LatineEnglish
QUESTION II. Among what species of trees the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil was.1
QUAESTIO II. In qua specie arborum fuerit Arbor scientiae boni et mali.
HOC magis curiosam habet cognitionem, sed adhuc incompertam, ac mea quidem sententia inexplicabilem: ausi tamen quidam sunt eius arboris speciem proprie ac nominatim indicare. Alii existimarunt fuisse vel vitem vel frumentum: ea coniectura, quod in pane et in vino Dominus corpus ac sanguinem suum in sacramento Eucharistiae nobis exhibuerit, ad exsolvendam videlicet expiandamque noxam per esum illius arboris ab Adamo contractam. Verum cum Scriptura eam nominet arborem ubicumque de ea agit, satis apparet neque frumentum neque vitem esse potuisse.
This has a more curious knowledge, but still undiscovered, and in my opinion inexplicable: yet some have dared to indicate the species of that tree properly and by name. Some thought it was either the vine or grain: by this conjecture, that in bread and in wine the Lord exhibited to us his body and blood in the sacrament of the Eucharist—namely, to pay off and expiate the guilt contracted by Adam through the eating of that tree. But since Scripture names it a tree wherever it treats of it, it appears clearly that it could have been neither grain nor vine.2
MOSES Barcepha in libro suo de Paradiso, auctorem secutus Philoxenum in oratione de Arbore vitae, aliosque multos, censet eam arborem fuisse ficum: credibile enim esse, simulatque de ea arbore primi nostri Parentes edissent, tum patrati sceleris animadversione, tum pudore nuditatis (quae pudenda ipsis et probrosa esse coeperat), ex eo quod proxime ad manum erat subligacula sibi comparavisse, quibus sua obvelarent pudenda. Ea vero ex ficulneis esse facta testatur ipsa Scriptura; nec est simile veri ipsos, proxima eis arbore praetermissa, ad aliam longius dissitam festinasse, ex cuius foliis subligacula sibi concinnarent, quibus suam contegerent nuditatem. Theodoretus q. 28 in Genesim hoc ipsum tanta asseveratione affirmat, ut extra controversiam ponat.
Moses Bar-Cepha, in his book On Paradise, following his authority Philoxenus in his oration On the Tree of Life, and many others, judges that that tree was a fig: for it is credible that, as soon as our first Parents had eaten of that tree, then—both by awareness of the crime committed, and by shame of their nakedness (which had begun to be shameful and disgraceful to them)—from that which was nearest to hand they procured aprons for themselves, with which to veil their private parts. And that these were made of fig-leaves the Scripture itself testifies; nor is it like the truth that they, passing by the tree nearest to them, hastened to another more distant, from whose leaves they should fashion aprons for themselves, with which to cover their nakedness. Theodoret, question 28 on Genesis, affirms this very thing with such great asseveration that he places it beyond controversy.3
TOSTATVS tamen super cap. 13 Geneseos quaest. 164 satis probabili argumento confirmat non fuisse ficum, scilicet vel eo ipso quod ex foliis ficus sibi fecerunt subligacula. Nam cum statim ut comederunt fructum vetitum senserint et malum in quod incurrerant et bonum quo fuerant privati, haud dubie ingens eos illius arboris horror et odium coepit, ex qua tantum damnum accepissent: timuissent igitur eius folia contrectare et sibi in usum vestis admovere, maius aliquod malum ex ea sibi metuentes. Quid quod in c. 3 libri Geneseos traditur arborem illam fuisse pulchram oculis et visu delectabilem? quod profecto in arborem ficus minime quadrat. Neque vero necesse est Evam et Adamum simul ex ea arbore edisse; quinimo perspicue indicat Scriptura Evam prius edisse ex ea arbore, postea vero fructum eius (quem innoxie comedisse sibi visa erat) ad virum suum detulisse.
Tostatus, however, on the 13th chapter of Genesis, question 164, confirms by a fairly probable argument that it was not a fig—namely, by this very fact, that they made themselves aprons from fig-leaves. For since, as soon as they had eaten the forbidden fruit, they felt both the evil into which they had run and the good of which they had been deprived, without doubt a great horror and hatred of that tree seized them, from which they had received such great loss: they would therefore have feared to handle its leaves and apply them to use as clothing, dreading some greater evil to themselves from it. What of the fact that in chapter 3 of the book of Genesis it is handed down that that tree was beautiful to the eyes and delightful to behold? which surely fits a fig tree least of all. Nor indeed is it necessary that Eve and Adam ate from that tree together; rather Scripture plainly indicates that Eve first ate from that tree, and afterward brought its fruit (which she seemed to herself to have eaten harmlessly) to her husband.4
NON defuerunt qui opinati sint eam arborem fuisse Malum, propter id quod scriptum est in Canticis c. 8, Sub arbore Malo suscitavi te: ibi corrupta est mater tua, ibi violata est genitrix tua. At enim vero doctrina illius libri tota est parabolica, quare propriae vocabulorum significationi nequaquam insistendum est: alioqui cogentur isti dicere arborem crucis (sub qua significatur eo loco naturam humanam a Christo esse suscitatam) fuisse arborem Mali: quanquam nomen Mali generale est, multas arborum species complectens. Denique, non assentior arbitrantibus arborem illam diversae speciei fuisse ab omnibus aliis arboribus: neque enim scientia boni et mali (quae ratio illos movit) effectus fuit illius arboris, ut mox ostendemus.
