[Milton-L] Knowledge, free will, etc.

[James Rovira]

You miss the obvious: there was no prohibition to eat from the Tree of Life,
only from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, along with a threat: you
will die.  Therefore, there were obstacles in place to eating from the
forbidden tree, and no such obstacles for the tree of life -- until after
Adam and Eve were fallen.

The fact that the threat of death was not literally carried out has posed
problems for interpreters.  Since God dressed Adam and Eve in animal skins
after their fall, the assumption here is that an animal was sacrificed in
Adam and Eve's place.  Remember the word "atonement" is related to the idea
of "covering."

Milton reflects this interpretive tradition in Bk 10:

As Father of his Familie he clad
Thir nakedness with Skins of Beasts, or
slain<http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Emilton/reading_room/pl/book_10/notes.shtml#slain>
,
Or as the Snake with youthful Coate repaid;
And thought not much to cloath his Enemies:
Nor hee thir outward onely with the Skins [ 220 ]
Of Beasts, but inward nakedness, much more
Opprobrious<http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Emilton/reading_room/pl/book_10/notes.shtml#opprobrious>,
with his Robe of
righteousness<http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Emilton/reading_room/pl/book_10/notes.shtml#robe>
,
Araying cover'd from his Fathers sight.
To him with swift ascent he up returnd,
Into his blissful bosom reassum'd [ 225 ]
In glory as of old, to him appeas'd...

Jim R

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Michael Bryson <michael.bryson at csun.edu>wrote:

> "and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life,
> and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the
> garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.So he drove out
> the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a
> flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
>
> I would argue that it is clear that Yahweh in Genesis does not want mankind
> to eat from the Tree of Life, as he takes specific and immediate steps to
> prevent such a possibility (steps notable by their absence in the case of
> the Tree of Knowledge). *Perhaps *this is reflected in the Father of PL as
> well. But why do we "need" to "draw the line" and say--put beyond all
> possibility of question and or/debate, actually--that the Father in PL does
> not want Eve to eat of the fruit of the "forbidden" tree? Keeping the option
> open is far more interesting in my view.
>
> Michael Bryson
>
> ---
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20081107/3f03fb91/attachment.html