“of good and evil”) NHC II 4 Nature of the Rulers (Reality of the Rulers or Hypostasis of the Archons; “of good and evil”) NHC II 5, XIII 2 On the Origin of the World NHC IX 1 Melchizedek NHC IX 3 Testimony of Truth This essay provides a theological reading of the Nag Hammadi texts, which mention the tree of life and/or the tree of knowledge.4 The eight texts are considered on their own merit, though each is grouped by “Gnostic schools of thought” and analyzed to determine whether these groupings have commonalities and validity on points under review. The essay concludes with collective insights on the motif of the tree of life in Gnostic literature as well as summarizing thoughts on these specific tractates. Due to the complexity of issues surrounding this study, two topics require explication: first, the validity of the category “Gnosticism” and its subdivision into “Gnostic schools of thought” and/or textual/social groupings; and second, a statement on Gnostic hermeneutical strategies which yields the variety of interpretations of Genesis in the Nag Hammadi corpus. Since Williams published Rethinking “Gnosticism,” the legitimacy of the modern categories of Gnostic and Gnosticism have been intensely debated.5 After an extended period of introspection, a rehabilitation of these terms is appearing in scholarship, but not without nuance. A minimalist definition of Gnosticism or what it means to be Gnostic, includes: (1) a distinction between a higher transcendent being and lower god(s) responsible for creation and often considered ignorant and evil; and (2) the origin of the human spirit from the essence of the tran-

4 Patristic sources addressing Gnostic interpretations of the trees of paradise (e.g., Irenaeus’s Haer. 1.29–30, Origen’s Contra Celsum 6.24–28, the book of Baruch in Hippolytus, Ref. 5.23– 28, and Epiphanius’s Panarion 26) are not included in this analysis. For Irenaeus, see Stephen O. Presley, The Intertextual Reception of Genesis 1–3 in Irenaeus of Lyons, BAC 8 (Leiden: Brill, 2015). 5 Michael Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996). Cf. Karen King, What Is Gnosticism? (Cambridge: Belknap, 2003).

the tree of life in gnostic literature

251

scendent God.6 Various groupings of traditions and texts have been upheld, including Brakke’s identification of a “Gnostic school of thought.”7 Gnostic writings demonstrate engagement with a variety of literature, including Jewish and Christian sacred writings and midrash, Homeric literature, Hellenistic philosophy, and Hermetic literature.8 They employ diverse hermeneutical strategies, the most unique caricatured as reversal, subversion, or rebellion, an approach Williams rebuffed.9 With an awareness of these concerns, Busch identifies what he brands “sustained contrarian revision.”10 6

7

8

9

10

See Antti Marjanen, “Gnosticism,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies, ed. S.A. Harvey and D.G. Hunter (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 211, and Dylan Burns, “Providence, Creation, and Gnosticism According to the Gnostics,” JECS 24 (Spring 2016): 76–77. David Brakke advocates a “Gnostic school of thought” in The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010). Other groupings include Basilideans, Valentinians, Sethians, Ophites, Mandaeans, and Manichaeans. See “Epilogue: Schools of Thought in the Nag Hammadi Scriptures,” in NHScr, 777–798, and Tuomas Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence, NHMS 68 (Leiden: Brill, 2009). For Jewish literature, see Philip S. Alexander, “The Fall into Knowledge: The Garden of Eden/Paradise in Gnostic Literature,” in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical, and Literary Images of Eden, ed. by P. Morris and D. Sawyer, JSOTSup 136 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 91–104; M. Bockmuehl and G.D. Stroumsa, eds., Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010); Peter Lanfer, “Allusion to and Expansion of the Tree of Life and Garden of Eden in Biblical and Pseudepigraphal Literature,” in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality, ed. Craig Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias, LNTS 391 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 1:96–108; idem, Remembering Eden: The Reception History of Genesis 3:22–24 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); and Benedikt Otzen, “The Paradise Trees in Jewish Apocalyptic,” in Apocryphon Severini Presented to Søren Giversen, ed. Per Bilde, Helge Kjær Nielsen, and Jürgen Podemann Sørensen (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1993), 140–154. Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”, 54–79. Cf. Orval Wintermute, “A Study of Gnostic Exegesis of the Old Testament,” in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of W.F. Stinespring, ed. by James M. Efrid (Durham: Duke University Press, 1972), 240–270. Austin Busch, “Characterizing Gnostic Scriptural Interpretation,” ZAC 21 (2017): 243–271. Busch restricts his analysis to works Brakke delimited in The Gnostics. King calls this “revisionary allegorization” (Karen King, The Secret Revelation of John [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006], 186–187). Graham marks the Gnostic’s radical and sophisticated interpretation as a “suspicious approach” to the deity of Genesis (Christopher Graham, The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24, BAC 12 [Leiden: Brill, 2017], 76). Luttikhuizen uses the term “allegorical” to define Gnostic hermeneutics; however, this term seems inadequate. See Gerald P. Luttikhuizen, “Critical Gnostic Interpretations of Genesis,” in The Exegetical Encounter Between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity, ed. Helen Spurling and Emmanouela Grypeou, JCPS 18 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 75–86.

252

smith

Busch’s analysis merits attention, as he demonstrates Gnostic writers combined two formal features: (1) explicit scriptural refutation, and (2) elaborate scriptural rewriting, in ways not evidenced by other Jewish or Christian interpreters.11 The Gnostics dealt with biblical texts which Jewish (and Christian) interpreters found troublesome or embarrassing, as evidenced in midrash and employment of allegorical interpretation.12 The Gnostic interpreters did not soften the implications of these passages; rather, they took them as indications that the creator was an inferior being and his deceived followers misinterpreted his nature and role in their sacred writings both as authors and readers. When this reality is applied to Genesis 1–3, interpreters whose hermeneutical strategy is to harmonize biblical details and those who read with other commitments come to radically different conclusions when confronted with such features as: two accounts of creation, the two-stage creation of the first humans, the extraction of the woman from the male’s rib, God’s prohibition against the human attainment of knowledge, his lack of awareness of Adam’s location, his angry cursing of his own creation, and his expulsion of the first humans from paradise to prevent their attainment of eternal life.13 With these considerations, an examination of various Gnostic readings of Genesis and interpretations of the trees of paradise is in order.

1

The Tree of Life in the “Gnostic School of Thought” or Sethian Gnosticism

While categories related to Gnosticism remain debated, the Sethian tradition was essentially confirmed by Brakke to represent a social group which self11

12

13

Busch concludes his research is “sufficiently qualified to rehabilitate interpretive inversion or value reversal as a central component of Gnostic biblical hermeneutics,” contra Williams, et al (Busch, “Characterizing Gnostic Scriptural Interpretation,” 269). Cf. Louis Painchaud, “The Use of Scripture in Gnostic Literature,” JECS 4 (1996): 145. E.g., Philo in Maren R. Niehoff, “Philo’s Scholarly Inquiries into the Story of Paradise,” in Bockmuehl and Stroumsa, Paradise in Antiquity, 28–42; and Alexander, “Fall into Knowledge,” 99. Presley identifies in Irenaeus a commitment to a “hermeneutic of scriptural consonance,” which enabled him to interpret in harmonious ways the same passages which some Gnostics found problematic (Intertextual Reception, 240). King states, “the most fundamental hermeneutical task of the Secret Revelation of John is countering lies and deception” which the biblical authors made in their original compositions. Further, “Christ’s revelation is what establishes, corrects, and supplements Scripture” (Secret Revelation, 108–181). Cf. Ioan P. Couliano, The Tree of Gnosis: Gnostic Mythology from Early Christianity to Modern Nihilism, trans. H.S. Wiesner (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992).

the tree of life in gnostic literature

253

identified as Gnostic.14 Of the Nag Hammadi texts which mention the trees of paradise, there are three which are included in both the classical Sethian and Brakke’s lists: Secret Book of John, Nature of the Rulers, and Melchizedek. The Secret Book of John is one of the most prominent of the Nag Hammadi tractates. Not only does it occupy the premier position in three codices (II 1, III 1, IV 1), it was one of four texts in the Berlin Gnostic Codex 8502.15 Existing in two longer (NHC II 1, NHC IV 1) and two shorter (NHC III 1, BG 8502 2) versions, Ap. John may have a shared source with or have been the source of Irenaeus’s description of the Gnostic myth in Haer. 1.29–30. Its importance derives from its thorough presentation of a Gnostic myth with detailed cosmogony, anthropology, and soteriology.16 The context where the tree of life is mentioned is the creation of humanity. The critical point is the realization of Yaltabaoth and the archons that the human was more intelligent than them once Yaltabaoth was tricked into breathing his power, actually his mother Sophia’s power, into the human’s face (NHC II 1, 19.10–21.10).17 Provoked by jealousy, the archons cast their creation into the lowest regions of matter so he would not comprehend his perfection and their deficiency. The Father-Mother had pity on the mother’s power in the human and sent the luminous Epinoia, who is Life, to Adam to be in him without the archons’ knowledge and to teach him the way of descent and ascent. The archons immediately recognized that Adam’s thinking was superior to theirs and formed a body for him “from earth and water and fire and spirit, the one that originates in matter, which is the ignorance of darkness and desire, and their counterfeit spirit” (21.6–9). Already a mortal (21.13–14), Adam was placed in a paradise fashioned by the archons. Jesus presents the events and their interpretation:

14

15 16

17

Brakke, The Gnostics, 50–51. On Sethian Gnosticism, originally proposed by H.-M. Schenke, see Carl B. Smith, No Longer Jews: The Search for Gnostic Origins (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 216–227; John Turner, “Sethian Gnosticism: A Revised Literary History,” in Actes du huitième congrès international d’ études coptes, Paris, 28 juin–3 juillet 2004: Volume 2, ed. N. Bosson and A. Boud’hors, OLA 163 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 899–908; and Rasimus, Paradise Reconsidered. The other texts, often included with the Nag Hammadi collection (e.g., NHL), are Gospel of Mary, Wisdom of Jesus Christ, and Acts of Peter. King dates Ap. John to the early second century CE and describes it as “the first writing to formulate a comprehensive narrative of Christian theology, cosmology, and salvation” (Secret Revelation, 2, 189). Quotations and details of Ap. John are from NHC II 1 unless noted.

254

smith

And the rulers took him (i.e., Adam) and placed him in paradise. And they said to him, “Eat,” that is, in idleness, for indeed their delight is bitter, and their beauty is depraved. And their delight is deception, and their trees are godlessness and their fruit is an incurable poison and their promise is death. And the tree of their life they had placed in the midst of paradise. And I shall teach you (pl.) what is the mystery of their life, which is the plan which they made together, which is the likeness of their spirit. Its root is bitter and its branches are death, its shadow is hate and deception is in its leaves, and its blossom is the ointment of evil, and its fruit is death, and desire is its seed, and it sprouts in darkness. Those who taste from it, their dwelling place is Hades, and the darkness is their place of rest. But what they call the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is the reflection of the light, they stayed in front of it in order that he (Adam) might not look up to his perfection and recognize the nakedness of his shamefulness. Ap. John 21.16–22.8

Traditional features from Genesis 1–3 are present; however, they are reinterpreted, reordered, and rewritten in significant ways. Ap. John continues with its presentation of events in paradise. To John’s surprise, Jesus declared, “But it was I who brought about that they ate” (22.9). This revelation confused John, but Jesus revealed that the serpent taught them to “eat from the wickedness of sexual desire and destruction that he (Adam) might be useful to him” (22.13–14). The chief ruler knew Adam was disobedient as well as superior to him in his thinking, and he sought to regain his power from Adam. He put a trance over him, which Jesus revealed was not physical sleep as Moses had said, but, rather, sleep “in his perception” (22.19–25).18 This sleep marks the chief archon’s modus operandi, as Isaiah stated of the creator: “I will make their hearts heavy that they may not pay attention and may not see” (22.27–28; cf. Is. 6:10). Epinoia hid herself in Adam, and the chief archon was not able to grasp and extract her from Adam’s rib (22.30). He was able to retrieve a portion of his own power out of Adam, and he fashioned another form, a woman, after the likeness of Epinoia, but not out of a rib as Moses wrote. Epinoia came to Adam and removed the veil from his mind, and he became “sober from the drunkenness of darkness” (23.7–8). Adam recognized his “counter-image” (23.9), and the union of man and woman and the descent of Sophia made possible human enlight-

18

Four passages refute Moses’s teachings (22.22; 13.19–20; 23.3; 29.6).

the tree of life in gnostic literature

255

enment and the reparation of the deficiency (23.10–22). With that, Sophia was named “‘Life,’ which is ‘the Mother of the living’ by the Providence of the sovereignty of heaven and by Reflection (i.e., Epinoia) who appeared to him. And through her they have tasted perfect knowledge (gnōsis)”19 (23.23–26). Jesus returned to a prior subject, declaring that it was him, in the form of an eagle, who appeared on the tree of knowledge to teach and awaken them out of their sleep (23.26–31; cf. 22.9).20 Having been enticed by the serpent to eat from the tree of their life (22.12–14), Adam and the woman were both “in a fallen state and they recognized their nakedness” (23.32–33). Epinoia appeared to them and awakened their thinking. When Yaldabaoth realized they withdrew from him, he cursed the earth (i.e., them). While the human couple was afraid to curse him, he demonstrated his ignorance before his angels by casting Adam and Eve out of paradise and clothing them in “gloomy darkness” (24.4– 8) and by raping the virgin in whom the luminous Epinoia of life had appeared (24.9–12, 15–16).21 The longer version of Ap. John has the intervention of the Providence of life snatching Life out of Eve before her defilement (24.13–15). Eve gave birth to two sons: the first was Eloim, bear-faced, unrighteous, ruler over water and earth, and named Cain; and the second was Yave, cat-faced, righteous, ruler over fire and wind, and named Abel (24.16–25). From this point, human history is summarized by the chief ruler’s reign through Eloim and Yave, humanity’s domination by sexual desire and forgetfulness, the birth of Seth in the likeness of the Son of Man, the intervention of the Mother’s spirit, and a hopeful eschatology with the healing of the pleroma’s deficiency (24.26–25.16).

19

20

21

Sophia is identified with the holy Spirit, the Mother of the living in 10.18. Yet, the holy Spirit is more formally the second person of the trinity of Father, Mother, and Son. The Mother is Ennoia, Mother-Father, first Man, thrice-male, thrice-powerful, and thrice-named androgynous One. (4.26–5.11). Some emphasize the eagle as the serpent’s natural enemy (Busch, “Characterizing Gnostic Scriptural Interpretation,” 250). NHC III 30.17–21 and BG 60.19–61.7 state it was Epinoia, not Jesus, who appeared in the tree as an eagle; yet, the outcome of enlightenment is the same. Rasimus considers the eagle motif rooted in the symbolism of imperial apotheosis (i.e., deification). T. Rasimus, “Imperial Propaganda in Paradise? Christ as Eagle in the Apocryphon of John,” in Hidden Truths from Eden: Esoteric Readings of Genesis 1–3, ed. Caroline Vander Stichele and Suzanne Scholz, SBL SemeiaSt 76 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014), 27–45. NHC III 1 31.8–9 and BG 5802 62.6–7 state Yaldabaoth “wanted to raise up a seed from her.” The rape of Eve is prominent in three works: Ap. John, Nat. Rulers, and Orig. World. Melch. states the rulers produced offspring through Eve, but it is not labeled a rape. See Celene Lillie, The Rape of Eve: The Transformation of Roman Ideology in Three Early Christian Retellings of Genesis (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017).

256

smith

Ap. John views the archons as ignorant and deceptive. Several items are not what they appear: the tree of their life brings deception and death, a forbidden tree of knowledge is a source of life, and sexual intercourse is a prison of desire and lust. A strong ascetic strain runs through the tractate with sexuality a crucial concern, which is fueled by eating of the tree of their life and participated in by the chief ruler in his rape of Eve, and which imprisons humanity in deep darkness. Providence is a major theme, particularly in the longer version of Ap. John.22 The tree of their life is exclusively a negative image in Ap. John, and the serpent entices Adam and Eve to eat of its fruit. In contrast, the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the source of life discoverable through knowledge which Jesus (or Epinoia) reveals and is the ultimate pursuit of humanity. Epinoia, the source of life and knowledge, is closely connected to the tree of knowledge. Thus, while the tree of life as a positive symbol is absent from the paradise scene, Epinoia seems to fulfill its role for humanity, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil serves a dual function in this regard. Rasimus concurs: “the tree of knowledge is simultaneously the real tree of life.”23 Nature of the Rulers (NHC II 4) is a representation of Sethian thought devoted to answering questions of the reality and nature of the world rulers and how they are overcome. Bullard declares it “among the best-presented and besttransmitted tractates from Nag Hammadi. It is a significant work because of the clarity and authority with which it portrays the sweep of Gnostic belief.”24 He ventures the text may have served as a Gnostic catechesis.25 Consistent themes are the blindness, ignorance, and arrogance of the chief ruler manifest in his repeated proclamation, “It is I who am God; there is none [apart from me]” (86.30–31; 94.21–22; cf. 95.5), the providential ordering of all things “by the father’s will” and “power,”26 and his capacity to bring deliverance when “the sum of the chaos might be attained” (96.14) and “the all-powerful man” comes (91.2; cf. 93.25–26; 96.33–97.4). Hope remains for those whose souls originate from above, from incomprehensible light. There is no reference to the tree of life in Nat. Rulers; however, the text provides an extended discussion of human origins, the primordial garden scene, and the prohibition to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From the text’s beginning, there is conflict between the father of truth and the world

22 23 24 25 26

On providence in Ap. John, see Burns, “Providence, Creation, and Gnosticism.” Rasimus, “Imperial Propaganda,” 35. Bullard, “The Hypostasis of Archons: Introduction,” in CGL, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2000; Nag Hammadi Codices II, 2–7, 1989), 225. Bullard, “Hypostasis of Archons,” 220. “Will” in 87.22–23; 88.10–11, 35; 96.12; 97.18–19; “power” in 88.2; cf. 93.22–27.

the tree of life in gnostic literature

257

rulers led by the demiurge. The rulers created a “soul-endowed (psykhikos) man” (88.12), but he lacked power to stand. The man was made a “living soul” (88.15) when the spirit from the “Adamantine Land” descended upon him, came to dwell within him, and named him Adam (88.13–16). After Adam named the animals of the earth and birds of heaven, the rulers took him and placed him in the garden to keep watch over it, encouraging him to eat from every tree of the garden but forbidding him from even touching the tree of knowledge.27 Unwittingly and by the father’s providential will, the rulers stated their prohibition in a way that enticed Adam to eat (88.33–89.3), enabling him to regard them in their reality. The rulers then conspired to extract from Adam his spirit. Placing him in a sleep of ignorance, they removed the “living woman” from him, and he returned to possessing only a soul (89.3–11). The extraction resulted in two feminine realities: a “spirit-endowed woman” (89.11) and a “carnal woman” (90.2). The spirit-endowed woman spoke, “Arise, Adam,” and immediately he stated, “you have given me life,” and called her “‘mother of all living,’—for it is she who is my mother” (89.11–17). Agitated with jealousy, the rulers became enamored and sought intercourse with her. She laughed at their ignorance, and as they chased and sought to grasp her, she turned into a tree28 and left in their grasp “a shadowy reflection of herself,”29 which they “defiled foully” (89.19–28).30 The “female spiritual principle” then entered “the snake, the instructor,” and began a dialogue with the carnal woman regarding the ruler’s prohibition (89.31– 90.12).31 Ultimately the snake declares, “With death you shall not die; for it was out of jealousy that he said this to you (pl.). Rather your (pl.) eyes shall be open

27 28

29 30

31

Alexander considers the garden a place of incarceration and death (“Fall into Knowledge,” 95). The tree is not identified, though both the tree of knowledge and tree of life are suggested. For the tree of knowledge, see Alexander, “Fall into Knowledge,” 97; Couliano, Tree of Gnosis, 113; and Lillie, Rape of Eve, 200, n. 121; cf. Orig. World 116.28–29. Others favor the tree of life, including Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 79; idem, “The Hypostasis of the Archons, Part II,”HTR 69 1–2 (1976): 57; and Ingvild S. Gilhus, The Nature of the Archons: A Study in the Soteriology of a Gnostic Treatise from Nag Hammadi (CGII, 4), StOR 12 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1985), 24, 69–72; idem, “The Tree of Life and the Tree of Death: A Study of Gnostic Symbols,” Religion 17 (1987): 339. Bullard identifies her shadow with her physical body (“Hypostasis of Archons,” 223). Alexander relates this separation into two Eves and carnal Eve’s defilement to Jewish traditions of Adam’s two wives, Lilith, a demonic one, and Eve, the human one (“Fall into Knowledge,” 98). See Lillie’s treatment of this passage in Rape of Eve (197–208), where she identifies various repercussions of violent gang rape. This is her fourth indwelling, moving from Adam to Eve, Eve to the tree, and the tree to the serpent.

258

smith

and you (pl.) shall come to be like gods, recognizing evil and good” (90.6–10). With that, the female spiritual principle was taken away from the snake, and it was left a mere thing of earth (90.11–12). As Eve and Adam partook of the tree’s fruit, “these beings that possessed only a soul” became aware of “their imperfection” and “recognized that they were naked of the spiritual element” (90.13–17). The chief ruler, not knowing what had happened, confronted them, cursing the woman and the serpent and expelling Adam and Eve from the garden. The text explains regarding the rulers, “for they have no blessing, since they too are beneath the curse” (91.5–7; cf. Orig. World 120.10–17). The garden scene concludes: “Moreover they threw mankind into great distraction and into a life of toil, so that their mankind might be occupied by worldly affairs and might not have the opportunity of being devoted to the holy spirit” (91.7–11). Thus, humanity’s toilsome work serves as a distraction from the achievement of wisdom, the holy spirit, and true life. While the tree of life is not mentioned in Nat. Rulers, its absence is inconsequential, for the “root” (93.24–25) and “spirit” (96.24) of truth is present and gives life to everyone from this generation (93.28–29), whose soul comes from the primeval father (96.19–22). The authorities cannot approach them, for “all who have become acquainted with this way exist deathless in the midst of dying mankind” (96.25–27). This section ends with a strong eschatological strain with the attainment of “the sum of chaos” (96.14) and the coming of the “true man,”32 who “reveals the existence of [the spirit of] truth,” teaches about all things, and “anoint{s} them with the unction of life eternal”33 (97.1–3). Those souls will be “freed of blind thought,” “trample under foot death, which is of the authorities,” and “ascend into the limitless light, where this sown element belongs” (97.5–9). In contrast, the rulers will relinquish their authority and ages, and their demons will lament their destruction and death (97.10–13). At that point, “all the children of light will be truly acquainted with the truth and their root, and the father of the entirety and the holy spirit,” and they will extol the justice of the father’s truth and the son’s rule over the entirety (97.13– 21). Of texts identified as Sethian or with the “Gnostic school of thought,” Melchizedek (NHC IX 1) has the least detailed account of the garden scene.34

32 33 34

This may relate to the protoevangelium (Gen 3:15) and be one of the few Christian references in Nat. Rulers (Alexander, “Fall into Knowledge,” 99). The oil of anointing, which derives from the olive tree, is associated with chrism and the bridal chamber (e.g., Gos. Phil. 74.16–24). In NHScr, Pearson provides a review of Melchizedek traditions in Jewish apocalyptic writings, Egyptian Christian interpretations of Hebrews, and Sethian-Gnostic traditions. He

the tree of life in gnostic literature

259

This may be due to the document’s fragmentary condition, which has required extensive reconstruction. Melchizedek is an apocalyptic text consisting of three major sections: a secret revelation given to Melchizedek by Gamaliel (1:1– 14:15); a ritualistic account perhaps related to Melchizedek’s priestly consecration (14.15–18.11?, bottom); and a further revelation mediated to Melchizedek by certain heavenly “brethren” (18.11?, bottom–27.10).35 In the first section we encounter true Adam and Eve and their partaking of the tree of knowledge. Just prior to the introduction of this human couple, the text provides a polemic against animal sacrifices (6.22–7.6) and a description of the archons, angels, demons, and humans which were begotten from the seed which had emanated from the Father of the All and were “bound with [many bonds]”36 (8.28–9.27). In contrast to these are “true Adam” and “true Eve,” who “[when they ate] of the tree [of knowledge] they trampled [the] [Cherubim] and the Seraphim [with the flaming sword]” (9.28–10.5).37 If the emendation is accurate, both Cherubim and Seraphim were assigned to guard the tree of life, very likely by the rulers. The theme of trampling upon evil spirits is a regular feature of Jewish and canonical literature;38 however, trampling upon the Cherubim and Seraphim stands in contrast to the expulsion narrative of Genesis where only Cherubim are mentioned and God is the one who placed them as guards. Melch. is similar here to Orig. World (NHC XIII 121.7–13) where the rulers place “Cheroubin” to guard the tree of life. What may be intended is that eating from the tree of knowledge enabled Adam and Eve to defeat the rulers’ design and partake freely of the tree of life.

35 36

37

38

considers Melch. a “gnosticized Jewish-Christian apocalypse” (Pearson, “Melchizedek” (in NHScr), 598; cf. Pearson, “Introduction to IX, I: Melchizedek” [in CGL, vol. 5; NHC IX and X], 38). The question marks indicate a lacuna in the original text. The addition of “many bonds” is suggested by Wolf-Peter Funk, Jean-Pierre Mahé, and Claudio Gianotto, eds. Melchisédek (NH IX, 1): Oblation, baptême et Vision dins la Nose Séthienne, Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi, Section Textes 28 (Québec: Les Presses de l’ Université Laval, 2001). This passage advocates higher and lower Adams and Eves. The lower Adam is “bound with many bonds” while true Adam and true Eve trample upon those hindering their acquisition of knowledge. Spiritual/true/upper Eve was identified as the “Epinoia (Reflection) of the light” in Ap. John 21.15, 22.5, 22.16–17, 22.28, and 22.31. Cf. Orig. World II 117.2, 11 and 117.28–118.2. For the eschatological “true Man,” see Nat. Rulers II 96.33. See T. Sim. 6:6; T. Levi 18:12; cf. Ps 91:13; Luke 10:19–20; Rom 16:20. Trampling is a significant theme in Gnostic literature (Nat. Rulers II 97.6–7; Gos. Thom. 39.34; Plato, Republic VI 5 50.27–28; Disc. Seth VII 2 56.34–57.1; Teach. Silv. VII 4 85.10–11; cf. 86.4–6, 107.8–14; On Anointing XI 2a; and Orig. World XIII 2 103.21).

260

smith

1.1 Summary Regarding the “Gnostic School of Thought” Ap. John is the only text in this group which mentions a tree of life directly, and that in a negative manner. Conversely, all three mention the tree of knowledge in positive terms as a source of enlightenment. The tractates present an adverse view of the world’s creator(s), who have a hostile relationship with Adam and Eve. Melch. pictures the first couple trampling upon the Cherubim and Seraphim who likely blocked access to the tree of life. If this interpretation is correct, Melch. presents a positive estimation of the tree of life which Adam and Eve were able to access by partaking of the tree of knowledge. In Ap. John, the rulers give free access to the tree of their life, but they themselves block access to the tree of knowledge, perhaps implying the equation of the latter with the true tree of life. Adam and Eve are clearly superior to the archons in all three texts; however, they are unaware until they eat of the tree of knowledge. In Ap. John, Jesus or Epinoia appears as an eagle and encourages Adam and Eve to partake. In Nat. Rulers, God’s providence works through the agency of the snake, which was indwelled by the “spirit-endowed woman” and was cursed by the rulers for its role. In Ap. John, Epinoia, as dispenser of both life and perfect knowledge, seems to take up the roles of both trees, most dramatically in her names, Life and Reflection, and her identification with the tree of knowledge. In Nat. Rulers, the “spirit-endowed female” is called “mother of the living” (89.15), turns herself into a tree, and speaks through the serpent; however, she is not associated with the tree of life, is not present in the tree of knowledge, nor is she called Epinoia. The texts which represent the Sethian or Gnostic school of thought are similar in several substantial ways and different in some less significant ways. Their affiliation with the same school or dependence upon common sources is possible, but it does not appear obvious or necessary from the details of this comparative study. The tree of life is viewed as a deceptive symbol in Ap. John, has no place in the narrative of Nat. Rulers, and may be positive and accessible to Adam and Eve after they partook of the tree of knowledge in Melch. The tree of knowledge is the source of life, or at least gives access to it, in all three tractates.

2

The Tree of Life in Valentinian Gnosticism

Irenaeus claims Valentinus flourished in Rome (around 130–160CE), and he composed Adversus haereses to refute his teachings.39 Valentinus may have

39

Einar Thomassen, “The Valentinian School of Gnostic Thought,” in NHScr, 790–794.

the tree of life in gnostic literature

261

authored sermons, poems, and other writings; however, the Gospel of Truth is the only extant document alleged to be composed by him. Its identification with the Nag Hammadi text by this title is a “distinct possibility”40 (Haer. 3.11.9; cf. NHC I 3, XII 2). Thomassen attributes the following tractates to a Valentinian provenance: Gospel of Truth (NHC I 3, XII 2), Treatise of the Resurrection (NHC I 4), Tripartite Tractate (NHC I 5), Gospel of Philip (NHC II 3), Interpretation of Knowledge (NHC XI 1), and Valentinian Exposition (NHC XI 2, together with five liturgical readings).41 Of these, the Gospel of Philip and Tripartite Tractate mention both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. The Teachings of Silvanus, typically not considered Valentinian or Gnostic, mentions the tree of life and is included in this section since it possesses significant thematic parallels with Gos. Phil. Among Valentinian texts, the Gospel of Philip provides the fullest references to both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. Its structure is a subject of debate, as the tractate resembles a sayings collection. Its sayings relate primarily to sacraments and ethics, and its compiler gathered a variety of literary types from diverse traditions. The document may have served as a Christian Gnostic sacramental catechesis.42 Three primary passages mention paradise and its trees, and they are treated in order of appearance. In Gos. Phil. 55.6–22, paradise is described as a place with many trees where Adam dwelt. A significant theme is that paradise had fruit from trees to feed animals, but it did not have wheat or bread required to sustain humans. Thus, humankind fed like animals until Christ came, who brought bread from heaven. There is no specific statement regarding the tree of life or the tree of knowledge; however, it may be implied even these trees did not satisfy humanity’s needs. What is evident is that the original creation was flawed, being conceived by its ruler(s), but secretly ordered by the holy spirit.43 Truth was present and was being sown; yet, it would only come to fruition with the coming of Christ. The second passage (71.21–72.4) begins with the declaration, “there are two trees growing in Paradise” (71.21). One of the trees bears [animals], and the other bears humans. Adam ate from the tree which bore animals; thus, he 40

41 42

43

Attridge and MacRae, “The Gospel of Truth: Introduction,” in CGL, Vol. 1, 66; see also, Thomassen, “Valentinian School,” 790. Cf. Thomassen, “The Gospel of Truth (NHC I,3; XII,2): Introduced by Einar Thomassen,” in NHScr, 34. Thomassen, “Valentinian School,” 791. Wesley W. Isenberg, “The Gospel According to Philip: Introduction,” in CGL, Vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2000; Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7, ed. B. Layton, Vol. I; Leiden: Brill, 1989), 134. Isenberg asserts Gos. Phil. has similar qualities to Christian catecheses of the second to fourth centuries. Gos. Phil. 75.2–14 indicates creation came into being through a mistake.

262

smith

became an animal and brought forth children who were animals and worshipped animals (71.27). The text is fragmentary, and Meyer supplies a number of conjectures which identify the two trees: “The tree [whose] fruit [he ate] is the [tree of knowledge, and because of this, sins] increased. [If he had] eaten the [fruit of the other tree], the fruit of [the tree of life, which] produces people, [gods would] worship people.”44 (71.28–34, NHScr) The section concludes: “That is the way it is in the world—men make gods and worship their creation. It would be fitting for the gods to worship men!” (72.1–4) The passage makes explicit that paradise has two trees, though they are unnamed in the extant text. The length and spacing of the lacunas allow the conjecture that they are the two named trees of Genesis. Adam is declared to eat from one tree, presumably the tree of knowledge, which turns him into an animal and the progenitor of animals. The tree of life, conversely, generates humans who are superior to the gods. Gos. Phil. 73.8–74.12 is the longest passage and brings clarity to several factors. It begins with the only reference to the apostle Philip in the tractate. Philip relates the story of Joseph the carpenter planting a garden to obtain wood for his trade. From the trees of his garden, Joseph fashioned the cross upon which his offspring, Jesus, was crucified. The text declares, “But the Tree of Life is in the middle of the Garden. However, it is from the olive tree that we get the chrism, and from the chrism, the resurrection.”45 (73.15–19) The passage lacks clarity as to which garden the tree of life occupies, whether paradise or Joseph’s garden. However, it appears to be surpassed in significance by the olive tree, from which comes the oil of chrism, the source of resurrection, which is received through sacraments. The next paragraph is obscure, with the world declared a “corpse-eater” (73.19) and truth a “life-eater” (73.21–22). Eating things in the world inevitably brings death to the eater; however, those nourished by truth shall never die. Jesus came forth bringing the food of truth, which conveys life and immortality to the eater. Jesus provides this bread of life, and in a sense, he is the tree of life for those who desire and eat of him. Teachings of Silvanus, not usually consid44 45

Gilhus agrees, identifying the tree of knowledge as a “Tree of Death” (“Tree of Life,” 340– 341). Meyer translates, “The tree of life, however, is in the middle of the garden. It is an olive tree, and from it comes chrism, and from chrism comes resurrection” (NHScr), identifying the tree of life with the olive tree, as does Gilhus (“Tree of Life,” 341). Trumbower asserts the olive tree is sometimes equated with the tree of life and is often an eschatological hope. Jeffrey A. Trumbower, “Traditions Common to the Primary Adam and Eve Books and On the Origin of the World (NHC II.5),” JSP 14 (1996): 45–47. Cf. Orig. World II 111.2–8 and Ap. John II 21.16–22.9.

the tree of life in gnostic literature

263

ered Valentinian,46 makes this declaration more explicit: “For the Tree of Life is Christ. He is Wisdom. For he is Wisdom; he is also the Word. He is the Life, the Power, and the Door. He is the Light, the Angel, and the Good Shepherd. Entrust yourself to this one who became all for your sake … Entrust yourself to reason (logos) and remove yourself from animalism” (VII 106.21–30, 107.17–19; CGL, v. 4, 337–339). The teaching of these two tractates agree: to escape animalism and achieve life, one must partake of the food which Jesus, the metaphorical tree of life, provides. Teach. Silv. invites the struggling soul, “shake off your drunkenness, which is the work of ignorance” (94.20–22). Further it reminds the soul, “you have come into being inside the bridal-chamber, and you are illuminated in mind” (94.25–27); therefore, it warns, “do not allow yourself to be defiled by strange kinds of knowledge” (94.31–32). The last paragraph of this section of Gos. Phil. is fragmentary, but it seems to posit a third garden, one that was either in the author’s present age or a future, eschatological one. Philip anticipates being in a place where he will eat whatever he wishes, but most anticipated is his ability to eat of the “tree of knowledge” (74.2). Then he posits two trees of knowledge: “That one killed Adam, but here the tree of knowledge made men alive” (74.3–4). The present or eschatological tree of knowledge is a life-giving tree, essentially a tree of life. Then, quite surprisingly, the author identifies the tree of knowledge which killed Adam: “The law was that tree. It has the power to give the knowledge of good and evil. It neither removed him from evil, nor did it set him in the good, but it created death for those who ate of it. For when he said, ‘Eat this, do not eat that,’ it became the beginning of death”47 (74.5–12; cf. Rom 7:4–12). This text highlights the polemical nature of Gos. Phil. and allows broader observations. Unlike the “Gnostic school of thought,” the Valentinian school is not so critical of the world’s creator and rulers, though they are certainly inferior beings and the creator created the world “through a mistake” (75.3– 9). The Valentinian school portends a progressive movement in redemptive

46

47

Pearson considers Teach. Silv. “the only non-Gnostic tractate in Nag Hammadi Codex VII and one of the few non-Gnostic tractates in the corpus as a whole” (Pearson, “The Teachings of Silvanus: Introduced and Translated,” in NHScr, 499). Teach. Silv. is clearly Christian in its present form, though it has parallels with the Valentinian tradition, particularly an elevated Christ and mention of the bridal chamber and animalism. Pearson identifies a possible association with Valentinian Gnostic thought (502 n. 17; citing Zandee and Peel). The equation of the law with the tree of knowledge is interesting considering a Jewish tradition associating the law with the tree of life. See Bockmuehl and Stroumsa, Paradise in Antiquity, especially Ch. 10, M. Kister, “The Tree of Life and the Turning Sword: Jewish Biblical Interpretation, Symbols, and Theological Patterns and Their Christian Counterparts,” 138–155.

264

smith

history from lower, inadequate, and animalistic ways of being in the world to higher, richer, and more fully human ways of being. In this, the true “Christian” (74.14) surpasses not only Judaism and its law of death, but also apostolic Christianity (i.e., “Hebrews”), which erroneously espouses Mary’s conception by the holy spirit (55.23–36). In fact, Gos. Phil. claims the name “Christian” is derived from the word “chrism,” which limits the term to his community. He who has the anointing “possesses everything. He possesses the resurrection, the light, the cross, the holy spirit. The father gave him this in the bridal chamber; he merely accepted (the gift). The father was in the son and the son in the father. This is the kingdom of heaven” (74.16–24). While Gos. Phil. does not present a coherent narrative or theological system, paradise and its trees have a significant place in its theology. Paradise serves as the starting point of the trajectory of redemption from creation, which introduced humanity to a world of good and evil and a Jewish legal code which brought about knowledge of good and evil, but not salvation. Jesus brought his wisdom and insights to the apostles and apostolic men, but his ultimate nourishment, which enables humans to achieve knowledge through life-giving sacraments, ascetic practices, and ministrations of the holy spirit, was reserved for those who enter a present and/or futuristic garden and partake of the tree of knowledge which makes humans alive (74.4) and free (77.15–31). These anointed “Christians” become fully human and dwell in God’s garden. The place of the tree of life is not explicitly stated, but Jesus himself serves the same purposes as the tree of life (cf. Teach. Silv.), offering life and immortality to all who partake of him and his truth. The experience of Jesus is mediated through the sacrament of the bridal chamber. The olive tree seems the most significant tree in paradise due to its association with the bridal chamber—the culmination of Christian experience. More straightforward in its approach to the tree of life is the Tripartite Tractate (NHC I 5), an elaborate representation of Valentinian theology, “which gives an account of the whole process of devolution from and reintegration into the primordial Godhead.”48 Part II, the shortest of three major sections (104.4– 108.12), relates the creation of humanity and Adam’s fall with its own rewriting of Genesis 1–3. It is here that the tree of life is mentioned. The first human was a mixed formation created by the spiritual Word through the work of the demiurge, and he possessed the breath of the spiritual Word, of which the demiurge and his rulers were unaware. Adam was placed in a garden of threefold order with three kinds of trees from which to eat. He possessed a more noble sub48

Harold Attridge and Elaine Pagels, “The Tripartite Tractate: Introduction,” CGL, Vol. 1, Nag Hammadi Codex I, ed. H. Attridge (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 176.

the tree of life in gnostic literature

265

stance within him that was superior to the rulers; consequently, he was allowed by the demiurge to eat only evil fruit, being prohibited on penalty of death from eating of the tree of the double fruit and the tree of life (107.1–7).49 The purpose was “so that they would not acquire honor” (107.7–8), something achieved only by eating of these trees. Unfortunately, the following passage is fragmentary. Through the deception of the serpent, craftiest of all evil powers, the demiurge and his cohort led the human through thought and desire to break the commandment not to eat of the tree of double fruit, resulting in his immediate expulsion from paradise and subsequent experience of suffering and death. Unbeknown to the demiurge and evil powers, this experience of expulsion and pain occurred providentially as a work of the spirit. The human was destined to partake of all kinds of evil and “experience the great evil, which is death, that is complete ignorance of the Totality” (107.29–31). After experiencing all the deprivations and anxieties in the world, “he should receive of the greatest good, which is life eternal, that is, firm knowledge of the Totalities and the reception of all good things” (107.36–39). There is no other place in Tri. Trac. where the tree of the double fruit and the tree of life are mentioned. However, there are explicit references to the Son of the Father being knowledge and life.50 The relationship between knowledge and life are obvious in the two passages which contrast evil, death, and ignorance of the Totality with good, life, and knowledge of the Totality (107.30–31, 36–108.4). The sacrament of baptism (see 128.21–129.14) is associated with the “bridal chamber” (128.33) and “eternal life” (129.6–7). This connection between baptism and the bridal chamber is significant, with the latter serving as the means to achieve “unity and agreement” with the Savior (122.16–17), “the union of the bride and bridegroom” (122.23–24), and “the indivisible state” (128.35). Tri. Trac. presents the paradise scene as a place where there were three types of trees: one type evil and two good, the tree of knowledge of double fruit and tree of life. These trees may have symbolized hylic, psychic, and spiritual nourishment respectively.51 The prohibition given to Adam by the demiurge included eating from both the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. The evil serpent’s role in enticing the first human to eat from the tree of double fruit was an evil act with destructive consequence; however, it was also predetermined by the holy spirit and according to the Father’s will. Humanity was to experience the “great evil” which is craving, anxiety, and death before partaking of the “greatest good,” which is eternal life. Knowledge and life are both 49 50 51

Thomassen translates, “tree which had the double character” (NHScr, 88). For “knowledge,” see 66.16 and 66.22–23; for “life,” see 66.28, 85.30, 114.20–21, and 117.6–7. Attridge and Pagels, “The Tripartite Tractate,” Note 106.28–29; 412–413.

266

smith

attainable by humans through the Son of the Father and by participating in sacramental practices, particularly baptism and the bridal chamber. Thus, the trees of paradise are significant to demonstrate the situation of humans in the world; however, they are surpassed by the revelation of the Son and by participating in the sacraments, which facilitate the acquisition of knowledge and life that they symbolize. 2.1 Summary Regarding Valentinian Gnosticism The portrayal of the trees of paradise in texts belonging to the Valentinian tradition tend to portray both the tree of knowledge and the tree of life in positive light. The one exception is the Gos. Phil. which posits two trees of knowledge—the first inferior and identified with the law, and the second a present or eschatological tree which brings people back to life and is experienced through sacramental practices. The tree of life may have been present in the first paradise; however, it appears again in the middle of a later garden, whether Joseph’s or an eschatological garden is unclear. The CGL translation of Gos. Phil. 73.15–19 contrasts this tree of life with the olive tree which surpasses it in sacramental value; however, Meyer’s translation in NHScr equates the tree of life with the olive tree, the source of the oil of chrism, which is associated with the bridal chamber. If Meyer’s translation is correct, both the tree of knowledge and the tree of life may be experienced through the ultimate of all sacraments, the bridal chamber. Gos. Phil.’s progressive history guided by providence moves from an imperfect creation which produced animalistic humans, to a tree of knowledge in the law which was inadequate to do more than teach humanity the difference between good and evil, to an apostolic Christianity which was still overly “Hebrew,” and finally to a more enlightened Christianity which encompassed true knowledge and life through Jesus’s revelation and sacramental practices. Tri. Trac. has numerous parallel features with Gos. Phil., including the role of providence and emphasis upon the “middle” as a mixed place of danger regarding human destiny (see 118.14–122.12). In Tri. Trac. the human eats of the tree of knowledge in the garden, whereas in Gos. Phil., eating from the trees of paradise produces animals, and the fruit of the tree of knowledge and tree of life are not consumed in the primordial garden. The first tree of knowledge is the law, and it was partaken of by the both the Jews and Hebrew apostolic men. Teach. Silv. is essentially an outlier in this grouping, much more proto-orthodox in theology, though it similarly incorporates the animal-human dichotomy, posits the human condition as a state of drunkenness, and advocates asceticism and the sacrament of the bridal chamber, where one experiences Christ, the ultimate tree of life.

the tree of life in gnostic literature

3

267

The Tree of Life in Independent Gnostic Traditions

On the Origin of the World (NHC II 5, XIII 2) is an unnamed text sometimes called the Untitled Tractate. It is a fascinating and well-preserved work likely composed in Egypt in the late third to early fourth century. It renders an excellent example of Gnostic thought and may have been used for apologetic or recruitment purposes.52 Bethge considers it an independent Gnostic tradition, which combines features of several different schools, including Sethian, Valentinian, and Manichaean, essentially “an encyclopedic compendium of basic Gnostic ideas.”53 Eight other texts are referenced, though none is identifiable or extant. Orig. World is eclectic in genre and thought, and Layton considers it an “opus imperfectum” based upon its perception as a provisional translation from Greek to Coptic.54 Painchaud contends Orig. World follows Greco-Roman rhetorical style and divides the text into four main sections: an exordium or prologue (97.24–98.11); the narratio or narration (98.11–123.2); the probatio or proof (123.2–31); and the peroratio or epilogue (123.31–127.17).55 It is in the narrative section that the account of Yaldabaoth and the creation and history of humanity are engaged, including an exposition of Genesis. Almost abruptly, the text states, “Justice created Paradise” (110.2). Paradise is described as a beautiful place outside the orbit of the sun and moon in the land of “wantonness” or “pleasure,”56 which is in the rocky region of the east (110.3–6). In the north of paradise is the tree of eternal life which appeared by the will of God (110.8–9). This statement of providential provision casts the tree in a positive light, and it is described as making “eternal the souls of the pure, who shall come forth from the modelled forms (plasmata) of poverty” fashioned by the world rulers (110.10–12). The branches of the tree are like cypress branches,

52

53 54 55

56

Hans-Gebhard Bethge, “On the Origin of the World: Introduction,” in CGL, Vol. 2, NHS Vol. XXI, Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7, ed. Bentley Layton (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 12. While some of Orig. World’s sources may date to the second century, it seems to draw from traditions like Ap. John and Nat. Rulers, though it does have differences in details and concepts. See Benjamin Dunning, “What Sort of Thing Is This Luminous Woman? Thinking Sexual Difference in On the Origin of the World,” JECS 17 (2009): 61–62. Bethge, “Origin of the World,” 16, 12. Bentley Layton, “Bulletin,” RB 83 (1976): 465. Louis Painchaud, L’ écrit sans titre: traité sur l’ origine du monde, NH II, 5 et XIII, 2 et Brit. Lib. Or. 4926[1] (Québec: Presses de l’ Université Laval, 1995). Meyer accepts this structure (NHScr, 201). Translated negatively as “wantonness” by Bethge and Layton in CGL (NHC II, 2–7, Vol. 2, ed. Bentley Layton), 55; positively as “pleasure” by Meyer in NHScr, 210.

268

smith

its fruit like bunches of white grapes, and its height reaching to the heaven.57 Eating this tree’s fruit enables one to “condemn the authorities and their angels” (110.27–29). Next to the tree of eternal life is the tree of knowledge, “having the strength of God” (110.19–20). While the tree of eternal life has the color of the sun, the tree of knowledge is as the fully radiant moon. Its leaves are like the fig tree, and its fruit like delicious dates. Eating its fruit arouses souls from the “torpor of the demons” (110.26), enabling them to approach the tree of eternal life and partake of its fruit. The author quotes from the Sacred Book: You are the tree of knowledge, which is in paradise, from which the first man ate. You opened his mind, and he loved his female partner and condemned other strange figures, and he loathed them. 110.31–111.1; NHScr, 211

Like Gos. Phil. (73.17–19; cf. Nat. Rulers 97.2–4), the olive tree is mentioned. Its oil of anointing, which appeared through the light of the first Adam (111.6–7), purifies “kings and high priests who were to come in the last days” (111.3–5). The work of creation is the joint work of the evil archons and elevated beings, yielding a world of mixed elements (cf. Tri. Trac.). Adam of light appeared on the earth for two days and then started his ascent back to his light in the eighth heaven. Upon his departure, darkness fell upon the earth (111.34) and poverty mingled with his light (112.13). Consequently, he was not able to ascend to his light; thus, he created his own vast eternal abode in the seventh heaven just beneath the veil between the eighth heaven and the chaos below (112.18–22). When the authorities saw Adam of light in the realm of chaos, they laughed at Yaldabaoth, since he lied when he boasted, “It is I who am God. No one exists before me” (112.25–29). Fearing Adam of light would ruin their work and desiring beings to serve them, the rulers and Yaldaboath conspired to create a human being out of earth “according to the image (eikōn) of our body and according to the likeness of this being (viz., Adam of light)” (112.34–113.1).58 Yet, they created according 57 58

Lanfer compares the tree of life with the cosmic tree in Second Temple Judaism (“Allusion,” 104–105). Dunning indicates Yaldabaoth experienced both embarrassment and a need to reassert and consolidate his supreme authority over the other archons (“What Sort of Thing,” 64).

the tree of life in gnostic literature

269

to the forethought of Pistis, in ignorance, and “against their own interests,” since their creation would ultimately despise, condemn, and escape from them (113.8,15,19–20). Providentially, the rulers were given knowledge required to create a human; however, Sophia Zoe anticipated them, “laughed at their decision” (113.12–14), and preempted them by creating her own androgynous human being to be an instructor to their earthly creation (113.17–19). The archons’ human possessed a “modelled form” (plasma) which enclosed light (113.9–10). In contrast, Sophia Zoe’s human was made from a droplet of light which fell into the water and immediately appeared as an androgynous being with a female body, whom the Greeks call Hermaphrodites and whose mother the Hebrews call Eve of Life (113.22–33).59 Eve of Life is identified as “the female instructor of Life” (113.33–34), and her offspring has various descriptors: lord, beast (113.35–114.1), instructor, and wisest of all beings (114.3–4). Consequently, there are three Adams: Adam of light who is spirit-endowed (pneumatikos) and appeared on the first day; Sophia Zoe’s soul-endowed (psykhikos) Adam who appeared on the sixth day; and earthly (khoikos) Adam who is “the man of law” and appeared on the eighth day, the “tranquility of poverty which is called Sunday” (see 117.28–118.2).60 The passage turns to the creation of the latter.61 Earthly Adam’s physical creation came about through the rulers’ act of casting their sperm into the navel of the earth (114.3–5)62 and then forming his body part by part. While he is modelled after Zoe’s soul-endowed man (115.1), the rulers’ creation was initially “lifeless” (115.4), “without spirit” (115.5, “like an abortion”), “without soul” (115.11–12), and unable to stand (115.15). Fearing his potential for ruling over them, the archons abandoned him for forty days, whereupon Sophia Zoe sent her breath into Adam, and he began to move upon the ground (115.11–14). This alarmed the rulers, and Yaldabaoth asked the breath, “Who are you? And whence did you come hither?” It answered, “I have come from the force of the man for the destruction of your work” (115.19–22). Quite remark-

59

60 61 62

Dunning reviews sexuality and androgyny, indicating the latter was not an idealization of egalitarian sexual identity; rather, androgyny was primarily conceived in terms of idealized masculinity. This passage stands apart with its androgynous being created with a different genealogy of image and possessing a female body and identity (Dunning, “What Sort of Thing,” 58–61, 63–64). This may be a veiled polemic against Judaism and/or Christianity. Orig. World has several recapitulations of the creation event, with additional detail and elaborations. The motif of the navel of the earth was used in ancient Judaism to symbolize Jerusalem and the temple (Judg 9:37). See Walter Vogels, “Trees(s) in the Middle of the Garden (Gen 2:9; 3:3),” ScEs 59.2–3 (2007): 139.

270

smith

ably, this saying pleased them, and they called that day “Rest,” placed the nonstanding Adam in paradise, and withdrew to their heavens (115.25–31). After the day of rest, Sophia sent her daughter Zoe, also called Eve, to be Adam’s instructor and enable him to rise. Zoe recognized Adam as her male counterpart, had pity upon him, and commanded, “Adam! Become alive! Arise upon the earth!” (116.3–4; cf. Nat. Rulers 89.11–13) Immediately Adam arose, opened his eyes, and said to Eve, “You shall be called ‘Mother of the Living.’ For it is you who have given me life” (116.5–8). The rulers heard that Adam was alive, and they were troubled and sent seven archangels to discover what happened. Seeing Eve speaking to Adam, they said, “What sort of thing is this luminous woman?” (116.13) They recognized her former likeness in the light and determined to rape her so, being soiled, she would not be able to ascend to her light and would bear offspring who would be subject to them (116.14–21). Seeking to dupe Adam, they put him into a deep sleep and instructed him “that she came from his rib, in order that his wife may obey, and he may be lord over her” (116.21–25).63 Eve laughed at their decision, put mist in their eyes, and “left her likeness with Adam” (116.26–28). She entered the tree of acquaintance (gnōsis) and remained there (116.28–29). The archangels followed her, saw that she had become a tree, and fled in fear. Returning to Adam, they saw Eve’s likeness with him and, perceiving the true Eve had returned, seized her and cast their seed upon her (116.33–117.4). They defiled her wickedly, both in natural and foul ways, defiling first the “seal of her voice” (117.4–7).64 What the rulers and their angels did not realize was that it was “their own body that they had defiled” (117.13). Earthly Eve first bore Abel, and then other offspring, indicating multiple events of rape. All this occurred according to a dual providence: first, that of Yaldabaoth who desired that the human seed would be mixed and would suffer the fate of the universe (117.18–24); and second, a “prearranged plan” that the 63

64

See Lillie, Rape of Eve, 213–214, where the concept of subjugation is used in two ways: the desire of the archons to produce offspring (slaves) from Eve over which they could rule (116.19), and the archons’ perpetration of the lie that Eve came from Adam’s rib so that he would rule over her (116.24–25). Orig. World provides insightful details of the gang rape of Eve, which Lillie recounts in The Rape of Eve. These include the disassociation of her true self from her physical body, the silencing of her voice, her integration of what was lost through violence by eating and becoming enlightened, and the identification of the rulers versus their victims as the perpetrators of evil. Lillie’s analysis of rape in the ancient world points out the uniqueness of Gnostic texts in comparison to other ancient literature. She describes Orig. World as “psychologically savvy” (3) and notes that in all three accounts (Ap. John, Nat. Rulers, and Orig. World), the “rulers and their actions are always laid bare, named as evil and manipulative and self-serving—there is no equivocation on these points” (217). See Lillie’s six-point summary (223–233).

the tree of life in gnostic literature

271

“modelled forms of the authorities might become enclosures of light, whereupon it (viz., the light) would condemn them through their modelled forms” (117.24–28). Earthly Adam’s offspring “multiplied and filled the earth” (118.2– 3 NHScr). They possessed “scientific information of the soul-endowed man” (118.4–5), but “they were in ignorance” (118.5–6). When the rulers saw Adam and the female “erring ignorantly like beasts” (i.e., having sexual relations), they were very pleased (118.6–9). The rulers were disturbed when they learned that the immortal man (i.e., Adam of light) was not going to neglect them, and they feared the female creature who had turned into a tree. They conceived a plan and approached Adam and Eve saying, “The fruit of all the trees created for you in Paradise shall be eaten; but as for the tree of acquaintance (gnōsis), control yourselves and do not eat from it. If you eat you will die.” Having imparted great fear in Adam and Eve, they departed up to their authorities (118.20–24). Then, the wisest of all creatures, called Beast, came and saw the likeness of their mother Eve and said to her, “What did God say to you (pl.)? Was it ‘do not eat from the tree of acquaintance (gnōsis)’?” She answered, “He said, ‘Not only do not eat from it, but do not touch it, lest you (sg.) die.’” He said to her, “Do not be afraid. In death you shall not die. For he knows that when you eat from it, your intellect will become sober and you will come to be like gods, recognizing the difference between evil men and good ones. Indeed, it was in jealousy that he said this to you, so that you would not eat from it” (118.25–119.7). Eve gained confidence from the words of the instructor, and seeing that the tree was beautiful and appetizing, she ate and gave some to her husband: “Then their intellect became open. For when they had eaten, the light of acquaintance had shown upon them. When they clothed themselves with shame, they knew that they were naked of acquaintance. When they became sober, they saw that they were naked and became enamored of one another. When they saw that the ones who had modelled them had the form of beasts, they loathed them: they were very aware” (119.11–18). Thus, a two-fold transformation accompanied the act of eating: first, they knew their lack of acquaintance and were ashamed; then, they became sober, acknowledged their nakedness, and fell in love. Awakened, they despised the beastly archons for their jealousy and deception. When the rulers learned of the couple’s transformation, they entered paradise with “earthquake and great threatening” to see what had occurred. Adam and Eve hid under the trees of paradise, and the rulers, not knowing where they were, asked, “Adam, where are you?” Adam admitted his fear and shame, and the archons asked ignorantly, “Who told you about the shame with which you clothed yourself?—unless you have eaten from that tree!” A sequence of questions and blame occurs, until Eve blamed the instructor for urging her to eat.

272

smith

“Then the rulers came up to the instructor. Their eyes became misty because of him, and they could not do anything to him. They cursed him, since they were powerless” (120.3–6). The rulers continued their cursing of the woman, her offspring, Adam, the land, and all things they had created. The text surmises, “They have no blessing. Good cannot result from evil. From that day, the authorities knew that truly there was something mightier than they … Great jealousy was brought into the world solely because of the immortal man” (120.10–17). When the rulers recognized that their Adam “had entered into an alien state of acquaintance” (120.18), they tested him with naming their various creatures. Adam named them, and the rulers were troubled and initiated a new plan: Behold Adam! He has come to be like one of us, so that he knows the difference between the light and the darkness. Now perhaps he will be deceived as in the case of the tree of acquaintance (gnōsis) and also will come to the tree of life and eat from it and become immortal and become lord and despise us and disdain [us] and all our glory! Then he will denounce [us along with our] universe. Come, let us expel him from Paradise down to the land from which he was taken, so that henceforth he might not be able to recognize anything better than we can. And so they expelled Adam from Paradise, along with his wife. 120.26–121.5

Fearing the qualities that Adam and Eve would achieve by eating from the tree of life, namely immortality and a state of superiority, the archons expelled them from paradise back to earth. To further ensure they were not able to access the tree of life, the rulers surrounded it with great fearsome and fiery living creatures, called “Cheroubin,” and placed a flaming sword in their midst, so that no earthly being might enter that place (121.7–13). Thus, Adam, Eve, and their offspring were confined to earth. The archons attempted to shorten their lifespans; however, fate limited their aspirations. The human condition is described as living “in pain and weakness and evil distraction” (121.23–27). Sophia Zoe was indignant with the rulers and cast them down to the sinful world as evil spirits upon the earth (121.28–35). The rulers created angels or demons who led the humans astray into various evil practices (123.4–15). “And thus when the world had come into being, it distractedly erred at all times. For all men upon earth worshipped the spirits (diamones) from the creation to the consummation—both the angels of righteousness and the men of unrighteousness. Thus did the world come to exist in distraction, in ignorance, and in a stupor. They all erred, until the appearance (parousia) of the true man” (123.15–24).

the tree of life in gnostic literature

273

The tree of knowledge and the tree of life are complementary in Orig. World. The tree of life extends and deepens the results of receiving knowledge, bringing immortality and superiority to the humans who eat its fruit. In a sense, its description is more appealing than the tree of knowledge; yet, access to the tree of life is not achievable until the consummation, the appearance of the true one, and the return of all to the place from which they came. The tree of life is guarded by the Cheroubin in paradise, and humanity was cast down to the land from which they came. Life in this world is dominated by pain, weakness, and evil distraction; however, the savior has created four races of humanity which vary according to their election, three having kings and belonging to the eighth heaven (which is above chaos), and one kingless, perfect, and highest of all (124.33–125.7). In the consummation, each of these will return to the place of their origination. Providence is a major force in Orig. World, both in enabling and limiting the aspirations of the world rulers and preserving and protecting humanity toward its predetermined end. Orig. World has many parallel features with texts grouped under the Gnostic school of thought including its portrayal of the archons and the rape of Eve; yet, its independence is clear on numerous points of details. The second independent tractate, The Testimony of Truth (NHC XI 3), is extant in a fragmentary state. Nearly half is lost, but enough is present to demonstrate it represents a “radically encratic Gnostic Christianity.”65 Testim. Truth is polemical both in terms of proto-orthodox Christianity which dominates the author’s environment (likely Alexandria) and other Gnostic groups, which include Valentinians, Basilideans, and Simonians.66 Pearson places the text in the genre of “homiletical tract” based upon its rhetorical style.67 The author contrasts the generation of Adam, which is under the law and doomed, with the generation of the Son of Humanity, which renounces the flesh and the world (especially sex, marriage, and procreation) and comes to a full knowledge of themselves and the God of truth.68 Employing allegorical interpretation to

65 66

67 68

B. Pearson, “The Testimony of Truth, NHC IX,3: Introduction and Translation,” in NHScr, 613. The polemic against these groups posits their affiliation with physicality (Jesus’s birth, death, baptism, etc.) versus spirituality. Valentinian baptism is called a “baptism [of death].” See CGL, vol. 5, NHC IX and X, 171, n. for 55.7–10. Pearson, “Testimony of Truth,” 613–614. Several references to Moses as author appear (e.g., 50.3–5). As a distinction from the generation of the Son of Humanity/Man, it states, “The [book of] [the] generation of Adam [is written for those] who are in the [generation] of [the Law]. They follow the Law [and] they obey it” (50.5–9).

