The Tree of Life

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 5

Charles L. Echols
2 The Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Iconography 32

Amy L. Balogh
3 The Tree of Life in Genesis 74

Christopher Heard
4 The Tree of Life in Proverbs and Psalms 100

William R. Osborne
5 The Tree of Life in Jewish-Christian Legendary Texts 122

Peter T. Lanfer
6 The Tree of Life in Ancient Apocalypse 134

Beth M. Stovell
7 The Tree of Life in Enochic Literature 166

Ken M. Penner
8 The Tree of Life in the Apocalypse of John 183

Douglas Estes
9 The Tree of Life in Early Christian Literature 217

Mark Edwards
vi contents
10 The Tree of Life in Philo 236

Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer
11 The Tree of Life in Gnostic Literature 249

Carl B. Smith II
12 The Tree of Life in Medieval Iconography 280

Pippa Salonius
13 The Tree of Life in the North 344

G. Ronald Murphy, S.J.
14 The Tree of Life in Modern Theological Thought 365

Daniel J. Treier, Dustyn Elizabeth Keepers and Ty Kieser
Conclusion 387
Douglas Estes
Bibliography 389
Ancient Sources Index 427
Hebrew and Greek Word Index 445
Modern Author Index 447
Place Index 452
Subject Index 455
Foreword
The earliest authors of our Bible introduce us to the symbolic and living impor-
tance 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 knowl-
edge 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 eventu-
ally 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 Targu-
mim) 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. Nei-
ther 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 iconogra-
phy 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 abil-
ity 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 Gil-
gamesh, 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 pre-
historic 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 mys-
terious 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.”
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 Cylinder Seal, Akkadian Period (2360–2180BCE), Mari (Keel and Schroer,
Creation, fig. 19). Line drawing by Othmar Keel 38
2.2 Cylinder Seal, ca. 2500BCE, Shadad (Iran; Keel and Schroer, Creation, fig. 18).
Line drawing by Othmar Keel 39
2.3 Cylinder Seal, Old Syrian (1750–1550BCE; Keel and Schroer, Creation, fig. 21).
Line drawing by Othmar Keel 42
2.4 Pendent, Tell el-ʿAjul, MB IIB (Keel, Goddesses and Trees, 17). Line drawing by
Othmar Keel 42
2.5 Scarab, Gezer, MB IIB (Keel, Goddesses and Trees, 26). Line drawing by
Othmar Keel 43
2.6 Terracotta plaque, Tel Harassim, LB (Keel, Goddesses and Trees, fig. 52). Line
drawing by Othmar Keel 43
2.7 Pithoi, Kuntillet Ajrud, IA IIB (Keel, Goddesses and Trees, fig. 77). Line
2.8 Tomb painting, Valley of the Kings: Tomb of Thutmose (r. 1502–1448BCE;
Keel, Symbolism, fig. 253). Line drawing by Othmar Keel 48
2.9 Tomb painting, Deir el Medinah: Tomb of Sennudyem, 19th dyn. (1345–1200;
Keel, Symbolism, fig. 254). Line drawing by Othmar Keel 49
2.10 Cylinder Seal, Bet-Shean, IA IIB (Keel, Goddesses and Trees, fig. 90). Line
2.11 Scarab, Beth-El, IA IIA (Keel, Goddess and Trees, fig. 72). Line drawing by
Othmar Keel 62
2.12 Sandstone relief: Complex of Ramses III, Medinet Habu, ca. 1165BCE (Keel,
Symbolism, fig. 352). Line drawing by Othmar Keel 65
2.13 Painting on a sarcophagus, Dynasty 23 (Koemoth, Osiris et les arbres,
144) 66
2.14 Painting of Osirian mound, New Kingdom (Mariette, Dendérah, vol. IV,
pl. 66) 66
12.1 ‘Reichenau Gospel Book,’ Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, MS. Clm
4454, fol. 20v, urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb00004502-1. Eleventh century 282
12.2 ‘Ampulla with the Cross as the Tree of Life,’ Monza, Museo e Tesoro del
Duomo, Monza 11. Sixth century. Photo: Bildarchiv Foto Marburg 284
12.3 ‘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
12.4 ‘Phela Treasure Silver Paten,’ Bern, Abegg-Stiftung. Sixth or seventh
century 286
figures xi
12.5 ‘Sarcophagus of Honorius,’ Ravenna, Mausoleum of Galla Placidia, right side

of sarcophagus lid. Beginning of sixth century 288
12.6 ‘Tympanum with Tree of Life,’ Prague, Altneuschul. ca. 1260 289
12.7 Joseph Asarfati, ‘Menorah,’ Cervera Bible, Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional de
Portugal, MS. IL. 72, fol. 316v. 1299–1300 292
12.8 ‘Ruthwell Cross,’ Scotland, Cummertrees, Mouswald and Ruthwell Church.
Early eighth century. South West Images Scotland / Alamy Stock Photo 293
12.9 ‘Reliquary of Saint Isidore,’ León, Museo de San Isidoro Real Colegiata.
ca. 1063. Photo: Fundació Institut Amatller d’Art Hispànic. Mas
Archive 296
12.10 ‘Sutton Hoo Byzantine Bowls,’ London, British Museum. Sixth or early
seventh century. (Image id. 00950604001) 298
12.11 ‘Saint Luke,’ Lichfield Gospels, Lichfield Cathedral Library, MS Lich. 01,
fol. 218r. ca. 730 299
12.12 ‘Harbaville Triptych,’ Constantinople, Paris, Musée du Louvre, reverse side.
Mid-tenth century 300
12.13 ‘Tree of Jesse,’ Chartres, Cathedral of Notre-Dame, window 49. ca. 1150.
FORGET Patrick / SAGAPHOTO.com / Alamy Stock Photo 303
12.14 ‘Tree of Jesse,’ Swabia, Germany. New York, Metropolitan Museum,
Accession no. 22.25 a–f. 1280–1300 304
12.15 Lorenzo Maitani, ‘Orvieto Cathedral Façade Relief Sculpture,’ Orvieto.
1310–1330 306
12.16 Lorenzo Maitani, ‘Tree of Jesse,’ Orvieto Cathedral. 1310–1330 307
12.17 ‘Mosaic Pavement,’ Jordan, Mount Nebo, Uyun Musa, Church of the Deacon
Thomas. Sixth century. Photo: American Center of Oriental Research 308
12.18 ‘Mosaic Pavement,’ Otranto, Cathedral of Santa Maria Annunziata.
1163–1165 309
12.19 ‘Apse Mosaic,’ Rome, Basilica di San Clemente. Twelfth century 312
12.20 ‘The Heavenly Jerusalem,’ Cambridge, Trinity College, MS. R. 16.2, fol. 25v.
ca. 1260 314
12.21 ‘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
12.22 ‘Mantle of King Roger II of Sicily,’ Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum,
Weltliche Schatzkammer. 1133–1134. (Inv. Nr. WS XIII 14). Photo:
KHM-Museumsverband 316
12.23 ‘Lignum vitae,’ London, British Library, Harley MS 5234, fol. 5r.
ca. 1274–1300 320
12.24 Master of the Dominican Effigies, Lignum vitae, Florence, Convent of Santa
Maria Novella, Chiostro verde. ca. 1360–1370. Photo: Ulrike Ilg 321
xii figures
12.25 Lignum vitae, Orvieto, Church of San Giovenale. 1290–1310 323

12.26 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
12.27 ‘Tree of Saint Francis,’ Mexico, Toluca, Zinacantepec, Monastery of San
Miguel. 1580s 331
13.1 A view of the Borgund church from the west southwest. Photograph by Neve
Nera 354
13.2 The magnificent portal now placed on the north side of the church at Urnes
in Norway. Photograph by Micha L. Reiser 359
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. Photograph by G. Ronald Murphy, S.J. 360
Abbreviations
AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York:
Doubleday, 1992
AcBib Academia Biblica
ACCS Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture
AcOr Acta Orientalia
ACW Ancient Christian Writers
AEL Ancient Egyptian Literature. Miriam Lichtheim. 3 vols. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1971–1980
AIL Ancient Israel and Its Literature
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AMP Ancient and Medieval Philosophy
ANEM Ancient Near East Monographs
ANEP The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. 2nd ed.
Edited by James B. Pritchard. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969
ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by James
B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969
ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im
Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Part 2, Principat. Edited by Hildegard Tem-
porini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972–
AUS American University Studies
AYBRL Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library
BAC The Bible in Ancient Christianity
BaM Baghdader Mitteilungen
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge
BCCT Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition
BDAG Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gin-
grich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000
BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium
BibInt Biblical Interpretation Series
BibSem The Biblical Seminar
BK Bibel und Kirche
BBRSup Bulletin for Biblical Research, Supplements
BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries
xiv abbreviations
BSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BSIH Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History
BSMC Bristol Studies in Medieval Cultures
BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
BTC Brazos Theological Commentary
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CAHS Clarendon Ancient History Series
CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CC Continental Commentaries
CCCM Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis
CCSL Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina. Turnhout: Brepols, 1953–
CCT Corpus Christianorum in Translation
CD Church Dogmatics
CEJL Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature
CGL The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices.
Edited by James M. Robinson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2000
CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East
CNI Carsten Niebuhr Institute
ConcC Concordia Commentary
COS The Context of Scripture. Edited by William W. Hallo. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill,
1997–2002
CRINT Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum
CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Edited by Jean Baptiste
Chabot et al. Paris, 1903
CSCT Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition
CSEA Corpus scriptorum Ecclesiae aquileiensis
CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
CSR Contributions to the Study of Religion
CTR Criswell Theological Review
CWS Classics of Western Spirituality
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
DOML Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library
EJL Early Judaism and Its Literature
EPRO Etudes préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain
EvQ Evangelical Quarterly
FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
FC Fathers of the Church
FCB Feminist Companion to the Bible
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments
abbreviations xv
HB Hebrew Bible
HBM Hebrew Bible Monographs
HdO Handbook of Oriental Studies
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUT Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie
HvTSt Hervormde teologiese studies
IA Iron Age
ICC International Critical Commentary
IMR International Medieval Research
JAJ Journal of Ancient Judaism
JANER Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JCPS Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series
JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JS Johannine Studies
JSB The Jewish Study Bible. Edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. 2nd ed.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2014
JSHRZ Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Peri-
ods
JSJSup Supplements to Journal for the Study of Judaism
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series
JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
JTSA Journal of Theology for Southern Africa
KD Die kirchliche Dogmatik
LEC Library of Early Christianity
LHBOTS The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies
LNTS The Library of New Testament Studies
LSTS The Library of Second Temple Studies
LXX Septuagint
MB Middle Bronze Age
MTS Münchener theologische Studien
NAC New American Commentary
NHC Nag Hammadi Codices
NHL Nag Hammadi Library in English. Edited by James H. Robinson. 4th rev. ed.
Leiden: Brill, 1996
xvi abbreviations
NHMS Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies

NHS Nag Hammadi Studies
NHScr 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 xvii
SAK Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur

SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization
SBFCMa Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio major
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SBLHS 2 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 Col-
lege 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 Cer-
emony in Ecological Perspective,” in Antropologia religiosa della Mesopotamia,
eds. Claus Ambos and Gioele Zisa, Anthropologia religiosa (Palmero: Edizioni
Museo Pasqualino, 2020).
(PhD, Duke University) is George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Lan-
guage 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 Theol-
ogy, 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 Narra-
tive 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 Diselec-
tion: 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 theol-
ogy.
Ty Kieser
(PhD cand., Wheaton College Graduate School) is a doctoral student and ad-
junct 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 Vet-
era 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.
(PhD, University of Cambridge) is an Honorary Senior Lecturer at the Univer-
sity of Aberdeen, having taught New Testament there for 11 years. Since her PhD
on Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria she has published numerous arti-
cles 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.

(PhD, Harvard University) is George M. Roth Distinguished Professor of Ger-
man at Georgetown University. He is the author or editor numerous books
including The Heiland: The Saxon Gospel (translation and commentary) (Ox-
ford 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 Bib-
lical 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 Com-
parative 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 doc-
toral 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 complet-

ing 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 (Bre-
pols, 2014) and contributed to the volume Cristo e il potere: teologia, antropolo-
gia 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 cur-
rently 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 Col-
lege of Theology at South University. His publications include a book, No Longer
Jews: The Search for Gnostic Origins (Hendrickson, 2004), and chapter contri-
butions to a number of edited volumes. His research areas are historical, the-
ological, 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 Uni-
versity in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Beth has authored Mapping Metaphori-
cal 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 Stan-
ley E. Porter. She has contributed articles to several edited volumes and aca-
demic 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 hoped-
for 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 con-
structive investigation of the tree of life from its origin in human history up
to various modern theological perspectives. Even with limited biblical engage-
ment 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 vege-
tation 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 crit-
ical 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 reconstruc-
tion, 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 Gene-
sis.
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 prosper-
ity, 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 lim-
ited 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 captur-
ing 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 move-
ments 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 par-
adise 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 bibli-
cal 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 over-
lapping, 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 some-
what 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 con-
victions, 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 interpre-
tations 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 disapprov-
ing 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 observ-
able 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 depic-
tions 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 sym-
bolic uses. Along the way they take note of the thoughts of Barth and Bonho-
effer, 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 mak-
ing 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, imme-
diately 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 sweep-
ing. 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 bibli-
cal.”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 Bemer-
kenswerte am ‘Lebensbaum’ in den Keilschriftkulturen ist die Tatsache, dass es ihn nicht
gibt.”).
5 Genge, “Zum ‘Lebensbaum’ in den Keilschriftkulturen,” 323.

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 infre-
quent. 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 exam-
ple, 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 corre-
spondence 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 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 sti-
listierten 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.
7 Howard N. Wallace, The Eden Narrative, HSM 32 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 114.
8 William R. Osborne, “The Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt,” JANER 14 (2014): 114–115.
9 Stordalen, Echoes of Eden, 288–290; Genge, “Zum ‘Lebensbaum’ in den Keilschriftkul-
turen,” 323.
10 E.g., H. York, “Heiliger Baum,” in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäo-
logie, 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 vorderori-
entalischer 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”). Gen-
esis 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 pre-
serves 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 Parpola, “Assyrian Tree of Life,” 161.

12 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.
13 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.
14 “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 hel-
mets 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 pri-
mordial 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 life-
giving 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 schol-
ars eventually identified the world/sacred tree with the kiškānû tree.19 Debate
15 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.
16 See, e.g., James, Tree of Life, 129–162, 245. Cf. B. Margulis, “A Weltbaum in Ugaritic Lit-
erature?,” 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 sti-
chometry, 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.”
17 James, Tree of Life, 12–13, 283, and passim.
18 James, Tree of Life, 69. For the text see “Enki and Ninhursag: A Paradise Myth,” trans.
S.N. Kramer (ANET, 37–41).
19 Giovino, Assyrian Sacred Tree, 2, n. 6. Wallace, Eden Narrative, 105–106, regards it as iden-
tical 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 Keilschriftkul-
turen,” 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,
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, evalu-
ations 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 millen-
nium BC to Israel’s monarchical period. Other texts that might compare lie
outside these parameters. The Rig Veda, for example, mentions soma—a “mys-
tic 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 sacra-
mental 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 con-
ceived of it as a type of plant that bestowed immortality to those who ate its
fruit.
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.
20 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.
21 Obbink, “The Tree of Life in Eden,” 108; Wallace, Eden Narrative, 106.
22 James, Tree of Life, 25.
10 echols
2 The Tree of Life in the Literature of Mesopotamia
While no unequivocal references to a “tree of life” per se occur in Mesopota-

mian 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 mis-
tress 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 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).
24 Lines 65–67. Translation: J.A. Black et al., The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Lit-
erature, http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/ (University of Oxford, 1998–). See also Watanabe,
“Lebensspendende und todbringende Substanzen in Altmesopotamien,” 583–584. Inter-
estingly, 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 Under-
world,” trans. Stephanie Dalley (COS 1:108:381–384 [383, lines 115, 118]).
us the corpse hanging on the hook.” Holy Erec-ki-gala answered the gala-
tura 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 adminis-
tration 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 func-
tion 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 fea-
tures 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 ad-
dresses 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 bless-
ing 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 Gene-
sis 2–3, but the functions of both are different.
Genge cites lines 8–9 from the text “Constantinople, Nr. 2828, of the inven-
tory of the Babylonian-Assyrian Antiquities,” which are part of a prayer that
mentions “the herb of life” (šam-me balāṭi):26
25 Text in Osborne, Trees and Kings, 60.

26 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 resem-
blance 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 mil-
itary 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 ren-
dered 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 antiq-
uity. 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 Wasilewska, Creation Stories of the Middle East, 165, referring to V.S. Curtis, The Legendary
Past: Persian Myths (Austin: University of Texas, 1993).
28 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: Eisen-
brauns, 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-
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 Gil-
gamesh 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-
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.
29 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/.
30 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.
31 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.”
32 P. 703, line 7. Unless otherwise noted, translations are those of George, Babylonian Gil-
gamesh Epic, I: 531–735.
33 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 (?)].”
34 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 interpreta-
tion. Was Gilgamesh simply seeking to regain youthful strength, or did he desire
immortality? Complicating matters further is the content of the missing apo-
dosis 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 immor-
tality.”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 P. 723, lines 295–296. The lines that George translates as “recapture his vitality,” Wal-
lace, 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.”
36 Mettinger, Eden Narrative, 119.
37 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.
38 One could ask whether the immortality Gilgamesh sought was of life or of name. To be
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 paral-
lel 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 Mesopota-
mian 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 bless-
ing 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,
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 con-
text 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.
39 S.v. šammu(m), Jeremy Black et al., eds., A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, SANTAG 5 (Wies-
baden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1999; repr. 2nd [corrected]).
40 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 conjunc-
tion 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 peo-
ple,
in his name, “Life-Creator!”44
41 Osborne, “Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt,” 117; idem, Trees and Kings, 36, citing Ingrid Gamer-
Wallert, “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.
42 Osborne, “Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt,” 117; idem, Trees and Kings, 36; Neumann-Gorsolke
and Riede, “Motive und Materialien,” 244.
43 See, e.g., Koenraad Donker Van Heel, “The Scribbling-Pad of Djemontefankh Son of Aafen-
mut, Priest of Amonrasonter and Overseer of the King’s Treasury,” in Acts of the Sev-
enth International Conference on Demotic Studies: Copenhagen, 23–27 August 1999, ed. Kim
Ryholt, CNI Publications 27 (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2002), 139–140.
44 Text by Jan Assmann, Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete: Eingeleitet, Übersetzt und Erläutert,
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 posthu-
mous 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 King-
dom. 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 understand-
ing 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,
Zweite, verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage ed., OBO (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 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.”
45 Cf. the Great Hymn to the Aten, trans. Miriam Lichtheim (COS 1.28:44–46).
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 osten-
sibly pertain to sustenance in this life, it is reasonable to assign the same func-
tion 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 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 Egyp-
tians, 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.”
48 Ritner, “Hymn of Praise to Amun-Re,” 39, col. 1.
49 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).
50 Text from “Great Hymn to Osiris,” COS 1.26:41–43. Unless otherwise stated, notes to the text
are also from this translation.
51 I.e. Horus, the son of Osiris and Isis.
52 I.e. “abundance of food personified as a divinity” (“Great Hymn to Osiris,” COS 1.26:41–43
[41, n. 12]).
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 immortal-
ity 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. Mor-
tuary 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, per-
haps 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 sym-
bolized 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 effi-
cacious 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 col-
umn/pillar, which was originally a sacred tree without branches (cf. the Ashe-
rah pole, §4).59 During the annual festival of Khoiak, which marked the death
54 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).
55 Hays, “ ‘There Is Hope for a Tree,’ ” 52–53.
56 Jan Assmann, Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt, abridged and updated, trans. David
Lorton (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005), 171.
57 Carolyn Graves-Brown, Dancing for Hathor: Women in Ancient Egypt (London: Continuum,
2010), 162, cited by Osborne, “Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt,” 120.
58 Hays, “ ‘There Is Hope for a Tree,’ ” 55.
59 James, Tree of Life, 39–40.
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 revivifica-
tion.
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 pꝪꜤt-
canal 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, respec-
tively, 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 “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 Egyp-
tian Pyramid Texts: Translated with an Introduction and Notes, SBL WAW 23 (Atlanta: Soci-
ety of Biblical Literature, 2005), 161, 352.
61 Spell 467, Allen, Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, 160–161.
62 Allen, Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, 352 and 364, respectively.
63 Allen, Book of the Dead, 55.
64 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 offer-
ings,” 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 How-
ever, 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 eter-
nal 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 likeli-
hood 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 signif-
icantly. 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 figura-
tive 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.
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).
65 Lucarelli, “Gods, Spirits, Demons of the Book of the Dead,” 129.
66 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).
4 The Tree of Life in the Literature of the Levant
As the corridor between the more prominent civilizations, it is not surpris-

ing 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 “meta-
metaphor” 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 promi-
nence 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 epi-
graphic 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 respon-
sibilities, 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-ra-
pi 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 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.
68 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 ben-
eficiary 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 Canaan-
ite 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 con-
nection with the sacred tree, finding further warrant from the tendency of the
Greek to opt for √ἄλσος, “grove,” rather than √δένδρον, “fruit tree,” in translat-
69 “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 sim-
ilar 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.
70 De Moor, “East of Eden,” 106, remarks: “these tablets seem to presuppose a Canaanite tra-
dition 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 the-
ology, the essays by Balogh and Treier, Keepers, and Kieser, respectively, in the present
volume.
71 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.
72 James, Tree of Life, 17.
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 associ-
ated 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 con-
nection 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 Yah-
weh ( 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 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).
74 Wallace, Eden Narrative, 112.
75 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.
76 Steve A. Wiggins, “Of Asherahs and Trees: Some Methodological Questions,” JANER 1
(2001): 179–180.
77 Bauks, “Sacred Trees,” 273.
78 On a Yahweh-Asherah cult, see, e.g., B.A. Mastin, “Yahweh’s Asherah, Inclusive Monothe-
ism 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.
79 Wiggins, “Of Asherahs and Trees,” 180–181, remarks that nothing from the Khirbet el-Qom
inscription connects the goddess with a tree.
80 Metzger, “Der Weltenbaum in vorderorientalischer Bildtradition,” 12–15.
81 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 rel-
ative to Egypt and Mesopotamia. The tree was used by court officials to legiti-
mate 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 instru-
ment 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 respec-
tive 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 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. Chi-
cago: 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 God-
desses. 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 Ägyp-
tologie. 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. Fri-
bourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007.
Graves-Brown, Carolyn. Dancing for Hathor: Women in Ancient Egypt. London: Contin-
uum, 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.
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’: Deal-
ing 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 Testa-
ment 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: Dou-
bleday, 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 Sym-
bol 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; Eisen-
brauns, 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 überlieferungsgeschichtli-
chen Ursprung der Paradieserzählung (Gen 2,4b–3,24), Teil I: Analyse.” ZAW 112
(2000): 487–500.
chen 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 Syn-
tax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Wasilewska, Ewa. Creation Stories of the Middle East. London: Jessica Kingsley Publish-
ers, 2000.
Watanabe, Kazuko. “Lebensspendende und todbringende Substanzen in Altmesopota-
mien.” 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 Baum-
symbolik und seiner Rezeption im Alten Testament.” BK 41 (1986): 171–177.
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 Gene-
sis 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 con-
text 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 spe-
cific “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.

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 for-
ward and cultures shift, so too does the Sacred Tree. The association with the
mother-goddess remains, but other associations are added that both comple-
ment 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 icono-
graphic 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 mytho-
logical 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 antiq-
uity 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 assump-
tions: 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 associa-
tions expressed through semiotic language do not disappear when new associ-
ations 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 sepa-
rately 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 millen-
nia 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 depic-
tions 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 sym-
3 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 chap-
ter. 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: Vanden-
hoeck & 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.
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 anthropo-
morphic 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 accompa-
nying 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 accom-
plished 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. Win-
ter, “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 com-
bination 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 empha-
size the tree’s nurturing, protective, and sacred qualities, but perhaps more
importantly, they also signal shifts in the iconographic language and imagina-
tion 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 iconog-
raphy in most periods and regions expresses a symbolic connection between
tree and the divine feminine either by portraying both tree and anthropomor-
phic 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 affili-
ated with the Sacred Tree; therefore many scholars hold the assumption that
the goddess associated with the Sacred Tree, whether Mesopotamian, Levan-
tine, 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
Sometimes this assumption is supported by iconographic evidence, but

most of the time the evidence is circumstantial. Regardless of the exact iden-
tification of the goddess pictured therein and regardless of the period and
location to which an image belongs, the Sacred Tree motif expresses the con-
ceptual connection between the bounty of the earth—water, air, produce, shel-
ter, 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 vol-
umes, 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, associa-
tion, 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 accompa-
nied by supporting motifs that are themselves symbolic and thus enhance our
understanding of the central image, and that the Sacred Tree is most likely asso-
ciated with the goddess Ishtar (Inanna in Sumerian) but may also be associated
with other deities related to agricultural blessing or perhaps simply the nurtur-
ing aspects of the divine realm in general.
In the prehistoric and Early Dynastic art of Mesopotamia, religious sym-
bols 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-
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.
9 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 com-
plete volumes, see Giovino, Assyrian Sacred Tree; E.O. James, The Tree of Life: An Archaeo-
logical Study, SHR 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1966).
10 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, Cre-
ation, 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 abun-
dance, 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 exam-
ples of Sacred Tree iconography depict a stylized tree devoid of any anthro-
pomorphic 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 Ataç, “Visual Formula and Meaning in Neo-Assyrian Relief Sculpture,” 69.

12 Particularly in the northern region, where its association with kingship is literally carved
in stone.
13 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.
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 anthropo-
morphism.
The cosmic significance of the tree is further accentuated by numerous sup-
porting 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 par-
ticular 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 Keel and Schroer, Creation, 37.

15 The solar disc appears in a minority of examples from the second millennium. For exam-
ple, see Collon, First Impressions, fig. 217–219.
16 For example, Keel and Schroer, Creation, 36–37, fig. 19–21; Collon, First Impressions, fig. 216,
221, 245, 296, 345, 355.
17 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 mainte-
nance 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 charac-
teristics. Most scholars agree that even though the tree is stylized and therefore
defies botanic identification, the majority of examples incorporate charac-
teristics 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 eas-
ily 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 god-
dess 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 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).
19 Porter, “Sacred Trees, Date Palms, and the Royal Persona of Ashurnasirpal II,” 134.
20 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. Pru-
dence O. Harper and Holly Pittmann (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1983),
37–39.
21 E.g., Assyria, which will be discussed in the section on kingship.
22 Paul Collins, “Trees and Gender in Assyrian Art,” Iraq LXVIII (2006): 99.
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 iconog-
raphy of the Levant is well documented in archaeological records from the Mid-
dle 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 anthropomor-
phic form or flanked with animals, namely fish and caprids, whose presence
communicates to those familiar with the symbolic language of ancient Levan-
tine 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 con-
tinue 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 pre-
cious objects such as metal work, cylinder seals, and scarabs, and expand the
iconographic language of the goddess-tree association. Portrayals of an anthro-
pomorphic goddess sprouting branches from her navel and/or pudenda, or
23 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.
24 Collins, “Trees and Gender in Assyrian Art,” 99–101; For examples, see Collon, First Impres-
sions, 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.”
25 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.
26 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 artis-
tic 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 Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh, 24–29.

28 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.
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 contin-
ues 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 sug-
gest 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

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 partic-
ular 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 life-
sustaining goddess provides.
While the inclusion of the Sacred Tree motif on precious objects and materi-
als continues into the LB and IA, painted ceramics and figurines become the pri-
mary 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, sug-
gesting 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 Lev-
antine 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 G.D. Choi, “Decoding Canaanite Pottery Paintings from the Late Bronze Age and Iron
Age I,” PhD Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2008.
32 Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, “Acculturating Gender Roles: Goddess Images as Conveyors of Cul-
ture 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 Lev-
ant,” 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 vocab-
ulary 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 icono-
graphic record until the fifteenth century BCE, centuries after the image was
developed throughout Mesopotamia and the Levant.36 Thanks to the prac-
tice 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 King-
dom (16th–11th centuries BCE) and beyond. According to Billing, the sycamore
of Nut is designed to function as “a dominating iconographic realization of
33 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, reli-
gionsgeschichtlichen 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).
34 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.
35 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 exam-
ples from the Greco-Roman period, see Ray L. Cleveland, “Cherubs and the ‘Tree of Life’
in Ancient South Arabia,” BASOR 172 (1963): 55–60.
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 life-
giving 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 sym-
bolic association between sycamore trees and eternal life long before the con-
nection 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 Nils Billing, Nut, the Goddess of Life in Text and Iconography, Uppsala Studies in Egyptol-
ogy 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.
38 Billing, Nut, 224.
39 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, “Ägyptis-
che 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.
40 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 Thut-

mose (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, specif-
ically, comes to the fore when one considers that the goddess-tree image ap-
pears 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 John Strange, “The Idea of Afterlife in Ancient Israel: Some Remarks on the Iconography
in Solomon’s Temple,” PEQ 117 (1985): 36–39.
42 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.
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 prac-
43 Jan Assmann, Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt, trans. David Lorton (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 2001), 168–171.
44 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 nour-
ishment 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 fes-
tivals 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 cos-
mos and father of all who sit upon Egypt’s throne.
3 Kingship
In recent decades, much research in the field of archaeology has been dedi-
cated 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 fif-
teenth through twelfth centuries fragmented due to numerous natural disasters
and societal responses to those disasters, leading to region-wide instability,
45 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.
46 Wilkinson, Reading Egyptian Art, 117.
47 Assmann, Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt, 129–130, 153, 224–225.
48 Wilkinson, Reading Egyptian Art, 117.
49 Assmann, Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt, 218–234; on sycamores planted near
tombs, see Wilkinson, Reading Egyptian Art, 117.
50 Eric H. Cline, 1177 B.C. The Year Civilization Collapsed (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2014), xv.
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 ecosys-
tem; 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 expres-
sion 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 commu-
nities assign new associations and meaning to the symbols of former times,
most often retaining ancient associations alongside new ones. First millen-
nium 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 orienta-
tion 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 per-
sists, 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 iconogra-
phy 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 Cline, 1177 B.C.

52 Cline, 1177 B.C., 176.
54 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 reconfig-
ured. 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 intro-
duced 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 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 Bild-
kunst 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 Bibli-
cal Concept of Seraphs and Cherubs,” in Iconographic Exegesis of the Hebrew Bible/Old Tes-
tament: 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.
stylized and culturally specific Assyrian Sacred Tree.57 The hundreds of exam-
ples 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) culti-
vated not from seeds but from genetically identical basal offshoots, the Assyr-
ian 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 mean-
ing.
Described by Barbara Nevling Porter as “one of the classic problems of Assyr-
ian 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 Parpola, “Assyrian Tree of Life,” 163.

