FALL
Irom
the
garden,
which
appears
to
be
conceived
as
still
existing,
though
barred
to
human
approach
by
the
cherubim
and
the
flaming
sword.
It
is
right
to
point
out
that
certain
incongruities
of
rep-resentation
BUEgeat
that
two
slightly
varying
narratives
have
been
combined
in
the
source
from
which
the
passage
is
taken
(J).
The
chief
difficulty
arises
in
connexion
with
the
two
trees
on
which
the
destiny
of
mankind
is
made
to
turn.
In
2^
the
tree
of
life
and
the
tree
of
the
knowledge
of
good
and
evil
grow
together
in
the
midst
of
the
garden;
in
2*'
the
second
alone
is
made
the
test
of
man's
obedience.
But
ch.3
(down
to
V.22)
knows
of
only
one
central
tree,
and
that
obviously
(though
it
is
never
so
named)the
tree
of
knowledge.
The
tree
of
life
plays
no
real
part
in
the
story
except
in
322-
^
;
and
its
introduction
there
creates
embarrassment;
for
if
this
tree
also
was
forbidden,
the
writer's
silence
regarding
the
prohibition
is
inexplicable,
and
if
it
was
not
forbidden,
can
we
suppose
that
the
Divine
prerogative
of
immortality
was
placed
within
man's
reach
during
the
period
of
his
proba-tion?
The
hypothesis
of
a
twofold
recension
of
the
Paradise
story,
while
relieving
this
difficulty,
would
be
of
interest
as
showing
that
the
narrative
had
undergone
a
development
in
Hebrew
literature;
but
it
does
not
materially
aid
the
exegesis
of
the
passage.
The
main
narrative,
which
is
complete,
is
that
which
speaks
of
the
tree
of
knowledge;
the
other,
if
it
be
present
at
all,
is
too
fragmentary
to
throw
light
on
the
fundamental
ideas
embodied
in
the
story.
That
this
profoundly
suggestive
narrative
is
a
literal
record
of
a
historic
occurrence
is
an
opinion
now
generally
abandoned
even
by
conservative
theologians;
and
the
view
which
tends
to
prevail
amongst
modern
expositors
is
that
the
imagery
is
derived
from
the
store
of
mytho-logical
traditions
common
to
the
Semitic
peoples.
It
is
true
that
no
complete
Babylonian
parallel
has
yet
been
discovered;
the
utmost
that
can
be
claimed
is
that
particular
elements
or
motives
of
the
Biblical
story
seem
to
be
reflected
in
some
of
the
Babylonian
legends,
and
still
more
in
the
religious
symbolism
displayed
on
the
monuments
(tree
of
life,
serpent,
cherubim,
etc.).
These
coincidences
are
sufiSciently
striking
to
suggest
the
inference
that
a
mythical
account
of
man's
original
condition
and
his
fall
existed
in
Babylonia,
and
had
obtained
wide
currency
in
the
East.
It
is
a
reasonable
conjecture
that
such
a
legend,
'stripped
of
its
primitive
polytheism,
and
retaining
only
faint
traces
of
what
was
probably
its
original
mythological
character,
formed
the
material
setting
which
was
adapted
by
the
[Biblical]
narrator
for
the
purpose
of
exhibiting,
under
a
striking
and
vivid
imaginative
form,
the
deep
spiritual
truths
which
he
was
inspired
to
discern'
(Driver).
These
spiritual
truths,
in
which
the
real
significance
of
the
narrative
lies,
we
must
endeavour
very
briefly
to
indicate.
(1)
The
story
offers,
on
the
face
of
it,
an
explanation
of
the
outstanding
iUs
that
flesh
is
heir
to:
the
hard,
toilsome
lot
of
the
husbandman,
the
travail
of
the
woman
and
her
subjection
to
man,
the
universal
fate
of
death.
These
evils,
it
is
taught,
are
inconsistent
with
the
ideal
of
human
lite,
and
contrary
to
the
intention
of
a
good
God.
Man,
as
originally
created,
was
exempt
from
them;
and
to
the
question.
Whence
came
they?
the
answer
is
that
they
are
the
effect
of
a
Divine
curse
to
which
the
race
is
subject;
though
it
is
to
be
noted
that
no
curse
is
pronounced
on
the
first
pair,
but
only
on
the
serpent
as
the
organ
of
temptation,
and
the
ground
which
is
cursed
for
man's
sake.
(2)
The
consequences
of
the
curse
are
the
penalty
of
a
single
sin,
by
which
man
incurred
the
just
anger
of
God.
The
author's
conception
of
sin
may
be
con-sidered
from
two
points
of
view.
Formally,
it
is
the
transgression
of
a
Divine
commandment,
involving
distrust
of
the
wisdom
and
goodness
of
the
Almighty,
and
breaking
the
harmony
which
had
subsisted
between
man
and
his
Maker.
The
process
by
which
these
evil
thoughts
are
insinuated
into
the
mind
of
the
woman
is
described
with
a
masterly
insight
into
the
psychology
of
temptation
which
is
unsurpassed
in
Uterature.