274

smith

bolster his arguments, the author provides a midrash on Genesis 3 near the midpoint of the tractate. The author’s initial restatement of Genesis follows closely the biblical text in God’s69 prohibition of Adam and Eve from eating from the tree in the middle of paradise (45.27–28), though the tree is not named. Testim. Truth introduces the snake as instructor, emphasizing his wisdom and persuasion as he entices the first humans to eat (45.31–46.6). The clause “the eyes of your mind will be opened” transfers the focus from visualization to enlightenment. Eve obeyed, and both Eve and Adam ate, knew their nakedness, and covered themselves with fig leaves. God found them hiding and inquired of their location, and “at that very moment” he knew Adam had eaten the forbidden fruit (46.16–27). The emphasis upon the exact moment of God’s realization accentuates his lack of foreknowledge. His challenge to Adam, “Who is it who instructed you?” further emphasizes his ignorance versus the serpent’s wisdom. Testim. Truth follows a similar sequence of questions and answers as Genesis, resulting in God’s cursing of the serpent and naming him “devil” (47.5–6) and his expulsion of Adam from paradise (47.10–14). At this juncture, the author makes his first verbal attack upon the creator: “But what sort is this God?” (47.15–16). First, he is a God of envy: “He envied Adam that he should eat from the tree of knowledge” (47.16–17). Second, he lacks foreknowledge: “He said, ‘Adam, where are you?’” (47.18–23) Last, he is a “malicious envier”: “Let us cast him [out] of this place, lest he eat of the Tree of Life and live for ever” (47.23–30). A second time, the author asks the question, “And what kind of God is this?” (47.30–48.1). He then attacks those who read the biblical text and do not see what is obvious to him: “For great is the blindness of those who read, and they did not know it” (48.2–4). Further, they read other passages and deny their obvious implications for the creator God. The author of Testim. Truth paraphrases portions of Exodus 20:5 to show God’s jealousy and vengefulness (48.4–7) and Isaiah 6:10 to show that God makes human hearts thick and minds blind so they cannot “know or comprehend the truth” (48.8– 13). He concludes with incredulity: “But these things he has said to those who believe in him [and] serve him!” (48.13–15)70

69 70

Not the archons as in Nat. Rulers and Orig. World. These and similar passages and complaints against God were an occasion for polemics against Judaism and Christianity as well as embarrassments for Jewish and Christian teachers and apologists. See Alexander, “Fall into Knowledge,” 99. Testim. Truth does not attack the various anthropomorphisms of Genesis; rather, its focus is on the words and deeds attributed to God. The tractate includes polemics against Jerusalem (70.4–9), the Temple (70.9–24), martyrdom (32.18–21; 33.24–34.7), belief in the “carnal resurrection”

the tree of life in gnostic literature

275

The tree of life has minor significance in Testim. Truth, apart from illustrating the malicious nature of the God who blocks its access. The tree of knowledge is more prominent, particularly since knowledge of self and God are the foundation of salvation. A God who hinders the human’s acquisition of knowledge denies them awareness of their origin, identity, and destiny. The opening lines of Testim. Truth make plain that the God who promotes the law, with its teachings regarding sexuality, marriage, and procreation, causes defilement and blindness to the truth, and prevents humans from finding knowledge, which leads to salvation and participation in the generation of the Son of Humanity (30.2–17). Such a misguided, limited, jealous, and malicious God is not worthy of human belief or service.

4

Conclusion: The Tree of Life in Gnostic Literature

The order and meaning of events and figures in paradise seem less significant than arriving at the conclusion that humanity is trapped in a world ruled by opposing archons who provoke the innate and illicit desires of humans to keep them in bondage. As humans are trapped in this bondage, they are ignorant of their origin and identity related to the highest God and their superiority to the rebellious world rulers, including the chief archon. While often divided into two or more categories as descendants of Seth and the products of lower creators or the rape of Eve, humanity is the arena of conflict between these divine entities and ultimately the voice of condemnation of the archons. Humans trapped in ignorance and the bondage of desire have, on the one hand, a set of adversaries who desire to keep them trapped; yet, on the other hand, they have advocates who endeavor to lead them to the truth which will make them free and enable them to trample upon their archontic rivals. These advocates include a series of revealer figures, including Sophia, Zoe, Epinoia, the serpent, Jesus, and Seth. Quite often these advocates are guided by an overarching providence which limits the archons’ oppositional activities, often turning them toward the humans’ advantage and divine ends. Jealousy, arrogance, vengeance, and malice fuel the activities of the adversaries as they seek to deceive the humans and foil the attempts of the revealers to enlighten their minds. The tree of life, unless it is evil as in Ap. John where it may serve polemical purposes, is typically not a prominent symbol in the Nag Hammadi texts. The (34.26–37.9), and Christian/Valentinian baptism (55.4–10; see CGL, vol. 5, NHC IX and X, 171, note for 55.7–10; 69.7–24).

276

smith

only exception is Orig. World where the description of the tree of life exceeds that of the tree of knowledge, and eating its fruit yields immortality and eternal life, enabling one to trample on the archons. Yet, even in this text, access to the tree of life is through the tree of knowledge. For other texts, whether the tree of knowledge supplants the tree of life or provides access to it is not always clear and may have different answers. What seems apparent, however, is that eating from the tree of knowledge’s fruit yields gnōsis, which is life itself; and, thus, the two motifs appear to blend into one. In some texts the tree of life seems supplanted by key characters (e.g., Epinoia in Nat. Rulers, and Jesus in Teach. Silv.). There is a regular theme of antinomian asceticism (e.g., Ap. John, Gos. Phil., Testim. Truth, Orig. World), which includes a negative valuation of the Jewish law, the quest for human transcendence of the archons’ rule, an understanding of material creation and the desires it elicits as deceptive and illusive, the limitations of human existence as mixed beings, and the participation in sacraments, especially the bridal chamber, to achieve spiritual heights. While eternal life is the goal of the Gnostic, its achievement cannot be attained without first partaking of the tree of knowledge. There is no recapitulation to an ideal paradisiacal past; rather, there is a hopeful eschatology at the consummation of history. The tree of life, while present and sometimes significant, occupies at best, the role of supporting actor to the tree of knowledge in the Gnostic drama of redemption.

Works Cited Alexander, Philip S. “The Fall into Knowledge: The Garden of Eden/Paradise in Gnostic Literature.” Pages 91–104 in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden. Edited by Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer. JSOTSup 136. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Attridge, Harold W., and George W. MacRae. “The Gospel of Truth (I,3:16.31–43.24): Introduction.” Pages 55–81 in vol. 1 of CGL, NHC I. Edited by James M. Robinson. NHS 22. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Attridge, Harold W., and Elaine H. Pagels. “The Tripartite Tractate (I,5.51.1–138.27): Introduction.” Pages 159–190 in vol. 1 of CGL, NHC I. Edited by James M. Robinson. NHS 22. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Bethge, Hans-Gebhard. “On the Origin of the World: Introduction.” Pages 12–27 in vol. 2 of CGL, NHC II, 2–7. Edited by Bentley Layton. NHS 21. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Bockmuehl, Markus, and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds. Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Brakke, David. The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010.

the tree of life in gnostic literature

277

Bullard, Roger A. “The Hypostasis of Archons: Introduction.” Pages 220–233 in vol. 2 of CGL, NHC II, 2–7. Edited by Bentley Layton. NHS 21. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Burns, Dylan. “Providence, Creation, and Gnosticism According to the Gnostics.” JECS 24 (Spring 2016): 55–79. Busch, Austin. “Characterizing Gnostic Scriptural Interpretation.” ZAC 21 (2017): 243– 271. Couliano, Ioan P. The Tree of Gnosis: Gnostic Mythology from Early Christianity to Modern Nihilism. Translated by H.S. Wiesner. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992. Dunning, Benjamin. “What Sort of Thing Is This Luminous Woman? Thinking Sexual Difference in On the Origin of the World.” JECS 17 (2009): 55–84. Funk, Wolf-Peter, Jean-Pierre Mahé, and Claudio Gianotto, eds. Melchisédek (NH IX, 1): Oblation, baptême et Vision dins la Nose Séthienne. Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi, Section Textes, 28. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2001. Gilhus, Ingvild Sælid. The Nature of the Archons: A Study in the Soteriology of a Gnostic Treatise from Nag Hammadi (CGII, 4). StOR 12. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1985. Gilhus, Ingvild Sælid. “The Tree of Life and the Tree of Death: A Study of Gnostic Symbols.” Religion 17 (1987): 337–353. Graham, Christopher A. The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24. BAC 12. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Isenberg, Wesley W. “The Gospel According to Philip: Introduction.” Pages 133–139 in vol. 2 of CGL, NHC II, 2–7. Edited by Bentley Layton. NHS 21. Leiden: Brill, 1989. King, Karen L. The Secret Revelation of John. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. King, Karen L. What Is Gnosticism? Cambridge: Belknap, 2003. Kister, Menahem. “The Tree of Life and the Turning Sword: Jewish Biblical Interpretation, Symbols, and Theological Patterns and Their Christian Counterparts.” Pages 138–155 in Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views. Edited by Markus Bockmuehl and Guy G. Stroumsa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Lanfer, Peter Thacher. “Allusion to and Expansion of the Tree of Life and Garden of Eden in Biblical and Pseudepigraphal Literature.” Pages 96–108 in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality: Volume 1: Thematic Studies. Edited by Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias. LNTS 391. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Lanfer, Peter Thacher. Remembering Eden: The Reception History of Genesis 3:22–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Layton, Bentley. The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and Introductions. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Layton, Bentley. “The Hypostasis of the Archons, Part II.” HTR 69 (1976): 31–101. Layton, Bentley et al. “Bulletin.” RB 83 (1976): 447–479. Lillie, Celene. The Rape of Eve: The Transformation of Roman Ideology in Three Early Christian Retellings of Genesis. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017. Luttikhuizen, Gerard P. “Critical Gnostic Interpretations of Genesis.” Pages 75–86 in The

278

smith

Exegetical Encounter Between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity. Edited by Helen Spurling and Emmanouela Grypeou. JCPS 18. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Luttikhuizen, Gerard P. Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Traditions. NHMS 58. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Luttikhuizen, Gerard P. Paradise Interpreted: Representations of Biblical Paradise in Judaism and Christianity. TBN 2. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Marjanen, Antti. “Gnosticism.” Pages 205–211 in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies. Edited by S.A. Harvey and D.G. Hunter. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Meyer, Marvin, ed. The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts. New York: Harper Collins, 2007. Morris, Paul, and Deborah Sawyer, eds. A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden. JSOTSup 136. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Niehoff, Maren R. “Philo’s Scholarly Inquiries into the Story of Paradise.” Pages 28–42 in Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views. Edited by Markus Bockmuehl and Guy G. Stroumsa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Otzen, Benedikt. “The Paradise Trees in Jewish Apocalyptic.” Pages 140–154 in Apocryphon Severini: Presented to Søren Giversen. Edited by P. Bilde, H.K. Nielsen, J. Podemann Sørensen. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1993. Painchaud, Louis. L’écrit sans titre: traité sur l’origine du monde. NH II, 5 et XIII, 2 et Brit. Lib. Or. 4926[1]. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 1995. Painchaud, Louis. “The Use of Scripture in Gnostic Literature.” JECS 4 (1996): 129– 147. Pearson, Birger A. “Introduction to IX, I: Melchizedek.” Pages 19–40 in vol. 5 of CGL, NHC IX. Edited by Birger A. Pearson. NHS 15. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Pearson, Birger A. “Melchizedek: NHC IX,1.” Introduced and translated by Birger A. Pearson. Pages 595–605 in NHScr. Edited by Marvin Meyer. New York: Harper Collins, 2007. Pearson, Birger A. “The Teachings of Silvanus, NHC VII,4.” Introduced and translated by Birger A. Pearson. Pages 499–521 in NHScr. Edited by Marvin Meyer. New York: Harper Collins, 2007. Pearson, Birger A. “The Testimony of Truth, NHC IX,3.” Introduced and translated by Birger A. Pearson. Pages 613–628 in NHScr. Edited by Marvin Meyer. New York: Harper Collins, 2007. Presley, Stephen O. The Intertextual Reception of Genesis 1–3 in Irenaeus of Lyons. BAC 8. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Rasimus, Tuomas. “Imperial Propaganda in Paradise? Christ as Eagle in the Apocryphon of John.” Pages 27–45 in Hidden Truths from Eden: Esoteric Readings of Genesis 1–3. Edited by Caroline Vander Stichele and Suzanne Scholz. SBL SemeiaSt 76. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014.

the tree of life in gnostic literature

279

Rasimus, Tuomas. Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence. NHMS 68. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Robinson, James M., ed. The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices. 5 Vols. NHS. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Robinson, James M., ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 4th rev. ed. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Smith, Carl B. No Longer Jews: The Search for Gnostic Origins. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. Thomassen, Einar. “The Gospel of Truth: NHC I,3; XII,2.” Introduced by Einar Thomassen. Translated by Marvin Meyer. Pages 31–35 in NHScr. Edited by Marvin Meyer. New York: Harper Collins, 2007. Thomassen, Einar. “The Valentinian School of Gnostic Thought.” Pages 790–794 in NHScr. Edited by Marvin Meyer. New York: Harper Collins, 2007. Trumbower, Jeffrey A. “Traditions Common to the Primary Adam and Eve Books and On the Origin of the World (NHC II.5).” JSP 14 (1996): 43–54. Turner, John. “Sethian Gnosticism: A Revised Literary History.” Pages 899–908 in vol. 2 of Actes du huitième congrès international d’études coptes, Paris, 28 juin–3 juillet 2004. Edited by N. Bosson and A. Boud’hors. OLA 163. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Vogels, Walter. “The Tree(s) in the Middle of the Garden (Gn 2:9; 3:3).” ScEs 59 (2007): 129–142. Williams, Michael A. Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. Wintermute, Orval. “A Study of Gnostic Exegesis of the Old Testament.” Pages 240– 270 in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of W.F. Stinespring. Edited by James M. Efrid. Durham: Duke University Press, 1972.

chapter 12

The Tree of Life in Medieval Iconography Pippa Salonius

Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis, nulla talem silva profert flore, fronde, germine, dulce lignum, dulce clavo pondus sustinens! Flecte ramos, arbor alta, tensa laxa viscera, et rigor lentescat ille quem dedit nativitas, ut superni membra regis mite tendas stipite.1 Venantius Fortunatus, Bishop of Poitiers (c. 530/540–c. 605)

∵ In the poignant sixth-century verse composed to accompany the procession of a relic of the true cross through the streets of Poitiers, the lyrics evoke an image of the instrument of Christ’s passion as the most beautiful tree. The poem was composed by Venantius Fortunatus in 569 to celebrate the arrival of a relic of the Holy Cross in the city. It was a gift from the Byzantine court to Radegunda, widow of the Frankish king Clothar I, who had founded the monastery of the Holy Cross in Poitiers, destination of the relic. Venantius Fortunatus’ arboreal 1 The eighth and ninth verses of Venantius Fortunatus’ lyrics In honore sanctae crucis (“In honor of the holy cross”) according to its most recent translation by Michael Roberts: “Faithful cross, supremely noble tree above all others, no forest produces your like in flower, fruit, and foliage, sweet wood with sweet nails holding up a sweet burden. Flex your branches, lofty tree, relax your tight-stretched flesh, and let the hardness native to you assume a softness, to extend on gentle trunk the limbs of the heavenly king.” Poems: Venantius Fortunatus, ed. and trans. Michael Roberts, DOML 46 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2017), 70–73; One Hundred Latin Hymns: Ambrose to Aquinas, ed. and trans. Peter G. Walsh with Christopher Husch, DOML 18 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012), 98–99; Venanzio Fortunato, Opere, ed. Stefano Di Brazzano, CSEA 8 (Rome: Città Nuova, 2001), 1: 148–151; and Stefano Di Brazzano, “Profilo biografico di Venanzio Fortunato,” in Venanzio Fortunato e il suo tempo, Convegno Internazionale di studio, Valdobbiodene, 29 November 2001 and Treviso 30 November–1 December 2001 (Treviso: Fondazione Casamarca, 2001), 37–72; Donnel O’Flynn, Holy Cross, Life-giving Tree (New York: Church Publishing, 2017), 1.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423756_014

the tree of life in medieval iconography

281

imagery continued to reverberate into the Middle Ages when it was sung at the Roman office of readings during Holy Week and during the veneration of the cross on Good Friday.2 This conflation of the cross of salvation with the living tree was not new. As early as the third century it had appeared in the literary imagery of the apocryphal acts of Saint Andrew: Hail, O cross […], for thou art planted in the world to establish the things that are unstable: and the one part of thee stretcheth up toward heaven that thou mayest signify the heavenly word […]: And another part of thee is planted in the earth, and securely set in the depth, that thou mayest join the things that are in the earth […] unto the heavenly things […] O cross, device of the salvation of the Most High! […] O cross, planted upon the earth and having thy fruit in the heavens!3 Another third-century poem attributed to Pseudo-Cyprian mentions a tall tree described as the tree of life by believers who, moving out along its branches that stretch from Calvary at the center of the world, gain access to the heavens.4 Throughout its history the Church has used metaphors of flourishing vegetation and growth to help convey such complex notions as the dual nature of Christ (hypostatic union) and the crucial role he played in human salvation. By associating the wood of the cross with the tree of life in the center of paradise, an image of growth and renewal is introduced. The tree of life, which as the cross was located at Jerusalem the center of the Christian world, acts as axis mundi and, through Christ, provides a path to heaven. With its branching canopy reaching upwards, it is a living bridge that unites humanity with the divine. The concept that Christ should be identified with the tree of life (in Eden, on Golgotha and in the heavenly paradise) is visualized in a miniature in the eleventh-century Reichenau Manuscript where the body of Christ forms the trunk of the living tree (fig. 12.1).

2 Roger Greenacre and Jeremy Haselock, The Sacrament of Easter (Leominster, Herefordshire: Gracewing Publications, 1989), 48. 3 Montague Rhodes James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924, reprinted 1975), 337–363, esp. 359–360. Andrew’s gospel was the focus of exegesis in the sixth-century De Pascha Homilia, attributed to Pseudo-Chrysostom, see: Alessandro Giovanardi, “San Bonaventura e la concezione dell’arte medieval: Note sul Lignum vitae di Pacino da Buonaguida,” Doctor Seraphicus 63 (2016): 161–162; Greenacre and Haselock, Sacrament of Easter, 69–70. 4 Pseudo Cyprian, “Carmen de Pascha vel de Ligno Vitae,” in Cyprianus, Opera omnia (pars 3): Opera spuria. Indices. Praefatio, ed. W. Hartel, CSEL 3.3 (Vienna: Geroldi, 1871), 305–308; Edwin Oliver James, The Tree of Life: An Archaeological Study, SHR 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 161–162.

282

figure 12.1

salonius

‘Reichenau Gospel Book,’ Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, MS. Clm 4454, fol. 20v. Eleventh century

The tree and Christ in it span the space between heaven and earth. At its base, a personification of the water of life sustains it. Personifications of the four rivers of Eden hold up symbols of the four evangelists around the mandorla. Within the mandorla Christ grasps the tree with one hand while holding the orb, symbol of his earthly reign, with the other. On either side of him, personifications of the sun and the moon show he reigns over the cosmos from

the tree of life in medieval iconography

283

the tree at its center. When Venantius Fortunatus’ words “Regnavit a ligno Deus” rang out on Good Friday, they may well have brought to mind an image of Christ ruling from a tree like this one.5 Images of the tree of life as the living cross can also be found on ampullae that date to the same century Venantius Fortunatus wrote his poem (fig. 12.2).6 These early-Christian souvenirs were brought back from the Holy Land and often had inscriptions on them specifying that the flask contained oil from the most sacred places associated with Christ.7 They were valued for their thaumaturgic (for healing), prophylactic (for preventing disease), and apotropaic (averting bad luck) properties. They also served a mnemonic purpose in their ability to remind the pilgrim of the places he had visited on his travels.8 One of the most detailed and informative sources of information for these ampullae, probably dating to around 570, is the diary of a pilgrim from Piacenza, who vividly describes the oil of the tree of life offered to him while visiting the relic of the Holy Cross in the Basilica of Constantine near Golgotha in Jerusalem.9 He explains how the oil in the small flasks miraculously welled up, overflowing its containers as soon as they made contact with the sacred wood of the cross. The image of the cross as the tree of life, its sixth-century origins, and the Greek inscription naming its contents as oil from the tree of life all suggest that the Monza ampulla is one of these souvenirs.10 A similar image of the cross as 5

6

7

8

9

10

Jennifer O’Reilly, “The Trees of Eden in Medieval Iconography,” in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden, ed. Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer, JSOTSup 136 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 167–204, esp. 174–175. Suzanna B. Simor, “The Tree of the Credo: Symbolism of the Tree in Medieval Images of the Christian Creed,” in The Origins of Life: Vol. 1, The Primogenital Matrix of Life and Its Context, ed. Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka, Analecta Husserliana 66 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2000), 45–54; Christopher Irvine, “The Iconography of the Cross as the Green Tree,” in The Edinburgh Companion to the Bible and the Arts, ed. Stephen Prickett (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014), 195–207. O’Flynn, Holy Cross, 30, 35–76; Lily Arad, “The Holy Land Ampulla of Sant Pere de Casserres—A Liturgical and Art-historical Interpretation,” Miscellània litúrgica catalana 15 (2007): 59–86. Alžběta Filipová, “The Memory of Monza’s Holy Land Ampullae: From Reliquary to Relic, or There and Back Again,” in Objects of Memory or Memory of Objects: The Artworks as a Vehicle of the Past in the Middle Ages, ed. Alžběta Filipová (Brno: Masarykova Univerzita, 2014), 10–25; André Grabar, Ampoules de Terre Saint (Monza/Bobbio) (Paris: Klincksieck, 1958). Celestina Milani, Itinerarium Antonini Placentini: Un viaggio in Terra Santa del 560–570 d.C. (Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1977); John Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades (Warminster: Aris & Philips, 1977). The Greek legend on the ampullae can be translated either “Oil of the living wood of the holy places of Christ” or “Oil of the Tree of Life of the holy places of Christ.” O’Flynn, Holy Cross, 30, 35–76; Alžběta Filipová, “Monza’s Holy Land Ampullae,” 15–16.

284

salonius

figure 12.2

‘Ampulla with the Cross as the Tree of Life,’ Monza, Museo e Tesoro del Duomo, Monza 11. Sixth century

the tree of life rises up among delicate tendrils of growth in a sixth or seventhcentury mural in a prayer niche in the monastic community in Kellia in Egypt (fig. 12.3).11 11

Vladimir Baranov, “Instrument of Death and Tree of Life: Visual Meanings of the Cross in Some Late Antique and Byzantine Monumental Programs,” Scrinium 11 (2015): 41–43; http://copticartrevealed.coptic‑cairo.com/tour/sacred/sacred.html.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

figure 12.3

‘Cross from a Prayer Niche in Kellia,’ Cairo, The Coptic Museum, Inventory No. 12549. Sixth or seventh century

285

286

salonius

figure 12.4

‘Phela Treasure Silver Paten,’ Bern, Abegg-Stiftung. Sixth or seventh century

Associating the tree of life with the cross must have come naturally to monks in Egypt, where the church had elected to use the ancient hieroglyphic sign of life, the Ankh, as the cross.12 The promise of life, growth and salvation is also presented in elementary terms in the imagery of a paten from the sixth or seventh century, now part of the treasure from Phela at the Abegg-Stiftung in Bern (fig. 12.4). At the center of the plate the stylized budding cross is rooted in a mound of earth, from where it stretches upwards to touch the dove of the Holy Spirit

12

Frances M. Young, Construing the Cross: Type, Sign, Symbol, Word, Action (London: SPCK, 2016), 57.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

287

hovering above.13 Four rivers flowing from its base confirm that it is the tree of life in the garden of Eden (Genesis 2:9–10).14 The center of the cross is inscribed with the words ‘ZΩH’ (Life) and ‘ΦΩC’ (Light) that intersect at the letter Ω. Both the image and the words at its center reference John 8:12, “Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, ‘I am the light of the world: whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.’” The Christian tree of life in the midst of the garden is inextricably linked with the Jewish tradition, with its roots buried deep in Jewish Scripture and legend on the one hand and the Mesopotamian cosmic tree with its fruits of immortality on the other.15 Conceived as a mystical path to God, the tree of life is central to the Kabbalah, a form of Jewish mysticism and theosophy that can be traced to thirteenth-century texts.16 It was associated with judgement, life after death, the Messiah and the new Jerusalem in the early prophetic writings in the books of Ezekiel, Zechariah, in the Psalms and the Proverbs.17 Images of it can be found decorating many of the terracotta lamps found in Palestinian and Roman graves and on stone slabs in the Jewish catacombs from the first centuries AD.18 The earliest image of a tree in a Jewish context appeared in the third-century wall painting above the Holy Ark in the synagogue in Dura Europos. In this position the tree emphasizes the rabbinical view of the Torah as the tree of life.19 It was a path to righteousness and its ascending vegetative growth suggests the Midrash; “And by the tree of life the souls of the righteous are going 13

14

15

16

17 18 19

Henry Maguire, Earth and Ocean: The Terrestrial World in Early Byzantine Art (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1987), 55, fig. 67; Marlia Mundell Mango, Silver from Early Byzantium: The Kaper Koraon and Related Treasures (Baltimore: Trustees of the Walters Art Gallery, 1986), no. 64. The dove at the top of the cross above the rivers on the paten also recalls the typology used by early Christian writers to cross reference the episode of Noah and the Flood in the Old Testament with the Baptism of Christ in the New Testament. Galit Noga-Banai and Linda Safran, “A Late Antique Silver Reliquary in Toronto,” Journal of Late Antiquity 4 (2011): 15. Zofja Ameisenowa, “The Tree of Life in Jewish Iconography,” Journal of the Warburg Institute 2 (1939): 329; O’Reilly, “The Trees of Eden,” 167–204; Peter Thacher Lanfer, Remembering Eden: The Reception History of Genesis 3:22–24 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 31–65. Gershom Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, ed. R.J. Zwi Werblowsky, trans. Allan Arkush (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 3; Jonathan Dauber, Knowledge of God and the Development of Early Kabbalah, SJJTP 18 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 1–26. Ameisenowa, “The Tree of Life,” 329–330. Jean Baptiste Frey, Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum, I (Rome: Città del Vaticano Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1936), nos. 144, 306. Kurt Schubert, “Jewish Art in the Light of the Jewish Tradition,” in Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval Christianity, ed. Heinz Schreckenbert and Kurt Schubert, CRINT (Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1992), 147–159, esp. 166–167.

288

salonius

figure 12.5

‘Sarcophagus of Honorius,’ Ravenna, Mausoleum of Galla Placidia, right side of sarcophagus lid. Beginning of sixth century

up and down to heaven and from heaven to the garden of Eden, like a man going up and down a ladder.”20 Use of arboreal motifs on early Christian sarcophagi suggests their dependence on eastern Jewish funerary art (fig. 12.5).21 Figurative art was used in Jewish synagogues up to ca. 550 and only after this did the religion become aniconic, perhaps in reaction to the Christian vener20

21

Maryanne Cline Horowitz, Seeds of Virtue and Knowledge (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 62. Herbert Kessler, noting that the vine tree does not bear fruit, excludes it from being a representation of the tree of life and instead identifies it with the vine of Israel that would yield fruit with the coming of the Messiah. Kurt Weitzmann and Herbert L. Kessler, The Frescoes of the Dura Europos Synagogue and Christian Art (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1990), 157–160, 178–183. Heinrich Kohl and Karl Watzinger, Antike Synagogen in Galilaea (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1916), 186–187; Ameisenowa, “Tree of Life,” 334–335. While the sarcophagus illustrated here has been attributed to the emperors of the Theodosian dynasty, Honorius (395–423) and Valentinian III (425–455), both men were likely buried in Rome according to Mark J. Johnson, who dismisses accounts of their burial “in Ravenna in the so-called Mausoleum of Galla Placidia … as groundless,” in his “On the Burial Places of the Theodosian Dynasty,” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 40 (1991): 501–506, esp. 339, n. 46.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

figure 12.6

289

‘Tympanum with Tree of Life,’ Prague, Altneuschul. ca. 1260

ation of icons.22 Aversion to figurative imagery continued until the thirteenth century when changing perceptions of Christianity in Jewish thought reintroduced figurative representation.23 The sculpted tympanym of the tree of life over the south entrance doorway to the Altneuschul in Prague (c. 1260) is probably a Jewish interpretation of Christian models (fig. 12.6).24 Cistercian prohibition of humans and animals in its imagery did not exclude the vine-shaped arbor-crucis from their church decoration and the tree of life above the Altneuschul portal was probably modelled on sculpted tympana above entrances to the Cistercian monasteries of Vyšší Brod and Zlatá Koruna nearby. The synagogue reliefs inspired by nature are also similar to Franciscan 22

23

24

Katrin Kogman-Appel, “Jewish Art and Cultural Exchange: Theoretical Perspectives,” Medieval Encounters 17 (2011): 1–26, esp. 17–18; Charles Barber, “The Truth in Painting: Iconoclasm and Identity in Early-Medieval Art,” Speculum 72 (1997): 1023. Medieval Jewish figural art begins to appear in Germany in the 1230s and Spain in the 1300s. Katrin Kogman-Appel, “Christianity, Idolatry and the Question of Jewish Figural Painting in the Middle Ages,” Speculum 84 (2009): 73–107. Ilia Rodov, “The Development of Medieval and Renaissance Sculptural Decoration in Ashkenazi Synagogues from Worms to the Cracow Area,” (PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2003), 1:129–130; Ilia Rodov, The Torah Ark in Renaissance Poland: A Jewish Revival of Classical Antiquity, JCPS 23 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 110.

290

salonius

imagery at the Convent of Saint Agnes in Prague. Laden with thirteen bunches of grapes, the tree at the synagogue grows as a twisted bipartite vine from thirteen roots. These represent the twelve tribes of Israel with reference to the division of Joseph’s House, which split into the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.25 Flourishing vegetation over the entranceway continues in the relief sculpture on the capitals, corbels, keystones and the Torah Ark inside. The lush verdant growth reflects a political upswing in the fortune of Bohemian Jews, whose legal rights had been recognized by King Přemysl Otakar II (r. 1253–1278) at the time the synagogue was constructed.26 A quintessential emblem of the Jewish religion and a symbol of God, the menorah can also be seen as an arboreal image and it is associated with a number of different botanical species.27 Known as the tree of light, Moses had modelled the seven-branched candlestick on an almond tree (Exod 25:31–40).28 At least initially the menorah seems to have been identified as the tree of life, although the interpretation is still debated.29 Both the tree of life and the menorah are associated with the olive tree in a beautiful illustration of Zechariah’s 25

26

27

28

29

A photograph of the portal dating to ca. 1901 documents thirteen roots. The number of roots, which mirrors the number of grape clusters may not be original, but a result of the 1883–1887 restoration. Rodov, “Sculptural Decoration in Ashkenazi Synagogues,” 110–124 and II, figs. 235–236. Interpretation of the image also varies. Both Milada Vilímková and Carol Krinsky counted twelve roots on the tree, associating them with the twelve tribes of Israel. Milada Vilímková, “Seven Hundred Years of the Old-New Synagogue,” Judaica Bohemiae 5 (1969): 72–83; Carol Herselle Krinsky, Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985), 169–175. The number of roots and fruit found in the illustration of Lambert of Saint Omer’s Arbor bona and Arbor mala in his Liber Floridus also numbers thirteen. Lambert of Saint-Omer, Liber floridus. Before 1121. Ghent, Centrale Bibliotheek van de Rijksuniversiteit Cod. 1125(92), fols. 231v and 232r. Andreina Contessa, “ ‘Arbor Bona’: Dalla menorah alla Vergine: la metafora arborea, segno della redenzione,” Cahiers Ratisbonne 1 (Jerusalem, 1996): 67–71. Vivian B. Mann, “The Artistic Culture of Prague Jewry,” in Prague: The Crown of Bohemia, 1347–1437, ed. Barbara Drake Boehm and Jiří Fajt (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2005), 83. Horowitz, Seeds of Virtue, 59–67. For the menorah as a symbol of God, see: Morton Smith, Studies in the Cult of Yahweh, Volume 1: Studies in Historical Method, Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism, RGRW 130.1 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 138–149. Margaret Barker, The Mother of the Lord, Volume 1: The Lady in the Temple (London: Bloomsbury, 2012), 2; Leon Yarden, The Tree of Light: A Study of the Menorah, the Seven-branched Lampstand (London: East and West Library, 1971). Leon Yarden, Tree of Light, 42–53. According to Margaret Barker the menorah represented the tree of life, which John the Evangelist saw restored to the Holy of Holies in his vision (Rev 22:2). Barker, Mother of the Lord, 2. Rachel Hachlili argues on the other hand that the inherent symbolism of the menorah is of light rather than arboreal. Rachel Hachlili, The Menorah, the Ancient Seven-Armed Candelabrum: Origin, Form and Significance, JSJSup 68 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 39. For a summary of various positions in the debate and bibliogra-

the tree of life in medieval iconography

291

vision (Zech 4:3) in an early Sephardi Bible from the Jewish community in the Kingdoms of Castile and Aragon (fig. 12.7).30 On the illuminated page the menorah is fueled by the oil of two olive trees in reference to the two ‘sons of oil’ Zerubbabel and Joshua, who symbolically feeding the flame, serve Yahweh by restoring the temple and its cult.31 The symbolism of the tree as a reference to life, death and rebirth in the Judeo-Christian tradition was also familiar in the British Isles, where Christian missionaries conflated images of the tree with the cross to facilitate the communication of Christian ideals and conversion in Anglo-Saxon England.32 While the eighth-century stone crosses at Ruthwell and Bewcastle may originally have resembled Egyptian obelisks and Roman triumphal columns, sculpted with vine scroll they referenced both the tree of life and the cross and marked the permanence of Christ’s kingdom on earth.33 An instrument of tor-

30

31

32

33

phy, see: Rachel Hachlili, Ancient Synagogues—Archaeology and Art: New Discoveries and Current Research, HdO 105 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 322–324. For the menorah as tree of life and olive tree, see: Smith, Cult of Yahweh, 144–146; Hachlili, Menorah, 205–206. The Cervera Bible, Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal, Ms. IL. 72, fol. 316v. The scribe’s colophon dates the manuscript to 1299–1300. Katrin Kogman-Appel states that there are no parallels for this iconography, however a Jewish Bible, produced in Italy now in the British Library, Ms. Harley 5710, vol. 1, fol. 136r from the last quarter of the thirteenth century features a full-page illustration of the menorah between two small trees, although the botanical identity of the trees appears generic rather than an olive. Katrin Kogman-Appel, Jewish Book Art Between Islam and Christianity: The Decoration of Hebrew Bibles in Medieval Spain, trans. Judith Davidson, Medieval and Early Modern Iberian World 19 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 123; David Stern, The Jewish Bible: A Material History (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2017), 238–239, n. 172. For the symbolism of Zechariah’s vision, see: Smith, Cult of Yahweh, 146; Wolter H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period, LHBOTS 304 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 180–181. Michael R. Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8, LHBOTS 506 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 186. Scholars almost universally identify the two sons of oil with Zerubbabel and Joshua, but an alternative argument does exist for them as heavenly beings rather than human leaders. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel, 200, 207. Della Hooke, Trees in Anglo-Saxon England: Literature, Lore and Landscape, Anglo-Saxon Studies 13 (Woodbridge: Boydel Press, 2010), 21–57; Michael D.J. Bintley, Trees in the Religions of Early Medieval England, Anglo-Saxon Studies 16 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2015), 1, 16–17. Bintley, Trees, 47; Éamonn Ó Carragáin, Ritual and the Rood: Liturgical Images and the Old English Poems of the Dream of the Rood Tradition (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005), 49. Ó Carragáin questions the imperial symbolism of the cross. Éamonn Ó Carragáin, “Between Annunciation and Visitation: Spiritual Birth and the Cycles of the Sun on the Ruthwell Cross: A Response to Fred Orton,” in Theorizing Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, ed. Catherine Karkov and Fred Orton (Morgantown, VA: West Virginia University Press, 2003), 133–134.

292

figure 12.7

salonius

Joseph Asarfati, ‘Menorah,’ Cervera Bible, Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal, MS. IL. 72, fol. 316v. 1299–1300

the tree of life in medieval iconography

figure 12.8

293

‘Ruthwell Cross,’ Cummertrees, Mouswald and Ruthwell Church. Early eighth century

294

salonius

ture and salvation, the tree is explicitly conflated with the cross in The Dream of the Rood, an Anglo-Saxon poem, which survives in its earliest form as a runic inscription on the Ruthwell Cross (fig. 12.8). A more complete version of the account of the miraculous tree describing its part in the crucifixion can be found in the tenth-century Anglo-Saxon manuscript of florilegium known as the Vercelli Book. It is important to note however that in this early text there is no mention of a connection between the tree of the cross and the tree of life in paradise.34 The first seeds for the legend of the true cross may predate Christianity, planted in an ancient Jewish tale that gave varying accounts of Seth’s journey to paradise to procure the oil of mercy for Adam on his deathbed.35 The tale appears in the Christian tradition in the fourth-century Greek Gospel of Nicodemus and was then inserted into the Vita Adae et Evae. While the tree of life is not explicitly mentioned in these early accounts of Seth’s mission to paradise, his quest for the sacred oil with healing powers suggests it could only come from the tree of life.36 Associating the cross with the tree of life attests to the crucifixion as an act of victory.37 An idea exquisitely rendered by the literary image of the cross blossoming after Christ’s death in a twelfth-century version of the legend of the Holy Rood (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 343).38 Jacobus de Voragine disseminates the story of the cross and lends support to the idea of it flowering in his extremely popular medieval sourcebook the Legenda aurea (c. 1260), where he explains that the name of Christ’s birthplace ‘Nazareth’ means ‘flower.’39 The idea that wood of some form was taken from paradise

34 35

36

37 38

39

Ó Carragáin, Ritual and the Rood, 2. Ernest G. Mardon, The Narrative Unity of the Cursor Mundi, ed. Claire MacMaster (Edmonton: Golden Meteorite Press, 2012), 57–66. For a more detailed argument, see Lanfer in this volume. Barbara Baert, “Revisiting Seth in the Legend of the Wood of the Cross: Interdisciplinary Perspectives between Text and Image,” in The Embroidered Bible: Studies in Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Honour of Michael E. Stone, ed. Lorenzo Di Tommaso, Matthias Henze, and William Adler, SVTP 26 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 140, n. 25. John Munns, Cross and Culture in Anglo-Norman England: Theology, Imagery, Devotion, BSMC (Woodridge: Boydell Press, 2016), 116. Ursula Rowlatt, “A Flowering Cross in the Robert de Lindesey Psalter, c. 1220–1222,”Folklore 110 (1999): 95–106; Arthur Sampson Napier, History of the Holy Rood Tree: A Twelfth Century Version of the Cross-Legend (London: Early English Text Society, 1894), xxix; Charles Mills Gayley, Plays of Our Forefathers and Some of the Traditions Upon Which They Were Founded (New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1968), 257–258. Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints, trans. William Granger Ryan, intro. Eamon Duffy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 197.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

295

is rooted in Jewish tradition. In close proximity and affinity with Jewish culture, the Syrian church began using crosses with vegetative designs drawn from nature as early as the mid-fourth century.40 In fact the tale of Adam and Eve leaving paradise with seeds or a twig from the tree of life, which Seth then planted at Adam’s grave and grew into the tree of the cross may have originated in Syria.41 The legend is still alive in the oral tradition of the Ethiopian Church, where foliate crosses transmit a lifegiving image of Christian salvation. The story was known in Europe by the twelfth-century, together with other more obscure versions, such as the story of Moses, who cut his staff from the tree of life in paradise.42 With its roots buried deep in the authority of the Hebrew Bible, the Christian image of the tree of life springs from Genesis 2:9, where together with the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it is located at the center of the garden of Eden.43 It appears regularly in illustrations of the Fall of Man, as seen on the San Isidoro Reliquary in the Museo de la Basilica de San Isidoro de León (c. 1063) (fig. 12.9).44 In this episode Adam and Eve are shown flanked by two trees. Rooted in the ground, the stylized branches with scanty canopies take on the shape of the cross. Eve stands with her arms awkwardly crossed over her chest, her hands stretching to unite the serpent coiled about the trunk of the tree of knowledge and the First Man. Accepting the fruit, Adam turns his back on the tree of life.

40

41 42

43

44

For the tree of life and the foliate cross in Syria, which Irvine describes as the “cultural seedbed of early Christianity” and Ethiopia, see: Christopher Irvine, The Cross and Creation in Liturgy and Art (London: SPCK, 2013), 133–169. M.D. Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve: A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP 2:255– 256. Nicole Fallon, “The Cross as Tree: The Wood-Of-The-Cross Legends in Middle English and Latin Texts in Medieval England” (PhD diss., Center for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto, 2009), 11. The tree of life is named in nine different verses in the Bible but only four occur outside Genesis. Lanfer, Remembering Eden, 34; Ute Dercks, “Two Trees in Paradise? A Case Study on the Iconography of the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life in Italian Romanesque Sculpture,” in The Tree: Symbol, Allegory and Mnemonic Device in Medieval Art and Thought, ed. Pippa Salonius and Andrea Worm, IMR 20 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), 143–158; Roger Cook, The Tree of Life: Symbol of the Centre (London: Thames and Hudson, 1974), 9–12, 102; O’Reilly, “Trees of Eden,” 167–204; Adrian Cunningham, “Type and Archetype in the Eden Story,” in Morris and Sawyer, Walk in the Garden, 290–309. Horst Bredekamp and Frank Seehausen, “Das Reliquiar als Staatsform: Das Reliquiar Isidors von Sevilla und der Beginn der Hofkunst in León,” in Reliquiare im Mittelalter, ed. Bruno Reudenbach and Gia Toussaint (Berlin: Akademie, 2005), 137–164.

296

salonius

figure 12.9

‘Reliquary of Saint Isidore,’ León, Museo de San Isidoro Real Colegiata. ca. 1063

The theologian and mystic Hugh of Saint Victor (d. 1141) gave a detailed explanation of the medieval symbolism of the tree of life beginning with a description of its location at the center of the garden of Eden.45 The column that is raised in the middle of the Ark signifies the Tree of Life, which is planted in the middle of Paradise, that is, it signifies Our Lord Jesus Christ in the form of the humanity which He assumed, planted in the middle of the Church. But Christ is both God and man. And therefore, the side of the column that looks to the north, signifies His humanity which he assumed for the sake of the sinners; moreover, the side which 45

Patrice Sicard, “Hugh of Saint-Victor,” in Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, ed. André Vauchez (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 2002), accessed 13 November 2017, http://www .oxfordreference.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/view/10.1093/acref/9780227679319.001. 0001/acref‑9780227679319‑e‑1359.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

297

looks to the south represents His divinity, by means of which he nourishes the minds of the believers … The column is Christ; its southern side (which signifies His divinity) is called the Tree of Life, and therefore it is coloured green; its northern side (which signifies His humanity) is called the Book of Life and is coloured blue. The Ark leans on this column, and the Church leans on Christ, since it surely would not be able to stand without His support.46 The author identifies the tree of life with Christ. The ark, used to reference the Church, is built about and supported by the tree at its center. Paradise, lost at the Fall of Man, can be regained through the tree and the Book of Life, equated with Christ. Christ/Tree stands at the center of the Church/Paradise, at the threshold between the human and the divine and represents the way to salvation as expressed by Christ himself: “Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6 DRB). The liminal function of the tree of life manifests itself clearly in early Christian art where it was commonly found on rood screens, portals, sarcophagi and crosses on tombs.47 All of these objects marked thresholds of sacred space, either within the church building or between this world and the next.48 The early-Christian identification of the true cross as a symbol of triumph and life-giving tree persisted in Byzantine art, together with the iconography of the flowering cross.49 Use of the flower as a symbol for Christ is suggested by the Old Testament book of Isaiah, where Christ is referred to as the flos that rises from the root of Jesse (Isa 11:1–3).50 The same passage inspired the highly successful visual motif of the tree of Jesse that spread through Christendom from the eleventh century.51 An early example of the flowering cross decorates 46

47 48

49

50 51

Hugo de Sancto Victore, De archa Noe: Libellus de formatione arche, ed. Patrice Sicard, CCCM 176 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2001). Translated into English by Jessica Weiss as found in “Hugh of St. Victor: A Little Book About Constructing Noah’s Ark,” in The Medieval Craft of Memory: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, ed. Mary Carruthers and Jan M. Ziolkowski, Material Texts (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), 41–70. Ute Dercks, “Two Trees in Paradise?” 147. For the archetypal need to remain in communion with a “center” to produce the sacred, see: Mircea Eliade, Patterns in Comparative Religion, trans. Rosemary Sheed, intro. John Clifford Holt (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1996), 367–388. The tree of life in the midst of paradise foreshadowed the cross, the true lignum vitae, in a typological sense. Gerhart B. Ladner, “Vegetation Symbolism and the Concept of Renaissance,” in Images and Ideas in the Middle Ages: Selected Studies in History and Art (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1983), 2:745. For (Isa 11:1–3), see p. 301 in this article. For early examples of the tree of Jesse, see: Pippa Salonius, “Arbor Jesse-Lignum vitae: The

298

salonius

figure 12.10

‘Sutton Hoo Byzantine Bowls,’ London, British Museum. Sixth or early seventh century Image id. 00950604001

a set of ten silver Byzantine bowls marked with a cross, featuring a rosette at its center (fig. 12.10). Manufactured in the eastern provinces of the Byzantine Empire, the bowls were found beside the burial space attributed to the East Anglian King Raedwald (d. 624/625) at the Sutton Hoo burial site in the British Isles.52 Perhaps this type of imagery inspired the flowering cross in the eighth-century insular manuscript known as the Lichfield Gospels. On the illuminated page it appears as the bishop’s staff Saint Luke holds in his left hand, a counterpart to the livingbranched staff the apostle holds in his right (fig. 12.11).53

52 53

Tree of Jesse, the Tree of Life, and the Mendicants in Late Medieval Orvieto,” in Salonius and Worm, The Tree, 213–241; Tania Velmans, “L’ Arbre de Jessé en Orient Chrétien,”Deltion (2005): 125–140; Jean Anne Hayes-Williams, “The Earliest Dated Tree of Jesse Image Thematically Reconsidered,” Athanor 18 (2000): 73–102; Arthur Watson, The Early Iconography of the Tree of Jesse (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932). Michael D.J. Bintley, “The Byzantine Silver Bowls in the Sutton Hoo Ship Burial and TreeWorship in Anglo-Saxon England,”Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 21 (2011): 34–45. Lichfield, Cathedral Library, Lich. 1, 218. The Lichfield Gospels are also known as the Saint Chad Gospels, the Saint Teilo Gospels and the Llandeilo Fawr Gospels. Their origins continue to be disputed, see: Gifford Charles Edwards and Helen McKee, “Lost Voices from Anglo-Saxon Lichfield,” in Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Malcolm Godden and Simon Keynes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 79–90; Michelle P. Brown, “The Lichfield Angel and the Manuscript Context: Lichfield as a Centre of Insular Art,” Journal of the British Archaeological Association 160 (2007): 8–19.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

figure 12.11

299

‘Saint Luke,’ Lichfield Gospels, Lichfield Cathedral Library, MS Lich. 01, fol. 218r. ca. 730

Representing a royal scepter or bishop’s staff as a living branch in the Christian world associated it with the tree of life and its owner was thereby invested with the power and authority pertaining to the center.54

54

Cook, Tree of Life, 102.

300

salonius

figure 12.12

‘Harbaville Triptych,’ Constantinople, Paris, Musée du Louvre, reverse side. Mid-tenth century

An exquisite image of the flowering cross is carved on the reverse side of the Byzantine ivory panel, known as the Harbaville Triptych now in the Louvre (fig. 12.12).55 On this cross five flowers mark the wounds of Christ as it blossoms in paradise.56 Flanked by two cypress trees, it grows in the midst of a garden of varie-

55

56

Antony Robert Littlewood, Henry Maguire and Joachim Wolschke-Bulmahn, eds., Byzantine Garden Culture (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2002), 29–30; Henry Maguire, Nectar and Illusion: Nature in Byzantine Art and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 94–95. The rose was a symbol of love and suffering in the Middle Ages. Christ was associated with the rosebush and each drop of his blood could be thought of as one of its blossoms. Jeffrey Hamburger, Nuns as Artists: The Visual Culture of a Medieval Convent (Berkeley: Univer-

the tree of life in medieval iconography

301

gated plants and animals, an exquisite metaphorical image of Christ with the apostles. That cypress trees were symbolic of the saints in Byzantium is made clear by Bishop Symeon of Thessalonica’s (c. 1381–1429) description of Saint Demetrios “as a fragrant cypress tree, endowed with lofty foliage and trickling with the nectar of lofty gifts.”57 Pliny the Elder (d. 79 AD) testifies to the Romans using cypress as trellising for grapevines.58 An agricultural commonplace that likely inspired its association with the saints and apostles, especially considering the symbolism of Christ as the eucharistic vine. Another medieval poet Nicholas Eirenikos mentions the cypress for its same symbolic value of support in his poem commemorating the marriage of Emperor John III Vatatzes in 1244: “On a shapely cypress tree climbs an ivy: the empress is the cypress tree, my emperor the ivy.”59 The book of Isaiah announces the coming of Christ in arboreal terms: And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom, and of understanding, the spirit of counsel, and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge, and of godliness. And he shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord. Isa 11:1–3 DRB

In this passage the Messiah is the flower that springs from the generations of his human ancestors. Interpreted visually as the tree of Jesse, the motif not only shows the succession of generations, but also tracks the transition between humanity and the divine. The process finds its natural expression in the upwards growth of the tree. In Christian thought, by mapping Christ’s

57

58

59

sity of California Press, 1997), 77; Frank Graziano, Wounds of Love: The Mystical Marriage of Saint Rose of Lima (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 72. Maguire, Nectar and Illusion, 73; Oratio in Sanctum Demetrium in Erga theologika: Agiou Symeon Archiepiskopou Thessalonikes, ed. David Balfour (Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, 1981), 187–188. R. James Long, “Botany,” in Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide, ed. F.A.C. Mantello and A.G. Rigg (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1996), 401–405. George T. Calofonos, “Dream Narratives in the Continuation of Theophanes,” in Dreaming in Byzantium and Beyond, ed. Christine Angelidi and George T. Calofonos (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), 104; Nicholas Eirenikos, Epithalamion, in Aus der Geschichte und Literatur der Palaiologenzeit, ed. August Heisenberg (Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1920), 103–104.