58 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.
59 Norma Franklin, “The Assyrian Stylized Tree: Propagation Not Pollination” (paper pre-
sented at the American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, 16 Nov
2018).
60 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. His-
tory 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.
61 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 exam-
ples known today of multivalent symbolism in ancient Near Eastern iconogra-
phy, 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 necessar-
ily the first association that came to mind when ancient officials and digni-
taries entered Ashurnasirpal II’s throne room. Through the interplay of con-
vention 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 Ashurnasir-
pal 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 conti-
nuity 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 por-
tray 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 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 Assyr-
ian Sacred Tree. Additional information may be found in references cited.
63 On the Nimrud reliefs as an example of the interplay between convention and innova-
tion in ancient Mesopotamian art, see Winter, “Royal Rhetoric and the Development of
Historical Narrative in Neo-Assyrian Reliefs,” 8–9.
64 Brian Brown, “Kingship and Ancestral Cult in the Northwest Palace at Nimrud,” JANER 10
(2010): 23–24.
65 P. Albenda, “The Beardless Winged Genies from the Northwest Palace at Nimrud,” SAAB 10
(1996): 67–78.
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 interpre-
tation 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 crea-
tures 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 affili-
ated with rituals of purification and protection.
66 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 con-
clusions, yet they remain an active point of discussion in scholarship on the Sacred Tree.
For example, see Cooper, “Assyrian Prophecies,” 430–444.
67 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.
68 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.
69 For example, see Collon, First Impressions, fig. 271, 273, 276, 383, 395, 402.
70 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 purify-
ing 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 bucket-
cone 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 Black and Green, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia, 46.
72 Giovino, Assyrian Sacred Tree, 51, 56–58.
73 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 observa-
tion that trees are often an important component of Mesopotamian purification rituals;
Osborne, Trees and Kings, 69.
74 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.
75 E.g., British Museum Collection Database, “Alabaster wall relief, Nimrud: Palace of Ashur-
nasirpal II,” museum number 124531, www.britishmuseum.org/collection. The solar disc is
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 terres-
trial 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 Assyria-
specific iconographic language.79 On this reading, the solar disc does not usurp
the Sacred Tree’s central position but complements it, bringing cultural speci-
ficity 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
another symbol in ancient Mesopotamian art whose precise meaning continues to elude
scholars, despite the volume of writing dedicated to it.
76 For an example of a solar disc with a male deity perched over a date palm, see Collon, First
Impressions, fig. 747, 812, 879.
77 Lambert and others identify the solar disc in the Nimrud reliefs as Ashur or, perhaps, Nin-
urta; W.G. Lambert, “Trees, Snakes, and Gods in Ancient Syria and Anatolia,” BSOAS 48
(1985): 438–439.
78 Michaela Bauks, “Sacred Trees in the Garden of Eden and Their Ancient Near Eastern Pre-
cursors,” JAJ 3 (2012): 279.
79 Celestial and terrestrial: Ataç, “Visual Formula and Meaning in Neo-Assyrian Relief Sculp-
ture,” 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 Assur-
nasirpal II,” in Harper and Pittmann, Essays on Ancient Near Eastern Art and Archaeology,
15.
80 Lambert and others describe the solar disc as dominating the Sacred Tree because it is hov-
ering 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 posi-
tioned 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 further-
ing the powers of life—in particular, Assyrian life—and elaborate upon the
Standard Inscription incorporated throughout the room in which Ashurnasir-
pal 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 under-
standing 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 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 Neo-
Assyrian Art (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 125–129.
82 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 Throne-
room 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.”
83 On literature, see Geo Widengren, The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern
Religion, UUA 4 (Uppsala: Lundequist, 1951).
84 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
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 conver-
sation with various supporting motifs, is best understood as an interweaving of
cosmic and terrestrial concerns for the well-being of all life, particularly Assyr-
ian life, and the king’s special role as mediator between the particular cosmic
deities and human communities that he serves. In bringing together numer-
ous 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 partic-
ularly 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 ear-
lier 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
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.
85 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, Egyp-
tian sphinx), palm, and flower draw upon contemporary Sacred Tree iconogra-
phy.
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 aes-
thetics. 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 some-
times 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 archaeo-
logical 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 masculin-
ization 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.

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 de-
pict 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 masculin-
ization of the feminine Sacred Tree image, but iconographically these male fig-
ures never become the Sacred Tree.89 They are associated with the tree through
their proximity and behavior toward it, but they are not physically incorpo-
rated 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 goddess-
tree 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 Mediter-
ranean coast into the central highlands. Along the Phoenician and Philis-
tine 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 iconogra-
phy 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

89 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.
90 Bloch-Smith, “Acculturating Gender Roles,” 6; Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and
Yahweh, 41–42.
91 Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, 278.
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 domes-
tic 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 national-
ization 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 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 sycamore-
Nut in which the tree trunk forms her lower body and she offers her breast(s) to sup-
plicants. 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.
94 Bloch-Smith, “Acculturating Gender Roles,” 13.
95 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.
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, strengthen-
ing 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, non-
centralized 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 local-
ized, 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 exam-
ple, 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 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.
98 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. Accord-
ing 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 thir-
teen 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 perse-
cution and hardship. The official theology of divine kingship begins here, with
the idea that the kings and pharaohs of Egypt are incarnations of Osiris’ first-
born, 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 inti-
mate 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 promi-
nently 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 complemen-
tary traditions, with Nut and her sycamore on one side and Osiris and his willow
99 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.
100 Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 262.
101 Bojana Mojsov, Osiris: Death and Afterlife of a God (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005).
figure 2.12 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 resurrec-
tion, 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 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.
103 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.

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 mother-
goddess and inner sarcophagus, is responsible for the absorption and regener-
ation 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 pow-
ers 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 twen-
tieth 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 vege-
tation 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 Wilkinson, Reading Egyptian Art, 117; Koemoth, Osiris et les arbres, 292–293.
106 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.
107 Mojsov, Osiris, 95.
108 Koemoth, Osiris et les arbres, 179–224.
110 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 deity-
tree. Through these subtle differences, the message of the image shifts. Rather
than communicating the nurturing nature of the deity who for all eternity pro-
vides 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 Along-
side 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 ref-
ormation.”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 sta-
bility 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 promi-
nently 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-

112 Mojsov, Osiris, 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 flour-
ishing, 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 Gen-
esis 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 cen-
tral in the iconographic imagination. As time moves forward, these concerns
endure and to them are added concerns over the fate of particular communi-
ties, 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 fit-
ting, 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 sanc-
tioned 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 Nim-
rud.” SAAB 10 (1996): 67–78.
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
Ataç, Mehmet-Ali. The Mythology of Kingship in Neo-Assyrian Art. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge 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.
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 Monar-
chy: 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 Egyp-
tology 5. Uppsala: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala Uni-
versity, 2002.
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 Inter-
pretation 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.
Cooper, Jerrold. “Assyrian Prophecies, the Assyrian Tree, and the Mesopotamian Ori-
gins 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 pre-
sented at the American Schools of Oriental Research Annual Meeting. Denver, CO,
16 Nov 2018.
Frevel, Christian. Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch YHWHs: Beiträge zu liter-
arischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskus-
sion. 2 vols. BBB 94. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995.
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.
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.
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: Vanden-
hoeck & 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: Eisen-
brauns, 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.
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 Let-
tres, 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: Metropoli-
tan 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.
JANER 14 (2014): 117–128.
brauns, 2018.
Parpola, Simo. Assyrian Prophecies. SAA 9. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997.
Porter, Barbara Nevling. “Sacred Trees, Date Palms, and the Royal Persona of Ashur-
nasirpal 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 Sume-
rian 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.
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-nasir-
pal 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 Iconogra-
phy 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.
(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 Neo-
Assyrian 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 Wilkin-
son. 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 life-
giving 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. Narrow-
ing 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 Gene-
sis. 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, prompt-
ing 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 Com-
mentary 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, Iconographi-
cal 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.

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 accep-
tance. 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 phenom-
ena. 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 precur-
sor 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 spe-
cial 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 counterpro-
ductive 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 inten-
tion 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). Sub-
sequently, 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, al-
though it can justly claim to review all the explicit statements made in the gar-
den 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 can-
not 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 Read-
ing (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).
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 prac-
tice 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 source-
critical 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 con-
tradictions. 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 read-
able 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 dispro-
portionate 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 dis-
cussion. 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 ver-
sion 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 narra-
tives, 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
2. 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, com-
pletely 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-
8 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.
9 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.
10 Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte, 74–75.
11 Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte, 85, 82.
12 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.
13 Gunkel, Genesis, 25–27; cf. Skinner, Genesis, 53.
nally separate creation narrative and paradise-lost narrative,14 but does

not outline a clear understanding of how Jj and Je came to include paral-
lel 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 farm-
ers.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
3. The tree of life is original to the garden story, or at least so thoroughly inte-
grated 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 ‘art-
less’ 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
14 Gunkel, Genesis, 27–28.

15 Rudolf Smend, Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht (Berlin: Georg
Reimer, 1912), 18–20.
16 Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 192, 212–213.
17 Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 212–213, 271.
18 Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973), 42.
19 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 Sym-
bolism 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 contra-
diction therefore seems indispensable. Merely to ask whether the canonical
form of Gen 2–3 can support a sensible reading seems too low a bar, insuffi-
ciently 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’ expul-
sion 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 Walsh, “Genesis 2:4b–3:24,” 161, 177.

21 Baden, “Why is the Pentateuch Unreadable?,” 250, my emphasis.
22 Baden, “Why is the Pentateuch Unreadable?,” 251.
23 I borrow this phrase also from Daniel Patte, Ethics of Biblical Interpretation: A Reevaluation
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 73–112.
24 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 ʾĕlō-
hîm 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). Addition-
ally, ‫( 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 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 indi-
cates 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 prepo-
sitional 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 par-
allels 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
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.
25 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 “for-
ward 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 August Dillmann, Die Genesis (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1892), 56. In using strikethroughs to indi-
cate elided words, I follow Andrew Carnie, Syntax: A Generative Introduction (Hoboken:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2013).
27 Tryggve N.D. Mettinger, The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-historical Study of Gen-
esis 2–3 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 22, n. 46.
28 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 preposi-
tional 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 broth-
ers 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.
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 pre-
cision, 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, indi-
cating the presence of something or someone within another thing without any
greater specificity, as when the deity and Abraham discuss the number of righ-
teous 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 reper-
toire. 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 How-
ever, 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 knowl-
edge. 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 Zevit, What Really Happened, 94; cf. Hamilton, Book of Genesis, 162.
30 Zevit, What Really Happened, 94.
31 So too Wallace, Eden Narrative, 102; Vogels, “Tree(s) in the Middle of the Garden,” 137.
32 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 happen-
stance,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, explic-
itly 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 obvi-
ous 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 Arthur Ungnad, “Die Paradiesbäume,” ZDMG 79 (1925): 114.

34 Humbert, Études sur le Récit du Paradis, 23; cf. Dillmann, Die Genesis, 83.
35 Herman Theodorus Obbink, “The Tree of Life in Eden,” ZAW 46 (1928): 107.
36 Ungnad, “Die Paradiesbäume,” 115.
37 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 imag-
ines 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. How-
ever, 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?
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 pronom-
inal 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 mem-
ories 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 infer-
ences but supported by considerations outlined in the foregoing discussion.
The inferences supplied here are not the only possible inferences; they func-
tion, 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 sim-
ply 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 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A Discursive Commentary on Gen-

esis 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.
39 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 Hid-
den 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 inco-
herent. 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 for-
ever.” 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 begin-
ning 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.

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 con-
struction.
More importantly, source critics typically find that 3:22 and 3:23 offer con-
tradictory 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 pos-
sible 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 har-
monious 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 com-
municated their intentions to the one sent. In such cases, “send” (‫ )שלח‬can
incorporate the function of an indirect discourse marker: “the deity sent the
41 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.
42 Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 270–271.
43 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 empha-
sis).
44 Humbert, Études sur le Récit du Paradis, 37.
45 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 exam-
ples. 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.

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 nar-
rative, 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 crea-
ture 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 The quoted phrase is from Th.C. Vriezen, The Religion of Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: West-
minster 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.
48 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 read-
ers, 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 gar-
den 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 reconstruc-
tion. 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 intro-
duction 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 gar-
den,” 2:16), Obbink and later Stordalen infer that the deity placed the tree of
49 Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte, 63.

50 Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte, 63–64.
51 Gunkel, Genesis, 10; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 90, implicitly.
52 Barr, Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, 8–9.
53 Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 225.
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 sus-
tain 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 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.
55 Obbink, “Tree of Life in Eden,” 107.
56 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.
57 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. More-
over, 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 substan-
tiation 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 anthropomor-
phisms, 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 expul-
sion 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
by Joab himself in verse 27, whereas the ‫ פן‬clause relates to taking the city proper, or the
whole city, designated simply ‫( העיר‬hāʿîr, “the city”).
58 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.
59 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.
60 Obbink, “Tree of Life in Eden,” 111–112; cf. Wallace, Eden Narrative, 103; Blenkinsopp, Cre-
ation, Un-creation, Re-creation, 74.
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, per-
manent change. Therefore, the nearest available analogy would suggest a simi-
lar 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 Lyn M. Bechtel, “Rethinking the Interpretation of Genesis 2:4b–3:24,” in A Feminist Com-

panion 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.
62 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.
63 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).
64 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 Testa-
ment 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 imme-
diate cessation of life.65 Yet by itself, the construction ‫ מות תמות‬does not neces-
sarily 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, Eli-
jah 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 under-
scored. 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 par-
ticular 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 subse-
quently 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 insis-
tence 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 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.
66 Bruce K. Waltke and Michael Patrick O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 584.
67 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).
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 iden-
tified 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 them-
selves 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 treat-
ment, 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 elu-
cidated, 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 nar-
rative. 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 tradi-
tional precursors, or whether it instead presents readers with an undeniably
challenging but ultimately readable text. Due chiefly to differences in the nar-
rator’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 fea-
tures. 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 pro-
cess 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 inval-
idate 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 Any-
way?” Pages 243–252 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cul-
tures of Europe, Israel, and North America. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Bernard
M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck, 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.
Precursors.” JAJ 3 (2012): 267–301.
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.
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 Reflec-
tions.” 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 Religio-
Historical 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 An-
cient 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 Pro-
fessor 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: Cas-
cade, 2006.
98 heard
Lanfer, Peter Thacher. Remembering Eden: The Reception History of Genesis 3:22–24.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
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.
Patte, Daniel. Ethics of Biblical Interpretation: A Reevaluation. Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press, 1995.
chen Ursprung der Paradieserzählung (Gen 2,4–3,24), Teil I: Analyse.” ZAW 112
(2000): 487–500.
chen Ursprung der Paradieserzählung (Gen 2,4–3,24), Teil II: Prägende Tradition
Rad, Gerhard von. Genesis: A Commentary. Translated by John H. Marks. OTL. Philadel-
phia: 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: Scrib-
ner, 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.
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.
Vriezen, Th.C. An Outline of Old Testament Theology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1970.

Walsh, Jerome T. “Genesis 2:4b–3:24: A Synchronic Approach.” JBL 96 (1977): 161–177.
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. Min-
neapolis: 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 expe-
rienced 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 per-
spectives provided by these books. Despite the use of various lexemes, both
books speak to the metaphorical concepts of trees and life and profoundly con-
tribute 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.

the tree of life in proverbs and psalms 101
2 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 Concep-
tual Metaphor Theory (CMT).6 Moving beyond I.A. Richards’s tenor and vehicle
description of metaphor, where the former refers to the subject being com-
municated and the latter the symbol being used,7 CMT noted that we often
blend and conceptualize disparate realms of existence in an attempt to under-
stand 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 under-
standing 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, fre-
quently 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 nec-
essary 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 artis-
tic 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 Bibli-
cal 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 expe-
riencing one thing in terms of another” should be expanded to a fuller
definition, such as metaphor is understanding, experiencing, and com-
municating one thing in terms of another. The insistence on including
communication as an integral feature of metaphor is based upon the sim-
ple fact that the only access we have to any type of conceptual framework
in the ancient world is through communicated metaphors, either linguis-
tically 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 illumi-
nating the importance of worldview in accessing the significance of linguis-
tic 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. With-
out 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 Alison Ruth Gray, Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures: A Reading through Metaphor, BibInt 127
(Leiden: Brill, 2014), 24.
10 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; Eisen-
brauns, 2018), 21.
11 “Durch metaphorische Rede wird damit ein Identifikationspotenzial für LeserInnen ge-
schaffen, indem Metaphern Leerstellen und Lücken dahingehend lassen, wie ihre Bedeu-
tung 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: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018], 80).
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 Target: human life13
Tree ⇒ Person
Fruit ⇒ Child, or result of one’s deeds
Seed ⇒ Descendants
Uprooted tree ⇒ The one who lacks productive potency
Soil ⇒ World, Land of Promise, or temple
Being cut off ⇒ Death, annihilation
Water ⇒ 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 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.
13 Jindo, Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered, 32–33.
14 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 Target: abundance and prosperity
tree(s) ⇒ land
fruitfulness ⇒ agricultural growth, order, divine blessing
wither/dry out/cut down ⇒ divine judgment upon the land
garden ⇒ center of the world
Source: tree Target: god(s)
tree ⇒ deity
fruitfulness ⇒ offspring/blessing
seed/shoot ⇒ descendants/worshippers
long-living ⇒ continued presence of the deity
regional location ⇒ domain of the deity
garden ⇒ dwelling of the deity
chopped down ⇒ defeat, threat to power
Source: tree Target: king (worshipper

par excellence)15
tree ⇒ king/worshipper
fruitfulness ⇒ prosperity and world order
seed/shoot ⇒ descendants
uprooted/chopped down ⇒ defeat
wither/dry ⇒ judgment
root ⇒ legitimacy of dynastic rule
long-living ⇒ enduring dynasty
garden ⇒ political empire
height ⇒ superiority of ruler
15 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 tem-
ple 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 peo-
ple, 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-
Analyzing these three conceptual metaphorical targets (i.e., prosperity,

deity, kingship) from biblical and ancient Near Eastern tree imagery, the rela-
tionship 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, figura-
tive 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 specifi-
cally 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
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).
16 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.
17 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 communi-
cates 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 altoriental-
ischen Baumsymbolik und seiner Rezeption im Alten Testament,” BK 41 (1986): 174).
18 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 iden-
tifies 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 (some-
times 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 All translations are original to the author, unless otherwise noted.

20 James L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction, 3rd ed. (Louisville: Westmin-
ster John Knox, 2010), 67.
21 See figs. 6, 8, 10, 16, and 19 in Amy Balogh, “The Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Iconog-
raphy” in this volume. See also the examples in Osborne, Trees and Kings, 41, 64, 65, 89, 90,
94, and 96.
22 So Leo G. Perdue, Wisdom Literature: A Theological History (Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 2007), 50.
23 See Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient
Israel, trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998).
24 William R. Osborne, “The Tree of Life in Ancient Egypt and the Book of Proverbs,” JANER
14 (2014): 134–136.
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 some-
thing 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 “immor-
tality.”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 asso-
ciating 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 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.
26 “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.
27 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.
28 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 ensu-
ing consequence of righteous living. By way of analyzing the antithetical par-
allelism, 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 pro-
vided 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 sentimental-
ity. 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 pre-
sented 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.
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 charac-
terizes 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.
29 Taking ‫ באה‬as a Qal Qatal 3fs instead of a feminine singular participle, indicated by the
accent.
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 con-
sequences 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, whole-
ness, 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 con-
ceptual frameworks in Proverbs, the metaphorical associations between trees
and life in Psalms are not as explicit but equally as significant for understand-
ing 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 identi-
fying “Wisdom Psalms.” The dynamic between animal images and their
contextual implications provides another point of entry into the the-
matic 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/horticul-
tural imagery also serves as a potential criterion for understanding the con-
ceptual background of some oft-identified “wisdom psalms.”32 The goal here
30 Tova L. Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs, VTSup 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 157–
160.
31 Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs, 160.
32 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 any-
thing, 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 flourish-
ing 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 forma-
tion 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 wor-
shipper 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.
metaphors in the Psalms—wisdom conventions and worldview. See Eidevall, “Metaphor-

ical Landscapes in the Psalms,” 18–20.
33 See Gerald H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBLDS 76 (Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic, 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.
34 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.
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 point-
ing 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 “liv-
ing 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 mis-
guided. 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 pas-
sive). 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 Michael Brown, “‫ברך‬,” in NIDOTTE, 1:763.

36 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.”
37 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 Exem-
plar, 43–65). The king is frequently presented as the wise and faithful servant of the deity.
See Osborne, Trees and Kings, 31–111.
38 Brown, Seeing the Psalms, 58.
39 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 nourish-
ment.
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 pro-
ductive 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 Holt, “ ‘… ad fontes aquarum,’ ” 81.

41 “Instruction of Amenemope” (AEL 2:150).
42 Jerome F.D. Creach, “Like a Tree Planted by the Temple Stream: The Portrait of the Righ-
teous in Psalm 1:3,” CBQ 61 (1999): 38.
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 frame-
work, 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 righ-
teous “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 light-
ing 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 cheru-
bim (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 Wis-
dom 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 composi-
tional 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 self-
deceived 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 can-
not 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.
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 eter-
nal 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 them-
selves 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 real-

ity 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 fasci-
nating 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 impor-
tance was rather religious than horticultural.”46 However, date palms did thrive
commercially throughout antiquity in Egypt and Mesopotamia, playing a sig-
nificant 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 pon-
dered 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 suf-
ferer 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 char-
acter 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 Paul Popenoe, The Date Palm (Miami, FL: Field Research Projects, 1973), 9.
47 Takayoshi Oshima, The Babylonian Theodicy, SAACT 9 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013),
19–20.
48 Markham J. Geller, Evil Demons: Canonical Utukkū Lemnūtu Incantations, SAACT 5 (Hel-
sinki: Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy, 2007), 245–246.
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 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, Assurbani-
pal, 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).
50 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 tree-
feller. 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 trans-
formed multiple traditions in their use of preexisting ideas relating trees and
life.51 Psalm 92:13–16 weaves together these transformed traditions into a beau-
tiful, 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 extra-
biblical, 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 arti-
cle 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 con-
ceptual 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 dis-
cussed 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, regu-
larly 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 Hap-
pened in the Garden of Eden? [New Haven: Yale, 2013], 42).
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 East-
ern 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 Yahwis-
tic 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 can-
not 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 Phoe-
nix, 2013.
Creach, Jerome F.D. “Like a Tree Planted by the Temple Stream: The Portrait of the Righ-
teous in Psalm 1:3.” CBQ 61 (1999): 34–46.
Crenshaw, James L. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Louisville: West-
minster 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 Text-
dynamik 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.
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.
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 Chi-
cago Press, 2003.
Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of Califor-
nia Press, 1973–1980.
Marcus, Ralph. “The Tree of Life in Proverbs.” JBL 62 (1943): 117–120.
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: Claren-
don, 1982.
Osborne, William R. “The Early Messianic ‘Afterlife’ of the Tree Metaphor in Ezekiel
17:22–24.” TynBul 64 (2013): 171–188.
JANER 14 (2014): 117–128.
brauns, 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 Priest-
hood 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.
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 Lan-
guage 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 Aca-
demic, 1986.
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 com-
prise 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, geo-
graphic, 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 anal-
ysis. Therefore, it is difficult to assert their social and religious significance
without a great deal of historical eisegesis. Despite the limitations of the cor-
pus, there are several common expansions of the tree of life in the works of
Pseudo-Philo, 4Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou), 4 Maccabees, and the vari-
ous versions of the Life of Adam and Eve. For comprehensiveness, these texts
will be discussed in light of shared themes found in contemporary compara-
tive 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 associ-
ation 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 inac-
tive.
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 Jew-
ish 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-

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 nar-
rative 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. Per-
haps 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 fra-
grance 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 Sec-
ond 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: Represen-
tations 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 elimina-
tion 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 identifica-
tion 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 restora-
tive 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 represen-
tation 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 con-
nection 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.
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 nar-
rative. 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 ema-
nation 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 Bibli-
cal 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 recog-
nized 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 Shek-
inah 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 pas-
sage 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 engage-
ment 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.

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 pro-
pels 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 immor-
tality 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 co-
inheritors 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 enjoy-
ment 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 previ-
ously 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
10 M.D. Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve: A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP 2:281.
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 sacri-
fice 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 how-
ever 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 pre-
served 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 leg-
endary 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 reminis-
cent 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 interpreta-
tions 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 Extant manuscripts of 4 Baruch are in Ethiopic (the most complete of the manuscripts),
Armenian, Slavonic, Romanian, and Greek.
13 S.E. Robinson, “4 Baruch,” OTP 2:424.
14 Here as elsewhere this combination of the “firmly rooted tree” with the theme of judg-
ment may be an allusion to Psalm 1. The firmly rooted tree in that context is frequently
translated as a/the tree of life.
15 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.
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 righ-
teous. 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 vari-
ation 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 preserva-
tion 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 circum-
stances 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 immortal-
ity 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.
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: Double-
day, 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.
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 Gruy-
ter, 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.
Larson, E. “4Q Narrative A.” Pages 353–365 in Qumran Cave 4: Cryptic Texts and Miscel-
lanea, 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.
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: Schol-
ars Press, 1992.
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 Apoc-
alypse 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, high-
lighting 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 partic-
ular aspects of the tree of life for their specific purposes. Finally, the conclusion
of this chapter suggests potential avenues for future research that could gener-
ate from this study.
It is important to note a limitation to this study. While this chapter exam-
ines 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.

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, concep-
tual 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 con-
ceptual 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 Con-
tested 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 (Lei-
den: 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 defini-
tion, 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 “blend-
ing” 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 com-
monly 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 con-
ception “curse as punishment”).
While there is a dearth of scholarship using conceptual metaphor theory
to study most ancient apocalypses, Karina Martin Hogan has used concep-
tual 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 rela-
tion 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 Apoca-
lypse 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.
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 cen-
tury 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 differ-
ent 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 addi-
tion 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 inheri-
tance, which is then read in light of Adam’s sin (7:10–18). The expectation of a
8 B.M. Metzger, “The Fourth Book of Ezra,” OTP 1:520.

9 Metzger, “Fourth Book of Ezra,” OTP 1:544.
10 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 Par-
adise 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 point-
ing 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 pro-
cess 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 fash-
ioning 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 judg-
ment 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 indig-
nation 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.
out his plea to give mercy to the unrighteous on behalf of those of God’s peo-
ple who have maintained righteousness. Yet here Ezra acknowledges that all
people have transgressed and it is God’s mercy that transforms them into righ-
teous 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 ana-
lyzing 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 righ-
teous. 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 sim-
ple 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 pic-
ture 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 Sec-
ond 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 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), aban-
donment (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 “contemp-
tuous 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 chil-
dren, 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 per-
fume, 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 glad-
ness, 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 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).
14 Metzger, “Fourth Book of Ezra,” OTP 1:526–527.
15 For more on motherhood imagery in 4 Ezra generally, see Hogan, “Mother Earth as a Con-
ceptual Metaphor in 4 Ezra,” 72–91.
key role in the passage that it is re-iterated twice in 2:2 and 2:4.16 As 2:1–9 rep-
resents 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). How-
ever, 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 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.
17 Scholars have noted the supersessionist tendencies in 4Ezra and the Christian superses-
sionism in 4 Ezra 2. See Lorenzo DiTommaso, “Penitential Prayer and Apocalyptic Escha-
tology 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.
18 Lanfer explores the reception of Gen 3:22–24 using 4Ezra 2. He builds on Carr’s explo-
ration 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 incorporat-
ing 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 depen-
dence, 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 Rev-
elation 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 See Hogan, “Mother Earth as a Conceptual Metaphor in 4Ezra,” 72–91.

20 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 Tradi-
tion, ed. Michael E. Stone, SVTP 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 359–376.
21 Stone, “Greek Apocalypse of Ezra,” OTP 1:569.
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 pray-
ing. 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 pro-
vides 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 Par-
adise, 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 mer-
ciful) 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 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.
23 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 pre-
served (by) the cherubim for the endless age? 15 And how was he deceived
who was guarded by angels whom you commanded to be present what-
ever 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 ele-
ments include: the nature of pleading of Ezra, the request for mercy/compas-
sion, 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 apoc-
alyptic 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.

with Adam intended as the guard. Despite God making Adam with hands char-
acterized for their purity (“immaculate”), Adam is characterized by his disobe-
dience 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 composi-
tional nature where Ezra flits between Paradise and Tartarus with little transi-
tional 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 similari-
ties 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 surround-
ing themes related to birth/creation and farming/agricultural metaphors.
Gk. Apoc. Ezra 5:1 And the prophet said: “Pity, O Lord, the race of Chris-
tians.” 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 dark-
ness, and night without stars or moon. 5 There is neither young nor old,
neither brother with brother, nor mother with child, nor wife with hus-
band. 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 bit-
terly, 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 Stone notes the complexity of the diverse compositions creating textual issues with read-
ing location in the passage. See Stone “Greek Apocalypse of Ezra,” on “Composition,” OTP
1:562.
26 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 Par-
adise.” 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 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 grow-
ing 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 cre-
ated 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 judg-
ments 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 Par-
adise 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 mourn-
ing” (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 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 Non-
canonical Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 1:730, footnote d.
29 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 agricul-
tural metaphors. In both cases, a strong contrast is made between the experi-
ences 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 Par-
adise 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 Agourides “Apocalypse of Sedrach,” OTP 1:605.

31 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 Synop-
tic 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 Chris-
tian Texts 11 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013), 247.
32 Stone, “Metamorphosis of Ezra,” 364.
33 Stone, “Metamorphosis of Ezra,” 364.
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 asser-
tion 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 pun-

ishment 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 How-
ever, 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 punish-
ment 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 bet-
ter 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 link-
ing 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 distinguish-
ing 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 height-
ens 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 con-
flation 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 human-
ity 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 Agourides notes this in the marginalia. See Agourides “Apocalypse of Sedrach,” OTP 1:610.
36 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: Proceed-
ings 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.
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 depic-
tion 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 apoca-
lypses 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 cre-
ation, 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 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.
38 Scholars have noted links between 4 Ezra and Apocalypse of Sedrach 8. See Stone, “Meta-
morphosis of Ezra,” 364.
154 stovell
5 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 salva-
tion of the saints.”39 This impacts the overall dating of the Apocalypse rang-
ing 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 ver-
sion 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 Eli-
jah 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 Apoc-
alypse 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 O.S. Wintermute, “Apocalypse of Elijah,” OTP 1:726.

40 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.
41 David Frankfurter, Elijah in Upper Egypt: The Apocalypse of Elijah and Early Egyptian Chris-
tianity, SAC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).
42 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.
43 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).
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 righ-
teous into the heavens.45 In contrast, cataclysmic events occur to those who
44 O.S. Wintermute, “Apocalypse of Elijah,” OTP 1:750–751.

45 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 Cre-
ator, 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 unrigh-
teous 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 cre-
ation, 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 ground-
ing 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 ini-
tial 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 Archae-
ological Study, SHR 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 76–77.
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 agricul-
tural 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 con-
ceptions 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. Else-
where 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 writ-
ings 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 warn-
ings 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, judge-
ment (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 follow-
ers. Like Adam’s disobedience that alienates him from the God who created
him, the “son of lawlessness” alienates his followers from “the Christ who cre-
ated” them (Apocalypse of Elijah 5:11). Instead of gaining the tree of life as the
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 examina-
tion 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 understand-
ing 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 tra-
dition 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 Hogan, “Mother Earth as a Conceptual Metaphor in 4Ezra,” 72–91.

48 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, Reconceiv-
ing 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 bibli-

cal 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 nega-
tive 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 asso-
ciated 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 repre-
sents 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 fig-
ure 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 judge-
ment 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
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.
49 In her entry on “Deity: Hebrew Bible,” Peggy L. Day includes a section discussion “A com-
passionate 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
50 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.
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 associa-
tions 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 chap-
ter 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 conversa-
tions. 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 Lit-
erature, 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 Inter-
textuality, Metaphor, and Gender in Jeremiah 3.1–4.4, JSOTSup 387 (New York: T&T Clark,
2004).
Works Cited
Abma, Richtsje. Bonds of Love: Methodic Studies of Prophetic Texts with Marriage Imag-
ery, 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.
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.
John Knox, 2002.
day, 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 Tem-
ple 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 Uni-
versity Press, 1997.
Fauconnier, Gilles. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Lan-
guage. 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 Geer-
aerts. 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.
Moss, Candida, and Joel Baden. Reconceiving Infertility: Biblical Perspectives on Procre-
ation 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 The-
matic 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. Lei-
den: 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-
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 Christian-
ity 106. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
Stovell, Beth M. “Who’s King? Whose Temple? Divine Presence, Kingship, and Con-
tested 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 Para-
bles 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 excel-
lent 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 nat-
ural 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 στό-
ματι 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.