There were not lacking those who thought that tree was an apple, on account of what is written in Canticles, chapter 8: Under the apple tree I raised you up: there your mother was corrupted, there she who bore you was violated. But indeed the teaching of that book is wholly parabolic, wherefore one must by no means insist on the proper signification of the words: otherwise these men will be compelled to say that the tree of the cross (under which is signified, in that place, that human nature was raised up by Christ) was an apple tree. (Although the name Apple [Malum] is general, embracing many species of trees.) Finally, I do not assent to those who judge that tree to have been of a species different from all the other trees: for the knowledge of good and evil (the reason which moved them) was not the effect of that tree, as we shall soon show.5
VERUM igitur est quod in principio quaestionis diximus, in qua specie arborum fuerit arbor scientiae boni et mali sciri non posse. Sed bene habet quod id scire, ad intelligenda quae de ea arbore tradit Scriptura, nihil plane refert: potuit enim ea arbor fuisse vel pyrus vel prunus vel quaevis aliarum arborum; nam nec interdicta est homini quod per se mala esset aut ipsi exitialis (sicut docet Augustinus lib. 13 de Civitate Dei cap. 20), nec scientia boni et mali naturalis ipsius erat effectus, sed ad probandam tantum hominis obedientiam eius fructus ipsi fuerat interdictus. Sed cur appellata sit arbor scientiae boni et mali, hoc deinceps ostendamus.
It is true, therefore, what we said at the beginning of the question, that the species of trees the tree of the knowledge of good and evil belonged to cannot be known. But it is well, that to know this matters nothing at all for understanding the things which Scripture hands down about that tree: for that tree could have been a pear, or a plum, or any other of the trees; for it was not forbidden to man because it was in itself evil, or deadly to him (as Augustine teaches, book 13 of the City of God, chapter 20), nor was the knowledge of good and evil its natural effect; but, only to prove the obedience of man, its fruit had been forbidden to him. But why it was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, let us show next.6
Translator’s notes
- The second question on the tree of knowledge: of what botanical species was it? ↩
- Marginal glosses: "Mira narrat Plinius de ficu Indica lib. 12 cap. 5" and "de ficu Aegyptiaca lib. 13 cap. 7" (Pliny on the Indian fig [banyan] and Egyptian fig [sycamore]). The tree's species is a curious but undiscoverable—and (Pererius thinks) inexplicable—matter, yet some name it. Some say the **vine or grain**, conjecturing that the Lord gives his body and blood in *bread and wine* (the Eucharist) to expiate Adam's guilt from that tree. But since Scripture always calls it a "tree," it could be neither grain nor vine. ↩
- Marginal gloss: "Philoxenus putavit illam arborem fuisse ficum." **Moses Bar-Cepha** (On Paradise, following Philoxenus's oration On the Tree of Life, and many others) holds it was a **fig**: credibly, as soon as our first parents ate, then from awareness of the crime and shame of their nakedness, they made aprons from what was nearest—and Scripture says these were of fig-leaves; nor would they have passed by the nearest tree for a distant one. **Theodoret** (q. 28 on Genesis) affirms this so strongly as to put it beyond dispute. ↩
- Marginal gloss: "Tostatus probat illam Arborem non fuisse ficum." **Tostatus** (Gen 13 q.164) argues, fairly probably, that it was NOT a fig—precisely from the fig-leaf aprons: once they ate and felt the evil incurred and the good lost, a great horror and hatred of that tree would have seized them, so they'd have feared to handle its leaves for clothing. Moreover Gen 3 calls the tree "beautiful to the eyes and delightful to behold," which hardly fits a fig. Nor did Eve and Adam eat together—Scripture shows Eve ate *first*, then brought the fruit to her husband. ↩
- Marginal gloss: "An illa arbor fuerit arbor Malum." Some held it was an **apple** (Malum), from Canticles 8:5 ("Under the apple tree I raised you up..."). But the Song's teaching is wholly parabolic, so its words can't be pressed literally—else the "apple tree" there (signifying where Christ raised human nature, i.e. the cross) would be a literal apple tree. (And "Malum" is a general name for many species.) Pererius also rejects the view that the tree was of a *different species* from all others, since the "knowledge of good and evil" (their reason) was *not* the tree's effect, as he will show. ↩
- So (as said at the start) the tree's species cannot be known—but happily that matters nothing for understanding Scripture's account: it could have been a pear, plum, or any tree. It was forbidden not because evil or deadly in itself (Augustine, City of God 13.20), nor was "knowledge of good and evil" its natural effect; its fruit was forbidden *only to test man's obedience*. Why it bears that name comes next (Question III). ↩