302

salonius

human lineage and placing his dual nature of being both human and the Son of God along a vertical axis of gradual but persistent growth, the tree of Jesse provides an engaging summary of salvation history while charting a path for its audience who, through meditation on its contents activated their own salvation. As an axis mundi image that inspired and guided contemplation and through this, access to everlasting life, the tree of Jesse can also be a tree of life. Early examples of it appear predominantly in illuminated manuscripts, but it soon migrated to other medium and became extremely popular as a decorative motif in the glazing and sculpted decoration of Gothic cathedrals.60 One of the earliest surviving Tree of Jesse windows is the stained glass above the west portal at the cathedral of Chartres (c. 1150) (fig. 12.13). Its location is interesting. Because stained glass was made to be viewed from inside the church its position on the interior west façade corresponds with the position of a number of later fourteenth-century illustrations of Saint Bonaventure’s Tree of Life in churches in Central Italy and in Catalogna.61 Some images of the Tree of Jesse made its identification with the Tree of Life explicit by including Christ with his arms splayed wide as if on the cross or the crucifixion scene on its trunk. A late thirteenth-century Westphalian Tree of Jesse window now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York gives a good example of this combination (fig. 12.14).62 That the two trees could be associated is also demonstrated in the glazing program in the south-transept chapel of the Holy Cross in the basilica of Saint-Nazaire in Carcassonne, where stained glass windows of the tree of life

60

61

62

“Porta clausa and Tree of Jesse,” Vyšehrad Codex, Prague, National Library of the Czech Republic, MS XIV A 13, fol. 4v. 1086. Marie-Pierre Gelin, “Stirps Jesse in capite ecclesiae: Iconographic and Liturgical Readings of the Tree of Jesse in Stained-Glass Windows,” in Salonius and Worm, The Tree, 13–33. The Lignum vitae in the church of San Giovenale in Orvieto, the church of San Silvestro in Tuscania and in the Church of the Poor Clares in Barcelona are all painted on the internal wall of entrance façade. Salonius, “Arbor Jesse-Lignum vitae,” 236; Fulvio Ricci, “Un raro tema iconografico: Il «Lignum Vitae Christi» di San Bonaventura nella chiesa di San Silvestro in Tuscania,” Biblioteca e Società 11 (1992): 28; Alessandro Simbeni, “Gli affreschi di Taddeo Gaddi nel refettorio: Programma, committenza e datazione, con una postilla sulla diffusione del modello iconografico del Lignum vitae in Catalogna,” in Santa Croce: Oltre le apparenze, ed. Andrea De Marchi e Giacomo Piraz (Pistoia: Gli Ori, 2011), 136. “Jesse and Prophets from a Tree of Jesse,” stained glass panel, Germany. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Hewitt Fund, 1922 (22.25d). 1290–1300. Debra Higgs Strickland, Saracens, Demons and Jews: Making Monsters in Medieval Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), 98.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

figure 12.13

‘Tree of Jesse,’ Chartres, Cathedral of Notre-Dame, window 49. ca. 1150

303

304

figure 12.14

salonius

‘Tree of Jesse,’ Swabia, Germany. New York, Metropolitan Museum. 1280–1300 Accession no. 22.25 a–f

the tree of life in medieval iconography

305

and the tree of Jesse are presented as a pair.63 References to the sacrifice of Christ, redemption, and the Eucharist were further emphasized by twisting grape vine into the shape of a tree.64 Christ had called himself the true vine and the apostles its branches (John 15:5) and therefore using a grape vine to create the upward branching growth of the tree of life was particularly appropriate. Moreover, botanical distinction between trees and vines was not yet systematic in the Middle Ages, when vines, shrubs and trees were still undistinguished as categories.65 Rampant ivy and grape vine, with its symbolic allusions to the tree of life in paradise and the cross, is used magnificently as an arboreal framing device on the Orvieto cathedral façade (1310–1330) (figs. 12.15 and 12.16).66 Set within a framework of arbores formed from four rampant vines the sculpted fields of relief at Orvieto reference the eastern garden of Eden in more ways than one. Not only do they exemplify the variety of trees in paradise, but they also reference its eastern location in their repetition of the same patterns of unfurling foliate framework found in sixth-century carpet mosaics in ancient churches and synagogues of the Holy Land. Mosaic pavements of ‘inhabited scrolls,’ also known as ‘rinceau’ or ‘peopled scrolls’ originated in Hellenistic and Roman art and then spread to North Africa. The motif was widespread and commonly used in churches and synagogues throughout the Levant in the sixth century. Among numerous surviving examples, the vine scroll that spirals out from the amphora in the sixth-century floor mosaics in the Church of the Deacon Thomas, Mount Nebo, Jordan provides a suggestive model, which later medieval examples such as those at Orvieto might have aspired to (fig. 12.17).67 63

64

65 66 67

The Lignum vitae in Carcassonne (early fourteenth century) appears to be the only surviving monumental example in stained glass, however the motif survives in fourteenthcentury wall paintings in the south of France (Rabastens and Lagrasse in Langedoc) and in Spain (Barcelona (lost), Puigcerdà (Cerdagne), Arboç (Tarragona)) see: Alessandra Gregorini, “Il Lignum vitae di S. Maria Maggiore a Bergamo,” (PhD diss., Università Ca’Foscari, Venezia, 2013–2014), 59, n. 46; Valérie Fasseur, Danièle James Raoul, and Jean-René Valette, eds., L’ arbre au Moyen Âge: Actes du colloque international de Bordeaux et de Pau, 25–26 septembre 2008, Cultures et civilisations médiévales 49 (Paris: Presses de l’Université ParisSorbonne, 2010). Dominique Alibert, “Aux origines du pressoir mystique: Images d’arbres et de vignes dans l’ art médiéval,” in Le Pressoir mystique, ed. Danielle Alexandre-Bidon (Paris: Cerf 1990), 27–42. Long, “Botany,” 401–405. See also Fig. 12.12 in this chapter. Salonius, “Arbor Jesse-Lignum vitae,” 213–242. Among surviving examples of scrolling vine-trees in the Holy Land, see: the sixth-century floor mosaics in the Chapel of Elias, Maria, and Soreg in Gerasa; the nave mosaic on the floor of Khirbet el-Mukhayyat, Church of the Holy Martyrs Lot and Procopius (557); the stylized acanthus leaf frames on the nave floor of Wadi ʿAfrit, Upper Chapel of the Priest

306

salonius

figure 12.15

Lorenzo Maitani, ‘Orvieto Cathedral Façade Relief Sculpture,’ Orvieto. 1310– 1330

A citation of early-Christian arboreal compositions from sacred sites in the Holy Land would not have been lost on the central Italian commune’s cosmopolitan audience, who could appreciate the city’s artful commemoration of its place at the center of the Christian Empire as the chosen residence of the late-medieval papacy.68 Trees of monumental dimensions also framed the encyclopedic content of the twelfth-century mosaic pavement in the cathedral of Otranto in southern Italy (fig. 12.18). Otranto served as provincial headquarters for the Byzantine Empire between the sixth century and 1069–1070, when it was conquered by the Normans. A multicultural city, it lay at the cultural crossroads of Byzantium and the West. Inscriptions on the mosaics record their commission by the Latin archbishop of Otranto, Ionathas and that the work was executed by the monk Pantaleone between 1163 and 1165. Fragmentary remains of similar arboreal mosaics in the cathedrals of Taranto (1160) and Trani (1165) suggest the pavements

68

John (565) and the later mosaic floor in the Church of Saint Stephen, Um er-Rasas (785). Rachel Hachlili, Ancient Mosaic Pavements: Themes, Issues, Trends (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 111–147; Michele Piccirillo, The Mosaics of Jordan (Aman: American Centre of Oriental Research, 1996), 137, 153, 175, 296, 360. For discussion of later medieval versions of historiated vine-trees in Bethlehem, Constantinople, and the East see: Salonius, “Arbor Jesse-Lignum vitae,” 224–232; Velmans, “L’ Arbre de Jessé,” 125–140.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

figure 12.16

Lorenzo Maitani, ‘Tree of Jesse,’ Orvieto Cathedral. 1310–1330

307

308

salonius

figure 12.17

‘Mosaic Pavement,’ Jordan, Mount Nebo ʿUyun Musa, Church of the Deacon Thomas. Sixth century

were part of a political campaign of the Norman Kingdom of William I of Sicily (1154–1166) executed in response to the baronial revolts that threatened it.69 Quite different in style from the order and symmetry of the sculpted garden on the Orvieto cathedral façade, at Otranto men and beasts scramble within

69

Manuel Castañeiras, “L’Alessandro anglonormanno e il mosaico di Otranto,” Troianalexandrina 4 (2004): 41–86; Xavier Barral i Altet, Le décor du pavement au Moyen Âge (Rome: Ècole Français de Rome, 2010), 364–370; Grazio Gianfreda, Il mosaico di Otranto: Biblioteca medievale in immagini, ed. Quintino Gianfreda, 10th ed. (Lecce: Edizioni del Grifo, 2008), 55–78.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

figure 12.18

309

Presbitero Pantaleone, ‘Mosaic Pavement,’ Otranto, Cathedral of Santa Maria Annunziata. 1163–1165

310

salonius

a twisted mass of branches, arranged in a more haphazard and spontaneous manner. The path heavenwards indicated by this tree of life is precarious. It grows along the central axis of the cathedral, extending its trunk towards the altar, its branches in the nave overflowing with scenes illustrating the history of the world.70 Men climb and fall from its branches as they struggle to distance themselves from original sin.71 Because spiritual life and the hope for salvation cannot exist without knowledge and knowledge cannot exist without life, this tree at the center of the garden encapsulates both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.72 Arboreal framing motifs that reference the tree of life like those in the Norman Kingdom of Sicily and Orvieto also decorated the apse of churches and basilicas in medieval Rome, city of the papacy and the center of Christendom. An early example of these apse programs is the fifth-century apse mosaic in the atrium of the Lateran Baptistery, now the Chapel of SS. Rufina and Seconda.73 The twelfth-century mosaic tree of life in the apse of the basilica of San Clemente was possibly based on an early-Christian model once located in the lower church of the basilica.74 The curling fronds of growth that stem from a central calyx at the base of Jacopo Torriti’s late thirteenth-century mosaics in the papal basilicas of the Lateran and Santa Maria Maggiore can also be seen as a continuation of the Roman tradition of the tree of life. In the Lateran apse the central figure of the cross rises with the tendrils of the tree above the four rivers of paradise.75 At Santa Maria Maggiore the centralized mass of meandering vine unites the rampant growth of two trees rooted in the earth on each side of the apse. Inscriptions and the iconography of the tree of life and the tree of knowledge indicate that the mosaics were dependent on early Christian mod70

71 72 73

74 75

Laura Pasquini, “Il mosaico pavimentale della Cattedrale di Otranto,” in Tessere di storia: Dai mosaici di Pella alla Basilica di San Vitale, ed. Federica Guidi (Bologna: Ante Quem, 2011), 70–101; Christine Ungruh, Das Bodenmosaik der Kathedrale von Otranto (1163–1165): Normannische Herrscherideologie als Endseitvision (Korb: Didymos-Verlag, 2013); Marco Rossi, La sapienza e l’infinito: L’albero della vita nel mosaico di Otranto (Castel Bolognese: Itaca, 2006). For the tree as a ladder for men to climb to access heaven, see footnotes 4 and 20 in this chapter. Pasquini, “Il mosaico pavimentale della Cattedrale di Otranto,” 70–101. Antonio Iacobini, “Lancea Domini: Nuove ipotesi sul mosaico absidale nell’atrio del Battistero Lateranense,” in Arte d’Occidente: Temi e metodi, Studi in onore di Angiola Maria Romanini, ed. Antonio Cadei (Rome: Ed. Sintesi Informazione, 1999), 2:727–742. Eric Thunø, Image and Relic: Mediating the Sacred in Early Medieval Rome (Rome: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider, 2002), 60. For the cross above the four rivers in paradise as a reference to the tree of life, see note 14 in this chapter.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

311

els.76 Both mosaics were part of the ambitious renovation of the papal basilicas executed under pope Nicholas IV, the same Franciscan pope who had lent his weight to rebuilding the cathedral of Orvieto.77 The sparkling apse decoration in the Roman Basilica of San Clemente was conceived as a machina memoralis of monumental proportions, whereby the smaller scenes organized within its interconnecting acanthus volutes were to be read as a diagrammatic series of exempla (fig. 12.19). Inscriptions on the back of the pontifical throne and on his tomb inside the basilica confirm cardinal Anastasius (1102–1125) as its patron.78 Proceeding from bottom to top, from left to right, the illustrations framed in the branches of this flowering cross functioned as visual prompts for its viewers.79 In particular it was designed as an aid for the religious community to illustrate, help them remember and meditate on the doctrine of the Church.80 Its identity as the tree of life is established by the serpent beneath the cross, which locates it in the garden of Eden and the inscription running around the base of the mosaic that states the vine is “the Church of Christ […], which the law makes to be arid, by the cross makes to be flourishing.”81 Illustrations of the crucified Christ like 76

77

78 79 80 81

It has been suggested that Jacopo Torriti copied underlying early-Christian designs from the fourth and fifth centuries, already present in the apses. Flavio Boggi, “Jacopo Torriti,” in Medieval Italy: An Encyclopaedia, ed. Christopher Kleinhenz (London: Routledge, 2014), 2:1087–1088. Alessandro Tomei, Iacobus Torriti pictor: Una vicenda figurativa del tardo Duecento romano (Rome: Argos, 1990), 77–98; Yves Christe, “A propos du décor absidal de Saint-Jean du Latran à Rome,” Cahiers archéologiques 20 (1970): 197–206; Maria Andaloro and Serena Romano, “L’immagine nell’abside,” in Arte e iconografia a Roma: Dal tardoantico alla fine del medioevo, ed. Maria Andaloro and Serena Romano (Milan: Jaca Book, 2002), 73–102; Antonio Iacobini, “L’albero della vita nell’immaginario medievale: Bizanzio e l’Occidente,” in L’architettura medievale in Sicilia: La cattedrale di Palermo, ed. Angiola Maria Romanini and Antonio Cadei (Rome: Instituto dell’enciclopedia italiana, 1994), 241–290; Salonius, “Arbor Jesse-Lignum vitae,” 213–242; Julian Gardner, “The Façade of the Duomo at Orvieto,” in De l’ art comme mystagogie: Iconographie du Jugement dernier et des fins dernières à l’ époque gothique: Actes du colloque de la Fondation Hardt tenu à Genève du 13 au 16 février 1994, ed. Yves Christe, Civilisation médiévale 3 (Poitiers: Centre d’Etudes supérieures de Civilisation médiévale, 1996), 199–209. Stefano Riccioni, Il mosaico absidale di S. Clemente a Roma: Exemplum della chiesa riformata (Spoleto: CISAM, 2006), 4. Riccioni, Il mosaico absidale di S. Clemente, 42. Riccioni, Il mosaico absidale di S. Clemente, 40–47, 77–81. “Ecclesiam Christi viti similabimus isti + de ligno crucis Jacobi dens Ignatiq(ue) + requiescunt in suprascripti corpore Christi | quam Lex arentem set Crus facit e(ss)e virentem.” The part of the inscription within the crosses refers to the relics embedded in the walls, while the remainder states: “We shall symbolise the church of Christ by that vine, which the law makes to be arid, by the cross makes to be flourishing.” Riccioni, Il mosaico absidale

312

salonius

figure 12.19

‘Apse Mosaic,’ Rome, Basilica di San Clemente. Twelfth century

the example in San Clemente, with or without the cross, became integrated in a foliate or flowering tree of life, from the twelfth-century on and were made popular in representations of Bonaventure’s Lignum vitae, which is discussed later in this essay.82 While the large trees of meandering grape, acanthus, and ivy on the Orvieto cathedral façade reference paradise with recognizable varieties of plant growth, it is difficult to distinguish which of them represents the tree of life and therefore what its botanical species is (figs. 12.15 and 12.16). In this ambiguity, the sculpted narrative stays true to the Bible, which never specifically describes what the tree of life looks like. The book of Revelation makes it clear that the tree of life bears fruit: “To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God” (Rev 2:7 DRB). The text becomes less straightforward however when, in describing the new Jerusalem, the tree is located on both sides of the river and it bears twelve fruits, not necessarily all of the same variety: “In the midst of the street thereof, and on both sides

82

di S. Clemente, 37; for English translation, see: Mary Stroll, Symbols as Power: The Papacy following the Investiture Contest, BSIH 24 (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 119. Ladner, “Vegetation Symbolism,” 745, n. 43.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

313

of the river, was the tree of life, bearing twelve fruits, yielding its fruits every month: the leaves of the tree for the healing of the nations” (Rev 22:2 DRB).83 The obscure unsettling nature of the image fits the nature of the text, in which John wrote down the divine mysteries revealed to him in prophetic vision. However, the creators of illustrated medieval apocalypses, for which there was a Spanish tradition (seventh–thirteenth century), one stemming from Italy or Gaul (ninth–eleventh century) and an English tradition (thirteenth and fourteenth centuries), must have been seriously challenged by the ambiguity of the source material.84 One of the most splendid illustrations of the tree of life at the center of the new Jerusalem appears in the Trinity College Apocalypse, where a single tree straddles the river of life in the courtyard (fig. 12.20).85 The tree and water are shown with an angel and Christ from a sort of birdseye perspective, where flattened walls and gateways enclose them in the symmetrical architecture of a square, emphasizing the exquisite beauty and divine perfection of the city.86 The foliage on this tree is entirely ornamental and so the artist avoids addressing the question of the species of the original tree of life that grew both in Eden and the New Heaven and the New Earth, as described in Revelation.87 It is of note that the English tradition for the illustrated apocalypse, which is “essentially a picture-book with accompanying text,” probably stemmed from Franciscan concerns.88 The tree of life carved on the ivory panels in Salerno shows a hybrid rising above the water of life and flourishing with multiple varieties of fruit (fig. 12.21). This is in stark contrast to the single variety of the tree of knowledge shown in the panel paired with it, where Adam and Eve eat fruit that resembles an apple.89 While images showing trees of no determinable botanical species pre-

83 84 85 86 87 88 89

Ute Dercks, “Two Trees in Paradise?” 144; see also Estes in this book. Peter Brieger, “The Illustrated Apocalypses,” in English Art 1216–1307, Oxford History of English Art 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), 159–170. Cambridge, Trinity College MS. R. 16.2, fol. 25v. ca. 1260. Natasha O’Hear and Anthony O’Hear, Picturing the Apocalypse: The Book of Revelation in the Arts over Two Millenia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 223–225. For explicit correlation between the tree of life in Genesis and in Revelation, see Estes in this book. Brieger, English Art, 159–161. Iacobini, “L’albero della vita,” 244–245; Maria Evangelatou, “Botanical Exegesis in God’s Creation: The Polyvalent Meaning of Plants on the Salerno Ivories,” in The Salerno Ivories: Objects, Histories, Contexts, ed. Francesca dell’Acqua et al. (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 2016), 133–165. For the apple tree in Eden, see: Michel Pastoureau, “Bonum, Malum, Pomum: Une histoire symbolique de la pomme,” in L’Arbre: Histoire naturelle et symbolique de l’ arbre, du bois et du fruit au Moyen Age (Paris: Le Léopard d’Or, 1993), 155–216.

314

salonius

figure 12.20 ‘The Heavenly Jerusalem,’ Cambridge, Trinity College, MS. R. 16.2, fol. 25v. ca. 1260

the tree of life in medieval iconography

figure 12.21

315

‘Creation of Eve, Temptation and Fall of Man,’ Salerno Ivories, Salerno, Museo Diocesano. Eleventh-twelfth centuries

sented less of an exegetical problem, artists could also portray the tree of life as a vine, acanthus, fig, olive, date palm or a combination of many different species. It was often presented as a source of nutrition for its Christian flock (Rev 2:7) as seen in an early-Christian mosaic pavement in the Archaeological Museum at Madaba in Jordan where herding animals are shown grazing on an olive tree growing from a mountain of rocks. The pile of rocks at the foot of the tree of life in the sixth-century mosaic pavement references the cross and Christ’s crucifixion at Golgotha outside the walls of Jerusalem at the center of the Christian world.90 Another version of the motif can be seen in Ravenna where the fifth-century mosaics of two deer at the fountain of life are surrounded by a vine/tree at the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia.91 The same motif translates to an explicit expression of power when the docile animals that find sustenance at the tree of life are shown instead as triumphant predators, as seen on the decorative lower panel at the front of the ivory chair (545–553) given to bishop Massimiano of Ravenna or on the sumptuous embroidered silk, gold, and jeweled mantle of King Roger of Sicily (1133–1134) (fig. 12.22).92

90 91 92

Iacobini, “L’albero della vita,” 252; Michele Piccirillo, Chiese e mosaici di Madaba, SBFCMa 34 (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1989), 139–140. Clementina Rizzardi, Il mausoleo di Galla Placidia a Ravenna (Modena: Panini, 1996), 150. The motif of a palm tree as the tree of life, flanked on either side by animals is already found on Assyrian cylinder seals as early as 2000–1200 BCE. The ‘Throne of Maximian’ (545–553) was a gift from the emperor Justinian and was probably carved in Constantinople. Cook, Tree of Life, 102; William Hayes Ward, The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia (Wash-

316

salonius

figure 12.22

‘Mantle of King Roger II of Sicily,’ Vienna, Hofburg Palace, Schatzkammer. 1133–1134 Inv. Nr. WS XIII 14

On the mantle a strong straight trunk of a palm tree, a symbol for justice, was cleverly embroidered to showcase the spine of the monarch when it was worn. At the sides of the tree, two lions hold their prey fast in their teeth.93 The composition, with the tree at the center, projected a triumphant image of kingship and the garment was adopted as a coronation mantle by the Holy Roman emperors in the thirteenth century.94 The tree of life really began to flourish in the medieval imaginary once it was appropriated by the Franciscans in the mid-thirteenth century.95 In a let-

93

94 95

ington, DC: Carnegie Institution, 1910), 220–221, fig. 665; for griffins: 228–229, fig. 700. For the bishop’s throne: Clementina Rizzardi, “Massimiano a Ravenna: La Cattedra eburnea del Museo Arcivescovile alla luce di nuove ricerche,” in Ideologia e cultura artistica tra Adriatico e Mediterraneo orientale IV–V secolo: Il ruolo dell’autorità ecclesiastica alla luce di nuovi scavi e ricerche, ed. Raffaella Farioli Campanati (Bologna: Ante Quem, 2009), 229– 243; Giuseppe Bovini, La cattedra eburnea del vescovo Massimiano di Ravenna (Faenza: Lega, 1957). For the mantle, see: Elizabeth Coatsworth and Gale Owen-Crocker, Clothing the Past: Surviving Garments from Early Medieval to Early Modern Western Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 84–88. Two surviving copies of a twelfth-century Greek text suggest that there was a recognized symbolic language of trees in Byzantium. According to the text, possibly in circulation by the mid-eleventh century, the palm tree represents justice. The Symbolic Garden: Reflections Drawn from a Garden of Virtues. A XIIth Century Greek Manuscript, ed. and trans. Margaret H. Thomson (North York, Ontario: Captus Press, 1989). William Tronzo, “The Mantle of Roger of Sicily,” in Robes and Honour: The Medieval World of Investiture, ed. Stewart Gordon (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 241–253. Irvine, Cross and Creation in Liturgy and Art, 193.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

317

ter written to Agnes of Prague in 1253, Clare of Assisi instructed her in a new method of prayer that used the tree of life identified with the cross as a meditation tool.96 She directed Agnes and her female companions to contemplate the episodes of Christ’s incarnation and crucifixion as if gazing into a mirror that hung on a tree. For Clare the tree was a metaphor for the crucifixion and Christ was the perfect example of humanity to which every meditant should aspire. Seeing herself reflected in the mirror on the cross with Christ enabled the meditant to join him on the cross and share his experience.97 By joining Christ on the cross the meditant came closer to a true understanding of God and, following the upward growth of the tree, began her ascent towards paradise.98 Two years later, only months before the canonization of Saint Clare of Assisi, Pope Alexander IV (1254–1261) issued a bull defending the Franciscan position on the poverty of the Church and granting the mendicants the right to teach at the University of Paris (14 April 1255).99 The title of the bull was Quasi lignum vitae.100 Within five years the Franciscan scholar and minister general Bonaventure of Bagnoregio had written his devotional treatise of the same title, Lignum vitae. The text was intended to resonate throughout the medieval religious community in chanted performance.101 In less than fifteen years the Franciscan order had successfully promoted the tree of life as a mnemonic tool, transporting it from its original context in a private letter to the highest echelons of intellectual circles at the papal court, from where it spread by means of text and oral performance throughout the order and on into the secular world.102 96 97 98 99 100 101

102

The Lady: Clare of Assisi, Early Documents, ed. and trans. Regis J. Armstrong (New York: New City Press, 2006), 42, 54–58. Sarah Ritchey, Holy Matter: Changing Perceptions of the Material World in Late Medieval Christianity (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014), 91–126. Mary Franklin-Brown, Reading the World: Encyclopedic Writing in the Scholastic Age (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012), 128. Ulrike Ilg, “Quasi lignum vitae: The Tree of Life as an Image of Mendicant Identity,” in Salonius and Worm, The Tree, 187. Ilg, “Quasi lignum vitae,” 185; Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, ed. Heinrich Denifle, 4 vols. (Paris: Delalain, 1889–1897), I (1889), no. 247. Bonaventure wrote Lignum vitae between 1257–1267 when he was minister-general of the Franciscan order and it has been suggested that he also composed the music that accompanied it. Saint Bonaventure, Doctoris seraphici S. Bonaventurae opera omnia, 10 vols. (Quaracchi: Ex typographia Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 1882–1902), 5 (1891), 327–454. Patrick Francis O’Connell, “The Lignum vitae of Saint Bonaventure and the Medieval Devotional Tradition,” (PhD diss., Fordham University, 1985); Marianne Schlosser, “Bonaventure: Life and Works,” trans. Angelica Kliem, in A Companion to Bonaventure, ed. Jay M. Hammond, J.A. Wayne Hellmann, and Jared Goff, BCCT 48 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 43. For Clare of Assisi as “one of the original creators […] of the devotional practice usually

318

salonius

Quite different from the arboreal structures used by Joachim of Fiore (d. 1202) to frame ideas on history, human salvation, and eschatology, Bonaventure conflated the tree of life with an image of Christ on the cross and employed it as a mnemonic aid to encourage meditation on his life, passion, and resurrection.103 His text begins with the instruction, “Picture in your mind a tree.”104 He goes on to explain that the twelve fruit hanging from each of its branches mark different periods of Christ’s life and that by proceeding up the trunk through the fruit, the meditant will progress chronologically through the events of Christ’s life and thus, by way of meditation, ascend the cross, “to share it with Him, (so) that in heaven you may see him face to face.”105 Bonaventure frames Christ’s life within the structure of the tree of life, dividing it into three sections: the origo (Origin), the passio (Passion) and the glorificatio (Glorification). Each of these sections consists of four branches and each branch bears a single fruit, so that a total of twelve fruit hang on the tree. These fruits symbolize twelve of Christ’s virtues and each virtue in its turn is referenced by four christological episodes on every branch. In this way the tree presents those who interact with it with forty-eight exemplary episodes from the life of Christ. Bonaventure describes an imaginary tree, a construct of the imagination, but the text lent itself to tangible description and, if Bonaventure himself did not supply an image, it was soon illustrated.106 Not all early surviving illustrations of Bonaventure’s Lignum vitae show the figure of crucified Christ on the trunk

103

104

105

106

associated with the Lignum vitae,” see: Ritchey, Holy Matter, 115. Bonaventure’s Lignum vitae survives in almost two hundred manuscript copies. It was written shortly after he began writing his Itinerarium in mentis Deum (The Journey of the Soul into God) in 1259. Michelle Karnes, Imagination, Meditation, and Cognition in the Middle Ages (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 128. Joachim of Fiore’s figurae of trees were circulating Northern Europe in the thirteenth century. Franklin-Brown, Reading the World, 150–151; Marjorie Reeves and Beatrice HirschReich, The Figurae of Joachim of Fiore (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972); Ilg, “Quasi lignum vitae,” 187–191. “Describe igitur in spiritu mentis tuae arborem quandam.” Bonaventure, Lignum vitae, Pro. 3, Opera omnia 8:68. Bonaventure, The Works of Bonaventure, trans. by José de Vinck (Paterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1960–1970), 1:98. Bonaventure’s reason for meditating on the cross is given elsewhere: “Christo sis confixus cruci, / Ut sic valeas perduci / Secum ad caelestia” (On the cross with Christ be fastened; share it with Him, that (ut) in heaven you may see him face to face). Bonaventure, Laudismus de Sancta Cruce, 8, Opera omnia 8:667; Bonaventure, Works of Bonaventure, 3:3; Karnes, Imagination, Meditation, and Cognition, 128. Marianne Schlosser claims that from its conception the Lignum vitae was accompanied by a picture and it was probably Bonaventure who illustrated his text with a drawing of a tree. Schlosser, “Bonaventure,” 42–44.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

319

of the tree of life, as the Vatican Library manuscript demonstrates.107 The figure of Christ on the Cross does however appear in illuminations of the Lignum vitae in a late thirteenth-century Mosan text now in Darmstadt and in a manuscript in the British Library.108 This last manuscript is marked as a gift to Durham cathedral priory from the monk T. de Wlveston, who was known at the priory between 1274 and 1300 (fig. 12.23).109 As one of the earliest surviving manuscript illuminations of Bonaventure’s Lignum vitae, the Durham example suggests that illustrated models of the text had reached as far as the British Isles by the last quarter of the thirteenth century. The first images of Bonaventure’s Lignum vitae may well have drawn on the visual tradition of the Tree of Jesse and in some illustrations the two iconographic models are fused (fig. 12.14).110 An image of natural continuity, every single element can be seen as parts relating to a whole, with reference to Christ.111 The Franciscan Life of Christ, which quickly established Christ on the cross as the focal figure in its branches, exploits the same arboreal referencing system that expressed both ‘continuity of line and the community of lineage’ so effectively.112 In fact, later in the fourteenth century the mendicant orders privileged the tree of life as a metaphor of community and belonging in the images of their orders known as ordensstammbäume. The earliest surviving example of

107

108 109

110

111

112

Bonaventure, Lignum vitae. Rome, Bibl. Vat. Lat. 1058, fol. 28v, ca. 1290. Anna C. Esmeijer, L’albero della vita di Taddeo Gaddi: L’esegesi ‘geometrica’ di un’immagine didattica (Florence: EDAM, 1985), fig. 3. Bonaventure, Lignum vitae. Darmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek MS. 2777, fol. 43r, end of the thirteenth century. Esmeijer, L’albero della vita, fig. 4. British Library, Harley MS 5234, fol. 5r. Joan Greatrex, “Innocent III’s Writings in English Benedictine Libraries,” in Omnia disce—Medieval Studies in Memory of Leonard Boyle O.P., ed. by Anne J. Duggan, Joan Greatrex, and Brenda Bolton (Farnham: Ashgate, 2005), 183– 195. Simor, “Tree of the Credo,” 49. Two manuscript illuminations that explicitly illustrate the tree of Jesse as the tree of life are the “Tree of Jesse,” single page from a missal, Germany, Hannover, Kestner Museum, no. 3985, thirteenth century and the “Tree of Jesse with the Crucifixion,” Speculum humanae salvationis, Kremsmünster, Library of the Convent, Cod. 243, fol. 55r, ca. 1325–1330. Susanne Wittekind, “Visualizing Salvation: The Role of Arboreal Imagery in the Speculum humanae salvationis (Kremsmünster, Library of the Convent, Cod. 243),” in Salonius and Worm, The Tree, 117–142. It is curious to note the German provenance of both manuscript and glazing examples. Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, “The Genesis of the Family Tree,” I Tatti Studies in the Italian Renaissance 4 (1991): 122; Gerhard B. Ladner, “Medieval and Modern Understanding of Symbolism: A Comparison,” Speculum 54 (1979): 251–252. Klapisch-Zuber, “Genesis of the Family Tree,” 122.

320

figure 12.23

salonius

‘Lignum vitae,’ London, British Library, Harley MS 5234 f. 5r. ca. 1274–1300

the tree of life in medieval iconography

figure 12.24

321

Master of the Dominican Effigies, Lignum vitae, Florence, Convent of Santa Maria Novella, Chiostro verde. ca. 1360–1370

this development was painted by the Master of the Dominican Effigies in the Dominican Convent of Santa Maria Novella in Florence (fig. 12.24).113 Vertical growth was fundamental to the diagrammatic structures of the Tree of Jesse, the Lignum vitae and the ordensstammbäume, which were all meant to be read proceeding heavenward through the founding ancestor, variably defined as Adam, Jesse, the crucified figure of Christ or a foundation saint, to culminate in a visual reference to God.114 The upward progression of the arboreal schemata should be read as a transition from earth towards the heavens, from the human towards the divine, an ascent towards spiritual perfection. This contrasts starkly with the layout of medieval dynastic stemma or the arbores consanguinitatis. Juridical diagrams were designed to be read from top to bottom in the case of dynastic trees and in the arbores consanguinitatis, the founders occupied a central position, sandwiched between their descendants in the trunk and their ancestors in the canopy. The first arbores consanguinitatis are found in manuscripts of the Etymologiae by Isidore of Seville (560–636). For the most part these were schematic diagrams and it was not until the thirteenth-century that they began

113

114

Ilg, “Quasi lignum vitae,” 203–204; Christian Nikolaus Opitz, “Genealogical Representations of Monastic Communities in Late Medieval Art,” in Meanings of Community across Medieval Eurasia: Comparative Approaches, ed. Eirik Hovden, Christina Lutter, and Walter Pohl, Brill’s Series on the Early Middle Ages (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 191. Opitz, “Genealogical Representations of Monastic Communities,” 189–191.

322

salonius

to resemble trees in the natural world.115 As these medieval diagrams became more realistic in their arboreal aspect it became easier to confuse the different iconographies. Their meanings became superimposed, leading to some confusing hybrids such as the Arbor consanguinitatis rooted in Jesse’s side in a thirteenth-century manuscript in the Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid.116 Bonaventure’s Tree of Life seems to have migrated from parchment to plaster, where it grew to monumental dimensions in churches on the Italian peninsula at the turn of the thirteenth century. A wall painting in the church of San Giovenale in Orvieto (fig. 12.25) is of key importance because, in addition to being one the first largescale representations of the Bonaventurian tree, it was painted in the same city as the monumental sculpted program that detailed human history and salvation in a framework of arbores on the Orvieto cathedral façade (figs. 12.15 and 12.16). Situated within the Papal State, Orvieto was a favorite residence of the papal court in the second half of the thirteenth century. When the pope was in residence, Orvieto became the nerve center of Christendom. Moreover, the original plan for the arboreal program on its cathedral dates to the Orvietan residency of the Franciscan pope Nicholas IV (1288–1292), the same pope who had commissioned the splendid mosaics referencing the tree of life in the Roman basilicas of the Lateran and Santa Maria Maggiore.117 It therefore seems highly unlikely that the contemporary execution of the tree of life in the decoration of two important Orvietan churches and the strong Franciscan presence in the city is purely coincidental. 115

116 117

Andrea Worm, “Arbor autem humanum genus significat: Trees of Genealogy and Sacred History in the Twelfth Century,” in Salonius and Worm, The Tree, 35–67; Marigold Norbye, “Arbor genealogiae: Manifestations of the Tree in French Royal Genealogies,” in Salonius and Worm, The Tree, 69–93; Simon Teuscher, “Flesh and Blood in the Treatises on the Arbor Consanguinitatis (Thirteenth to Sixteenth Centuries),” in Blood and Kinship: Matter for Metaphor from Ancient Rome to the Present, ed. Christopher H. Johnson et al. (New York: Berghahn Books, 2013), 83–104; Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, “The Tree,” in Finding Europe: Discourses on Margins, Communities, Images, ed. Anthony Molho and Diogo Ramada Curto (New York: Berghahn Books, 2007), 297; Hermann Schadt, Die Darstellungen der Arbores consanguinitatis und der Arbores affinitatis: Bildschemata in juristischen Handschriften (Tübingen: Wasmuth, 1982). ‘Arbor consanguinitatis, with Jesse,’ Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, MS Hh 51, fol. 3r. Watson, Tree of Jesse, 42, pl. 36. Nicholas IV received the devastating news of the fall of Acre while he was in Orvieto, where he resided for 487 days between 12 June 1290 and 11 October 1291. I have suggested elsewhere that precedents for the arboreal program on the Orvieto cathedral façade can be found in Eastern models in Constantinople and the Holy Land. Salonius, “Arbor JesseLignum vitae,” 213–241. Publication of my investigation of visual references to the Franciscan mission and the loss of the Holy Land is forthcoming.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

figure 12.25

Lignum vitae, Orvieto, Church of San Giovenale. 1290–1310

323

324

salonius

Divorced from its original manuscript setting, Bonaventure’s Tree of Life is painted on the interior façade wall of the parish church of San Giovenale in Orvieto. It is attributed to the painter known as the ‘maestro della Madonna di San Brizio’ and is dated to 1290–1312. The fresco originally measured 2.8 meters in height and two meters in width. Now in a forlorn state, it is missing a 25 cm strip of paint from its left side.118 The tree of the cross was originally flanked by the good and bad thieves on the cross and its unbroken frame once consisted of thirty-eight medallions of prophets holding scrolls. Traces of Bonaventure’s chapter headings and the virtues of Christ can still be discerned written on the branches of the tree and in its fruit.119 At the base of the tree the kneeling figure of a Franciscan friar without a halo, possibly Bonaventure (canonized 1482), is flanked by Saint Simeone, the pious women, the Virgin and Saint John the Evangelist on the left and on the right a personification of the synagogue, the Roman centurion and Saint Longinus.120 The presence of a female donor, who kneels outside the frame to the right of the tree, suggests the painting was commissioned for a female community of religious. The woman has the appearance of a vestitae, whose habit is described by the Dominican minister general Munio of Zamora in the Ordinationes, written for the penitent women of Orvieto in 1286.121 Although her tunic is not white as prescribed, this does not exclude her from belonging to one of the confraternities that met in the church.122 Between the kneeling friar and Christ on the cross, an image of Christ Emmanuel holds verses from Venantius Fortunatus’ poem in praise of the cross.123 Thus, roughly seven hundred years later, the bishop of Poitier’s words appear inscribed on the wall of an Orvietan church, where, as part of the Roman office they were sung in veneration of the cross, presented visually in the branches of Bonaventure’s Tree of Life. The pelican at the top of the tree references the Eucharist. An account of the bird pecking at her own flesh to give sustenance to her young 118

119 120 121 122 123

Corrado Fratini, “Percorso nel lungo «Tracciato Orvietano» della pittura medievale (sec. XIII–XIV),” Bollettino dell’Istituto Storico Artistico Orvietano 39 (1983): 169–184; Corrado Fratini, “Il Maestro della Maddona di San Brizio e le vicende della pittura ad Orvieto fra Duecento e il primo Trecento,” Paragone 473 (1989): 3–22; Alessandro Simbeni, “L’iconografia del Lignum vitae in Umbria nel XIV secolo e un ipotesi su un perduto prototipo di Giotto ad Assisi,” Franciscana 9 (2007): 158. Simbeni, “L’iconografia del Lignum vitae in Umbria,” 149–183. Simbeni, “L’iconografia del Lignum vitae in Umbria,” 159–160. Maiju Lehmijoki-Gardner, ed., Dominican Penitent Women, CWS (New York: Paulist, 2005), 41. Ilg, “Quasi lignum vitae,” 191. See Venantius Fortunatus’ poem cited at the beginning of this chapter, also cited in inscriptions on the wall painting of the Bonaventurian Tree of Life on the interior wall of the façade of the church of San Silvestro in Tuscania. Ricci, “Il «Lignum Vitae Christi»,” 27–29.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

325

occurs in the Vespers office hymn for the feast of the Corpus Christi, which was probably written by Saint Thomas Aquinas. It is important to note that the Eucharist, which is the rite Christ himself instructed his disciples to perform in order to remember him and his sacrifice on the cross (1 Cor 11:23–25, Mark 14:22–25, Luke 22:18–20), was particularly important in Orvieto. Aquinas quite likely composed its liturgy when he was living in the city’s Dominican convent between 1261 and 1263.124 Inspired by Venantius Fortunatus the Dominican scholar wrote his own verses praising the cross to accompany the act of transferring the Eucharist to the altar on Holy Thursday and during Corpus Christi processions.125 Moreover, the city of Orvieto possessed an important eucharistic relic: the Holy Corporal, which was marked by the blood of Christ at the moment of transubstantiation during the mass at Bolsena.126 Pacino di Bonaguida’s Tree of Life in the Galleria dell’Accademia in Florence was also made for a female community (fig. 12.26).127 Commissioned at the beginning of the fourteenth century for the Franciscan convent of the Poor Clares at Monticelli near Porta Romana in Florence, the large wooden panel painting offers one of the most detailed visualizations of Bonaventure’s text.128 Other than serving a doctrinal and didactic function, as an altarpiece it was also a statement attesting to the contemplative nature of the female Franciscan order.129 It has been suggested that these monumental

124

125 126

127 128

129

Giuseppe Cremascoli, “L’Officium liturgico di Tommaso d’Aquino,” in Il Corpus Domini: Teologia, Antropologia e politica, ed. Laura Andreani and Agostino Paravicini Bagliani (Firenze: SISMEL, 2015), 155–169; Barbara A. Walters, “Diffusion of the Feast through Social Networks,” in The Feast of Corpus Christi, ed. Barbara A. Walters, Vincent Corrigan, and Peter T. Ricketts (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006), 34, 36; Jean Pierre Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Person and His Work, trans. Robert Royal, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005), 117–141; Miri Rubin, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 185–196. Cremascoli, “L’Officium liturgico di Tommaso d’Aquino,” 162; Robin M. Jensen, The Cross: History, Art and Controversy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2017), 243, n. 9. Giovanni Freni, “The Reliquary of the Holy Corporal in the Cathedral of Orvieto: Patronage and Politics,” in Art, Politics and Civic Religion in Central Italy, 1261–1352: Essays by Postgraduate Students at the Courtauld Institute of Art, 1261–1352, ed. Joanna Cannon and Beth Williamson (London: Routledge, 2016), 117–178. Pacino di Bonaguida, Tree of Life, Florence, Galleria dell’Accademia (n. 8459), 248×151cm, 1310–1315. Francesca Carrara, “Convento di Monticelli,” in Gli istituti di beneficenza a Firenze: Storia e architettura, ed. Francesca Carrara, Ludovica Sebregondi, and Ulisse Tramonti (Florence: ALINEA, 1999), 73–75. Ritchey, Holy Matter, 114, n. 50; Jeryldene M. Wood, Women, Art and Spirituality: The Poor Clares of Early Modern Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 65–86.

326

figure 12.26

salonius

Pacino di Buonaguida, Lignum vitae, Florence, Galleria dell’Accademia. ca. 1310

the tree of life in medieval iconography

327

illustrations of Bonaventure’s Tree of Life can be linked to a lost wall painting attributed to Simone Martini by Giorgio Vasari, who saw it in the refectory of the Franciscan convent in Assisi.130 The Vasarian attribution has been contested and a proposal put forward for Giotto and his workshop having invented the original model.131 Another earlier prototype for the monumental wall painting of the tree of life has recently been suggested for the Franciscan convent of Santa Maria in Aracoeli in Rome. In this case, the schematic iconography was probably created when the Franciscan Nicholas IV (1288–1292) was on the papal throne and then painted by Cavallini’s workshop in the final years of the thirteenth century.132 While arguments for a Giottesque or Roman prototype are certainly attractive, more evidence needs to be gathered before either hypothesis becomes conclusive. It is important not to forget that Bonaventure’s image was by no means restricted to Franciscan communities in their cloisters and convents. The Franciscan Tree of Life was designed for chanted performance. It inspired the popular sacred songs known as laude, sung by the congregation for the Easter festivities or at Sunday mass.133 The lyrics, which were quickly translated into the vernacular, reached the widest possible audience. They could be used to explain a material image in the church or, as a mnemonic device, they could prompt singers to generate an interior image of their own. In the likely event that the Orvietan lauda ‘Albero della Fede’ (Tree of Faith) was sung in the church of San Giovenale in Orvieto, it would have encouraged a fuller participation and understanding of Bonaventure’s tree on its walls.134 Firmly rooted in the medieval imaginary by the end of the thirteenth century, the tree of life acted as axis mundi and devotional expression and was

130

131 132

133 134

“… in the great refectory of the said convent, at the top of the wall, Simone had begun many little scenes and a Crucifix made in the shape of a Tree of the Cross, but this remained unfinished and outlined with the brush in red over the plaster, as may still be seen to-day”; Vasari mentions another illustration of Bonaventure’s Lignum vitae by a follower of Giotto, the painter Pace of Faenza in the church of San Francesco in Forlí. Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors and Architects, trans. Gaston du C. de Vere (London: MacMillan, 1912–1914), 92, 173. Wall paintings of the same subject are also recorded in the refectory of the Franciscan convent in Pisa and in the church of San Francesco in Bologna. Raphaèle Preisinger, Lignum vitae: Zum Verhältnis materieller Bilder und mentaler Bildpraxis im Mittelalter (Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink, 2014), 253. Simbeni, “L’iconografia del Lignum vitae in Umbria,” 149–183. Antonietta Lauria, “Un tema francescano nella Roma del Duecento: Il Lignum vitae e un’ipotesi sull’Aracoeli,” in Forme e Storia: Scritti di arte medievale e moderna per Francesco Gandolfo, ed. Walter Angelelli and Francesca Pomarici (Rome: Artemide, 2011), 383–402. Mara Nerbano, Il teatro della devozione: Confraternite e spettacolo nell’Umbria medievale (Perugia: Morlacchi, 2006), 283–284. Nerbano, Il teatro della devozione, 285–304.

328

salonius

adapted to an even wider range of circumstances in the fourteenth century. A lauda by the Franciscan Spiritual, Jacopone da Todi (d. 1306) describes Francis of Assisi ascending the tree of life and explains how in his contemplation of Christ the Franciscan saint became the alter Christus: That towering palm tree you climbed Francis— it was with the sacrifice of Christ crucified that it bore fruit. You were so transfixed to him in love you never faltered, and the marks on your body attested to that union. This is the mission of love: to make two one; through his prayers it transforms Francis into Christ.135 His use of the tree of life conforms with Ubertino da Casale’s written work Arbor vitae (1305), which followed Bonaventure’s Lignum vitae in structure, but amplified the text with new material in the final of its five books to portray Saint Francis as alter Christus.136 The final part of Ubertino da Casale’s treatise was often copied in separate manuscripts which circulated independently of the first four books. The author’s more radical condemnation of the popes, prelates, and Brother Elias was often omitted from these versions and this likely accounts for their wide circulation. An early visualization of this Franciscan thought infused with Spiritual ideas could be seen in a pair of wall paintings located in a room used by the brethren in the Franciscan convent of Sant’Antonio in Padua.137 Unfortunately very little remains of the Lignum vitae Christi

135

136 137

Jacopone da Todi, Le laude, ed. Luigi Fallacara (Florence: Libreria Editrice Fiorentina, 1955), lauda 61; Jacopone da Todi, The Lauds, trans. Serge Hughes and Elizabeth Hughes (New York: Paulist, 1982), 188–189; Ritchey, Holy Matter, 155. Ritchey, Holy Matter, 141; Frédégand Callaey, L’ idéalisme franciscain spirituelle au XIVe siècle: Ètude sur Ubertin de Casale (Louvain: Bureau de Recueil, 1911), 134–135. Opinion remains divided as to whether the two trees were part of the same decorative program or were painted consecutively. Raphaèle Preisinger, Lignum vitae, 209–216, 241, 274–279; Simbeni, “L’iconografia del Lignum vitae in Umbria,” 149–183; Alessandro Simbeni, “Il Lignum vitae sancti Francisci in due dipinti di primo trecento a Padova e Verona,” Il Santo 46 (2006): 185–213; Louise Bourdua, The Franciscans and Art Patronage in Late Medieval Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 54–55, 97–100, 147, 149; Louise Bourdua, “I frati Minori al Santo nel Trecento: consulenti, committenti o artisti?,” in Cultura, arte e committenza nella Basilica di S. Antonio di Padova nel Trecento, ed. Luca Baggio and Michela Benetazzo (Padua: Centro Studi Antoniani, 2003), 17–28; Enrica Cozzi, “L’attività padovana di Giotto per i minori del Santo,”Padova e il suo territorio 97 (2002): 39– 41; Enrica Cozzi, “Il Lignum vitae bonaventuriano nella chiesa di San Francesco a Udine,” in De lapidibus sententiae: Scritti di storia dell’arte per Giovanni Lorenzoni, ed. Tiziano Franco e Giovanna Valenzano (Padua: Il Poligrafo, 2002), 81–90.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

329

(1302–1303) and the Lignum vitae Sancti Francisci (1302–1309) that mirrored each other across the inner room of the convent. Although the idea probably originated with the Franciscans, they were not the only ones to use the tree of life as a frame to link different narratives. In Padua the arboreal frame remained constant and gave ulterior meaning to each image, but it also prompted comparison and suggested parallels. The four trees on the façade of the cathedral in Orvieto (1310–1330) and the stained glass windows in Carcassonne employ this same narrative technique (figs. 12.15 and 12.16).138 A later Dominican example is found in the Bernese Carnation Master’s ordensstammebäume and Tree of Jesse (c. 1495) that face each other in the Dominican church in Bern.139 Because images were perceived as effective political instruments that served as justification and self-assurance in times of crisis, the Franciscans began to use a targeted image policy to counter the pressure on the legitimacy of the order from 1320s on.140 Despite clashes over poverty with Pope John XXII (1316– 1334), the order had continued to defend it as a requirement. It was in response to this precarious situation that the friars began to search for more information on their own origins and as a result material that had been gathered by the Spirituals became sought after and was circulated within the order. The trees that mirrored Christ with Saint Francis in Padua provide visual testimony of the widespread diffusion of Spiritual ideas. These images of identity, framed in the tree of life, were politically sensitive and are therefore located in the inner sanctum of the convent, in rooms frequented only by the friars. Taddeo Gaddi’s Tree of Life (c. 1340) painted in the refectory of the convent of Santa Croce in Florence shows that the Friars minor continued to use and adapt the tree of life in the legitimization of the apostolic nature of their order.141 Inserting prominent members of the order among the New Testament characters and apostles at the base of the cross was an effective method of showing the order’s privileged vicinity to Christ and knowledge of the path to salvation presented by the tree of life. The model was soon adopted by other orders. The Dominicans seem to have glossed it with additional meaning drawn from juridical family trees. Holding medallions of portraits of the most important members of the Dominican family in its branches, the ordensstammbäume on the cloister

138 139 140

141

See n. 63 in this article and Salonius, “Arbor Jesse-Lignum vitae,” 213–249. Opitz, “Genealogical Representations of Monastic Communities,” 186–191. Preisinger, Lignum vitae, 239–242; Dieter Blume, “Ordenskonkurrenz und Bildpolitik: Franziskanishe Programme nach dem theoretischen Armutsstreit,” in Malerei und Stadtkultur in der Dantezeit: Die Argumentation der Bilder, ed. Hans Belting and Dieter Blume (Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 1989), 149–170. Ilg, “Quasi lignum vitae,” 200–201; Simbeni, “Gli affreschi di Taddeo Gaddi,” 113–141.

330

salonius

wall of the Dominican convent Santa Maria Novella in Florence offers the tree of life as an image of authority, legitimizing the expansion of the order and its lines of descent (fig. 12.24).142 The Dominican preacher Louis de Valladolid (d. 1436) in his Tabula quorundam doctorum ordinis praedicatorum claimed that “like the Tree of Life the order of preachers extends its ‘fertile vine branches’ to the ends of the world.”143 These genealogical trees, rooted firmly in this world, with the order’s hierarchy of saints shown on its trunk and their most important members nestled in the expanse of its canopy, privileged a message of the order’s preeminence and projected the tree of life into the Renaissance.144 A sixteenth-century mural of the tree of life in the town of Zinacantepec (Toluca) in Mexico shows how the tree of life, in this case conflated with the tree of Jesse and given Franciscan overtones, continued to be used as a bridge between earth and the heavens, human and the divine, but also as a means of communication between cultures (fig. 12.27).145 This tree however grows in a new and different world, one with frontiers that stretch far beyond the temporal boundaries and geographic range of our current excursion into the Middle Ages. What can be concluded from this overview of the imagery of the tree of life in the Middle Ages? It is evident that Christendom inherited a well-established symbol from the cultures that preceded it, not least through assimilation of ideas transmitted by the Hebrew Bible. Not only did the tree of life provide an optimistic image of growth towards the heavens, and therefore was suggestive in mapping a path towards God, but the expanding canopy growing from its trunk, rooted at the center of paradise, presented an image of center and circumference well-suited to expressions of terrestrial community, lineage, and 142

143

144 145

Laurence B. Kanter, “Maestro delle Effigi Domenicane,” in Dizionario biografico degli miniatori italiani: Secoli IX–XVI, ed. Milvia Bollati (Milan: Bonnard, 2004), 560–562; Angelus Walz, “Von Dominikanerstammbäumen,” Archivium Frantrum Praedicatorum 34 (1964): 231–275; Albert Auer, “Bilderstammbäume zur Literaturgeschichte des Dominikanerordens,” in Liber floridus: Mittellateinische Studien Paul Lehmann zum 65. Geburtstag am 13. Juli 1949, ed. Bernhard Bischof and Suso Brechter (St. Ottilien: Eos, 1950), 363–371. “… quasi lignum vitae … ad fines orbis terre suos palmites extenderet fecundosos.” Maximilien Canal, “Cronica fratris Ludovici de Valleoleto, OP: Ad fidem exemplaris Romani in Tabulario eiusdem Ordinis existentis,” Analecta sacri ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum 20 (1931–1932): 727–761, 801–808, 806; Anne Huijbers, Zealots for Souls: Dominican Narratives of Self-Understanding during Observant Reforms, c. 1388–1517, QFGD 22 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018), 28–29. Opitz, “Genealogical Representations of Monastic Communities,” 191, 198. Delia Cosentino, “The Tallest, the Fullest, the Most Beautiful: The Tree in Pre-Columbian and Colonial Mexico,” in Ceramic Trees of Life: Popular Art from Mexico, ed. Lenore Hoag Mulryan (Los Angeles: UCLA Fowler Museum of Cultural History, 2003), 30–49.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

figure 12.27

331

‘Tree of Saint Francis,’ Mexico, Toluca, Zinacantepec, Monastery of San Miguel. 1580s

power. In addition to this, as one of the most majestic expressions of nature and therefore of the mystery of God’s creation, with its budding greenery and ability to renew with the passing seasons, not to mention its longevity, the tree perfectly encapsulates the Christian message of salvation. Images of the tree of life persisted throughout the Middle Ages, continued on from the early Christian church, where they are found decorating a large number of objects, ranging through wall paintings in Egypt and Syria, Ethiopian crosses, decorative pavements of churches in the Holy Land and apse mosaics in Rome. With its message of salvation and center the motif was used to express concepts of hierarchy, lineage and kingship. As a counterpart to the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden, where it rose above the waters of life, the meaning of the tree of life mingled with that of the other tree and was often identified with the thirst for knowledge, which fed the soul and contributed to the salvation of humanity. The chapter begins with Venantius Fortunatus’ sixth-century poem that evokes the tree of life as the cross and finishes with saint Bonaventure’s Lignum vitae and the vernacular Laude of the Franciscan friar Jacopone da Todi. Images, we should not forget could as easily be expressed in pictorial form as evoked with words in the Middle Ages. Longevity and renewal, properties inherent to the tree, are neatly reflected in the reappearance of Venantius Fortuna-

332

salonius

tus’ poem in monumental wall paintings of Bonaventure’s Lignum vitae. It is interesting to see Nature’s patterns of renewal, which in the Middle Ages were attributed to divine will, adopted by the followers of Saint Francis in the thirteenth century. They seem to have systematically developed the tree of life as a meditative tool and adapted it to the needs of the wider Christian community. Saint Clare of Assisi’s method likely drew on early-Christian meditation on the tree of life, already apparent in the mnemonic function of its images, such as those on pilgrims’ ampullae brought back from the Holy Land. First used as a didactic instrument, the late-medieval papacy seems to have helped disseminate the image, before it was sent out to members of the order and the general populace as a pictorial version of Bonaventure’s Lignum vitae. At this point other orders, in particular the Dominicans, also adopted the tree of life as an image of salvation and community. Changes in the fortune of the Franciscans saw it mutate again to become a means of self-definition and finally a way to propagandize the order and its beliefs in the wider world.

Works Cited Alibert, Dominique. “Aux origines du pressoir mystique: Images d’arbres et de vignes dans l’art médiéval.” Pages 27–42 in Le Pressoir mystique. Edited by Danielle Alexandre-Bidon. Paris: Cerf 1990. Altet, Xavier Barral i. Le décor du pavement au Moyen Âge. Rome: Ècole Français de Rome, 2010. Ameisenowa, Zofja. “The Tree of Life in Jewish Iconography.” Journal of the Warburg Institute 2 (1939): 326–345. Andaloro, Maria, and Serena Romano. “L’immagine nell’abside.” Pages 73–102 in Arte e iconografia a Roma: Dal tardoantico alla fine del medioevo. Edited by Maria Andaloro and Serena Romano. Milan: Jaca Book, 2002. Arad, Lily. “The Holy Land Ampulla of Sant Pere de Casserres—A Liturgical and Arthistorical Interpretation.” Miscellània litúrgica catalana 15 (2007): 59–86. Armstrong, Regis J., ed. The Lady: Clare of Assisi, Early Documents. New York: New City Press, 2006. Auer, Albert. “Bilderstammbäume zur Literaturgeschichte des Dominikanerordens.” Pages 363–371 in Liber floridus: Mittellateinische Studien Paul Lehmann zum 65. Geburtstag am 13. Juli 1949. Edited by Bernhard Bischof and Suso Brechter. St. Ottilien: Eos, 1950. Baert, Barbara. “Revisiting Seth in the Legend of the Wood of the Cross: Interdisciplinary Perspectives between Text and Image.” Pages 132–169 in The Embroidered Bible: Studies in Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Honour of Michael E.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

333

Stone. Edited by Lorenzo Di Tommaso, Matthias Henze, and William Adler. SVTP 26. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Balfour, David, ed. Erga theologika: Agiou Symeon Archiepiskopou Thessalonikes. Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, 1981. Baranov, Vladimir. “Instrument of Death and Tree of Life: Visual Meanings of the Cross in Some Late Antique and Byzantine Monumental Programs.” Scrinium 11 (2015): 22– 48. Barber, Charles. “The Truth in Painting: Iconoclasm and Identity in Early-Medieval Art.” Speculum 72 (1997): 1019–1036. Barker, Margaret. The Mother of the Lord, Volume 1: The Lady in the Temple. London: Bloomsbury, 2012. Bintley, Michael D.J. “The Byzantine Silver Bowls in the Sutton Hoo Ship Burial and Tree-Worship in Anglo-Saxon England.” Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 21 (2011): 34–45. Bintley, Michael D.J. Trees in the Religions of Early Medieval England. Anglo-Saxon Studies 16. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2015. Blume, Dieter. “Ordenskonkurrenz und Bildpolitik: Franziskanishe Programme nach dem theoretischen Armutsstreit.” Pages 149–170 in Malerei und Stadtkultur in der Dantezeit: Die Argumentation der Bilder. Edited by Hans Belting and Dieter Blume. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 1989. Boggi, Flavio. “Jacopo Torriti.” Pages 1087–1088 in vol. 2 of Medieval Italy: An Encyclopaedia. Edited by Christopher Kleinhenz. London: Routledge, 2014. Bonaventure. Doctoris seraphici S. Bonaventurae opera omnia. 10 vols. Quaracchi: Ex typographia Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 1882–1902. Bonaventure. The Works of Bonaventure. Translated by José de Vinck. 4 vols. Paterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1960–1970. Bourdua, Louise. The Franciscans and Art Patronage in Late Medieval Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Bourdua, Louise. “I frati Minori al Santo nel Trecento: consulenti, committenti o artisti?” Pages 17–28 in Cultura, arte e committenza nella Basilica di S. Antonio di Padova nel Trecento. Edited by Luca Baggio and Michela Benetazzo. Padua: Centro Studi Antoniani, 2003. Bovini, Giuseppe. La cattedra eburnea del vescovo Massimiano di Ravenna. Faenza: Lega, 1957. Bredekamp, Horst, and Frank Seehausen. “Das Reliquiar als Staatsform: Das Reliquiar Isidors von Sevilla und der Beginn der Hofkunst in León.” Pages 137–164 in Reliquiare im Mittelalter. Edited by Bruno Reudenbach and Gia Toussaint. Hamburger Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte 5. Berlin: Akademie, 2005. Brieger, Peter. English Art 1216–1307. Edited by T.S.R. Boase. Oxford History of English Art 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957.

334

salonius

Brown, Michelle P. “The Lichfield Angel and the Manuscript Context: Lichfield as a Centre of Insular Art.” Journal of the British Archaeological Association 160 (2007): 8–19. Callaey, Frédégand. L’idéalisme franciscain spirituelle au XIVe siècle: Ètude sur Ubertin de Casale. Louvain: Bureau de Recueil, 1911. Calofonos, George T. “Dream Narratives in the Continuation of Theophanes.” Pages 95– 123 in Dreaming in Byzantium and Beyond. Edited by Christine Angelidi and George T. Calofonos. Farnham: Ashgate, 2014. Canal, Maximilien. “Cronica fratris Ludovici de Valleoleto, OP: Ad fidem exemplaris Romani in Tabulario eiusdem Ordinis existentis.” Analecta sacri ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum 20 (1931–1932): 727–806. Carrara, Francesca. “Convento di Monticelli.” Pages 73–75 in Gli istituti di beneficenza a Firenze: Storia e architettura. Edited by Francesca Carrara, Ludovica Sebregondi, and Ulisse Tramonti. Florence: ALINEA, 1999. Carruthers, Mary, and Jan M. Ziolkowski, eds. The Medieval Craft of Memory: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Material Texts. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002. Castañeiras, Manuel. “L’Alessandro anglonormanno e il mosaico di Otranto.” Troianalexandrina 4 (2004): 40–86. Christe, Yves. “A propos du décor absidal de Saint-Jean du Latran à Rome.” Cahiers archéologiques 20 (1970): 197–206. Coatsworth, Elizabeth, and Gale Owen-Crocker. Clothing the Past: Surviving Garments from Early Medieval to Early Modern Western Europe. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Contessa, Andreina. “‘Arbor Bona’: Dalla menorah alla Vergine: la metafora arborea, segno della redenzione.” Cahiers Ratisbonne 1 (Jerusalem, 1996): 47–85. Cook, Roger. The Tree of Life: Symbol of the Centre. London: Thames and Hudson, 1974. Cosentino, Delia. “The Tallest, the Fullest, the Most Beautiful: The Tree in Pre-Columbian and Colonial Mexico.” Pages 30–49 in Ceramic Trees of Life: Popular Art from Mexico. Edited by Lenore Hoag Mulryan. Los Angeles: UCLA Fowler Museum of Cultural History, 2003. Cozzi, Enrica. “L’attività padovana di Giotto per i minori del Santo.”Padova e il suo territorio 97 (2002): 39–41. Cozzi, Enrica. “Il Lignum vitae bonaventuriano nella chiesa di San Francesco a Udine.” Pages 81–90 in De lapidibus sententiae: Scritti di storia dell’arte per Giovanni Lorenzoni. Edited by Tiziano Franco e Giovanna Valenzano. Padua: Il Poligrafo, 2002. Cremascoli, Giuseppe. “L’Officium liturgico di Tommaso d’Aquino.” Pages 155–169 in Il Corpus Domini: Teologia, Antropologia e politica. Edited by Laura Andreani and Agostino Paravicini Bagliani. Firenze: SISMEL, 2015. Cunningham, Adrian. “Type and Archetype in the Eden Story.” Pages 290–309 in A Walk

the tree of life in medieval iconography

335

in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden. Edited by Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer. JSOTSup 136. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Dauber, Jonathan. Knowledge of God and the Development of Early Kabbalah. SJJTP 18. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Denifle, Heinrich. Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis. 4 vols. Paris: Delalain, 1889– 1897. Dercks, Ute. “Two Trees in Paradise? A Case Study on the Iconography of the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life in Italian Romanesque Sculpture.” Pages 143–158 in The Tree: Symbol, Allegory and Mnemonic Device in Medieval Art and Thought. Edited by Pippa Salonius and Andrea Worm. IMR 20. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014. Di Brazzano, Stefano. “Profilo biografico di Venanzio Fortunato.” Pages 37–72 in Venanzio Fortunato e il suo tempo. Convegno Internazionale di studio, Valdobbiodene, 29 November 2001 and Treviso 30 November–1 December 2001. Treviso: Fondazione Casamarca, 2001. Edwards, Gifford Charles, and Helen McKee. “Lost Voices from Anglo-Saxon Lichfield.” Pages 79–90 in Anglo-Saxon England. Edited by Malcolm Godden and Simon Keynes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Eirenikos, Nicholas. Epithalamion. Pages 97–112 in Aus der Geschichte und Literatur der Palaiologenzeit. Edited by August Heisenberg. Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1920. Eliade, Mircea. Patterns in Comparative Religion. Translated by Rosemary Sheed. Introduced by John Clifford Holt. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1996. Esmeijer, Anna C. L’albero della vita di Taddeo Gaddi: L’esegesi ‘geometrica’ di un’immagine didattica. Florence: EDAM, 1985. Evangelatou, Maria. “Botanical Exegesis in God’s Creation: The Polyvalent Meaning of Plants on the Salerno Ivories.” Pages 133–165 in The Salerno Ivories: Objects, Histories, Contexts. Edited by Anthony Cutler, Francesca dell’Acqua, Herbert L. Kessler, Avinoam Shalem, and Gerhard Wolf. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 2016. Fallon, Nicole. “The Cross as Tree: The Wood-Of-The-Cross Legends in Middle English and Latin Texts in Medieval England.” PhD diss., Center for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto, 2009. Fasseur, Valérie, Danièle James Raoul, and Jean-René Valette, eds. L’arbre au Moyen Âge: Actes du colloque international de Bordeaux et de Pau, 25–26 septembre 2008. Cultures et civilisations médiévales 49. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne, 2010. Filipová, Alžběta. “The Memory of Monza’s Holy Land Ampullae: From Reliquary to Relic, or There and Back Again.” Pages 10–25 in Objects of Memory or Memory of Objects: The Artworks as a Vehicle of the Past in the Middle Ages. Edited by Alžběta Filipová. Brno: Masarykova Univerzita, 2014. Franklin-Brown, Mary. Reading the World: Encyclopedic Writing in the Scholastic Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012.