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 human-
ity’s unfaithfulness will come under judgement in some future generation. The
implied readers of 1Enoch are expected to identify themselves with that gener-
ation 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 cre-
ation 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 πλησθήσε-
ται 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 well-
shaped (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 sev-
enth 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 judge-
ment, 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 nar-
ratives 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 sum-
mary, 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.
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 char-
acteristics 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 inac-
cessibility to humans, and (c) their location in paradise.
First, as Charles already pointed out,6 the tree in 1 Enoch is never said to pro-
vide 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 ἡμέ- 1En. 5.9 nor will they ever sin all the days
ρας τῆς ζωῆς αὐτῶν, καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνωσιν of their life. And they will ˻never˼ die in
ἐν ὀργῇ θυμοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν αὐτῶν ζωῆς the wrath of anger, but the days of their
ἡμερῶν πληρώσουσιν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ αὐτῶν αὐξη- life will be many. Their life will increase
θήσεται ἐν εἰρήνῃ, καὶ τὰ ἔτη τῆς χαρᾶς αὐτῶν in peace, and the years of their joy will in-
πληθυνθήσεται ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει καὶ εἰρήνῃ αἰῶ- crease in great joy and peace of the age for
νος ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς ζωῆς αὐτῶν. all the days of their life.
10.17 Καὶ νῦν πάντες οἱ δίκαιοι ἐκφεύξονται, 10.17 “And now all the righteous ones will
καὶ ἔσονται ζῶντες ἕως γεννήσωσιν χιλιάδας, flee, and they will be the living ones until
καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ ἡμέραι νεότητος αὐτῶν, καὶ τὰ they beget thousands, and all the days of
σάββατα αὐτῶν μετὰ εἰρήνης πληρώσουσιν. 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 Rewrit-
ten, 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 25.6 Then the joyful will be cheered and
χαρήσονται καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον εἰσελεύσονται· will rejoice. And they will go to the holy
αἱ ὀσμαὶ αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς ὀστέοις αὐτῶν, καὶ place. Its fragrance is in its bones and they
ζωὴν πλείονα ζήσονται ἐπὶ γῆς ἣν ἔζησαν οἱ will live much more life upon earth, such
πατέρες σου, καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτῶν καὶ as your fathers lived. And in their days, tor-
βάσανοι καὶ πληγαὶ καὶ μάστιγες οὐχ ἅψον- tures and blows and whips will not touch
ται αὐτῶν. 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 οὐδε- 25.4 And as for this sweet-smelling tree, no
μία σὰρξ ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ἅψασθαι αὐτοῦ μέχρι flesh has power to touch it until the great
τῆς μεγάλης κρίσεως, ἐν ᾗ ἐκδίκησις πάντων decision, in which there is vengeance for
καὶ τελείωσις μέχρις αἰῶνος· τότε δικαίοις καὶ all and a completion forever.
ὁσίοις δοθήσεται
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 Siegbert Uhlig, Das äthiopische Henochbuch, JSHRZ 5 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus,

1984), 560–561.
8 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.
9 Charles, Book of Enoch, 40, 59.
10 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.
11 Charles, Book of Enoch, 53.
25.5 ὁ καρπὸς αὐτοῦ τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς εἰς ζωὴν 25.5 Then its fruit will be given to the just
εἰς βοράν, καὶ μεταφυτευθήσεται ἐν τόπῳ and holy chosen ones for life and for food;
ἁγίῳ παρὰ τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ βασιλέως τοῦ and it will be transplanted to the holy
αἰῶνος. place from the house of God, King of the
age.
The result is that when the readers of 1Enoch first encounter the tree in chap-
ters 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 chap-
ter 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 diffi-
cult 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 τού- 24.3 And with the mountain, the seventh
των, καὶ ὑπερεῖχεν τῷ ὕψει, ὅμοιον καθέδρᾳ mountain was ˻in the midst of˼ these and
θρόνου, καὶ περιεκύκλου δένδρα αὐτῷ εὐειδῆ. was held above the height like the seat of
4 καὶ ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς δένδρον ὃ οὐδέποτε ὤσ- the throne, and well-shaped trees encom-
φρανμαι καὶ οὐδεὶς ἕτερος αὐτῷ ηὐφράνθη, passed 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 Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Recep-
tion of Enochic Literature (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 51.
13 Pierre Grelot, “La géographie mythique d’ Hénoch et ses sources orientales,”RB 65.1 (1958):
33–69.
14 Tigchelaar, “Eden and Paradise.”
15 Bachmann, “Rooted in Paradise?” 93; citing Bautch, Study of the Geography of 1Enoch 17–19.
172 penner
18.6 Παρῆλθον καὶ ἴδον τόπον καιόμενον νυ- 18.6 I passed by and I saw a place being
κτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, ὅπου τὰ ἑπτὰ ὄρη ἀπὸ λίθων set on fire night and day, where there are
πολυτελῶν, τρία εἰς ἀνατολὰς καὶ τρία εἰς seven mountains made from costly stones,
νότον βάλλοντα. 7 καὶ τὰ μὲν πρὸς ἀνατολὰς three placed in the east and three in the
ἀπὸ λίθου χρώματος, τὸ δὲ ἦν ἀπὸ λίθου μαρ- south. 7 And the ones toward the east were
γαρίτου, καὶ τὸ ἀπὸ λίθον ταθέν, τὸ δὲ κατὰ from colored stone and the other one
νότον ἀπὸ λίθου πυρροῦ· 8 τὸ δὲ μέσον αὐτῶν was from pearl stone, and another from
ἦν εἰς οὐρανόν, ὥσπερ θρόνος θεοῦ ἀπὸ λίθου stretched stone, and the one against the
φουκά, καὶ ἡ κορυφὴ τοῦ θρόνου ἀπὸ λίθου south from red stone. 8 The middle one of
σαπφείρου· 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 indi-
cate 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 sym-
bolic. 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 righ-
καὶ 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 post-
judgement 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 Bautch, Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17–19, 123–124.

17 Bachmann, “Rooted in Paradise?” 93.
18 Rick Brannan et al., eds., The Lexham English Septuagint (Bellingham: Lexham, 2012).
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, Then wisdom will be given to all the cho-
καὶ πάντες οὗτοι ζήσονται, καὶ οὐ μὴ ἁμαρτή- sen. And all these will live and will ˻never˼
σονται ἔτι οὐ κατ’ ἀλήθειαν οὔτε κατὰ ὑπερη- sin, neither against truth nor according to
φανίαν, καὶ ἔσται ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ πεφωτισμένῳ arrogance. There will be among enlight-
φῶς καὶ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐπιστήμονι νόημα, καὶ οὐ ened man a light, and perception to a
μὴ πλημμελήσουσιν οὐδὲ μὴ ἁμάρτωσιν πά- knowing man. And they will ˻never˼ go
σας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς αὐτῶν, καὶ οὐ μὴ wrong, nor will they ever sin all the days
ἀποθάνωσιν ἐν ὀργῇ θυμοῦ, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν of their life. And they will ˻never˼ die in
αὐτῶν ζωῆς ἡμερῶν πληρώσουσιν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ the wrath of anger, but the days of their
αὐτῶν αὐξηθήσεται ἐν εἰρήνῃ, καὶ τὰ ἔτη τῆς life ˻will be many˼. Their life will increase
χαρᾶς αὐτῶν πληθυνθήσεται ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει in peace, and the years of their joy will in-
καὶ εἰρήνῃ αἰῶνος ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς crease in great joy and peace of the age for
ζωῆς αὐτῶν. 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, 12 And I took root among an honored people,
ἐν μερίδι Κυρίου κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ. in a portion of the Lord, his inheritance.
13 ὡς κέδρος ἀνυψώθην ἐν τῷ Λιβάνῳ, 13 I was raised up like a cedar in Lebanon
καὶ ὡς κυπάρισσος ἐν ὄρεσιν Ἁερμών· and like a cypress in the mountains of Her-
mon.
14 ὡς φοίνιξ ἀνυψώθην ἐν αἰγιαλοῖς, 14 I was raised up on the seashore like a palm
tree
καὶ ὡς φυτὰ ῥόδου ἐν Ἰερειχώ· and like rose bushes in Jericho,
(19) ὡς ἐλαία εὐπρεπὴς ἐν πεδίῳ, like a beautiful olive-tree in the field,
καὶ ἀνυψώθην ὡς πλάτανος. and I was raised up like a plane tree.
15 ὡς κιννάμωμον καὶ ἀσπάλαθος ἀρωμά- 15 I gave a sweet smell like cinnamon and
των δέδωκα ὀσμήν, camel thorn,
καὶ ὡς σμύρνα ἐκλεκτὴ διέδωκα εὐω- and I gave a sweet smell like choicest myrrh,
δίαν,
(21) ὡς χαλβάνη καὶ ὄνυξ καὶ στακτή, like galbanum and onyx and myrrh oil,
καὶ ὡς λιβάνου ἀτμὶς ἐν σκηνῇ· and like the vapor of frankincense in a tent.
16 ἐγὼ ὡς τερέμινθος ἐξέτεινα κλάδους 16 I stretched out my branches like a tere-
μου, binth tree,
19 Brannan et al., Lexham English Septuagint.

174 penner
καὶ οἱ κλάδοι μου κλάδοι δόξης καὶ χάρι- and my branches are branches of glory and
τος. grace.
17 ἐγὼ ὡς ἄμπελος βλαστήσασα χάριν, 17 I am like a vine sprouting grace,
καὶ τὰ ἄνθη μου καρπὸς δόξης καὶ πλού- and my blossoms are fruit of glory and
του. 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 She is a tree of life for those who seize her;
‫תְמֶכיָה ְמֻאָשּׁר‬ֹ ‫ְו‬ those who take hold of her are considered happy.
Therefore, this tree symbolizing wisdom is still a tree of life because accord-
ing 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 tradi-
tion 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 moun-
20 David E. Aune, Revelation 1–5, WBC 52A (Dallas: Word, 1998), 152–153.
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־ֵאשׁ‬ֹ ‫ || ֱאֹלִהים ָוַאֶבּ ְדָך ְכּרוּב ַה‬ἐτραυματίσθης ἀπὸ ὄρους τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἤγα-
γέν 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 (famil-
iar 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 Par-
adise. And that place is inconceivably pleasant.21
2 And I saw the trees in full flower. And their fruits were ripe and pleasant-
smelling, with every food in yield and giving off profusely a pleasant fra-
grance.
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 flower-
ing, aromatic trees bearing every fruit, surrounding the tree of life. The abun-
dant 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 appear-
ance 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 par-
adise 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 par-
adise 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 Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” OTP 1:116.

23 Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” OTP 1:114.
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/ques-
tion, 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 dis-
tinguishes 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 Ander-
sen’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 with-
out 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 Ish-

mael 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 Philip S. Alexander, “3 Enoch and the Talmud,” JSJ 18 (1987): 40–68.

25 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.
26 Ithamar Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism, 2nd rev. ed., Ancient Judaism
and Early Christianity 90 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 50–51.
27 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 gar-
den 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 min-
gle 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, satu-
rated 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 Judith A. Odor, “Enoch, Third Book of,”Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry (Belling-
ham: Lexham Press, 2016).
29 Philip S. Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” OTP 1:223–316.
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 “gar-
den” 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 state-
ment “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 gar-
den, 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 cre-
ated 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 crea-
tures 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 cosmolog-
ical 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 Alexander, “3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch,” OTP 1:260 n. f.

31 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 sweet-
smelling 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 back-
ground 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.
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 Testa-
ment 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. Lei-
den: 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.
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 Chris-
tian 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.
day, 1983, 1985.
Dillmann, August. Das Buch Henoch: übersetzt und erklärt. Leipzig: Fr. Chr. Wilh. Vogel,
1853.
(1958): 33–69.
Gruenwald, Ithamar. Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism. 2nd rev. ed. Ancient Juda-
ism and Early Christianity 90. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
182 penner

Marcus, Ralph. “‘Tree of Life’ in Essene Tradition.” JBL 74 (1955): 272.
Neusner, Jacob. The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary. 22 vols. Pea-
body, MA: Hendrickson, 2011.
Nickelsburg, George W.E. 1Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1Enoch. Hermeneia.
Edited by Klaus Baltzer. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.
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 Apoc-
ryphon Severini: Presented to Søren Giversen. Edited by P. Bilde, H.K. Nielsen, J. Pode-
mann Sørensen. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1993.
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 Ver-
lagshaus, 1984.
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 Apoc-
alypse; 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’ mem-
ory 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.

184 estes
1 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 Apoca-
lypse 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 correla-
tion 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 (Gene-
sis) 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 cre-
ation, 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: Jew-
ish 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.
the tree of life in the apocalypse of john 185
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 nar-
rative 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 theo-
logical 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 Gen-
esis text:
Genesis texts Usage Revelation texts
Gen 2:9 Existent in Narrative World Rev 22:2

Gen 3:22 Reference in Direct Speech Rev 2:7
Gen 3:24 Reference in Divine Warning 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 back-
ground 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 Johannesoffen-
barung 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 accen-
tuate 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 This is not meant to understate the importance of Ezekiel 47; Genesis is the primary ref-
erent, and Ezekiel is the secondary.
11 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.
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 rhetori-
cal 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 Liban-
ius (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 descrip-
tion 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 Aristotle, Poet. 1460b8.

13 Longinus, Subl. 15; and also Quintilian, Inst. 8.3.88.
14 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.
15 Aelius Theon, Progymn. § 118 [Kennedy].
16 James A.W. Heffernan, Museum of Words: The Poetics of Ekphrasis from Homer to Ashbery
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 9.
17 Aelius Theon, Progymn. § 118; Hermogenes, Progymn. §22; Aphthonius the Sophist, Pro-
gymn. § 37R; and Nicolaus the Sophist, Progymn. § 68.
18 Craig A. Gibson, Libanius’s Progymnasmata: Model Exercises in Greek Prose Composition
and Rhetoric, WGRW 27 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2008), 446–449.
19 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 inter-
pretation.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 tex-
tures 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 per-
sonal 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 Aelius Theon, Progymn. § 119.

21 Aphthonius the Sophist, Progymn. § 37R.
22 Aphthonius the Sophist, Progymn. § 37R; and Nicolaus the Sophist, Progymn. §69.
23 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.
24 For example, B.J. Oropeza, “Rhetography: Seeing Biblical Texts through Visual Exegesis,”
Didaktikos 2:1 (2018): 35–36.
25 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.
26 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.
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: ἀποκάλυ-
ψις (“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 eschatologi-
cal 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 conven-
tions 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 ana-
lyzed 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 peda-
gogical 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: θεω-
27 Jürgen Roloff, The Revelation of John, trans. John E. Alsup, CC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993),
3.
28 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.
29 Dreams and visions were the subject in passing in other ancient texts; see for example,
Cicero, Div. 1.6.
30 Daniel E. Harris-McCoy, Artemidorus’ Oneirocritica: Text, Translation, and Commentary
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 40.
31 Harris-McCoy, Artemidorus’ Oneirocritica, 13. Demonstrating the reach of Artemidorus’
work, Macrobius (mid-5th century AD) uses five similar categories; see Macrobius, Com-
mentary on the Dream of Scipio, trans. William Harris Stahl, Records of Western Civiliza-
tion (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952), 88.
32 Artemidorus suggests prophetic dreams, oracles, and visions are related phenomena; see
Artemidorus, Oneir 1.5.
190 estes
ρημᾰτικός (“literal”) and ἀλληγορικός (“figurative”). Artemidorus further subdi-

vides figurative dreams into five different types, one of which is κοσμικός (“cos-
mic”).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 analy-
sis 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 Apoc-
alypse 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 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.
34 Artemidorus, Oneir 1.2.
35 For example, little distinction can be made between ὅρᾱσις and ὅρᾱμα (BDAG, 719). See also
Harris-McCoy, Artemidorus’ Oneirocritica, 13–14.
36 Artemidorus, Oneir 1.1; and Harris-McCoy, Artemidorus’ Oneirocritica, 18.
37 Craig R. Koester, Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 38A
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 71.
38 Patricia Cox Miller, Dreams in Late Antiquity: Studies in the Imagination of a Culture
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 77.
39 Wilfrid J. Harrington, Revelation, SP 16 (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2008), 17.
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 appar-
ent 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 sur-
vey 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 seri-
ously (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 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).
42 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.
43 Harrington, Revelation, 1–5; and Martin Karrer, Die Johannesoffenbarung als Brief: Studien
zu ihrem literarischen, historischen und theologischen Ort, FRLANT 140 (Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 213.
44 Artemidorus and Robbins (as examples) are working with different types of texts (remem-
bered dreams and written narratives), but both are attempting to discover meaning for
images embedded in texts.
192 estes
3 Visualizing the Tree of Life
The tree of life in Revelation is a visual image embedded within a larger nar-
rative 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 appar-
ent. 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: interpre-
tations 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 con-
tains 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 misun-
derstood 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 pos-
sible 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.

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 Reve-
lation. 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 visualiza-
tion.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 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.
47 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 sta-
ble interpretation, depending on the perspective of the viewer. Though these
modern images are sophisticated in their use of perspective to create multi-
stability, 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 inde-
terminacy 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 tex-
ture 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 This was well-established knowledge at the time of the writing of Revelation; see for exam-
ple, Quintilian, Inst. 2.17.21.
50 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.
51 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 multista-
bility in late antiquity, see G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek
Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 1106.
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 com-
municate 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 supple-
ment 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 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.
53 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.
54 Robyn J. Whitaker, “The Poetics of Ekphrasis: Vivid Description and Rhetoric in the Apoc-
alypse,” in Poetik und Intertextualität der Johannesapokalypse, ed. Stefan Alkier, Thomas
Hieke, Tobias Nicklas (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 228.
55 David A. deSilva, “Seeing Things John’s Way: Rhetography and Conceptual Blending in Rev-
elation 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.
56 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 ἐκεῖ-
θεν 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 long-
standing 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, mod-
ern 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
artists,” in Picturing the Apocalypse: The Book of Revelation in the Arts over Two Millennia
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 214.
57 For example, when Philo answers questions, the position of the tree is second only to the
nature of the tree; see QG 1.10.
58 Roloff, Revelation of John, 246; for a similar comment, see Harrington, Revelation, 219.
59 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.
60 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.
61 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.
62 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.
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 (plu-
ral) 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 creat-
ing 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 in-
focus 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 For example, Louis A. Brighton, Revelation, ConcC (St. Louis: Concordia, 1999), 623.
64 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 (Wash-
ington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2011), 233; Oecumenius, Commentary on
the Apocalypse, trans. John N. Suggit, FC 112 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of Amer-
ica 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.
65 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.
66 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 Knowl-
edge 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.
67 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 numer-
ous 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.
68 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 assump-
tions 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 polyva-
lent as well.73
The multistable and polyvalent nature of the tree of life image in Reve-
lation has resulted in a rather wide range of not just possible, but probable,
69 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.
70 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.
71 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 side-
by-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,” Greco-
Roman Culture and the New Testament: Studies Commemorating the Centennial of the Pon-
tifical 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).
72 Salonius and Worm, preface to The Tree, xvii.
73 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.
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 Oneir-
ocritica, Artemidorus suggests prophetic dreams and visions can be charac-
terized 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 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.
75 For example, Oecumenius (early 6th century), in what may be the earliest Greek commen-
tary 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 Oecu-
menius, 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 photo-
synthesis, 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 multi-
stable, even as the audience visualizes one tree, the spatial descriptors and the
echoes of Ezekiel create σκῐά (“shadow effect”) for the audience.77 The descrip-
tive 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 set-
ting 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 Artemidorus, Oneir 1.2, Harris-McCoy.

77 Longinus, Subl. 17.3.
78 Those suggesting a sacramental role for the tree of life include Otto Böcher, “Die Johannes-
Apokalypse und die Texte von Qumran,” ANRW 25.5: 3897.
79 Contra Edwin Goodenough, who argues that the reality of a biblical symbol “is unim-
portant,” see Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, abridged ed., ed. Jacob Neusner,
Bollingen 37 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 44.
The weakness inherent in this perspective is its limited and simplistic view-
point. 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 eter-
nal 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 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.
81 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 Pezzoli-
Olgiati, 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.
82 For example, from an earlier Babylonian myth, see Giovino, Assyrian Sacred Tree, 13–14.
83 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.
84 This could be the case if John intends to tie the tree of life to a tree which could resem-
ble the Menorah; see for example, Margaret Barker, The Gate of Heaven: The History and
Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem (London: SPCK, 1991), 93.
85 The baobab is the tree of life in African tradition; see for example, 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), 2–5.
86 Barlow, “The Tree of Life,” 67.
87 Cf. Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, “Burials, Israelite,” ABD 1:785–789.
88 Cf. Oecumenius, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 38. Likewise, Philo raised the same ques-
tions 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 ele-
ments also begin to fade from view; the river of life is no longer a river, but
another ἀλληγορικός (“figurative”) image with a different interpretation. Like-
wise, 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 mean-
ing 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 metaphor-
ical interpretation regularly to describe the meaning of dreams and visions;
for example, in visions a well-defined nose means the person will have wis-
dom 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 per-
spective, 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 audi-
ence 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 Notably, Aristotle, Poet. 1457b7–32.

90 E.g., David Punter, Metaphor, New Critical Idiom (London: Routledge, 2007).
91 E.g., Artemidorus, Oneir 1.27.
author’s way of making the implied reader feel as though there is great mean-
ing 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 summa-
tion 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 audi-
ence: 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 visu-
alize the tree of life is eternal life.93 In this way, when John’s audience visu-
alizes 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 Those suggesting this view include Kornelis Heiko Miskotte, Wenn die Götter schweigen:
Vom Sinn des Alten Testaments (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1964), 360.
93 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 trans-
fer 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 fore-
grounded 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.
3.2.3 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 fur-
ther interpretation.95 In the ancient, Greek-speaking world, the word σύμβο-
λον (“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
94 Struck, Birth of the Symbol, 162–164.

95 Example of a symbol in Artemidorus, Oneir 1.29.
96 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.
97 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).
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 reward-
ing 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 impor-
tant 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 read-
ers 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 Apoc-
alypse 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 peo-
ple are living and planted around the throne of God. Readers may detect this
98 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.
99 For example, Philo, Opif. 154; Justin, Dial. 86.
100 Struck, Birth of the Symbol, 4.
101 Readers have proposed many more than just these five; for example, Philo discusses sev-
eral options including that the tree of life is a symbol of the heart or of perfect virtue (Leg.
1.59, 61).
102 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 visual-
ize 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 read-
ing 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 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).
104 Those suggesting this view include Hilary of Poitiers, Tract. Ps. 1.14; and cf. Sir 19:19 (LXXb).
105 A view popular in later rabbinic interpretation; see e.g., b. Ber. 32b and b. Arak. 15b.
106 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 Chris-
tianity (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.
107 From the sense of the menorah in Zech 4:2; see Ralph L. Smith, Micah–Malachi, WBC 32
(Dallas: Word, 1998), 204.
108 Contra this, Rachel Hachlili argues the weaknesses of “comparing the menorah to a styl-
ized tree”; see The Menorah, The Ancient Seven-Armed Candelabrum: Origin, Form and
Significance, JSJSup 68 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 36–39.
109 For example, Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8: A New Transla-
tion with Introduction and Commentary, AB 25B (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008),
233.
110 Hachlili, Menorah, 177.
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 visual-
ize 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 envi-
sion 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 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.
112 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.
113 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.
114 Otto Böcher, Kirche in Zeit und Endzeit: Aufsätze zur Offenbarung des Johannes (Neukir-
chen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1983), 7.
115 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 sym-
bol is the best one for interpretation. This has led historical readers to sug-
gest 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 Wong, “Tree of Life in Revelation 2:7,” 216.

117 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.
4 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 inter-
pretation 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 tangen-
tial:
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.
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.
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.
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 liv-
ing 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 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 conse-
quence in Gen 3:22.
120 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.
Andrew of Caesarea. Commentary on the Apocalypse. Edited by David G. Hunter. Trans-

lated by Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou. FC 123. Washington, DC: Catholic Univer-
sity of America Press, 2011.
Aristotle. Poetics. Translated by Stephen Halliwell. LCL 199. Cambridge: Harvard Uni-
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 Commem-
orating 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 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.
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.
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. Neukir-
chen-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.
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.
day, 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 Uni-
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.
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
Goodenough, Erwin R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 4 vols. Bollingen
Series 37. New York: Pantheon, 1953–1968.
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: Bre-
pols, 2003.
Hachlili, Rachel. Ancient Synagogues—Archaeology and Art: New Discoveries and Cur-
rent 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 Commen-
tary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Heffernan, James A.W. Museum of Words: The Poetics of Ekphrasis from Homer to Ash-
bery. 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 Pro-
gymnasmata. 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 Apoc-
alyptic.” 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.
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, Exhorta-
tion to the Greeks, Discourse to the Greeks, The Monarchy or the Rule of God. Trans-
lated 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, his-
torischen 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 Hermo-
genic Corpus. WGRW 15. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.
Kennedy, George A. Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rheto-
ric. 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.
ter, 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.
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: Uni-
versity 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.
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: Cam-
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. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press, 1953.
Plutarch. Plutarch’s Lives, Vol. 11: Artaxerxes. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. LCL. Cam-
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
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 Apoc-
alypse. 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. Prince-
ton: Princeton University Press, 2004.
Thee, Francis C.R. Julius Africanus and the Early Christian View of Magic. HUT 16. Tüb-
ingen: 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 construc-
tion 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 & Ru-
precht, 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 Criti-
cism: 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 elu-
cidates, 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 exege-
sis. 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 persecu-
tion. 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 represen-
tations 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.

218 edwards
1 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 pre-
vent 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 con-
vey 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 our-
selves 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 appli-
cation 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 mor-
tal 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 allud-
ing 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 say-
ing 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 interpreta-
tions 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 Refutation of All Heresies, 337 n. 392, citing Psalms of Solomon 14.3.

11 Chrysostom, On Genesis, Homily 13 (PG 53, 108–110).
12 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.
13 Jerome, Commentariolus in Psalmum 1, in Opera Exegetica 1, ed. P. Antin, CCSL 72 (Turn-
hout: Brepols, 1959), 180.
14 See M.J. Edwards, “Figurative Readings: Their Scope and Justification,” in Carleton Paget
and Schaper, New Cambridge History of the Bible, 1:729.
15 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.
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 man-
ner, 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 sur-
rounded 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 com-
pendious 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 nar-
rative in allowing them to eat from the tree of life before their expulsion. In
16 The Book of the Mysteries of the Heavens and the Earth, ed. E.A. Wallis Budge (Berwick, ME:
Ibis, 2004), 26.
17 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 lit-

tle 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 inex-
haustible 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 Revela-
tion, 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 virtu-
oso 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 com-
mentary 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 Bede, Opera Exegetica, ed. C.W. Jones, CCSL 118A (Turnhout: Brepols, 1967), 1:46–47.
19 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).
20 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.
21 See also Commentary 35.3, in Ephraem, Selected Prose Works, 123.
(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 har-
mony 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 condemna-
tion 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 keep-
ing 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 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.
23 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.
24 Commentary on the Diatessaron 21.25, quoted in Brock, Luminous Eye, 96–97. 1.18–19,
quoted in Brock, Luminous Eye, 50–51.
25 Cf. Commentary on the Diatessaron 1.18–19, quoted in Brock, Luminous Eye, 50–51.
26 Brock, Luminous Eye, 151.
27 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 cor-
ruption. 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 indepen-
dently, 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 per-
ilous 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 bib-
lical 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, pre-
pared 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 Ambrose, On Paradise 7.35 in Opera, ed. C. Schenkl, CSEL 32.1 (Vienna: Tempsky, 1897),
1:292.
29 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.
30 Romanus, Cantica genuina, ed. P. Maas and C.A. Trypanis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963),
164–171.
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 rend-
ing 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 Rufi-
nus (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 Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity 24, in Opera VIII.1, ed. W. Jaeger et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1952),
340.13.
32 Origen, On Prayer 10, in Werke, ed. P. Koetschau (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1899), 2:369–370.
33 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 embel-
lish 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 typo-
logical 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 Alexan-
drian 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 Sermon 35.8 in Chromatius, Opera, ed. R. Étaix and J. Lemarié, CCSL 9A (Turnhout: Bre-
pols, 1975), 372–373.
35 Tertullian, Against the Jews 13.11, in Opera II: Opera montanistica, ed. A. Gerlo et al., CCSL 2
(Turnhout: Brepols, 1954), 1357.
36 On Paradise, in Gregorii Nysseni Opera, Supplementum, ed. H. Hörner (Leiden: Brill, 1972),
83–84.
37 PG 23, 77.
38 PL 9, 254–256.
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 incarna-
tion, 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 sea-
son. 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 afflic-
tions 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 sus-
picion 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 See C.S. Blaising and C.A. Hardin, eds., Psalms 1–50, ACCS OT 7 (Downers Grove: InterVar-
sity Press, 2008), xxiv–xv.
40 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 righ-
teousness 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 elucidat-
ing 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 Diodore of Tarsus, Commentary on Psalms 1–51, ed. and trans. R.C. Hill, WGRW 9 (Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 6.
42 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 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 wis-
dom, whose leaves correspond to the mere words of instruction and its fruit
to the salutary meaning of those words.44 His friend Augustine, tacitly equat-
ing 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 mor-
bid 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 appel-
lation “tree of life” does not occur in the poem, but the perennial font and the
43 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.
44 Homily on Psalm 1 in Jerome, Opera Exegetica 2, ed. D.G. Morin, CCSL 78 (Turnhout: Bre-
pols, 1978), 8–9.
45 Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos, ed. D.E. Dekkers and J. Fraipont, CCSL 38 (Turnhout:
Brepols, 1956), 1:3.
46 Lactantius, On the Phoenix Bird, in Opera, ed. S. Brandt (Vienna: Tempsky, 1893), 2:135–147.
47 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 Apoca-
lypse, 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 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.
49 Apringius, Treatise on the Apocalypse I.543–550 in Commentaria minora in Apocalypsin
Iohannis, ed. R. Gryson, CCSL 107 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003), 50.
50 Apringius, Treatise 7.557–565, in Commentraia minora, 94.
51 Commemoratorium, in Commentaria minora, 202, 227. For theories on the date and milieu
By contrast, the great compiler Cassiodorus (c. 485–c. 585) ignores the qualify-
ing 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 under-
tone, 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 interpre-
tations at 2:7: the fruit symbolizes either the unending life that was forfeited by
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.
52 Cassiodorus, Complections 32.11–13, in Commentaria minora, 128. On the title see Commen-
taria minora, 100.
53 Tyconius, Commentaire de l’ Apocalypse, ed. R. Gryson, CCT 10 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011),
226.
54 See W. Harmless, “Baptism,” in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. A. Fitzger-
ald (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 87–89.
55 Primasius, On the Apocalypse, 5.22, in Commentarius in Apocalypsin, ed. A.W. Adams,
CCSL 92 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1985), 303.
56 Primasius, On the Apocalypse 1.2, in Commentarius in Apocalypsin, 25.
57 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.
58 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 con-
flict 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 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.
60 On Riddles 99.99–108 in Commentaria minora, 295.
61 On the Apocalypse 26.429–439 in Bede, Explanatio Apocalypseos, ed. R. Gryson, CCSL 121A
(Turnhout: Brepols, 2001), 563–565.
62 Catena in Epistolas Catholicas etc., ed. J.A. Cramer (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1840), 204.
63 Cramer, Catena, 491.
64 Cramer, Catena, 503, quoting the Codex Coisliana. The comment on Rev 22:2 at p. 578 adds
nothing to Oecumenius.
65 J. Schmid, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes, MTS 1 (Munich: Zink,
1955–1956), 281–282.
4 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. Gry-
son. CCSL 121A. Turnhout: Brepols, 2001.
Blaising, C.S., and C.A. Hardin, eds. Psalms 1–50. ACCS OT 7. Downers Grove: InterVar-
sity, 2008.
Brock, Sebastian. The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem. Kala-
mazoo: 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 Com-
ment. 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. Trans-
lated 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. Wash-
ington, 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.
pols,
Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies. Edited by M.D. Litwa. WGRW 40. Atlanta: SBL
Press,
Jerome. Opera Exegetica 1: Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos. Liber interpretatio-
nis 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. Turn-
hout: Brepols, 1958.
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. Hin-
richs, 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.
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.
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.
Young, Frances M. “Traditions of Exegesis.” Pages 734–751 in vol. 1 of The New Cam-
bridge 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

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 bibli-
cal 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 compar-
ison 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. Goode-
nough, “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 Antiq-
uity: 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.

the tree of life in philo 237
2 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 (Apore-
mata 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 prop-
erties 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 καθή-
κοντα, 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 θεωρη-
τική 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 γενι-
κωτάτη 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 appre-
ciates, 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” inter-
pretation, 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 every-
thing 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 good-
ness, 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 phi-
losophy 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 Niehoff, “Philo’s Scholarly Inquiries,” 30.