But
it
is
a
mistake
to
suppose
that
the
essence
of
the
sin
consists
in
the
merely
formal
disobedience
to
a
command
FALLOW-DEER
arbitrarily
imposed
as
a
test
of
fidelity.
There
was
a
reason
for
the
Divine
injunction,
and
a
reason
for
man's
transgression
of
it;
and
the
reasons
are
unambiguously
indicated.
To
eat
of
the
tree
would
make
man
like
God,
knowing
good
and
evil;
and
God
does
not
wish
man
to
be
like
Himself.
The
essence
of
the
sin
is
there-fore
presumption,
—
an
overstepping
of
the
limits
of
creaturehood,
and
an
encroachment
on
the
prerogatives
of
Deity.
(3)
What,
then,
is
meant
by
the
'knowledge
of
good
and
evil,'
which
was
acquired
by
eating
of
the
tree?
Does
it
mean
simply
an
enlargement
of
experience
such
as
the
transition
from
childhood
to
maturity
naturally
brings
with
it,
and
of
which
the
feeling
of
shame
(3')
is
the
significant
index?
Oris
it,
as
has
generally
been
held,
the
experimental
knowledge
of
moral
distinctions,
the
awaking
of
the
conscience,
the
faculty
of
discerning
between
right
and
wrong?
It
is
very
difficult
to
say
which
of
these
interpretations
expresses
the
thought
in
the
mind
of
the
writer.
It
is
in
accordance
with
Hebrew
idiom
to
hold
that
knowledge
of
good
and
evil
is
equiva-lent
to
knowledge
in
general
;
though
it
is
of
course
not
certain
that
that
is
the
sense
in
which
the
phrase
is
here
used.
On
the
other
hand,
there
is
nothing
to
show
that
it
refers
to
the
moral
sense;
and
the
fact
that
neither
of
the
ways
in
which
the
newly
acquired
faculty
manifests
itself
(the
perception
of
sex,
and
insight
into
the
mystic
virtue
of
the
tree
of
life,
v.^^)
is
a
distinctively
ethical
cognition,
rather
favours
the
opinion
that
the
knowledge
referred
to
is
the
power
to
discern
the
secret
meanings
of
things
and
utilize
them
for
human
ends,
regardless
of
the
will
and
purpose
of
God
—
the
knowledge,
in
short,
which
is
the
principle
of
a
godless
civilization.
The
idea
may
be
that
succinctly
expressed
by
the
writer
of
Ecclesiastes:
'God
made
man
upright;
but
they
have
sought
out
many
inven-tions'
(Ec
729).
(4)
One
speciflo
feature
of
the
story
remains
to
be
considered,
namely,
the
r8le
assigned
to
the
serpent,
and
his
character.
The
identification
of
the
serpent
with
the
devil
appears
first
in
the
Apocryphal
literature
(Wis
221);
in
the
narrative
itself
he
is
simply
the
most
subtle
of
the
creatures
that
God
has
made
(3'),
and
there
is
not
the
slightest
reason
to
suppose
that
he
is
there
regarded
as
the
mouthpiece
of
the
evil
spirit.
At
the
same
time
it
is
impossible
to
escape
the
impression
that
the
serpent
is
conceived
as
a
malevolent
being,
designedly
insinuating
suspicion
of
God
into
the
minds
of
our
first
parents,
and
inciting
them
to
an
act
which
will
frustrate
the
Divine
purpose
regarding
mankind.
There
is
thus
a
certain
ambiguity
in
the
representation
of
the
serpent,
which
may
have
its
source
in
some
more
primi-tive
phase
of
the
legend
;
but
which
also
points
the
way,
under
the
influence
of
a
deeper
apprehension
of
the
nature
of
moral
evil
than
had
been
attained
in
the
time
of
the
writer,
to
that
identification
of
the
serpent
with
the
Evil
One
which
we
find
in
the
NT
(Ro
16",
Eev
12»
20').
In
the
same
way,
and
with
the
same
justification,
the
reflexion
of
later
ages
read
into
the
curse
on
the
serpent
(v.")
the
promise
of
ultimate
redemption
from
the
power
of
evil
through
the
coming
of
Christ.
Strictly
Interpreted,
the
words
imply
nothing
more
than
a
per-petual
antagonism
between
the
human
race
and
the
repulsive
reptiles
which
excite
its
instinctive
antipathy.
It
is
only
the
general
scope
of
the
passage
that
can
be
thought
to
warrant
the
inference
that
the
victory
is
to
be
on
the
side
of
humanity;
and
it
is
a
still
higher
flight
of
reUgious
inspiration
to
conceive
of
that
victory
as
culminating
in
the
triumph
of
Him
whose
mission
it
was
to
destroy
the
works
of
the
devil.
J.
Skinnee.
FALLOW-DEEE.—
This
word
occurs
in
the
AV
among
the
clean
animals
(Dt
1#),
and
in
the
list
of
game
furnished
for^Solomon's
daily
table
(1
K
V).
In
each
list
'ayyal,
zebl,
and
yachmUr
occur
in
the
same
order.
The
first
is
correctly
translated,
in
both
AV
and