336

salonius

Fratini, Corrado. “Il Maestro della Maddona di San Brizio e le vicende della pittura ad Orvieto fra Duecento e il primo Trecento.” Paragone 473 (1989): 3–22. Fratini, Corrado. “Percorso nel lungo «Tracciato Orvietano» della pittura medievale (sec. XIII–XIV).” Bollettino dell’Istituto Storico Artistico Orvietano 39 (1983): 169–184. Freni, Giovanni. “The Reliquary of the Holy Corporal in the Cathedral of Orvieto: Patronage and Politics.” Pages 117–178 in Art, Politics and Civic Religion in Central Italy, 1261–1352: Essays by Postgraduate Students at the Courtauld Institute of Art, 1261–1352. Edited by Joanna Cannon and Beth Williamson. London: Routledge, 2016. Frey, Jean Baptiste. Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum, I. Rome: Città del Vaticano Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1936. Gardner, Julian. “The Façade of the Duomo at Orvieto.” Pages 199–209 in De l’art comme mystagogie: Iconographie du Jugement dernier et des fins dernières à l’époque gothique: Actes du colloque de la Fondation Hardt tenu à Genève du 13 au 16 février 1994. Edited by Yves Christe. Civilisation médiévale 3. Poitiers: Centre d’Etudes supérieures de Civilisation médiévale, 1996. Gayley, Charles Mills. Plays of Our Forefathers and Some of the Traditions Upon Which They Were Founded. New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1968. Gelin, Marie-Pierre. “Stirps Jesse in capite ecclesiae: Iconographic and Liturgical Readings of the Tree of Jesse in Stained-Glass Windows.” Pages 13–33 in The Tree: Symbol, Allegory and Mnemonic Device in Medieval Art and Thought. Edited by Pippa Salonius and Andrea Worm. IMR 20. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014. Gianfreda, Grazio. Il mosaico di Otranto: Biblioteca medievale in immagini. Edited by Quintino Gianfreda. 10th ed. Lecce: Edizioni del Grifo, 2008. Grabar, André. Ampoules de Terre Saint (Monza/Bobbio). Paris: Klincksieck, 1958. Graziano, Frank. Wounds of Love: The Mystical Marriage of Saint Rose of Lima. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Greatrex, Joan. “Innocent III’s Writings in English Benedictine Libraries.” Pages 183–195 in Omnia disce—Medieval Studies in Memory of Leonard Boyle O.P. Edited by Anne J. Duggan, Joan Greatrex, and Brenda Bolton. Farnham: Ashgate, 2005. Gregorini, Alessandra. “Il Lignum vitae di S. Maria Maggiore a Bergamo.” PhD diss., Università Ca’Foscari, Venezia, 2013–2014. Hachlili, Rachel. Ancient Mosaic Pavements: Themes, Issues, Trends. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Hachlili, Rachel. Ancient Synagogues—Archaeology and Art: New Discoveries and Current Research. HdO 105. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Hachlili, Rachel. The Menorah, the Ancient Seven-Armed Candelabrum: Origin, Form and Significance. JSJSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Hamburger, Jeffrey. Nuns as Artists: The Visual Culture of a Medieval Convent. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Hayes-Williams, Jean Anne. “The Earliest Dated Tree of Jesse Image Thematically Reconsidered.” Athanor 18 (2000): 73–102.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

337

Hooke, Della. Trees in Anglo-Saxon England: Literature, Lore and Landscape. AngloSaxon Studies 13. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2010. Horowitz, Maryanne Cline. Seeds of Virtue and Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998. Huijbers, Anne. Zealots for Souls: Dominican Narratives of Self-Understanding during Observant Reforms, c. 1388–1517. QFGD 22. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018. Iacobini, Antonio. “L’albero della vita nell’immaginario medievale: Bizanzio e l’Occidente.” Pages 241–290 in L’architettura medievale in Sicilia: La cattedrale di Palermo. Edited by Angiola Maria Romanini and Antonio Cadei. Rome: Instituto dell’enciclopedia italiana, 1994. Iacobini, Antonio. “Lancea Domini: Nuove ipotesi sul mosaico absidale nell’atrio del Battistero Lateranense.” Pages 727–742 in vol. 2 of Arte d’Occidente: Temi e metodi, Studi in onore di Angiola Maria Romanini. Edited by Antonio Cadei. Rome: Ed. Sintesi Informazione, 1999. Ilg, Ulrike. “Quasi lignum vitae: The Tree of Life as an Image of Mendicant Identity.” Pages 187–212 in The Tree: Symbol, Allegory and Mnemonic Device in Medieval Art and Thought. Edited by Pippa Salonius and Andrea Worm. IMR 20. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014. Irvine, Christopher. The Cross and Creation in Liturgy and Art. London: SPCK, 2013. Irvine, Christopher. “The Iconography of the Cross as the Green Tree.” Pages 195–207 in The Edinburgh Companion to the Bible and the Arts. Edited by Stephen Prickett. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014. Jensen, Robin M. The Cross: History, Art and Controversy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2017. Johnson, Mark J. “On the Burial Places of the Theodosian Dynasty.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 40 (1991): 501–506. Kanter, Laurence B. “Maestro delle Effigi Domenicane.” Pages 560–562 in Dizionario biografico degli miniatori italiani: Secoli IX–XVI. Edited by Milvia Bollati. Milan: Bonnard, 2004. Karnes, Michelle. Imagination, Meditation, and Cognition in the Middle Ages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. “The Genesis of the Family Tree.”I Tatti Studies in the Italian Renaissance 4 (1991): 105–129. Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. “The Tree.” Pages 293–314 in Finding Europe: Discourses on Margins, Communities, Images. Edited by Anthony Molho and Diogo Ramada Curto. New York: Berghahn Books, 2007. Kogman-Appel, Katrin. “Christianity, Idolatry and the Question of Jewish Figural Painting in the Middle Ages.” Speculum 84 (2009): 73–107. Kogman-Appel, Katrin. “Jewish Art and Cultural Exchange: Theoretical Perspectives.” Medieval Encounters 17 (2011): 1–26.

338

salonius

Kogman-Appel, Katrin. Jewish Book Art Between Islam and Christianity: The Decoration of Hebrew Bibles in Medieval Spain. Translated by Judith Davidson. Medieval and Early Modern Iberian World 19. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Kohl, Heinrich, and Karl Watzinger. Antike Synagogen in Galilaea. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1916. Krinsky, Carol Herselle. Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985. Ladner, Gerhart B. “Medieval and Modern Understanding of Symbolism: A Comparison.” Speculum 54 (1979): 223–256. Ladner, Gerhart B. “Vegetation Symbolism and the Concept of Renaissance.” Pages 727– 763 in vol. 2 of Images and Ideas in the Middle Ages: Selected Studies in History and Art. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1983. Lanfer, Peter Thacher. Remembering Eden: The Reception History of Genesis 3:22–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Lauria, Antonietta. “Un tema francescano nella Roma del Duecento: Il Lignum vitae e un’ipotesi sull’Aracoeli.” Pages 383–402 in Forme e Storia: Scritti di arte medievale e moderna per Francesco Gandolfo. Edited by Walter Angelelli and Francesca Pomarici. Rome: Artemide, 2011. Lehmijoki-Gardner, Maiju, ed. Dominican Penitent Women. CWS. New York: Paulist, 2005. Littlewood, Antony Robert, Henry Maguire, and Joachim Wolschke-Bulmahn, eds. Byzantine Garden Culture. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2002. Long, R. James. “Botany.” Pages 401–405 in Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide. Edited by F.A.C. Mantello and A.G. Rigg. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1996. Maguire, Henry. Earth and Ocean: The Terrestrial World in Early Byzantine Art. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1987. Maguire, Henry. Nectar and Illusion: Nature in Byzantine Art and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Mango, Marlia Mundell. Silver from Early Byzantium: The Kaper Koraon and Related Treasures. Baltimore: Trustees of the Walters Art Gallery, 1986. Mann, Vivian B. “The Artistic Culture of Prague Jewry.” Pages 83–89 in Prague: The Crown of Bohemia, 1347–1437. Edited by Barbara Drake Boehm and Jiří Fajt. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2005. Mardon, Ernest G. The Narrative Unity of the Cursor Mundi. Edited by Claire MacMaster. Edmonton: Golden Meteorite Press, 2012. Milani, Celestina. Itinerarium Antonini Placentini: Un viaggio in Terra Santa del 560–570 d.C. Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1977. Munns, John. Cross and Culture in Anglo-Norman England: Theology, Imagery, Devotion. BSMC. Woodridge: Boydell Press, 2016.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

339

Napier, Arthur Sampson. History of the Holy Rood Tree: A Twelfth Century Version of the Cross-Legend. London: Early English Text Society, 1894. Nerbano, Mara. Il teatro della devozione: Confraternite e spettacolo nell’Umbria medievale. Perugia: Morlacchi, 2006. Noga-Banai, Galit, and Linda Safran. “A Late Antique Silver Reliquary in Toronto.” Journal of Late Antiquity 4 (2011): 3–30. Norbye, Marigold. “Arbor genealogiae: Manifestations of the Tree in French Royal Genealogies.” Pages 69–93 in The Tree: Symbol, Allegory and Mnemonic Device in Medieval Art and Thought. Edited by Pippa Salonius and Andrea Worm. IMR 20. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014. Ó Carragáin, Éamonn. “Between Annunciation and Visitation: Spiritual Birth and the Cycles of the Sun on the Ruthwell Cross: A Response to Fred Orton.” Pages 131–187 in Theorizing Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Edited by Catherine Karkov and Fred Orton. Morgantown, VA: West Virginia University Press, 2003. Ó Carragáin, Éamonn. Ritual and the Rood: Liturgical Images and the Old English Poems of the Dream of the Rood Tradition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005. O’Connell, Patrick Francis. “The Lignum vitae of Saint Bonaventure and the Medieval Devotional Tradition.” PhD diss., Fordham University, 1985. O’Flynn, Donnel. Holy Cross, Life-giving Tree. New York: Church Publishing, 2017. O’Hear, Natasha, and Anthony O’Hear. Picturing the Apocalypse: The Book of Revelation in the Arts over Two Millenia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Opitz, Christian Nikolaus. “Genealogical Representations of Monastic Communities in Late Medieval Art.” Pages 183–202 in Meanings of Community across Medieval Eurasia: Comparative Approaches. Edited by Eirik Hovden, Christina Lutter, and Walter Pohl. Brill’s Series on the Early Middle Ages. Leiden: Brill, 2016. O’Reilly, Jennifer. “The Trees of Eden in Medieval Iconography.” Pages 167–204 in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden. Edited by Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer. JSOTSup 136. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Pasquini, Laura. “Il mosaico pavimentale della Cattedrale di Otranto.” Pages 70–101 in Tessere di storia: Dai mosaici di Pella alla Basilica di San Vitale. Edited by Federica Guidi. Bologna: Ante Quem, 2011. Pastoureau, Michel. “Bonum, Malum, Pomum: Une histoire symbolique de la pomme.” Pages 155–216 in L’Arbre: Histoire naturelle et symbolique de l’arbre, du bois et du fruit au Moyen Age. Paris: Le Léopard d’Or, 1993. Piccirillo, Michele. Chiese e mosaici di Madaba. SBFCMa 34. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1989. Preisinger, Raphaèle. Lignum vitae: Zum Verhältnis materieller Bilder und mentaler Bildpraxis im Mittelalter. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink, 2014. Reeves, Marjorie, and Beatrice Hirsch-Reich. The Figurae of Joachim of Fiore. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

340

salonius

Ricci, Fulvio. “Un raro tema iconografico: Il «Lignum Vitae Christi» di San Bonaventura nella chiesa di San Silvestro in Tuscania.” Biblioteca e Società 11 (1992): 27–29. Riccioni, Stefano. Il mosaico absidale di S. Clemente a Roma: Exemplum della chiesa riformata. Spoleto: CISAM, 2006. Ritchey, Sarah. Holy Matter: Changing Perceptions of the Material World in Late Medieval Christianity. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014. Rizzardi, Clementina. “Massimiano a Ravenna: La Cattedra eburnea del Museo Arcivescovile alla luce di nuove ricerche.” Pages 229–243 in Ideologia e cultura artistica tra Adriatico e Mediterraneo orientale IV–V secolo: Il ruolo dell’autorità ecclesiastica alla luce di nuovi scavi e ricerche. Edited by Raffaella Farioli Campanati. Bologna: Ante Quem, 2009. Rizzardi, Clementina. Il mausoleo di Galla Placidia a Ravenna. Modena: Panini, 1996. Rodov, Ilia M. “The Development of Medieval and Renaissance Sculptural Decoration in Ashkenazi Synagogues from Worms to the Cracow Area.” 5 vols. PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2003. Rodov, Ilia M. The Torah Ark in Renaissance Poland: A Jewish Revival of Classical Antiquity. JCPS 23. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Rose, Wolter H. Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period. LHBOTS 304. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Rossi, Marco. La sapienza e l’infinito: L’albero della vita nel mosaico di Otranto. Castel Bolognese: Itaca, 2006. Rowlatt, Ursula. “A Flowering Cross in the Robert de Lindesey Psalter, c. 1220–1222.” Folklore 110 (1999): 95–98. Rubin, Miri. Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Salonius, Pippa. “Arbor Jesse—Lignum vitae: The Tree of Jesse, the Tree of Life, and the Mendicants in Late Medieval Orvieto.” Pages 213–241 in The Tree: Symbol, Allegory and Mnemonic Device in Medieval Art and Thought. Edited by Pippa Salonius and Andrea Worm. IMR 20. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014. Salonius, Pippa, and Andrea Worm, eds. The Tree: Symbol, Allegory, and Mnemonic Device in Medieval Art and Thought. IMR 20. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014. Sancto Victore, Hugo de. De archa Noe: Libellus de formatione arche. Edited by Patrice Sicard. CCCM 176. Turnhout: Brepols, 2001. Schadt, Hermann. Die Darstellungen der Arbores consanguinitatis und der Arbores affinitatis: Bildschemata in juristischen Handschriften. Tübingen: Wasmuth, 1982. Schlosser, Marianne. “Bonaventure: Life and Works.” Translated by Angelica Kliem. Pages 9–59 in A Companion to Bonaventure. Edited by Jay M. Hammond, J.A. Wayne Hellmann, and Jared Goff. BCCT 48. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Scholem, Gershom. Origins of the Kabbalah. Edited by R.J. Zwi Werblowsky. Translated by Allan Arkush. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.

the tree of life in medieval iconography

341

Schubert, Kurt. “Jewish Art in the Light of the Jewish Tradition.” Pages 147–159 in Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval Christianity. Edited by Heinz Schreckenbert and Kurt Schubert. CRINT. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1992. Sicard, Patrice. “Hugh of Saint-Victor.” In Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages. Edited by André Vauchez. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 2002. Simbeni, Alessandro. “Gli affreschi di Taddeo Gaddi nel refettorio: Programma, committenza e datazione, con una postilla sulla diffusione del modello iconografico del Lignum vitae in Catalogna.” Pages 113–141 in Santa Croce: Oltre le apparenze. Edited by Andrea De Marchi e Giacomo Piraz. Pistoia: Gli Ori, 2011. Simbeni, Alessandro. “L’iconografia del Lignum vitae in Umbria nel XIV secolo e un ipotesi su un perduto prototipo di Giotto ad Assisi.” Franciscana 9 (2007): 149– 183. Simbeni, Alessandro. “Il Lignum vitae sancti Francisci in due dipinti di primo trecento a Padova e Verona.” Il Santo 46 (2006): 185–213. Simor, Suzanna B. “The Tree of the Credo: Symbolism of the Tree in Medieval Images of the Christian Creed.” Pages 45–54 in The Origins of Life: Vol. 1, The Primogenital Matrix of Life and Its Context. Edited by Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka. Analecta Husserliana 66. Dordrecht: Springer, 2000. Smith, Morton. Studies in the Cult of Yahweh, Volume 1: Studies in Historical Method, Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism. RGRW 130.1. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Stead, Michael R. The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8. LHBOTS 506. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Stern, David. The Jewish Bible: A Material History. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2017. Strickland, Debra Higgs. Saracens, Demons and Jews: Making Monsters in Medieval Art. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003. Stroll, Mary. Symbols as Power: The Papacy following the Investiture Contest. BSIH 24. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Teuscher, Simon. “Flesh and Blood in the Treatises on the Arbor Consanguinitatis (Thirteenth to Sixteenth Centuries).” Pages 83–104 in Blood and Kinship: Matter for Metaphor from Ancient Rome to the Present. Edited by Christopher H. Johnson, Bernhard Jussen, David Warren Sabean, and Simon Teuscher. New York: Berghahn Books, 2013. Thomson, Margaret H., ed. The Symbolic Garden: Reflections Drawn from a Garden of Virtues. A XIIth Century Greek Manuscript. North York, Ontario: Captus Press, 1989. Thunø, Eric. Image and Relic: Mediating the Sacred in Early Medieval Rome. Rome: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider, 2002. Todi, Jacopone da. Le laude. Edited by Luigi Fallacara. Florence: Libreria Editrice Fiorentina, 1955.

342

salonius

Todi, Jacopone da. The Lauds. Translated by Serge Hughes and Elizabeth Hughes. New York: Paulist, 1982. Tomei, Alessandro. Iacobus Torriti pictor: Una vicenda figurativa del tardo Duecento romano. Rome: Argos, 1990. Torrell, Jean Pierre. Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Person and His Work. Translated by Robert Royal. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005. Tronzo, William. “The Mantle of Roger of Sicily.” Pages 241–253 in Robes and Honour: The Medieval World of Investiture. Edited by Stewart Gordon. New York: Palgrave, 2001. Ungruh, Christine. Das Bodenmosaik der Kathedrale von Otranto (1163–1165): Normannische Herrscherideologie als Endseitvision. Korb: Didymos-Verlag, 2013. Vasari, Giorgio. Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors and Architects. Translated by Gaston du C. de Vere. London: MacMillan, 1912–1914. Velmans, Tania. “L’Arbre de Jessé en Orient Chrétien.” Deltion (2005): 125–140. Venantius Fortunatus. Opere. 2 vols. Edited by Stefano Di Brazzano. CSEA 8. Rome: Città Nuova, 2001. Venantius Fortunatus. Poems: Venantius Fortunatus. Edited and translated by Michael Roberts. DOML 46. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2017. Vilímková, Milada. “Seven Hundred Years of the Old-New Synagogue.” Judaica Bohemiae 5 (1969): 72–83. Voragine, Jacobus de. The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints. Translated by William Granger Ryan. Introduced by Eamon Duffy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Walsh, Peter G., ed. One Hundred Latin Hymns: Ambrose to Aquinas. With Christopher Husch. DOML 18. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012. Walters, Barbara A. “Diffusion of the Feast through Social Networks.” Pages 25–35 in The Feast of Corpus Christi. Edited by Barbara A. Walters, Vincent Corrigan, and Peter T. Ricketts. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006. Walz, Angelus. “Von Dominikanerstammbäumen.” Archivium Frantrum Praedicatorum 34 (1964): 231–275. Ward, William Hayes. The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution, 1910. Watson, Arthur. The Early Iconography of the Tree of Jesse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932. Weitzmann, Kurt, and Herbert L. Kessler. The Frescoes of the Dura Europos Synagogue and Christian Art. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1990. Wilkinson, John. Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades. Warminster: Aris & Philips, 1977. Wittekind, Susanne. “Visualising Salvation: The Role of Arboreal Imagery in the Speculum humanae salvationis (Kremsmünster, Library of the Convent, Cod. 243).” Pages

the tree of life in medieval iconography

343

117–142 in The Tree: Symbol, Allegory and Mnemonic Device in Medieval Art and Thought. Edited by Pippa Salonius and Andrea Worm. IMR 20. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014. Wood, Jeryldene M. Women, Art and Spirituality: The Poor Clares of Early Modern Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Worm, Andrea. “Arbor autem humanum genus significat: Trees of Genealogy and Sacred History in the Twelfth Century.” Pages 35–67 in The Tree: Symbol, Allegory and Mnemonic Device in Medieval Art and Thought. Edited by Pippa Salonius and Andrea Worm. IMR 20. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014. Yarden, Leon. The Tree of Light: A Study of the Menorah. London: East and West Library, 1971. Young, Frances M. Construing the Cross: Type, Sign, Symbol, Word, Action. London: SPCK, 2016.

chapter 13

The Tree of Life in the North G. Ronald Murphy, S.J.

The tree is there in the mental world of the North as well. In the poetry of Genesis, the two trees are there in the middle of the Garden of the human spiritual world: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil from which the first man and woman ate, and the tree of life from which they did not eat. Christian poetry would rescue Adam and Eve by putting them in communion with Christ on a wooden tree they saw as the tree of life. The tree in the mythology of the north, Yggdrasil (Woden’s Ride), is similar and different. It is not in a garden but at the farthermost point of the north, pointing to the north star around which all the world turns. It is the greatest of all trees, overshadowing all things in the universe, with a place for gods and stars, men and plants and animals in its branches. Its existence is always threatened by the deer and snakes that are forever gnawing at its branches and roots, but it is always kept alive by the three Norns: past wurd, present verdanti, and future skuld, who constantly pour water on its trunk from the well of time at the tree’s base. The tree is also the source of the communication of knowledge, though not necessarily of good and evil, between the eagle at the top and the Nidhogg serpent at the bottom by means of Ratatosk, a running squirrel. It is not known what the nature of the tree is, but it is an evergreen and called an ash. The runic letters for communicating over time and space are carved into twigs from the tree by the Norns themselves and thus can be used by those who can read them to forecast future events. The most important special function of Yggdrasil is at the time of the end of the world, Ragnarok. At the end when all is perishing, sun and moon, gods and men, the tree Yggdrasil will begin to tremble and shake when it sees that the last boy and girl, man and woman, whose names are ‘Life’ and ‘Life Thriving’ are about to die. At that point the Tree will open and admit them into its trunk, and will then close and protect them all through the end of the world, feeding them with the dew of the morning. When the end is over, the Tree will reopen and release the two to populate the now renewed world. That this myth was not rejected by Christians was recently evidenced again in England where in November of 2016 an entire cemetery of Anglo-Saxons was discovered at Great Ryburgh in East Anglia.1 All eighty four burials consisted of tree trunks that had been split longitudinally and hollowed out top and bottom,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423756_015

the tree of life in the north

345

or made of joined staves, to form a bed and lid, in a form of burial known since the Bronze Age. How can one know that these 7th to 9th century tree trunk burials were not pagan? They were all empty of grave goods and weapons for Valhalla, and were pointing not north, but oriented to the rising sun. If to enter the Tree of Life is the northern image for rescue from death and doomsday, what then would be the most appropriate shape for a church?2

1

Yggdrasil and the Stave Church

The Heliand, with appropriate alliteration, calls the cross on Calvary a bôm an berege, a “tree on a mountain,” an appropriate designation with which to begin this study of the relationship between a tree and a church. The stave church has been the subject of much research and appreciation, the majority of which has focused on the stave church’s remarkable and long-lasting wooden construction. The debate continues to this day on how much of the stave church’s style is an import from the continental South, the basilica translated into wood; how much is from the Celtic, Anglo-Saxon church of the British Isles; and how much is from the North. The focus of this paper is on the North, the role of Germanic religion and myth in the style, with the aim of attempting to interpret the overall meaning of the design of the stave church. Peter Anker and Paul Hamlyn’s wide-ranging study of the question accepts Andreas Bugge’s rejection of the view that the portals of the stave church, for example, normally had no specific Christian content and that the portals were purely decorative in intention. They also look positively on his suggestion that the portal ornamentation might be allegorical pagan iconography of Christian ideas. They add, however, “In fact this question has never been subject to serious scholarly investigation, and Bugge never did discuss the matter in detail.”3 To which one could add: unfortunately. This I would like to address in some small way. It is my theory that a good model for attempting an approach to understanding the religious meaning and style of the stave church is the Heliand. In the Heliand, the story of salvation by Christ is told in the language and poetry of the north, the poet imagining cultural equivalencies in order to transform the 1 Lucia Marchini, “Great Ryburgh: A Remarkable Anglo-Saxon Cemetery Revealed,” Current Archaeology, December 1, 2016. 2 The remainder of this chapter is an excerpt from my Tree of Salvation: Yggdrasil and the Cross in the North (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). 3 Peter Anker, The Art of Scandinavia, vol. 1 (London: Hamlyn, 1970), 416.

346

murphy

gospel story into an epic, often while retaining the original as well. One of my favorite examples is the scene of the Annunciation, where the term “grace” is both translated and also repeated literally, a poetic technique of creating rhyming concepts through analogy or parallelism. Instead of “Hail Mary, full of grace,” the angel Gabriel is made to speak two languages: first he says to Mary, “Your Lord is very fond of you,” thus touchingly interpreting grace as God’s fondness, and then he adds literally from the Latin text as well, “woman full of grace.”4 Even the fate of Judas is given in both languages. Judas hangs himself, as in the Bible, but the Heliand author also adds, “cruel things started going into his body, horrible little creatures, Satan wrapped himself tightly around his heart.”5 A sad echo of the fate of the Gunnar who betrayed Siegfried and who for his disloyalty was thrown into a snake pit. Perhaps more important for us here is the analogy in the Heliand drawn between the cross and the tree, the cross as bôm an berege, a tree on a mountain.6 In the Heliand’s crucifixion scene, Mary under the cross is described as standing under the tree, Christ is described both as being nailed to the cross and also as hanging by a rope from the tree, and when he is stabbed with the lance, the size and power of the lance and its thrust are made so impressive that an echo of Woden’s stabbing on the tree Yggdrasil is hard to miss.7 I would like to suggest that this particular style of creative (and retentive) transformation of the gospel story into Germanic story images and events is the poetic key to the transformation of the church building into the stave church. The church is the holy place, the site of the protective presence of Christ, and above all the place of the act of salvation in the mystery of the Mass and the sacraments. How does one express “holy place,” “site of rescue from annihilation,” in the Nordic world? Does Nordic myth have any appropriate analogy— even one that may have already been influenced by Christian story?8 Snorri

4 The Heliand: The Saxon Gospel, trans. and comment. G. Ronald Murphy, S.J. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 12. 5 Heliand, 152. 6 See especially Songs 65 and 66: the cross as “a new gallows, the wooden tree,” “hewn with batt leaxes,” “out of a hardwood tree,” Pilate’s inscription is “wisely cut into the wood.” Christ hangs from a “criminal tree.” Heliand, 182–188. 7 The name Yggdrasil alludes to this event. Ygg: “Awesome One” [Odin] + drasil: “horse, mount, steed.” The tree acting as a gallows for his death is thus the “horse” that he “rode” in dying. “Odin’s horse” is a kenning for that mythic evergreen ash, just as “whale road” is for the sea. 8 Because pagan beliefs and practices have been transmitted through Christian writers, some believe that the descriptions of paganism stand under some Christian influence. This seems plausible to me, particularly in the case of the spear thrust in the hanging of Woden/Odin on Yggdrasil, and as an offering of himself to himself, a formula in the Byzantine liturgy.

the tree of life in the north

347

Sturluson (1179–1241) gives the familiar answer in the Gylfaginning that the chief holy place is at the tree Yggdrasil: Then spoke Gangleri: “Where is the chief center or holy place of the gods?” High replied: “It is at the ash Yggdrasil. There the gods hold their courts each day.” Then spoke Gangleri: “What is there to tell about that place?” Then said Just-as-High: “The ash is of all trees the biggest and best. Its branches spread out over all the world and extend across the sky.”9 In the Poetic (Elder) Edda, the seeress adds in the Voluspa that this unusual tree, which is called an ash, is evergreen. I know that an ash-tree stands called Yggdrasill, a high tree, soaked with shining loam; from there come the dews which fall in the valley, ever green, it stands over the well of fate10 (stendr æ of grœnn Urþar brunni).11 The ecclesiastical holy place in the South is the basilica. The basilica shape so common and appropriate in Mediterranean Christianity suggests an analogy of the church to the Roman magistrate’s court, a long, horizontally extended, rectangular building embodying the law-administering authority of the king, the basileus, with the magistrate seated separately at the far end in an apse as judge to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. The stave church retains some of the basilica in often having a choir and apse; the sanctuary, separated from the main body; and the nave. But there is also an additional transformation of “holy place” and “site of rescue” into the tree language of the North as well, with a shorter, more square nave and powerful staves to facilitate a vertical extension. The Christian language of salvation in the North seems to have been aware of the Germanic story of ultimate salvation, one not based on a story tradition of the protective power of law and authority but based on a story tradition long known and familiar in Norse and Germanic society. The protection and salvation of the human race by rescuing the last boy and girl, 9 10 11

Snorri Sturluson, Edda, trans. and ed. Anthony Faulkes, Everyman (London: J.M. Dent), 17. The Poetic Edda, trans. Carolyne Larrington (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 6. The Elder or Poetic Edda, Part 1—The Mythological Poems (London: The Viking Club, 1908), 282.

348

murphy

Lif and Lifthrasir, at the end of time would be accomplished by the Tree of Universal Life, Yggdrasil, by hiding and protecting them throughout the calamity and by feeding them with the tree’s dew. My suggestion is that the stave church is a Christian Yggdrasil, based on the poetic insight that there is an appropriate analogue in the North by which to express the concept of the place of salvation: it is to translate salvation as the inner space of Yggdrasil, the holy wooden place of protection at doomsday, and that at the heart of the evergreen tree’s space is Christ on his wooden tree, the cross. I will try to substantiate this interpretation by looking at three aspects of the stave church: (1) the shape, (2) the portals and door, and (3) the interior; and by interpreting several of the allusions and symbols found in the poetic form of stave churches, principally in that of Borgund in connection with shape, Urnes in connection with the portal, and Uvdal from the point of view of the interior. Finally, we will take a look at the famous Swedish tapestry from Skog, which actually shows a functioning medieval stave church. I visited many of these churches to get a firsthand feel for them, and also because, though all have some of the aspects, no one of them has all the tree aspects to the same degree. And I wanted to know what it was like to walk into them. There were some surprises. First, Peter Anker’s definition of stave church: The Norwegian word stav,12 which means pole, applies to the corner posts and columns which are essential for upholding the entire structure, and for joining the fundamental chassis to the upper braces. The stav, or pole is the most obvious characteristic of these buildings … the stave church can be defined as a wooden building constructed with timber balks and posts linked to frames, the frames being put together into three-dimensional, cubic structures, with the covering materials—the wall planks—fitted into the frames where convenient. In addition to this, the stave system implies a number of advanced technical solutions— bracing, joining, shoring, etc., which are necessary for its final architectural expression. [He goes on to say what a stave building is not: a building with horizontal logs like a log cabin.]13 This is a good technical definition of the wooden construction of the churches. It is significant that no attempt is made at defining the church part of the “building.” From this the reader can see an indication that the greatest fascina12 13

The English word stave, as in barrel stave, is related; as is the word staff, a pole held in the hand. Anker, Art of Scandinavia, 377–378.

the tree of life in the north

349

tion has been with the amazing survival of 800-year-old wooden buildings, and with their truly fascinating manner of construction. The interpretation of their meaning has been neglected in comparison. The building of stave churches is dated from about the middle to late eleventh century, with the twenty-eight that are still in existence dating from about 1130 until 1350—about the time of the black plague. There is evidence of earlier structures on the sites of several churches whose current building dates to the twelfth century. In one case, at Urnes, excavators found a coin under a posthole dating from the time of Harald Hardrada, who died in 1066 AD.14 Since the official date for Norway’s conversion to Christianity is 1000, these unique churches and their predecessors stem from early stages of conversion and Christian-Germanic accommodation, and continued to be built for almost 300 years. I am sure there is some question as to whether the Anglo-Saxon missionaries from the British Isles would have felt at home using pre-Christian, pagan ideas of a holy site for a Christian church in Norway. In this connection it is useful to recall the famous letter of Pope Gregory the Great (590–604) to the Abbot Mellitus to establish policy for the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons themselves. He says he has been thinking about the issue of the conversion of the English for a long time, then: Tell Augustine [St. Augustine of Canterbury] that he should by no means destroy the temples of the gods but rather the idols within them. For, if those temples are well built, they should be converted from the worship of demons to the service of the true God. [Nam, si fana eadem bene constructa sunt, necesse est, ut a cultu daemonum in obsequio veri Dei debeant commutari]. Thus, seeing that their places of worship are not destroyed, the people will banish error from their hearts and come to places familiar and dear to them in acknowledgment and worship of the true God. Further, since it has been their custom to slaughter oxen in sacrifice, they should receive some solemnity in exchange. Let them therefore, on the day of the dedication of their churches … build themselves huts around their one-time temples and celebrate the occasion with religious feasting … if they are not deprived of all exterior joys, they will more easily taste

14

This is the Viking king Harald Sigurdsson who invaded northern England in 1066 to press a claim for the throne and who fell at the battle of Stamford Bridge outside York. The place and timing of his invasion in the North was a help to William the Conqueror, whose almost simultaneous invasion, also in claim of the throne, was in the distant South. The resultant Anglo-Saxon forced marches to the South may have resulted in the Normans facing a less than fresh army at the battle of Hastings.

350

murphy

the interior ones. For, surely it is impossible to efface all at once everything from their strong minds, just as when one wishes to reach the top of a mountain, he must climb by stages and step by step, not by leaps and bounds …15 Gregory’s approach to the conversion of the North was that of moderation and cultural accommodation. The word he used above to express his idea that the pagan temples, fana, should not be destroyed but be converted—com-mutari [lit. “co-” + “changed”]—is far closer to a notion of fair or appropriate exchange, in the respectful style of the Heliand, than to that of the tree-felling St. Boniface and the Irminsul destruction of Charlemagne. Though the idols must go, the temples, if well-built and based on beautiful tales, well, that is another story, a tradition long practiced in Rome itself. Few wooden structures are as well-built as the stave churches, as time has shown. Because of their closeness to the end of the Viking period, and because of the use of several ship-building techniques, the Norwegian stave churches have been associated with the Vikings. There is evidence for this. There are truly remarkable support arches in the church, which, despite appearing to be perfect arches, are actually composed of two “knees” joined by being “fished” together. Both knees and fishing are techniques used by the Vikings in wooden boat building. Knees are naturally curved wood taken from the part of the tree where the roots turn on an angle to become the tree trunk. Knees are much stronger than wood sawn into a curve. Fishing is a technique of joining two pieces of wood together on an angle, a bit similar to that used in botanical grafting, in which, for example, one piece of a mast is joined to another. The arches in the stave churches are so well made, the two halves so well joined, or fished, by a diagonal juncture at the center of the arch, that at first glance the arch does not look like two knees but like one sawn arch. However, this having been said, the joining of the main staves themselves to one another by inlet bracing and high sills, with tongue-and-groove joining of the vertical wall planks to one another and to the corner staves, indicates to me that landsmen, professional carpenters, were also at work. Sailors will know of the Norwegian lapstrake or clinker-built16 technique of planking the hulls of Viking ships—no

15 16

http://www.fordham.edu/; also in Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica I, 30; and in PL 77: 1215–1216. A Viking shipbuilding technique in which the horizontal strakes, planks, of the hull are made to overlap each other, not to join edge to edge. The Oseberg ship and the two others in the Viking Ship Museum in Oslo are examples. The hull itself is thus such a strong, integral unit that it does not need the extensive internal bracing that a carvel-built [edge to edge planking] boat must have.

the tree of life in the north

351

trace exists of that method of joining and waterproofing that I have seen in the stave churches, only the tongue-and-groove method with vertical planks, not strakes. It seems that those Vikings who stayed at home and built temples and halls passed on their brilliant techniques every bit as well as those who sailed the sea did. “Norway spruce (Picea abies) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) provided most of the construction timber” for the stave churches, notes a lumber expert17 speaking of the church at Borgund, and that is not surprising since a drive through southern and central Norway shows that the conifers, rising exceptionally straight and as high as giant lodgepole pines, seem like an unending carpet for the country. It seems at first, however, that ash would be the preferred wood for a stave church that is an allusion to Yggdrasil. However, there must have been some considerations. The first is poetic: the northern ash is deciduous; the leaves fall with the coming of winter. The pine as candidate for Yggdrasil, tree of life, has the distinct advantage, comforting in the long winter, of displaying that it is alive by remaining ever green. There may also have been two more practical considerations, abundance and flexibility. The evergreen conifer is extremely abundant, straight-trunked, resinous, and strong in Norway, ideal for building. I do not believe that the ash is as abundant, as resinous, or as straight and strong. Ash-wood in short lengths combines toughness with a high degree of flexibility that makes ash ideal wood for oars and hand weapons associated with Odin such as spear shafts and axe handles, as well as gallows for hanging.18 This might make ash less than suitable for tall church construction where flexibility might not be thought of as a virtue by the congregation underneath the high roof. The mysterious ever-green tree was the most suitable wood for creating a wooden building to parallel Yggdrasil, the tree that is, in any case, so holy and mysterious and its roots so deep that no one really knows where they come from, keeping its profound and enduring nature beyond human ken. The abundant pine tree provided not only the wood for the church, but also the pine tar or pitch to act as a sealant with which to paint and waterproof it, and, I would like to suggest, to be the very model for the shape of the stave church. The matter and form of the edifice, in good Aristotelian style, are in harmony. No attempt is made to twist the roof to resemble the ash. A surprise for me was that a tarred stave church can actually be smelled as you approach it—it has a distinct smoky pine odor. The church betrays in many ways the tree from which it is made.

17 18

Aljos Farjon in his A Natural History of Conifers (Portland, OR: Timber Press, 2008), 208. And in the United States, of course, for baseball bats.

352 2

murphy

The Shape

The resemblance of the roof structure to the cascading branches of an evergreen is unmistakable as one approaches the church at Borgund. This church is so well preserved, and has been so little altered over the intervening eight centuries to our time, that it has become the most accepted archetype of the stave church and is most worth studying. Since we are dealing with the perception of form, it is worth contemplating the shape that the roof structure gives the church, that of an evergreen. As one approaches the church from a distance it looks like a dark pine tree in a forest, with the familiar conical, Christmas tree shape as it stands on the lower part of what becomes a steep, wooded slope. With other trees around it, it looks different from them by its darkness, caused by the coating of pine tar.19 As you get closer it looms up higher and higher with the ascending gables and roofs creating the illusion of layers of pine branches. Finally, as one stands at the western entrance and looks up, the pine tree effect is enhanced by looking at seven roofs, one on top of the other. In ascending order, the lowest and broadest roof covers the walkway or ambulatory that surrounds the whole church; it has a shingled gable over the entrance. This is topped by a second roof, slightly smaller in diameter, also with gables parallel to the lower roof, which covers the side aisles inside the wall staves. A bit higher there is another quite small gabled roof above the west window. A fourth roof covers the nave of the church, and a fifth peaked roof covers the small bell tower or turret that rides saddleback on the nave roof below it. Above the bell turret there are two more roof structures, functionally unnecessary, but contributing mightily to a vertical succession of diminishing roofs and gables, two small peaks with a terminal spire that give the clear impression of the peak of a pine tree. This is an impression that is curiously and effectively strengthened by the almost dominating presence of shingles that completely cover every roof, the external round staves, and the outer walls of the church except for the sides of the ambulatory and of the bell turret. Anders Bugge noticed this as well when he wrote: The wooden shingles which covered the six roofs [he is most likely not counting the small roof over the west window as a seventh] and most of the side walls beneath them, provide a surface effect similar in appear19

The current approach lane to the Borgund church is from the north; thus the church appears dark for two reasons: the sun is on the opposite side of the building, casting the north side in shadow, and the tar coating lasts much longer on the side not exposed to sunlight.

the tree of life in the north

353

ance to a pine cone. In the same way the tall, slender pyramid-shaped building reminds us of the fir … The many roofs of the church, decreasing in size with height, are a striking parallel to the clustered branches which narrow towards the top of the tree.20 And I might add, the flat, lozenge shape and regularity of the shingles with their sawn-off tips immediately suggest the cones of the Norway spruce. Unfortunately, Bugge did not use this very accurate observation to go any further toward an interpretation of its significance in signaling the identity to the stave church. But we are neglecting the most obvious and most striking element of all (fig. 13.1). On the upper roofs of the church there are large serpent heads projecting from the gables, heads erect and alert, tongues extended, jaws partly open, ready to bite. Then, placed parallel to the snakes on the two lower roofs, are wooden crosses above the peaks of the gables. The combination is the most striking feature of the roof profile—striking, but like a striking contradiction. What religious evergreen could there be that is associated with snakes? And how could it be associated with Christianity? Though many think that the snake heads and the crosses are there to repel evil spirits from a holy building, I think they serve another purpose that is more important. They serve to give a holy identification to the building. Three roots there grow in three directions under the ash of Yggdrasil; Hel lives under one, under the second the frost-giants, the third, humankind … More serpents lie under the ash of Yggdrasil than any fool can imagine: Goin and Moin, they are Grafvitner’s sons, Grabak and Grafvollud, Ofnir and Svafnir I think for ever will bite on the tree’s branches [meiþs kwistu]. The ash of Yggdrasil suffers agony more than men will know: a deer bites it from above, and it decays at the sides, and the Nidhogg [serpent] rends it beneath.21 (Grimnismal)

20 21

Anders Bugge, Norwegian Stave Churches (Oslo: Dreyers Forlag, 1953), 13. Poetic Edda, trans. Larrington, 56–57.

354

figure 13.1

murphy

A view of the Borgund church from the west southwest, showing the tiers of roofs as they decrease in size as the eye goes upward, suggesting the shape of a pine or spruce tree. The bell tower rides saddleback on the third roof and has sides that are carved with openwork to let the bells’s sound pass. The next two roofs constructed above the bell tower seem to have no structural function except that of giving to the building the shape and profile of an evergreen tree

the tree of life in the north

355

There is not only the Nidhogg serpent devouring corpses and the roots of the tree beneath, there are also countless snakes in the tree itself, in the branches. In other words, the Grimnismal’s depiction shows that snakes should be in and on the gables of the stave church if it is a representation of the suffering and holy tree Yggdrasil. In the rhyming-concept style of the Heliand, the roof shape and snake ornaments address the observer of the church in Germanic, the cross ornaments address the observer in Christian; both saying in alternate languages: this site is holy; you are near the place of the Norns, near the well of life and threat of doom and death, you are standing under the tree; realize that here you are near Calvary and standing under the cross. This is the place and here is the mysterious wood where the ancestral, predictive Edda stories tell of the hanging sacrifice, the offering of Odin to himself, god to god. This is the sacred wood where it came to pass, where God the Son hung, offering himself as a sacrifice to God the Father “once, and for all.” In the Poetic Edda Odin speaks about his death on this tree whose origin and nature no one knows: I know that I hung on a windy22 tree nine long nights, wounded with a spear, dedicated to Odin, myself to myself,23 on that tree of which no man knows from where its roots run.24 (Havamal) Parallels were present. In the Gospel stories of Jesus’s death, Jesus also complains that he is thirsty and bemoans his abandonment by the Father, and at the end commends his spirit into the Father’s hands. There is also the spear. “When the soldiers came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.”25 Alluding to the death of Odin by the shape of a Christian church building—the church in Hegge, at the top of a stave, actually has a depiction of Odin’s head as he is being strangled by 22 23

24 25

“Windy” helps identify the tree as the one on top of which the great eagle fans his wings, creating the winds, Yggdrasil. This line seems to echo the formula of sacrifice used of Christ in the Eastern (Byzantine) Eucharist. Addressing God the Father the priest says: “we offer to you yours of your own.” This formula could have reached the North perhaps by way of the Rus or possibly by way of Christian Vikings returning from mercenary service for Constantinople. Poetic Edda, trans. Larrington, 34. Jn 19:33–34.

356

murphy

the rope—makes the Germanic religion serve as a recontextualization for the Christian mystery. In the New Testament, events from the Old Testament are used to explain and prophesy, to contextualize, those of the New. Christ’s death is an “Exodus,” he is the new “Passover Lamb.” He will bring a new and better “Exodus”: not from Egypt to Palestine but from earth to heaven. In the stave churches, as in the Heliand, local religious tradition is made instead to serve this purpose. Christ’s death was, like Odin’s, a death on a Tree. It is therefore a mysterious death—whose roots no one knows. Stabbed with the spear, Odin in his death reached down and seized the powerful runes and gave them and their magic to mankind; Christ, stabbed with the spear, poured out his blood and water, giving them, his sacred runes, to mankind in baptism and Holy Communion. To use the Germanic religion as an interpretive context for the Crucifixion only adds another layer of meaning to the richness which comes from using the Hebrew Torah and prophets for this purpose.

3

The Portals

The western portals of the great stone cathedrals in continental Europe depict the last judgment. Christ is enthroned in the place of judgment above, the scales are under him weighing the souls of the just and the unjust, and the angels are leading the good to paradise on his right and the devils are busy leading the bad off to the jaws of hell. The scene above the main door to the cathedral urges the Christian to hurry inside so as to be one of those on the right. In the North this is doomsday, Ragnarok. After the succession of three mighty winters without spring or summer, the unmitigated violence among animals, the elements of heat and cold, and human beings will begin: Brother will fight brother and be his slayer, brother and sister will violate the bond of kinship; hard it is in the world, there is much adultery, axe-age, sword-age, shields are cleft asunder, wind-age [winter], wolf-age, before the world plunges headlong; no man will spare another. … Heimdall blows loudly, his horn is in the air. … Yggdrasil shudders, the tree standing upright, the ancient tree groans and the giant is loose; all are terrified on the roads to hell,

the tree of life in the north

357

before Surt’s kin [flames] swallows it up. … Surt comes from the south with the harm of branches26 … Men tread the road to hell and the sky splits apart. [Oden is swallowed by the cosmic wolf; Thor by the earth-encircling serpent] Then the powerful, mighty one, he who rules over everything, will come from above, to the judgment place of the gods.27 There comes the dark dragon flying, the shining serpent, up from the Dark-of-moon hills; Nidhogg flies over the plain, in his wings he carries corpses …28 (Voluspa) The portals of the stave churches depict doomsday as conspecific violence even with the winged serpent Nidhogg present. Many of the portals have winged serpents at the top of the arch, blowing an evil wind across the nine worlds. In a few cases the violent judgment of evil takes place. In the Hylestad portal, now a part of the antiquities collection of the university museum in Oslo, Siegfried is shown stabbing the dragon from below and then running his sword through the heart of the treacherous Regin so that blood is spurting from his chest, back, and mouth. Just above on the left side of the same portal, the traitorous Gunnar is in the snake pit. The great majority of the magnificently carved portals, however, depict writhing snakes, dragons, griffins, and even bears29 intertwined in violent conflict with one another, twisting and turning in and out of the entangling vines, leaves, and branches. In some cases the snake and dragon tails become vegetation, their tails turning into lilies, letting the observer know that the carver was aware that he was telling a story: a violent myth of life at the end as mortal conflict with the mutual eating, biting, and destroying of one another. Perhaps the most famous of these portals, and seemingly the oldest, is at Urnes in Sognefjord. I took the journey to the little church on the hill side

26 27 28 29

“The harm of branches” is a kenning for fire, forest fire. Surt is the leader of the fire-giants. These two stanzas sound like a Christian insertion, saying that God will come to the sacred place of the tree Yggdrasil, the well, and the Norns. This would fit with the stave church. Excerpted from the Poetic Edda, trans. Larrington, 10–13. Bears fighting, with one attempting to bite the tongue out of the mouth of the other are at the top of the right door jamb at the western portal of the stave church in Heddal in Telemark.

358

murphy

through some of the most beautiful scenery in the world. Norway’s fjords, especially the Sognefjord, are breathtaking. As I crossed the ice-cold, blue-green water, I looked up at the walls of stone on both sides, and up and down the immense stretch of mountain on both sides, awestruck at the beauty of the canyon-like walls and the snow-covered peaks in the distance. To get to Urnes, it is necessary to take a second ferry across a smaller fjord, since there is no real roadway to the stave church except by circling around the entire length of the fjord. When you reach the landing on the far side, you realize there is now a hillside to climb in the heat, and the locals told us that pilgrims had made this route uncomplaining even in their times, and probably in medieval times as well. The view from the church, as with many of the stave churches, is spectacular. One of the reasons that the churches truly have to make an impression is to counterbalance the overpowering sight of the mountains and the fjord, visible right from their front door. And the doorway makes an impression (fig. 13.2). Using the language of the Elder Edda, the visitor is told how important and holy is the door he or she is about to open. The door is simply surrounded with whorls of writhing snakes and vines. The tangle is so perfectly executed in a welter of animal elongation and plant reduction to vines, that it is difficult to identify where a head begins or where a tail finally ends, if at all, or to trace what seems like a joint to a neck or a leg or a vine. The main point seems to be the intertwinedness itself of all living things, animal or vegetable, in one huge tangle. On the right hand side, about one-third of the way from the bottom a serpent is even emitting a fleur-de-lis from its mouth. So well done is this doorway that it and its imitators are referred to by art historians as exemplifying the Urnes style. Now as one looks at the left side of the doorway there is one animal standing on four legs that is simply startling in the clarity of its depiction. It has been called a lion and explained as the Lion of Judah (Christ) fighting with evil. I think that such an interpretation makes the mistake of using an inappropriately biblical explanation when the artist by his very Viking-like pictorial style, as well as his tangle of animal and plants, tells you he is here using a Germanic one. If you look at the animal you can see that he is eating at the vine or branch which in turn is a serpent biting at him in the neck (fig. 13.3). Look at the animal’s head and you can see two small horns protruding— that animal is a young male deer, a hart. Now it becomes clear, it is not the Old Testament that is giving the context here for the meaning of the portal; this is an allusion to the Elder Edda and its description of Yggdrasil as the suffering tree with many serpents forever biting on its twigs and branches,

the tree of life in the north

figure 13.2

359

The magnificent portal now placed on the north side of the church at Urnes in Norway. It was probably the principal entryway on the western end of the 1070 AD church, symbolically powerful but perhaps a bit narrow for practical use. The entrance may have had to be widened, and these staves removed, but they were saved by being used on the north wall. A deer with head thrown back is on the left side; a snake emitting a fleur-de-lis on the right. The artist has deliberately created a combination of life forms—deer, snake, branch, and vine—so interwoven by elongated, coiling forms, that the eye does not make a ready distinction between the intertwined living things of the tree of life— with the significant exception of the deer with his head thrown back to feed on the tree and being bitten by a serpent

360

murphy

figure 13.3

Close up of the deer eating at the tree of the vine-branch-snake as it in turn bites him in the neck

as those twigs and branches are also being devoured by a hart.30 The tradition of the single deer may also come from a previous stanza in the Grimnismal where the hart is named: “Eikthyrnir [Oak-thorn] is the hart’s name, who stands on the Father of Hosts’ hall and grazes Laerad’s [kenning for Yggdrasil] branches; and from his horns liquid drips into Hvergelmir [seething cauldron], from thence all waters have their flowing.”31 In any case, the carver has simply drawn the inference that the branches/snakes would defend themselves as well as they could by biting back at the deer. All of this serves quite deliberately to identify the portal as Yggdrasil. But if this is so of the doorway, what of the door? 30

31

In the stanza preceding the serpent stanza, it is also mentioned that there are four deer gnawing at the branches. This would give the artist the choice of using one or four deer to identify the doorway as Yggdrasil. Poetic Edda, trans. Larrington, 55 and n., 270.

the tree of life in the north

361

The artist has associated the door with the portal by the sparest and most ingenious of means. At the top of the door a section of vine-serpents overhangs the door itself, not just a feat of carving, but it also makes the door belong to the life tangle on both sides of it. Then, he has changed the door from a flat, nondescript surface to a surface carrying low relief whorls of vine and animal. The low relief serves both to make the door different and yet to keep it closely associated with the door jambs’ vines and serpents. If the door jambs depict the branches and the deer then the door between them must be the tree trunk: the tree trunk of Yggdrasil being gnawed at by the deer with the short horns. The two hinges can just be seen on the right side; the larger is about one-fifth of the way from the bottom. To enter the door of the Urnes stave church is to enter Yggdrasil. That this theme or insight may have been commonly understood can be seen not just in Norway, but also on the famous door of the stone church at Roglösa in Sweden. This door is interpreted often as being a saint’s legend or as a pastoral hunting scene above with a garden of Eden or last judgment scene below.32 In my opinion the door could just as easily be seen as representing the “last days” in Germanic form. Such a reading of the wrought iron on the door accounts for more of the figures present. Examining the bottom left we see the first clue: a large serpent is slithering toward a tree, his eye on its roots. This must be the Nidhogg. (If it were Satan, by tradition it would be higher up in the tree and have the customary apple in its mouth, Lucifer having no known taste for roots.) The tree whose roots are about to be gnawed is unusual in that all its branches, which are writhing rather than straight, end in serpents’ heads. To the right of the tree a naked monster with flames for hair and claws on its feet is stabbing (and melting!) a woman with a fire stick—the monster Surt, the black, fire-giant leader from the South. To his right the observer sees a winged soldier being attacked by a two-headed dragon that is biting his shield with one mouth while the mouth at the other end is spitting out poison over the warrior’s head. This could be Thor, with his Viking pigtail, fighting the Midgard serpent which killed him with its spewed poison. Thor seems conflated somewhat with Michael, the fighter of Lucifer, by having wings, but not Michael’s iconic spear. He appears to be holding a weapon in his hand but it is small, perhaps a hammer. Changing to the top panel in the arch we see someone blowing a long horn, as well he should be, if the double-headed Midgard serpent is attacking and Surt and the fire-giants are advancing. If this is Heimdall blowing his warning

32

Andersson, The Art of Scandinavia, vol. 2 (London: Hamlyn, 1970), illus., 235; interp., 348.

362

murphy

horn for the gods, then this depiction is of Ragnarok, the Day of Doom, with the unleashing of the wolf Fenrir, and Garm, guard dog of hel. To the right in the arch the deer, a hart, is tearing bark off the tree and unhurriedly eating— another evidence that Yggdrasil is not far away. The eagle descending may well be Woden himself in disguise, claws extended to attack. In the left lower panel there are two representations of trees—mistakenly, I believe, said to be the two main trees from the garden of Eden—the lower one, just mentioned, with roots and serpent, and another one above, with no roots. Between the two, a female figure is pushing away the serpent head of one of the branches, and her other hand is holding up a branch, a sign of plenty. This would suggest that she is Freya, goddess of happiness, prosperous crops, and plenty. The branch she is holding up is of the same shape as the large “tree” in the upper left corner— it is simply an expanded version of the leaf pattern in her hand which she is showing the person about to enter the door. Like her branch, it has six leaves arranged in parallel and one at the tip—the leaf pattern of the ash: Yggdrasil. She is holding up the identity of the door in her hand, the ash, and serving her appropriate function as identifying the way to survival and prosperity. The whole wrought iron outer framework of the composition contains, despite its almost geometric regularity, little fiddlehead plant shoots that emerge irregularly out of the frame onto the composition it edges and contains. The door thus has two representations of the tree of life in the lower panel, with serpents and with the ash leaves, as well as the iron door framework itself, which is subtly revealed as the organic frame for all that happens: it is Yggdrasil, and the time is Ragnarok. Time to open the Yggdrasil’s door, let the little bells on the door-ring chime, and enter into the saving tree (which just happens to be the church). Looking at the eleventh century south (side) portal of the Vågå church, Bugge comments: A large dragon has coiled its body down the semi-column on the right side of the doorway, and driven its fangs into the threshold … Lions and dragons wind their necks about the round arch, where, supported by columns, it seems to terminate a free standing arcade in the middle of the welter of animals. Around the left half-column grows a tree with cunningly interlaced branches and leaves, possibly the Tree of Life, Yggdrasil, surrounded by the clamor of the world.33

33

Bugge, Norwegian Stave Churches, 19.

the tree of life in the north

363

There is more here, I think, than the clamor of the world, especially since the carving is on a church entrance. Bugge however did recognize the presence of Yggdrasil, and goes on to suggest more when he writes of the Hoprekstad portal: Here we meet the classical stave church portal, fully developed in a doomsday picture on a par with the west front of contemporary Continental cathedrals. It is a native Norwegian translation of the latter. By means of a powerful “kenning”, as in a scaldic poem, the destruction of the powers of Hell is shown in a self-destructive Ragnarok, outside the door of the very shrine they had come to destroy.34 I fully agree with the connections made regarding Yggdrasil and Ragnarok but believe Bugge missed the implication for the nature of a doorway and the church. As I mentioned before in connection with the roofline, Bugge’s instincts point in the right direction; I suggest only that he should have gone an important step further. It is not enough to consider the jambs of the doorway with their vines and violence. If this doorway depicts the branches and brutality of Ragnarok so famously described in Voluspa, then what is the door itself, positioned between the portal carvings, but the tree trunk, entrance into Yggdrasil itself? The church door provides an entrance into the suffering tree that is the rescue and salvation from the chaos and apocalyptic violence of the end of the world. Odin said: Much I have travelled, much have I tried out, much have I tested the Powers; which among men will live when the famous Mighty Winter [fimbulvetr] comes among men? Vaft hrudnir answered: Life and Lifthrasir, and they will hide in Hoddmimir’s wood, they will have the morning dew for food; from them the generations will spring.35 34 35

Bugge, Norwegian Stave Churches, 24. Poetic Edda, trans. Larrington, 47 and n. 269: “From the connection between Mimir and Yggdrasil noted in the Seeress’s Prophesy [Voluspa] it is possible that Hoddmimir [Rememberer of the Treasure/Place] is another name for Mimir [Rememberer], and that the two survivors hide in Yggdrasil.” I would add that the repeated connection between the source

364

murphy

But the only way to escape the annihilating violence in the real world is to open the church door and go in. To open the wooden door is to repeat in reality the story of Lif and Lifthrasir in the only way it can be repeated and actually done, the only way that exists by which to enter the mythic tree trunk. Once inside, the rescued will be fed the real dew that falls from the Christ crucified on the tree and given the real runes of the scriptures and Communion.