10 The tree of knowledge is also mentioned in Leg. I 90, 97, 100, 101(–108); QG I 11.
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 Intentio-
nen: 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.
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 nor-
mal 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 par-
ticipation 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 ᾕρη-
σαι 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. Neverthe-
less, 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 depic-
tion 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 com-
mandment 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 Jew-
ish exegesis of the biblical text is no exception. Philo leans towards a con-
servative, exegetical approach to Scripture, and in this he is similar to rab-
binic approaches, such as the Genesis Rabbah, and occasionally they discuss
the same questions.13 The method of the Quaestiones is comparable to Philo’s

13 Niehoff, “Questions and Answers,” 338–341.
approach in the Allegorical Commentary, and consequently there is much simi-

larity 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 prob-
lems: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 lit-
eral 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 pre-
ferred 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, some-
thing 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.

15 Niehoff, “Philo’s Scholarly Inquiries,” 29.
16 Niehoff, “Questions and Answers,” 351; Niehoff, “Philo’s Scholarly Inquiries,” 30.
17 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 immor-
tality.
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 eschatolog-
ical 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, pro-
vided human beings with incorruptibility while they were in the intelligible
world—pure intellect without sense perceptible influence from evil actions or

20 Niehoff, “Philo’s Scholarly Inquiries,” 30–31, 35–36.
21 Similar in 4 Ezra 8:52 and 4Q385 2, cf. Niehoff, “Questions and Answers,” 354.
22 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 παραδεί-
σου τῆς τρυφῆς καὶ ἔταξεν τὰ χερουβιμ καὶ τὴν φλογίνην ῥομφαίαν τὴν στρεφομένην φυλάσσειν
τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς.
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 identi-
fies the motif with piety as the highest virtue and a certain way to immortality.
4 The Tree of Life in Other Treatises
4.1 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 for-
ever 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 inter-
pretation 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 qual-
ities, 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 ἀδιάφθο-
ρον 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 immedi-
ately 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 ἔοι-
κεν 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
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 inter-
pretation 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 pas-
sage 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-
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 alle-
gorically: “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 neces-
sarily 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, συν-
έσεως, 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 imma-
terial 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 par-
adise” (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 Cf. Leonhardt-Balzer, “Philo and the Garden of Eden,” 244–257.

24 Leonhardt-Balzer, “Philo and the Garden of Eden,” 249–250.
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 dis-
cussion (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 domina-
tion 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 refer-
ring 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, good-
ness guarded by the particular virtues and their deeds; for virtue it is who inher-
its 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 inter-
pretations 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 knowl-
edge, 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
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, espe-
cially 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 con-
text 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 ex-
pressed 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 contin-
ues 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 ὁσιότη-
τος 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 com-
munion 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
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 gov-
ernment 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 vir-
tuous 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 theolog-
ical 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 read-
ing was influenced by the axiomatic identification of life and virtue in Greek
philosophy.
Works Cited
64–74.
day, 1983, 1985.

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. Tüb-
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 Post-
Biblical 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 spread-
ing 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 indi-
cation 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 gnō-
sis. 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.

250 smith
The tree of knowledge, frequently without “of good and evil,” plays a promi-
nent 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 common-
alities 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 summa-
rizing 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 sec-
ond, a statement on Gnostic hermeneutical strategies which yields the vari-
ety 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 scholar-
ship, 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? (Cam-
bridge: 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, in-
cluding Jewish and Christian sacred writings and midrash, Homeric litera-
ture, 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 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.
7 David Brakke advocates a “Gnostic school of thought” in The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and
Diversity in Early Christianity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010). Other group-
ings 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 Sethian-
ism in Light of the Ophite Evidence, NHMS 68 (Leiden: Brill, 2009).
8 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 Antiq-
uity: 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 Pseude-
pigraphal 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, Remember-
ing 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 Sev-
erini Presented to Søren Giversen, ed. Per Bilde, Helge Kjær Nielsen, and Jürgen Podemann
Sørensen (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1993), 140–154.
9 Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”, 54–79. Cf. Orval Wintermute, “A Study of Gnostic Exe-
gesis 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.
10 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 “revi-
sionary 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 Chris-
tians 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 com-

bined two formal features: (1) explicit scriptural refutation, and (2) elaborate
scriptural rewriting, in ways not evidenced by other Jewish or Christian inter-
preters.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 extrac-
tion 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 self-
11 Busch concludes his research is “sufficiently qualified to rehabilitate interpretive inver-

sion 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.
12 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 Knowl-
edge,” 99. Presley identifies in Irenaeus a commitment to a “hermeneutic of scriptural con-
sonance,” which enabled him to interpret in harmonious ways the same passages which
some Gnostics found problematic (Intertextual Reception, 240).
13 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 compo-
sitions. Further, “Christ’s revelation is what establishes, corrects, and supplements Scrip-
ture” (Secret Revelation, 108–181). Cf. Ioan P. Couliano, The Tree of Gnosis: Gnostic Mythol-
ogy from Early Christianity to Modern Nihilism, trans. H.S. Wiesner (San Francisco: Harper-
SanFrancisco, 1992).
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, anthro-
pology, and soteriology.16
The context where the tree of life is mentioned is the creation of human-
ity. 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 perfec-
tion 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 supe-
rior 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 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: Hendrick-
son, 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, Par-
adise Reconsidered.
15 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.
16 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).
17 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 reflec-
tion 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 shame-
fulness.
Ap. John 21.16–22.8
Traditional features from Genesis 1–3 are present; however, they are reinter-
preted, 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 like-
ness 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).

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 with-
drew 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 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 androg-
ynous One. (4.26–5.11).
20 Some emphasize the eagle as the serpent’s natural enemy (Busch, “Characterizing Gnos-
tic 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 apotheo-
sis (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.
21 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 Chris-
tian 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 forbid-
den 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 partici-
pated 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 knowl-
edge 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 con-
curs: “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 best-
transmitted 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 pro-
vides 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 On providence in Ap. John, see Burns, “Providence, Creation, and Gnosticism.”

23 Rasimus, “Imperial Propaganda,” 35.
24 Bullard, “The Hypostasis of Archons: Introduction,” in CGL, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2000; Nag
Hammadi Codices II, 2–7, 1989), 225.
25 Bullard, “Hypostasis of Archons,” 220.
26 “Will” in 87.22–23; 88.10–11, 35; 96.12; 97.18–19; “power” in 88.2; cf. 93.22–27.
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 Unwit-
tingly 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 Alexander considers the garden a place of incarceration and death (“Fall into Knowledge,”
95).
28 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 Gno-
sis, 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 Ham-
madi (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.
29 Bullard identifies her shadow with her physical body (“Hypostasis of Archons,” 223).
30 Alexander relates this separation into two Eves and carnal Eve’s defilement to Jewish tra-
ditions 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.
31 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 occu-
pied 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 incon-
sequential, 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 ele-
ment 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,” Mel-
chizedek (NHC IX 1) has the least detailed account of the garden scene.34
32 This may relate to the protoevangelium (Gen 3:15) and be one of the few Christian refer-
ences in Nat. Rulers (Alexander, “Fall into Knowledge,” 99).
33 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).
34 In NHScr, Pearson provides a review of Melchizedek traditions in Jewish apocalyptic writ-
ings, Egyptian Christian interpretations of Hebrews, and Sethian-Gnostic traditions. He
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 consecra-
tion (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 accu-
rate, 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.
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).
35 The question marks indicate a lacuna in the original text.
36 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 Séthi-
enne, Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi, Section Textes 28 (Québec: Les Presses de
l’ Université Laval, 2001).
37 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 acquisi-
tion 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.
38 See T. Sim. 6:6; T. Levi 18:12; cf. Ps 91:13; Luke 10:19–20; Rom 16:20. Trampling is a signifi-
cant 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 knowl-
edge 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 per-
fect 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 knowl-
edge. 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 simi-
lar in several substantial ways and different in some less significant ways. Their
affiliation with the same school or dependence upon common sources is pos-
sible, but it does not appear obvious or necessary from the details of this com-
parative 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.

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 Sil-
vanus, 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 primar-
ily to sacraments and ethics, and its compiler gathered a variety of literary types
from diverse traditions. The document may have served as a Christian Gnos-
tic 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 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.
41 Thomassen, “Valentinian School,” 791.
42 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. Isen-
berg asserts Gos. Phil. has similar qualities to Christian catecheses of the second to fourth
centuries.
43 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 wor-
shipped 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 peo-
ple, [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, presum-
ably 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 fac-
tors. 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 consid-
44 Gilhus agrees, identifying the tree of knowledge as a “Tree of Death” (“Tree of Life,” 340–
341).
45 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.
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 drunken-
ness, 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 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 Teach-
ings 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).
47 The equation of the law with the tree of knowledge is interesting considering a Jewish tra-
dition 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 Bib-
lical 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 Chris-
tianity (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 intro-
duced 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 pur-
poses 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 Trac-
tate (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 demi-
urge, 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 sub-
48 Harold Attridge and Elaine Pagels, “The Tripartite Tractate: Introduction,” CGL, Vol. 1, Nag
Hammadi Codex I, ed. H. Attridge (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 176.
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 demi-
urge 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 immedi-
ate 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 great-
est 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 igno-
rance 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 predeter-
mined 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 partak-
ing of the “greatest good,” which is eternal life. Knowledge and life are both
49 Thomassen translates, “tree which had the double character” (NHScr, 88).
50 For “knowledge,” see 66.16 and 66.22–23; for “life,” see 66.28, 85.30, 114.20–21, and 117.6–7.
51 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 partici-
pating 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 experi-
enced 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 sur-
passes 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 asso-
ciated 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 prov-
idence 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 Christian-
ity 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 regard-
ing 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 theol-
ogy, 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.
3 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 excel-
lent 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, Valen-
tinian, 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 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 tradi-
tions 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.
53 Bethge, “Origin of the World,” 16, 12.
54 Bentley Layton, “Bulletin,” RB 83 (1976): 465.
55 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).
56 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 Lanfer compares the tree of life with the cosmic tree in Second Temple Judaism (“Allu-
sion,” 104–105).
58 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).
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 cre-
ate a human; however, Sophia Zoe anticipated them, “laughed at their deci-
sion” (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 lat-
ter.61
Earthly Adam’s physical creation came about through the rulers’ act of cast-
ing 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 abor-
tion”), “without soul” (115.11–12), and unable to stand (115.15). Fearing his poten-
tial 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 Dunning reviews sexuality and androgyny, indicating the latter was not an idealization
of egalitarian sexual identity; rather, androgyny was primarily conceived in terms of ide-
alized 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).
60 This may be a veiled polemic against Judaism and/or Christianity.
61 Orig. World has several recapitulations of the creation event, with additional detail and
elaborations.
62 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 non-
standing 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 deter-
mined 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 (gnō-
sis) 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 multi-
ple 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 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).
64 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 per-
petrators 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 “psy-
chologically 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 manipula-
tive and self-serving—there is no equivocation on these points” (217). See Lillie’s six-point
summary (223–233).
“modelled forms of the authorities might become enclosures of light, where-

upon 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 crea-
ture 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 differ-
ence 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 confi-
dence 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 eat-
ing: 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 par-
adise 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 ques-
tions 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 off-
spring, 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 crea-
tures, 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 dis-
traction” (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 igno-
rance, and in a stupor. They all erred, until the appearance (parousia) of the
true man” (123.15–24).
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, bring-
ing 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 domi-
nates 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 B. Pearson, “The Testimony of Truth, NHC IX,3: Introduction and Translation,” in NHScr,
613.
66 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.
67 Pearson, “Testimony of Truth,” 613–614.
68 Several references to Moses as author appear (e.g., 50.3–5). As a distinction from the gen-
eration 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 curs-
ing 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 Not the archons as in Nat. Rulers and Orig. World.

70 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 has minor significance in Testim. Truth, apart from illus-
trating 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 defile-
ment and blindness to the truth, and prevents humans from finding knowl-
edge, 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 signifi-
cant 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 supe-
riority 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 advo-
cates include a series of revealer figures, including Sophia, Zoe, Epinoia, the
serpent, Jesus, and Seth. Quite often these advocates are guided by an overar-
ching providence which limits the archons’ oppositional activities, often turn-
ing 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 sup-
planted 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., Tes-
tim. 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 limita-
tions 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 partak-
ing 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 Gnos-
tic 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.
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): Intro-
duction.” 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.
Brakke, David. The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 2010.
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 Mod-
ern 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 Ham-
madi, 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 Sym-
bols.” Religion 17 (1987): 337–353.
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 Inter-
pretation, 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.
Layton, Bentley. The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and Intro-
ductions. 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.
Marjanen, Antti. “Gnosticism.” Pages 205–211 in The Oxford Handbook of Early Chris-
tian 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.
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.
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. Pear-
son. 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.
Rasimus, Tuomas. “Imperial Propaganda in Paradise? Christ as Eagle in the Apoc-
ryphon of John.” Pages 27–45 in Hidden Truths from Eden: Esoteric Readings of Gen-
esis 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.
Robinson, James M., ed. The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Ham-
madi 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: Hendrick-
son, 2004.
Thomassen, Einar. “The Gospel of Truth: NHC I,3; XII,2.” Introduced by Einar Thomas-
sen. 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.
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: “Faith-
ful 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 soft-
ness, to extend on gentle trunk the limbs of the heavenly king.” Poems: Venantius Fortuna-
tus, 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 Tre-
viso 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.

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 vegeta-
tion 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 par-
adise, 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 branch-
ing 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 Giova-
nardi, “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 salonius
figure 12.1 ‘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 man-
dorla. 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, per-
sonifications of the sun and the moon show he reigns over the cosmos from
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 thau-
maturgic (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 ampul-
lae, 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, overflow-
ing 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 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.
6 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 Con-
text, 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 Edin-
burgh Companion to the Bible and the Arts, ed. Stephen Prickett (Edinburgh: Edinburgh
7 O’Flynn, Holy Cross, 30, 35–76; Lily Arad, “The Holy Land Ampulla of Sant Pere de Cas-
serres—A Liturgical and Art-historical Interpretation,” Miscellània litúrgica catalana 15
(2007): 59–86.
8 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).
9 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).
10 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 seventh-
century 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.
figure 12.3 ‘Cross from a Prayer Niche in Kellia,’ Cairo, The Coptic Museum, Inventory
No. 12549. Sixth or seventh century
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 sev-
enth 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.
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 Euro-
pos. 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 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, Sil-
ver from Early Byzantium: The Kaper Koraon and Related Treasures (Baltimore: Trustees of
the Walters Art Gallery, 1986), no. 64.
14 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.
15 Zofja Ameisenowa, “The Tree of Life in Jewish Iconography,” Journal of the Warburg Insti-
tute 2 (1939): 329; O’Reilly, “The Trees of Eden,” 167–204; Peter Thacher Lanfer, Remember-
ing Eden: The Reception History of Genesis 3:22–24 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012),
31–65.
16 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.
17 Ameisenowa, “The Tree of Life,” 329–330.
18 Jean Baptiste Frey, Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum, I (Rome: Città del Vaticano Pontificio
Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1936), nos. 144, 306.
19 Kurt Schubert, “Jewish Art in the Light of the Jewish Tradition,” in Jewish Historiogra-
phy 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 vener-
20 Maryanne Cline Horowitz, Seeds of Virtue and Knowledge (Princeton: Princeton Univer-
sity 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.
21 Heinrich Kohl and Karl Watzinger, Antike Synagogen in Galilaea (Leipzig: J.C. Hin-
richs’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.
figure 12.6 ‘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 reintro-
duced figurative representation.23 The sculpted tympanym of the tree of life
over the south entrance doorway to the Altneuschul in Prague (c. 1260) is prob-
ably 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 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: Icon-
oclasm and Identity in Early-Medieval Art,” Speculum 72 (1997): 1023.
23 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.
24 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 thir-
teen 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 Man-
asseh.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 meno-
rah are associated with the olive tree in a beautiful illustration of Zechariah’s
25 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, His-
tory, 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.
26 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.
27 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.
28 Margaret Barker, The Mother of the Lord, Volume 1: The Lady in the Temple (London: Blooms-
bury, 2012), 2; Leon Yarden, The Tree of Light: A Study of the Menorah, the Seven-branched
Lampstand (London: East and West Library, 1971).
29 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-
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 Chris-
tian 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 origi-
nally 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-
phy, see: Rachel Hachlili, Ancient Synagogues—Archaeology and Art: New Discoveries and
Current Research, HdO 105 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 322–324.
30 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 Decora-
tion 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 His-
tory (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 Zerubba-
bel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period, LHBOTS 304 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2000), 180–181.
31 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.
32 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 Reli-
gions of Early Medieval England, Anglo-Saxon Studies 16 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press,
2015), 1, 16–17.
33 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 Carra-
gáin, “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 salonius
figure 12.7 Joseph Asarfati, ‘Menorah,’ Cervera Bible, Lisbon, Biblioteca Nacional de Por-
tugal, MS. IL. 72, fol. 316v. 1299–1300
figure 12.8 ‘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 describ-
ing 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 tradi-
tion 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 Vora-
gine 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 Ó Carragáin, Ritual and the Rood, 2.

35 Ernest G. Mardon, The Narrative Unity of the Cursor Mundi, ed. Claire MacMaster (Edmon-
ton: Golden Meteorite Press, 2012), 57–66. For a more detailed argument, see Lanfer in this
volume.
36 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 Apoc-
rypha and Pseudepigrapha in Honour of Michael E. Stone, ed. Lorenzo Di Tommaso, Mat-
thias Henze, and William Adler, SVTP 26 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 140, n. 25.
37 John Munns, Cross and Culture in Anglo-Norman England: Theology, Imagery, Devotion,
BSMC (Woodridge: Boydell Press, 2016), 116.
38 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.
39 Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints, trans. William Granger
Ryan, intro. Eamon Duffy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 197.
is rooted in Jewish tradition. In close proximity and affinity with Jewish cul-
ture, 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 Chris-
tian 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 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 Cre-
ation in Liturgy and Art (London: SPCK, 2013), 133–169.
41 M.D. Johnson, “Life of Adam and Eve: A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP 2:255–
256.
42 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.
43 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.
44 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 there-
fore, 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 Vau-
chez (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.
looks to the south represents His divinity, by means of which he nour-

ishes 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 with-
out 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 sal-
vation 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 Chris-
tian 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 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.
47 Ute Dercks, “Two Trees in Paradise?” 147.
48 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.
49 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 Renais-
sance,” in Images and Ideas in the Middle Ages: Selected Studies in History and Art (Rome:
Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1983), 2:745.
50 For (Isa 11:1–3), see p. 301 in this article.
51 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 Raed-
wald (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 living-
branched staff the apostle holds in his right (fig. 12.11).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 The-
matically Reconsidered,” Athanor 18 (2000): 73–102; Arthur Watson, The Early Iconography
of the Tree of Jesse (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932).
52 Michael D.J. Bintley, “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.
53 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 con-
tinue 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.
figure 12.11 ‘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 Chris-

tian 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 par-
adise.56 Flanked by two cypress trees, it grows in the midst of a garden of varie-
55 Antony Robert Littlewood, Henry Maguire and Joachim Wolschke-Bulmahn, eds., Byzan-
tine 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.
56 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-
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 consid-
ering the symbolism of Christ as the eucharistic vine. Another medieval poet
Nicholas Eirenikos mentions the cypress for its same symbolic value of sup-
port 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 forti-
tude, 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
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.
57 Maguire, Nectar and Illusion, 73; Oratio in Sanctum Demetrium in Erga theologika: Agiou
Symeon Archiepiskopou Thessalonikes, ed. David Balfour (Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Insti-
tute for Patristic Studies, 1981), 187–188.
58 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.
59 George T. Calofonos, “Dream Narratives in the Continuation of Theophanes,” in Dream-
ing in Byzantium and Beyond, ed. Christine Angelidi and George T. Calofonos (Farnham:
Ashgate, 2014), 104; Nicholas Eirenikos, Epithalamion, in Aus der Geschichte und Liter-
atur der Palaiologenzeit, ed. August Heisenberg (Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften, 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 sal-
vation. 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 decora-
tive 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 Bonaven-
ture’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 includ-
ing 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 glaz-
ing 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 “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.
61 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.
62 “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 Strick-
land, Saracens, Demons and Jews: Making Monsters in Medieval Art (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2003), 98.
figure 12.13 ‘Tree of Jesse,’ Chartres, Cathedral of Notre-Dame, window 49. ca. 1150
304 salonius
figure 12.14 ‘Tree of Jesse,’ Swabia, Germany. New York, Metropolitan Museum. 1280–1300
Accession no. 22.25 a–f
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 The Lignum vitae in Carcassonne (early fourteenth century) appears to be the only sur-
viving monumental example in stained glass, however the motif survives in fourteenth-
century wall paintings in the south of France (Rabastens and Lagrasse in Langedoc) and
in Spain (Barcelona (lost), Puigcerdà (Cerdagne), Arboç (Tarragona)) see: Alessandra Gre-
gorini, “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 Paris-
Sorbonne, 2010).
64 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.
65 Long, “Botany,” 401–405.
66 See also Fig. 12.12 in this chapter. Salonius, “Arbor Jesse-Lignum vitae,” 213–242.
67 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 cos-
mopolitan 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 be-
tween the sixth century and 1069–1070, when it was conquered by the Nor-
mans. A multicultural city, it lay at the cultural crossroads of Byzantium and the
West. Inscriptions on the mosaics record their commission by the Latin arch-
bishop of Otranto, Ionathas and that the work was executed by the monk Panta-
leone between 1163 and 1165. Fragmentary remains of similar arboreal mosaics
in the cathedrals of Taranto (1160) and Trani (1165) suggest the pavements
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.
68 For discussion of later medieval versions of historiated vine-trees in Bethlehem, Con-
stantinople, and the East see: Salonius, “Arbor Jesse-Lignum vitae,” 224–232; Velmans,
“L’ Arbre de Jessé,” 125–140.
figure 12.16 Lorenzo Maitani, ‘Tree of Jesse,’ Orvieto Cathedral. 1310–1330

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,” Troianalexan-

drina 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.
figure 12.18 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 Nor-
man 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 Secon-
da.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 meander-
ing 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 mod-
70 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).
71 For the tree as a ladder for men to climb to access heaven, see footnotes 4 and 20 in this
chapter.
72 Pasquini, “Il mosaico pavimentale della Cattedrale di Otranto,” 70–101.
73 Antonio Iacobini, “Lancea Domini: Nuove ipotesi sul mosaico absidale nell’atrio del Batti-
stero 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.
74 Eric Thunø, Image and Relic: Mediating the Sacred in Early Medieval Rome (Rome:
«L’Erma» di Bretschneider, 2002), 60.
75 For the cross above the four rivers in paradise as a reference to the tree of life, see note 14
in this chapter.
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 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.
77 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 Orvi-
eto,” 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.
78 Stefano Riccioni, Il mosaico absidale di S. Clemente a Roma: Exemplum della chiesa rifor-
mata (Spoleto: CISAM, 2006), 4.
79 Riccioni, Il mosaico absidale di S. Clemente, 42.
80 Riccioni, Il mosaico absidale di S. Clemente, 40–47, 77–81.
81 “Ecclesiam Christi viti similabimus isti + de ligno crucis Jacobi dens Ignatiq(ue) + requi-
escunt 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 Orvi-
eto 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 ambi-
guity, 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
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.
82 Ladner, “Vegetation Symbolism,” 745, n. 43.
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. How-
ever, 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 four-
teenth 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 birds-
eye perspective, where flattened walls and gateways enclose them in the sym-
metrical 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 apoc-
alypse, 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 Ute Dercks, “Two Trees in Paradise?” 144; see also Estes in this book.
84 Peter Brieger, “The Illustrated Apocalypses,” in English Art 1216–1307, Oxford History of
English Art 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), 159–170.
85 Cambridge, Trinity College MS. R. 16.2, fol. 25v. ca. 1260.
86 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.
87 For explicit correlation between the tree of life in Genesis and in Revelation, see Estes in
this book.
88 Brieger, English Art, 159–161.
89 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 symbol-
ique 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
figure 12.21 ‘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 Archaeologi-
cal 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 Iacobini, “L’albero della vita,” 252; Michele Piccirillo, Chiese e mosaici di Madaba, SBFCMa
34 (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1989), 139–140.
91 Clementina Rizzardi, Il mausoleo di Galla Placidia a Ravenna (Modena: Panini, 1996), 150.
92 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 Constantino-
ple. 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 king-
ship 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-
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.
93 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: Reflec-
tions Drawn from a Garden of Virtues. A XIIth Century Greek Manuscript, ed. and trans.
Margaret H. Thomson (North York, Ontario: Captus Press, 1989).
94 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.
95 Irvine, Cross and Creation in Liturgy and Art, 193.
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 med-
itation 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 par-
adise.98 Two years later, only months before the canonization of Saint Clare
of Assisi, Pope Alexander IV (1254–1261) issued a bull defending the Francis-
can 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 min-
ister 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 fif-
teen 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 The Lady: Clare of Assisi, Early Documents, ed. and trans. Regis J. Armstrong (New York:
New City Press, 2006), 42, 54–58.
97 Sarah Ritchey, Holy Matter: Changing Perceptions of the Material World in Late Medieval
Christianity (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014), 91–126.
98 Mary Franklin-Brown, Reading the World: Encyclopedic Writing in the Scholastic Age (Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press, 2012), 128.
99 Ulrike Ilg, “Quasi lignum vitae: The Tree of Life as an Image of Mendicant Identity,” in Salo-
nius and Worm, The Tree, 187.
100 Ilg, “Quasi lignum vitae,” 185; Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, ed. Heinrich Denifle,
4 vols. (Paris: Delalain, 1889–1897), I (1889), no. 247.
101 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 accom-
panied 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.
102 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, Bonaven-
ture 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 resur-
rection.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
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: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 2011), 128.
103 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 Hirsch-
Reich, The Figurae of Joachim of Fiore (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972); Ilg, “Quasi lignum
vitae,” 187–191.
104 “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 (Pater-
son, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1960–1970), 1:98.
105 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, Laud-
ismus de Sancta Cruce, 8, Opera omnia 8:667; Bonaventure, Works of Bonaventure, 3:3;
Karnes, Imagination, Meditation, and Cognition, 128.
106 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.
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 cen-
tury.
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 icono-
graphic models are fused (fig. 12.14).110 An image of natural continuity, every sin-
gle 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 sys-
tem that expressed both ‘continuity of line and the community of lineage’ so
effectively.112 In fact, later in the fourteenth century the mendicant orders priv-
ileged 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 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 (Flo-
rence: EDAM, 1985), fig. 3.
108 Bonaventure, Lignum vitae. Darmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek MS.
2777, fol. 43r, end of the thirteenth century. Esmeijer, L’albero della vita, fig. 4.
109 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.
110 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 Arbo-
real 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 prove-
nance of both manuscript and glazing examples.
111 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.
112 Klapisch-Zuber, “Genesis of the Family Tree,” 122.
320 salonius
figure 12.23 ‘Lignum vitae,’ London, British Library, Harley MS 5234 f. 5r. ca. 1274–1300
figure 12.24 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 tran-
sition 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 dia-
grams 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 posi-
tion, 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 Ilg, “Quasi lignum vitae,” 203–204; Christian Nikolaus Opitz, “Genealogical Representa-
tions 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.
114 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 con-
fusing 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 Giove-
nale 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 his-
tory 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 resi-
dence, 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 commis-
sioned 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 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 Nor-
bye, “Arbor genealogiae: Manifestations of the Tree in French Royal Genealogies,” in Salo-
nius 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 Find-
ing Europe: Discourses on Margins, Communities, Images, ed. Anthony Molho and Diogo
Ramada Curto (New York: Berghahn Books, 2007), 297; Hermann Schadt, Die Darstellun-
gen der Arbores consanguinitatis und der Arbores affinitatis: Bildschemata in juristischen
Handschriften (Tübingen: Wasmuth, 1982).
116 ‘Arbor consanguinitatis, with Jesse,’ Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, MS Hh 51, fol. 3r. Watson,
Tree of Jesse, 42, pl. 36.
117 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 Jesse-
Lignum vitae,” 213–241. Publication of my investigation of visual references to the Francis-
can mission and the loss of the Holy Land is forthcoming.
figure 12.25 Lignum vitae, Orvieto, Church of San Giovenale. 1290–1310

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 Evan-
gelist 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 commis-
sioned 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 Bonaven-
ture’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 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’icono-
grafia del Lignum vitae in Umbria nel XIV secolo e un ipotesi su un perduto prototipo di
Giotto ad Assisi,” Franciscana 9 (2007): 158.
119 Simbeni, “L’iconografia del Lignum vitae in Umbria,” 149–183.
121 Maiju Lehmijoki-Gardner, ed., Dominican Penitent Women, CWS (New York: Paulist, 2005),
41.
122 Ilg, “Quasi lignum vitae,” 191.
123 See Venantius Fortunatus’ poem cited at the beginning of this chapter, also cited in inscrip-
tions 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.
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 con-
vent between 1261 and 1263.124 Inspired by Venantius Fortunatus the Dominican
scholar wrote his own verses praising the cross to accompany the act of trans-
ferring the Eucharist to the altar on Holy Thursday and during Corpus Christi
processions.125 Moreover, the city of Orvieto possessed an important eucharis-
tic 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 Francis-
can 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 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.
125 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.
126 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 Post-
graduate Students at the Courtauld Institute of Art, 1261–1352, ed. Joanna Cannon and Beth
Williamson (London: Routledge, 2016), 117–178.
127 Pacino di Bonaguida, Tree of Life, Florence, Galleria dell’Accademia (n. 8459), 248×151cm,
1310–1315.
128 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.
129 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 salonius
figure 12.26 Pacino di Buonaguida, Lignum vitae, Florence, Galleria dell’Accademia.

ca. 1310
illustrations of Bonaventure’s Tree of Life can be linked to a lost wall paint-

ing 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 con-
tested and a proposal put forward for Giotto and his workshop having invented
the original model.131 Another earlier prototype for the monumental wall paint-
ing 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 thir-
teenth century.132 While arguments for a Giottesque or Roman prototype are
certainly attractive, more evidence needs to be gathered before either hypoth-
esis 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 trans-
lated 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 partici-
pation and understanding of Bonaventure’s tree on its walls.134
Firmly rooted in the medieval imaginary by the end of the thirteenth cen-
tury, the tree of life acted as axis mundi and devotional expression and was
130 “… 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 (Lon-
don: 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.
132 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.
133 Mara Nerbano, Il teatro della devozione: Confraternite e spettacolo nell’Umbria medievale
(Perugia: Morlacchi, 2006), 283–284.
134 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 trea-
tise 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’Anto-
nio in Padua.137 Unfortunately very little remains of the Lignum vitae Christi
135 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.
136 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.
137 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 Sim-
beni, “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.
(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 com-
parison 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 informa-
tion 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 promi-
nent 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 priv-
ileged 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 fam-
ily trees. Holding medallions of portraits of the most important members of
the Dominican family in its branches, the ordensstammbäume on the cloister
138 See n. 63 in this article and Salonius, “Arbor Jesse-Lignum vitae,” 213–249.
139 Opitz, “Genealogical Representations of Monastic Communities,” 186–191.
140 Preisinger, Lignum vitae, 239–242; Dieter Blume, “Ordenskonkurrenz und Bildpolitik:
Franziskanishe Programme nach dem theoretischen Armutsstreit,” in Malerei und Stadt-
kultur in der Dantezeit: Die Argumentation der Bilder, ed. Hans Belting and Dieter Blume
(Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 1989), 149–170.
141 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 impor-
tant 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 cir-
cumference well-suited to expressions of terrestrial community, lineage, and
142 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 Domini-
kanerordens,” 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.
143 “… quasi lignum vitae … ad fines orbis terre suos palmites extenderet fecundosos.” Maxim-
ilien 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.
144 Opitz, “Genealogical Representations of Monastic Communities,” 191, 198.
145 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.
figure 12.27 ‘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, decora-
tive 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 thir-
teenth 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 commu-
nity. 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 Fran-
ciscans 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 Alexan-
dre-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 Art-
historical 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. Ge-
burtstag 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: Interdisci-
plinary 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.
Balfour, David, ed. Erga theologika: Agiou Symeon Archiepiskopou Thessalonikes. Thes-
saloniki: 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 Stud-
ies 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 Encyclopae-
dia. 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:
Bourdua, Louise. “I frati Minori al Santo nel Trecento: consulenti, committenti o ar-
tisti?” 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 For-
schungen 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 Anthol-
ogy of Texts and Pictures. Material Texts. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 2002.
Castañeiras, Manuel. “L’Alessandro anglonormanno e il mosaico di Otranto.” Troian-
alexandrina 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-Colum-
bian 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 Cul-
tural History, 2003.
Cozzi, Enrica. “L’attività padovana di Giotto per i minori del Santo.”Padova e il suo terri-
torio 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 Loren-
zoni. 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
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.
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 Venan-
zio 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 Lich-
field.” 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. Intro-
duced 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’immag-
ine 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, Histo-
ries, 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, Uni-
versity 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 Ponti-
ficio 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 Read-
ings 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 Salo-
nius 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:
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., Uni-
versità Ca’Foscari, Venezia, 2013–2014.
Hachlili, Rachel. Ancient Mosaic Pavements: Themes, Issues, Trends. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
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.
Hooke, Della. Trees in Anglo-Saxon England: Literature, Lore and Landscape. Anglo-
Saxon Studies 13. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2010.
Horowitz, Maryanne Cline. Seeds of Virtue and Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton Uni-
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’Occi-
dente.” Pages 241–290 in L’architettura medievale in Sicilia: La cattedrale di Palermo.
Edited by Angiola Maria Romanini and Antonio Cadei. Rome: Instituto dell’enciclo-
pedia 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. Sin-
tesi 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: Bre-
pols, 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 Univer-
sity 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: Bon-
nard, 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 Paint-
ing 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. Hin-
richs’sche Buchhandlung, 1916.
Krinsky, Carol Herselle. Synagogues of Europe: Architecture, History, Meaning. Cam-
bridge: MIT Press, 1985.
Ladner, Gerhart B. “Medieval and Modern Understanding of Symbolism: A Compari-
son.” 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.
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 Poma-
rici. 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 Biblio-
graphical Guide. Edited by F.A.C. Mantello and A.G. Rigg. Washington, DC: Catholic
Maguire, Henry. Earth and Ocean: The Terrestrial World in Early Byzantine Art. Univer-
sity Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1987.
Maguire, Henry. Nectar and Illusion: Nature in Byzantine Art and Literature. Oxford:
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.
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 medie-
vale. Perugia: Morlacchi, 2006.
Noga-Banai, Galit, and Linda Safran. “A Late Antique Silver Reliquary in Toronto.” Jour-
nal of Late Antiquity 4 (2011): 3–30.
Norbye, Marigold. “Arbor genealogiae: Manifestations of the Tree in French Royal Gene-
alogies.” 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.
Opitz, Christian Nikolaus. “Genealogical Representations of Monastic Communities in
Late Medieval Art.” Pages 183–202 in Meanings of Community across Medieval Eura-
sia: 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 Bild-
praxis im Mittelalter. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink, 2014.
Reeves, Marjorie, and Beatrice Hirsch-Reich. The Figurae of Joachim of Fiore. Oxford:
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 rifor-
mata. 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 Arci-
vescovile 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 Antiq-
uity. 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: Cam-
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.
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 affi-
nitatis: 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.
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 Husser-
liana 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.
Stroll, Mary. Symbols as Power: The Papacy following the Investiture Contest. BSIH 24.
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, Bern-
hard 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 Fio-
rentina, 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): Norman-
nische 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 Bohe-
miae 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 Specu-
lum humanae salvationis (Kremsmünster, Library of the Convent, Cod. 243).” Pages
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.
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.
1971.
Young, Frances M. Construing the Cross: Type, Sign, Symbol, Word, Action. London: SPCK,
2016.
chapter 13
The Tree of Life in the North

The tree is there in the mental world of the North as well. In the poetry of Gen-
esis, 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 threat-
ened 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,

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 construc-
tion. 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 over-
all 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 seri-
ous 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 understand-
ing 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 him-
self, 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 moun-
tain.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 annihila-
tion,” 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.
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 transforma-
tion 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 verti-
cal 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 Snorri Sturluson, Edda, trans. and ed. Anthony Faulkes, Everyman (London: J.M. Dent), 17.
10 The Poetic Edda, trans. Carolyne Larrington (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 6.
11 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 Uni-
versal 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 struc-
ture, 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 tim-
ber 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 architec-
tural 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 fascina-
12 The English word stave, as in barrel stave, is related; as is the word staff, a pole held in the
hand.
13 Anker, Art of Scandinavia, 377–378.
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 con-
tinued 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 con-
structa 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 famil-
iar 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 every-
thing 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. Boni-
face 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 http://www.fordham.edu/; also in Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica I, 30; and in PL 77: 1215–1216.

16 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 oth-
ers 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.
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 excep-
tionally 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 pre-
ferred 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 Nor-
way, 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 under-
neath 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 Aljos Farjon in his A Natural History of Conifers (Portland, OR: Timber Press, 2008), 208.
18 And in the United States, of course, for baseball bats.
352 murphy
2 The Shape
The resemblance of the roof structure to the cascading branches of an ever-

green 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 cen-
turies 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 par-
allel 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 con-
tributing 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 appear-
19 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.
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. Unfortu-
nately, 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 Anders Bugge, Norwegian Stave Churches (Oslo: Dreyers Forlag, 1953), 13.
21 Poetic Edda, trans. Larrington, 56–57.
354 murphy
figure 13.1 A view of the Borgund church from the west southwest, show-
ing 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
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 orna-
ments 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 Cal-
vary 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 com-
plains 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 “Windy” helps identify the tree as the one on top of which the great eagle fans his wings,
creating the winds, Yggdrasil.
23 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.
24 Poetic Edda, trans. Larrington, 34.
25 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 Commu-
nion. 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,
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 ser-
pents 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 Gun-
nar 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 “The harm of branches” is a kenning for fire, forest fire. Surt is the leader of the fire-giants.
27 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.
28 Excerpted from the Poetic Edda, trans. Larrington, 10–13.
29 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, espe-
cially 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 spec-
tacular. 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 door-
way 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 stand-
ing 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 inappropri-
ately 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,
figure 13.2 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 tradi-
tion of the single deer may also come from a previous stanza in the Grimnis-
mal 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 sim-
ply 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 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.
31 Poetic Edda, trans. Larrington, 55 and n., 270.
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 ham-
mer.
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 drag-
ons 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 inter-
laced branches and leaves, possibly the Tree of Life, Yggdrasil, surrounded
by the clamor of the world.33
33 Bugge, Norwegian Stave Churches, 19.

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 Conti-
nental 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 door-
way 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 Bugge, Norwegian Stave Churches, 24.

35 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 [Remem-
berer 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 real-
ity 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.
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:
Murphy, G. Ronald, S.J., trans. and ed. The Heliand: The Saxon Gospel. Oxford: Oxford
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 pass-
ing 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 ap-
proaches, 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 assump-
tions 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 Jew-
ish and feminist readers take in slightly different directions.
1.1 James Barr

In lectures from 1990, Hebrew Bible scholar James Barr provides a theologically-
engaged 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 (Minneapo-
lis: 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 circum-
stances from which a text emerged and to which it referred, using a varied set of modern

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 prop-
erly historical reading. Barr claims to represent standard historical-critical con-
clusions 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 “spiri-
tual” death or previously inapplicable “physical” death. Instead, physical death
was already expected, and humans never ate from the tree of life. The pun-
ishment 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 Theologi-
cal 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 canon-
ical 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: Black-
well, 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 repre-
sents. 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 wor-
rying 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 Nar-
rative: 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 regard-
ing the Jewish literature.
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 iden-
tify 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 “secular-
ized” 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 writ-
ten 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 Dic-
tionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6:656–660, at 658.d.
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 Gen-
esis 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 numer-
ous others, but interest in the ancient Near Eastern context continues; so do
historical-critical questions about the relation between wisdom and what Gen-
esis 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 con-
cerning 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 Nahum M. Sarna, Understanding Genesis (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 24.

11 Sarna, Understanding Genesis, 27.
12 Sarna, Understanding Genesis, 27.
13 Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 134–139.
14 Danna Nolan Fewell and David M. Gunn, Gender, Power, and Promise: The Subject of the
Bible’s First Story (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), 37.
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 nar-
rative in terms of humanity’s maturing from a childlike-state toward increased
self-consciousness and understanding of differentiation (of the self from com-
munity, as well as sexual difference and moral distinctions). The tree of life rep-
resents 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 knowl-
edge, which represents the ability to discern binary oppositions. This matura-
tion 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 pos-
itively, 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 theo-

logically 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 garner-
ing extensive comment. Literal readings have appeared perennially, but they
gained new forms and vigor in the aftermath of Darwinism, the fundamental-
ist–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 pro-
fessor 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 Lyn M. Bechtel, “Rethinking the Interpretation of Genesis 2.4b–3.24,” in A Feminist Com-

panion to Genesis, ed. Athalya Brenner, FCB 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993),
87.
16 Judith E. McKinlay, “Bothering to Enter the Garden of Eden Once Again,”Feminist Theology
19 (2011): 143–153.
17 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 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 sim-
ply integrates these into theological comments upon a straightforwardly pro-
saic 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 sacra-
mental 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 eter-
nal 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 theologi-
cally 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” treat-
ment 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 symboli-
cally. 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, assum-
ing 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 The Revelation of Jesus Christ: A Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 330–331. He ac-
knowledges 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.”
19 The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 87, 130–131.
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 web-
site for the popular creationist ministry Answers in Genesis raises questions
such as whether Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life (although most liter-
alists 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 proper-
ties 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 distinc-
tive 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 ele-
ment 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 be-
fore 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 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.
21 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]).
und Sünde, Creation and Sin, but Bonhoeffer changed Sin to Fall in the pub-
lished 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 move-
ment, 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 liv-
ing, 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 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1–3, trans. Dou-
glas Stephen Bax, ed. John W. de Gruchy, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works in English 3 (Min-
neapolis: Fortress, 1997). Some details from this paragraph appear in John W. de Gruchy,
“Editor’s Introduction to the English Edition,” 1–17.
23 Letter from Finkenwalde dated January 27, 1936, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works 14:113 (GS 6:367),
quoted in de Gruchy, “Editor’s Introduction,” 5.
24 Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall, 81. Subsequent references to Bonhoeffer’s text appear par-
enthetically.
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 com-
mandment 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), Bonho-
effer 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 knowl-
edge, 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 ser-
pent 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 desir-
ing to be sicut Deus, like God: Strikingly, according to Bonhoeffer, Adam could
only understand the serpent’s deceptive promise in terms of being pious, being-
for-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
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 sub-
volume 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, Gen-
esis 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 [unhistori-
schen] 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 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 par-
enthetically.
26 Presumably referring to published comments, de Gruchy “Editor’s Introduction,” 6, refers
in n. [18.] to CD, III/1, 194–206.
27 The original German is Karl Barth, Die kirchliche Dogmatik, III/1, Die Lehre von der Schöp-
fung (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1980), 87. Hereafter cited in text as KD III/1.
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 addi-
tional 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 gen-
erally 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, choos-
ing 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
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 anthropo-
logical 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 “prover-
bial 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 guar-
antees 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 theolo-
gian 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.
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 com-
plexities aside, the rest of the Bible’s non-literal treatment of these entities pre-
cludes 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 munifi-
cence; 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 wide-
spread 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 wis-
dom” (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 loy-
alty 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 his-
toricity 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 way to the tree of life” as part of executing the announced penalty, remov-
ing 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 espe-
cially Barth, Blocher includes wisdom more positively within his definition of
the life the tree offers, being committed to seeking a canonically unified salva-
tion 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 his-
torical criticism authorizes symbolic freedom by having traced the earlier vari-
ety 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 vari-
ety 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’ inter-
connectedness 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).
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 medi-
cal 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 pres-
ence 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 recogniz-
ing 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 Claire Foster-Gilbert, “Disease, Suffering, and Sin: One Anglican’s Perspective,” Christian
Bioethics 12 (2006): 157–163, at 158.
31 Elizabeth A. Johnson, Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love (London: Bloomsbury,
2014), 205.
32 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 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 associ-
ated 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 associa-
tion 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 wor-
ship 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 par-
adise as complementary symbols that resonate with human experience of the
co-existence of life and death. Ramshaw suggests that we should look for reso-
nances 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 devel-
ops 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 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: Rout-
ledge, 2014), 1–21, at 11.
34 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.
35 Gail Ramshaw, Under the Tree of Life: The Religion of a Feminist Christian (New York: Con-
tinuum, 1998), 30.
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 symbol-
ize 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 repre-
sent proverbs in both the Hebrew Bible and culture, bringing these together
through a “hermeneutics of grafting.” In her work the “ ‘shoots’ from the bib-
lical 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 con-
tained a single tree, the present two-tree Genesis narrative invites reflection
concerning human immortality, God’s life-giving presence, and creaturely wis-
dom.
36 Gordon Lathrop, Holy Ground: A Liturgical Cosmology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 40.
37 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 itali-
cizes the “v” in Eve to distinguish this two-syllable name of an African people group from
the woman’s name Eve.
38 Akoto-Abutiate, Proverbs and the African Tree of Life, 6.
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 limita-
tions. 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 con-
ditional gift and not a natural property.
For most who begin by interpreting Genesis 1–3, the kind of divine pres-
ence 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 “existen-
tialist” flavor. Some historical-critical scholars may explore broader or poly-
theistic 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 con-
cepts. 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 correspond-
ingly 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 imma-
nence; these symbolic uses may well imitate the wisdom texts’ free appeals to
the image. The three theological exegetes, meanwhile, vary concerning wis-
dom. Bonhoeffer’s occasional references define wisdom in terms of accept-
ing 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 commit-
ments 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 rela-
tive presence or absence of other biblical texts correlates strongly with the God-
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 cor-
relation 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 pos-
sible 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
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. Minneapo-
lis: Fortress, 1999.
1993.
Barth, Karl. Die kirchliche Dogmatik, III/1, Die Lehre von der Schöpfung. Zürich: Theolo-
gischer Verlag Zürich, 1980.
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. Trans-
lated 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 Mar-
tin Buber. Edited by Nahum N. Glatzer. New York: Schocken, 1982.
Burnett, Richard E. “Historical Criticism.” Pages 290–293 in Dictionary for Theological

Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Grand Rapids: Baker Aca-
demic, 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.” Chris-
tian Bioethics 12 (2006): 157–163.
Fowl, Stephen E. Engaging Scripture. Challenges in Contemporary Theology. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1998.
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-Inter-
textuelle Interpretation von Apk 21/22.” Pages 206–224 in Weltgericht und Weltvol-
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.
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
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 Ish-
erwood. London: Routledge, 2014.
McKinlay, Judith E. “Bothering to Enter the Garden of Eden Once Again.” Feminist The-
ology 19 (2011): 143–153.
Morris, Henry M. The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the
Book of Beginnings. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976.
Ramshaw, Gail. Under the Tree of Life: The Religion of a Feminist Christian. New York:
Continuum, 1998.
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.
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 par-
adisal 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 master-
less, 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 peo-
ple. 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 long-
established views on the tree of life. For some, a return to the purity of knowl-
edge was the only salvation for humanity. Thus, the tree of life, and wisdom,
was seen as inferior to the thirst for knowledge.

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 fol-
lowers, 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 Im-
agery, Isaiah 50:1–3 and 54:1–10, Hosea 1–3, Jeremiah 2–3. SSN 40. Assen: Van Gorcum,
1999.
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 Nim-
rud.” 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 Alexan-
dre-Bidon. Paris: Cerf 1990.
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. Chi-
cago: 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. Trans-
lated by Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou. FC 123. Washington, DC: Catholic Univer-
sity 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 Art-
historical Interpretation.” Miscellània litúrgica catalana 15 (2007): 59–86.
Aristotle. Poetics. Translated by Stephen Halliwell. LCL 199. Cambridge: Harvard Uni-
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.
Ataç, Mehmet-Ali. The Mythology of Kingship in Neo-Assyrian Art. Cambridge: Cam-
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. Ge-
burtstag 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. Lei-
den: 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 Commem-
orating 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 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 Any-
way?” Pages 243–252 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cul-
tures of Europe, Israel, and North America. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Bernard
M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck, 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 Mod-
ern 22. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Baert, Barbara. “Revisiting Seth in the Legend of the Wood of the Cross: Interdisci-
plinary 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.
Balfour, David, ed. Erga theologika: Agiou Symeon Archiepiskopou Thessalonikes. Thes-
saloniki: 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 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.
64–74.
Barr, James. The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective. Minneapo-
lis: Fortress, 1999.
1993.
Barreveld, W.H. Date Palm Products. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 101. Rome: Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1993.
Barth, Karl. Die kirchliche Dogmatik, III/1, Die Lehre von der Schöpfung. Zürich: Theolo-
gischer 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.
392 bibliography
Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2013.
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.
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 Monar-
chy: 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. Gry-
son. 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.
Billing, Nils. Nut, the Goddess of Life: In Text and Iconography. Uppsala Studies in Egyp-
tology 5. Uppsala: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala Uni-
versity, 2002.
bibliography 393
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.
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: InterVar-
sity, 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 Inter-
pretation 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. Neukir-
chen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1983.
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 Encyclopae-
dia. 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. Trans-
lated 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:
Bourdua, Louise. “I frati Minori al Santo nel Trecento: consulenti, committenti o ar-
tisti?” 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.
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 For-
schungen 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 God-
desses. 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. Kala-
mazoo: Cistercian Press, 1985.
Broek, Roel van den. Myth of the Phoenix according to Classical and Early Christian Tra-
dition. 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.
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 Mar-
tin 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 Aca-
demic, 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.” Troian-
alexandrina 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.
day, 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 Phoe-
nix, 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 Ori-
gins 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-Colum-
bian 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 Cul-
tural History, 2003.
Couliano, Ioan P. The Tree of Gnosis: Gnostic Mythology from Early Christianity to Mod-
ern 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 terri-
torio 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 Loren-
zoni. Edited by Tiziano Franco e Giovanna Valenzano. Padua: Il Poligrafo, 2002.
Cramer, J.A., ed. Catena in Epistolas Catholicas: Accesserunt Œcumenii et Aretha Com-
ment. In Apocalypsin. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1840.
Creach, Jerome F.D. “Like a Tree Planted by the Temple Stream: The Portrait of the Righ-
teous 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: West-
minster 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:
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.
Dauber, Jonathan. Knowledge of God and the Development of Early Kabbalah. SJJTP 18.
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 Uni-
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 Venan-
zio 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.
DiTommaso, Lorenzo. “Penitential Prayer and Apocalyptic Eschatology in Second Tem-
ple 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 Gen-
esis 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
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.
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 Text-
dynamik 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 Lich-
field.” 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. Intro-
duced by John Clifford Holt. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1996.
Ephraem. The Armenian Commentary on Genesis attributed to Ephraem Syrus. Trans-
lated 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. Wash-
ington, 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’immag-
ine 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, Histo-
ries, 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, Uni-
versity 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 Uni-
Fauconnier, Gilles. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Lan-
guage. 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-
works.” Pages 303–372 in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Edited by Dirk Geer-
aerts. 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.” Chris-
tian 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 pre-
sented 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.
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 Reflec-
tions.” 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 liter-
arischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskus-
sion. 2 vols. BBB 94. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995.
Frey, Jean Baptiste. Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum, I. Rome: Città del Vaticano Ponti-
ficio 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 Ham-
madi, 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 Ägyp-
tologie. 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
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 Sym-
bols.” 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. Philadel-
phia: 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.
Good, Edwin M. Genesis 1–11: Tales of the Earliest World. Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 2011.
Grabar, André. Ampoules de Terre Saint (Monza/Bobbio). Paris: Klincksieck, 1958.
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: Contin-
uum, 2010.
Gray, Alison Ruth. Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures: A Reading through Metaphor. BibInt
Graziano, Frank. Wounds of Love: The Mystical Marriage of Saint Rose of Lima. Oxford:
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, Hereford-
shire: 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., Uni-
versità Ca’Foscari, Venezia, 2013–2014.
Gregory of Nazianzus. Five Theological Orations. Edited by A.J. Mason. Cambridge:
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.
(1958): 33–69.
Gruenwald, Ithamar. Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism. 2nd rev. ed. Ancient Juda-
ism and Early Christianity 90. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
pols, 2003.
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
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.
35.
Harmless, William. “Baptism.” Pages 83–91 in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclo-
pedia. 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 Commen-
tary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
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 Ash-
bery. 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 Pro-
gymnasmata. WGRW 31. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2012.
Hogan, Karina Martin. “Mother Earth as a Conceptual Metaphor in 4Ezra.” CBQ 73
(2011): 72–91.
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. Anglo-
Saxon Studies 13. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2010.
Horowitz, Maryanne Cline. Seeds of Virtue and Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton Uni-
Hubbes, László Attila. “Revolution of the Eye: The Spectacular Rhetoric of the Apoc-
alyptic.” 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’Occi-
dente.” Pages 241–290 in L’architettura medievale in Sicilia: La cattedrale di Palermo.
Edited by Angiola Maria Romanini and Antonio Cadei. Rome: Instituto dell’enciclo-
pedia 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. Sin-
tesi 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, 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 Univer-
sity Press, 2017.
Jeremias, Jörg, and Friedhelm Hartenstein. “‘JHWH und seine Aschera’: ‘Offizielle Reli-
gion’ und ‘Volksreligion’ zur Zeit der klassischen Propheten.” Pages 79–138 in Reli-
gionsgeschichte 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 interpretatio-
nis 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. Turn-
hout: 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
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: Bon-
nard, 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 Ren-
contre 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, his-
torischen 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: Vanden-
hoeck & 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: Eisen-
brauns, 1997.
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 Hermo-
genic Corpus. WGRW 15. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.
Kennedy, George A. Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rheto-
ric. WGRW 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.
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-Inter-
textuelle 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 Let-
tres, 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 Paint-
ing 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. Hin-
richs’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 Pro-
fessor 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. Cam-
bridge: 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 Ger-
leman. Edited by Sten Hidal, Bo Johnson, Tryggve N.D. Mettinger, and Stig Norin.
bibliography 409

ter, 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: Cas-
cade, 2006.
Lactantius. Opera 2. Edited by S. Brandt. Vienna: Tempsky, 1893.
Ladner, Gerhart B. “Medieval and Modern Understanding of Symbolism: A Compari-
son.” 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 Chi-
cago Press, 2003.
Lambert of Saint-Omer. Liber floridus. Ghent, Centrale Bibliotheek van de Rijksuniver-
siteit. Before 1121.
Lambert, W.G. “Trees, Snakes, and Gods in Ancient Syria and Anatolia.”BSOAS 48 (1985):
435–451.
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 Miscel-
lanea, 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 Poma-
rici. Rome: Artemide, 2011.
Layton, Bentley. The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and Intro-
ductions. 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. Tüb-
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
Levine, Baruch A., and Jean-Michel de Tarragon. “‘Shapshu Cries Out in Heaven’: Deal-
ing with Snake-Bites at Ugarit.” RB 95 (1988): 481–518.
Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of Califor-
nia Press, 1973–1980.
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 Ish-
erwood. London: Routledge, 2014.
Long, R. James. “Botany.” Pages 401–405 in Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Biblio-
graphical Guide. Edited by F.A.C. Mantello and A.G. Rigg. Washington, DC: Catholic
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 Memo-
rium 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.
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. Univer-
sity Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1987.
Maguire, Henry. Nectar and Illusion: Nature in Byzantine Art and Literature. Oxford:
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 Pales-
tine.” PEQ 117 (1985): 59–68.
Marchini, Lucia. “Great Ryburgh: A Remarkable Anglo-Saxon Cemetery Revealed.” Cur-
rent Archaeology, December 1, 2016.
Marcus, Ralph. “‘Tree of Life’ in Essene Tradition.” JBL 74 (1955): 272.
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 Chris-
tian 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 Testa-
ment 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 The-
ology 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: Claren-
don, 1982.
Mercer, Samuel A.B. The Pyramid Texts in Translation and Commentary. 4 vols. New
York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1952.
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.
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: Uni-
versity of Chicago, 1994.
Mobley, Gregory. The Empty Men: The Heroic Tradition of Ancient Israel. New York: Dou-
bleday, 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
Moses Bar-Kepha. De Paradiso Commentarius. Antwerp: Christophori Plantini, 1569.
Moss, Candida, and Joel Baden. Reconceiving Infertility: Biblical Perspectives on Procre-
ation 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:
Murphy, G. Ronald, S.J., trans and ed. The Heliand: The Saxon Gospel. New York, Oxford:
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 medie-
vale. Perugia: Morlacchi, 2006.
Neumann-Gorsolke, Ute, and Peter Riede, eds. Das Kleid der Erde: Pflanzen in der
Lebenswelt des alten Israel. Stuttgart: Calwer, 2002.
Nickelsburg, George W.E. 1Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1Enoch. Hermeneia.
Edited by Klaus Baltzer. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.
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.
Noga-Banai, Galit, and Linda Safran. “A Late Antique Silver Reliquary in Toronto.” Jour-
nal of Late Antiquity 4 (2011): 3–30.
Nogalski, James. “The Day(s) of YHWH in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 192–213 in The-
matic 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.
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.
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 Eura-
sia: 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. Hin-
richs, 1899.
Orlov, Andrei A. Heavenly Priesthood in the Apocalypse of Abraham. Cambridge: Cam-
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.
JANER 14 (2014): 117–128.
brauns, 2018.
Oshima, Takayoshi. The Babylonian Theodicy. SAACT 9. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013.
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.
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.
chen Ursprung der Paradieserzählung (Gen 2,4b–3,24), Teil I: Analyse.” ZAW 112
(2000): 487–500.
416 bibliography
chen Ursprung der Paradieserzählung (Gen 2,4b–3,24), Teil II: Prägende Tradition
Pfnür, Vinzenz. “Das Kreuz: Lebensbaum in der Mitte des Paradiesgartens: Zur Bedeu-
tung der christlichen Kreuzessymbolik.” Pages 203–222 in Garten des Lebens: Fest-
schrift 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. Cam-
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 Re-
search, 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. Cam-
Popenoe, Paul. The Date Palm. Miami, FL: Field Research Projects, 1973.
Porter, Barbara Nevling. “Sacred Trees, Date Palms, and the Royal Persona of Ashur-
nasirpal 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 Sume-
rian Agriculture 6. Cambridge: Sumerian Agricultural Group, 1992.
Preisinger, Raphaèle. Lignum vitae: Zum Verhältnis materieller Bilder und mentaler Bild-
praxis im Mittelalter. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink, 2014.
Presley, Stephen O. The Intertextual Reception of Genesis 1–3 in Irenaeus of Lyons. BAC 8.
Brepols, 1985.
Pritchard, James B., ed. The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament.
2nd 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. Philadel-
phia: 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 Apoc-
ryphon of John.” Pages 27–45 in Hidden Truths from Eden: Esoteric Readings of Gen-
esis 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.
Reeder, Caryn A. Gendering War and Peace in the Gospel of Luke. Cambridge: Cambridge
Reeves, Marjorie, and Beatrice Hirsch-Reich. The Figurae of Joachim of Fiore. Oxford:
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 rifor-
mata. 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 Arci-
vescovile 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 Ham-
madi 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 Antiq-
uity. 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 Priest-
hood 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: Cam-
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.
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.
Sarton, George. “The Artificial Fertilization of Date-Palms in the Time of Ashur-nasir-
pal 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 affi-
nitatis: 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, com-
mittenza 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 Husser-
liana 66. Dordrecht: Springer, 2000.
Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. ICC. New York: Scrib-
ner, 1930.
420 bibliography
Smalley, Stephen S. The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apoc-
alypse. 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: Hendrick-
son, 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.
Stone, Michael E. A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve. SBL EJL 3. Atlanta: Schol-
ars 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. Lei-
den: 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
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 Sec-
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 Christian-
ity 106. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
Stovell, Beth M. “Who’s King? Whose Temple? Divine Presence, Kingship, and Con-
tested 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 Iconogra-
phy 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.
Stroll, Mary. Symbols as Power: The Papacy following the Investiture Contest. BSIH 24.
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. Prince-
ton: 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, Bern-
hard 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. Tüb-
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentary on Psalms 1–81. Edited and translated by R.C. Hill.
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
Theophilus of Antioch. Ad Autolycum. Edited by Robert M. Grant. OECT. Oxford:
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 Fio-
rentina, 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 Post-
Biblical 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: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000.
Uhlig, Siegbert. Das äthiopische Henochbuch. JSHRZ 5. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Ver-
lagshaus, 1984.
Ungnad, Arthur. “Die Paradiesbäume.” ZDMG 79 (1925): 111–118.
Ungruh, Christine. Das Bodenmosaik der Kathedrale von Otranto (1163–1165): Norman-
nische 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.
Vilímková, Milada. “Seven Hundred Years of the Old-New Synagogue.” Judaica Bohe-
miae 5 (1969): 72–83.
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.
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.
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 Publish-
ers, 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 Altmesopota-
mien.” 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 Mar-
riage and the Sacred Tree.” VT 46 (1996): 515–529.
Weiss, Andrea. “Figures of Speech: Biblical Hebrew.” In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Lan-
guage 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. Min-
neapolis: 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.
(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 Aca-
demic, 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 ‘Lebensbaum’ in der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik.” Pages 57–88 in
… Bäume braucht man doch! Das Symbol des Baumes zwischen Hoffnung und Zer-
störung. 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 & Ru-
precht, 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.
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. Shef-
field: Sheffield Academic, 2001.
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 Cam-
bridge History of the Bible. Edited by James Carleton Paget and Joachim Schaper.
Press, 2013.
Ancient Sources Index
Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Adapa myth/story 7 Great Cairo Hymn of Praise to Amun-Re