Works Cited Andersson, Aron. The Art of Scandinavia. Vol. 2. London: Hamlyn, 1970. Anker, Peter. The Art of Scandinavia. Vol. 1. London: Hamlyn, 1970. Bintley, Michael D.J. Trees in the Religions of Early Medieval England. Anglo-Saxon Studies 16. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2015. Bugge, Anders. Norwegian Stave Churches. Oslo: Dreyers Forlag, 1953. Farjon, Aljos. A Natural History of Conifers. Portland, OR: Timber Press, 2008. Larrington, Carolyne, trans. The Poetic Edda. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Murphy, G. Ronald, S.J. Tree of Salvation: Yggdrasil and the Cross in the North. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Murphy, G. Ronald, S.J., trans. and ed. The Heliand: The Saxon Gospel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Sturluson, Snorri. Edda. Translated and edited by Anthony Faulkes. Everyman. London: J.M. Dent, 1995. of dew and the tree Yggdrasil under several names is also evidence. It seems that this unexplained figure, Hoddmimir, was the personification of “the memory of the hoard,” the sacred place where the treasure: the tree of life, the well of fate ([w]urd), and the passing of time (the Norns) were to be found. The word translated here as “wood” is holt. It can mean trees, wood, woods, and as here used in connection with Mimir, it functions as a familiar kenning for the wood, whether imagined as single tree or grove, that Hoddmimir minds, i.e., Yggdrasil.

chapter 14

The Tree of Life in Modern Theological Thought Daniel J. Treier, Dustyn Elizabeth Keepers and Ty Kieser

The cover of the Catechism of the Catholic Church bears the small third-century seal of a shepherd resting with his sheep under blossoming tree branches. The tree runs inconspicuously along the seal’s edge, as both a border and an ambiguous symbol. Comments on the logo describe the seal as a picture of Christ, “the Good Shepherd” who leads his people (the lamb) unto rest “in the shade of the tree of life, his redeeming Cross” (p. iv). Like this seal, the tree of life throughout modern theology makes occasionally prominent appearances with a pluriform range of meaning. In the following survey, we trace the tree’s various theological appearances along four hermeneutical lines: (1) historical-critical scholarship, (2) “literal” reading, (3) theological exegesis, and (4) symbolic uses. In the first three approaches, Genesis 1–3 plays a fundamental role in the tree’s appropriation, while the fourth category more freely treats the tree as a theological symbol, appropriating other canonical or cultural possibilities for its meaning.

1

Historical-Critical Scholarship

Although historical-critical scholarship on Genesis 1–3 does not extensively contemplate the theological significance of the tree of life, its standard assumptions and major debates have exerted indirect theological pressure upon a wide range of readers and approaches. Here James Barr offers a useful window into the theological implications of such mainstream scholarship, which some Jewish and feminist readers take in slightly different directions. 1.1 James Barr In lectures from 1990, Hebrew Bible scholar James Barr provides a theologicallyengaged version of a historical-critical approach to Genesis 1–3.1 Barr was no 1 Barr’s lectures were published as The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). “Historical criticism” is not a monolithic entity but, for our purposes here, the adjective “historical-critical” adequately covers a research agenda focused on the circumstances from which a text emerged and to which it referred, using a varied set of modern

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423756_016

366

treier, keepers and kieser

friend to “theological exegesis,” yet his treatment bears out the way in which exegesis always suggests theological implications.2 Without approaching the text in terms of broader canonical unity, Barr operates in critical dialogue with doctrinal traditions. He usually identifies theological assumptions in play, not to determine what the text must mean but to address the significance of properly historical reading. Barr claims to represent standard historical-critical conclusions regarding opposition between the narratives of Genesis 1–3 and the traditional Christian account of “the Fall” associated with “original sin”: The Christian account is uniquely Paul’s within the New Testament, and its Pauline antecedents lie not in the Old Testament itself but rather in Hellenistic Jewish circles (most notably the Wisdom of Solomon).3 Barr claims that Genesis (whatever its tradition history) now presents a story of immortality almost gained but actually lost. Nowhere does the story say that Adam would never die if he obeyed: Immortality was only possible via the forbidden tree, while the threatened punishment did not involve merely “spiritual” death or previously inapplicable “physical” death. Instead, physical death was already expected, and humans never ate from the tree of life. The punishment for eating of the tree of knowledge threatened speedy death, but the threat was simply not executed. The text focuses not on guilt related to pride but on knowledge and immortality (Barr, pp. 4–14). The story shape is ironic: Immortality becomes a brief possibility due to violating God’s commandment, but God intervenes to prevent Adam and Eve from actualizing the possibility via the tree of life. Though open to developmental explanations of the textual elements, Barr offers a kind of “canonical” or final-form reading in which the tree of life changes the general direction of the narrative now available (pp. 58–59). The tree of life was “inherited by Israel from much older folklore or mythology, of which the best and most pertinent example is the plant of life in the Gilgamesh historical methods. See Richard E. Burnett, “Historical Criticism,” in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 291–293. 2 Barr was renowned for opposing Barth’s rejection of natural theology, Brevard Childs’s canonical approach to biblical theology, and Francis Watson’s renewal of theological hermeneutics, so that for Stephen Fowl he epitomized the reigning historical-critical approach to biblical theology that theological interpretation of Scripture must oppose. See further James Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999); Stephen E. Fowl, Engaging Scripture, Challenges in Contemporary Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998). 3 Barr, Garden of Eden, especially ix, 4, 16–17. Page 18, for example, emphasizes that to depict Genesis as lacking a “traditional Fall” is not idiosyncratic in the scholarly guild Barr represents. Subsequent references to Barr’s text appear parenthetically.

the tree of life in modern theological thought

367

Epic. If, in its older origins, and still in Genesis, the tree of life was above all a symbol of eternal life, in Israel it came also to be a central symbol for the ‘wise’ and prudent ways of conduct within which one ought to live” (p. 61).4 The tree of the knowledge of good and evil, by contrast, focuses chiefly on “the power of rational and especially ethical discrimination” (p. 62). The story’s fundamental point is that “the limitations of humanity, of which death is a central symbol,” make knowledge, through which humans have “contact with the eternal and transcendent,” ineffective (p. 73). Humans were created good, not perfect, along with the rest of the cosmos; the idea of an Adamic fall came from Christian theology. In Genesis, the only fall concerns the loss of immortality as a human potentiality—not our preliminary form of existence (pp. 92–93). Barr uses the Genesis creation story to complicate the twentieth-century opposition between immortality of the soul and resurrection of the body. Immortality of the soul became associated with Greek thought, supposedly contrasting with holistic Hebrew anthropology. Barr argues instead that numerous biblical texts distinctly reference anthropological entities such as the soul, particularly to explore the hope of immortality alongside or apart from resurrection. His other theological focus for the tree of life is a positive appraisal of wisdom. Consistent with his challenge to an Augustinian salvation history, Barr reads the Genesis trees in relation to Wisdom literature rather than worrying that the “wisdom” of human religion or philosophy will correspond to the pride of a primeval fall. Hence Barr epitomizes the theological tendency of historical-critical scholarship regarding the tree of life: Interest in the origins of the image tends to fragment the Genesis narrative(s) or at least to challenge salvation-historical readings while promoting wisdom themes. 4 Earlier modern scholarship, focused on source criticism, tended to champion one initial tree. Recent scholarship is more varied, tending toward a focus on the two trees. Ziony Zevit even treats the Proverbs references as one-tree eisegesis (What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013], 255). Similar to Barr, Tryggve N.D. Mettinger reads the present two-tree narrative in terms of an ontological boundary related to wisdom and immortality, yet Mettinger sees a divine test as a major narrative theme (The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-historical Study of Genesis 2–3 [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007]). For catalogues of the relevant Assyrian material, see Simo Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, SAA IX (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997); Mariana Giovino, The Assyrian Sacred Tree: A History of Interpretations, OBO 230 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), who notes a tendency among late twentieth-century scholars to treat the tree of life quite generically as a sacred tree (p. 129). We are indebted to John H. Walton for pointing us to several of the historical-critical and literal creationist resources we cite, and to Michael Fishbane for orienting us helpfully regarding the Jewish literature.

368

treier, keepers and kieser

1.2 Jewish Exegetes Modern Jewish interpretations of the tree typically reflect similar tendencies. Commentary on Scripture, rather than systemization, is the “quintessential genre of Jewish expression.”5 While the tree of life is significant for various aspects of modern Jewish thought and life (especially as an image of wisdom), we will focus here on Jon Levenson’s comments in the Jewish Study Bible and Nahum Sarna’s chapter on the trees in Genesis.6 Levenson introduces the first chapters of Genesis as a “primeval story” that “exhibits a number of contacts with Mesopotamian mythology.”7 Particularly similar to the epic of Gilgamesh, he notes, the theme of immortality runs through the story. Although humans were not created “immortal,” the tree of life would have provided immortality if the Lord had not prevented humanity from eating of it after they ate from the tree of knowledge. Yet, Levenson notes, the Lord takes a different “stance” toward the tree of life in Proverbs, where the tree appears in the form of wisdom. Levenson then quotes rabbis who identify wisdom with Torah, citing Proverbs 3:18, as that which “gives life to those who practice it.”8 Likewise, Ralph Marcus’s often cited article, “Tree of Life in Proverbs,” notes that in Jewish wisdom literature the tree has been “secularized” into a “faded metaphor,” having lost its mythological meaning everywhere except in later eschatological literature (especially Enoch and 4 Esdras).9 Nahum Sarna includes a chapter investigating the trees of the creation narrative in his monograph Understanding Genesis. Sarna notes the original 5 Ismar Schorsch, foreword to Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary, ed. David L. Lieber (New York: The Rabbinical Assembly, 2001), xvi. 6 Jon D. Levenson, “Genesis: Introduction and Annotations,” in The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), hereafter JSB. Additionally, several significant commentaries on these opening chapters of Genesis are written by Jewish scholars, but are more pertinent to other chapters in this volume. For example, see Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part 1 From Adam to Noah Genesis I–VI.8, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961). Martin Buber, although significant for both modern Jewish and Protestant thought (including Barth and Bonhoeffer), did not pay explicit attention to the tree of life (choosing instead to focus on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). For example, see Martin Buber, “Tree of Knowledge,” in On the Bible: Eighteen Studies by Martin Buber, ed. Nahum N. Glatzer (New York: Schocken, 1982), 14–21; idem, “The Tree of Knowledge,” in Good and Evil: Two Interpretations (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1952), 67–80. 7 Levenson, JSB, 8. 8 Levenson, JSB, 16. 9 Ralph Marcus, “The Tree of Life in Proverbs,” Journal of Biblical Literature 62.2 (1943): 117– 120, at 120. As an indication of this article’s significance, Marcus is cited and followed on this position in Howard N. Wallace, “Tree of Knowledge and Tree of Life,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6:656–660, at 658.d.

the tree of life in modern theological thought

369

audiences’ familiarity with the tree of life—evidenced by the definite article (i.e., the tree of life) as “an allusion to something already well-known to the reader”10—yet, therefore, conspicuously absent throughout much of the Genesis narrative. The “well-known tree of life” is relegated to an “insignificant, subordinate role” relative to the tree of knowledge, intentionally countering the preoccupation with immortality among ancient Near Eastern religions.11 The trees, according to Sarna, do not possess magical properties that incline the reader toward the “mythical pursuit of eternity,” but rather focus on the actual relationships between God and humanity. By framing the tree in this way, he observes that the concern of the story is “with morality rather than mortality.”12 Such readings obviously differ from Barr in the particulars, as do numerous others, but interest in the ancient Near Eastern context continues; so do historical-critical questions about the relation between wisdom and what Genesis tries to communicate about immortality. 1.3 Feminist Exegetes Many feminist biblical scholars begin, like Barr, in critical dialogue with the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1–3, which is often used to justify women’s subordination. Yet feminist approaches to the narrative as a whole, and the tree of life in particular, vary widely. Some are willing to accept the traditional “sin and fall” interpretation; they focus on removing misogynistic additions concerning Eve’s role. Often this more traditional approach treats the tree of life as a minor aspect of the setting. However, the reason given in Genesis 3:22 for the banishment from the garden, to prevent the humans from living forever, raises questions for others within this camp. So Phyllis Trible, on the one hand, assumes that the narrative as a whole concerns disobedience. She understands banishment from the tree of life as simply indicating the loss of freedom and responsibility humans possessed before the fall.13 On the other hand, Fewell and Gunn explore ways in which the narrative seeks to protect God from blame for the fall, thereby reinforcing hierarchies. They view the banishment as an act of divine control, in order to maintain the difference between humans and God, as well as a consequence of humans knowing good and evil.14

10 11 12 13 14

Nahum M. Sarna, Understanding Genesis (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 24. Sarna, Understanding Genesis, 27. Sarna, Understanding Genesis, 27. Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 134–139. Danna Nolan Fewell and David M. Gunn, Gender, Power, and Promise: The Subject of the Bible’s First Story (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), 37.

370

treier, keepers and kieser

Lyn Bechtel, alternatively, rejects the traditional “sin and fall” interpretation, arguing that it ignores too many elements of mythic symbolism such as the trees and water. The trees play a more central role in her construal of the narrative in terms of humanity’s maturing from a childlike-state toward increased self-consciousness and understanding of differentiation (of the self from community, as well as sexual difference and moral distinctions). The tree of life represents life “without awareness of binary oppositions or death,”15 as the humans seemingly lived until they began to mature, that is, to eat from the tree of knowledge, which represents the ability to discern binary oppositions. This maturation reading highlights a key question from several feminist interpreters: why is Eve condemned for seeking wisdom while elsewhere in Scripture seeking wisdom is commendable? Judith McKinlay, for example, reads the story positively, with Eve gaining the gift of discernment between right and wrong for all humanity. She suggests that banishment from the garden could simply be a plot device that resolves the need for humans to be in the world in order to care for it.16

2

“Literal” Reading

Opposing historical-critical scholarship, recent “literal” reading reflects a theologically conservative, primarily popular-level, defense of reading Genesis 1–3 as together comprising a singular creation–fall narrative. This literal approach pays little attention to the tree’s symbolic appearances in other biblical texts and lacks consistent academic expression, with the tree of life rarely garnering extensive comment. Literal readings have appeared perennially, but they gained new forms and vigor in the aftermath of Darwinism, the fundamentalist–modernist controversy, and then the rise of “creation science” in the middle of the twentieth century. One of the more learned literal expositions comes from Old Testament professor Edward J. Young, who defends reading Genesis 3 as “straightforward prose,” neither poetry nor a parable.17 He opposes reducing any items such as

15

16 17

Lyn M. Bechtel, “Rethinking the Interpretation of Genesis 2.4b–3.24,” in A Feminist Companion to Genesis, ed. Athalya Brenner, FCB 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 87. Judith E. McKinlay, “Bothering to Enter the Garden of Eden Once Again,”Feminist Theology 19 (2011): 143–153. Edward J. Young, Genesis 3: A Devotional and Expository Study (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1966), 46–63. Subsequent references to Young’s text appear parenthetically.

the tree of life in modern theological thought

371

the serpent to “mere symbols”; no mere fable is involved, for the story offers no moral (Young, pp. 8, 11–12). Young insists that the initial absence of the tree of life in Genesis 3 is no proof of independent narrative traditions; in 3:3 the pertinent tree is the forbidden one, and the tree of life was already introduced in 2:9 (pp. 28–30). While noticing literary details such as possible assonance between the woman’s “sorrow” and the forbidden “tree” (Gen. 3:16), Young simply integrates these into theological comments upon a straightforwardly prosaic account (p. 123). Young’s literal approach does have theological aspects, for instance in a Trinitarian reading of “us” in 3:22 (p. 153). The tree of life, then, “is of sacramental nature and teaches that life comes from God and that man’s religion is to be God-centred,” since God prepared the garden for humanity and placed himself at its center. Young immediately quotes Revelation 2:7 regarding eternal life, while disavowing any “magic quality” in the tree’s fruit. Although the tree “signifies life,” Young still gives every appearance of discussing a literal tree (pp. 155–156), even if his concluding sentences are canonically and theologically inflected: “Then, in the new Jerusalem, because of the Mediator, man will have access to the fruit of the tree of life. Man is banished from the garden in death, but the chapter closes with the word ‘life.’ That life is one day to be his, even though death has for the time claimed him. Yet even in death, man has the promise of life” (p. 164). Young’s Reformed commitments are evident, including “sacramental” treatment of the tree of life that most popular literalists would not embrace. Like other literalists, though, Young does not comment upon canonical texts that (more clearly than Revelation) contain plural trees or treat the tree symbolically. Meanwhile his dispensationalist contemporary, John F. Walvoord, finds a singular, literal tree of life in Revelation 22:2, suggesting that the tree is large enough and the river narrow enough for the tree to span both sides.18 Young’s treatment of Genesis and Walvoord’s commentary on Revelation were published shortly after “creation science” emerged. A decade later, creationist Henry M. Morris labored to correlate the literal tree with gerontology, assuming that its fruit enabled eternally perfect health while making no reference to wisdom texts.19 By slight contrast, a more recent literal account focuses not 18

19

The Revelation of Jesus Christ: A Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 330–331. He acknowledges Henry B. Swete’s treatment of Ezek 47:12 in terms of a “collective reference” to a row of trees as a “possible solution,” and he concedes that “it is difficult to determine where the literal and the symbolic should be distinguished,” but ultimately he connects Revelation’s tree to “a similar tree in the Garden of Eden.” The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 87, 130–131.

372

treier, keepers and kieser

on the fruit’s properties but on violation of God’s command (in the one case) and God’s promise (in the other).20 Similarly committed to literalism, the website for the popular creationist ministry Answers in Genesis raises questions such as whether Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life (although most literalists tend to assume they did not and the website hints in this direction) and whether the tree was destroyed by the Noahic flood or lost its healing properties in the curse. Although the eschatological possibility of more than one tree is acknowledged,21 still the Bible’s wisdom texts remain untouched. Thus, the basic narrative structure of literal reading is clear: an actual tree with fruit or a promise granting immortality, forbidden or unnecessary until humans passed their initial test and inaccessible after they failed. The tree’s postlapsarian and eschatological career might vary, but it does not offer wisdom.

3

Theological Exegesis

While having symbolic elements, certain treatments of the tree pay distinctive exegetical attention to Genesis 1–3 as part of Christian Scripture. This third hermeneutical category, “theological” exegesis, pursues modern readings with Christian dogmatic interests. Symbolic elements in this approach reflect the influence of historical-critical scholarship, yet a focus on divine revelation of salvation history in this biblical “saga” lends a more traditionally canonical element to the exegesis. The Genesis text remains the initial and decisive element in such treatments of the tree, although symbolic connections are then probed with the rest of the Christian Scriptures. 3.1 Dietrich Bonhoeffer Karl Barth became famous for championing “theological” exegesis in his Romans commentary, but Bonhoeffer approached Genesis 1–3 in this way before Barth did. Creation and Fall, with a subtitle that included Theologische Auslegung (Theological Interpretation), emerged from a lecture course that Bonhoeffer offered during 1932–1933. The original course title was Schöpfung

20

21

James Stambaugh, “Whence Cometh Death? A Biblical Theology of Physical Death and Natural Evil,” in Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth, ed. Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury (Green Forest, AR: Master, 2008), 373–397, at 380– 381. See Bodie Hodge, “Questions about the Tree of Life” (https://answersingenesis.org/ genesis/garden‑of‑eden/questions‑about‑the‑tree‑of‑life/ [accessed April 26, 2017]).

the tree of life in modern theological thought

373

und Sünde, Creation and Sin, but Bonhoeffer changed Sin to Fall in the published version, to avoid confusion with a 1931 work by Emanuel Hirsch.22 This course marked a pivotal year in Bonhoeffer’s theological and spiritual odyssey. As he wrote in a letter a few years later, “I came to the Bible for the first time.” John W. de Gruchy comments further, “The profoundest reason for the students’ fascination with the lectures on ‘Creation and Sin’ was surely that they saw how personally captivated Bonhoeffer was by the word.”23 Bonhoeffer read Genesis 1–3 as Scripture, as Christocentric revelation and not just part of the history of religion. Given German theology’s then-frequent dismissal of the Old Testament or downright anti-Semitism, Bonhoeffer’s scriptural captivation with Genesis 1–3 stood in marked contrast with the rising National Socialism. Bonhoeffer’s lectures trace themes suggested by small units of text. Some rearrangement notwithstanding, the titles generally follow the text’s movement, from “The Beginning (Gen. 1:1–2)” through to “Cain (Gen. 4:1).” “The Tree of Life (Gen. 3:22ff.)” gets its own, penultimate, section, but it makes frequent appearances earlier. The tree first appears in “The Center of the Earth (Gen. 2:8–17),” where “the destiny of humankind is now to be decided in relation to” the two trees.24 Bonhoeffer seeks to “translate the old picture language of the magical world into the new picture language of the technical world” while being addressed by the divine Word—thus highlighting the connection between life, knowledge, and death. Whether or not the two trees come from different sources is “very uncertain,” but “our concern is the text as it presents itself to the church of Christ today” (Bonhoeffer, p. 83). The trees’ location means that “God, who gives life, is at the center”; far from being forbidden to eat of the tree of life, humans were enjoying life in the unity and genuine freedom of unbroken obedience (pp. 83–84). In this obedient living, Adam could not even understand the meaning of a prohibition or of death as presented by the tree of knowledge; here God confronted Adam with his limit, the proper freedom of his creatureliness (p. 85). Bonhoeffer contrasts this limit at the center of human existence with rival candidates from the margins, such as technology, that purport to offer life without limits: “God is at once the boundary and the center of our existence” (p. 86; emphasis original). Adam knew 22

23 24

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1–3, trans. Douglas Stephen Bax, ed. John W. de Gruchy, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works in English 3 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997). Some details from this paragraph appear in John W. de Gruchy, “Editor’s Introduction to the English Edition,” 1–17. Letter from Finkenwalde dated January 27, 1936, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works 14:113 (GS 6:367), quoted in de Gruchy, “Editor’s Introduction,” 5. Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall, 81. Subsequent references to Bonhoeffer’s text appear parenthetically.

374

treier, keepers and kieser

this boundary precisely in his ignorance of evil, as a form of grace (p. 87). Upon Adam’s fall, good and evil formed an inseparable pair, an ultimate split; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the tree of death (pp. 88–89). Death involves the shift from enjoying life as a gift of freedom to receiving it as a commandment that humans cannot fulfill out of their own resources (pp. 90–91). Having explained “why the prohibition was attached to the tree of death but not to the tree of life—or, to put it the other way around, why the tree to which the prohibition was attached has to be the tree of death” (p. 91), Bonhoeffer does not claim to explain Adam’s deed: “for us history begins where for Adam it ends. Our history is history through Christ, whereas Adam’s history is history through the serpent” (p. 92). But he locates the creation of woman within the fall’s prehistory, partly due to broader concern about marriage as an “order of creation” within his German context. Sexuality now distorts the loving community for which humans were made (pp. 95, 101). Humans only come together to go against God, as an initial summary of “The Pious Question (Gen. 3:1–3)” suggests: “The prohibition against eating from the tree of knowledge, the creation of Eve, and the serpent are to be understood as all links in one chain, linked together for a common assault upon the tree of life. All come from God the Creator, and yet now, strangely, they form a common front with humankind against the Creator” (p. 103). Eve’s initial response to the serpent was ignorant; she could only recite the divine prohibition. “But in doing this she allows herself to become involved in this clever conversation. It has somehow struck a spark within her. The old order still remains intact, however. Humankind cannot go behind God’s word. The tree of knowledge and the tree of life remain untouched” (p. 110). Not for long, though, as humans fell by desiring to be sicut Deus, like God: Strikingly, according to Bonhoeffer, Adam could only understand the serpent’s deceptive promise in terms of being pious, beingfor-God in a new way (pp. 113–114). Hence religion—as idolatrous, routinized, self-justifying spiritual effort—threatens God-given human life. Given the narrative ending in Genesis, “it becomes plain that the whole story has really been about this tree” of life (p. 141). The serpent’s promise proved true: Humankind has become sicut Deus, thereby coming to know death. We are simultaneously isolated and unable to live without others, “wanting to live, being unable to live, having to live” (p. 142). As creators of our own lives, we experience eternal thirst, which becomes a thirst for death, as if death would rescue us from this condition: “The boundary has not shifted; it is where it always was, at the tree of life in the center, where no one may set foot. But Adam now stands in another place. The limit is no longer in the center of Adam’s life; instead it assails Adam from outside. Adam keeps on running up against it; it is always in the way” (p. 144). In a brief ensuing chapter about Cain, Bonhoeffer

the tree of life in modern theological thought

375

finally connects “the trunk of the cross” with “the wood of life,” commenting, “What a strange tree of life, this trunk on which the very God had to suffer and die” (p. 146). Limited space makes it impossible to convey the aphoristic, provocative character of Bonhoeffer’s theological reflection upon the Genesis text. The rest of the Christian canon is fairly silent here, in terms of explicit “tree of life” passages. Yet, while understanding the tree of life symbolically and relating it to contemporary philosophical and existential questions, Bonhoeffer’s broadly Christological approach both respects the canonical text’s narrative structures and reads as if Genesis 1–3 communicates a primordial history of salvation. His dialectical mode of thought and extraordinary poetic sensibility limns the Genesis tree of life for all its Christian theological worth. 3.2 Karl Barth Barth’s magnum opus, Church Dogmatics, contains incidental references to the tree of life throughout its thousands of pages, yet the most thorough discussion appears in volume III, on the doctrine of creation, and specifically within subvolume 1, §41.25 Completed in 1945, Barth’s exposition of the Genesis account came a decade after Bonhoeffer’s. Indeed, Creation and Fall “was the only work by Bonhoeffer on which Barth was to express an opinion during the author’s [Bonhoeffer’s] lifetime.”26 Like Bonhoeffer, Barth presents Genesis 2 as “an independent saga” and a “new and different history of creation” than that of Genesis 1 (Barth, p. 229). Inverting the word order of “the heavens and the earth” from Genesis 1:1, Genesis 2:4 prioritizes the world’s nearness to God and the Lord’s nearness to the world. In this saga, God is seen as the God who accepts and “allies Himself” with humanity—who lives on the earth and is taken from the earth (p. 234). Barth confronts the “middle-class habit of the modern Western mind” to assume “the inferiority or untrustworthiness … of a non-historical [unhistorischen] depiction and narration of history [Geschichte]” (p. 81).27 He defines a “saga” as “an intuitive and poetic picture of a pre-historical [prehistorischen] reality of history [Geschichtswirklichkeit] which is enacted once and for all

25

26 27

Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, III/1, The Doctrine of Creation, ed. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958). Subsequent references to this text appear parenthetically. Presumably referring to published comments, de Gruchy “Editor’s Introduction,” 6, refers in n. [18.] to CD, III/1, 194–206. The original German is Karl Barth, Die kirchliche Dogmatik, III/1, Die Lehre von der Schöpfung (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1980), 87. Hereafter cited in text as KD III/1.

376

treier, keepers and kieser

within the confines of time and space” (p. 81; KD III/1, p. 88). Therefore, each of the two sagas in Genesis must be granted its respective integrity. “[I]f we demand from the saga a pragmatics which a saga cannot and will not offer,” we will be left with contradictory creation accounts (p. 278). Within this concept of saga, and specifically the second saga of Genesis, Barth understands the tree of life primarily as a “sign of the presence of God which guarantees life” to humanity in the center of the garden of Eden (p. 284). A wealth of canonical material further informs Barth’s reading of the tree. The crucial concept is God’s tabernacle. Like the “Holiest of Holies” at the virtual and functional center of the tabernacle and temples of Israel, the two trees stood at the center of “God’s sanctuary”—the garden (p. 282). The tree of life is also a sign that humans depend upon God for life and a guarantee that God is there to provide it. Therefore, as an attestation and guarantee of life, the fruit of the tree does not mediate this benefit, nor would its fruit provide any additional benefit if eaten; it would be superfluous to grasp the life which “is already possessed in the present and assured for the future” (p. 283). The tree is a “sign which speaks for itself,” indicating to humans where they are and what they may expect in God’s world (p. 256). The centrality of the tree of life also reveals that God’s “primary, central and decisive will” is to give himself to humans (p. 282). In contrast to this tree which “indicates and represents” the benefit of life (pp. 256–257), the tree of the knowledge of good and evil—what Barth generally calls the “second tree”—is the “sign of a possibility” presented by God (p. 257). It does not signify reality like the first tree, but that which could be. To know good and evil is to “distinguish and therefore judge between what ought to be and ought not to be” (p. 257), a power reserved for the Creator in contrast to creatures—who are directed to accept and approve rather than distinguish and judge. Both trees call humanity to “live by the will of God”; therefore, both trees speak a similar message and serve a similar function. Yet the first tree speaks silently and positively that which the second tree explicitly, negatively, prohibits. Beyond the Genesis account, Israel was called to “find true joy” in God’s “divine choice and decision” by resting on God alone and nothing else. Barth says, “To rejoice in it, Israel had to live on this goodness of His election which has no basis except in God, on the ground of His knowledge of good and evil” (p. 270). Humanity failed to rest in the reality of life given by God, however, choosing to grasp at the knowledge of good and evil—to claim a power that belongs only to God. God’s presence became “intolerable” to Adam once he became like God in knowing good and evil (p. 283). If he had been allowed access to the tree of life, he would have become an eternal sinner, constantly dying so

the tree of life in modern theological thought

377

that the tree of life would have become “a tree of death” (p. 284). Like the ark of the covenant stolen by the Philistines—who thought they could possess God’s presence—the tree was “transformed into a threat” (p. 284). So God graciously removed humanity from the garden and the tree of life—“and therefore from God’s immediate presence” (p. 284). Yet, since the tree did not become a tree of death, the promise of life still stands in the sanctuary even though humans must die. Accordingly, Barth discusses anthropological, Christological, and proverbial senses of this tree when read canonically. According to the “general anthropological sense” (i.e., incorporating all people) the two trees are to be understood “as the type of the order in which Yahweh Elohim and His revelation” will encounter all people and as a type of the way in which all people will “always and everywhere encounter” God (pp. 272–273). The “Christological meaning of this passage” (p. 273) refers to a rest, which humans were originally created for, that is ultimately found in Jesus Christ (p. 276). Finally, Barth notes the “proverbial significance” which the “tree of life later acquired,” as in Proverbs, where the tree emerged as a “description of that in which the highest guarantee of a secure human existence was thought to be found” (p. 282). Citing Proverbs 3:18, 11:30, 13:12, 15:4 as all having a “derivative and indirect use of the notion of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden,” Barth claims that the “only true parallel” between wisdom and the tree appears in Psalm 36:9—based on its relationship to the language of a fountain (e.g., Gen 2:9–10) (p. 282). In light of Psalm 36:9, the tree “is the presentation and offer of life, for it describes God Himself, the source of life, as the Co-inhabitant of the Garden, the One who is present in the midst of it, and therefore the guarantee of human existence” (p. 283). Thus, for the people of God, wisdom is the reception of life from God. Through its foundation in the concept of the tabernacle, its relationship to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and its various canonical “senses,” on Barth’s account the tree of life is a “sign of the presence of God which guarantees life” to humanity within the saga of creation (p. 284). This theological exegesis of the tree is based on the text of Genesis 1–2 and is informed by Barth’s approach to the Bible as canonical Scripture. 3.3 Henri Blocher In a 1979 French work subsequently translated into English, evangelical theologian Henri Blocher presents a non-literal interpretation of the Genesis tree that still accompanies a historical human fall from original goodness.28 An early 28

In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis, trans. David G. Preston (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1984). Subsequent references to Blocher’s text appear parenthetically.

378

treier, keepers and kieser

indication of Blocher’s literary emphasis appears in the assonance of the words for “tree” and “pain” (Blocher, p. 36). In exposition of Genesis 1:1–2:3 under the headings of being, order, and life, Blocher follows Bonhoeffer in identifying life with the capacity to reproduce as well as to enjoy liberty (pp. 75–76). However ambiguously, Genesis associates life with the Spirit even as it associates order with the Word (p. 77). In a chapter on “The covenant in Eden,” Blocher notices perfect harmony between humanity and the tree, as well as a river (p. 113). Geographical complexities aside, the rest of the Bible’s non-literal treatment of these entities precludes a literal understanding of Genesis (p. 116). A section entitled “The bond (and the two trees)” appeals to the grammar of Genesis 2:16–17 when suggesting that God “commands this permission” to enjoy the riches of the earth (p. 121). Blocher follows Bonhoeffer again in precluding any element of temptation from operating within God’s prohibition. The limit revealed by the prohibition is a gift of grace: “On the one hand, then, is enjoyment of the Lord’s munificence; on the other is the condition, that the free creature shall freely approve of his creaturely status in order to continue in his state of happiness” (p. 122). Because life is central among all of God’s gifts, Blocher criticizes the widespread assumption that Adam and Eve never ate from the tree of life. To the contrary, he suggests, that tree was among the “ ‘all the trees of the garden’ allowed,” and the fall was not immediate, so we should assume that they ate. Of course, this claim implies nothing magical about the fruit, such as either fully literal readings or comparative appeals to cultural parallels and literary predecessors might suggest (p. 123). Rather, within the narrative’s symbolism, Adam and Eve enjoy “that life-giving communication given by revealed wisdom” (p. 124). The tree of knowledge, by contrast, figuratively involves “the royal prerogative to decide” (pp. 125, 132). Blocher is so committed to maintaining “the scandalous originality of the fall, which is radically other than the good creation of God,” that he is unsure about whether to construe God’s command as probationary; even a test of loyalty could diminish the original creation’s radical goodness (pp. 133–134). In “The breaking of the covenant,” the attraction of the tree of knowledge lay in misusing created goods. The forbidden knowledge was not creaturely; human sin always involves rejecting the creation’s God-given order (p. 140). Although taking the trees figuratively, Blocher spends a long section defending “The historicity of the material” contra the category of “myth” (pp. 154–170); his chief distinction from Bonhoeffer and Barth lies in this clear insistence that a set of first human parents fell from original goodness. Concerning “The wages of sin,” Blocher underscores that “in the Bible, death is the reverse of life—it is not the reverse of existence” (p. 171). God “blocks

the tree of life in modern theological thought

379

the way to the tree of life” as part of executing the announced penalty, removing the “life-giving communion with divine Wisdom” that kept humans from submitting “to the law of the dust” (p. 187). Yet being deprived of the tree of life spares humanity from unspeakable evil, so “the very punishment conceals God’s mercy”: “it is not for nothing that the tree of life, planted for the sake of mankind, instead of being cut down and thrown into the fire, continues to exist and bear an abundance of fruit in the paradise of God. And with a future there is hope” (pp. 190–191). Hence Blocher’s evangelical form of theological exegesis reads the Christian canon in support of a traditional narrative of salvation history.29 He learns from Bonhoeffer and Barth while engaging both literal readings and contemporary scholarship, both historical-critical approaches and the natural sciences. His approach to the tree of life in Genesis reflects the influence of other canonical texts; not just apocalyptic but also poetic, wisdom writings shape his non-literal approach and theological conclusions. Compared with Bonhoeffer and especially Barth, Blocher includes wisdom more positively within his definition of the life the tree offers, being committed to seeking a canonically unified salvation history in connection with this biblical image.

4

Symbolic Uses

Most theological treatments of the tree of life respond to historical-critical treatments of Genesis 1–3, yet a fourth hermeneutical approach largely treats the tree as a theological symbol. Many of these uses may presuppose that historical criticism authorizes symbolic freedom by having traced the earlier variety of the image’s meaning. The symbolic uses here are then shaped either by canonical portrayals outside Genesis, especially in Proverbs and/or Revelation, or else by broader ancient or modern cultural associations. Despite the variety of such uses, common themes do emerge. For feminist scholars, the tree of life resonates with female experience or points to female images of the divine. Others view the tree as suggesting holistic wisdom, celebrating humans’ interconnectedness with one another and with the rest of creation. Claire Foster-Gilbert picks up the connections between the tree and wisdom in Proverbs in order to comment on types of knowledge valued in Western society and to advocate the pursuit of integrative wisdom. The tree of life or 29

Although Blocher’s In the Beginning does not explicitly champion theological exegesis, he is a participant and honoree in R. Michael Allen, ed., Theological Commentary: Evangelical Perspectives (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2011).

380

treier, keepers and kieser

wisdom gives “unitary knowledge” that recognizes the interdependence and divine source of all things. The problem in Genesis 3, she says, is that “Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit from the tree of (secular) knowledge, rather than from the tree of (divine) wisdom (Proverbs 3:18).”30 This choice led to human misunderstanding and secularization of the world. Foster-Gilbert argues that misperceptions prioritizing individualization and autonomy appear in medical ethics. She offers an example of how HIV/AIDS might be viewed through the wisdom of the tree of life, as a communal problem with social causes rather than simply an individual disease to be treated. Elizabeth Johnson understands the tree as symbolizing interdependence in creation. In Ask the Beasts, she describes Charles Darwin’s diagram of taxa, representing how the process of evolution led to divergent forms of life. The diagram demonstrates widening variations in each generation, with the most life sustaining advantages continuing in stronger branches, creating an image that ultimately Darwin called the “Tree of Life.” This tree of evolutionary theory shows that all living things relate not in a hierarchy, but in an interconnected system of kinship. This insight reminds us that “the God of love whose presence continuously sustains and empowers the origin of species is a God of suffering love in solidarity with all creatures’ living and dying through endless millennia of evolution.”31 God not only creates life but also oversees the end of individual lives and the eschatological end of creation. According to Johnson, overemphasizing human sin has obscured hope for all creation, but recognizing the interconnection of all creatures brings this hope back into theological focus. In her feminist intertextual interpretation of Revelation 21–22, Ingrid Rosa Kitzberger connects the images of the tree of life and living water in Revelation and Genesis.32 Describing the tree in Revelation as representing abundance, fruitfulness, and healing, she considers how these images would have resonated with a female audience’s lives and their imagined fulfillment. Kitzberger argues that the vision of the new Jerusalem with the waters flowing from God’s throne depicts the whole city as the temple. This vision tells female hearers, once restricted to the court of women, that all are welcomed into God’s presence in

30 31 32

Claire Foster-Gilbert, “Disease, Suffering, and Sin: One Anglican’s Perspective,” Christian Bioethics 12 (2006): 157–163, at 158. Elizabeth A. Johnson, Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 205. Ingrid R. Kitzberger, “ ‘Wasser und Bäume des Lebens’—Eine Feministisch-Intertextuelle Interpretation von Apk 21/22,” in Weltgericht und Weltvollendung: Zukunftsbilder im Neuen Testament, ed. Hans-Josef Klauck (Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 206–224.

the tree of life in modern theological thought

381

the new Jerusalem. The inclusion of the tree and the water of life in this vision integrates feminine dimensions to depict a wholeness that invites women to participate fully in future restoration. Other interpreters looking for feminine elements of the divine in Scripture also see possibilities in the tree of life imagery. Asphodel Long, for example, traces the frequent appearances of the goddess figure Asherah, closely associated with trees, in the Hebrew Bible. Long connects this deity with the tree of life concept that arises in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures along with many other cultures, symbolizing the connection between the divine and this world along with rebirth and fertility. She argues that “there is no doubt of the association between sacred trees, fertility, and female dimensions of the divine. All are involved in the continuation and nurture of life in this world and sometimes the next.”33 The recurrence of trees and other feminine symbols in Hebrew worship has continued in a different form within the Jewish mystical tradition of Kabbalah. According to Yael Klangwisan, at the heart of the imagery in Kabbalistic worship is the tree of life, surrounded by the Shekinah, the glory or dwelling place of God.34 Both the Shekinah and the Tree are often appropriated to suggest aspects of the feminine within God or even a goddess counterpart. Gail Ramshaw examines the tree as a symbol resonating across cultures and even religions when she describes her own encounters with the tree of life in artistic representations. The religious imagery of trees captivated her as a “deep image” like that of women’s fertility and menstruation, pointing to both life and death. Ramshaw connects the cross of Christ and the tree of life in paradise as complementary symbols that resonate with human experience of the co-existence of life and death. Ramshaw suggests that we should look for resonances of the tree of life throughout the Scriptures because we need both cross and tree: “the cross by itself can become an icon to death … However, the tree by itself can be a Romantic dream.”35 In the third volume of a trilogy on liturgical theology, Gordon Lathrop develops a liturgical cosmology in which trees are key metaphors for God’s presence in the liturgy. While the story of the fall depicts humanity as cut off from the 33

34

35

Asphodel Long, “The Tree of Life and the Menorah: Continuity of a Goddess Symbol in Judaism?” in Patriarchs, Prophets and Other Villains, ed. Lisa Isherwood (London: Routledge, 2014), 1–21, at 11. Yael Klangwisan, “Divine Masculine and Feminine in Judeo-Mystico: A Tree of Life,” in Reconsidering Gender: Evangelical Perspectives, ed. Myk Habets and Beulah Wood (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011), 196–212. Gail Ramshaw, Under the Tree of Life: The Religion of a Feminist Christian (New York: Continuum, 1998), 30.

382

treier, keepers and kieser

tree of life, Christians ultimately “see coming to Christ and eating his meal as ‘nesting’ in that tree (Mark 4:32; compare John 15:1–5) and eating from its fruit (compare Rev. 22:2). The liturgy makes accessible what the story forbids.”36 Later Lathrop describes a variety of cultures that have used a tree to symbolize order in life; he argues that Christianity is also framed by the images of the tree of life at the center of both the garden of Eden (Genesis 1–3) and the new Jerusalem (Revelation 21–22). He further notes the tree imagery associated with Christ in various liturgical contexts, arguing that the tree centers Christian hopes on the cross, which gives refuge and life to all. Dorothy B.E.A. Akoto-Abutiate uses the image of the tree of life to represent proverbs in both the Hebrew Bible and culture, bringing these together through a “hermeneutics of grafting.” In her work the “ ‘shoots’ from the biblical proverbial tree of life (i.e. the Book of Proverbs) are grafted on to the African Ghanian Eve tree of life (i.e. Eve folk proverbs).”37 She describes the prevalence and importance of tree imagery in both Ghanian culture and the biblical texts, expanding beyond explicit biblical references to the “tree of life” to include related imagery in the Psalms and Isaiah. Thus, as she relates the values and virtues communicated by proverbial sayings from the two cultures, she explores how the Bible “might take root and be interpreted in non-Western contexts.”38

5

Conclusion

The modern theological branches of the tree of life are quite varied, but not as massive as we might expect. Explicit, extensive theological discussions of the tree outside the exegetical contexts of journal articles or commentaries are comparatively rare. As we should expect, historical-critical scholarship varies concerning numerous details, but its theological import runs in some basic directions. Whether or not the earliest sources behind the Hebrew Bible contained a single tree, the present two-tree Genesis narrative invites reflection concerning human immortality, God’s life-giving presence, and creaturely wisdom.

36 37

38

Gordon Lathrop, Holy Ground: A Liturgical Cosmology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 40. Dorothy B.E.A. Akoto-Abutiate, Proverbs and the African Tree of Life: Grafting Biblical Proverbs on to Ghanaian Eʋe Folk Proverbs, SST 16 (Brill: Leiden, 2014), 1. The author italicizes the “v” in Eve to distinguish this two-syllable name of an African people group from the woman’s name Eve. Akoto-Abutiate, Proverbs and the African Tree of Life, 6.

the tree of life in modern theological thought

383

For Barr and many historical-critical scholars, the Genesis narrative assumes initial human mortality. Theological questions ensue concerning whether immortality is ultimately possible or inherently precluded by human limitations. For literal readers, by contrast, a traditional Augustinian salvation history assumes initial human immortality and offers eschatological immortality via redemption. For theological exegetes, the import of the Genesis narrative for initial human immortality is either ambiguous (for Bonhoeffer and Barth) or else supportive (for Blocher), although such immortality may have been a conditional gift and not a natural property. For most who begin by interpreting Genesis 1–3, the kind of divine presence at stake assumes a traditional Creator who is both transcendent and immanent. Accordingly, such exegesis often focuses on the relation between God and humans, even individual persons, conveying a somewhat “existentialist” flavor. Some historical-critical scholars may explore broader or polytheistic God-concepts among possible external sources for the Hebrew Bible’s tree of life, but they do not claim that the biblical text commends such concepts. Those who explore symbolic possibilities of sacred tree images, however, more freely champion divine immanence. This divine immanence supports relational holism, celebrating human community and the non-human creation while critiquing “Western” anthropocentrism, individualism, and patriarchy. Treatments of the tree of life in relation to creaturely wisdom correspondingly vary. Some historical-critical scholars relate the tree of life positively to its symbolic use in wisdom texts, whereas others find tension between the Genesis tree of the knowledge of good and evil and interest in human wisdom. Literal readers almost completely ignore the relevant wisdom texts and the possibility of a wisdom theme. Largely symbolic uses of the tree often celebrate creaturely wisdom in connection with the relational holism supported by divine immanence; these symbolic uses may well imitate the wisdom texts’ free appeals to the image. The three theological exegetes, meanwhile, vary concerning wisdom. Bonhoeffer’s occasional references define wisdom in terms of accepting God-given life rather than seeking the knowledge of death. Barth scarcely appeals to the wisdom texts, supplanting them with Psalm 36:9 in order to emphasize divine grace rather than creaturely wisdom. Blocher, committed to a more canonically-unified portrayal of the tree of life, celebrates authentic human wisdom as that which acknowledges creation’s God-given order. The structure of this survey does not indicate that hermeneutical commitments simply determine how modern theologians encounter the tree of life. It is true that the relative primacy of Genesis 1–3 influences appeals to the tree and attention or inattention to questions of immortality. It is true that the relative presence or absence of other biblical texts correlates strongly with the God-

384

treier, keepers and kieser

concepts and appraisals of creaturely wisdom within any particular appeal to the tree. It is true that—at least implicitly—engagement with or opposition to historical-critical options and tendencies, especially concerning Genesis 1– 3, affects the freedom with which any particular appeal finds the tree to be amenable to its broader theological commitments. Yet such influence and correlation do not entail sheer determinism; instead, the text(s) can exert pressure in return, limiting and arguably guiding the range of plausible appeals to the tree vis-à-vis certain hermeneutical decision points. Indeed, unless the strict literalists are correct, the tree of life—in these particular texts and in their possible combinations—is an inherently fecund image. That fecundity may bear witness to a life-giving God who invites humans to participate in discerning what God’s gracious presence means for a hopeful future.

Works Cited Akoto-Abutiate, Dorothy B.E.A. Proverbs and the African Tree of Life: Grafting Biblical Proverbs on to Ghanaian Eʋe Folk Proverbs. SST 16. Brill: Leiden, 2014. Allen, R. Michael, ed. Theological Commentary: Evangelical Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2011. Barr, James. The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. Barr, James. The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, III/1, The Doctrine of Creation. Edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958. Barth, Karl. Die kirchliche Dogmatik, III/1, Die Lehre von der Schöpfung. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1980. Bechtel, Lyn M. “Rethinking the Interpretation of Genesis 2:4b–3:24.” Pages 77–117 in A Feminist Companion to Genesis. Edited by Athalya Brenner. FCB. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Blocher, Henri. In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis. Translated by David G. Preston. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1984. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1–3. Translated by Douglas Stephen Bax. Edited by John W. de Gruchy. Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works in English 3. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. Buber, Martin. Good and Evil: Two Interpretations. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1952. Buber, Martin. “Tree of Knowledge.” Pages 14–21 in On the Bible: Eighteen Studies by Martin Buber. Edited by Nahum N. Glatzer. New York: Schocken, 1982.

the tree of life in modern theological thought

385

Burnett, Richard E. “Historical Criticism.” Pages 290–293 in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part 1 From Adam to Noah Genesis I–VI.8. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961. Fewell, Danna Nolan, and David M. Gunn. Gender, Power, and Promise: The Subject of the Bible’s First Story. Nashville: Abingdon, 1993. Foster-Gilbert, Claire. “Disease, Suffering, and Sin: One Anglican’s Perspective.” Christian Bioethics 12 (2006): 157–163. Fowl, Stephen E. Engaging Scripture. Challenges in Contemporary Theology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998. Giovino, Mariana. The Assyrian Sacred Tree: A History of Interpretations. OBO 230. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Johnson, Elizabeth A. Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Kitzberger, Ingrid R. “‘Wasser und Bäume des Lebens’—Eine Feministisch-Intertextuelle Interpretation von Apk 21/22.” Pages 206–224 in Weltgericht und Weltvollendung: Zukunftsbilder im Neuen Testament. Edited by Hans-Josef Klauck. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. Klangwisan, Yael. “Divine Masculine and Feminine in Judeo-Mystico: A Tree of Life.” Pages 196–212 in Reconsidering Gender: Evangelical Perspectives. Edited by Myk Habets and Beulah Wood. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011. Lathrop, Gordon. Holy Ground: A Liturgical Cosmology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Levenson, Jon D. “Genesis: Introduction and Annotations.” Pages 8–101 in The Jewish Study Bible. Edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Long, Asphodel. “The Tree of Life and the Menorah: Continuity of a Goddess Symbol in Judaism?” Pages 1–21 in Patriarchs, Prophets and Other Villains. Edited by Lisa Isherwood. London: Routledge, 2014. Marcus, Ralph. “The Tree of Life in Proverbs.” JBL 62 (1943): 117–120. McKinlay, Judith E. “Bothering to Enter the Garden of Eden Once Again.” Feminist Theology 19 (2011): 143–153. Mettinger, Tryggve N.D. The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-historical Study of Genesis 2–3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Morris, Henry M. The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976. Parpola, Simo. Assyrian Prophecies. SAA 9. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997. Ramshaw, Gail. Under the Tree of Life: The Religion of a Feminist Christian. New York: Continuum, 1998. Sarna, Nahum M. Understanding Genesis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.

386

treier, keepers and kieser

Schorsch, Ismar. Foreword to Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary, edited by David L. Lieber. New York: The Rabbinical Assembly, 2001. Stambaugh, James. “Whence Cometh Death? A Biblical Theology of Physical Death and Natural Evil.” Pages 373–397 in Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth. Edited by Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury. Green Forest, AR: Master, 2008. Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. Wallace, Howard N. “Tree of Knowledge and Tree of Life.” Pages 656–660 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Walvoord, John F. The Revelation of Jesus Christ: A Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1966. Young, Edward J. Genesis 3: A Devotional and Expository Study. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1966. Zevit, Ziony. What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013.

Conclusion Douglas Estes

1

The Story of the Tree of Life

From the dawn of recorded history to the space age, the sacred tree has evolved as a symbol, literary motif, and theological concept. At the creation of the world, there was a garden, and there was a tree. From this beginning, as the story of humanity unfolded, the vision of a sacred tree that brought life trickled into the cultures of the first civilizations of the near east and beyond. In its earliest descriptions and depictions, people understood the tree of life was tied to humanity’s origins; it was a sacred symbol that reminded people of their place within a divine creation. With the writing of Genesis, the tree of life was codified into a very distinct role; a symbol of what humanity lost when they rebelled against the divine plan and chose to go their own way. In time this symbol of divine relationship gave way to a metaphorical use, as the tree of life pointed to wisdom. At first the move from a symbol of paradisal existence to a metaphor for wise living may seem a devolution. It is not, as what was taken in the Garden was the awakening of people to know Good and Evil, that brought death. The only way to handle this newfound, yet masterless, knowledge—the only antidote to unfeeling knowledge—is to tame it with wisdom. Thus, even though the tree of life for humanity after paradise does not yet lead to eternal life, it becomes a metaphor for wisdom, which enables us to find a way to eternal life. Understanding wisdom to be the key, people began to look to the future of what the result of wise living may be. They began to dream dreams of a future time and place that would be symbolic of the tree of life. It was not enough, though, to see the tree of life; people must partake of its fruits to enjoy this future divine presence. This brought the tree of life under the auspices of an eschatological outlook, a longing to be a part of God’s great restored creation, as it was for the first people. Some thinkers, using new philosophical trends, encouraged the tree of life as metaphor for not just life but virtuous living. But over time this focus on wisdom led to a break with many of the longestablished views on the tree of life. For some, a return to the purity of knowledge was the only salvation for humanity. Thus, the tree of life, and wisdom, was seen as inferior to the thirst for knowledge.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004423756_017

388

estes

At the same time there was a new development in the idea of the tree of life; for long it was a metaphor for wisdom, but now there was a person for whom some in the near east believed to be wisdom personified. According to his followers, this person lived a perfectly virtuous life, based on divine wisdom, and then was executed on a tree, planted in the ground. His followers believed that what was dead was made alive again—a literal tree of life bearing the wisdom of God to people. The next millennia brought the beauty of art designed to tell the story of the tree, of divine origins, of God’s wisdom, and of a future time where all would be restored. From the tympanum of synagogues to the inside of bowls, we see this art as a reminder of these beliefs. And even whole churches were built to resemble the tree, as a sign that people may come in, to enjoy life with God forever. The modern era brought critical discernment to the symbol, and with it, worldwide conversation about what the symbol should mean for people. Today, the tree of life has many branches, yet it remains tied to its place of origin, in the center of the garden of God.

Bibliography Abma, Richtsje. Bonds of Love: Methodic Studies of Prophetic Texts with Marriage Imagery, Isaiah 50:1–3 and 54:1–10, Hosea 1–3, Jeremiah 2–3. SSN 40. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1999. Akoto-Abutiate, Dorothy B.E.A. Proverbs and the African Tree of Life: Grafting Biblical Proverbs on to Ghanaian Eʋe Folk Proverbs. SST 16. Brill: Leiden, 2014. Albenda, Pauline. “Assyrian Sacred Trees in the Brooklyn Museum.” Iraq 56 (1994): 123– 133. Albenda, Pauline. “The Beardless Winged Genies from the Northwest Palace at Nimrud.” SAAB 10 (1996): 67–78. Alexander, Philip S. “3Enoch and the Talmud.” JSJ 18 (1987): 40–68. Alibert, Dominique. “Aux origines du pressoir mystique: Images d’arbres et de vignes dans l’art médiéval.” Pages 27–42 in Le Pressoir mystique. Edited by Danielle Alexandre-Bidon. Paris: Cerf 1990. Allen, James P. Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. SBL WAW 23. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Allen, R. Michael, ed. Theological Commentary: Evangelical Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2011. Allen, Thomas George. The Book of the Dead, or Going Forth by Day: Ideas of the Ancient Egyptians Concerning the Hereafter as Expressed in Their Own Terms. SAOC 37. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974. Allen, Thomas George, ed. The Egyptian Book of the Dead: Documents in the Oriental Institute Museum at the University of Chicago. OIP 82. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Altet, Xavier Barral i. Le décor du pavement au Moyen Âge. Rome: Ècole Français de Rome, 2010. Ambrose. Opera. Vol. 1. Edited by C. Schenkl. CSEL 32.1. Vienna: Tempsky, 1897. Ambrose. Opera. Edited by M. Zelzer. Vienna: Akademie der Wissenschaft, 1999. Ameisenowa, Zofja. “The Tree of Life in Jewish Iconography.” Journal of the Warburg Institute 2 (1939): 326–345. Andaloro, Maria, and Serena Romano. “L’immagine nell’abside.” Pages 73–102 in Arte e iconografia a Roma: Dal tardoantico alla fine del medioevo. Edited by Maria Andaloro and Serena Romano. Milan: Jaca Book, 2002. Anderson, Gary A., and Michael E. Stone, eds. A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve. 2nd ed. SBL EJL 5. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Andersson, Aron. The Art of Scandinavia. Vol. 2. London: Hamlyn, 1970. Andrew of Caesarea. Commentary on the Apocalypse. Edited by David G. Hunter. Translated by Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou. FC 123. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2011.