17, 19, 26
Babylonian-Assyrian Antiquities
11 Great Hymn to Osiris 18, 18n50, 18n52, 26
Babylonian Theodicy 116 Great Hymn to the Aten

17n45
Berliner Ptahhymnus
pBerlin 3048 16n44 Hymn to Ptah 16, 26
Book of the Dead 19–20, 20n54, 21, Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld
21n64, 46 10, 11, 27
Spell 52 19, 50n45
Spell 59 21, 50n45 Instruction of Amenemope
Spell 68 50n45 4.6.1–12 112–113
Spell 152 22
Spell 168A 22n66 Khirbet el-Qom inscriptions
Spell 189 22n66 25–26
Spell 359 21
Spell 467 21 Kuntillet ʿAjrud inscriptions
Spell 547 21 25–26
Coffin texts 20 Nimrud reliefs 52–59
Constantinople Pyramid Texts 20, 21, 27, 47, 63

Nr. 2828 11
Stele of Amenmose 18
Descent of Ishtar to the Underworld
10n24, 15 Ugaritic Liturgy against Venomous Reptiles
Rs 24.244 24n69
Enki and Ninhursag myth
8, 8n18 Utukkū Lemnūtu incantations
15, 122–129 116, 117
Epic of Gilgamesh viii, 12, 15, 15n40, 27,
93, 366, 368
Old Testament [Septuagint]
Genesis 32, 184–186, 197, 208, 1–3 252, 254, 264, 365–
218, 219, 222, 252, 370, 372–379, 382
259, 368, 380 1:1 375
1–2 136, 236, 244, 377 1:1–2 373
428 ancient sources index
Genesis (cont.) 3:22 7, 76, 84, 86–88, 91,

1:1–2:3 378 92, 93, 95, 96, 184n4,
1:26–27 224 185, 194, 210, 217, 369,
2 84, 245, 246, 375 371, 373
2–3 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 3:22–24 43, 75, 80, 86, 87, 95,
22, 23, 24, 24n70, 26, 236
27, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 3:23 86–88, 96, 241
86, 90, 95–96, 107, 3:23–24 76, 174, 241
118 3:24 76, 86–87, 88, 95, 96,
2:4 74n1, 375 169, 184n4, 185, 194,
2:4–3:24 123, 126, 128 242, 243
2:5 88 4 89
2:7 85, 86, 88, 89, 159, 4:1 373
224 6:3 90
2:8 76, 88, 217 8:9 92
2:8–17 373 12:6 46n34
2:9 7, 19, 74, 75, 76, 77, 13:18 46n34
80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 95, 14:13 46n34
96, 152, 174, 184n4, 18:1 46n34, 63n96
185, 194, 197, 236, 19:10 92
237, 240, 242, 244, 30:2 103
371 30:37–41 63n96
2:9–10 287, 377 49:21 225
2:10 179
2:10–3:21 95 Exodus
2:15 76, 88 1:7 91
2:16 90, 94 1:10 91
2:16–17 81, 84, 378 3:1–5 63n96
2:17 76, 81, 83, 86, 88, 89, 3:20 92
90, 96 6:1 86
2:19–20 85 9:15 92
2:21 85 15:25 245
2:22 84 20:5 274
2:23 85 24:4 82
2:23–24 85, 90 25:31–40 206, 290
3 15n40, 136, 229, 233, 27:20 206
274, 371, 380 30:1–20 129
3:3 77, 80, 81, 83, 86, 95, 30:33 103
371
3:4–5 83 Leviticus
3:5 83 19:26 191n41
3:6 83, 85 24:2 206
3:8 90 26:4 83
3:9 239
3:15 258n32 Deuteronomy
3:16 85, 371 16:21 24, 237n7
3:17–19 86, 88, 143 17:17 239
3:18–19 76 18:10 191n41
3:19 89, 90
ancient sources index 429
Joshua 1 Chronicles
24:26 63n96 2:23 82n28
24:26–27 46n34 28:1 82n28
29:21 82n28
Judges
4:5 63n96 2 Chronicles
6:25 24 21:4 82n28
9:7–21 103n14 33:6 191n41
9:37 63n96, 269n62
Ezra
1Samuel 8:5 82n28
6:11 81
7:3 82 Nehemiah
13:19 91 13:15 82n28
13:22 91
15:23 191n41 Job
31:13 63n96 1–2 88
1:11 92
2Samuel 2:5 92
6:14–15 104n15
11:1 82n28 Psalms 382
11:8 88 1 100n3, 110–113,
12:26–28 91n57 130n14
15:1–6 88 1:1–4 100n2
15:5 92 1:3 100, 111, 112, 206, 217,
24 88 226, 231
1:4 112
1Kings 2 111n37
2:37 95 23:6 107n27
5:9 82n28 36 111
6:23 114 36:9 377
6:29 59, 114, 117 37 100n3
6:29–35 59 37:35 100, 115
6:32 59, 114 46:5 111
6:35 59 52 100n3, 113, 114
8 104n15 52:7 113
16:33 24 52:9 113
19:5 63n96 52:9–10 100n2
22 88 52:10 100, 113
73:1–13 115
2Kings 91:13 259n38
1 94 92 100n3, 114–118
17:17 191n41 92:6 100n2, 114
18:3–8 63 92:13 100, 115, 117
21:6 191n41 92:13–16 100n2, 115, 118
22:2–9 63 92:14 117
23:1–27 63 96:12 100
23:4 63 104 17, 100n3
104:13–15 143n18
Psalms (cont.) Jeremiah

104:14–16 81n24 2:13 247
104:16–17 100, 117 11:16 103n14
105 100n3 17:5–8 103n14, 112, 113
17:7 111
Proverbs 367n4, 377, 379, 382 17:8 231
1–3 114 17:10 103
3:2 107n27 23:5–6 103n14
3:13 106 50:16 82n28
3:13–18 106
3:15 106 Lamentations
3:16 106 2:6 129
3:17 106 3:61 82n28
3:17–18 100n2, 105–106
3:18 7, 105–108, 111n36, Ezekiel 185n8, 186, 191, 197,
113n43, 126, 174, 200, 208
184n4, 206, 225– 1 221
227, 232, 241, 368, 3:18 94
380 6:13 46n34
3:19–20 106 17 130
11:28 107, 115 17:1–24 103n14, 114
11:30 107, 113n43, 115, 19:10–14 103n14, 114
184n4 28 118n51
11:30–31 100n2, 105 28:1–19 174
13:12 100n2, 105, 108, 28:13–14 117, 174
113n43, 184n4 28:16 175, 180
13:12–14 108 31 117, 118n51
15:1–2 109 31:1–12 114
15:4 100n2, 105, 108, 113, 31:2–9 174
184n4 31:3 130
31:3–9 103n14
Ecclesiastes 31:6 177
2:4–6 81n24 33:8 94
3:9–22 143n18 33:14 94
47 186n10
Isaiah 382 47:6–12 174, 175
2:11–13 103n14 47:7 184n6, 194
5 171 47:12 175, 184n6, 196, 210
5:2 227
6:10 254, 274 Daniel 191
10:33–34 103n14 4 130
11:1 103n14 4–12 (HB) 103n14
11:1–3 297, 301
14 130 Zechariah
41:8 103 4 206
60:13 117 4:2 206
65:22 241 4:3 291
4:12–14 103n14
Deuterocanonical Books
2Esdras (4 Ezra) 136, 144, 159, 368 8.4 138

1–2 142, 144 8.7 138
1.1–23 142 8.7–9 138
1.24–40 142 8.7–12 138
1.28–30 142 8.10 138
1.34 142 8.12 138
1.37 142 8.13 138
1.38 142 8.14–15 138
2 137, 143, 160 8.16 138, 161
2.1 142 8.17–18 138
2.1–2 142 8.19 138
2.1–4 143n16 8.19–36 156
2.1–9 143 8.24 138
2.2–17 141–142 8.37–40 139
2.2 143 8.41 139
2.3 143, 144 8.41–45 139, 161
2.4 142, 143 8.42–45 139
2.10 143 8.44 139
2.10–14 143 8.45 139
2.11 128 8.46–51 161
2.12 124, 134, 137, 143, 8.46–62 139
184n7, 194 8.47 139
2.13 143 8.49 140
2.14 143 8.49–55 137
2.15 143, 144 8.50 140
2.17 144 8.50–52 183n1
4.5–9 150 8.51 139–140
5.35–38 150 8.52 134, 176, 137, 139, 140,
6.35 137 184n7, 194, 241n21
6.38–54 137 8.52–53 124
6.55–59 137 8.53–54 140
7 141 8.56–57 141
7.10–18 137 8.60 141
7.26–44 138 8.62 141
7.36–37 138 9.25 137
7.75 138 15–16 144
7.75–101 138
7.102–131 138 Wisdom of Solomon 366
7.123 176
7.132–140 138 Sirach
8 137–138, 147, 149, 157, 19:19 184n5, 206, 210
160, 161 24:12–17 173
8.1–3 138
Pseudepigrapha
Apocalypse of Elijah 9.16–17 140

4.1 156 9.16–18 125, 130
4.4–6 156
5 154, 157 1 Enoch 191
5.1–6 154 1–5 166
5.1–14 155 2.1 166
5.2–6 155 3.1 167
5.6 134, 154, 159, 194 5 174
5.7–14 155 5.1 167
5.11 156, 158 5.4 166
5.13 159 5.8–9 172
5.9 169
Apocalypse of Moses 6–8 167
19.2 194 8.3 167
22.4 128, 194 9–11 167
28.2 184n7 10 172
28.2–4 194 10.16 167
28.4 184n7 10.17 169
10.18 167
Apocalypse of Sedrach 10.18–19 172
2.2 151 10.19 167
3 151 12–36 167, 177
3–4 157 14 168
3.4–5 151 17–19 167
3.6 151 18 171
3.8 151 18.6 172
4 150, 151, 152, 153 18.6–19.2 177
4.1 151 18.8 167
4.1–5 151 20.7 156
4.2 151, 152 21–27 177
4.3 151, 152, 158 21–36 167
4.4 134, 152, 158 23.1 167
5 160 24–25 123, 166, 168, 170, 171
7 152, 153, 157, 161 24–26 184n7
7.6–9 151, 152, 153 24.1 167, 175
7.7–8 153n37 24.2 167, 175
8 150, 153 24.3 167, 171, 180
9 152, 153, 157 24.3–4 197n67
9.2 153 24.3–25.6 166
9.2–3 151 24.4 123, 168, 175, 194, 197
9.3 152 24.4–5 195n53
24.5 167
3Baruch 201 25.1 168
25.1–5 241
4Baruch 25.3 167
9 viii 25.4 168, 170, 180
9.16 194, 197 25.4–5 128–129, 168, 175
25.5 167, 168, 210 4 149

25.6 169, 170 4–5 144, 149
26.1 168 5 147, 148, 149, 151, 157,
27.4 168 160, 161
30.2–3 168 5.1–28 147–148
31.3 168 5.2 161
32 171, 172, 177 5.2–3 148
32.4 168 5.3 160
70.3 170 5.4 148
5.4–5 160
2Enoch 5.9 149, 160
3–37 177 5.12 149, 161
7–10 177 5.12–19 161
8.1 176 5.14 149
8.3 124, 125, 175, 180, 5.20 158
184n7 5.20–21 161
8.3–4 194, 195n53 5.20–23 147
8.3–7 166 5.21 134, 144, 158
8.4 176 5.22 156
8.8 176, 177 5.23 149
9.1 176, 180 5.27 149
10 176
10.4 177 Syriac Apocalypse of Ezra
18 177 144
18.1 177
18.7 177 Jubilees 241
40.10–11 149n28 1:29 140
3Enoch Life of Adam and Eve 294

5.1 125, 166, 178, 180, 194 9:3 124
5.5 179 19:2 126
5.10–12 179 22:4 126, 127
23.18 166, 178, 179, 180, 194 28:3–4 127
48D.8 166, 179, 194 29:3 129
29:6 129
Ethiopic Apocalypse of Ezra
144 Life of Adam and Eve (Armenian)
28:3 127
Greek Apocalypse of Ezra
1 145 Life of Adam and Eve (Georgian)
1.12–24 145 28:3 128
1.12–2.17 145–146
2 145, 146, 148, 153, 158, 4 Maccabees
160 18:16 184n5
2.11–14 134, 144 18:16–18 126
2.13 147
2.16 153 Odes of Solomon
2.16–17 160 11:15 124
2.17 147
Parables of Enoch 150n31 Testament of Levi

18:11 129, 210
Psalms of Solomon 18:12 259n38
14.2 206
14.3 194, 220 Testament of Simeon
6:6 259n38
Pseudo-Philo
Biblical Antiquities Visio Beati Esdrae 144, 147
11.15 124, 125, 194
Revelatio Esdras de qualitatibus anni

144
Dead Sea Scrolls
1QHa (Hodayot) 11Q10 (Targum of Job)

XVI, 5–6 194, 196, 197n67 28:7 126
4Q385 (Pseudo-Ezekiel) 11Q19 (Temple Scroll)

2 241n21 29:8–9 140n12
4Q458 (Narrative A)
1, 1:18–19 130
Ancient Jewish Writers
Philo 252n12 Allegorical Interpretation 3

Allegorical Interpretation 1 52 236, 238, 239, 242
31–32 246 107 236, 239
35 246 On Flight and Finding
48–52 237n7 58–61 246
56 237 78 246
56–58 242 97 247
56–59 236–238, 244, 245 197f 247
57 237 On Giants
58 237 14 247
59 194, 197n67, 205n101, On Planting
237, 238 36–37 244
60 238 36–45 236, 244–245
60–61 236, 237 38 244
61 205n101, 238 38–39 244
90 238n10 40–42 244
97 238n10 43–45 244
100 238n10 44 244–245
101 238n10 44–45 238, 244
108 238n10 45 245
46 245
On the Change of Names On the Posterity of Cain

213–214 246 9 246
223 247 45 246
On the Cherubim 68 246
1 236, 243–244 69 246
On the Contemplative Life On the Preliminary Studies
13 246 87 247
On the Creation of the World On the Special Laws 1
30 246 31 246
151 242 345 247
151–152 242 On the Special Laws 2
151–156 242–243 262 246
153 242 On the Special Laws 4
154 198n73, 201n88, 123 246
205n99, 242–243 169 247
155 243 On the Virtues
156 243, 245 177 246
157–167 243 204–205 246
172 246 Questions and Answers on Genesis 1
On Dreams 1 8 236
34 246 9 240
148 247 9–10 240–241
On Dreams 2 9–11 236
70 236, 245–246 10 196, 236, 240, 242–
On the Embassy to Gaius 243
192 246 11 238n10
On the Life of Abraham 54–57 236
6 246 55 236, 241–242
84 246 57 241–242
271 246 That the Worse Attacks the Better
On the Migration of Abraham 84 246
34–35 245 Who Is the Heir?
36 245 42–49 247
36–37 236, 245 290 246
37 245 292 246
New Testament
Matthew Luke
7:19 227 6:43–45 227
15:13 227 10:19–20 259n38
16:18 194n50 17:20 227
25 177 22:18–20 325
25:34 143 23:31 207
23:34 225
Mark 23:43 227
4:32 382
14:22–25 325
John 1:10 189

3:3 194n50 1:12–13 206–207
4:10 207 1:12–20 193
6:51 207 1:20 206–207
6:57 207 2:1 206–207
8:12 287 2:7 7, 180, 184n4, 185,
14:6 297 209, 230, 231, 232,
15:1–5 382 312, 315, 371
15:5 305 2:8 217
19:33–34 355 3:5 192
3:20 198n71
Acts 4:5 206–207
5:29–30 ix 5:1–9 192
5:30 207 9:17 189
16:16–18 191n41 10:9–10 192
11:4 206–207
Romans 18:12 207
7:4–12 263 21–22 380, 382
16:20 259n38 21:1 183n1
21:10 194
1Corinthians 21:11–22 194
3:12 207 21:23 206
11:23–25 325 21:23–27 194–195
22:2 7, 184n4, 185, 186, 193,
2Corinthians 200, 209, 210, 217,
12:2 176 229, 230, 232, 313,
12:4 176 371, 382
22:2–3 125
Galatians 22:3 200
3:13 207 22:7 189
22:10 189
Revelation 184–186, 188, 193, 194, 22:14 180, 184n4, 185, 200,
379 209, 210, 230
1 192 22:18–19 189
1:1 183n3, 189 22:19 180, 184n4, 185, 209
1:3 189
Rabbinic and Medieval Jewish Works
Alphabet of Ben Sira Talmud

78 160 b. Arak.
15b 206
Genesis Rabbah 239 b. Ber.
Gen 3:22–24 128 32b 206
34b 179
Gnostic Texts
Acts of Andrew 281 24.13–15 255

24.15–16 255
Acts of Peter 253n15 24.16–25 255
24.26–25.16 255
Apocalypse of Peter 29.6 254n18
76.4–8 249n2
81.10–21 249n3 Apocryphon of John (NHC III 1)
249, 250, 253
Apocryphon of John (BG 8502 2) 30.17–21 255n20
253 31.8–9 255n21
60.19–61.7 255n20
62.6–7 255n21 Apocryphon of John (NHC IV 1)
249, 250, 253
Apocryphon of John (NHC II 1)
249, 250, 253–256, Book of Thomas
260, 267n52, 270n64, 142.14–15 249n2
275–276
4.26–5.11 255n19 Gospel of Mary 253n14
10.18 255n19
13.19–20 254n18 Gospel of Philip (II 3) 249, 250, 261–264,
19.10–21.10 253 266, 276
21.6–9 253 55.6–22 261
21.13–14 253 55.23–36 264
21.15 259n37 71.21–72.4 261
21.16–22.8 253–254 71.27 262
21.16–22.9 262n45 71.28–34 262
21.24–22.2 249 72.1–4 262
22.5 259n37 73.8–74.12 262
22.9 254, 255 73.9–15 249n3
22.12–14 255 73.15–19 262, 266
22.13–14 254 73.17–19 249, 268
22.16–17 259n37 73.19 262
22.19–25 254 73.21–22 262
22.22 254n18 74.2 263
22.27–28 254 74.3–4 263
22.28 259n37 74.4 264
22.30 254 74.5–12 263
22.31 259n37 74.14 264
23.3 254n18 74.16–24 258n33, 264
23.7–8 254 75.2–14 261n43
23.9 254 75.3–9 263
23.10–22 254–255 77.15–31 264
23.23–26 255 83.3–5 249
23.26–31 255
23.32–33 255 Gospel of Thomas
24.4–8 255 36.17–25 249
24.9–12 255 39.34 259n38
Gospel of Thomas (cont.) 93.22–27 256n26

40.23–25 249n2 93.25–26 256
40.31–33 249n2 93.24–25 258
93.28–29 258
Gospel of Truth 261 94.21–22 256
18.24–26 249n3 95.5 256
20.23–21.2 249n3 96.12 256n26
96.14 256, 258
Interpretation of Knowledge (XI 1) 96.19–22 258
261 96.24 258
96.25–27 258
Letter of Peter to Philip 96.33 259n37
139.15–22 249n3 96.33–97.4 256
97.1–3 258
Melchizedek 249, 258n34, 258– 97.2–4 268
259, 260 97.5–9 258
1.1–14.15 259 97.6–7 259n38
6.22–7.6 259 97.10–13 258
8.22–9.27 259 97.13–21 258
9.28–10.5 259 97.18–19 256n26
14.15–18.11 259
18.11–27.10 259 On Anointing (NHC XI 2a)
259n38
Nature of the Rulers 249, 255n21, 256–
258, 260, 267n52, On the Origin of the World (NHC II 5)
270n64, 274n69, 276 249, 250, 255n21,
86.30–31 256 267–273, 274n69, 276
87.22–23 256n26 97.24–98.11 267
88.2 256n26 98.11–123.2 267
88.10–11 256n26 110.2 267
88.12 257 110.3–6 267
88.13–16 257 110.8–9 267
88.15 257 110.10–12 267
88.33–89.3 257 110.14–19 131
88.35 256n26 110.19–20 268
89.3–11 257 110.26 268
89.11 257 110.27–29 268
89.11–13 270 110.31–111.1 268
89.11–17 257 111.2–8 249, 262n45
89.15 260 111.3–5 268
89.19–28 257 111.6–7 268
89.31–90.12 257 112.13 268
90.2 257 112.18–22 268
90.6–10 257–258 112.25–29 268
90.11–12 258 112.34–113.1 268
90.13–17 258 113.8 269
91.2 256 113.9–10 269
91.5–7 258 113.12–14 269
91.7–11 258 113.15 269
113.17–19 269 On the Origin of the World (NHC XIII 2)

113.19–20 269 249, 250
113.22–33 269 103.21 259n38
113.33–34 269 121.7–13 259
113.35–114.1 269
114.3–4 269 Pistis Sophia
114.3–5 269 99:246 131
115.1 269 134:354 131
115.4 269
115.5 269 Second Discourse of Great Seth
115.11–12 269 56.34–57.1 259n38
115.11–14 269 58.22–28 249n3
115.15 269
115.19–22 269 Teachings of Silvanus (NHC VII 4)
115.25–31 270 249, 262–263,
116.3–4 270 263n46, 264, 266,
116.5–8 270 276
116.13 270 85.10–11 259n38
116.14–21 270 86.4–6 259n38
116.21–25 270 94.20–24 263
116.24–25 270n63 94.25–27 263
116.26–28 270 94.31–32 263
116.28–29 257n28, 270 106.21–30 263
116.33–117.4 270 107.8–14 259n38
117.2,11 259n37 107.17–19 263
117.4–7 270
117.13 270 Testimony of Truth 249, 250, 273–275,
117.18–24 270 276
117.24–28 271 30.2–17 275
117.28–118.2 259n37, 269 32.18–21 274n70
118.2–3 271 33.24–34.7 274n70
118.5–6 271 34.26–37.9 274–275n70
118.6–9 271 45.27–28 274
118.20–24 271 45.31–46.6 274
118.25–119.7 271 46.16–27 274
119.11–18 271 47.5–6 274
120.3–6 272 47.10–14 274
120.10–17 258, 272 47.15–16 274
120.18 272 47.16–17 274
120.26–121.5 272 47.18–23 274
121.7–13 272 47.23–30 274
121.23–27 272 47.30–48.1 274
121.28–35 272 48.2–4 274
123.2–31 267 48.4–7 274
123.4–15 272 48.8–13 274
123.15–24 272 48.13–15 274
123.31–127.17 267 50.3–5 273n68
124.33–125.7 273 50.5–9 273n68
55.4–10 274–275n70
Testimony of Truth (cont.) 107.7–8 265

55.7–10 273n66, 274–275n70 107.29–31 265
69.7–14 274–275n70 107.30–31 265
70.4–9 274n70 107.36–39 265
70.9–24 274n70 107.36–108.4 265
114.20–21 265n50
Treatise of the Resurrection (NHC I 4) 117.6–7 265n50
261 118.14–122.12 266
122.16–17 265
Tripartite Tractate 249, 261, 264–266, 122.23–24 265
268 128.21–129.14 265
51.15–19 249n2 128.33 265
66.16 265n50 128.35 265
66.22–23 265n50 129.6–7 265
66.28 265n50
74.10–13 249 Valentinian Exposition (NHC XI 2)
85.30 265n50 261
104.4–108.12 264
106.28–29 265n51 Wisdom of Jesus Christ
107.1–7 265 253n15
Early Christian Writings
Ambrose of Milan Enarrations on the Psalms

Exposition 229
1.35–44 227
On Paradise Barnabas
1.5 224 8.5 207
5.28–29 224
7.35 224 Basil of Caesarea
De Invidia (Homily) 229
Andrew of Caesarea
Commentary on the Apocalypse Bede, Venerable
197, 205, 232 Commentary on Genesis
222
Apringius Ecclesiastical History
Treatise on the Apocalypse 1.30 350n15
1.543–550 230 On the Apocalypse 197
7.557–565 230 26.429–439 232
PL
Arethas of Caesarea 77.1215–1216 350n15
Commentary on the Apocalypse
2.7 232 Bonaventure
22.2 232 Journey of the Mind to God
318n
Augustine Hymn on the Holy Cross 318n
On Genesis Literally Interpreted The Tree of Life 302, 312, 317–320,
8.5.9–11 220 322–328, 331–332
The Book of the Mysteries of Heaven and 2.22 222

Earth 2.23 222
26 221 2.34 222–223
Caesarius of Arles 231 Epiphanius of Salamis

PL Panarion
2451 231 26 250n4
Sermons
103 231 Eusebius of Caesarea 227
PG
Cassiodorus 231 23, 77 226
Complexions
32.11–13 231 Evagrius Ponticus
Propositions on Knowledge
Chromatius of Aquileia 5.69 207
Sermons
35.8 226 Firmicus Maternus
On the Error of Profane Religions
1Clement 27.1 219
23.4 207
Gregory of Nazianzus
Commemoratorium 230 Orations
29.20 218
Cyril of Jerusalem
Catechetical Lectures Gregory of Nyssa 218, 225, 226
13.31 218 Patrologia Graeca
23 226
Diodore of Tarsus 77 226
Commentary on Psalms 1–51 Patrologia Latina
228 9 226
254–256 226
Diognetus On the Making of Man
12.3–5 218 18 220
On Paradise 226
Dream of the Rood 294 On Virginity
24 225
Ephraem Syrus
Armenian Commentary on Genesis Heiland 345–346, 350, 355,
223 356
Commentary on the Diatessaron Songs 65–66 346n6
1.18–19 223
21.25 223 Hilary of Poitiers
Commentary on Genesis Homilies on the Psalms
35.2 222 1.14 207
35.3 222 PL
Hymns on the Crucifixion 9, 254–256 226–227
9.2 223
Hymns on Paradise
2.17 222
Hippolytus of Rome Lactantius

Refutation of all Heresies Phoenix
5.23–28 250n4 1–24 229
5.26.5 219
Liber Floridus 290n25
Hugh of Saint Victor
Noah’s Ark 297n Mirror of Human Salvation
319n10
Irenaeus of Lyons
Against Heresies 260 Nicholas Eirenikos
1.29–30 250n4, 253 Wedding Poem 301
3.11.9 261
5.17.1 219 Oecumenius
Commentary on the Apocalypse
Isidore of Seville 197, 199, 201, 203,
The Etymologies (or Origins) 207, 208
321 2.7 232
22.2 232
Jacobus de Voragine
Golden Legend 294 Origen
Against Celsus
Jacopone da Todi 6.24–28 250n4
Praise Song 328 Commentary on Romans
5.9.3 207
Jerome First Principles
Commentary on Psalm 1 4.2.4 217
180 220 Homilies on Joshua
Homilies 7.1 191
9–10 196, 197 On Prayer
Homily on Psalm 1 10 225
8–9 229
Primasius
John Chrysostom On the Apocalypse
On Genesis 1.2 231
13 220 5.22 231
PG
53 218 Pseudo-Chrysostom
110 218 Easter Homily 281n
John Damascene Pseudo-Cyprian

On the Orthodox Faith Easter Song (Tree of Life)
2.23 221 281
Justin Romanus the Melodist

Dialogue with Trypho Genuine Hymns 224
86 205, 207
Rufinus
On the Patriarchal Blessings
2.24 225
Tertullian Tyconius
Against the Jews Commentary on the Apocalypse
13.11 226 231
Theodore of Mopsuestia Ubertino da Casale

Commentary on Psalms 1–81 The Tree of the Crucified Life of Jesus
228 328
Theodoret of Cyrus Venantius Fortunatus

Questions In Honor of the Holy Cross
26 219 280, 283
Theophilus of Antioch 223 Victorinus of Petau

To Autolycus On the Apocalypse 230
2.25–27 219
Greco-Roman Literature
Aelius Theon Demetrius

Preliminary Exercises On Style
118 187 291 194n50
119 187, 188
Hermogenes
Aphthonius the Sophist Preliminary Exercises
Preliminary Exercises 22 187
37R 187, 188
Longinus
Aristotle On the Sublime
Homeric Questions 15 187
175 237 17.3 200
Poetics
1457b7–32 89 Macrobius
1460b8 187 Commentary on the Dream of Scipio
189
Artemidorus
The Interpretation of Dreams Nicolaus the Sophist
1.1 190, 191 Preliminary Exercises
1.2 190, 200 68 187
1.5 189, 192, 194 69 188
1.27 202
1.29 204 Plato
1.73 210 Republic
4.24 204 2.378d 237
5.3 204 Republic (NHC VI 5)
50.27–28 259n38
Cicero
Concerning Divination Pliny the Elder
1.6 189 Natural History 301
Plutarch Quintilian
Artaxerxes Institutes of Oratory
8.1 195n53 2.17.21 194
8.3.88 187
Other Primary Texts
Edda 347, 353, 356–358, Rig Veda 9

360, 363
Zohar Leviticus
Qur’an 5 34b 206
2:34–36 9
7:19–22 9
Hebrew and Greek Word Index
‫ אדם‬84, 85 ‫ צמח‬80n24
‫ אדמה‬89, 93
‫ אישׁ‬85 ‫ רוח‬90
‫ אל‬81
‫ ארך ימים‬27 ‫ שׂטן‬92
‫ אשׁה‬84, 85 ‫ שׁלום‬106, 108
‫ אשׁרי‬106, 111 ‫ שׁלח‬86, 87
‫ אשׁרה‬24, 25
‫ תוך‬82
–‫ ב‬82, 83 ‫ תולדות‬74
‫ באה‬108n29
‫ ביום‬94 ἀγαθότητα 240
‫ ברך‬111 ἀλληγορικός 190, 191, 198, 199, 202–208, 209
‫ בשׂר‬90 ἄλσος 24
‫ בתוך הגן‬74, 77, 81–83, 84, 95 ἄνωθεν 194n50
ἀποκάλυψις 189
‫ גם‬93
‫ גרשׁ‬86 δένδρον 24, 167
‫ יד‬92 ἔκφρᾰσις 187, 188, 195, 197, 209

εἰκονοποιός 187
‫ החיים‬7 ἐξουσία 170
ἐνάργεια 195, 209
‫ חכם‬107n28 ἐνύπνιον 189
‫ חמס‬107n28 εὐσεβεία 240
‫ לעולם‬76 ζωή 287
‫ מאשׁר‬106 θεωρημᾰτικός 189–190, 191, 198, 199–202, 209

‫ מות תמות‬88, 93–94 θρόνος 167
‫ מחלה־לב‬108
‫ מכל עץ הגן‬90 κέδρος 115n45
κοσμικός 190
‫ נטע‬80n24
‫ נשׁמת חיים‬89–90 μεταφορά 199
μεταφορικός 202–204
‫ פלג‬111
ὄνειρος 189
‫ עבד אדמה‬89 ὅρᾱμα 189, 190n35, 194, 209
‫ עפר‬89, 90, 93 ὅρᾱσις 189, 190n35, 194, 209
‫ עץ‬83
‫ עץ החיים‬5, 7 ξύλον 196–197, 207
‫ עץ חיים‬100 ξύλον ζωῆς 196
‫ פן‬91 παράνομος 108n28

πέτρα 194n50
446 hebrew and greek word index
πνεῦμα 189 συμβολικός 201n88, 204–208