390

bibliography

Anker, Peter. The Art of Scandinavia. Vol. 1. London: Hamlyn, 1970. Arad, Lily. “The Holy Land Ampulla of Sant Pere de Casserres—A Liturgical and Arthistorical Interpretation.” Miscellània litúrgica catalana 15 (2007): 59–86. Aristotle. Poetics. Translated by Stephen Halliwell. LCL 199. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. Armstrong, Regis J., ed. The Lady: Clare of Assisi, Early Documents. New York: New City Press, 2006. Assmann, Jan. Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete: Eingeleitet, Übersetzt und Erläutert. Zweite, verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage ed. OBO. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Assmann, Jan. Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt. Translated by David Lorton. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005. Ataç, Mehmet-Ali. The Mythology of Kingship in Neo-Assyrian Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Ataç, Mehmet-Ali. “Visual Formula and Meaning in Neo-Assyrian Relief Sculpture.” The Art Bulletin 88 (2006): 69–101. Auer, Albert. “Bilderstammbäume zur Literaturgeschichte des Dominikanerordens.” Pages 363–371 in Liber floridus: Mittellateinische Studien Paul Lehmann zum 65. Geburtstag am 13. Juli 1949. Edited by Bernhard Bischof and Suso Brechter. St. Ottilien: Eos, 1950. Auffarth, Christoph, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, eds. The Fall of the Angels. TBN 6. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Augustine. Enarrationes in Psalmos. 3 vols. Edited by D.E. Dekkers and J. Fraipont. CCSL 38–40. Turnhout: Brepols, 1956. Augustine. Obras de San Agustín. Vol. 15. Edited by B. Martín. Madrid: Biblioteca des Autores Cristianos, 1957. Aune, David E. “The Polyvalent Imagery of Rev 3:20 in the Light of Greco-Egyptian Divination Texts.” Greco-Roman Culture and the New Testament: Studies Commemorating the Centennial of the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Edited by David E. Aune and Frederick E. Brenk. NovTSup 143. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Aune, David E. Revelation 1–5. WBC 52A. Dallas: Word, 1998. Aune, David E. Revelation 17–22. WBC 52C. Dallas: Word, 1998. Bachmann, Veronika. “Rooted in Paradise? The Meaning of the ‘Tree of Life’ in 1Enoch 24–25 Reconsidered.” JSP 19 (2009): 83–107. Baden, Joel. “Why is the Pentateuch Unreadable?—or, Why Are We Doing This Anyway?” Pages 243–252 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Baert, Barbara. A Heritage of Holy Wood: The Legend of the True Cross in Text and Image.

bibliography

391

Translated by Lee Preedy. Cultures, Beliefs, and Traditions: Medieval and Early Modern 22. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Baert, Barbara. “Revisiting Seth in the Legend of the Wood of the Cross: Interdisciplinary Perspectives between Text and Image.” Pages 132–169 in The Embroidered Bible: Studies in Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Honour of Michael E. Stone. Edited by Lorenzo Di Tommaso, Matthias Henze, and William Adler. SVTP 26. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Balfour, David, ed. Erga theologika: Agiou Symeon Archiepiskopou Thessalonikes. Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, 1981. Baranov, Vladimir. “Instrument of Death and Tree of Life: Visual Meanings of the Cross in Some Late Antique and Byzantine Monumental Programs.” Scrinium 11 (2015): 22– 48. Barber, Charles. “The Truth in Painting: Iconoclasm and Identity in Early-Medieval Art.” Speculum 72 (1997): 1019–1036. Barker, Margaret. King of the Jews: Temple Theology in John’s Gospel. London: SPCK, 2014. Barker, Margaret. The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem. London: SPCK, 1991. Barker, Margaret. The Lost Prophet: The Book of Enoch and Its Influence on Christianity. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005. Barker, Margaret. The Mother of the Lord, Volume 1: The Lady in the Temple. London: Bloomsbury, 2012. Barlow, H.C. “Sacred Trees.” Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record 1:2 (1862): 273–292. Barlow, H.C. “The Tree of Life.” Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record 2:3 (1862): 64–74. Barr, James. The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. Barr, James. The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Barreveld, W.H. Date Palm Products. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 101. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1993. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, III/1, The Doctrine of Creation. Edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958. Barth, Karl. Die kirchliche Dogmatik, III/1, Die Lehre von der Schöpfung. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1980. Basil of Caesarea. Opera Omnia. Edited by Juliani Garnier. Paris: Gaume, 1839. Batmaz, Atilla. “A New Ceremonial Practice at Ayanis Fortress: The Urartian Sacred Tree Ritual on the Eastern Shore of Lake Van.” JNES 72 (2013): 65–83. Bauckham, Richard. “Enoch and Elijah in the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah.” Pages 27–

392

bibliography

38 in The Jewish World around the New Testament. Edited by Richard Bauckham. WUNT 233. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Bauckham, Richard, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov, eds. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Bauks, Michaela. “Erkenntnis und Leben in Gen 2–3: Zum Wandel eines ursprünglich weisheitlich geprägten Lebensbegriffs.” ZAW 127 (2015): 20–42. Bauks, Michaela. “Sacred Trees in the Garden of Eden and Their Ancient Near Eastern Precursors.” JAJ 3 (2012): 267–301. Baumgarten, James. “Purification after Childbirth and the Sacred Garden in 4Q265 and Jubilees.” Pages 3–10 in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris, 1992. Edited by G.J. Brooke and Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Bautch, Kelley Coblentz. A Study of the Geography of 1Enoch 17–19: “No One Has Seen What I Have Seen.” JSJSup 81. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Beale, G.K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Bechtel, Lyn M. “Rethinking the Interpretation of Genesis 2:4b–3:24.” Pages 77–117 in A Feminist Companion to Genesis. Edited by Athalya Brenner. FCB. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Beck, Pirhiya. “The Cult-Stands from Taanach: Aspects of the Iconographic Tradition of Early Iron Age Cult Objects in Palestine.” Pages 352–381 in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na’aman. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1994. Bede, Venerable. The Explanation of the Apocalypse. Translated by Edward Marshall. Oxford: James Parker and Co., 1878. Bede, Venerable. Opera Exegetica. Vol. 1 of Libri quatuor in principium Genesis usque ad nativitatem Isaac et eiectionem Ismahelis adnotationum. Edited by C.W. Jones. CCSL 118A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1967. Bede, Venerable. Opera Exegetica. Vol. 5 of Explanatio Apocalypseos. Edited by R. Gryson. CCSL 121A. Turnhout: Brepols, 2001. Bergmann, Claudia D. Childbirth as a Metaphor for Crisis: Evidence from the Ancient Near East, the Hebrew Bible, and 1QH XI, 1–18. BZAW 382. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Bergren, Theodore. “Mother Jerusalem, Mother Church: Desolation and Restoration in Early Jewish and Christian Literature.” Pages 243–259 in Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone. Edited by Esther G. Chazon, David Satran, and Ruth Clements. JSJSup 89. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Billing, Nils. Nut, the Goddess of Life: In Text and Iconography. Uppsala Studies in Egyptology 5. Uppsala: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, 2002.

bibliography

393

Billing, Nils. “Writing an Image: The Formulation of the Tree Goddess Motif in the Book of the Dead, Ch.59.” SAK 32 (2004): 35–50. Bintley, Michael D.J. “The Byzantine Silver Bowls in the Sutton Hoo Ship Burial and Tree-Worship in Anglo-Saxon England.” Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 21 (2011): 34–45. Bintley, Michael D.J. Trees in the Religions of Early Medieval England. Anglo-Saxon Studies 16. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2015. Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, J. Ebeling, E. Flückiger-Hawker, E. Robson, J. Taylor, and G. Zólyomi. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature. http://etcsl.orient.ox .ac.uk/ University of Oxford, 1998–. Black, Jeremy, Andrew George, and Nicholas Postgate, eds. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. SANTAG 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1999. Black, Jeremy, and Anthony Green. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992. Blaising, C.S., and C.A. Hardin, eds. Psalms 1–50. ACCS OT 7. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1–11. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth. “Acculturating Gender Roles: Goddess Images as Conveyors of Culture in Ancient Israel.” Pages 1–18 in Image, Text, Exegesis: Iconographic Interpretation and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Izaak J. de Hulster and Joel M. LeMon. LHBOTS 588. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Blocher, Henri. In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis. Translated by David G. Preston. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1984. Blume, Dieter. “Ordenskonkurrenz und Bildpolitik: Franziskanishe Programme nach dem theoretischen Armutsstreit.” Pages 149–170 in Malerei und Stadtkultur in der Dantezeit: Die Argumentation der Bilder. Edited by Hans Belting and Dieter Blume. Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 1989. Böcher, Otto. “Die Johannes-Apokalypse und die Texte von Qumran.” ANRW 25.5: 3894– 3898. Part 2, Principat, 25.5. Edited by Wolfgang Haase and Hildegarde Temporini. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988. Böcher, Otto. Kirche in Zeit und Endzeit: Aufsätze zur Offenbarung des Johannes. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1983. Bockmuehl, Markus, and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds. Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Boda, Mark J., Russell L. Meek, and William R. Osborne, eds. Riddles and Revelations: Explorations into the Relationship between Wisdom and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible. LHBOTS 634. New York: Bloomsbury, 2018. Boggi, Flavio. “Jacopo Torriti.” Pages 1087–1088 in vol. 2 of Medieval Italy: An Encyclopaedia. Edited by Christopher Kleinhenz. London: Routledge, 2014.

394

bibliography

Bonaventure. Doctoris seraphici S. Bonaventurae opera omnia. 10 vols. Quaracchi: Ex typographia Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 1882–1902. Bonaventure. The Works of Bonaventure. Translated by José de Vinck. 4 vols. Paterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1960–1970. Bonavia, Emanuel. The Flora of the Assyrian Monuments and Its Outcomes. Westminster: Archibald Constable, 1894. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1–3. Translated by Douglas Stephen Bax. Edited by John W. de Gruchy. Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works in English 3. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. Botha, Philipus J. “‘I Am Like a Green Olive Tree’: The Wisdom Context of Psalm 52.” HvTSt 69/1 (2013): article #1962, 8 pages. dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v69i1.1962. Bourdua, Louise. The Franciscans and Art Patronage in Late Medieval Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Bourdua, Louise. “I frati Minori al Santo nel Trecento: consulenti, committenti o artisti?” Pages 17–28 in Cultura, arte e committenza nella Basilica di S. Antonio di Padova nel Trecento. Edited by Luca Baggio and Michela Benetazzo. Padua: Centro Studi Antoniani, 2003. Bovini, Giuseppe. La cattedra eburnea del vescovo Massimiano di Ravenna. Faenza: Lega, 1957. Boxall, Ian. The Revelation of Saint John. BNTC. London: Continuum, 2006. Brakke, David. The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010. Brannan, Rick, Ken M. Penner, Israel Loken, Michael Aubrey, and Isaiah Hoogendyk, eds. The Lexham English Septuagint. Bellingham: Lexham, 2012. Bredekamp, Horst, and Frank Seehausen. “Das Reliquiar als Staatsform: Das Reliquiar Isidors von Sevilla und der Beginn der Hofkunst in León.” Pages 137–164 in Reliquiare im Mittelalter. Edited by Bruno Reudenbach and Gia Toussaint. Hamburger Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte 5. Berlin: Akademie, 2005. Brieger, Peter. English Art 1216–1307. Edited by T.S.R. Boase. Oxford History of English Art 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957. Brighton, Louis A. Revelation, ConcC. St. Louis: Concordia, 1999. Brisch, Nicole. “Ninsumun (Ninsun) (goddess).” Ancient Mesopotamian Gods and Goddesses. Oracc and the UK Higher Education Academy (2016). http://oracc.iaas.upenn .edu/amgg/listofdeities/ninsumun/ Brock, Sebastian. The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Press, 1985. Broek, Roel van den. Myth of the Phoenix according to Classical and Early Christian Tradition. EPRO 24. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Brown, Brian. “Kingship and Ancestral Cult in the Northwest Palace at Nimrud.” JANER 10 (2010): 1–53.

bibliography

395

Brown, Michelle P. “The Lichfield Angel and the Manuscript Context: Lichfield as a Centre of Insular Art.” Journal of the British Archaeological Association 160 (2007): 8–19. Brown, William P. Seeing the Psalms: A Theology of Metaphor. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Brütsch, Charles. Die Offenbarung Jesu Christi: Johannes-Apokalypse. 3 vols. ZBK. Zürich: Zwingli, 1970. Buber, Martin. Good and Evil: Two Interpretations. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1952. Buber, Martin. “Tree of Knowledge.” Pages 14–21 in On the Bible: Eighteen Studies by Martin Buber. Edited by Nahum N. Glatzer. New York: Schocken, 1982. Budde, Karl. Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen. 1–12, 5). Giessen: J. Ricker, 1883. Budde, Karl. “Zu H. Th. Obbinks Aufsatz ‘The Tree of Life in Eden.’” ZAW 47 (1929): 54– 62. Budge, E.A. Wallis, ed. The Book of the Cave of Treasures. London: Religious Tract Society, 1927. Budge, E.A. Wallis, ed. The Book of the Mysteries of the Heavens and the Earth. Berwick, ME: Ibis, 2004. Bugge, Anders. Norwegian Stave Churches. Oslo: Dreyers Forlag, 1953. Burnett, Richard E. “Historical Criticism.” Pages 290–293 in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Burns, Dylan. “Providence, Creation, and Gnosticism According to the Gnostics.” JECS 24 (Spring 2016): 55–79. Busch, Austin. “Characterizing Gnostic Scriptural Interpretation.” ZAC 21 (2017): 243– 271. Caesarius of Arles. Sermones. Edited by D.G. Morin. CCSL 103. Turnhout: Brepols, 1953. Callaey, Frédégand. L’idéalisme franciscain spirituelle au XIVe siècle: Ètude sur Ubertin de Casale. Louvain: Bureau de Recueil, 1911. Calofonos, George T. “Dream Narratives in the Continuation of Theophanes.” Pages 95– 123 in Dreaming in Byzantium and Beyond. Edited by Christine Angelidi and George T. Calofonos. Farnham: Ashgate, 2014. Canal, Maximilien. “Cronica fratris Ludovici de Valleoleto, OP: Ad fidem exemplaris Romani in Tabulario eiusdem Ordinis existentis.” Analecta sacri ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum 20 (1931–1932): 727–806. Carnie, Andrew. Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. Carrara, Francesca. “Convento di Monticelli.” Pages 73–75 in Gli istituti di beneficenza a Firenze: Storia e architettura. Edited by Francesca Carrara, Ludovica Sebregondi, and Ulisse Tramonti. Florence: ALINEA, 1999. Carruthers, Mary, and Jan M. Ziolkowski, eds. The Medieval Craft of Memory: An Anthol-

396

bibliography

ogy of Texts and Pictures. Material Texts. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002. Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part 1 From Adam to Noah Genesis I–VI.8. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961. Castañeiras, Manuel. “L’Alessandro anglonormanno e il mosaico di Otranto.” Troianalexandrina 4 (2004): 40–86. Charles, R.H. The Book of Enoch or 1Enoch: Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text and Edited with the Introduction, Notes and Indexes of the First Edition Wholly Recast, Enlarged and Rewritten, Together with a Reprint from the Editor’s Text of the Greek Fragments. Oxford: Clarendon, 1912. Charles, R.H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St John. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920. Charlesworth, James H. The Good and Evil Serpent: How a Universal Symbol Became Christianized. AYBRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985. Choi, G.D. “Decoding Canaanite Pottery Paintings from the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I.” PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2008. Christe, Yves. “A propos du décor absidal de Saint-Jean du Latran à Rome.” Cahiers archéologiques 20 (1970): 197–206. Chromatius of Aquilaeia. Opera. Edited by R. Étaix and J. Lemarié. CCSL 9A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1975. Cicero. On Divination, Book 1. Translated by David Wardle. CAHS. Oxford: Clarendon, 2006. Claassens, L. Juliana M. “The Rhetorical Function of the Woman in Labor Metaphor in Jeremiah 30–31: Trauma, Gender, and Postcolonial Studies.” JTSA 150 (2014): 67–84. Cleveland, Ray L. “Cherubs and the ‘Tree of Life’ in Ancient South Arabia.” BASOR 172 (1963): 55–60. Cline, Eric H. 1177B.C. The Year Civilization Collapsed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014. Coats, George W. Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Coatsworth, Elizabeth, and Gale Owen-Crocker. Clothing the Past: Surviving Garments from Early Medieval to Early Modern Western Europe. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Cole, Robert L. “An Integrated Reading of Psalms 1 and 2.” JSOT 98 (2002): 75–88. Cole, Robert L. Psalms 1 and 2: Gateway to the Psalter. HBM 37. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2013. Colless, Brian. “Yahweh and his Asherah: A Canaanite Point of View on the Religion of Ancient Israel.” Pages 61–70 in To Strive and Not to Yield: Essays in Honour of Colin Brown. Edited by James Veitch. Wellington: Victoria University, 1992.

bibliography

397

Collins, Paul. “Trees and Gender in Assyrian Art.” Iraq LXVIII (2006): 99–107. Collon, Dominique. First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. London: British Museum Press, 2005. Contessa, Andreina. “‘Arbor Bona’: Dalla menorah alla Vergine: la metafora arborea, segno della redenzione.” Cahiers Ratisbonne 1 (Jerusalem, 1996): 47–85. Cook, Roger. The Tree of Life: Symbol of the Centre. London: Thames and Hudson, 1974. Cooper, Jerrold. “Assyrian Prophecies, the Assyrian Tree, and the Mesopotamian Origins of Jewish Monotheism, Greek Philosophy, Christian Theology, Gnosticism, and Much More.” JAOS 120 (2000): 430–444. Cosentino, Delia. “The Tallest, the Fullest, the Most Beautiful: The Tree in Pre-Columbian and Colonial Mexico.” Pages 30–49 in Ceramic Trees of Life: Popular Art from Mexico. Edited by Lenore Hoag Mulryan. Los Angeles: UCLA Fowler Museum of Cultural History, 2003. Couliano, Ioan P. The Tree of Gnosis: Gnostic Mythology from Early Christianity to Modern Nihilism. Translated by H.S. Wiesner. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992. Cozzi, Enrica. “L’attività padovana di Giotto per i minori del Santo.”Padova e il suo territorio 97 (2002): 39–41. Cozzi, Enrica. “Il Lignum vitae bonaventuriano nella chiesa di San Francesco a Udine.” Pages 81–90 in De lapidibus sententiae: Scritti di storia dell’arte per Giovanni Lorenzoni. Edited by Tiziano Franco e Giovanna Valenzano. Padua: Il Poligrafo, 2002. Cramer, J.A., ed. Catena in Epistolas Catholicas: Accesserunt Œcumenii et Aretha Comment. In Apocalypsin. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1840. Creach, Jerome F.D. “Like a Tree Planted by the Temple Stream: The Portrait of the Righteous in Psalm 1:3.” CBQ 61 (1999): 34–46. Cremascoli, Giuseppe. “L’Officium liturgico di Tommaso d’Aquino.” Pages 155–169 in Il Corpus Domini: Teologia, Antropologia e politica. Edited by Laura Andreani and Agostino Paravicini Bagliani. Firenze: SISMEL, 2015. Crenshaw, James L. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010. Curtis, J.E., and J.E. Reade, eds. Art and Empire: Treasures from Assyria in the British Museum. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1995. Curtis, V.S. The Legendary Past: Persian Myths. Austin: University of Texas, 1993. Cusack, Carole M. The Sacred Tree: Ancient and Medieval Manifestations. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011. Cyprian. Opera I: Ad Quirinum. Ad Fortunatum. De lapsis. De ecclesiae catholicae unitate. Edited by K. Weber and M. Bévenot. CCSL 3. Turnhout: Brepols, 1972. Cyprian. Opera omnia (pars 3): Opera spuria. Indices. Praefatio. Edited by W. Hartel. CSEL 3.3. Vienna: Geroldi, 1871. Cyril of Jerusalem. Catecheses ad Illuminandos. Edited by J. Rupp. Munich: Lentner, 1848.

398

bibliography

Dalley, Stephanie. Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Translated with an Introduction and Notes. Rev. ed. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Dauber, Jonathan. Knowledge of God and the Development of Early Kabbalah. SJJTP 18. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Day, Peggy L. “Deity: Hebrew Bible.” Pages 74–80 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Gender Studies. Edited by Julia M. O’Brien. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Dell, Katharine J. “‘I Will Solve My Riddle to the Music of the Lyre’ (Psalm xlix 4[5]): A Cultic Setting for Wisdom Psalms?” VT 54 (2003): 445–458. Demetrius. On Style. Translated by Doreen C. Innes. LCL 199. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. Denifle, Heinrich. Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis. 4 vols. Paris: Delalain, 1889– 1897. Derrett, J. Duncan M. “Ο ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΕΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣΕΝ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΥ ΞΥΛΟΥ.” VC 43 (1989): 378–392. deSilva, David A. “Seeing Things John’s Way: Rhetography and Conceptual Blending in Revelation 14:6–13.” BBR 18 (2008): 271–298. Di Brazzano, Stefano. “Profilo biografico di Venanzio Fortunato.” Pages 37–72 in Venanzio Fortunato e il suo tempo. Convegno Internazionale di studio, Valdobbiodene, 29 November 2001 and Treviso 30 November–1 December 2001. Treviso: Fondazione Casamarca, 2001. Dillmann, August. Das Buch Henoch: übersetzt und erklärt. Leipzig: Fr. Chr. Wilh. Vogel, 1853. Dillmann, August. Die Genesis. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1892. Diodore of Tarsus. Commentary on Psalms 1–51. Edited and translated by R.C. Hill. WGRW 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. DiTommaso, Lorenzo. “Penitential Prayer and Apocalyptic Eschatology in Second Temple Judaism,” Pages 115–133 in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature: Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday. Edited by Jeremy Penner, Ken M. Penner, and Cecilia Wassen. STDJ 98. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Driver, S.R. The Book of Genesis. London: Methuen, 1943. Dronke, Peter. “The Completeness of Heaven.” Pages 44–56 in Envisaging Heaven in the Middle Ages. Edited by Carolyn Muessig and Ad Putter. London: Routledge, 2007. Duclow, Donald F. “Denial of Promise of the Tree of Life? Eriugena, Augustine and Genesis 3:22b.” Pages 221–238 in Iohannes Scottus Eriugena: The Bible and Hermeneutics. Edited by Gerd Van Riel, Carlos Steel, and James McEvoy. AMP 20. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996.

bibliography

399

Dunning, Benjamin. “What Sort of Thing Is This Luminous Woman? Thinking Sexual Difference in On the Origin of the World.” JECS 17 (2009): 55–84. Dus, Jan. “Zwei Schichten der biblischen Paradiesgeschichte.” ZAW 71 (1959): 97–113. Echols, Charles L. “Tell Me, O Muse”: The Song of Deborah ( Judges 5) in the Light of Heroic Poetry. LHBOTS 487. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Edelman, Diana. “The Iconography of Wisdom.” Pages 149–153 in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman. Edited by Yairah Amit, Ehud Ben Zvi, Israel Finkelstein, and Oded Lipschits. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Eder, Sigrid. Identifikationspotenziale in den Psalmen: Emotionen, Metaphern und Textdynamik in den Psalmen 30, 64, 90 und 147. BBB 183. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018. Edwards, Gifford Charles, and Helen McKee. “Lost Voices from Anglo-Saxon Lichfield.” Pages 79–90 in Anglo-Saxon England. Edited by Malcolm Godden and Simon Keynes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Edwards, M.J. “Figurative Readings: Their Scope and Justification.” Pages 714–733 in vol. 1 of The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Edited by James Carleton Paget and Joachim Schaper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Eirenikos, Nicholas. Epithalamion. Pages 97–112 in Aus der Geschichte und Literatur der Palaiologenzeit. Edited by August Heisenberg. Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1920. Eliade, Mircea. Birth and Rebirth: The Religious Meanings of Initiation in Human Culture. Translated by Willard R. Trask. New York: Harper & Row, 1958. Eliade, Mircea. Patterns in Comparative Religion. Translated by Rosemary Sheed. Introduced by John Clifford Holt. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1996. Ephraem. The Armenian Commentary on Genesis attributed to Ephraem Syrus. Translated by E.G. Matthews. CSCO 572. Louvain: Peeters, 1998. Ephraem. Hymns on Paradise. Translated by S. Brock. PPS 10. New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990. Ephraem. Selected Prose Works. Translated by E.G. Matthews and J.P. Amar. FC 91. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2010. Esler, Philip Francis. “Pacino di Bonaguida’s Tree of Life: Interpreting the Bible in Paint in Early Fourteenth Century Italy.” Biblical Reception 3 (2014): 3–29. Esmeijer, Anna C. L’albero della vita di Taddeo Gaddi: L’esegesi ‘geometrica’ di un’immagine didattica. Florence: EDAM, 1985. Estes, Douglas. “The Last Chapter of Revelation? Narrative Design at the End of the Apocalypse.” CTR 17 (2019), 97–110. Estes, Douglas. The Questions of Jesus in John: Logic, Rhetoric and Persuasive Discourse. BibInt 115. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Estes, Douglas. The Temporal Mechanics of the Fourth Gospel: A Theory of Hermeneutical Relativity in the Gospel of John. BibInt 92. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

400

bibliography

Evagrius Ponticus. Kephalaia Gnostika: A New Translation of the Unreformed Text from the Syriac. Translated with introduction and commentary by Ilaria L.E. Ramelli. WGRW 38. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. Evangelatou, Maria. “Botanical Exegesis in God’s Creation: The Polyvalent Meaning of Plants on the Salerno Ivories.” Pages 133–165 in The Salerno Ivories: Objects, Histories, Contexts. Edited by Anthony Cutler, Francesca dell’Acqua, Herbert L. Kessler, Avinoam Shalem, and Gerhard Wolf. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 2016. Fallon, Nicole. “The Cross as Tree: The Wood-Of-The-Cross Legends in Middle English and Latin Texts in Medieval England.” PhD diss., Center for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto, 2009. Farjon, Aljos. A Natural History of Conifers. Portland, OR: Timber Press, 2008. Farrer, Austin. A Rebirth of Images: The Making of St. John’s Apocalypse. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007. Fasseur, Valérie, Danièle James Raoul, and Jean-René Valette, eds. L’arbre au Moyen Âge: Actes du colloque international de Bordeaux et de Pau, 25–26 septembre 2008. Cultures et civilisations médiévales 49. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne, 2010. Fauconnier, Gilles. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Fauconnier, Gilles. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Eve Sweetser. Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar: Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. “Mental Spaces: Conceptual Integration Networks.” Pages 303–372 in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Edited by Dirk Geeraerts. Cognitive Linguistics Research 34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books, 2002. Fewell, Danna Nolan, and David M. Gunn. Gender, Power, and Promise: The Subject of the Bible’s First Story. Nashville: Abingdon, 1993. Filipová, Alžběta. “The Memory of Monza’s Holy Land Ampullae: From Reliquary to Relic, or There and Back Again.” Pages 10–25 in Objects of Memory or Memory of Objects: The Artworks as a Vehicle of the Past in the Middle Ages. Edited by Alžběta Filipová. Brno: Masarykova Univerzita, 2014. Firmicus Maternus. On the Error of Profane Religions. Edited by A. Pastorino. Florence: Nuova Italia Editrice, 1956. Ford, J. Massyngberde. Revelation: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. AB 38. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Foreman, Benjamin A. Animal Metaphors and the People of Israel in the Book of Jeremiah. FRLANT 238. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Forti, Tova L. Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs. VTSup 118. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

bibliography

401

Foster-Gilbert, Claire. “Disease, Suffering, and Sin: One Anglican’s Perspective.” Christian Bioethics 12 (2006): 157–163. Fowl, Stephen E. Engaging Scripture. Challenges in Contemporary Theology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998. Fox, Michael V. Proverbs I–IX. AB 18A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Frankfurter, David. Elijah in Upper Egypt: The Apocalypse of Elijah and Early Egyptian Christianity. SAC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Franklin, Norma. “The Assyrian Stylized Tree: Propagation Not Pollination.” Paper presented at the American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting. Denver, CO, 16 Nov 2018. Franklin-Brown, Mary. Reading the World: Encyclopedic Writing in the Scholastic Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012. Fratini, Corrado. “Il Maestro della Maddona di San Brizio e le vicende della pittura ad Orvieto fra Duecento e il primo Trecento.” Paragone 473 (1989): 3–22. Fratini, Corrado. “Percorso nel lungo «Tracciato Orvietano» della pittura medievale (sec. XIII–XIV).” Bollettino dell’Istituto Storico Artistico Orvietano 39 (1983): 169–184. Freedman, David Noel, ed. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Freni, Giovanni. “The Reliquary of the Holy Corporal in the Cathedral of Orvieto: Patronage and Politics.” Pages 117–178 in Art, Politics and Civic Religion in Central Italy, 1261–1352: Essays by Postgraduate Students at the Courtauld Institute of Art, 1261–1352. Edited by Joanna Cannon and Beth Williamson. London: Routledge, 2016. Fretheim, Terence E. “The Book of Genesis: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” Pages 319–673 in vol. 1 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994. Frevel, Christian. Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch YHWHs: Beiträge zu literarischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion. 2 vols. BBB 94. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995. Frey, Jean Baptiste. Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum, I. Rome: Città del Vaticano Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1936. Fujita, Shozo. “The Metaphor of Plant in Jewish Literature of the Intertestamental Period.” JSJ 7 (1976): 30–45. Funk, Wolf-Peter, Jean-Pierre Mahé, and Claudio Gianotto, eds. Melchisédek (NH IX, 1): Oblation, baptême et Vision dins la Nose Séthienne. Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi, Section Textes, 28. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2001. Gamer-Wallert, Ingrid. “Baum, heiliger.” Pages 655–660 in vol. 1 of Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Edited by Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1975–1989. Gardner, Julian. “The Façade of the Duomo at Orvieto.” Pages 199–209 in De l’art comme mystagogie: Iconographie du Jugement dernier et des fins dernières à l’époque gothique: Actes du colloque de la Fondation Hardt tenu à Genève du 13 au 16 février

402

bibliography

1994. Edited by Yves Christe. Civilisation médiévale 3. Poitiers: Centre d’Etudes supérieures de Civilisation médiévale, 1996. Garrett, Duane A. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs. NAC 14. Nashville: B&H, 1993. Gayley, Charles Mills. Plays of Our Forefathers and Some of the Traditions Upon Which They Were Founded. New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1968. Geller, Markham J. Evil Demons: Canonical Utukkū Lemnūtu Incantations. SAACT 5. Helsinki: Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy, 2007. Genge, Heinz. “Zum ‘Lebensbaum’ in den Keilschriftkulturen.” AcOr 33 (1971): 321– 334. George, Andrew R. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. George, Andrew R. The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation. Penguin Classics. London: Penguin, 1999. Gianfreda, Grazio. Il mosaico di Otranto: Biblioteca medievale in immagini. Edited by Quintino Gianfreda. 10th ed. Lecce: Edizioni del Grifo, 2008. Gibson, Craig A. Libanius’s Progymnasmata: Model Exercises in Greek Prose Composition and Rhetoric. WGRW 27. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2008. Gilchrest, Eric J. Revelation 21–22 in Light of Jewish and Greco-Roman Utopianism. BibInt 118. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Gilhus, Ingvild Sælid. The Nature of the Archons: A Study in the Soteriology of a Gnostic Treatise from Nag Hammadi (CGII, 4). StOR 12. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1985. Gilhus, Ingvild Sælid. “The Tree of Life and the Tree of Death: A Study of Gnostic Symbols.” Religion 17 (1987): 337–353. Gillingham, Susan. “An Introduction to Reception History with Particular Reference to Psalm 1.” RevScRel 85 (2011): 571–599. Ginzburg, Louis. Legends of the Jews. Vol. 1, Bible Times and Characters from the Creation to Moses in the Wilderness. Translated by Henrietta Szold and Paul Radin. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2003. Giovanardi, Alessandro. “San Bonaventura e la concezione dell’arte medieval: Note sul Lignum vitae di Pacino da Buonaguida.” Doctor Seraphicus 63 (2016): 159–180. Giovino, Mariana. The Assyrian Sacred Tree: A History of Interpretations. OBO 230. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Good, Edwin M. Genesis 1–11: Tales of the Earliest World. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011. Goodenough, Erwin R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 4 vols. Bollingen Series 37. New York: Pantheon, 1953–1968. Grabar, André. Ampoules de Terre Saint (Monza/Bobbio). Paris: Klincksieck, 1958. Graham, Christopher A. The Church as Paradise and the Way Therein: Early Christian Appropriation of Genesis 3:22–24. BAC 12. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Grant, Jamie A. The King as Exemplar: The Function of Deuteronomy’s Kinship Law in the

bibliography

403

Shaping of the Book of Psalms. SBL AcBib 17. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Graves-Brown, Carolyn. Dancing for Hathor: Women in Ancient Egypt. London: Continuum, 2010. Gray, Alison Ruth. Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures: A Reading through Metaphor. BibInt 127. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Graziano, Frank. Wounds of Love: The Mystical Marriage of Saint Rose of Lima. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Greatrex, Joan. “Innocent III’s Writings in English Benedictine Libraries.” Pages 183–195 in Omnia disce—Medieval Studies in Memory of Leonard Boyle O.P. Edited by Anne J. Duggan, Joan Greatrex, and Brenda Bolton. Farnham: Ashgate, 2005. Green, Anthony. “Ancient Mesopotamian Religious Iconography.” Pages 1837–1881 of vol. 3 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jack Sasson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Greenacre, Roger, and Jeremy Haselock. The Sacrament of Easter. Leominster, Herefordshire: Gracewing Publications, 1989. Greene-McCreight, Kathryn. “Sinewes Even in Thy Milke: The Plain Sense and the Trees of Eden.” ProEccl 24 (2015): 53–70. Gregorini, Alessandra. “Il Lignum vitae di S. Maria Maggiore a Bergamo.” PhD diss., Università Ca’Foscari, Venezia, 2013–2014. Gregory of Nazianzus. Five Theological Orations. Edited by A.J. Mason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899. Gregory of Nyssa. De Hominis Opificio. Edited by Lara Sels. Bausteine zur Slavischen Philologie und Kulturgeschichte B/21. Vienna: Böhlau, 2009. Gregory of Nyssa. Opera VIII.1. W. Jaeger et al. Leiden: Brill, 1952. Gregory of Nyssa. Opera, Supplementum. Edited by H. Hörner. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Grelot, Pierre. “La géographie mythique d’Hénoch et ses sources orientales.” RB 65.1 (1958): 33–69. Gruenwald, Ithamar. Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism. 2nd rev. ed. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 90. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Gryson, R., ed. Commentaria minora in Apocalypsin Iohannis. CCSL 107. Turnhout: Brepols, 2003. Gunkel, Hermann. Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton: A ReligioHistorical Study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12. Translated by K. William Whitney, Jr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Gunkel, Hermann. Elijah, Yahweh, and Baal. Translated by K.C. Hanson. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2014. Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997. Hachlili, Rachel. Ancient Mosaic Pavements: Themes, Issues, Trends. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

404

bibliography

Hachlili, Rachel. Ancient Synagogues—Archaeology and Art: New Discoveries and Current Research. HdO 105. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Hachlili, Rachel. The Menorah, the Ancient Seven-Armed Candelabrum: Origin, Form and Significance. JSJSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Hallo, William W., ed. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002. Hamburger, Jeffrey. Nuns as Artists: The Visual Culture of a Medieval Convent. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Hanneken, Todd R. The Subversion of the Apocalypses in the Book of Jubilees. SBL EJL 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2012. Hansman, J. “Gilgamesh, Humbaba and the Land of the ERIN-Trees.” Iraq 38 (1976): 23– 35. Harmless, William. “Baptism.” Pages 83–91 in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia. Edited by Allan D. Fitzgerald. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Harper, Prudence O., and Holly Pittmann, eds. Essays on Ancient Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honor of Charles Kyrle Wilkinson. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1983. Harrington, Wilfrid J. Revelation. SP 16. Collegeville: Liturgical, 2008. Harris-McCoy, Daniel E. Artemidorus’ Oneirocritica: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Hays, Christopher. “‘There is Hope for a Tree’: Job’s Hope for the Afterlife in the Light of Egyptian Tree Imagery.” CBQ 77 (2015): 42–68. Hayes-Williams, Jean Anne. “The Earliest Dated Tree of Jesse Image Thematically Reconsidered.” Athanor 18 (2000): 73–102. Heel, Koenraad Donker Van. “The Scribbling-Pad of Djemontefankh Son of Aafenmut, Priest of Amonrasonter and Overseer of the King’s Treasury.” Pages 139–147 in Acts of the Seventh International Conference on Demotic Studies: Copenhagen, 23–27 August 1999. Edited by Kim Ryholt. CNI Publications 27. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2002. Heffernan, James A.W. Museum of Words: The Poetics of Ekphrasis from Homer to Ashbery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. Helck, Wolfgang. “Ramessidische Inschriften aus Karnak.” ZÄS 82 (1958): 98–140. Hemer, Colin J. The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting. JSNTSup 11. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986. Hilary of Poitiers. Tractatus super Psalmos I: Instructio Psalmorum, In Psalmos I–XCI. Edited by J. Doignon. CCSL 61. Turnhout: Brepols, 1997. Himmelfarb, Martha. “The Temple and the Garden of Eden in Ezekiel, the Book of the Watchers, and the Wisdom of ben Sira.” Pages 63–78 in Sacred Places and Profane Spaces: Essays in the Geographics of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Edited by Jaime Scott and Paul Simpson-Housley. CSR 30. New York: Greenwood, 1991.

bibliography

405

Hinckley, Robert. “Adam, Aaron, and the Garden Sanctuary.” Logia 22.4 (2013): 5–12. Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies. Edited by M.D. Litwa. WGRW 40. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. Hock, Ronald F. The Chreia and Ancient Rhetoric: Commentaries on Aphthonius’s Progymnasmata. WGRW 31. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2012. Hogan, Karina Martin. “Mother Earth as a Conceptual Metaphor in 4Ezra.” CBQ 73 (2011): 72–91. Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Hongisto, Leif. Experiencing the Apocalypse at the Limits of Alterity. BIS 102. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Hooke, Della. Trees in Anglo-Saxon England: Literature, Lore and Landscape. AngloSaxon Studies 13. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2010. Horowitz, Maryanne Cline. Seeds of Virtue and Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998. Hubbes, László Attila. “Revolution of the Eye: The Spectacular Rhetoric of the Apocalyptic.” Pages 159–173 in Virtual Reality—Real Visuality: Virtual, Visual, Veridical. Edited by András Benedek and Ágnes Veszelszki. Visual Learning 7. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2017. Huijbers, Anne. Zealots for Souls: Dominican Narratives of Self-Understanding during Observant Reforms, c. 1388–1517. QFGD 22. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018. Hulster, Izaak J. de. “Of Angels and Iconography: Isaiah 6 and the Biblical Concept of Seraphs and Cherubs.” Pages 147–164 in Iconographic Exegesis of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: An Introduction to Its Method and Practice. Edited by Izaak J. de Hulster, Brent A. Strawn, and Ryan P. Bonfiglio. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Humbert, Paul. Études sur le Récit du Paradis et de la Chute dans la Genèse. Neuchätel: Secrètariat de l’Université, 1940. Iacobini, Antonio. “L’albero della vita nell’immaginario medievale: Bizanzio e l’Occidente.” Pages 241–290 in L’architettura medievale in Sicilia: La cattedrale di Palermo. Edited by Angiola Maria Romanini and Antonio Cadei. Rome: Instituto dell’enciclopedia italiana, 1994. Iacobini, Antonio. “Lancea Domini: Nuove ipotesi sul mosaico absidale nell’atrio del Battistero Lateranense.” Pages 727–742 in vol. 2 of Arte d’Occidente: Temi e metodi, Studi in onore di Angiola Maria Romanini. Edited by Antonio Cadei. Rome: Ed. Sintesi Informazione, 1999. Irenaeus. Against the Heresies. 3 vols. Translated by Dominic J. Unger. Revised by John J. Dillon. ACW 55, 64, 65. New York: Paulist, 1992–2012. Irvine, Christopher. The Cross and Creation in Liturgy and Art. London: SPCK, 2013. Irvine, Christopher. “The Iconography of the Cross as the Green Tree.” Pages 195–207

406

bibliography

in The Edinburgh Companion to the Bible and the Arts. Edited by Stephen Prickett. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014. Irwin, William H. “The Metaphor in Prov 11,30.” Biblica 65 (1984): 97–100. James, E.O. The Tree of Life: An Archaeological Study. SHR 11. Leiden: Brill, 1966. James, Montague Rhodes. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924. Jaroš, Karl. “Die Motive der Heiligen Bäume und der Schlange in Gen 2–3.” ZAW 92 (1980): 204–215. Jensen, Robin M. The Cross: History, Art and Controversy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2017. Jeremias, Jörg, and Friedhelm Hartenstein. “‘JHWH und seine Aschera’: ‘Offizielle Religion’ und ‘Volksreligion’ zur Zeit der klassischen Propheten.” Pages 79–138 in Religionsgeschichte Israels: Formale und materiale Aspekte. Edited by Bernd Janowski and Matthias Köckert. VWGT 15. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 1999. Jerome. The Homilies of Saint Jerome (1–59 on the Psalms). Edited by Hermigild Dressler. Translated by Marie Liguori Ewald. FC 1. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1964. Jerome. Opera Exegetica 1: Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos. Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum. Commentarioli in psalmos. Commentarius in Ecclesiasten. Edited by P. de Lagarde, G. Morin, and M. Adriaen. CCSL 72. Turnhout: Brepols, 1959. Jerome. Opera Exegetica 2: Tractatus sive homiliae in psalmos. In Marci evangelium. Alia varia argumenta. Edited by D.G. Morin, B. Capelle, and J. Fraipont. CCSL 78. Turnhout: Brepols, 1958. Jindo, Job Y. Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered: A Cognitive Approach to Poetic Prophecy in Jeremiah 1–24. HSM 64. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Jindo, Job Y. “Metaphor Theory and Biblical Texts.” Pages 1–10 in vol. 2 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. John of Damascus. Esposizione delle fede. Edited by B. Kotter. I Talenti 13. Bologna: San Clemente, 2013. Johnson, Elizabeth A. Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Johnson, Mark J. “On the Burial Places of the Theodosian Dynasty.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 40 (1991): 501–506. Joüon, Paul, and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rev. English ed. SubBi 27. Roma: Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 2006. Justin Martyr. The First Apology, The Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to the Greeks, Discourse to the Greeks, The Monarchy or the Rule of God. Translated by Thomas B. Falls. FC. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1948. Kanter, Laurence B. “Maestro delle Effigi Domenicane.” Pages 560–562 in Dizionario

bibliography

407

biografico degli miniatori italiani: Secoli IX–XVI. Edited by Milvia Bollati. Milan: Bonnard, 2004. Karagiannis, Christos G. “The Assyrian Tree of Life and the Jewish Menorah.” Pages 459– 470 in Tradition and Innovation in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 57th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Rome 4–8 July 2011. Edited by Alfonso Archi. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Karnes, Michelle. Imagination, Meditation, and Cognition in the Middle Ages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. Karrer, Martin. Die Johannesoffenbarung als Brief: Studien zu ihrem literarischen, historischen und theologischen Ort. FRLANT 140. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Kawashima, Robert S. “A Revisionist Reading Revisited: On the Creation of Adam and then Eve.” VT 56 (2006): 46–57. Keble, John. “Old Testament Types of the Cross: The Tree of Life.”ProEccl 9 (2000): 429– 433. Keel, Othmar. “Ägyptische Baumgöttinnen der 18.–21. Dynastie Bild und Wort, Wort und Bild.” Pages 61–138 in Das Recht der Bilder gesehen zu werden: Drei Fallstudien zur Methode der Interpretation altorientalischer Bilder. OBO 122. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Keel, Othmar. Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 261. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Keel, Othmar. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. Translated by Timothy J. Hallett. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Keel, Othmar, and Christoph Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Keel, Othmar, and Silvia Schroer. Creation: Biblical Theologies in the Context of the Ancient Near East. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Kennedy, George A. Invention and Method: Two Rhetorical Treatises from the Hermogenic Corpus. WGRW 15. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Kennedy, George A. Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric. WGRW 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Kepinski-Lecomte, Christine. L’Arbre Stylisé en Asie Occidentale au 2e Millénaire Avant J. C. 3 vols. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1982. Keuls, Eva C. Plato and Greek Painting. CSCT 5. Leiden: Brill, 1978. King, Karen L. The Secret Revelation of John. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. King, Karen L. What Is Gnosticism? Cambridge: Belknap, 2003. Kitzberger, Ingrid R. “‘Wasser und Bäume des Lebens’—Eine Feministisch-Intertextuelle Interpretation von Apk 21/22.” Pages 206–224 in Weltgericht und Weltvol-

408

bibliography

lendung: Zukunftsbilder im Neuen Testament. Edited by Hans-Josef Klauck. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. Klangwisan, Yael. “Divine Masculine and Feminine in Judeo-Mystico: A Tree of Life.” Pages 196–212 in Reconsidering Gender: Evangelical Perspectives. Edited by Myk Habets and Beulah Wood. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011. Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. “The Genesis of the Family Tree.”I Tatti Studies in the Italian Renaissance 4 (1991): 105–129. Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. “The Tree.” Pages 293–314 in Finding Europe: Discourses on Margins, Communities, Images. Edited by Anthony Molho and Diogo Ramada Curto. New York: Berghahn Books, 2007. Koemoth, Pierre. Osiris et les arbres: Contribution à l’étude des arbres sacrés de l’Égypte ancienne. Ægyptiaca Leodiensia 3. Liège: Centre Informatique de Philosophie et Lettres, 1994. Koester, Craig R. Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 38A. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014. Kogman-Appel, Katrin. “Christianity, Idolatry and the Question of Jewish Figural Painting in the Middle Ages.” Speculum 84 (2009): 73–107. Kogman-Appel, Katrin. “Jewish Art and Cultural Exchange: Theoretical Perspectives.” Medieval Encounters 17 (2011): 1–26. Kogman-Appel, Katrin. Jewish Book Art Between Islam and Christianity: The Decoration of Hebrew Bibles in Medieval Spain. Translated by Judith Davidson. Medieval and Early Modern Iberian World 19. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Kohl, Heinrich, and Karl Watzinger. Antike Synagogen in Galilaea. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1916. Kooij, Arie van der. “The Story of Paradise in the Light of Mesopotamian Culture and Literature.” Pages 3–22 in Genesis, Isaiah, and Psalms: A Festschrift to Honour Professor John Emerton for His Eightieth Birthday. Edited by Katharine J. Dell, Graham I. Davies, and Y.V. Koh. VTSup 135. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Kövecses, Zoltán. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1–59: A Commentary. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. CC. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988. Krinsky, Carol Herselle. Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985. Krispenz, Jutta. “Wie viele Bäume braucht das Paradies? Erwägungen zu Gen ii 4b–iii 24.” VT 54 (2004): 301–318. Kronholm, Tryggve. “The Trees of Paradise in the Hymns of Ephraem Syrus.” Pages 48– 56 in Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute: Volume XI, Festschrift Gillis Gerleman. Edited by Sten Hidal, Bo Johnson, Tryggve N.D. Mettinger, and Stig Norin. Leiden: Brill, 1978.

bibliography

409

Kulik, Alexander. 3Baruch: Greek-Slavonic Apocalypse of Baruch. CEJL. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. Kuntz, Marion Leathers, and Paul Grimely Kuntz. Jacob’s Ladder and the Tree of Life: Concepts of Hierarchy and the Great Chain of Being. AUS V.14. New York: Peter Lang, 1987. Labahn, Antje, and Pierre Van Hecke, eds. Conceptual Metaphors in Poetic Texts. PHSC 18. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013. LaCocque, André. The Trial of Innocence: Adam, Eve, and the Yahwist. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2006. Lactantius. Opera 2. Edited by S. Brandt. Vienna: Tempsky, 1893. Ladner, Gerhart B. “Medieval and Modern Understanding of Symbolism: A Comparison.” Speculum 54 (1979): 223–256. Ladner, Gerhart B. “Vegetation Symbolism and the Concept of Renaissance.” Pages 727– 763 in vol. 2 of Images and Ideas in the Middle Ages: Selected Studies in History and Art. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1983. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Lambert of Saint-Omer. Liber floridus. Ghent, Centrale Bibliotheek van de Rijksuniversiteit. Before 1121. Lambert, W.G. “Trees, Snakes, and Gods in Ancient Syria and Anatolia.”BSOAS 48 (1985): 435–451. Lanfer, Peter Thacher. “Allusion to and Expansion of the Tree of Life and Garden of Eden in Biblical and Pseudepigraphal Literature.” Pages 96–108 in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality: Volume 1: Thematic Studies. Edited by Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias. LNTS 391. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Lanfer, Peter Thacher. Remembering Eden: The Reception History of Genesis 3:22–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Larrington, Carolyne, trans. The Poetic Edda. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Larson, E. “4Q Narrative A.” Pages 353–365 in Qumran Cave 4: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1: Miscellaneous Texts from Qumran. Edited by Stephen J. Pfann, Philip Alexander et al. DJD 36. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. Lathrop, Gordon. Holy Ground: A Liturgical Cosmology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Lauer, Stewart E. “Was the Tree of Life Always Off-Limits? A Critique of Vos’s Answer.” Kerux 16:3 (2001): 42–50. Lauria, Antonietta. “Un tema francescano nella Roma del Duecento: Il Lignum vitae e un’ipotesi sull’Aracoeli.” Pages 383–402 in Forme e Storia: Scritti di arte medievale e moderna per Francesco Gandolfo. Edited by Walter Angelelli and Francesca Pomarici. Rome: Artemide, 2011. Layton, Bentley. The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and Introductions. New York: Doubleday, 1987.

410

bibliography

Layton, Bentley. “The Hypostasis of the Archons, Part II.” HTR 69 (1976): 31–101. Layton, Bentley et al. “Bulletin.” RB 83 (1976): 447–479. Lehmijoki-Gardner, Maiju, ed. Dominican Penitent Women. CWS. New York: Paulist, 2005. Leonhardt-Balzer, Jutta. “Philo and the Garden of Eden: An Exegete, his Text and his Tools.” Pages 244–257 in Die Septuaginta—Orte und Intentionen: 5. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 24.–27. Juli 2014. Edited by Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser, and Marcus Sigismund. WUNT I 361. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Levenson, Jon D. “Genesis: Introduction and Annotations.” Pages 8–101 in The Jewish Study Bible. Edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Levin, Arnold G. “The Tree of Life: Genesis 2:9 and 3:22–24 in Jewish, Gnostic and Early Christian Texts.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1966. Levine, Baruch A., and Jean-Michel de Tarragon. “‘Shapshu Cries Out in Heaven’: Dealing with Snake-Bites at Ugarit.” RB 95 (1988): 481–518. Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973–1980. Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. 8th ed. New York: American Book Company, 1897. Lillie, Celene. The Rape of Eve: The Transformation of Roman Ideology in Three Early Christian Retellings of Genesis. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017. Littlewood, Antony Robert, Henry Maguire, and Joachim Wolschke-Bulmahn, eds. Byzantine Garden Culture. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2002. Long, Asphodel. “The Tree of Life and the Menorah: Continuity of a Goddess Symbol in Judaism?” Pages 1–21 in Patriarchs, Prophets and Other Villains. Edited by Lisa Isherwood. London: Routledge, 2014. Long, R. James. “Botany.” Pages 401–405 in Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide. Edited by F.A.C. Mantello and A.G. Rigg. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1996. Longman, Tremper, III. Genesis. SGBC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016. Longinus. On the Sublime. Translated by W.H. Fyfe. Revised by Donald Russell. LCL 199. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. Lubac, Henri de. Exégèse Mediévale: Les quatre sens de l’Écriture. Vol. 1. Paris: Aubier, 1959. Lurker, Manfred. “Der Baum im alten Orient: Ein Beitrag zur Symbolgeschichte.” Pages 147–175 in Beiträge zu Geschichte, Kultur und Religion des alten Orients: In Memorium Eckhard Unger. Edited by Manfred Lurker. Baden-Baden: Valentin Koerner, 1971. Luttikhuizen, Gerard P. “Critical Gnostic Interpretations of Genesis.” Pages 75–86 in The

bibliography

411

Exegetical Encounter Between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity. Edited by Helen Spurling and Emmanouela Grypeou. JCPS 18. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Luttikhuizen, Gerard P. Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Traditions. NHMS 58. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Luttikhuizen, Gerard P. Paradise Interpreted: Representations of Biblical Paradise in Judaism and Christianity. TBN 2. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Macrobius. Commentary on the Dream of Scipio. Translated by William Harris Stahl. Records of Western Civilization. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952. Maguire, Henry. Earth and Ocean: The Terrestrial World in Early Byzantine Art. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1987. Maguire, Henry. Nectar and Illusion: Nature in Byzantine Art and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Mangina, Joseph L. Revelation. BTC. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2010. Mango, Marlia Mundell. Silver from Early Byzantium: The Kaper Koraon and Related Treasures. Baltimore: Trustees of the Walters Art Gallery, 1986. Mann, Vivian B. “The Artistic Culture of Prague Jewry.” Pages 83–89 in Prague: The Crown of Bohemia, 1347–1437. Edited by Barbara Drake Boehm and Jiří Fajt. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2005. Ma’oz, Zvi U. “Comments on Jewish and Christian Communities in Byzantine Palestine.” PEQ 117 (1985): 59–68. Marchini, Lucia. “Great Ryburgh: A Remarkable Anglo-Saxon Cemetery Revealed.” Current Archaeology, December 1, 2016. Marcus, Ralph. “‘Tree of Life’ in Essene Tradition.” JBL 74 (1955): 272. Marcus, Ralph. “The Tree of Life in Proverbs.” JBL 62 (1943): 117–120. Mardon, Ernest G. The Narrative Unity of the Cursor Mundi. Edited by Claire MacMaster. Edmonton: Golden Meteorite Press, 2012. Margulis, B. “Weltbaum and Weltberg in Ugaritic Literature: Notes and Observations on RŠ 24.245.” ZAW 86 (1974): 1–23. Margulis, B. “A Weltbaum in Ugaritic Literature?” JBL 90 (1971): 481–482. Mariette, Auguste. Dendérah: Description Générale du Grand Temple de Cette Ville. 5 vols. Paris: Librairie A. Franck, 1870–1875. Marjanen, Antti. “Gnosticism.” Pages 205–211 in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies. Edited by S.A. Harvey and D.G. Hunter. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Mastin, B.A. “Yahweh’s Asherah, Inclusive Monotheism and the Question of Dating.” Pages 326–351 in In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. JSOTSup 406. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Mathewson, David. A New Heaven and a New Earth: The Meaning and Function of the Old Testament in Revelation 21.1–22.5. JSNTSup 238. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.

412

bibliography

McCann, J. Clinton, Jr. “The Psalms as Instruction.” Interpretation 46 (1992): 117–128. McKane, William. Proverbs: A New Approach. OTL. London: SCM, 1970. McKinlay, Judith E. “Bothering to Enter the Garden of Eden Once Again.” Feminist Theology 19 (2011): 143–153. Mealy, J. Webb. After the Thousand Years: Resurrection and Judgment in Revelation 20. JSNTSup 70. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992. Meiggs, Russell. Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. Mercer, Samuel A.B. The Pyramid Texts in Translation and Commentary. 4 vols. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1952. Mettinger, Tryggve N.D. The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-historical Study of Genesis 2–3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Metzger, Martin. “Der Weltenbaum in vorderorientalischer Bildtradition.” Pages 1–34 in Unsere Welt, Gottes Schöpfung: Festschrift für Eberhard Wölfel. Edited by Wilfried Härle, Manfred Marquardt, and Wolfgang Nethöfel. Marburger theologische Studien 32. Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 1992. Meyer, Marvin, ed. The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts. New York: Harper Collins, 2007. Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25B. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Michel, Andreas. Theologie aus der Peripherie: Die gespaltene Koordination im biblischen Hebräisch. BZAW 257. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Milani, Celestina. Itinerarium Antonini Placentini: Un viaggio in Terra Santa del 560–570 d.C. Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1977. Miller, John B.F. “Exploring the Function of Symbolic Dream-Visions in the Literature of Antiquity, with Another Look at 1QapGen 19 and Acts 10.”PRSt 37 (2010): 441–455. Miller, Patricia Cox. Dreams in Late Antiquity: Studies in the Imagination of a Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Miskotte, Kornelis Heiko. Wenn die Götter schweigen: Vom Sinn des Alten Testaments. Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1964. Mitchell, W.J.T. Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1994. Mobley, Gregory. The Empty Men: The Heroic Tradition of Ancient Israel. New York: Doubleday, 2005. Mobley, Gregory. “The Wild Man in the Bible and the Ancient Near East.” JBL 116 (1997): 217–233. Mojsov, Bojana. Osiris: Death and Afterlife of a God. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Moor, Johannes C. de. “East of Eden.” ZAW 100 (1988): 105–111. Morris, Henry M. The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976.

bibliography

413

Morris, Paul, and Deborah Sawyer, eds. A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden. JSOTSup 136. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Moses Bar-Kepha. De Paradiso Commentarius. Antwerp: Christophori Plantini, 1569. Moss, Candida, and Joel Baden. Reconceiving Infertility: Biblical Perspectives on Procreation and Childlessness. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015. Moughtin-Mumby, Sharon. Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel. OTM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Munns, John. Cross and Culture in Anglo-Norman England: Theology, Imagery, Devotion. BSMC. Woodridge: Boydell Press, 2016. Murphy, G. Ronald, S.J. Tree of Salvation: Yggdrasil and the Cross in the North. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Murphy, G. Ronald, S.J., trans and ed. The Heliand: The Saxon Gospel. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Napier, Arthur Sampson. History of the Holy Rood Tree: A Twelfth Century Version of the Cross-Legend. London: Early English Text Society, 1894. Nerbano, Mara. Il teatro della devozione: Confraternite e spettacolo nell’Umbria medievale. Perugia: Morlacchi, 2006. Neumann-Gorsolke, Ute, and Peter Riede, eds. Das Kleid der Erde: Pflanzen in der Lebenswelt des alten Israel. Stuttgart: Calwer, 2002. Neusner, Jacob. The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary. 22 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2011. Nickelsburg, George W.E. 1Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1Enoch. Hermeneia. Edited by Klaus Baltzer. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Nickelsburg, George W.E. Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972. Niehoff, Maren R. “Questions and Answers in Philo and Genesis Rabbah.” JSJ 39 (2008): 337–366. Nielsen, Kirsten. There is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah. JSOTSup 65. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Noga-Banai, Galit, and Linda Safran. “A Late Antique Silver Reliquary in Toronto.” Journal of Late Antiquity 4 (2011): 3–30. Nogalski, James. “The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 192–213 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Norris, Richard A., Jr. “Two Trees in the Midst of the Garden (Genesis 2:9b): Gregory of Nyssa and the Puzzle of Human Evil.” Pages 218–241 in In Dominico Eloquio— In Lordly Eloquence: Essays on Patristic Exegesis in Honour of Robert Louis Wilken. Edited by Paul M. Blowers, Angela Russell Christman, David G. Hunter, and Robin Darling Young. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Oakes, Lorna, and Lucia Gahlin. Ancient Egypt: An Illustrated Reference to the Myths,

414

bibliography

Religions, Pyramids and Temples of the Land of the Pharaohs. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2007. Obbink, Herman Theodorus. “The Tree of Life in Eden.” ZAW 46 (1928): 105–112. Oberhelman, Steven M. Dreambooks in Byzantium: Six Oneirocritica in Translation, with Commentary and Introduction. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008. Ó Carragáin, Éamonn. “Between Annunciation and Visitation: Spiritual Birth and the Cycles of the Sun on the Ruthwell Cross: A Response to Fred Orton.” Pages 131–187 in Theorizing Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture. Edited by Catherine Karkov and Fred Orton. Morgantown, VA: West Virginia University Press, 2003. Ó Carragáin, Éamonn. Ritual and the Rood: Liturgical Images and the Old English Poems of the Dream of the Rood Tradition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005. O’Connell, Patrick Francis. “The Lignum vitae of Saint Bonaventure and the Medieval Devotional Tradition.” PhD diss., Fordham University, 1985. Odor, Judith A. “Enoch, Third Book of.” In Lexham Bible Dictionary. Edited by John D. Barry. Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2016. Oecumenius. Commentary on the Apocalypse. Translated by John N. Suggit. FC 112. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006. O’Flynn, Donnel. Holy Cross, Life-giving Tree. New York: Church Publishing, 2017. O’Hear, Natasha, and Anthony O’Hear. Picturing the Apocalypse: The Book of Revelation in the Arts over Two Millenia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Omanson, Roger L. A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Opitz, Christian Nikolaus. “Genealogical Representations of Monastic Communities in Late Medieval Art.” Pages 183–202 in Meanings of Community across Medieval Eurasia: Comparative Approaches. Edited by Eirik Hovden, Christina Lutter, and Walter Pohl. Brill’s Series on the Early Middle Ages. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Origen. Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 1–10. Translated by Ronald E. Heine. FC 80. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989. Origen. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1–5. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. FC 103. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001. Origen. First Principles. Edited by Paul Koetschau. Vol. 5 of Origenes Werke. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1913. Origen. On Prayer. Edited by Paul Koetschau. Vol. 2 of Origenes Werke. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1899. Orlov, Andrei A. Heavenly Priesthood in the Apocalypse of Abraham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Oropeza, B.J. “Rhetography: Seeing Biblical Texts through Visual Exegesis.” Didaktikos 2:1 (2018): 35–36. Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.

bibliography

415

Osborne, William R. “A Biblical Reconstruction of the Prophetess Deborah in Judges 4.” Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 2 (2013): 199–213. Osborne, William R. “The Early Messianic ‘Afterlife’ of the Tree Metaphor in Ezekiel 17:22–24.” TynBul 64 (2013): 171–188. Osborne, William R. “The Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt and the Book of Proverbs.” JANER 14 (2014): 117–128. Osborne, William R. Trees and Kings: A Comparative Analysis of Tree Imagery in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition and the Ancient Near East. BBRSup 18. University Park, PA; Eisenbrauns, 2018. Oshima, Takayoshi. The Babylonian Theodicy. SAACT 9. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Otzen, Benedikt. “The Paradise Trees in Jewish Apocalyptic.” Pages 140–154 in Apocryphon Severini: Presented to Søren Giversen. Edited by P. Bilde, H.K. Nielsen, J. Podemann Sørensen. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1993. Painchaud, Louis. L’écrit sans titre: traité sur l’origine du monde. NH II, 5 et XIII, 2 et Brit. Lib. Or. 4926[1]. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 1995. Painchaud, Louis. “The Use of Scripture in Gnostic Literature.” JECS 4 (1996): 129– 147. Parpola, Simo. Assyrian Prophecies. SAA 9. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997. Parpola, Simo. “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy.” JNES 52 (1993): 161–208. Pasquini, Laura. “Il mosaico pavimentale della Cattedrale di Otranto.” Pages 70–101 in Tessere di storia: Dai mosaici di Pella alla Basilica di San Vitale. Edited by Federica Guidi. Bologna: Ante Quem, 2011. Pastoureau, Michel. “Bonum, Malum, Pomum: Une histoire symbolique de la pomme.” Pages 155–216 in L’Arbre: Histoire naturelle et symbolique de l’arbre, du bois et du fruit au Moyen Age. Paris: Le Léopard d’Or, 1993. Patrologia Graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886. Patrologia Latina. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844–1864. Patte, Daniel. Ethics of Biblical Interpretation: A Reevaluation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. Perdue, Leo G. Wisdom Literature: A Theological History. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Perrot, Nell. Les Représentations de l’arbre sacré sur les monuments de Mésopotamie et d’Élam. Babyloniaca 17. Paris: Geuthner, 1937. Pezzoli-Olgiati, Daria. Täuschung und Klarheit: Zur Wechselwirkung zwischen Vision und Geschichte in der Johannesoffenbarung. FRLANT 175. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Pfeiffer, Henrik. “Der Baum in der Mitte des Gartens: Zum überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Ursprung der Paradieserzählung (Gen 2,4b–3,24), Teil I: Analyse.” ZAW 112 (2000): 487–500.