προφητεία 189 σύμβολον 199, 204, 207n115
ῥιζοτομία 167 τρυφή 244
σκηνή 195, 201 φαντᾰσία 187, 188

σκηνογρᾰφία 183, 188 φάντᾰσμα 189
σκῐά 200 φῶς 287
σκῐᾱγρᾰφία 197
σοφία 240, 247 χρημᾰτισμός 189
Modern Author Index
Abma, Richtsje 162 Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth 45, 61, 62, 201

Agourides, S. 145, 150–153 Blume, Dieter 329
Akoto-Abutiate, Dorothy B.E.A. 201, 382 Böcher, Otto 200, 207
Alexander, Philip S. 177, 178, 179, 251, 252, Bockmuehl, Marcus 251, 263
257, 258, 274 Boda, Mark J. 105
Allen, James P. 21 Boggi, Flavio 311
Allen, Thomas George 19, 21, 22 Bonavia, Emanuel 201
Ameisenowa, Zofja 287, 288 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich 372–375, 378–379, 383
Anderson, F.I. 125, 175, 177 Botha, Philipus J. 114
Anderson, Gary A. 124, 127–128 Bourdua, Louise 328
Anderson, Paul 198 Boxall, Ian 207
Anker, Peter 345, 348 Brakke, David 251, 252–253
Arad, Lily 283 Brieger, Peter 313
Assman, Jan 16, 18, 20 Brighton, Louis A. 197
Ataç, Mehmet-Ali 33, 38, 57, 58 Brisch, Nicole 13
Attridge, Harold 261, 264, 265 Brock, Sebastian 222, 223, 233
Auffarth, Christoph 188 Brown, Michael 111
Aune, David E. 174, 196, 198 Brown, Michelle P. 298
Brown, William P. 100, 111, 161
Bachmann, Veronika 168, 171, 172 Brütsch, Charles 185
Baden, Joel 77, 80, 159 Buber, Martin 368
Baert, Barbara 294 Budde, Karl 76, 78, 89–90, 91, 93, 95
Balfour, David 301 Budge, E.A. Wallis 221, 223, 233, 234
Balogh, Amy 24, 74, 106 Bugge, Anders 353, 362, 363
Baranov, Vladimir 284 Bullard, Roger A. 256, 257
Barber, Charles 289 Burns, Dylan 251, 256
Barker, Margaret 201, 206, 207, 290 Busch, Austin 251–252, 255
Barlow, H.C. 201
Barr, James 79, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 94, 365– Campanati, Raggaella Farioli 316
367, 369, 383 Canal, Maximilien 330
Barth, Karl 184, 375–377, 379, 383 Carnie, Andrew 82
Bauckham, Richard 149, 154 Carruthers, Mary 297
Bauks, Michaela 6, 8, 25, 198 Cassuto, Umberto 368
Baumgarten, James 152 Castañeiras, Manuel 308
Bautch, Kelley Coblentz 170, 172 Charles, R.H. 169, 170, 196, 203
Beale, G.K. 194, 206 Charlesworth, James H. vii–viii, 198
Bechtel, Lyn 93, 370 Childs, Brevard 366
Bergmann, Claudia D. 160 Claassens, L. Juliana M. 162
Bergren, Theodore 160 Coats, George W. 91
Bethge, Hans-Gebhard 267 Coatsworth, Elizabeth 316
Billing, Nils 21, 46, 47 Cole, Robert L. 110
Bintley, Michael D.J. 291, 298 Collon, Dominique 38, 39, 41, 42, 51, 55, 57,
Black J.A. 10, 15 59
Blaising, C.S. 227, 233 Cook, Roger 295, 299, 315
Blenkinsopp, Joseph 85, 92 Cosentino, Delia 330
Blocher, Henri 377–379 Couliano, Ioan P. 252, 257
448 modern author index
Cozzi, Enrica 328 Garrett, Duane 108

Cramer, J.A. 232, 234 Gelin, Marie-Pierre 302
Creach, Jerome F.D. 112 Genge, Heinze 5, 6, 8, 11
Cremascoli, Giuseppe 325 George, A.R. 12, 13, 14
Crenshaw, James L. 106 Gianotto, Claudio 259
Curtis, V.S. 12 Gibson, Craig A. 187
Gilchrest, Eric J. 197
Dalley, Stephanie 10, 12, 13, 14 Gilhus, Ingvild S. 257, 262
Davila, James R. 149 Gillingham, Susan 110
Day, Peggy L. 160 Giovino, Mariana 6, 8, 32, 201, 367
De Gruchy, John W. 373, 375 Good, Edwin 93
Dell, Katharine 100 Goodenough, Edwin R. 200, 204, 206, 236
Dercks, Ute 197, 295, 297, 313 Graham, Christopher A. 206, 251
deSilva, David A. 195 Grant, Jamie A. 110, 111
Di Brazzano, Stefano 280 Graves-Brown, Carolyn 20
Dillmann, August 81, 166, 168, 169 Gray, Alison Ruth 102
DiTommaso, Lorenzo 143 Greatrex, Joan 319
Driver, S.R. 84 Greenacre, Roger 281
Dronke, Peter 210 Gregorini, Alessandra 305
Dunning, Benjamin 267, 268, 269 Grelot, Pierre 129
Dus, Jan 78 Gruenwald, Ithamar 177
Gryson, R. 230, 231, 234
Echols, Charles L. 14, 74 Gunkel, Hermann 74, 78, 87, 90, 94, 154
Eder, Sigrid 102 Gunn, David M. 369
Edwards, M.J. 220, 234
Eidevall, Göran 105, 109 Hachlili, Rachel 206, 290, 291, 306
Eliade, Mircea 130–131, 297 Hamburger, Jeffrey 300
Estes, Douglas 195, 313 Hamilton, Victor P. 74, 83, 87, 89, 91, 93
Evangelatou, Maria 313 Hanneken, Todd R. 196
Hansman, J. 12, 117
Farjon, Aljos 351 Hardin, C.A. 227, 233
Farrer, Austin 183 Harrington, Wilfrid J. 190, 191, 196, 197
Fauconnier, Gilles 134–135, 162 Harris-McCoy, Daniel E. 189, 190
Fewell, Danna Nolan 369 Haselock, Jeremy 281
Filipová, Alžběta 283 Hays, Christopher 19, 20
Fishbane, Michael 367 Heard, Christopher 197
Ford, J. Massyngberde 196 Heel, Koenraad Donker Van 16
Foreman, Benjamin 107 Heffernan, James A.W. 187
Forti, Tova L. 109 Hemer, Colin J. 185, 207
Foster, Benjamin R. 7 Himmelfarb, Martha 123
Foster-Gilbert, Claire 379–380 Hinckley, Robert 207
Frankfurter, David 154 Hock, Ronald F. 187
Franklin-Brown, Mary 317, 318 Hodge, Bodie 372
Fretheim, Terence E. 93 Hogan, Karina Martin 136, 138, 142, 144,
Frevel, Christian 46 159
Funk, Wolf-Peter 259 Holt, Else K. 111, 112
Hongisto, Leif 196
Gamer-Wallert, Ingrid 16 Horowitz, Maryanne Cline 288, 290
Gardner, Julian 311 Hubbes, László Attila 183
modern author index 449
Huijbers, Anne 330 Lambert, W.G. 57

Humbert, Paul 76, 84, 86–87 Lanfer, Peter Thacher 123, 126, 140, 143, 152,
157, 177, 251, 268, 287, 294, 295
Iacobini, Antonio 310, 311, 313, 315 Larson, E. 130
Ilg, Ulrike 317, 318, 321, 324, 329 Lathrop, Gordon 381–382
Irvine, Christopher 283, 295, 316 Lauria, Antonietta 327
Irwin, William H. 108 Layton, Bentley 257, 267
Isenberg, Wesley W. 261 Leonhardt-Balzer, J. 238, 244
Levenson, Jon 368
James, E.O. 5, 8, 9, 20–21, 24, 156, 201 Levin, A.G. 236
Jaroš, Karl 78 Levine, Baruch A. 24
Jensen, Robin M. 325 Lichtheim, Miriam 17, 18
Jindo, Job Y. 101, 103 Lillie, Celene 255, 257, 270
Johnson, Elizabeth A. 380 Long, Asphodel 381
Johnson, Mark 101 Long, R. James 301, 305
Johnson, Mark J. 288 Lucarelli, Rita 21, 22
Johnson, M.D. 128 Luttikhuizen, Gerald P. 251
Joüon, Paul 7
Maguire, Henry 287, 300, 301
Karnes, Michelle 318 Mahé, Jean-Pierre 259
Karrer, Martin 191 Mangina, Joseph L. 207
Kawashima, Robert S. 85 Marchini, Lucia 345
Keel, Othmar 36–39, 41, 42–49, 51, 52, 58– Marcus, Ralph 107, 368
65, 106 Margulis, B 8
Keepers, Dustyn Elizabeth 24 Marjanen, Antti 251
Kennedy, George A. 187 Markham, J. Geller 116
Kepinski-Lecomte, Christine 6, 34, 53 Mastin, B.A. 25
Kessler, Herbert 288 Mathewson, David 197
Keuls, Eva C. 197 McCann, J. Clinton, Jr. 110
Kieser, Ty 24 McKane, William 108
King, Karen 250, 251, 252, 253 McKinlay, Judith 370
Kister, Menahem 263 McRae, George 261
Kitzberger, Ingrid Rosa 380 Mealy, J. Webb 203
Klangwisan, Yael 381 Meek, Russell L. 105
Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane 319, 322 Meiggs, Russell 117
Koemoth, Pierre 67 Mercer, Samuel A.B. 21
Koester, Craig R. 190, 197, 203 Mettinger, Tryggve N.D. 12, 14, 82, 84, 367
Kogman-Appel, Katrin 289, 291 Metzger, Bruce M. 124, 137, 142–143
Kottsieper, I. 8 Metzger, Martin 6, 25, 26
Kövecs, Zoltán 107 Meyer, Marvin 262, 266, 267
Kramer, S.N. 8 Meyers, Carol L. 206
Kraus, Hans-Joachim 115 Meyers, Eric M. 206
Krispenz, Jutta 78 Michel, Andreas 80
Kulik, Alexander 201 Miller, John B.F. 189
Miller, Patricia Cox 190
Labhan, Antje 101, 105, 111 Miskotte, Kornelis Heiko 203
LaCocque, André 78, 85, 89, 93 Mitchell, W.J.T. 193
Ladner, Gerhart B. 297, 312, 319 Mobley, Gregory 13
Lakoff, George 101 Mojsov, Bojana 68
450 modern author index
Möller, G. 16 Piccirillo, Michele 306, 308, 315

Moor, Johannes C. de 24 Popenoe, Paul 116
Morris, Henry M. 371 Porter, Barbara Nevling 53, 58
Morris, Paul 184 Porter, James I. 194
Moss, Candida 159 Preisinger, Raphaèle 327, 328, 329
Moughtin-Mumby, Sharon 162 Presley, Stephen O. 250, 252
Muraoka, T. 7 Punter, David 202
Murphy, G. Ronald, S.J. 345
Quinn, E.C. 124
Nerbano, Mara 327
Neumann-Gorsolke, Ute 6, 16 Rad, Gerhard von 79
Neusner, Jacob 179 Ramshaw, Gail 381
Nickelsburg, George W.E. 123, 168, 169 Rasimus, Tuomas 251, 255, 256
Niehoff, Maren R. 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, Reeder, Caryn A. 195
241, 252 Rendtorff, Rolf 154
Noga-Banai, Galit 287 Rhodes James, Montague 281
Nogalski, James 154 Ricci, Fulvio 302, 324
Norbye, Marigold 322 Riccioni, Stefano 311
Richards, I.A. 101
Obbink, Herman Th., 7, 9, 13, 84, 90–91, 92, Riede, Peter 6, 16
93 Ringgren, Helmer 5, 6
Ó Carragáin, Éamonn 291, 294 Ritchey, Sarah 317, 318, 325, 328
O’Connor, Michael Patrick 7, 94 Ritner, Robert K. 17, 18
O’Flynn, Donnel 280, 283 Robbins, Vernon K. 188, 191
O’Hear, Anthony 195–196 Roberts, Michael 280–281
O’Hear, Natasha 195–196 Robinson, James M. 249
Omanson, Roger L. 196 Robinson, Stephen 125, 130
Opitz, Christian Nikolaus 321, 329, 330 Rodov, Ilia 289, 290
O’Reilly, Jennifer 283, 287, 295 Roloff, Jürgen 189, 196
Orlov, Andrei A. 206 Rooke, Deborah W. 104
Oropeza, B.J. 188 Rose, Wolter H. 291
Osborne, Grant R. 196 Rubin, Miri 325
Osborne, William R. 6, 10, 11, 16, 18, 20, 48,
50, 53, 56, 62, 102, 103, 105, 106, 111 Safran, Linda 287
Otzen, Benedikt 251 Salonius, Pippa 186, 198, 298, 302, 305, 306,
Owen-Crocker, Gale 316 311, 322, 329
Santos, Daniel 206
Pagels, Elaine 264, 265 Sarna, Nahum 368–369
Painchaud, Louis 252, 267 Sawyer, John F.A. 74
Panayotov, Alexander 149 Scalf, Foy 20
Pardee, Dennis 24 Schenke, H.-M. 253
Parpola, Simo 5, 7, 34, 55, 367 Schipper, Bernd Ulrich 23
Pasquini, Laura 310 Schlosser, Marianne 317, 318
Patte, Daniel 80 Schmid, J. 232, 235
Pearson, Birger 258–259, 263, 273 Schorsch, Ismar 368
Penner, Ken M. 210 Schoske, Sylvia 16
Perdue, Leo G. 106 Schroer, Silvia 37–39, 42, 46, 51, 52, 63
Pezzoli-Olgiati, Daria 201 Sicard, Patrice 296, 297
Pfeiffer, Henrik 8, 78, 81 Simbeni, Alessandro 302, 324, 327, 328, 329
modern author index 451
Simor, Suzanna B. 283, 319 Vilímková, Milada 290

Shields, Mary E. 162 Vogels, Walter 77, 79, 269
Skinner, John 74, 78, 86, 93 Vriezen, Th.C. 89, 93
Smalley, Stephen S. 196
Smend, Rudolf 79 Walck, Leslie 150
Smith, Carl B. 253 Wallace, Howard N. 6, 8, 9, 14, 24, 25, 78, 83,
Smith, Mark S. 25 91, 92, 368
Smith, Morton 290, 291 Walsh, Jerome T. 79–80
Smith, Ralph L. 206 Waltke, Bruce K. 7, 94, 107
Sneed, Mark R. 105 Walton, John H. 78, 367
Speiser, E.A. 13, 14, 87, 93 Walvoord, John F. 371
Stambaugh, James 372 Wasilewska, Ewa 9, 12
Sternberg, Meier 76 Watanabe, Chikako E. 557
Stolz, Fritz 117, 118 Watanabe, Kazuko 6, 10, 13
Stone, Michael E. 124, 127–128, 144–150, 153 Watson, Arthur 298, 322
Stordalen, Terje 5, 6, 7, 79, 90, 91, 93 Watson, Francis 366
Stovell, Beth M. 135, 159, 162 Weeks, Stuart 100
Stratton, Beverly J. 85 Weitzmann, Kurt 288
Stromberg, Jake 161 Wenham, Gordon J. 74, 87, 90, 91, 93, 94
Stroumsa, Guy D. 251, 263 Westermann, Claus 74, 79, 87, 89, 90, 94
Struck, Peter T. 199, 204, 205 Whitaker, Robyn J. 195
Suggit, John N. 208 Whiting, Mark J. 110
Sweetser, Eve 135 Widengren, Geo 8
Swete, Henry B. 371 Wiggins, Steven A. 25
Williams, Michael 250, 251, 252
Tarragon, Jean-Michael de 24 Willis, John T. 162
Teissier, Beatrice 23 Wilson, Gerald H. 110
Thee, Francis C.R. 191 Winter, Irene 34–35
Thomassen, Einar 260, 261, 262, 265 Winter, Urs 6, 105
Thomson, Margaret H. 316 Wintermute, Orval S. 154–155, 251
Thunø, Eric 310 Wittekind, Susanne 319
Tigchelaar, Eibert J.C. 129, 154, 170, 177 Witulski, Thomas 185
Trapp, Thomas H. 106 Wolfson, Elliot R. 85
Treier, Daniel J. 24 Wong, Daniel K.K. 203, 208
Trible, Phyllis 369 Wood, Jeryldene M. 325
Trumbower, Jeffrey A. 262 Worm, Andrea 198, 322
Turner, John 253 Wyatt, Nicholas 24
Turner, Mark 134–135, 162
Yarden, Leon 290
Uehlinger, Christoph 106 York, H. 6
Uhlig, Siegbert 170 Young, Edward J. 370–371
Ungnad, Arthur 84 Young, Frances M. 219, 235, 286
van der Kooij, Arie 89 Zevit, Ziony 81, 83, 89, 118, 367
Van Hecke, Pierre 101, 105 Zimmerman, Ruben 205
Van Ruiten, J.T.A.G.M 123 Ziolkowski, Jan M. 297
Vasari, Giorgio 327
Place Index
Alexandria 218, 219, 273 Eden vii–ix, 1, 117, 171, 178, 179, 217, 218, 220,
Antioch 218, 219, 228 227, 228, 281, 287–288, 295–296, 305,
Arboç (Tarragona) 305n63 313
Assisi Egypt 5, 8, 9, 15, 17, 18, 18n47, 23, 26, 27, 46–
Sacro Convento 327 50, 63–68, 106, 113, 116, 218, 267, 286,
Assur 12 291
Assyria 5, 53–54, 57–58, 117, 174 Elysian Fields 229
England 291, 313
Barcelona Ephesus 190, 191n41
Church of the Poor Clares 302n61 Eridu 8, 8n19, 9, 9n20
Bern Ethiopia 129n11, 295
Abegg-Stiftung 286–287 Europe 295
French Church (former Dominican
Church) 329 Florence
Bethlehem 306n68 Convent of Santa Maria Novella 321,
Bet-Shean 61 330
Bewcastle 291 Convent of the Poor Clares at Monticelli
Bologna 325
Church of San Francesco 327n130 Convent of Santa Croce 329
Borgund 348, 351, 352, 354 Galleria dell’Accademia 325–326
British Isles 291, 298, 319 Forlí
Byzantium 297, 298, 301, 306 Church of San Francesco 327n130
Cairo Gaul 313

The Coptic Museum 285 Gehinnom 179
Calvary 221, 224, 281, 345 Gerasa
Cambridge Chapel of Elias, Maria, and Soreg
Trinity College 313–314 305n67
Carcassonne Germany 289n23, 373–374
Basilica of Saint-Nazaire 302, 329 Ghana 382
Catalogna 302 Ghent
Central Italy 302, 306 Centrale Bibliotheek van de Rijksuniver-
Chartres siteit 290n25
Cathedral of Notre-Dame 302–303 Golgotha 281, 283, 315
Christendom, see also Christian world Great Ryburgh 344
281, 297, 299, 306, 310, 315, 322,
330 Hades 224, 225
Constantinople 300, 306n68, 315n92, Hannover
322n117 Museum August Kestner 319n110
Hazor 61
Darmstadt Heddal 357n29
Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbiblio- Hegge 355
thek 319 Hermopolis 21
Dura Europos Holy Land 283, 305–306, 322n117
Durham 319 Holy of Holies 222
place index 453
Israel 60–63, 288n20, 290 Mount Nebo

Italy 313, 322 Church of the Deacon Thomas 305, 308
Munich
Jericho ix Bayerische Staatsbibliothek 282
Jerusalem 62, 129n11, 140, 140n12, 142–
143, 154, 157, 160n48, 171, 217, 218, 221, Nag Hammadi 256
269n62, 269n70, 281, 315 Nazareth 294
Basilica of Constantine 283 New Jerusalem 287, 312–314
New 217 New York
Jordan 305, 315 Metropolitan Museum 304
Judah 60–64 Nimrud 52–59
North Africa 305
Kellia 284–285
Khirbet el-Mukhayyat Orvieto
Church of the Holy Martyrs Lot and Pro- Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta 305–
copius 305n67 310, 311–312, 322, 329
Khirbet el-Qom 25 Church of San Giovenale 302n61, 322–
Kingdoms of Castile and Aragon 291 324, 327
Kremsmünster (Upper Austria) Oslo 350n16, 357
Kremsmünster Abbey Library 319n110 Otranto
Kuntillet ʿAjrud 25 Cathedral of Santa Maria Annunziata
306, 308–309
Lagrasse 305n63 Oxford
Lebanon 117, 118 Bodleian Library 294
León
Museo de San Isidoro Real Colegiata Padua
295–296 Convent of Sant’Antonio 328–329
Levant 5, 9, 23, 26, 27, 41–46, 59–63, Palestine 287
305 Papal State 322
Lichfield Paris
Lichfield Cathedral Library 298–299 Musée du Louvre 300
Lisbon University of Paris 317
Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal 291n30, Persia 15, 27
292 Philistine Coast 61
London Phoenicia 61, 64
British Library 291n30, 319–320 Pisa
British Museum 298 Franciscan Convent 327n130
Luxor 16 Poitiers
Monastery of the Holy Cross 280
Madaba Prague
Archaeological Museum 315 Alteneuschul 289–290
Madrid Convent of Saint Agnes 290
Biblioteca Nacional 322 National Library of the Czech Republic
Marah 124–125, 225 302n60
Mesopotamia 5, 9, 15, 23, 25, 26, 37–41, 52– Puigcerdà (Cerdagne) 305n63
59, 106, 116
Mexico 330 Rabastens 305n63
Monza Ravenna
Museo e Tesoro del Duomo 283–284 Mausoleum of Galla Placidia 288, 315
454 place index
Museo Arcivescovile 315 Tarshish 225

Roglösa 361 Temple 222, 225
Rome 260, 287, 291, 301, 305, 310 Thebes 18n49
Basilica of San Clemente 311–312 Trani
Basilica of San Giovanni in Laterano Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta 306
310, 322 Tuscania
Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore 310, Church of San Silvestro 302n61, 324n123
322 Tyre 174
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 319
Convent of Santa Maria in Aracoeli 327 Ugarit 23, 25
Ruthwell 291, 293–294 Um er-Rasas
Church of Saint Stephen 306n67
Salerno Urnes 348, 349, 357–359, 361
Museo Diocesano 313–314 Uruk 11, 13n29, 14, 15, 26
Sicily, Kingdom of 310, 315–316 Uvdal 348
Sinai
Saint Catherine’s Monastery 194 Vienna
Skog 348 Hofburg Palace, Schatzkammer 316
South Arabia 25 Vikøyri 363
Spain 289n23, 313 Vyšší Brod 289
Sumer 10
Sutton Hoo 298 Wadi ʿAfrit
Swabia 304 Upper Chapel of the Priest John 305n67
Syria 218, 295
Zinacantepec (Toluca, Mexico) 330
Taanach 52n55 Zlatá Koruna 289
Taranto
Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta (now
dedicated to San Cataldo) 306
Subject Index
Abel 255, 270 angle 3, 183, 193–208, 209, 313

acacia 63 animal 257, 261–262, 266, 289, 301, 315
Nile 15 animal imagery 107, 109
acanthus 305n63, 311–312, 315 animalism 261, 263, 263n46, 264, 266
Adad-nirari 12, 26 Annunciation 346
Adam vii–viii, 122, 124, 129, 166, 221–225, anointing 258n33, 264, 268
227, 231, 232, 238–239, 245, 294–295, anthropomorphism 35–41, 44–45, 47, 54–
313, 321 55, 57, 59
and Christ 231, 233 Antichrist 154–156, 158–159
and Eve 151, 153, 153n37, 203 Anti-Semitism 373
as guard of the tree of life 146–147, 158 Anu 7
as God’s creation 146–147, 151–152, 159 apocalypse 183–210, 258n34, 259
creation of 220, 222 illustrated 313–314
expulsion of 217, 218, 230 apologetic 267, 274n70
sin/disobedience of 137, 146–147, 151– apostles 301, 305, 325, 329
153, 158–159 Christianity of the 191, 264, 266
true 259, 259n37, 269 see also disciples
Adapa 7 apotropaism 283
adverbial infinitive 94 apparition 189
afterlife 16, 19, 20, 22, 27 apple 313
Agnes of Prague 290, 317 Aquinas, Thomas 325
agriculture 37–38, 45, 47, 51, 63–64, 68 Araššiḫu 23
alabaster 172 arbores consanguinitatis 321–322
Alexander IV, pope 317 Armenian 223, 224
allegory 218, 220, 225, 228, 237, 240, 251n10, aroma 179
252, 273–274 aromatic 176
figurative 190, 191, 198, 199, 202–208, arrogance 256, 275
209 Artemidorus 189–194, 199, 200, 202, 204,
allusion 60, 130n14, 184, 206, 223, 225, 233, 210
351, 358 ascent 253, 258, 267, 268, 270
almond 201, 290 asceticism 246, 249, 256, 264, 266
alter Christus 328 antinomian 276
Alulim 7 encratic 273
Amaušumgalanna 11 ash, evergreen 344, 346n7, 347, 351, 353, 362
Amenet/Ammut 19 Asherah/asherah 20, 24–25, 24n70, 26, 45–
Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) 68 46, 61, 62n95, 63, 381
ampulla 283–284, 332 Ashurnasirpal II 53–54
Amun-Re 17, 18, 18n49, 64 Assur 41n24, 57
An 11 Assurbanipal 117n49
Anastasius, cardinal 311 Assyrian cylinder seal 315n
androgyny 255n19, 269, 269n59 Assyrian sacred tree see tree, sacred
angels 219, 225 astral motifs 39, 57
as guardians 146–147, 155 constellations 39
as speaking 147 eight-pointed star 39, 55, 58
as leading 148 moon 39
as sent by God 155 solar disc 39, 56–57
456 subject index
stars 39 bread 218, 221, 225, 231, 261, 262

sun 39, 67n106, 68 of life 207
astrology 190n33 breath 264, 269
Aten 18, 19 bridal chamber 258n33, 263, 263n46, 264,
Athirat(u) see Asherah 265, 266, 276
axis mundi 168, 281–282, 301–302, 327, 330 Byzantines 224, 232, 355n23
Baʾal 61 Cain 255

baobab 201 and Abel 89
baptism 218, 231, 232, 265, 266, 273n66, canonical 365–366, 371–372, 374–377, 379,
275n70, 356 383
basilica 302, 310, 311, 345, 347 caprid 35, 38, 41, 44–46, 52, 55, 61, 63
Basilideans 251n7, 273 catacombs 287
bear 357 Catechism of the Catholic Church 365
beast vii, 179, 180, 269, 271, 308 Cavallini, Pietro 327
the Beast 183, 185n8, 192 cedar 5, 114, 115, 117, 201
beauty 168, 175 center 195, 210, 281–283, 286–287, 295–298,
Behemoth 179 299–300, 306, 310, 312, 313, 315–316,
Benjamin, Walter 193n47 322, 330–331, 371, 373–374, 376, 382, 388
Bewcastle Cross 291 Cervera Bible 291–292
birth 153, 157, 159, 161, 145, 148–149, 151–153, chaos 256, 258, 268, 273
161 cherub viii, 51, 52n55, 55, 59–61, 114, 125–127,
and judgment 149, 153, 160 166, 174, 178, 180, 242, 243, 259, 260
and purification 152n36 cheroubin 259, 272, 273
as God creating 138, 157, 159–161 chief archon 254, 275
as imagery 145, 149–150 chrism 249, 258n33, 262, 262n45, 264, 266
metaphor/metaphorical network 134, Christ 155–156, 158, 345, 346, 348, 355n23,
144, 147, 149, 156–157, 159–160, 160n48, 356, 358, 364, 365, 371, 373–374, 377,
161–162 381, 382
see also mother acts of 225–230
bishop’s staff 298–299. See also scepter, as second Adam 231, 233
royal as tree of life 230–232, 297, 318
Blake, William 196n61 as wisdom 221, 222, 227, 228
blessing 100, 104, 106, 109, 110, 111, 114, 118, as Word 223
172, 258, 272 Christology 373, 375, 377
blindness 254, 256, 258, 274, 275 coming of as true man 258, 261, 272
blood 224–225, 246, 300n56, 325, 356, dual nature 281, 296, 302
357 Emmanuel 324
body 222–224, 229 see also Jesus, Messiah
of Adam 220, 221 Christianity 217, 218, 220, 229, 233
of Christ 221, 227, 232, 281 true 264
bôm an berege 345–346. See also cross Christmas tree 352
Bonaventure, saint 312, 317–320, 322–328, Christ Pantocrator 194
331–332 Christ’s thorn 15
Boniface, saint 350 church 345–364, 388
book 192 as mother 143n16, 159–160, 160n48
of life 192, 297 Egyptian 284–286, 331
bowl 183, 185n8, 192, 298, 388 Ethiopian 295, 331
branch 388 Syrian 295
subject index 457
Cistercians 289 263, 265, 271, 274n66, 345, 355, 356,

Clare of Assisi 317, 332 366–367, 370–371, 373–374, 376–378,
cognitive metaphor theory 101, 103, 105 381, 383
column 291, 296–297 and paradise 137, 139, 141, 143, 153
commandment 366, 372, 374, 378 and judgment 157–158
community 319, 330, 374, 383. See also con- and tree of life 151, 159
nectedness, interdependence deer 315, 344, 353, 358–362
conceptual metaphor theory 134, 135–136, deficiency 253, 255
135–136, 138n11, 144n19, 156, 159n47, defilement 255, 257, 257n30, 263, 270, 275
162 demiurge 257, 264, 265
connectedness 379, 380. See also interde- demons 258, 259, 268, 272
pendence, community descent 253, 254, 257
consummation 272, 273, 276 description see ekphrasis
contradictions 77, 86 Devil
Corpus Christi, feast of 325 as deceiver 151
cosmic tree see tree, world as son of lawlessness 155
cosmology 179, 192, 381 see also Satan
covenant, between God and Israel 141, 146, diachronic study 75, 80
148 diagram 321–322
creation 100, 129, 153, 246, 252, 262, 264, Di Bonaguida, Pacino 325–326
269, 269n61, 272, 276, 367, 368, 370, diet, in the garden of Eden 81, 84, 85
372–380, 383, 387 Dilmun 8
by lower gods 251, 253, 267, 268 discern 367, 370, 376, 384
flawed 261, 266, 269 divination 191
mistake 261n43, 263 divine council 87–88
of humanity 252, 253, 265, 266, 267, 269 divine feminine/mother-goddess 36–50,
creationism 370–372 54, 56, 60–61, 63
creator 246, 252, 254, 260, 263, 274, 275 divine freedom 90
crimson 176 divine names see Elohim, Yahweh
cross ix, 130, 204, 207–208, 218, 220, 221, divine warrior 130
223–225, 227–233, 249, 262, 264, Djed column/pillar 20–21, 24
345, 346, 348, 355, 365, 375, 381–382, Documentary Hypothesis 75n2, 78, 79, 89
388 Dominicans 321, 324, 325, 329–330, 332
as ankh 286 Donatists 231
as tree of life 204, 207, 208, 218, 281–286, door see entrance
291, 294–295, 331 doublets 76, 80n24, 86, 95
blossoming 294, 297–300, 312 doum palm 16. See also date palm, palm
budding 286, 295, 305, 312 dove 287n14
legend of the True Cross 294 dragon see serpent, Nidhogg
crucifixion see cross dream 189–191, 199, 200, 202, 210, 381, 387.
curse 252, 255, 258, 260, 272, 274 See also oracle, vision
cypress 300–301 stressful 189
drunkenness 254, 263, 266
Darius I 117n49
date palm 5, 16, 24, 40–41, 45, 53n60, 54, Ea 7
115–117. See also doum palm, palm eagle 255, 255n20, 260
day of the Lord 154 Earth 141, 148, 155, 240
death 144, 155, 183, 218, 222–226, 233, 240, and heaven 142–143, 155
254, 256, 257, 257n27, 258, 262, 262n44, as created by God 151
458 subject index
as mother 136, 136n7, 138n11, 142n15, Eriugena, John Scotus 210n120