416

bibliography

Pfeiffer, Henrik. “Der Baum in der Mitte des Gartens: Zum überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Ursprung der Paradieserzählung (Gen 2,4b–3,24), Teil II: Prägende Tradition und theologische Akzente.” ZAW 113 (2001): 2–16. Pfnür, Vinzenz. “Das Kreuz: Lebensbaum in der Mitte des Paradiesgartens: Zur Bedeutung der christlichen Kreuzessymbolik.” Pages 203–222 in Garten des Lebens: Festschrift für Winfrid Cramer. Edited by Maria-Barbara von Stritzky and Christian Uhrig. Münsteraner theologische Abhandlungen 60. Altenberge: Oros, 1999. Phillips, Jack. “The Cross as Tree of Life in the Coptic Church.” Coptic Church Review 10 (1989): 53–54. Philo. On the Creation of the World, Allegorical Interpretation. Translated by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929. Philo. Questions and Answers on Genesis. Translated by Ralph Marcus. LCL 380. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953. Piccirillo, Michele. Chiese e mosaici di Madaba. SBFCMa 34. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1989. Piccirillo, Michele. The Mosaics of Jordan. Aman: American Centre of Oriental Research, 1996. Piper, Ferdinand. “The Tree of Life.” Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record 4:8 (1864): 376–393; 6:11 (1864): 27–48; 8:15 (1865): 57–74. Translation of “Der Baum des Lebens.” Pages 77–94 in Evangelischer Kalender-Jahrbuch für 1863. Berlin: Weigandt & Grieben, 1862. Plutarch. Plutarch’s Lives, Vol. 11: Artaxerxes. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962. Popenoe, Paul. The Date Palm. Miami, FL: Field Research Projects, 1973. Porter, Barbara Nevling. “Sacred Trees, Date Palms, and the Royal Persona of Ashurnasirpal II.” JNES 52 (1993): 129–139. Porter, Barbara Nevling. Trees, Kings, and Politics: Studies in Assyrian Iconography. OBO 197. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Porter, James I. The Sublime in Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Postgate, J.N., and M.A. Powell, eds. Trees and Timber in Mesopotamia. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 6. Cambridge: Sumerian Agricultural Group, 1992. Preisinger, Raphaèle. Lignum vitae: Zum Verhältnis materieller Bilder und mentaler Bildpraxis im Mittelalter. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink, 2014. Presley, Stephen O. The Intertextual Reception of Genesis 1–3 in Irenaeus of Lyons. BAC 8. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Primasius. Commentarius in Apocalypsin. Edited by A.W. Adams. CCSL 92. Turnhout: Brepols, 1985. Pritchard, James B., ed. The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

bibliography

417

Punter, David. Metaphor. New Critical Idiom. London: Routledge, 2007. Quinn, E.C. The Quest of Seth for the Oil of Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Quintilian. Institutio Oratoria. Translated by H.E. Butler. 4 vols. LCL 124–127. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920–1921. Rad, Gerhard von. Genesis: A Commentary. Translated by John H. Marks. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973. Rahmani, L.Y. “A Magic Amulet from Nahariyya.” HTR 74 (1981): 387–390. Ramshaw, Gail. Under the Tree of Life: The Religion of a Feminist Christian. New York: Continuum, 1998. Rasimus, Tuomas. “Imperial Propaganda in Paradise? Christ as Eagle in the Apocryphon of John.” Pages 27–45 in Hidden Truths from Eden: Esoteric Readings of Genesis 1–3. Edited by Caroline Vander Stichele and Suzanne Scholz. SBL SemeiaSt 76. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014. Rasimus, Tuomas. Paradise Reconsidered in Gnostic Mythmaking: Rethinking Sethianism in Light of the Ophite Evidence. NHMS 68. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Reed, Annette Yoshiko. Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Reeder, Caryn A. Gendering War and Peace in the Gospel of Luke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Reeves, Marjorie, and Beatrice Hirsch-Reich. The Figurae of Joachim of Fiore. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Rendtorff, Rolf. “Alas for the Day! The ‘Day of the Lord’ in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 186–197 in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. Beal. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Ricci, Fulvio. “Un raro tema iconografico: Il «Lignum Vitae Christi» di San Bonaventura nella chiesa di San Silvestro in Tuscania.” Biblioteca e Società 11 (1992): 27–29. Riccioni, Stefano. Il mosaico absidale di S. Clemente a Roma: Exemplum della chiesa riformata. Spoleto: CISAM, 2006. Richards, I.A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press, 1936. Ringgren, Helmer. Religions of the Ancient Near East. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1973. Ritchey, Sarah. Holy Matter: Changing Perceptions of the Material World in Late Medieval Christianity. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014. Rizzardi, Clementina. “Massimiano a Ravenna: La Cattedra eburnea del Museo Arcivescovile alla luce di nuove ricerche.” Pages 229–243 in Ideologia e cultura artistica tra Adriatico e Mediterraneo orientale IV–V secolo: Il ruolo dell’autorità ecclesiastica alla luce di nuovi scavi e ricerche. Edited by Raffaella Farioli Campanati. Bologna: Ante Quem, 2009. Rizzardi, Clementina. Il mausoleo di Galla Placidia a Ravenna. Modena: Panini, 1996.

418

bibliography

Robbins, Vernon K. “Rhetography: A New Way of Seeing the Familiar Text.” Pages 81– 106 in Words Well Spoken: George Kennedy’s Rhetoric of the New Testament. Edited by C. Clifton Black and Duane F. Watson. SRR 8. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008. Robinson, James M., ed. The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices. 5 Vols. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Robinson, James M., ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 4th rev. ed. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Rodov, Ilia M. “The Development of Medieval and Renaissance Sculptural Decoration in Ashkenazi Synagogues from Worms to the Cracow Area.” 5 vols. PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2003. Rodov, Ilia M. The Torah Ark in Renaissance Poland: A Jewish Revival of Classical Antiquity. JCPS 23. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Roloff, Jürgen. The Revelation of John. Translated by John E. Alsup. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Romanus. Cantica genuina. Edited by Paul Maas and C.A. Trypanis. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963. Rooke, Deborah W. “Kingship as Priesthood: The Relationship between the High Priesthood and the Monarchy.” Pages 187–208 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. LHBOTS 593. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Rose, Wolter H. Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period. LHBOTS 304. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Rossi, Marco. La sapienza e l’infinito: L’albero della vita nel mosaico di Otranto. Castel Bolognese: Itaca, 2006. Rowlatt, Ursula. “A Flowering Cross in the Robert de Lindesey Psalter, c. 1220–1222.” Folklore 110 (1999): 95–98. Rubin, Miri. Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Rufinus. Opera. Edited by M. Simonetti. CCSL 20. Turnhout: Brepols, 1961. Russell, John Malcolm. “The Program of the Palace of Assurnasirpal II at Nimrud: Issues in the Research and Presentation of Assyrian Art.” AJA 102 (1998): 655–715. Salonius, Pippa, and Andrea Worm, eds. The Tree: Symbol, Allegory, and Mnemonic Device in Medieval Art and Thought. IMR 20. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014. Sancto Victore, Hugo de. De archa Noe: Libellus de formatione arche. Edited by Patrice Sicard. CCCM 176. Turnhout: Brepols, 2001. Santos, Daniel. “A plantação da igreja no Éden.” Fides Reformata 19 (2014): 49–59. Sarna, Nahum M. Understanding Genesis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Sarton, George. “The Artificial Fertilization of Date-Palms in the Time of Ashur-nasirpal B.C.885–860.” Isis XXI (1934): 8–13.

bibliography

419

Scalf, Foy, ed. Book of the Dead: Becoming God in Ancient Egypt. OIMP 39. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2018. Schadt, Hermann. Die Darstellungen der Arbores consanguinitatis und der Arbores affinitatis: Bildschemata in juristischen Handschriften. Tübingen: Wasmuth, 1982. Schipper, Bernd Ulrich. Israel und Ägypten in der Königszeit: Die kulturellen Kontakte von Salomo bis zum Fall Jerusalems. OBO 170. Freibourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Schlosser, Marianne. “Bonaventure: Life and Works.” Translated by Angelica Kliem. Pages 9–59 in A Companion to Bonaventure. Edited by Jay M. Hammond, J.A. Wayne Hellmann, and Jared Goff. BCCT 48. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Schmid, J. Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes. MTS 1. Munich: Zink, 1955–1956. Scholem, Gershom. Origins of the Kabbalah. Edited by R.J. Zwi Werblowsky. Translated by Allan Arkush. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. Schorsch, Ismar. Foreword to Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary, edited by David L. Lieber. New York: The Rabbinical Assembly, 2001. Schoske, Sylvia, Barbara Kreißl, and Renate Germer. “Anch” Blumen für das Leben: Planzen im Alten Ägypten. Münich: Karl M. Lipp, 1992. Schubert, Kurt. “Jewish Art in the Light of the Jewish Tradition.” Pages 147–159 in Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval Christianity. Edited by Heinz Schreckenbert and Kurt Schubert. CRINT. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1992. Shields, Mary E. Circumscribing the Prostitute: The Rhetorics of Intertextuality, Metaphor, and Gender in Jeremiah 3.1–4.4. JSOTSup 387. New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Sicard, Patrice. “Hugh of Saint-Victor.” In Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages. Edited by André Vauchez. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 2002. Simbeni, Alessandro. “Gli affreschi di Taddeo Gaddi nel refettorio: Programma, committenza e datazione, con una postilla sulla diffusione del modello iconografico del Lignum vitae in Catalogna.” Pages 113–141 in Santa Croce: Oltre le apparenze. Edited by Andrea De Marchi e Giacomo Piraz. Pistoia: Gli Ori, 2011. Simbeni, Alessandro. “L’iconografia del Lignum vitae in Umbria nel XIV secolo e un ipotesi su un perduto prototipo di Giotto ad Assisi.” Franciscana 9 (2007): 149– 183. Simbeni, Alessandro. “Il Lignum vitae sancti Francisci in due dipinti di primo trecento a Padova e Verona.” Il Santo 46 (2006): 185–213. Simor, Suzanna B. “The Tree of the Credo: Symbolism of the Tree in Medieval Images of the Christian Creed.” Pages 45–54 in The Origins of Life: Vol. 1, The Primogenital Matrix of Life and Its Context. Edited by Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka. Analecta Husserliana 66. Dordrecht: Springer, 2000. Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. ICC. New York: Scribner, 1930.

420

bibliography

Smalley, Stephen S. The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse. London: SPCK, 2005. Smend, Rudolf. Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1912. Smit, Peter-Ben. “Reaching for the Tree of Life: The Role of Eating, Drinking, Fasting, and Symbolic Foodstuffs in 4Ezra.” JSJ 45 (2014): 366–387. Smith, Carl B. No Longer Jews: The Search for Gnostic Origins. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Smith, Morton. Studies in the Cult of Yahweh, Volume 1: Studies in Historical Method, Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism. RGRW 130.1. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Smith, Ralph L. Micah–Malachi. WBC 32. Dallas: Word, 1998. Sneed, Mark R., ed. Was There A Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Tradition. AIL 23. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. Speiser, E.A. Genesis. AB. Garden City: Doubleday, 1964. Spero, Shubert. “The Menorah: A Study in Iconic Symbolism.” Tradition 14:3 (1974): 86– 93. Stambaugh, James. “Whence Cometh Death? A Biblical Theology of Physical Death and Natural Evil.” Pages 373–397 in Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth. Edited by Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury. Green Forest, AR: Master, 2008. Starke, Robert. “The Tree of Life: Protological to Eschatological.”Kerux 11:2 (1996): 15–31. Stead, Michael R. The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8. LHBOTS 506. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Stern, David. The Jewish Bible: A Material History. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2017. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Stolz, Fritz. “Die Bäume des Gottesgartens auf dem Libanon.” ZAW 84 (1972): 141–156. Stone, Michael E. A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve. SBL EJL 3. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Stone, Michael E. “The Metamorphosis of Ezra: Jewish Apocalypse and Medieval Vision,” Pages 359–376 in Selected Studies in Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha: With Special Reference to the Armenian Tradition. Edited by Michael E. Stone. SVTP 9. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Stordalen, T. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. CBET 25. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. Stovell, Beth M. “‘I Will Make Her Like a Desert’: Intertextual Allusion and Feminine and Agricultural Metaphors in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 21–46 in The Book of

bibliography

421

the Twelve and the New Form Criticism. Edited by Mark J. Boda, Michael H. Floyd, and Colin Toffelmire. ANEM 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015. Stovell, Beth M. Making Sense of Motherhood: Biblical and Theological Perspective. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016. Stovell, Beth M. “Son of God as Anointed One? Johannine Davidic Christology and Second Temple Messianism.” Pages 151–177 in Reading the Gospel of John’s Christology as a Form of Jewish Messianism: Royal, Prophetic, and Divine Messiahs. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini and Benjamin Reynolds, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 106. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Stovell, Beth M. “Who’s King? Whose Temple? Divine Presence, Kingship, and Contested Space in John 1, 12, and 19.” In Johannine Prologue. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew Pitts, JS. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. Strack, Hermann L., and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. Munich: Beck, 1922–1961. Strange, John. “The Idea of Afterlife in Ancient Israel: Some Remarks on the Iconography in Solomon’s Temple.” PEQ 117 (1985): 35–40. Stratton, Beverly J. Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 2–3. JSOTSup 208. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Strickland, Debra Higgs. Saracens, Demons and Jews: Making Monsters in Medieval Art. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003. Stroll, Mary. Symbols as Power: The Papacy following the Investiture Contest. BSIH 24. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Stromberg, Jake. “The ‘Root of Jesse’ in Isaiah 11:10: Postexilic Judah, or Postexilic Davidic King?” JBL 127 (2008): 655–669. Struck, Peter T. Birth of the Symbol: Ancient Readers at the Limits of Their Texts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Sturluson, Snorri. Edda. Translated and edited by Anthony Faulkes. Everyman. London: J.M. Dent, 1995. Sugimoto, David T. “‘Tree of Life’ Decoration on Iron Age Pottery from the Southern Levant.” Orient 47 (2012): 125–146. Taylor, Joan E. “The Asherah, the Menorah, and the Sacred Tree.” JSOT 66 (1995): 29– 54. Teissier, Beatrice. Egyptian Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle Bronze Age. OBO 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Temporini, Hildegard, and Wolfgang Haase, eds. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Part 2, Principat. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972–. Tertullian. Opera II: Opera montanistica. Edited by A. Gerlo, et al. CCSL 2. Turnhout: Brepols, 1954. Teuscher, Simon. “Flesh and Blood in the Treatises on the Arbor Consanguinitatis

422

bibliography

(Thirteenth to Sixteenth Centuries).” Pages 83–104 in Blood and Kinship: Matter for Metaphor from Ancient Rome to the Present. Edited by Christopher H. Johnson, Bernhard Jussen, David Warren Sabean, and Simon Teuscher. New York: Berghahn Books, 2013. Thatcher, Tom, and Stephen D. Moore, eds. Anatomies of Narrative Criticism: The Past, Present, and Futures of the Fourth Gospel as Literature. RBS 55. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Thee, Francis C.R. Julius Africanus and the Early Christian View of Magic. HUT 16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984. Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentary on Psalms 1–81. Edited and translated by R.C. Hill. WGRW 5. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Theodoret of Cyrus. The Questions on the Octateuch. Vol. 1, On Genesis and Exodus. Edited by J.F. Petruccione. Translated by R.C. Hill. LEC 1. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2007. Theophilus of Antioch. Ad Autolycum. Edited by Robert M. Grant. OECT. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. Thomson, Margaret H., ed. The Symbolic Garden: Reflections Drawn from a Garden of Virtues. A XIIth Century Greek Manuscript. North York, Ontario: Captus Press, 1989. Thunø, Eric. Image and Relic: Mediating the Sacred in Early Medieval Rome. Rome: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider, 2002. Tigchelaar, Eibert J.C. Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers, and Apocalyptic. OtSt 35. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Todi, Jacopone da. Le laude. Edited by Luigi Fallacara. Florence: Libreria Editrice Fiorentina, 1955. Todi, Jacopone da. The Lauds. Translated by Serge Hughes and Elizabeth Hughes. New York: Paulist, 1982. Tomei, Alessandro. Iacobus Torriti pictor: Una vicenda figurativa del tardo Duecento romano. Rome: Argos, 1990. Torrell, Jean Pierre. Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Person and His Work. Translated by Robert Royal. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005. Tsevat, Matitiahu. “The Two Trees in the Garden of Eden.” ErIsr 12 (1975): 40–43. Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. Tronzo, William. “The Mantle of Roger of Sicily.” Pages 241–253 in Robes and Honour: The Medieval World of Investiture. Edited by Stewart Gordon. New York: Palgrave, 2001. Trumbower, Jeffrey A. “Traditions Common to the Primary Adam and Eve Books and On the Origin of the World (NHC II.5).” JSP 14 (1996): 43–54. Tucker, Gordon. “The Tree of Life.” Vol. 4 of Dictionary of Daily Life in Biblical and PostBiblical Antiquity. Edited by Edwin M. Yamauchi and Marvin R. Wilson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2014.

bibliography

423

Turner, John. “Sethian Gnosticism: A Revised Literary History.” Pages 899–908 in vol. 2 of Actes du huitième congrès international d’études coptes, Paris, 28 juin–3 juillet 2004. Edited by N. Bosson and A. Boud’hors. OLA 163. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Tyconius. Commentaire de l’Apocalypse. Edited by R. Gryson. CCT 10. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011. Uehlinger, Christoph, ed. Images as Media: Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millennium BCE). OBO 175. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Uhlig, Siegbert. Das äthiopische Henochbuch. JSHRZ 5. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1984. Ungnad, Arthur. “Die Paradiesbäume.” ZDMG 79 (1925): 111–118. Ungruh, Christine. Das Bodenmosaik der Kathedrale von Otranto (1163–1165): Normannische Herrscherideologie als Endseitvision. Korb: Didymos-Verlag, 2013. VanGemeren, Willem A., ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. Van Hecke, Pierre, ed. Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible. BETL 187. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. Van Hecke, Pierre, and Antje Labahn, eds. Metaphor in the Psalms. BETL 231. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Vasari, Giorgio. Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors and Architects. Translated by Gaston du C. de Vere. London: MacMillan, 1912–1914. Velmans, Tania. “L’Arbre de Jessé en Orient Chrétien.” Deltion (2005): 125–140. Venantius Fortunatus. Opere. 2 vols. Edited by Stefano Di Brazzano. CSEA 8. Rome: Città Nuova, 2001. Venantius Fortunatus. Poems: Venantius Fortunatus. Edited and translated by Michael Roberts. DOML 46. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2017. Victorinus of Petau. Sur l’Apocalypse: Suivi du fragment chronologique et de La construction du monde. Edited by M. Dulaey. SC 423. Paris: Cerf, 1997. Vilímková, Milada. “Seven Hundred Years of the Old-New Synagogue.” Judaica Bohemiae 5 (1969): 72–83. Vogels, Walter. “The Tree(s) in the Middle of the Garden (Gn 2:9; 3:3).” ScEs 59 (2007): 129–142. Voragine, Jacobus de. The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints. Translated by William Granger Ryan. Introduced by Eamon Duffy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Vriezen, Th.C. The Religion of Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967. Vriezen, Th.C. An Outline of Old Testament Theology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1970. Walck, Leslie. “The Parables of Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels.” Pages 231–268 in Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift. Edited by Darrell Bock and James H. Charlesworth. Jewish and Christian Texts 11. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013. Wallace, Howard N. The Eden Narrative. HSM 32. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.

424

bibliography

Walsh, Jerome T. “Genesis 2:4b–3:24: A Synchronic Approach.” JBL 96 (1977): 161–177. Walsh, Peter G., ed. One Hundred Latin Hymns: Ambrose to Aquinas. With Christopher Husch. DOML 18. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012. Walters, Barbara A. “Diffusion of the Feast through Social Networks.” Pages 25–35 in The Feast of Corpus Christi. Edited by Barbara A. Walters, Vincent Corrigan, and Peter T. Ricketts. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006. Waltke, Bruce K. The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael Patrick O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Walton, John H. The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015. Walvoord, John F. The Revelation of Jesus Christ: A Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1966. Walz, Angelus. “Von Dominikanerstammbäumen.” Archivium Frantrum Praedicatorum 34 (1964): 231–275. Ward, William Hayes. The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution, 1910. Wasilewska, Ewa. Creation Stories of the Middle East. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2000. Watanabe, Chikako E. “Styles of Pictorial Narratives in Assurbanipal’s Reliefs.” Pages 345–368 in Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art. Edited by Brian A. Brown and Marian H. Feldman. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Watanabe, Kazuko. “Lebensspendende und todbringende Substanzen in Altmesopotamien.” BaM 25 (1994): 579–596. Watson, Arthur. The Early Iconography of the Tree of Jesse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932. Watson, Paul. “The Tree of Life.” ResQ 23 (1980): 232–238. Weeks, Stuart. “Wisdom Psalms.” Pages 292–307 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by John Day. LHBOTS 422. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Feminine Features in the Imagery of God in Israel: The Sacred Marriage and the Sacred Tree.” VT 46 (1996): 515–529. Weiss, Andrea. “Figures of Speech: Biblical Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Edited by Geoffrey Kahn. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Weitzmann, Kurt, and Herbert L. Kessler. The Frescoes of the Dura Europos Synagogue and Christian Art. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1990. Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1–15. WBC 1. Waco: Word, 1987. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. CC. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. Whitaker, Robyn J. Ekphrasis, Vision, and Persuasion in the Book of Revelation. WUNT 2.410. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.

bibliography

425

Whitaker, Robyn J. “The Poetics of Ekphrasis: Vivid Description and Rhetoric in the Apocalypse.” Pages 227–240 in Poetik und Intertextualität der Johannesapokalypse. Edited by Stefan Alkier, Thomas Hieke, and Tobias Nicklas. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Whiting, Mark J. “Psalms 1 and 2 as Hermeneutical Lens for Reading the Psalter.”EvQ 85 (2013): 246–262. Widengren, Geo. The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion. UUA 4. Uppsala: Lundequist, 1951. Wiggins, Steve A. “Of Asherahs and Trees: Some Methodological Questions.” JANER 1 (2001): 158–187. Wilkinson, John. Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades. Warminster: Aris & Philips, 1977. Wilkinson, Richard H. Reading Egyptian Art: A Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Egyptian Painting and Sculpture. London: Thames & Hudson, 2001. Williams, Michael A. Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. Willis, John T. “‘I Am Your God’ and ‘You Are My People’ in Hosea and Jeremiah.” ResQ 36 (1994): 291–303. Wilson, Gerald H. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. SBLDS 76. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1986. Winter, Irene J. On Art in the Ancient Near East: Volume 1, Of the First Millennium BCE. CHANE 34.1. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Winter, Irene J. On Art in the Ancient Near East: Volume 2, From the Third Millennium BCE. CHANE 34.2. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Winter, Urs. “Der stilisierte Baum: Zu einem auffälligen Aspekt altorientalischer Baumsymbolik und seiner Rezeption im Alten Testament.” BK 41 (1986): 171–177. Winter, Urs. “Der ‘Lebensbaum’ in der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik.” Pages 57–88 in … Bäume braucht man doch! Das Symbol des Baumes zwischen Hoffnung und Zerstörung. Edited by Harald Schweizer. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1986. Wintermute, Orval. “A Study of Gnostic Exegesis of the Old Testament.” Pages 240– 270 in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of W.F. Stinespring. Edited by James M. Efrid. Durham: Duke University Press, 1972. Witulski, Thomas. Die Johannesoffenbarung und Kaiser Hadrian: Studien zur Datierung der neutestamentlichen Apokalypse. FRLANT 221. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Wolfson, Elliot R. “Bifurcating the Androgyne and Engendering Sin: A Zoharic Reading of Gen 1–3.” Pages 87–119 in Hidden Truths from Eden: Esoteric Readings of Genesis 1– 3. Edited by Susanne Scholz and Caroline Vander Stichele. SBL SemeiaSt 76. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014. Wong, Daniel K.K. “The Tree of Life in Revelation 2:7.” BSac 155 (1998): 211–226.

426

bibliography

Wood, Jeryldene M. Women, Art and Spirituality: The Poor Clares of Early Modern Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Wyatt, Nicolas. “Asherah ‫אשׁרה‬.” Pages 99–105 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd ed. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Wyatt, Nicolas. Space and Time in the Religious Life of the Near East. BibSem 85. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Yarden, Leon. The Tree of Light: A Study of the Menorah. London: East and West Library, 1971. York, H. “Heiliger Baum.” Pages 269–282 in vol. 4 of Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Edited by Erich Ebeling. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1932– 2014. Young, Edward J. Genesis 3: A Devotional and Expository Study. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1966. Young, Frances M. Construing the Cross: Type, Sign, Symbol, Word, Action. London: SPCK, 2016. Young, Frances M. “Traditions of Exegesis.” Pages 734–751 in vol. 1 of The New Cambridge History of the Bible. Edited by James Carleton Paget and Joachim Schaper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Zevit, Ziony. What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013.

Ancient Sources Index Ancient Near Eastern Texts Adapa myth/story

7

Babylonian-Assyrian Antiquities 11 Babylonian Theodicy

116

Berliner Ptahhymnus pBerlin 3048 16n44 Book of the Dead

Great Cairo Hymn of Praise to Amun-Re 17, 19, 26 Great Hymn to Osiris

18, 18n50, 18n52, 26

Great Hymn to the Aten 17n45 Hymn to Ptah

16, 26

19–20, 20n54, 21, 21n64, 46 19, 50n45 21, 50n45 50n45 22 22n66 22n66 21 21 21

Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld 10, 11, 27

Coffin texts

20

Nimrud reliefs

52–59

Constantinople Nr. 2828

Pyramid Texts

20, 21, 27, 47, 63

11 Stele of Amenmose

18

Spell 52 Spell 59 Spell 68 Spell 152 Spell 168A Spell 189 Spell 359 Spell 467 Spell 547

Descent of Ishtar to the Underworld 10n24, 15 Enki and Ninhursag myth 8, 8n18 Epic of Gilgamesh

Instruction of Amenemope 4.6.1–12 112–113 Khirbet el-Qom inscriptions 25–26 Kuntillet ʿAjrud inscriptions 25–26

Ugaritic Liturgy against Venomous Reptiles Rs 24.244 24n69 Utukkū Lemnūtu incantations 15, 122–129 116, 117

viii, 12, 15, 15n40, 27, 93, 366, 368

Old Testament [Septuagint] Genesis

1–2

32, 184–186, 197, 208, 218, 219, 222, 252, 259, 368, 380 136, 236, 244, 377

1–3 1:1 1:1–2

252, 254, 264, 365– 370, 372–379, 382 375 373

428 Genesis (cont.) 1:1–2:3 1:26–27 2 2–3

2:4 2:4–3:24 2:5 2:7 2:8 2:8–17 2:9

2:9–10 2:10 2:10–3:21 2:15 2:16 2:16–17 2:17 2:19–20 2:21 2:22 2:23 2:23–24 3 3:3 3:4–5 3:5 3:6 3:8 3:9 3:15 3:16 3:17–19 3:18–19 3:19

ancient sources index 3:22 378 224 84, 245, 246, 375 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 22, 23, 24, 24n70, 26, 27, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 86, 90, 95–96, 107, 118 74n1, 375 123, 126, 128 88 85, 86, 88, 89, 159, 224 76, 88, 217 373 7, 19, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 95, 96, 152, 174, 184n4, 185, 194, 197, 236, 237, 240, 242, 244, 371 287, 377 179 95 76, 88 90, 94 81, 84, 378 76, 81, 83, 86, 88, 89, 90, 96 85 85 84 85 85, 90 15n40, 136, 229, 233, 274, 371, 380 77, 80, 81, 83, 86, 95, 371 83 83 83, 85 90 239 258n32 85, 371 86, 88, 143 76 89, 90

3:22–24 3:23 3:23–24 3:24

4 4:1 6:3 8:9 12:6 13:18 14:13 18:1 19:10 30:2 30:37–41 49:21

7, 76, 84, 86–88, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 184n4, 185, 194, 210, 217, 369, 371, 373 43, 75, 80, 86, 87, 95, 236 86–88, 96, 241 76, 174, 241 76, 86–87, 88, 95, 96, 169, 184n4, 185, 194, 242, 243 89 373 90 92 46n34 46n34 46n34 46n34, 63n96 92 103 63n96 225

Exodus 1:7 1:10 3:1–5 3:20 6:1 9:15 15:25 20:5 24:4 25:31–40 27:20 30:1–20 30:33

91 91 63n96 92 86 92 245 274 82 206, 290 206 129 103

Leviticus 19:26 24:2 26:4

191n41 206 83

Deuteronomy 16:21 17:17 18:10

24, 237n7 239 191n41

429

ancient sources index Joshua 24:26 24:26–27

63n96 46n34

Judges 4:5 6:25 9:7–21 9:37

63n96 24 103n14 63n96, 269n62

1Samuel 6:11 7:3 13:19 13:22 15:23 31:13

81 82 91 91 191n41 63n96

2Samuel 6:14–15 11:1 11:8 12:26–28 15:1–6 15:5 24

104n15 82n28 88 91n57 88 92 88

1Kings 2:37 5:9 6:23 6:29 6:29–35 6:32 6:35 8 16:33 19:5 22

95 82n28 114 59, 114, 117 59 59, 114 59 104n15 24 63n96 88

2Kings 1 17:17 18:3–8 21:6 22:2–9 23:1–27 23:4

94 191n41 63 191n41 63 63 63

1 Chronicles 2:23 28:1 29:21

82n28 82n28 82n28

2 Chronicles 21:4 33:6

82n28 191n41

Ezra 8:5

82n28

Nehemiah 13:15

82n28

Job 1–2 1:11 2:5

88 92 92

Psalms 1 1:1–4 1:3 1:4 2 23:6 36 36:9 37 37:35 46:5 52 52:7 52:9 52:9–10 52:10 73:1–13 91:13 92 92:6 92:13 92:13–16 92:14 96:12 104 104:13–15

382 100n3, 110–113, 130n14 100n2 100, 111, 112, 206, 217, 226, 231 112 111n37 107n27 111 377 100n3 100, 115 111 100n3, 113, 114 113 113 100n2 100, 113 115 259n38 100n3, 114–118 100n2, 114 100, 115, 117 100n2, 115, 118 117 100 17, 100n3 143n18

430 Psalms (cont.) 104:14–16 104:16–17 105 Proverbs 1–3 3:2 3:13 3:13–18 3:15 3:16 3:17 3:17–18 3:18

3:19–20 11:28 11:30 11:30–31 13:12 13:12–14 15:1–2 15:4

ancient sources index

81n24 100, 117 100n3 367n4, 377, 379, 382 114 107n27 106 106 106 106 106 100n2, 105–106 7, 105–108, 111n36, 113n43, 126, 174, 184n4, 206, 225– 227, 232, 241, 368, 380 106 107, 115 107, 113n43, 115, 184n4 100n2, 105 100n2, 105, 108, 113n43, 184n4 108 109 100n2, 105, 108, 113, 184n4

Ecclesiastes 2:4–6 3:9–22

81n24 143n18

Isaiah 2:11–13 5 5:2 6:10 10:33–34 11:1 11:1–3 14 41:8 60:13 65:22

382 103n14 171 227 254, 274 103n14 103n14 297, 301 130 103 117 241

Jeremiah 2:13 11:16 17:5–8 17:7 17:8 17:10 23:5–6 50:16

247 103n14 103n14, 112, 113 111 231 103 103n14 82n28

Lamentations 2:6 3:61

129 82n28

Ezekiel 1 3:18 6:13 17 17:1–24 19:10–14 28 28:1–19 28:13–14 28:16 31 31:1–12 31:2–9 31:3 31:3–9 31:6 33:8 33:14 47 47:6–12 47:7 47:12

185n8, 186, 191, 197, 200, 208 221 94 46n34 130 103n14, 114 103n14, 114 118n51 174 117, 174 175, 180 117, 118n51 114 174 130 103n14 177 94 94 186n10 174, 175 184n6, 194 175, 184n6, 196, 210

Daniel 4 4–12 (HB)

191 130 103n14

Zechariah 4 4:2 4:3 4:12–14

206 206 291 103n14

431

ancient sources index Deuterocanonical Books 2Esdras (4 Ezra) 1–2 1.1–23 1.24–40 1.28–30 1.34 1.37 1.38 2 2.1 2.1–2 2.1–4 2.1–9 2.2–17 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.10 2.10–14 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.17 4.5–9 5.35–38 6.35 6.38–54 6.55–59 7 7.10–18 7.26–44 7.36–37 7.75 7.75–101 7.102–131 7.123 7.132–140 8 8.1–3

136, 144, 159, 368 142, 144 142 142 142 142 142 142 137, 143, 160 142 142 143n16 143 141–142 143 143, 144 142, 143 143 143 128 124, 134, 137, 143, 184n7, 194 143 143 143, 144 144 150 150 137 137 137 141 137 138 138 138 138 138 176 138 137–138, 147, 149, 157, 160, 161 138

8.4 8.7 8.7–9 8.7–12 8.10 8.12 8.13 8.14–15 8.16 8.17–18 8.19 8.19–36 8.24 8.37–40 8.41 8.41–45 8.42–45 8.44 8.45 8.46–51 8.46–62 8.47 8.49 8.49–55 8.50 8.50–52 8.51 8.52 8.52–53 8.53–54 8.56–57 8.60 8.62 9.25 15–16

138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138, 161 138 138 156 138 139 139 139, 161 139 139 139 161 139 139 140 137 140 183n1 139–140 134, 176, 137, 139, 140, 184n7, 194, 241n21 124 140 141 141 141 137 144

Wisdom of Solomon

366

Sirach 19:19 24:12–17

184n5, 206, 210 173

432

ancient sources index

Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Elijah 4.1 4.4–6 5 5.1–6 5.1–14 5.2–6 5.6 5.7–14 5.11 5.13

156 156 154, 157 154 155 155 134, 154, 159, 194 155 156, 158 159

Apocalypse of Moses 19.2 22.4 28.2 28.2–4 28.4

194 128, 194 184n7 194 184n7

Apocalypse of Sedrach 2.2 3 3–4 3.4–5 3.6 3.8 4 4.1 4.1–5 4.2 4.3 4.4 5 7 7.6–9 7.7–8 8 9 9.2 9.2–3 9.3

151 151 157 151 151 151 150, 151, 152, 153 151 151 151, 152 151, 152, 158 134, 152, 158 160 152, 153, 157, 161 151, 152, 153 153n37 150, 153 152, 153, 157 153 151 152

3Baruch

201

4Baruch 9 9.16

viii 194, 197

9.16–17 9.16–18 1 Enoch 1–5 2.1 3.1 5 5.1 5.4 5.8–9 5.9 6–8 8.3 9–11 10 10.16 10.17 10.18 10.18–19 10.19 12–36 14 17–19 18 18.6 18.6–19.2 18.8 20.7 21–27 21–36 23.1 24–25 24–26 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.3–4 24.3–25.6 24.4 24.4–5 24.5 25.1 25.1–5 25.3 25.4 25.4–5

140 125, 130 191 166 166 167 174 167 166 172 169 167 167 167 172 167 169 167 172 167 167, 177 168 167 171 172 177 167 156 177 167 167 123, 166, 168, 170, 171 184n7 167, 175 167, 175 167, 171, 180 197n67 166 123, 168, 175, 194, 197 195n53 167 168 241 167 168, 170, 180 128–129, 168, 175

433

ancient sources index 25.5 25.6 26.1 27.4 30.2–3 31.3 32 32.4 70.3 2Enoch 3–37 7–10 8.1 8.3 8.3–4 8.3–7 8.4 8.8 9.1 10 10.4 18 18.1 18.7 40.10–11 3Enoch 5.1 5.5 5.10–12 23.18 48D.8

167, 168, 210 169, 170 168 168 168 168 171, 172, 177 168 170

177 177 176 124, 125, 175, 180, 184n7 194, 195n53 166 176 176, 177 176, 180 176 177 177 177 177 149n28

125, 166, 178, 180, 194 179 179 166, 178, 179, 180, 194 166, 179, 194

Ethiopic Apocalypse of Ezra 144 Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 1 145 1.12–24 145 1.12–2.17 145–146 2 145, 146, 148, 153, 158, 160 2.11–14 134, 144 2.13 147 2.16 153 2.16–17 160 2.17 147

4 4–5 5 5.1–28 5.2 5.2–3 5.3 5.4 5.4–5 5.9 5.12 5.12–19 5.14 5.20 5.20–21 5.20–23 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.27

149 144, 149 147, 148, 149, 151, 157, 160, 161 147–148 161 148 160 148 160 149, 160 149, 161 161 149 158 161 147 134, 144, 158 156 149 149

Syriac Apocalypse of Ezra 144 Jubilees 1:29

241 140

Life of Adam and Eve 9:3 19:2 22:4 28:3–4 29:3 29:6

294 124 126 126, 127 127 129 129

Life of Adam and Eve (Armenian) 28:3 127 Life of Adam and Eve (Georgian) 28:3 128 4 Maccabees 18:16 18:16–18

184n5 126

Odes of Solomon 11:15

124

434 Parables of Enoch Psalms of Solomon 14.2 14.3 Pseudo-Philo Biblical Antiquities 11.15

ancient sources index 150n31

206 194, 220

Testament of Levi 18:11 18:12

129, 210 259n38

Testament of Simeon 6:6

259n38

Visio Beati Esdrae

144, 147

124, 125, 194

Revelatio Esdras de qualitatibus anni 144

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QHa (Hodayot) XVI, 5–6

194, 196, 197n67

4Q385 (Pseudo-Ezekiel) 2 241n21 4Q458 (Narrative A) 1, 1:18–19

11Q10 (Targum of Job) 28:7 126 11Q19 (Temple Scroll) 29:8–9 140n12

130

Ancient Jewish Writers Philo 252n12 Allegorical Interpretation 1 31–32 246 35 246 48–52 237n7 56 237 56–58 242 56–59 236–238, 244, 245 57 237 58 237 59 194, 197n67, 205n101, 237, 238 60 238 60–61 236, 237 61 205n101, 238 90 238n10 97 238n10 100 238n10 101 238n10 108 238n10

Allegorical Interpretation 3 52 236, 238, 239, 242 107 236, 239 On Flight and Finding 58–61 246 78 246 97 247 197f 247 On Giants 14 247 On Planting 36–37 244 36–45 236, 244–245 38 244 38–39 244 40–42 244 43–45 244 44 244–245 44–45 238, 244 45 245 46 245

435

ancient sources index On the Change of Names 213–214 246 223 247 On the Cherubim 1 236, 243–244 On the Contemplative Life 13 246 On the Creation of the World 30 246 151 242 151–152 242 151–156 242–243 153 242 154 198n73, 201n88, 205n99, 242–243 155 243 156 243, 245 157–167 243 172 246 On Dreams 1 34 246 148 247 On Dreams 2 70 236, 245–246 On the Embassy to Gaius 192 246 On the Life of Abraham 6 246 84 246 271 246 On the Migration of Abraham 34–35 245 36 245 36–37 236, 245 37 245

On the Posterity of Cain 9 246 45 246 68 246 69 246 On the Preliminary Studies 87 247 On the Special Laws 1 31 246 345 247 On the Special Laws 2 262 246 On the Special Laws 4 123 246 169 247 On the Virtues 177 246 204–205 246 Questions and Answers on Genesis 1 8 236 9 240 9–10 240–241 9–11 236 10 196, 236, 240, 242– 243 11 238n10 54–57 236 55 236, 241–242 57 241–242 That the Worse Attacks the Better 84 246 Who Is the Heir? 42–49 247 290 246 292 246

New Testament Matthew 7:19 15:13 16:18 25 25:34

227 227 194n50 177 143

Mark 4:32 14:22–25

382 325

Luke 6:43–45 10:19–20 17:20 22:18–20 23:31 23:34 23:43

227 259n38 227 325 207 225 227

436

ancient sources index

John 3:3 4:10 6:51 6:57 8:12 14:6 15:1–5 15:5 19:33–34

194n50 207 207 207 287 297 382 305 355

Acts 5:29–30 5:30 16:16–18

ix 207 191n41

Romans 7:4–12 16:20

263 259n38

1Corinthians 3:12 11:23–25

207 325

2Corinthians 12:2 12:4

176 176

Galatians 3:13 Revelation 1 1:1 1:3

207 184–186, 188, 193, 194, 379 192 183n3, 189 189

1:10 1:12–13 1:12–20 1:20 2:1 2:7

2:8 3:5 3:20 4:5 5:1–9 9:17 10:9–10 11:4 18:12 21–22 21:1 21:10 21:11–22 21:23 21:23–27 22:2

22:2–3 22:3 22:7 22:10 22:14 22:18–19 22:19

189 206–207 193 206–207 206–207 7, 180, 184n4, 185, 209, 230, 231, 232, 312, 315, 371 217 192 198n71 206–207 192 189 192 206–207 207 380, 382 183n1 194 194 206 194–195 7, 184n4, 185, 186, 193, 200, 209, 210, 217, 229, 230, 232, 313, 371, 382 125 200 189 189 180, 184n4, 185, 200, 209, 210, 230 189 180, 184n4, 185, 209

Rabbinic and Medieval Jewish Works Alphabet of Ben Sira 78

160

Genesis Rabbah Gen 3:22–24

239 128

Talmud b. Arak. 15b b. Ber. 32b 34b

206 206 179

437

ancient sources index Gnostic Texts Acts of Andrew

281

Acts of Peter

253n15

Apocalypse of Peter 76.4–8 81.10–21

249n2 249n3

Apocryphon of John (BG 8502 2) 253 60.19–61.7 255n20 62.6–7 255n21 Apocryphon of John (NHC II 1) 249, 250, 253–256, 260, 267n52, 270n64, 275–276 4.26–5.11 255n19 10.18 255n19 13.19–20 254n18 19.10–21.10 253 21.6–9 253 21.13–14 253 21.15 259n37 21.16–22.8 253–254 21.16–22.9 262n45 21.24–22.2 249 22.5 259n37 22.9 254, 255 22.12–14 255 22.13–14 254 22.16–17 259n37 22.19–25 254 22.22 254n18 22.27–28 254 22.28 259n37 22.30 254 22.31 259n37 23.3 254n18 23.7–8 254 23.9 254 23.10–22 254–255 23.23–26 255 23.26–31 255 23.32–33 255 24.4–8 255 24.9–12 255

24.13–15 24.15–16 24.16–25 24.26–25.16 29.6

255 255 255 255 254n18

Apocryphon of John (NHC III 1) 249, 250, 253 30.17–21 255n20 31.8–9 255n21 Apocryphon of John (NHC IV 1) 249, 250, 253 Book of Thomas 142.14–15

249n2

Gospel of Mary

253n14

Gospel of Philip (II 3) 249, 250, 261–264, 266, 276 55.6–22 261 55.23–36 264 71.21–72.4 261 71.27 262 71.28–34 262 72.1–4 262 73.8–74.12 262 73.9–15 249n3 73.15–19 262, 266 73.17–19 249, 268 73.19 262 73.21–22 262 74.2 263 74.3–4 263 74.4 264 74.5–12 263 74.14 264 74.16–24 258n33, 264 75.2–14 261n43 75.3–9 263 77.15–31 264 83.3–5 249 Gospel of Thomas 36.17–25 39.34

249 259n38

438

ancient sources index

Gospel of Thomas (cont.) 40.23–25 249n2 40.31–33 249n2 Gospel of Truth 18.24–26 20.23–21.2

261 249n3 249n3

Interpretation of Knowledge (XI 1) 261 Letter of Peter to Philip 139.15–22 249n3 Melchizedek 1.1–14.15 6.22–7.6 8.22–9.27 9.28–10.5 14.15–18.11 18.11–27.10 Nature of the Rulers

86.30–31 87.22–23 88.2 88.10–11 88.12 88.13–16 88.15 88.33–89.3 88.35 89.3–11 89.11 89.11–13 89.11–17 89.15 89.19–28 89.31–90.12 90.2 90.6–10 90.11–12 90.13–17 91.2 91.5–7 91.7–11

249, 258n34, 258– 259, 260 259 259 259 259 259 259 249, 255n21, 256– 258, 260, 267n52, 270n64, 274n69, 276 256 256n26 256n26 256n26 257 257 257 257 256n26 257 257 270 257 260 257 257 257 257–258 258 258 256 258 258

93.22–27 93.25–26 93.24–25 93.28–29 94.21–22 95.5 96.12 96.14 96.19–22 96.24 96.25–27 96.33 96.33–97.4 97.1–3 97.2–4 97.5–9 97.6–7 97.10–13 97.13–21 97.18–19

256n26 256 258 258 256 256 256n26 256, 258 258 258 258 259n37 256 258 268 258 259n38 258 258 256n26

On Anointing (NHC XI 2a) 259n38 On the Origin of the World (NHC II 5) 249, 250, 255n21, 267–273, 274n69, 276 97.24–98.11 267 98.11–123.2 267 110.2 267 110.3–6 267 110.8–9 267 110.10–12 267 110.14–19 131 110.19–20 268 110.26 268 110.27–29 268 110.31–111.1 268 111.2–8 249, 262n45 111.3–5 268 111.6–7 268 112.13 268 112.18–22 268 112.25–29 268 112.34–113.1 268 113.8 269 113.9–10 269 113.12–14 269 113.15 269

439

ancient sources index 113.17–19 113.19–20 113.22–33 113.33–34 113.35–114.1 114.3–4 114.3–5 115.1 115.4 115.5 115.11–12 115.11–14 115.15 115.19–22 115.25–31 116.3–4 116.5–8 116.13 116.14–21 116.21–25 116.24–25 116.26–28 116.28–29 116.33–117.4 117.2,11 117.4–7 117.13 117.18–24 117.24–28 117.28–118.2 118.2–3 118.5–6 118.6–9 118.20–24 118.25–119.7 119.11–18 120.3–6 120.10–17 120.18 120.26–121.5 121.7–13 121.23–27 121.28–35 123.2–31 123.4–15 123.15–24 123.31–127.17 124.33–125.7

269 269 269 269 269 269 269 269 269 269 269 269 269 269 270 270 270 270 270 270 270n63 270 257n28, 270 270 259n37 270 270 270 271 259n37, 269 271 271 271 271 271 271 272 258, 272 272 272 272 272 272 267 272 272 267 273

On the Origin of the World (NHC XIII 2) 249, 250 103.21 259n38 121.7–13 259 Pistis Sophia 99:246 134:354

131 131

Second Discourse of Great Seth 56.34–57.1 259n38 58.22–28 249n3 Teachings of Silvanus (NHC VII 4) 249, 262–263, 263n46, 264, 266, 276 85.10–11 259n38 86.4–6 259n38 94.20–24 263 94.25–27 263 94.31–32 263 106.21–30 263 107.8–14 259n38 107.17–19 263 Testimony of Truth 30.2–17 32.18–21 33.24–34.7 34.26–37.9 45.27–28 45.31–46.6 46.16–27 47.5–6 47.10–14 47.15–16 47.16–17 47.18–23 47.23–30 47.30–48.1 48.2–4 48.4–7 48.8–13 48.13–15 50.3–5 50.5–9 55.4–10

249, 250, 273–275, 276 275 274n70 274n70 274–275n70 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 273n68 273n68 274–275n70

440

ancient sources index

Testimony of Truth (cont.) 55.7–10 273n66, 274–275n70 69.7–14 274–275n70 70.4–9 274n70 70.9–24 274n70 Treatise of the Resurrection (NHC I 4) 261 Tripartite Tractate 51.15–19 66.16 66.22–23 66.28 74.10–13 85.30 104.4–108.12 106.28–29 107.1–7

249, 261, 264–266, 268 249n2 265n50 265n50 265n50 249 265n50 264 265n51 265

107.7–8 107.29–31 107.30–31 107.36–39 107.36–108.4 114.20–21 117.6–7 118.14–122.12 122.16–17 122.23–24 128.21–129.14 128.33 128.35 129.6–7

265 265 265 265 265 265n50 265n50 266 265 265 265 265 265 265

Valentinian Exposition (NHC XI 2) 261 Wisdom of Jesus Christ 253n15

Early Christian Writings Ambrose of Milan Exposition 1.35–44 On Paradise 1.5 5.28–29 7.35

Enarrations on the Psalms 229 227 224 224 224

Andrew of Caesarea Commentary on the Apocalypse 197, 205, 232

Barnabas 8.5

207

Basil of Caesarea De Invidia (Homily)

229

Bede, Venerable Commentary on Genesis 222

Apringius Treatise on the Apocalypse 1.543–550 230 7.557–565 230 Arethas of Caesarea Commentary on the Apocalypse 2.7 232 22.2 232 Augustine On Genesis Literally Interpreted 8.5.9–11 220

Ecclesiastical History 1.30 On the Apocalypse 26.429–439 PL 77.1215–1216

350n15 197 232 350n15

Bonaventure Journey of the Mind to God 318n Hymn on the Holy Cross 318n The Tree of Life 302, 312, 317–320, 322–328, 331–332

441

ancient sources index The Book of the Mysteries of Heaven and Earth 26 221 Caesarius of Arles PL 2451 Sermons 103 Cassiodorus Complexions 32.11–13

231 231 231 231 231

Chromatius of Aquileia Sermons 35.8 226 1Clement 23.4

207

Commemoratorium

230

Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 13.31

218

Diodore of Tarsus Commentary on Psalms 1–51 228 Diognetus 12.3–5

218

Dream of the Rood

294

Ephraem Syrus Armenian Commentary on Genesis 223 Commentary on the Diatessaron 1.18–19 223 21.25 223 Commentary on Genesis 35.2 222 35.3 222 Hymns on the Crucifixion 9.2 223 Hymns on Paradise 2.17 222

2.22 2.23 2.34

222 222 222–223

Epiphanius of Salamis Panarion 26 250n4 Eusebius of Caesarea PG 23, 77

227 226

Evagrius Ponticus Propositions on Knowledge 5.69 207 Firmicus Maternus On the Error of Profane Religions 27.1 219 Gregory of Nazianzus Orations 29.20 218 Gregory of Nyssa Patrologia Graeca 23 77 Patrologia Latina 9 254–256 On the Making of Man 18 On Paradise On Virginity 24 Heiland Songs 65–66

218, 225, 226 226 226 226 226 220 226 225 345–346, 350, 355, 356 346n6

Hilary of Poitiers Homilies on the Psalms 1.14 207 PL 9, 254–256 226–227

442

ancient sources index

Hippolytus of Rome Refutation of all Heresies 5.23–28 250n4 5.26.5 219

Lactantius Phoenix 1–24

229

Liber Floridus

290n25

Hugh of Saint Victor Noah’s Ark

297n

Mirror of Human Salvation 319n10

Irenaeus of Lyons Against Heresies 1.29–30 3.11.9 5.17.1

260 250n4, 253 261 219

Nicholas Eirenikos Wedding Poem

Isidore of Seville The Etymologies (or Origins) 321 Jacobus de Voragine Golden Legend

294

Jacopone da Todi Praise Song

328

Jerome Commentary on Psalm 1 180 220 Homilies 9–10 196, 197 Homily on Psalm 1 8–9 229 John Chrysostom On Genesis 13 PG 53 110 John Damascene On the Orthodox Faith 2.23 Justin Dialogue with Trypho 86

301

Oecumenius Commentary on the Apocalypse 197, 199, 201, 203, 207, 208 2.7 232 22.2 232 Origen Against Celsus 6.24–28 250n4 Commentary on Romans 5.9.3 207 First Principles 4.2.4 217 Homilies on Joshua 7.1 191 On Prayer 10 225

220

Primasius On the Apocalypse 1.2 5.22

231 231

218 218

Pseudo-Chrysostom Easter Homily

281n

Pseudo-Cyprian Easter Song (Tree of Life) 221

281 Romanus the Melodist Genuine Hymns 224

205, 207 Rufinus On the Patriarchal Blessings 2.24 225

443

ancient sources index Tertullian Against the Jews 13.11

226

Tyconius Commentary on the Apocalypse 231

Theodore of Mopsuestia Commentary on Psalms 1–81 228

Ubertino da Casale The Tree of the Crucified Life of Jesus 328

Theodoret of Cyrus Questions 26

Venantius Fortunatus In Honor of the Holy Cross 280, 283

219

Theophilus of Antioch 223 To Autolycus 2.25–27 219

Victorinus of Petau On the Apocalypse

230

Demetrius On Style 291

194n50

Hermogenes Preliminary Exercises 22

187

Longinus On the Sublime 15 17.3

187 200

Greco-Roman Literature Aelius Theon Preliminary Exercises 118 119

187 187, 188

Aphthonius the Sophist Preliminary Exercises 37R 187, 188 Aristotle Homeric Questions 175 Poetics 1457b7–32 1460b8

237 89 187

Artemidorus The Interpretation of Dreams 1.1 190, 191 1.2 190, 200 1.5 189, 192, 194 1.27 202 1.29 204 1.73 210 4.24 204 5.3 204 Cicero Concerning Divination 1.6 189

Macrobius Commentary on the Dream of Scipio 189 Nicolaus the Sophist Preliminary Exercises 68 69

187 188

Plato Republic 2.378d Republic (NHC VI 5) 50.27–28

259n38

Pliny the Elder Natural History

301

237

444 Plutarch Artaxerxes 8.1

ancient sources index

195n53

Quintilian Institutes of Oratory 2.17.21 8.3.88

194 187

Rig Veda

9

Zohar Leviticus 34b

206

Other Primary Texts Edda

347, 353, 356–358, 360, 363

Qur’an 2:34–36 7:19–22

5 9 9

Hebrew and Greek Word Index ‫ אדם‬84, 85 ‫ אדמה‬89, 93 ‫ אישׁ‬85 ‫ אל‬81 ‫ ארך ימים‬27 ‫ אשׁה‬84, 85 ‫ אשׁרי‬106, 111 ‫ אשׁרה‬24, 25 –‫ ב‬82, 83 ‫ באה‬108n29 ‫ ביום‬94 ‫ ברך‬111 ‫ בשׂר‬90 ‫ בתוך הגן‬74, 77, 81–83, 84, 95

‫ גם‬93 ‫ גרשׁ‬86 ‫ יד‬92

‫ צמח‬80n24 ‫ רוח‬90 ‫ שׂטן‬92 ‫ שׁלום‬106, 108 ‫ שׁלח‬86, 87 ‫ תוך‬82 ‫ תולדות‬74 ἀγαθότητα 240 ἀλληγορικός 190, 191, 198, 199, 202–208, 209 ἄλσος 24 ἄνωθεν 194n50 ἀποκάλυψις 189 δένδρον 24, 167

‫ חכם‬107n28 ‫ חמס‬107n28

ἔκφρᾰσις 187, 188, 195, 197, 209 εἰκονοποιός 187 ἐξουσία 170 ἐνάργεια 195, 209 ἐνύπνιον 189 εὐσεβεία 240

‫ לעולם‬76

ζωή 287

‫ מאשׁר‬106 ‫ מות תמות‬88, 93–94 ‫ מחלה־לב‬108 ‫ מכל עץ הגן‬90

θεωρημᾰτικός θρόνος 167

‫ החיים‬7

‫ נטע‬80n24 ‫ נשׁמת חיים‬89–90

189–190, 191, 198, 199–202, 209

κέδρος 115n45 κοσμικός 190 μεταφορά 199 μεταφορικός 202–204

‫ פלג‬111 ‫ עבד אדמה‬89 ‫ עפר‬89, 90, 93 ‫ עץ‬83 ‫ עץ החיים‬5, 7 ‫ עץ חיים‬100 ‫ פן‬91

ὄνειρος 189 ὅρᾱμα 189, 190n35, 194, 209 ὅρᾱσις 189, 190n35, 194, 209 ξύλον 196–197, 207 ξύλον ζωῆς 196 παράνομος 108n28 πέτρα 194n50

446

hebrew and greek word index

πνεῦμα 189 προφητεία 189

συμβολικός 201n88, 204–208 σύμβολον 199, 204, 207n115

ῥιζοτομία 167

τρυφή 244

σκηνή 195, 201 σκηνογρᾰφία 183, 188 σκῐά 200 σκῐᾱγρᾰφία 197 σοφία 240, 247

φαντᾰσία 187, 188 φάντᾰσμα 189 φῶς 287 χρημᾰτισμός 189

Modern Author Index Abma, Richtsje 162 Agourides, S. 145, 150–153 Akoto-Abutiate, Dorothy B.E.A. 201, 382 Alexander, Philip S. 177, 178, 179, 251, 252, 257, 258, 274 Allen, James P. 21 Allen, Thomas George 19, 21, 22 Ameisenowa, Zofja 287, 288 Anderson, F.I. 125, 175, 177 Anderson, Gary A. 124, 127–128 Anderson, Paul 198 Anker, Peter 345, 348 Arad, Lily 283 Assman, Jan 16, 18, 20 Ataç, Mehmet-Ali 33, 38, 57, 58 Attridge, Harold 261, 264, 265 Auffarth, Christoph 188 Aune, David E. 174, 196, 198 Bachmann, Veronika 168, 171, 172 Baden, Joel 77, 80, 159 Baert, Barbara 294 Balfour, David 301 Balogh, Amy 24, 74, 106 Baranov, Vladimir 284 Barber, Charles 289 Barker, Margaret 201, 206, 207, 290 Barlow, H.C. 201 Barr, James 79, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 94, 365– 367, 369, 383 Barth, Karl 184, 375–377, 379, 383 Bauckham, Richard 149, 154 Bauks, Michaela 6, 8, 25, 198 Baumgarten, James 152 Bautch, Kelley Coblentz 170, 172 Beale, G.K. 194, 206 Bechtel, Lyn 93, 370 Bergmann, Claudia D. 160 Bergren, Theodore 160 Bethge, Hans-Gebhard 267 Billing, Nils 21, 46, 47 Bintley, Michael D.J. 291, 298 Black J.A. 10, 15 Blaising, C.S. 227, 233 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 85, 92 Blocher, Henri 377–379

Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth 45, 61, 62, 201 Blume, Dieter 329 Böcher, Otto 200, 207 Bockmuehl, Marcus 251, 263 Boda, Mark J. 105 Boggi, Flavio 311 Bonavia, Emanuel 201 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich 372–375, 378–379, 383 Botha, Philipus J. 114 Bourdua, Louise 328 Boxall, Ian 207 Brakke, David 251, 252–253 Brieger, Peter 313 Brighton, Louis A. 197 Brisch, Nicole 13 Brock, Sebastian 222, 223, 233 Brown, Michael 111 Brown, Michelle P. 298 Brown, William P. 100, 111, 161 Brütsch, Charles 185 Buber, Martin 368 Budde, Karl 76, 78, 89–90, 91, 93, 95 Budge, E.A. Wallis 221, 223, 233, 234 Bugge, Anders 353, 362, 363 Bullard, Roger A. 256, 257 Burns, Dylan 251, 256 Busch, Austin 251–252, 255 Campanati, Raggaella Farioli 316 Canal, Maximilien 330 Carnie, Andrew 82 Carruthers, Mary 297 Cassuto, Umberto 368 Castañeiras, Manuel 308 Charles, R.H. 169, 170, 196, 203 Charlesworth, James H. vii–viii, 198 Childs, Brevard 366 Claassens, L. Juliana M. 162 Coats, George W. 91 Coatsworth, Elizabeth 316 Cole, Robert L. 110 Collon, Dominique 38, 39, 41, 42, 51, 55, 57, 59 Cook, Roger 295, 299, 315 Cosentino, Delia 330 Couliano, Ioan P. 252, 257

448

modern author index

Cozzi, Enrica 328 Cramer, J.A. 232, 234 Creach, Jerome F.D. 112 Cremascoli, Giuseppe 325 Crenshaw, James L. 106 Curtis, V.S. 12 Dalley, Stephanie 10, 12, 13, 14 Davila, James R. 149 Day, Peggy L. 160 De Gruchy, John W. 373, 375 Dell, Katharine 100 Dercks, Ute 197, 295, 297, 313 deSilva, David A. 195 Di Brazzano, Stefano 280 Dillmann, August 81, 166, 168, 169 DiTommaso, Lorenzo 143 Driver, S.R. 84 Dronke, Peter 210 Dunning, Benjamin 267, 268, 269 Dus, Jan 78 Echols, Charles L. 14, 74 Eder, Sigrid 102 Edwards, M.J. 220, 234 Eidevall, Göran 105, 109 Eliade, Mircea 130–131, 297 Estes, Douglas 195, 313 Evangelatou, Maria 313 Farjon, Aljos 351 Farrer, Austin 183 Fauconnier, Gilles 134–135, 162 Fewell, Danna Nolan 369 Filipová, Alžběta 283 Fishbane, Michael 367 Ford, J. Massyngberde 196 Foreman, Benjamin 107 Forti, Tova L. 109 Foster, Benjamin R. 7 Foster-Gilbert, Claire 379–380 Frankfurter, David 154 Franklin-Brown, Mary 317, 318 Fretheim, Terence E. 93 Frevel, Christian 46 Funk, Wolf-Peter 259 Gamer-Wallert, Ingrid Gardner, Julian 311

16

Garrett, Duane 108 Gelin, Marie-Pierre 302 Genge, Heinze 5, 6, 8, 11 George, A.R. 12, 13, 14 Gianotto, Claudio 259 Gibson, Craig A. 187 Gilchrest, Eric J. 197 Gilhus, Ingvild S. 257, 262 Gillingham, Susan 110 Giovino, Mariana 6, 8, 32, 201, 367 Good, Edwin 93 Goodenough, Edwin R. 200, 204, 206, 236 Graham, Christopher A. 206, 251 Grant, Jamie A. 110, 111 Graves-Brown, Carolyn 20 Gray, Alison Ruth 102 Greatrex, Joan 319 Greenacre, Roger 281 Gregorini, Alessandra 305 Grelot, Pierre 129 Gruenwald, Ithamar 177 Gryson, R. 230, 231, 234 Gunkel, Hermann 74, 78, 87, 90, 94, 154 Gunn, David M. 369 Hachlili, Rachel 206, 290, 291, 306 Hamburger, Jeffrey 300 Hamilton, Victor P. 74, 83, 87, 89, 91, 93 Hanneken, Todd R. 196 Hansman, J. 12, 117 Hardin, C.A. 227, 233 Harrington, Wilfrid J. 190, 191, 196, 197 Harris-McCoy, Daniel E. 189, 190 Haselock, Jeremy 281 Hays, Christopher 19, 20 Heard, Christopher 197 Heel, Koenraad Donker Van 16 Heffernan, James A.W. 187 Hemer, Colin J. 185, 207 Himmelfarb, Martha 123 Hinckley, Robert 207 Hock, Ronald F. 187 Hodge, Bodie 372 Hogan, Karina Martin 136, 138, 142, 144, 159 Holt, Else K. 111, 112 Hongisto, Leif 196 Horowitz, Maryanne Cline 288, 290 Hubbes, László Attila 183

modern author index Huijbers, Anne 330 Humbert, Paul 76, 84, 86–87 Iacobini, Antonio 310, 311, 313, 315 Ilg, Ulrike 317, 318, 321, 324, 329 Irvine, Christopher 283, 295, 316 Irwin, William H. 108 Isenberg, Wesley W. 261 James, E.O. 5, 8, 9, 20–21, 24, 156, 201 Jaroš, Karl 78 Jensen, Robin M. 325 Jindo, Job Y. 101, 103 Johnson, Elizabeth A. 380 Johnson, Mark 101 Johnson, Mark J. 288 Johnson, M.D. 128 Joüon, Paul 7 Karnes, Michelle 318 Karrer, Martin 191 Kawashima, Robert S. 85 Keel, Othmar 36–39, 41, 42–49, 51, 52, 58– 65, 106 Keepers, Dustyn Elizabeth 24 Kennedy, George A. 187 Kepinski-Lecomte, Christine 6, 34, 53 Kessler, Herbert 288 Keuls, Eva C. 197 Kieser, Ty 24 King, Karen 250, 251, 252, 253 Kister, Menahem 263 Kitzberger, Ingrid Rosa 380 Klangwisan, Yael 381 Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane 319, 322 Koemoth, Pierre 67 Koester, Craig R. 190, 197, 203 Kogman-Appel, Katrin 289, 291 Kottsieper, I. 8 Kövecs, Zoltán 107 Kramer, S.N. 8 Kraus, Hans-Joachim 115 Krispenz, Jutta 78 Kulik, Alexander 201 Labhan, Antje 101, 105, 111 LaCocque, André 78, 85, 89, 93 Ladner, Gerhart B. 297, 312, 319 Lakoff, George 101

449 Lambert, W.G. 57 Lanfer, Peter Thacher 123, 126, 140, 143, 152, 157, 177, 251, 268, 287, 294, 295 Larson, E. 130 Lathrop, Gordon 381–382 Lauria, Antonietta 327 Layton, Bentley 257, 267 Leonhardt-Balzer, J. 238, 244 Levenson, Jon 368 Levin, A.G. 236 Levine, Baruch A. 24 Lichtheim, Miriam 17, 18 Lillie, Celene 255, 257, 270 Long, Asphodel 381 Long, R. James 301, 305 Lucarelli, Rita 21, 22 Luttikhuizen, Gerald P. 251 Maguire, Henry 287, 300, 301 Mahé, Jean-Pierre 259 Mangina, Joseph L. 207 Marchini, Lucia 345 Marcus, Ralph 107, 368 Margulis, B 8 Marjanen, Antti 251 Markham, J. Geller 116 Mastin, B.A. 25 Mathewson, David 197 McCann, J. Clinton, Jr. 110 McKane, William 108 McKinlay, Judith 370 McRae, George 261 Mealy, J. Webb 203 Meek, Russell L. 105 Meiggs, Russell 117 Mercer, Samuel A.B. 21 Mettinger, Tryggve N.D. 12, 14, 82, 84, 367 Metzger, Bruce M. 124, 137, 142–143 Metzger, Martin 6, 25, 26 Meyer, Marvin 262, 266, 267 Meyers, Carol L. 206 Meyers, Eric M. 206 Michel, Andreas 80 Miller, John B.F. 189 Miller, Patricia Cox 190 Miskotte, Kornelis Heiko 203 Mitchell, W.J.T. 193 Mobley, Gregory 13 Mojsov, Bojana 68

450 Möller, G. 16 Moor, Johannes C. de 24 Morris, Henry M. 371 Morris, Paul 184 Moss, Candida 159 Moughtin-Mumby, Sharon 162 Muraoka, T. 7 Murphy, G. Ronald, S.J. 345

modern author index Piccirillo, Michele 306, 308, 315 Popenoe, Paul 116 Porter, Barbara Nevling 53, 58 Porter, James I. 194 Preisinger, Raphaèle 327, 328, 329 Presley, Stephen O. 250, 252 Punter, David 202 Quinn, E.C. 124

Nerbano, Mara 327 Neumann-Gorsolke, Ute 6, 16 Neusner, Jacob 179 Nickelsburg, George W.E. 123, 168, 169 Niehoff, Maren R. 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 252 Noga-Banai, Galit 287 Nogalski, James 154 Norbye, Marigold 322 Obbink, Herman Th., 7, 9, 13, 84, 90–91, 92, 93 Ó Carragáin, Éamonn 291, 294 O’Connor, Michael Patrick 7, 94 O’Flynn, Donnel 280, 283 O’Hear, Anthony 195–196 O’Hear, Natasha 195–196 Omanson, Roger L. 196 Opitz, Christian Nikolaus 321, 329, 330 O’Reilly, Jennifer 283, 287, 295 Orlov, Andrei A. 206 Oropeza, B.J. 188 Osborne, Grant R. 196 Osborne, William R. 6, 10, 11, 16, 18, 20, 48, 50, 53, 56, 62, 102, 103, 105, 106, 111 Otzen, Benedikt 251 Owen-Crocker, Gale 316 Pagels, Elaine 264, 265 Painchaud, Louis 252, 267 Panayotov, Alexander 149 Pardee, Dennis 24 Parpola, Simo 5, 7, 34, 55, 367 Pasquini, Laura 310 Patte, Daniel 80 Pearson, Birger 258–259, 263, 273 Penner, Ken M. 210 Perdue, Leo G. 106 Pezzoli-Olgiati, Daria 201 Pfeiffer, Henrik 8, 78, 81

Rad, Gerhard von 79 Ramshaw, Gail 381 Rasimus, Tuomas 251, 255, 256 Reeder, Caryn A. 195 Rendtorff, Rolf 154 Rhodes James, Montague 281 Ricci, Fulvio 302, 324 Riccioni, Stefano 311 Richards, I.A. 101 Riede, Peter 6, 16 Ringgren, Helmer 5, 6 Ritchey, Sarah 317, 318, 325, 328 Ritner, Robert K. 17, 18 Robbins, Vernon K. 188, 191 Roberts, Michael 280–281 Robinson, James M. 249 Robinson, Stephen 125, 130 Rodov, Ilia 289, 290 Roloff, Jürgen 189, 196 Rooke, Deborah W. 104 Rose, Wolter H. 291 Rubin, Miri 325 Safran, Linda 287 Salonius, Pippa 186, 198, 298, 302, 305, 306, 311, 322, 329 Santos, Daniel 206 Sarna, Nahum 368–369 Sawyer, John F.A. 74 Scalf, Foy 20 Schenke, H.-M. 253 Schipper, Bernd Ulrich 23 Schlosser, Marianne 317, 318 Schmid, J. 232, 235 Schorsch, Ismar 368 Schoske, Sylvia 16 Schroer, Silvia 37–39, 42, 46, 51, 52, 63 Sicard, Patrice 296, 297 Simbeni, Alessandro 302, 324, 327, 328, 329

451

modern author index Simor, Suzanna B. 283, 319 Shields, Mary E. 162 Skinner, John 74, 78, 86, 93 Smalley, Stephen S. 196 Smend, Rudolf 79 Smith, Carl B. 253 Smith, Mark S. 25 Smith, Morton 290, 291 Smith, Ralph L. 206 Sneed, Mark R. 105 Speiser, E.A. 13, 14, 87, 93 Stambaugh, James 372 Sternberg, Meier 76 Stolz, Fritz 117, 118 Stone, Michael E. 124, 127–128, 144–150, 153 Stordalen, Terje 5, 6, 7, 79, 90, 91, 93 Stovell, Beth M. 135, 159, 162 Stratton, Beverly J. 85 Stromberg, Jake 161 Stroumsa, Guy D. 251, 263 Struck, Peter T. 199, 204, 205 Suggit, John N. 208 Sweetser, Eve 135 Swete, Henry B. 371 Tarragon, Jean-Michael de 24 Teissier, Beatrice 23 Thee, Francis C.R. 191 Thomassen, Einar 260, 261, 262, 265 Thomson, Margaret H. 316 Thunø, Eric 310 Tigchelaar, Eibert J.C. 129, 154, 170, 177 Trapp, Thomas H. 106 Treier, Daniel J. 24 Trible, Phyllis 369 Trumbower, Jeffrey A. 262 Turner, John 253 Turner, Mark 134–135, 162 Uehlinger, Christoph 106 Uhlig, Siegbert 170 Ungnad, Arthur 84 van der Kooij, Arie 89 Van Hecke, Pierre 101, 105 Van Ruiten, J.T.A.G.M 123 Vasari, Giorgio 327

Vilímková, Milada 290 Vogels, Walter 77, 79, 269 Vriezen, Th.C. 89, 93 Walck, Leslie 150 Wallace, Howard N. 6, 8, 9, 14, 24, 25, 78, 83, 91, 92, 368 Walsh, Jerome T. 79–80 Waltke, Bruce K. 7, 94, 107 Walton, John H. 78, 367 Walvoord, John F. 371 Wasilewska, Ewa 9, 12 Watanabe, Chikako E. 557 Watanabe, Kazuko 6, 10, 13 Watson, Arthur 298, 322 Watson, Francis 366 Weeks, Stuart 100 Weitzmann, Kurt 288 Wenham, Gordon J. 74, 87, 90, 91, 93, 94 Westermann, Claus 74, 79, 87, 89, 90, 94 Whitaker, Robyn J. 195 Whiting, Mark J. 110 Widengren, Geo 8 Wiggins, Steven A. 25 Williams, Michael 250, 251, 252 Willis, John T. 162 Wilson, Gerald H. 110 Winter, Irene 34–35 Winter, Urs 6, 105 Wintermute, Orval S. 154–155, 251 Wittekind, Susanne 319 Witulski, Thomas 185 Wolfson, Elliot R. 85 Wong, Daniel K.K. 203, 208 Wood, Jeryldene M. 325 Worm, Andrea 198, 322 Wyatt, Nicholas 24 Yarden, Leon 290 York, H. 6 Young, Edward J. 370–371 Young, Frances M. 219, 235, 286 Zevit, Ziony 81, 83, 89, 118, 367 Zimmerman, Ruben 205 Ziolkowski, Jan M. 297

Place Index Alexandria 218, 219, 273 Antioch 218, 219, 228 Arboç (Tarragona) 305n63 Assisi Sacro Convento 327 Assur 12 Assyria 5, 53–54, 57–58, 117, 174 Barcelona Church of the Poor Clares 302n61 Bern Abegg-Stiftung 286–287 French Church (former Dominican Church) 329 Bethlehem 306n68 Bet-Shean 61 Bewcastle 291 Bologna Church of San Francesco 327n130 Borgund 348, 351, 352, 354 British Isles 291, 298, 319 Byzantium 297, 298, 301, 306 Cairo The Coptic Museum 285 Calvary 221, 224, 281, 345 Cambridge Trinity College 313–314 Carcassonne Basilica of Saint-Nazaire 302, 329 Catalogna 302 Central Italy 302, 306 Chartres Cathedral of Notre-Dame 302–303 Christendom, see also Christian world 281, 297, 299, 306, 310, 315, 322, 330 Constantinople 300, 306n68, 315n92, 322n117 Darmstadt Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek 319 Dura Europos Durham 319

Eden vii–ix, 1, 117, 171, 178, 179, 217, 218, 220, 227, 228, 281, 287–288, 295–296, 305, 313 Egypt 5, 8, 9, 15, 17, 18, 18n47, 23, 26, 27, 46– 50, 63–68, 106, 113, 116, 218, 267, 286, 291 Elysian Fields 229 England 291, 313 Ephesus 190, 191n41 Eridu 8, 8n19, 9, 9n20 Ethiopia 129n11, 295 Europe 295 Florence Convent of Santa Maria Novella 321, 330 Convent of the Poor Clares at Monticelli 325 Convent of Santa Croce 329 Galleria dell’Accademia 325–326 Forlí Church of San Francesco 327n130 Gaul 313 Gehinnom 179 Gerasa Chapel of Elias, Maria, and Soreg 305n67 Germany 289n23, 373–374 Ghana 382 Ghent Centrale Bibliotheek van de Rijksuniversiteit 290n25 Golgotha 281, 283, 315 Great Ryburgh 344 Hades 224, 225 Hannover Museum August Kestner 319n110 Hazor 61 Heddal 357n29 Hegge 355 Hermopolis 21 Holy Land 283, 305–306, 322n117 Holy of Holies 222

453

place index Israel 60–63, 288n20, 290 Italy 313, 322 Jericho ix Jerusalem 62, 129n11, 140, 140n12, 142– 143, 154, 157, 160n48, 171, 217, 218, 221, 269n62, 269n70, 281, 315 Basilica of Constantine 283 New 217 Jordan 305, 315 Judah 60–64 Kellia 284–285 Khirbet el-Mukhayyat Church of the Holy Martyrs Lot and Procopius 305n67 Khirbet el-Qom 25 Kingdoms of Castile and Aragon 291 Kremsmünster (Upper Austria) Kremsmünster Abbey Library 319n110 Kuntillet ʿAjrud 25 Lagrasse 305n63 Lebanon 117, 118 León Museo de San Isidoro Real Colegiata 295–296 Levant 5, 9, 23, 26, 27, 41–46, 59–63, 305 Lichfield Lichfield Cathedral Library 298–299 Lisbon Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal 291n30, 292 London British Library 291n30, 319–320 British Museum 298 Luxor 16 Madaba Archaeological Museum 315 Madrid Biblioteca Nacional 322 Marah 124–125, 225 Mesopotamia 5, 9, 15, 23, 25, 26, 37–41, 52– 59, 106, 116 Mexico 330 Monza Museo e Tesoro del Duomo 283–284

Mount Nebo Church of the Deacon Thomas 305, 308 Munich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek 282 Nag Hammadi 256 Nazareth 294 New Jerusalem 287, 312–314 New York Metropolitan Museum 304 Nimrud 52–59 North Africa 305 Orvieto Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta 305– 310, 311–312, 322, 329 Church of San Giovenale 302n61, 322– 324, 327 Oslo 350n16, 357 Otranto Cathedral of Santa Maria Annunziata 306, 308–309 Oxford Bodleian Library 294 Padua Convent of Sant’Antonio 328–329 Palestine 287 Papal State 322 Paris Musée du Louvre 300 University of Paris 317 Persia 15, 27 Philistine Coast 61 Phoenicia 61, 64 Pisa Franciscan Convent 327n130 Poitiers Monastery of the Holy Cross 280 Prague Alteneuschul 289–290 Convent of Saint Agnes 290 National Library of the Czech Republic 302n60 Puigcerdà (Cerdagne) 305n63 Rabastens 305n63 Ravenna Mausoleum of Galla Placidia

288, 315

454 Museo Arcivescovile 315 Roglösa 361 Rome 260, 287, 291, 301, 305, 310 Basilica of San Clemente 311–312 Basilica of San Giovanni in Laterano 310, 322 Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore 310, 322 Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 319 Convent of Santa Maria in Aracoeli 327 Ruthwell 291, 293–294 Salerno Museo Diocesano 313–314 Sicily, Kingdom of 310, 315–316 Sinai Saint Catherine’s Monastery 194 Skog 348 South Arabia 25 Spain 289n23, 313 Sumer 10 Sutton Hoo 298 Swabia 304 Syria 218, 295 Taanach 52n55 Taranto Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta (now dedicated to San Cataldo) 306

place index Tarshish 225 Temple 222, 225 Thebes 18n49 Trani Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta 306 Tuscania Church of San Silvestro 302n61, 324n123 Tyre 174 Ugarit 23, 25 Um er-Rasas Church of Saint Stephen 306n67 Urnes 348, 349, 357–359, 361 Uruk 11, 13n29, 14, 15, 26 Uvdal 348 Vienna Hofburg Palace, Schatzkammer Vikøyri 363 Vyšší Brod 289 Wadi ʿAfrit Upper Chapel of the Priest John Zinacantepec (Toluca, Mexico) 330 Zlatá Koruna 289

316

305n67

Subject Index Abel 255, 270 acacia 63 Nile 15 acanthus 305n63, 311–312, 315 Adad-nirari 12, 26 Adam vii–viii, 122, 124, 129, 166, 221–225, 227, 231, 232, 238–239, 245, 294–295, 313, 321 and Christ 231, 233 and Eve 151, 153, 153n37, 203 as guard of the tree of life 146–147, 158 as God’s creation 146–147, 151–152, 159 creation of 220, 222 expulsion of 217, 218, 230 sin/disobedience of 137, 146–147, 151– 153, 158–159 true 259, 259n37, 269 Adapa 7 adverbial infinitive 94 afterlife 16, 19, 20, 22, 27 Agnes of Prague 290, 317 agriculture 37–38, 45, 47, 51, 63–64, 68 alabaster 172 Alexander IV, pope 317 allegory 218, 220, 225, 228, 237, 240, 251n10, 252, 273–274 figurative 190, 191, 198, 199, 202–208, 209 allusion 60, 130n14, 184, 206, 223, 225, 233, 351, 358 almond 201, 290 alter Christus 328 Alulim 7 Amaušumgalanna 11 Amenet/Ammut 19 Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) 68 ampulla 283–284, 332 Amun-Re 17, 18, 18n49, 64 An 11 Anastasius, cardinal 311 androgyny 255n19, 269, 269n59 angels 219, 225 as guardians 146–147, 155 as speaking 147 as leading 148 as sent by God 155

angle 3, 183, 193–208, 209, 313 animal 257, 261–262, 266, 289, 301, 315 animal imagery 107, 109 animalism 261, 263, 263n46, 264, 266 Annunciation 346 anointing 258n33, 264, 268 anthropomorphism 35–41, 44–45, 47, 54– 55, 57, 59 Antichrist 154–156, 158–159 Anti-Semitism 373 Anu 7 apocalypse 183–210, 258n34, 259 illustrated 313–314 apologetic 267, 274n70 apostles 301, 305, 325, 329 Christianity of the 191, 264, 266 see also disciples apotropaism 283 apparition 189 apple 313 Aquinas, Thomas 325 Araššiḫu 23 arbores consanguinitatis 321–322 Armenian 223, 224 aroma 179 aromatic 176 arrogance 256, 275 Artemidorus 189–194, 199, 200, 202, 204, 210 ascent 253, 258, 267, 268, 270 asceticism 246, 249, 256, 264, 266 antinomian 276 encratic 273 ash, evergreen 344, 346n7, 347, 351, 353, 362 Asherah/asherah 20, 24–25, 24n70, 26, 45– 46, 61, 62n95, 63, 381 Ashurnasirpal II 53–54 Assur 41n24, 57 Assurbanipal 117n49 Assyrian cylinder seal 315n Assyrian sacred tree see tree, sacred astral motifs 39, 57 constellations 39 eight-pointed star 39, 55, 58 moon 39 solar disc 39, 56–57

456

subject index

stars 39 sun 39, 67n106, 68 astrology 190n33 Aten 18, 19 Athirat(u) see Asherah axis mundi 168, 281–282, 301–302, 327, 330

bread 218, 221, 225, 231, 261, 262 of life 207 breath 264, 269 bridal chamber 258n33, 263, 263n46, 264, 265, 266, 276 Byzantines 224, 232, 355n23

Baʾal 61 baobab 201 baptism 218, 231, 232, 265, 266, 273n66, 275n70, 356 basilica 302, 310, 311, 345, 347 Basilideans 251n7, 273 bear 357 beast vii, 179, 180, 269, 271, 308 the Beast 183, 185n8, 192 beauty 168, 175 Behemoth 179 Benjamin, Walter 193n47 Bewcastle Cross 291 birth 153, 157, 159, 161, 145, 148–149, 151–153, 161 and judgment 149, 153, 160 and purification 152n36 as God creating 138, 157, 159–161 as imagery 145, 149–150 metaphor/metaphorical network 134, 144, 147, 149, 156–157, 159–160, 160n48, 161–162 see also mother bishop’s staff 298–299. See also scepter, royal Blake, William 196n61 blessing 100, 104, 106, 109, 110, 111, 114, 118, 172, 258, 272 blindness 254, 256, 258, 274, 275 blood 224–225, 246, 300n56, 325, 356, 357 body 222–224, 229 of Adam 220, 221 of Christ 221, 227, 232, 281 bôm an berege 345–346. See also cross Bonaventure, saint 312, 317–320, 322–328, 331–332 Boniface, saint 350 book 192 of life 192, 297 bowl 183, 185n8, 192, 298, 388 branch 388

Cain 255 and Abel 89 canonical 365–366, 371–372, 374–377, 379, 383 caprid 35, 38, 41, 44–46, 52, 55, 61, 63 catacombs 287 Catechism of the Catholic Church 365 Cavallini, Pietro 327 cedar 5, 114, 115, 117, 201 center 195, 210, 281–283, 286–287, 295–298, 299–300, 306, 310, 312, 313, 315–316, 322, 330–331, 371, 373–374, 376, 382, 388 Cervera Bible 291–292 chaos 256, 258, 268, 273 cherub viii, 51, 52n55, 55, 59–61, 114, 125–127, 166, 174, 178, 180, 242, 243, 259, 260 cheroubin 259, 272, 273 chief archon 254, 275 chrism 249, 258n33, 262, 262n45, 264, 266 Christ 155–156, 158, 345, 346, 348, 355n23, 356, 358, 364, 365, 371, 373–374, 377, 381, 382 acts of 225–230 as second Adam 231, 233 as tree of life 230–232, 297, 318 as wisdom 221, 222, 227, 228 as Word 223 Christology 373, 375, 377 coming of as true man 258, 261, 272 dual nature 281, 296, 302 Emmanuel 324 see also Jesus, Messiah Christianity 217, 218, 220, 229, 233 true 264 Christmas tree 352 Christ Pantocrator 194 Christ’s thorn 15 church 345–364, 388 as mother 143n16, 159–160, 160n48 Egyptian 284–286, 331 Ethiopian 295, 331 Syrian 295

457

subject index Cistercians 289 Clare of Assisi 317, 332 cognitive metaphor theory 101, 103, 105 column 291, 296–297 commandment 366, 372, 374, 378 community 319, 330, 374, 383. See also connectedness, interdependence conceptual metaphor theory 134, 135–136, 135–136, 138n11, 144n19, 156, 159n47, 162 connectedness 379, 380. See also interdependence, community consummation 272, 273, 276 contradictions 77, 86 Corpus Christi, feast of 325 cosmic tree see tree, world cosmology 179, 192, 381 covenant, between God and Israel 141, 146, 148 creation 100, 129, 153, 246, 252, 262, 264, 269, 269n61, 272, 276, 367, 368, 370, 372–380, 383, 387 by lower gods 251, 253, 267, 268 flawed 261, 266, 269 mistake 261n43, 263 of humanity 252, 253, 265, 266, 267, 269 creationism 370–372 creator 246, 252, 254, 260, 263, 274, 275 crimson 176 cross ix, 130, 204, 207–208, 218, 220, 221, 223–225, 227–233, 249, 262, 264, 345, 346, 348, 355, 365, 375, 381–382, 388 as ankh 286 as tree of life 204, 207, 208, 218, 281–286, 291, 294–295, 331 blossoming 294, 297–300, 312 budding 286, 295, 305, 312 legend of the True Cross 294 crucifixion see cross curse 252, 255, 258, 260, 272, 274 cypress 300–301 Darius I 117n49 date palm 5, 16, 24, 40–41, 45, 53n60, 54, 115–117. See also doum palm, palm day of the Lord 154 death 144, 155, 183, 218, 222–226, 233, 240, 254, 256, 257, 257n27, 258, 262, 262n44,

263, 265, 271, 274n66, 345, 355, 356, 366–367, 370–371, 373–374, 376–378, 381, 383 and paradise 137, 139, 141, 143, 153 and judgment 157–158 and tree of life 151, 159 deer 315, 344, 353, 358–362 deficiency 253, 255 defilement 255, 257, 257n30, 263, 270, 275 demiurge 257, 264, 265 demons 258, 259, 268, 272 descent 253, 254, 257 description see ekphrasis Devil as deceiver 151 as son of lawlessness 155 see also Satan diachronic study 75, 80 diagram 321–322 Di Bonaguida, Pacino 325–326 diet, in the garden of Eden 81, 84, 85 Dilmun 8 discern 367, 370, 376, 384 divination 191 divine council 87–88 divine feminine/mother-goddess 36–50, 54, 56, 60–61, 63 divine freedom 90 divine names see Elohim, Yahweh divine warrior 130 Djed column/pillar 20–21, 24 Documentary Hypothesis 75n2, 78, 79, 89 Dominicans 321, 324, 325, 329–330, 332 Donatists 231 door see entrance doublets 76, 80n24, 86, 95 doum palm 16. See also date palm, palm dove 287n14 dragon see serpent, Nidhogg dream 189–191, 199, 200, 202, 210, 381, 387. See also oracle, vision stressful 189 drunkenness 254, 263, 266 Ea 7 eagle 255, 255n20, 260 Earth 141, 148, 155, 240 and heaven 142–143, 155 as created by God 151

458 as mother 136, 136n7, 138n11, 142n15, 144n19, 159n47 as soil 148 as witness 142–143 new 1, 184, 187, 196n61, 208, 210, 313 east 169 Easter 281, 327 eating vii, 7, 15n40, 203, 209–210, 218, 366, 368, 372–374, 376, 378, 382 books 192 from the tree of knowledge 76, 370, 380 from the tree of life 1, 89, 91–95, 129, 200, 201, 209–210, 373 prohibition against 79, 81, 83, 84, 252, 256, 257, 265, 274 echo 55, 85, 89, 202, 205, 210n118, 346, 355n23 Eden, garden of 1, 74, 87, 94, 122–123, 129, 131, 132, 140n12, 146, 152–153, 152n36, 166, 184, 200, 209–210, 238, 361, 362, 387–388 as happiness and virtue 238n11, 244 expulsion from 252, 258, 259, 265, 267, 272, 274 rivers of 282, 287, 310 see also garden, paradise eisegesis 122 ekphrasis 187–189, 191, 193n46, 195, 197 El 61 elect 167 Elias of Cortona 328 Elisha 224 ellipsis see split coordination Elohim 78, 90 Eloim 255 Elysian Fields 229. See also Field of Rushes, heaven, paradise embroidery 315–316 Enki 9n20, 10 Enkidu 13, 13n30, 14 enlightenment 254–255, 255n20, 260, 266, 270n64, 274, 275 Enoch 131 Enosh 179 entrance 56, 58, 59, 114, 289–290, 297, 302, 348, 356, 357n29, 358, 360–364 Epinoia 253, 254, 255, 255n20, 256, 259n37, 260, 275, 276 Erec-ki-gala 11

subject index Eriugena, John Scotus 210n120 eschatology 122, 128, 129, 132, 186, 188, 189, 190n33, 194, 195, 197, 202, 217, 255, 258, 259n37, 262n45, 263, 266, 276, 344, 361, 363, 368, 372, 380, 383, 387. See also paradise, New Jerusalem eternal life 36, 47–50, 53, 69, 131, 169, 192, 201, 203, 249, 252, 265, 267–268, 276, 367, 369, 371, 374, 376, 387. See also immortality ethics 261 Ethiopic 170, 221 Etzei Chaim ix eucharist 221, 223, 232, 301, 305, 324–325, 355n23, 356 Eve vii–viii, 122, 126–127, 217, 218, 222, 295, 313, 315 and Adam 146, 151, 153n37, 203 as mother 146, 148, 159 beauty of 153, 161 creation of 151–153, 157 sin/disobedience of 146–148, 153, 160 true 259, 259n37, 270 evil 127, 131, 143, 167, 369, 374, 376, 379 and good 250, 263, 264, 266 and mourning 148–149 and paradise/new kingdom 137, 141–143 of Israel 141 see also tree of knowledge of good and evil evolution 380 exodus 124–125, 356 Fall, the 203, 242, 366–367, 369–370, 372– 375, 377–378, 381 father 142 as Abraham 146 as Ezra 141–142 as God 142, 151, 153 as Israel 142 feminine 379–381 feminist interpretation 365, 369–370, 379– 380 fertility 36, 38, 57, 378, 380, 381, 384 fertilization 56 Field of Rushes 19. See also Elysian Fields, heaven, paradise fig 315 figurative language 101, 102

subject index fire 175 fish 35, 41 fleur-de-lis 358, 359 floodwaters 67 focus, point of 183, 193, 195, 197, 204, 208, 319 folklore 78 foreknowledge 274 Forest of Cedar 13 forgetfulness 255 forward gapping see split coordination fountain of life 108, 112, 247, 315 fragrance 166, 175, 176, 180 frame 305–306, 310–311, 318, 322, 324, 329 Franciscans 289, 313, 317, 319, 322, 325–332 Spirituals 328–329 Francis of Assisi 328–329, 331–332 freedom 369, 373–374, 378 Freya 362 fruit vii–viii, 1, 103, 104, 108, 111–115, 118, 126–128, 167, 183, 200, 201, 202, 207, 209–210, 241, 249, 250, 254, 256, 258, 261, 262, 265, 266, 268, 271, 273, 274, 276, 280–281, 288n20, 290n25, 295, 312–313, 318, 324, 328, 371–372, 376, 378–380, 382, 387 Gabriel 145, 155, 346 Gaddi, Taddeo 329 gallows 346n6–7, 351 gaokerena plant 12 gap-filling 76 garden 104, 107, 112–114, 117, 118, 287–288, 295–296, 300, 305, 308, 310–311, 331, 344, 369–371, 376–378, 382, 388 and temple 157 as city 140, 157 as ekphrasis 187 as Jerusalem 140n12, 157 as paradise 136, 153, 157 in Jubilees 152n36 see also Eden Garden of Irnini 13n13 Geb 64 gender 84–85 genii 51, 54–56, 58, 60 genre 22, 189, 190, 194, 239 Gilgamesh viii, 13, 13n29, 14, 14n38, 15n40 Giotto 327

459 glory, divine 124 gnōsis 249, 255, 269, 271, 272, 276 Gnosticism and hermeneutics 250–252 catechesis 256, 261, 261n42 definition of 250–251 myth 253 schools of thought 250–251, 251n7, 252– 260, 263, 273 God 219, 220, 222, 223, 227, 241, 246 humanity’s connection to 203 people dwelling with 193, 388 Goddess of the West 21n64 good 367, 369, 374, 376, 378 and evil 250, 263, 264, 266 goodness 245, 247 and Paradise 137, 140–143 of birth 153 of creation 151, 153 of God 148, 153, 161 see also tree of knowledge of good and evil gospel 217, 230, 346 Gospel of Nicodemus 294 grace 90, 174, 346, 374, 377–378, 383–384 grapevine 290n25, 301, 305, 312 grave 287–288, 295, 297–298, 311, 344–345. See also tomb, sarcophagus Great Honker 21 Greek 185n8, 190, 191, 218, 219, 225, 229 Gregory the Great, pope 349–350 griffin 52n55, 316n92, 357 growth 240 Gudea of Lagash 117n49 guilt 366 Gunnar 346, 357 Gylfaginning 347 gymnasium 204n97 Hades 158, 224, 225, 254. See also hell, Tartarus Hall of Truth 19 Haman 225 Hammurabi 23, 26 happiness 238. See also joy Harbaville Triptych 300 Hardrada, Harald 349 hart see deer Hathor 16, 19, 21n64, 22, 23n68, 47

460 healing 122, 124, 125, 131 heaven 1 and earth 142–143, 155 and vision/revelation 145, 147, 149n28 and reward 145, 155 as God’s abode 155 as witness 142–143 eighth 268, 273 new 1, 183, 184, 187, 196n61, 208, 210, 313 war in 183, 192 see also Elysian Fields, Field of Rushes, paradise Hebrew 191, 218, 264, 266, 269. See also Israel, Israelites, Jews Hebrews, book of 258n34 Heimdall 361 hell in the age to come 137, 141 as furnace 138 see also Hades, Tartarus herb 129 of life 10, 11, 12, 26 Hercules viii Hermetic literature 251 Hezekiah, king of Judah 63 historical-critical interpretation 365–367, 369–370, 372, 379, 382–384 history 373–375, 377 holiness 130 Holy Spirit 232, 255n19, 258, 261, 264, 265 Homer 229, 251 Ḥôrānu 23 Horus 18n51, 19, 63–64 house of the Lord 113–115, 117, 166. See also temple Hugh of Saint Victor 296–297 Humbaba 13, 13n31, 14 Ibi 20 iconography 34–36, 345 idolatry 175, 179, 350 ignorance 253, 255, 256, 257, 263, 265, 269, 271, 272, 274, 275 image 32, 33, 34, 37, 44, 45, 59–61, 102, 105– 110, 114, 118–119, 149–150, 183–189, 191–195, 197–200, 202–209, 254, 255, 268, 269, 269n59, 270, 271. See also multistability, multivalency, polyvalency, visual texture

subject index image of God vii imagination 2, 36, 45, 68, 69, 74, 129, 183, 207, 210, 222, 318 immanence see presence, divine immortality viii, 123, 127–128, 219, 221, 222, 240, 242, 262, 264, 271, 272, 273, 276, 287, 366–369, 372, 382–383 as Edenic humans’ default state 89 as effect of the tree of life 89 see also eternal life, mortality impurity and creation 158 and sin/disobedience 152, 158 as human propensity 158 metaphor/metaphorical network 134, 156, 162 of Adam 152 see also sin inaccessibility 169, 175 Inanna see Ishtar incense 129 indwelling 257n31, 260 infinitive absolute see adverbial infinitive inhabited (rinceau) scrolls 305 inscription 283, 294, 306, 310–311, 324n instructor 257, 269, 270, 271, 272, 274 interdependence 379, 380. See also community, connectedness intertextuality 119, 188, 380 išd 16 Ishtar (Inanna) 10, 10n24, 11, 13, 26, 37–41, 54–55, 58 Isidore of Seville 296, 321. See also Reliquary of Saint Isidore Isis 16, 18n51, 21n64, 47, 63–64, 67 Israel as mother 141–142, 143n16, 159–160 as the seed of Jacob 138, 161 mothers of 143 people of/God’s people 137–138, 142– 143, 162n52 twelve tribes 290 see also Hebrew, Israelites, Jews Israelites 221. See also Hebrew, Israel, Jews ivory panels 300, 313, 315 ivy 301, 305, 312 Jacobus de Voragine 294 Jacopone da Todi 328, 331

461

subject index Jacopo Torriti 310, 311n jealousy 253, 257, 271, 272, 274, 275 Jesus ix, 125, 130, 131, 193–194, 207, 228, 253– 254, 255, 256, 260, 262, 263, 264, 266, 275, 276, 388. See also Christ, Lamb of God Jewish exegesis 365, 367n4, 368, 381 Jews 226, 241. See also Hebrew, Israel, Israelites tradition of 287–291, 294–295 Joachim of Fiore 318 John, evangelist 232, 290n29, 313, 324 John XXII, pope 329 Joseph 262, 266 Joshua 225, 291 Josiah, king of Judah 63 journey 168, 177 joy 244. See also happiness Judaism 264, 266, 269n60, 269n62, 274n70 Judas 346 judgment 123, 129, 130n14, 138–139, 143, 145– 149, 153–158, 161, 167, 168, 241, 287, 316, 321, 329, 348, 356, 357, 361 and Adam 146–147, 158 and birth 149, 160 and death 157 and disobedience/sin/impurity 158 day 166 God as judge 146–147, 153, 158, 162, 241 Justin the Gnostic 219 Kabbalah 287 Khoiak festival 20–21 khoikos 265, 269 kikayon see qiqayon kingdom and eternal life 158 Messianic 138 of heaven 264 of Jerusalem 142–143 kingship 50–68, 104, 111, 114, 116, 117, 316 kiškānû (kiskanu) 8, 8n19, 9 knowledge 366–367, 369, 373–374, 376, 378, 379–380, 383 of good and evil 84 ladder, heavenly 281, 288, 310n71 Lambert of Saint-Omer 290n25

Lamb of God 125, 195, 199, 200, 203, 207n111, 208, 221, 356, 365. See also Jesus lampstand 193, 199, 206, 207n111 Latin 218, 220, 225, 226, 229 laude 317, 327–328, 331 laugh 257, 268, 269, 270. See also happiness law 263, 263n47, 264, 266, 269, 273, 273n68, 275, 276 leaves 167 Leviathan 179 Libanius 187 Lichfield Gospels 298–299 life viii, 130, 166, 168, 246–247, 388 long 169 true 246 life-giving fragrance 123–125, 128, 131. See also scent, smell light 287, 290 lignum vitae 297n49, 302n61, 305n63, 312, 317–328, 330n143, 331–332 Lignum vitae Christi 328 Lignum vitae Sancti Francisci 329 Lilith 160, 257n30 liminality 297 limit 367, 373–374, 378, 383 lineage 302, 319, 321, 329–331 lion 316, 358, 362 of Judah 358 literal reading 13n34, 107, 114, 190, 191, 192, 198, 199–202, 204, 209, 210, 217, 218, 220, 222, 228, 233, 240, 242, 247, 365, 367n4, 370–372, 379, 383, 384 literary artistry 77, 185–188. See also narrative liturgy 346n8, 381–382 Lorenzo Maitani 306 lotus flower 36, 48 Louis de Valladolid 330 Lugalbanda 13n29 Luke, evangelist 298–299 lumber 207 Manasseh, king of Judah 63 Mandaeans 251n7 Manichaeans 251n7, 267 manuscripts 281, 291n30, 294, 298, 302, 318n102, 319, 321–322, 324, 328 Marsh of Reeds 21 Marsh of Rest 21

462 Martha 228 Martini, Simone 327 martyrdom 274n70 Mary, mother of Jesus 264, 346 Mary of Bethany 228 Masoretic Text 75n mass 325, 327, 346 maturity 370 Maẓẓevoth ix memory 183, 188, 283, 311, 318 menorah 201n84, 206–207, 208, 290–292 Merenre I 21 Merkabah 180 Messiah 207n11, 287, 288n20, 301. See also Christ mesu/mes- 11, 26, 63n98 metaphor 7, 37, 69, 100, 101–105, 109, 134, 136, 139, 143, 144, 147, 150, 156–162, 192, 199, 202–204, 210, 227, 233, 249, 281, 317, 319, 368, 381, 387–388 blending or conceptual framework 101, 113 dead metaphor 107 non- 184, 186 source and target domain 103 and worldview 102, 103, 119 Metatron 166, 179, 180 Michael 167, 361 middle 207n111, 238, 266 midrash 287 mirror 55, 290n25, 317, 329 mis pî ritual 10n23 mixed formation 264, 268, 270, 276 modelled form 267, 269, 271 Mona Lisa 193 monastery 280, 284, 286, 289, 306, 319, 331 moon 153 mortality as Edenic humans’ default state 88–89, 93, 94 as effect of the tree of knowledge 89–90 see also immortality mosaic 305–306, 308–311, 331 pavement 305–306, 308–309, 315, 322, 331 Moses 179, 227, 254, 254n18, 273n68, 290, 295 mother 143–144, 147, 149, 151–153, 156, 159n48, 160–161, 253, 255, 255n19, 257, 260, 269, 270, 271

subject index as church 143n16, 160, 160n48 as earth 136, 136n7, 138n11, 142n15, 144n19, 159n47 as Eve 146, 148, 159 as God 142, 157 as Israel 141–142, 143n16, 160 as Jerusalem 160n48 metaphor/metaphorical network 134, 136, 143–144, 150, 152–153, 156, 159– 162 see also birth mountain 168, 171, 175 mountains of fire 167 multistability 183–210 multivalency 32, 33, 54, 59 mysticism 220, 228 mythology 366, 368–370, 378 Nabonidus 117n49 nakedness 254, 255, 258, 271, 274 Naphtali 225 Naram-Sin 117n49 narrative 183, 185–188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 366–372, 374–375, 378–379, 382–383 narratology 75 Nebuchadnezzar II 117n49 Necker cube 193, 198n70 Nemtiemzaf Merenre see Merenre I Nepri 18 Ner Tamid 206 netherworld 39n17 new Jerusalem 194, 195n55, 217, 287, 312, 313, 371, 380–382. See also eschatology, Elysian Fields, Field of Rushes, heaven, paradise New Testament 217, 230 Nicholas IV, pope 311, 322, 327 Nidhogg 344, 353, 355, 357, 361. See also serpent Nile 64, 67 Nincubura 10 Ninsun 13n29 Ninurta 57n77 Nitocris 20 Noah 225 Norns 344, 355, 357n27, 364n35 Nut (deity) 16, 20, 21, 21n64, 22, 46–50, 62n93, 64–65, 67–68

subject index oak 46n34 Odin 346, 351, 355, 356, 362 oil 124, 131, 283, 291, 294 of anointing 258n33, 262, 266, 268 olive 114 Old Testament 217, 218, 227, 230, 232 olive 113, 114, 167, 201, 249, 258n33, 262, 262n45, 264, 266, 268, 290–291, 315 Ophites 251n7 oracle 118n51, 154, 189. See also dream, vision orb 282 ordensstammbäume 319, 321, 329 order 374, 377–378, 382–383 Osiris 16, 18n51, 19, 20, 21, 22, 49–50, 63–68 Ovid 204n96 paganism 345, 346n8, 349, 350 painting panel 325 wall 284–285, 287, 305n63, 322, 323–324, 327, 330, 332 palm 16, 114–117, 201, 229, 315–316, 328. See also date palm, doum palm papacy 306, 310–311, 317, 322, 328, 332 paradise viii, 105, 122, 123n1, 128, 141, 143, 147, 149–151, 149n29, 153, 156n45, 157– 158, 168, 169, 175, 176, 237, 240, 242, 281, 294–297, 300, 305, 310, 312, 317, 330, 379, 381 and Adam 146, 151–152 and eschatology 137, 140–141 and motherhood 153, 161 and reward 136, 145, 157–158, 161 as Eden 219–224, 229, 230, 232 as destination of saints 218, 220, 224, 227, 228, 231, 232, 233 as God’s dwelling place 153, 161 in Genesis 136, 158 metaphor/metaphorical network 134, 156–158, 162 vision of 141, 157 see also eschatology, new Jerusalem, Elysian Fields, Field of Rushes, heaven parallelism 113, 140, 346 paten 286–287. See also Phela Treasure Paul, apostle 221 pearl 172

463 pelican 324 Pepi I 21 Pepi Neferkare 21 perisa 15 Persia tree 15–16 personification 282, 324, 388 perspective see angle Phela Treasure 286. See also paten Philip 262, 263 Philo 196n57, 197n67, 198n73, 201n88, 205, 236–247 philology 75 philosophy 237, 246 Hellenistic 251 Platonic 238 phoenix 229 piety see virtue pilgrim 283, 332 pillar figurines 61–62 pine 5, 352–353, 354 black 8 Scots 351 pinecone 353 and bucket 53, 55–56 plant of life 6, 9, 21, 22 pleasure 242, 267, 267n56 Pliny the Elder 301 Plutarch 20 pneumatikos 265, 269 poem 280–281, 283, 294, 301, 324, 331–332 polemic 259, 263, 269n60, 273, 273n66, 274n70, 275 politics 188 polyvalency 183–210 pomegranate 201 Pontius Pilate 221, 224 portal see entrance poverty 267, 268, 269 Přemysl Otakar II 290 presence, divine 125, 132, 375, 376–377, 380– 384 pride 172, 366–367 progymnasmata 187n14, 189 prohibit 373–374, 376, 378 prophecy 189, 191 prophylactic 283 protection 32, 36, 38, 40, 49–50, 52, 55, 58, 64–65, 68–69 proto-orthodox 266, 273

464 proverbial 377, 382 providence 255, 256, 256n22, 257, 260, 265, 266, 267, 269, 270, 273, 275 Pseudo-Chrysostom 281n3 Pseudo-Cyprian 281 psykhikos 257, 265, 269, 271 Ptah 16, 17 punishment 140, 145, 147, 148–150, 149n28, 151, 153, 158–159 and curse 136 and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil 152 eternal 148–149, 153, 158 of God 151 purification 55–56 purity 152n36, 156, 158 and birth 152n36 metaphor/metaphorical network 134, 156–157, 162 of God 147, 151–152, 157–158 of the garden of Eden 157 qiqayon viii Radegunda, saint, queen 280 Raedwald of East Anglia 298 Ragnarok 344, 356, 362, 363 rape 255, 255n21, 256, 257, 257n30, 270, 270n64, 273, 275 Ratatosk 344 rebirth 36, 39–40, 48–49, 55, 64–65, 67, 67n106 reflection 254, 255, 257, 260 regeneration see rebirth Reichenau Gospel Book 281–282 relic of the Holy Cross 280, 283 religion 367, 369, 371, 373–374, 381 Reliquary of Saint Isidore 295–296. See also Isidore of Seville rest 160 and paradise 137, 140–141, 145 resurrection 67, 127, 195, 203, 205, 261, 262, 264, 269n70, 388, 367 retribution 108 revelation 372–373, 377 rhetography 188, 190 rhetoric 183, 189, 190, 193n46, 267, 273 rib 252, 254, 270, 270n63 righteous man 218, 226–228

subject index righteousness 137, 139–140, 146, 148–149, 155–156, 158–159 and reward for 136, 139–140, 145, 155, 158, 161 river 10, 111, 148, 179, 180, 217, 224, 227, 230, 231, 282, 310, 378 of life 186, 195–197, 202, 203, 208, 230, 312, 313, 371 Roger II of Sicily 315–316 Romanticism 205 Rood, legend of the Holy 294 rose/rosette 13, 114, 173, 298, 300n56 Ruthwell Cross 291, 293–294 sacrament 200, 207, 223, 231, 249, 261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 276, 346, 371 Saena tree see tree, world saga 372, 375–377 saints 205–206, 223, 227, 231, 232, 301, 330 Salerno Ivories 313, 315 salvation 221, 225, 230, 264, 275, 281, 286– 287, 294–295, 297, 302, 310, 318, 322, 329, 331, 332, 345–348, 363 history of 302, 367, 372, 375, 379, 383 Samaritan Pentateuch 75n sapphire 172 sarcophagus of Honorius 288 Sargon of Akkad 117n49 Sargon II 117n49 Satan 92, 224, 225, 346, 361. See also Devil scent 168. See also smell scepter, royal 299. See also bishop’s staff sculpture 289–291, 302, 305–308, 312, 322 seasons 240 secret 167, 179 seed 103, 104 Sennacherib 57n80, 117n49 Septuagint 75n seraphim 221, 259, 260 serpent vii–viii, 15n40, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90, 126–127, 222, 229, 243, 254, 255n20, 256, 257, 257n31, 258, 260, 265, 274, 275, 295, 311, 353, 357, 358, 359, 360n30, 361, 362, 365, 371, 374. See also Nidhogg Set 64 Seth viii, 124, 255, 275, 294–295 Sethian Gnosticism 252–260, 253n14, 258n34, 260, 267 Sethians 251n7

subject index setting, scene 188, 191, 193, 200, 203, 205 sexuality 242, 254, 255, 256, 257, 271, 273, 275, 276, 370, 374 immoral 175 shadow effect 197, 200, 352n19 Shalmaneser III 117n49 shalom 140 Shekinah 166, 179 ship-building 225, 350 Siegfried 346, 357 sign 204–207, 208, 210, 371, 376–377 Sigurdsson, Harald 349n14 simile 12, 101n5, 111, 113, 149, 184, 195, 217, 228 Simonians 273 sin 139, 145–149, 155, 158, 222, 223, 229, 232, 376, 378, 380 and Eve 148, 153 of Adam 137, 158 of Israel 141 original sin 366, 369–370, 373 see also impurity, unrighteousness Sisera 225 sleep 254, 255, 257, 270 smell 168, 175, 180, 351. See also scent snake see Nidhogg, serpent sober 254, 271 solar disc 39, 56, 57 Solomon 117n49, 218, 220, 225, 226, 233 soma 9 Son of Man 180 Sophia 253, 254, 255, 255n19, 256, 269, 270, 272, 275 soul 219–222, 224, 227, 240, 243, 367 source criticism 75, 77, 80, 86, 87, 89–90, 95–96. See also Documentary Hypothesis space 196, 197, 200, 203, 209 sacred 297 spear 91, 346n8, 351, 355, 356, 361 sphinx 52n55 split coordination 81–82 spruce, Norway 351, 353, 354 stained glass 302–304, 305n63, 319n110, 329 stand 257, 269, 270 stave 348. See also church stupor 272 Sturluson, Snorri 346–347 stylized tree 6 suffering 265, 270

465 sun 153, 253, 345 sunfolk 18, 18n47 Surt 361 Sutton Hoo Byzantine bowls 298 sword, flaming 223 sycamore 5, 15, 16, 21–22, 46–48, 50, 64–65, 67–68, 201 symbol viii, 105n17, 126, 131, 183, 185n8, 187, 188, 192, 199, 200, 202, 204–208, 210, 316n93, 365, 367, 370–372, 375, 378– 383, 387–388 synagogue ix, 287, 289–290, 305, 324, 388 synchronic study 75, 79, 80 Syriac 218, 222 tabernacle 114, 206, 376–377. See also temple Tabitha 156 Takelot I 16 tamarisk 5, 15, 24, 49, 63–64, 201 Tartarus 147, 149–150, 157, 158. See also Hades, hell tcheret (tamarisk, willow) 49, 63–64, 66– 67 technology 373 temple 129, 132, 135n3, 157, 269n62, 274n70, 380 and purity 157 scroll 140n12 Second 135n3, 140, 140n12, 143n17, 152n36, 157, 159n48 Solomon’s temple 59–60 see also tabernacle terebinth 5, 46, 173, 225 terracotta lamps 287 test 367n4, 372, 378 thaumaturgy 283, 294 theodicy 115, 116 theological exegesis 365–366, 372, 377, 379, 383 theophany 122, 125–126, 131–132 third heaven 176 Thor 357, 361 Thoth 16, 64 throne 54, 58, 123, 125–128, 132, 166, 167, 180, 186, 195, 197, 200–203, 205, 207n111, 208, 209, 210, 221, 241, 311, 327, 349n14, 356, 380 Tiglath-pileser I 117n49

466 time 94, 186, 226 tomb 287–288, 295, 311. See also grave, sarcophagus tongue 108 Torah/torah ix, 62, 106, 110, 111, 113, 118, 172, 179, 180, 184n6, 206, 247, 287, 290, 356, 368. See also law Totality 265 trampling 258, 259, 259n37–38, 260, 275, 276 transcendence 276 trance 254 trapped 275 Treasure House 23 tree felling 104 goddesses of the 106 in the literal sense 199–202, 209–210 in the metaphoric sense 202–204, 209– 210 in the symbolic sense 204–208, 209–210 of all remedies 12 of death 24, 26, 239 of Jesse 297, 298n51, 301–305, 307, 319, 321, 322n116, 329–330 of knowledge of good and evil vii, 76, 131, 146, 152, 217–219, 222–224, 229, 239, 245, 295, 310, 313, 331, 366–370, 373– 374, 376–378, 380, 383 effect of eating 93 location of 77, 81–83, 85 prohibition of 79, 81, 84, 85 prohibition of as test 84n37 of wisdom 168 sacred 5, 6, 8, 8n19, 24, 25, 26, 53–59, 201n83, 367n4, 381, 383 world 8, 8n19, 12, 27, 104, 105, 118, 130, 287 see also acacia, almond, ash, baobab, cedar, cross, cypress, date palm, fig, išd, kiškānû, oak, olive, palm, perisa, pine, pomegranate, spruce, sycamore, tamarisk, tcheret, terebinth, white hom, willow, Yggdrasil Trinitarian 371 Trinity College Apocalypse 313–314 Tutankhamen 68 typology 218, 222, 224, 226, 287n14, 297n49

subject index Ubertino da Casale 328 union 254, 265 unrighteousness and God’s people 139 of Assyria 142 and impurity 158 and disobedience 156 see also impurity, sin uproot 103, 104, 113, 114 Uriel 155 Ur-šanabi/Ur-shanabi 13, 14n35 Ūta-napišti/Utnapishtim 13, 13n31 Valentinian Gnosticism 260–266, 267, 273n66 Valentinians 251n7, 273 Valentinus 260–261 Valhalla 345 Vasari, Giorgio 327 Venantius Fortunatus 280, 283, 324–325, 331 Vercelli Book 294 vice 238, 239 Viking 349n14, 350, 351, 355n23, 358, 361 vine 288n20, 289–291, 301, 305–308, 310– 311, 315, 330 virtue 205n101, 237, 238, 242, 244, 318, 324, 388 vision 1, 54, 88, 137, 138, 141, 142, 145, 147– 150, 157, 172, 177, 183, 186, 187, 189–195, 199, 200, 202, 204, 205, 206, 208–210, 223, 230, 245, 290–291, 380–381, 387. See also dream, oracle visual texture 186–189, 191–195, 197, 199, 210 voice 270, 270n64, 275 Voluspa 347, 363 Vourukasha Sea 12 Vulgate 145, 186, 196 Vyšehrad Codex 302 war in heaven 183, 192 watchers 177 water 103, 110, 111, 112, 116, 117, 125, 217, 225– 231 of life 207 well of fate 344, 347, 364n35 well of life 355, 357n27 Weltenbaum see tree, world Wepwawet 63 west 167

467

subject index white hom 12, 27 wholeness (prosperity) 107, 108, 109, 115, 117 wilderness 125 will 256, 256n26, 257, 265, 267 William I of Sicily 308 willow 49, 64, 66 Egyptian 15 wine 167 winged disc 8, 23 wisdom 100, 123, 126, 172, 174, 202, 206, 218, 220, 222, 225, 228, 232, 239, 242, 246, 258, 263, 264, 274, 367–370, 372, 377– 380, 382–384, 387–388 and paradise 137, 140–141 as Christ 220, 221, 227 Lady Wisdom 105–108 the righteous and the wicked 107, 108, 110–113, 115, 116, 119 wisdom Psalms 100, 109, 119 wise living 109, 111, 113, 117 Woden see Odin

Woden’s Ride see Yggdrasil woman 204n97, 252, 254, 257, 258, 260, 270, 272 wood 280n1, 281, 283, 294 word 263, 264 worship 104n15, 106, 110, 112, 113, 114, 262, 272 worshipper 104 Yahweh/Yhwh 25, 25n78, 26, 45, 60, 62–63, 78, 90, 291 Yahweh God 19, 22 Yaldabaoth/Yaltabaoth 253, 255, 255n21, 267, 268, 268n58, 269, 270 Yave 255 Yggdrasil 344–348, 351, 353, 355–358, 360– 364. See also world tree Zerubbabel 291 Zosimos viii