144n19, 159n47 eschatology 122, 128, 129, 132, 186, 188, 189,
as soil 148 190n33, 194, 195, 197, 202, 217, 255, 258,
as witness 142–143 259n37, 262n45, 263, 266, 276, 344, 361,
new 1, 184, 187, 196n61, 208, 210, 313 363, 368, 372, 380, 383, 387. See also
east 169 paradise, New Jerusalem
Easter 281, 327 eternal life 36, 47–50, 53, 69, 131, 169, 192,
eating vii, 7, 15n40, 203, 209–210, 218, 366, 201, 203, 249, 252, 265, 267–268, 276,
368, 372–374, 376, 378, 382 367, 369, 371, 374, 376, 387. See also
books 192 immortality
from the tree of knowledge 76, 370, 380 ethics 261
from the tree of life 1, 89, 91–95, 129, Ethiopic 170, 221
200, 201, 209–210, 373 Etzei Chaim ix
prohibition against 79, 81, 83, 84, 252, eucharist 221, 223, 232, 301, 305, 324–325,
256, 257, 265, 274 355n23, 356
echo 55, 85, 89, 202, 205, 210n118, 346, Eve vii–viii, 122, 126–127, 217, 218, 222, 295,
355n23 313, 315
Eden, garden of 1, 74, 87, 94, 122–123, 129, and Adam 146, 151, 153n37, 203
131, 132, 140n12, 146, 152–153, 152n36, as mother 146, 148, 159
166, 184, 200, 209–210, 238, 361, 362, beauty of 153, 161
387–388 creation of 151–153, 157
as happiness and virtue 238n11, 244 sin/disobedience of 146–148, 153, 160
expulsion from 252, 258, 259, 265, 267, true 259, 259n37, 270
272, 274 evil 127, 131, 143, 167, 369, 374, 376, 379
rivers of 282, 287, 310 and good 250, 263, 264, 266
see also garden, paradise and mourning 148–149
eisegesis 122 and paradise/new kingdom 137, 141–143
ekphrasis 187–189, 191, 193n46, 195, 197 of Israel 141
El 61 see also tree of knowledge of good and
elect 167 evil
Elias of Cortona 328 evolution 380
Elisha 224 exodus 124–125, 356
ellipsis see split coordination
Elohim 78, 90 Fall, the 203, 242, 366–367, 369–370, 372–
Eloim 255 375, 377–378, 381
Elysian Fields 229. See also Field of Rushes, father 142
heaven, paradise as Abraham 146
embroidery 315–316 as Ezra 141–142
Enki 9n20, 10 as God 142, 151, 153
Enkidu 13, 13n30, 14 as Israel 142
enlightenment 254–255, 255n20, 260, 266, feminine 379–381
270n64, 274, 275 feminist interpretation 365, 369–370, 379–
Enoch 131 380
Enosh 179 fertility 36, 38, 57, 378, 380, 381, 384
entrance 56, 58, 59, 114, 289–290, 297, 302, fertilization 56
348, 356, 357n29, 358, 360–364 Field of Rushes 19. See also Elysian Fields,
Epinoia 253, 254, 255, 255n20, 256, 259n37, heaven, paradise
260, 275, 276 fig 315
Erec-ki-gala 11 figurative language 101, 102
subject index 459
fire 175 glory, divine 124

fish 35, 41 gnōsis 249, 255, 269, 271, 272, 276
fleur-de-lis 358, 359 Gnosticism
floodwaters 67 and hermeneutics 250–252
focus, point of 183, 193, 195, 197, 204, 208, catechesis 256, 261, 261n42
319 definition of 250–251
folklore 78 myth 253
foreknowledge 274 schools of thought 250–251, 251n7, 252–
Forest of Cedar 13 260, 263, 273
forgetfulness 255 God 219, 220, 222, 223, 227, 241, 246
forward gapping see split coordination humanity’s connection to 203
fountain of life 108, 112, 247, 315 people dwelling with 193, 388
fragrance 166, 175, 176, 180 Goddess of the West 21n64
frame 305–306, 310–311, 318, 322, 324, 329 good 367, 369, 374, 376, 378
Franciscans 289, 313, 317, 319, 322, 325–332 and evil 250, 263, 264, 266
Spirituals 328–329 goodness 245, 247
Francis of Assisi 328–329, 331–332 and Paradise 137, 140–143
freedom 369, 373–374, 378 of birth 153
Freya 362 of creation 151, 153
fruit vii–viii, 1, 103, 104, 108, 111–115, 118, of God 148, 153, 161
126–128, 167, 183, 200, 201, 202, 207, see also tree of knowledge of good and
209–210, 241, 249, 250, 254, 256, 258, evil
261, 262, 265, 266, 268, 271, 273, 274, gospel 217, 230, 346
276, 280–281, 288n20, 290n25, 295, Gospel of Nicodemus 294
312–313, 318, 324, 328, 371–372, 376, grace 90, 174, 346, 374, 377–378, 383–384
378–380, 382, 387 grapevine 290n25, 301, 305, 312
grave 287–288, 295, 297–298, 311, 344–345.
Gabriel 145, 155, 346 See also tomb, sarcophagus
Gaddi, Taddeo 329 Great Honker 21
gallows 346n6–7, 351 Greek 185n8, 190, 191, 218, 219, 225, 229
gaokerena plant 12 Gregory the Great, pope 349–350
gap-filling 76 griffin 52n55, 316n92, 357
garden 104, 107, 112–114, 117, 118, 287–288, growth 240
295–296, 300, 305, 308, 310–311, 331, Gudea of Lagash 117n49
344, 369–371, 376–378, 382, 388 guilt 366
and temple 157 Gunnar 346, 357
as city 140, 157 Gylfaginning 347
as ekphrasis 187 gymnasium 204n97
as Jerusalem 140n12, 157
as paradise 136, 153, 157 Hades 158, 224, 225, 254. See also hell, Tar-
in Jubilees 152n36 tarus
see also Eden Hall of Truth 19
Garden of Irnini 13n13 Haman 225
Geb 64 Hammurabi 23, 26
gender 84–85 happiness 238. See also joy
genii 51, 54–56, 58, 60 Harbaville Triptych 300
genre 22, 189, 190, 194, 239 Hardrada, Harald 349
Gilgamesh viii, 13, 13n29, 14, 14n38, 15n40 hart see deer
Giotto 327 Hathor 16, 19, 21n64, 22, 23n68, 47
460 subject index
healing 122, 124, 125, 131 image of God vii

heaven 1 imagination 2, 36, 45, 68, 69, 74, 129, 183,
and earth 142–143, 155 207, 210, 222, 318
and vision/revelation 145, 147, 149n28 immanence see presence, divine
and reward 145, 155 immortality viii, 123, 127–128, 219, 221, 222,
as God’s abode 155 240, 242, 262, 264, 271, 272, 273, 276,
as witness 142–143 287, 366–369, 372, 382–383
eighth 268, 273 as Edenic humans’ default state 89
new 1, 183, 184, 187, 196n61, 208, 210, 313 as effect of the tree of life 89
war in 183, 192 see also eternal life, mortality
see also Elysian Fields, Field of Rushes, impurity
paradise and creation 158
Hebrew 191, 218, 264, 266, 269. See also and sin/disobedience 152, 158
Israel, Israelites, Jews as human propensity 158
Hebrews, book of 258n34 metaphor/metaphorical network 134,
Heimdall 361 156, 162
hell of Adam 152
in the age to come 137, 141 see also sin
as furnace 138 inaccessibility 169, 175
see also Hades, Tartarus Inanna see Ishtar
herb 129 incense 129
of life 10, 11, 12, 26 indwelling 257n31, 260
Hercules viii infinitive absolute see adverbial infinitive
Hermetic literature 251 inhabited (rinceau) scrolls 305
Hezekiah, king of Judah 63 inscription 283, 294, 306, 310–311, 324n
historical-critical interpretation 365–367, instructor 257, 269, 270, 271, 272, 274
369–370, 372, 379, 382–384 interdependence 379, 380. See also com-
history 373–375, 377 munity, connectedness
holiness 130 intertextuality 119, 188, 380
Holy Spirit 232, 255n19, 258, 261, 264, 265 išd 16
Homer 229, 251 Ishtar (Inanna) 10, 10n24, 11, 13, 26, 37–41,
Ḥôrānu 23 54–55, 58
Horus 18n51, 19, 63–64 Isidore of Seville 296, 321. See also Reli-
house of the Lord 113–115, 117, 166. See also quary of Saint Isidore
temple Isis 16, 18n51, 21n64, 47, 63–64, 67
Hugh of Saint Victor 296–297 Israel
Humbaba 13, 13n31, 14 as mother 141–142, 143n16, 159–160
as the seed of Jacob 138, 161
Ibi 20 mothers of 143
iconography 34–36, 345 people of/God’s people 137–138, 142–
idolatry 175, 179, 350 143, 162n52
ignorance 253, 255, 256, 257, 263, 265, 269, twelve tribes 290
271, 272, 274, 275 see also Hebrew, Israelites, Jews
image 32, 33, 34, 37, 44, 45, 59–61, 102, 105– Israelites 221. See also Hebrew, Israel, Jews
110, 114, 118–119, 149–150, 183–189, ivory panels 300, 313, 315
191–195, 197–200, 202–209, 254, 255, ivy 301, 305, 312
268, 269, 269n59, 270, 271. See also
multistability, multivalency, polyva- Jacobus de Voragine 294
lency, visual texture Jacopone da Todi 328, 331
subject index 461
Jacopo Torriti 310, 311n Lamb of God 125, 195, 199, 200, 203, 207n111,
jealousy 253, 257, 271, 272, 274, 275 208, 221, 356, 365. See also Jesus
Jesus ix, 125, 130, 131, 193–194, 207, 228, 253– lampstand 193, 199, 206, 207n111
254, 255, 256, 260, 262, 263, 264, 266, Latin 218, 220, 225, 226, 229
275, 276, 388. See also Christ, Lamb of laude 317, 327–328, 331
God laugh 257, 268, 269, 270. See also happiness
Jewish exegesis 365, 367n4, 368, 381 law 263, 263n47, 264, 266, 269, 273, 273n68,
Jews 226, 241. See also Hebrew, Israel, 275, 276
Israelites leaves 167
tradition of 287–291, 294–295 Leviathan 179
Joachim of Fiore 318 Libanius 187
John, evangelist 232, 290n29, 313, 324 Lichfield Gospels 298–299
John XXII, pope 329 life viii, 130, 166, 168, 246–247, 388
Joseph 262, 266 long 169
Joshua 225, 291 true 246
Josiah, king of Judah 63 life-giving fragrance 123–125, 128, 131. See
journey 168, 177 also scent, smell
joy 244. See also happiness light 287, 290
Judaism 264, 266, 269n60, 269n62, 274n70 lignum vitae 297n49, 302n61, 305n63, 312,
Judas 346 317–328, 330n143, 331–332
judgment 123, 129, 130n14, 138–139, 143, 145– Lignum vitae Christi 328
149, 153–158, 161, 167, 168, 241, 287, 316, Lignum vitae Sancti Francisci 329
321, 329, 348, 356, 357, 361 Lilith 160, 257n30
and Adam 146–147, 158 liminality 297
and birth 149, 160 limit 367, 373–374, 378, 383
and death 157 lineage 302, 319, 321, 329–331
and disobedience/sin/impurity 158 lion 316, 358, 362
day 166 of Judah 358
God as judge 146–147, 153, 158, 162, literal reading 13n34, 107, 114, 190, 191, 192,
241 198, 199–202, 204, 209, 210, 217, 218,
Justin the Gnostic 219 220, 222, 228, 233, 240, 242, 247, 365,
367n4, 370–372, 379, 383, 384
Kabbalah 287 literary artistry 77, 185–188. See also narra-
Khoiak festival 20–21 tive
khoikos 265, 269 liturgy 346n8, 381–382
kikayon see qiqayon Lorenzo Maitani 306
kingdom lotus flower 36, 48
and eternal life 158 Louis de Valladolid 330
Messianic 138 Lugalbanda 13n29
of heaven 264 Luke, evangelist 298–299
of Jerusalem 142–143 lumber 207
kingship 50–68, 104, 111, 114, 116, 117, 316
kiškānû (kiskanu) 8, 8n19, 9 Manasseh, king of Judah 63
knowledge 366–367, 369, 373–374, 376, 378, Mandaeans 251n7
379–380, 383 Manichaeans 251n7, 267
of good and evil 84 manuscripts 281, 291n30, 294, 298, 302,
318n102, 319, 321–322, 324, 328
ladder, heavenly 281, 288, 310n71 Marsh of Reeds 21
Lambert of Saint-Omer 290n25 Marsh of Rest 21
462 subject index
Martha 228 as church 143n16, 160, 160n48

Martini, Simone 327 as earth 136, 136n7, 138n11, 142n15,
martyrdom 274n70 144n19, 159n47
Mary, mother of Jesus 264, 346 as Eve 146, 148, 159
Mary of Bethany 228 as God 142, 157
Masoretic Text 75n as Israel 141–142, 143n16, 160
mass 325, 327, 346 as Jerusalem 160n48
maturity 370 metaphor/metaphorical network 134,
Maẓẓevoth ix 136, 143–144, 150, 152–153, 156, 159–
memory 183, 188, 283, 311, 318 162
menorah 201n84, 206–207, 208, 290–292 see also birth
Merenre I 21 mountain 168, 171, 175
Merkabah 180 mountains of fire 167
Messiah 207n11, 287, 288n20, 301. See also multistability 183–210
Christ multivalency 32, 33, 54, 59
mesu/mes- 11, 26, 63n98 mysticism 220, 228
metaphor 7, 37, 69, 100, 101–105, 109, 134, mythology 366, 368–370, 378
136, 139, 143, 144, 147, 150, 156–162, 192,
199, 202–204, 210, 227, 233, 249, 281, Nabonidus 117n49
317, 319, 368, 381, 387–388 nakedness 254, 255, 258, 271, 274
blending or conceptual framework 101, Naphtali 225
113 Naram-Sin 117n49
dead metaphor 107 narrative 183, 185–188, 189, 191, 192, 193,
non- 184, 186 366–372, 374–375, 378–379, 382–383
source and target domain 103 narratology 75
and worldview 102, 103, 119 Nebuchadnezzar II 117n49
Metatron 166, 179, 180 Necker cube 193, 198n70
Michael 167, 361 Nemtiemzaf Merenre see Merenre I
middle 207n111, 238, 266 Nepri 18
midrash 287 Ner Tamid 206
mirror 55, 290n25, 317, 329 netherworld 39n17
mis pî ritual 10n23 new Jerusalem 194, 195n55, 217, 287, 312,
mixed formation 264, 268, 270, 276 313, 371, 380–382. See also eschatology,
modelled form 267, 269, 271 Elysian Fields, Field of Rushes, heaven,
Mona Lisa 193 paradise
monastery 280, 284, 286, 289, 306, 319, 331 New Testament 217, 230
moon 153 Nicholas IV, pope 311, 322, 327
mortality Nidhogg 344, 353, 355, 357, 361. See also
as Edenic humans’ default state 88–89, serpent
93, 94 Nile 64, 67
as effect of the tree of knowledge 89–90 Nincubura 10
see also immortality Ninsun 13n29
mosaic 305–306, 308–311, 331 Ninurta 57n77
pavement 305–306, 308–309, 315, 322, 331 Nitocris 20
Moses 179, 227, 254, 254n18, 273n68, 290, Noah 225
295 Norns 344, 355, 357n27, 364n35
mother 143–144, 147, 149, 151–153, 156, Nut (deity) 16, 20, 21, 21n64, 22, 46–50,
159n48, 160–161, 253, 255, 255n19, 257, 62n93, 64–65, 67–68
260, 269, 270, 271
subject index 463
oak 46n34 pelican 324

Odin 346, 351, 355, 356, 362 Pepi I 21
oil 124, 131, 283, 291, 294 Pepi Neferkare 21
of anointing 258n33, 262, 266, 268 perisa 15
olive 114 Persia tree 15–16
Old Testament 217, 218, 227, 230, 232 personification 282, 324, 388
olive 113, 114, 167, 201, 249, 258n33, 262, perspective see angle
262n45, 264, 266, 268, 290–291, Phela Treasure 286. See also paten
315 Philip 262, 263
Ophites 251n7 Philo 196n57, 197n67, 198n73, 201n88, 205,
oracle 118n51, 154, 189. See also dream, 236–247
vision philology 75
orb 282 philosophy 237, 246
ordensstammbäume 319, 321, 329 Hellenistic 251
order 374, 377–378, 382–383 Platonic 238
Osiris 16, 18n51, 19, 20, 21, 22, 49–50, 63–68 phoenix 229
Ovid 204n96 piety see virtue
pilgrim 283, 332
paganism 345, 346n8, 349, 350 pillar figurines 61–62
painting pine 5, 352–353, 354
panel 325 black 8
wall 284–285, 287, 305n63, 322, 323–324, Scots 351
327, 330, 332 pinecone 353
palm 16, 114–117, 201, 229, 315–316, 328. See and bucket 53, 55–56
also date palm, doum palm plant of life 6, 9, 21, 22
papacy 306, 310–311, 317, 322, 328, 332 pleasure 242, 267, 267n56
paradise viii, 105, 122, 123n1, 128, 141, 143, Pliny the Elder 301
147, 149–151, 149n29, 153, 156n45, 157– Plutarch 20
158, 168, 169, 175, 176, 237, 240, 242, 281, pneumatikos 265, 269
294–297, 300, 305, 310, 312, 317, 330, poem 280–281, 283, 294, 301, 324, 331–332
379, 381 polemic 259, 263, 269n60, 273, 273n66,
and Adam 146, 151–152 274n70, 275
and eschatology 137, 140–141 politics 188
and motherhood 153, 161 polyvalency 183–210
and reward 136, 145, 157–158, 161 pomegranate 201
as Eden 219–224, 229, 230, 232 Pontius Pilate 221, 224
as destination of saints 218, 220, 224, portal see entrance
227, 228, 231, 232, 233 poverty 267, 268, 269
as God’s dwelling place 153, 161 Přemysl Otakar II 290
in Genesis 136, 158 presence, divine 125, 132, 375, 376–377, 380–
metaphor/metaphorical network 134, 384
156–158, 162 pride 172, 366–367
vision of 141, 157 progymnasmata 187n14, 189
see also eschatology, new Jerusalem, prohibit 373–374, 376, 378
Elysian Fields, Field of Rushes, heaven prophecy 189, 191
parallelism 113, 140, 346 prophylactic 283
paten 286–287. See also Phela Treasure protection 32, 36, 38, 40, 49–50, 52, 55, 58,
Paul, apostle 221 64–65, 68–69
pearl 172 proto-orthodox 266, 273
464 subject index
proverbial 377, 382 righteousness 137, 139–140, 146, 148–149,

providence 255, 256, 256n22, 257, 260, 265, 155–156, 158–159
266, 267, 269, 270, 273, 275 and reward for 136, 139–140, 145, 155, 158,
Pseudo-Chrysostom 281n3 161
Pseudo-Cyprian 281 river 10, 111, 148, 179, 180, 217, 224, 227, 230,
psykhikos 257, 265, 269, 271 231, 282, 310, 378
Ptah 16, 17 of life 186, 195–197, 202, 203, 208, 230,
punishment 140, 145, 147, 148–150, 149n28, 312, 313, 371
151, 153, 158–159 Roger II of Sicily 315–316
and curse 136 Romanticism 205
and the tree of the knowledge of good Rood, legend of the Holy 294
and evil 152 rose/rosette 13, 114, 173, 298, 300n56
eternal 148–149, 153, 158 Ruthwell Cross 291, 293–294
of God 151
purification 55–56 sacrament 200, 207, 223, 231, 249, 261, 262,
purity 152n36, 156, 158 264, 265, 266, 276, 346, 371
and birth 152n36 Saena tree see tree, world
metaphor/metaphorical network 134, saga 372, 375–377
156–157, 162 saints 205–206, 223, 227, 231, 232, 301, 330
of God 147, 151–152, 157–158 Salerno Ivories 313, 315
of the garden of Eden 157 salvation 221, 225, 230, 264, 275, 281, 286–
287, 294–295, 297, 302, 310, 318, 322,
qiqayon viii 329, 331, 332, 345–348, 363
history of 302, 367, 372, 375, 379, 383
Radegunda, saint, queen 280 Samaritan Pentateuch 75n
Raedwald of East Anglia 298 sapphire 172
Ragnarok 344, 356, 362, 363 sarcophagus of Honorius 288
rape 255, 255n21, 256, 257, 257n30, 270, Sargon of Akkad 117n49
270n64, 273, 275 Sargon II 117n49
Ratatosk 344 Satan 92, 224, 225, 346, 361. See also Devil
rebirth 36, 39–40, 48–49, 55, 64–65, 67, scent 168. See also smell
67n106 scepter, royal 299. See also bishop’s staff
reflection 254, 255, 257, 260 sculpture 289–291, 302, 305–308, 312, 322
regeneration see rebirth seasons 240
Reichenau Gospel Book 281–282 secret 167, 179
relic of the Holy Cross 280, 283 seed 103, 104
religion 367, 369, 371, 373–374, 381 Sennacherib 57n80, 117n49
Reliquary of Saint Isidore 295–296. See also Septuagint 75n
Isidore of Seville seraphim 221, 259, 260
rest 160 serpent vii–viii, 15n40, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90,
and paradise 137, 140–141, 145 126–127, 222, 229, 243, 254, 255n20, 256,
resurrection 67, 127, 195, 203, 205, 261, 262, 257, 257n31, 258, 260, 265, 274, 275, 295,
264, 269n70, 388, 367 311, 353, 357, 358, 359, 360n30, 361, 362,
retribution 108 365, 371, 374. See also Nidhogg
revelation 372–373, 377 Set 64
rhetography 188, 190 Seth viii, 124, 255, 275, 294–295
rhetoric 183, 189, 190, 193n46, 267, 273 Sethian Gnosticism 252–260, 253n14,
rib 252, 254, 270, 270n63 258n34, 260, 267
righteous man 218, 226–228 Sethians 251n7
subject index 465
setting, scene 188, 191, 193, 200, 203, 205 sun 153, 253, 345
sexuality 242, 254, 255, 256, 257, 271, 273, sunfolk 18, 18n47
275, 276, 370, 374 Surt 361
immoral 175 Sutton Hoo Byzantine bowls 298
shadow effect 197, 200, 352n19 sword, flaming 223
Shalmaneser III 117n49 sycamore 5, 15, 16, 21–22, 46–48, 50, 64–65,
shalom 140 67–68, 201
Shekinah 166, 179 symbol viii, 105n17, 126, 131, 183, 185n8, 187,
ship-building 225, 350 188, 192, 199, 200, 202, 204–208, 210,
Siegfried 346, 357 316n93, 365, 367, 370–372, 375, 378–
sign 204–207, 208, 210, 371, 376–377 383, 387–388
Sigurdsson, Harald 349n14 synagogue ix, 287, 289–290, 305, 324, 388
simile 12, 101n5, 111, 113, 149, 184, 195, 217, 228 synchronic study 75, 79, 80
Simonians 273 Syriac 218, 222
sin 139, 145–149, 155, 158, 222, 223, 229, 232,
376, 378, 380 tabernacle 114, 206, 376–377. See also tem-
and Eve 148, 153 ple
of Adam 137, 158 Tabitha 156
of Israel 141 Takelot I 16
original sin 366, 369–370, 373 tamarisk 5, 15, 24, 49, 63–64, 201
see also impurity, unrighteousness Tartarus 147, 149–150, 157, 158. See also
Sisera 225 Hades, hell
sleep 254, 255, 257, 270 tcheret (tamarisk, willow) 49, 63–64, 66–
smell 168, 175, 180, 351. See also scent 67
snake see Nidhogg, serpent technology 373
sober 254, 271 temple 129, 132, 135n3, 157, 269n62, 274n70,
solar disc 39, 56, 57 380
Solomon 117n49, 218, 220, 225, 226, 233 and purity 157
soma 9 scroll 140n12
Son of Man 180 Second 135n3, 140, 140n12, 143n17,
Sophia 253, 254, 255, 255n19, 256, 269, 270, 152n36, 157, 159n48
272, 275 Solomon’s temple 59–60
soul 219–222, 224, 227, 240, 243, 367 see also tabernacle
source criticism 75, 77, 80, 86, 87, 89–90, terebinth 5, 46, 173, 225
95–96. See also Documentary Hypoth- terracotta lamps 287
esis test 367n4, 372, 378
space 196, 197, 200, 203, 209 thaumaturgy 283, 294
sacred 297 theodicy 115, 116
spear 91, 346n8, 351, 355, 356, 361 theological exegesis 365–366, 372, 377, 379,
sphinx 52n55 383
split coordination 81–82 theophany 122, 125–126, 131–132
spruce, Norway 351, 353, 354 third heaven 176
stained glass 302–304, 305n63, 319n110, 329 Thor 357, 361
stand 257, 269, 270 Thoth 16, 64
stave 348. See also church throne 54, 58, 123, 125–128, 132, 166, 167, 180,
stupor 272 186, 195, 197, 200–203, 205, 207n111,
Sturluson, Snorri 346–347 208, 209, 210, 221, 241, 311, 327, 349n14,
stylized tree 6 356, 380
suffering 265, 270 Tiglath-pileser I 117n49
466 subject index
time 94, 186, 226 Ubertino da Casale 328

tomb 287–288, 295, 311. See also grave, sar- union 254, 265
cophagus unrighteousness
tongue 108 and God’s people 139
Torah/torah ix, 62, 106, 110, 111, 113, 118, 172, of Assyria 142
179, 180, 184n6, 206, 247, 287, 290, 356, and impurity 158
368. See also law and disobedience 156
Totality 265 see also impurity, sin
trampling 258, 259, 259n37–38, 260, 275, uproot 103, 104, 113, 114
276 Uriel 155
transcendence 276 Ur-šanabi/Ur-shanabi 13, 14n35
trance 254 Ūta-napišti/Utnapishtim 13, 13n31
trapped 275
Treasure House 23 Valentinian Gnosticism 260–266, 267,
tree 273n66
felling 104 Valentinians 251n7, 273
goddesses of the 106 Valentinus 260–261
in the literal sense 199–202, 209–210 Valhalla 345
in the metaphoric sense 202–204, 209– Vasari, Giorgio 327
210 Venantius Fortunatus 280, 283, 324–325, 331
in the symbolic sense 204–208, 209–210 Vercelli Book 294
of all remedies 12 vice 238, 239
of death 24, 26, 239 Viking 349n14, 350, 351, 355n23, 358, 361
of Jesse 297, 298n51, 301–305, 307, 319, vine 288n20, 289–291, 301, 305–308, 310–
321, 322n116, 329–330 311, 315, 330
of knowledge of good and evil vii, 76, virtue 205n101, 237, 238, 242, 244, 318, 324,
131, 146, 152, 217–219, 222–224, 229, 239, 388
245, 295, 310, 313, 331, 366–370, 373– vision 1, 54, 88, 137, 138, 141, 142, 145, 147–
374, 376–378, 380, 383 150, 157, 172, 177, 183, 186, 187, 189–195,
effect of eating 93 199, 200, 202, 204, 205, 206, 208–210,
location of 77, 81–83, 85 223, 230, 245, 290–291, 380–381, 387.
prohibition of 79, 81, 84, 85 See also dream, oracle
prohibition of as test 84n37 visual texture 186–189, 191–195, 197, 199, 210
of wisdom 168 voice 270, 270n64, 275
sacred 5, 6, 8, 8n19, 24, 25, 26, 53–59, Voluspa 347, 363
201n83, 367n4, 381, 383 Vourukasha Sea 12
world 8, 8n19, 12, 27, 104, 105, 118, 130, Vulgate 145, 186, 196
287 Vyšehrad Codex 302
see also acacia, almond, ash, baobab,
cedar, cross, cypress, date palm, fig, war in heaven 183, 192
išd, kiškānû, oak, olive, palm, perisa, watchers 177
pine, pomegranate, spruce, sycamore, water 103, 110, 111, 112, 116, 117, 125, 217, 225–
tamarisk, tcheret, terebinth, white 231
hom, willow, Yggdrasil of life 207
Trinitarian 371 well of fate 344, 347, 364n35
Trinity College Apocalypse 313–314 well of life 355, 357n27
Tutankhamen 68 Weltenbaum see tree, world
typology 218, 222, 224, 226, 287n14, 297n49 Wepwawet 63
west 167
subject index 467
white hom 12, 27 Woden’s Ride see Yggdrasil

wholeness (prosperity) 107, 108, 109, 115, 117 woman 204n97, 252, 254, 257, 258, 260, 270,
wilderness 125 272
will 256, 256n26, 257, 265, 267 wood 280n1, 281, 283, 294
William I of Sicily 308 word 263, 264
willow 49, 64, 66 worship 104n15, 106, 110, 112, 113, 114, 262,
Egyptian 15 272
wine 167 worshipper 104
winged disc 8, 23
wisdom 100, 123, 126, 172, 174, 202, 206, 218, Yahweh/Yhwh 25, 25n78, 26, 45, 60, 62–63,
220, 222, 225, 228, 232, 239, 242, 246, 78, 90, 291
258, 263, 264, 274, 367–370, 372, 377– Yahweh God 19, 22
380, 382–384, 387–388 Yaldabaoth/Yaltabaoth 253, 255, 255n21,
and paradise 137, 140–141 267, 268, 268n58, 269, 270
as Christ 220, 221, 227 Yave 255
Lady Wisdom 105–108 Yggdrasil 344–348, 351, 353, 355–358, 360–
the righteous and the wicked 107, 108, 364. See also world tree
110–113, 115, 116, 119
wisdom Psalms 100, 109, 119 Zerubbabel 291
wise living 109, 111, 113, 117 Zosimos viii
Woden see Odin

The Tree of Life - Douglas Estes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Tree of Life - Douglas Estes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Tree of Life - Douglas Estes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jacques T.A.G.M. van Ruiten

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

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Estes, Douglas, editor.

Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

1 The Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Literature 5

2 The Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Iconography 32

3 The Tree of Life in Genesis 74

4 The Tree of Life in Proverbs and Psalms 100

5 The Tree of Life in Jewish-Christian Legendary Texts 122

6 The Tree of Life in Ancient Apocalypse 134

7 The Tree of Life in Enochic Literature 166

8 The Tree of Life in the Apocalypse of John 183

9 The Tree of Life in Early Christian Literature 217

10 The Tree of Life in Philo 236

11 The Tree of Life in Gnostic Literature 249

12 The Tree of Life in Medieval Iconography 280

13 The Tree of Life in the North 344

14 The Tree of Life in Modern Theological Thought 365

12.5 ‘Sarcophagus of Honorius,’ Ravenna, Mausoleum of Galla Placidia, right side

12.25 Lignum vitae, Orvieto, Church of San Giovenale. 1290–1310 323

BSac Bibliotheca Sacra

NHMS Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies

SAK Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur

Dustyn Elizabeth Keepers

Near Eastern Languages and Cultures under William Schniedewind at UCLA,

G. Ronald Murphy, S.J.

he is co-director of the Online Critical Pseudepigrapha site. He is now complet-

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

The Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Literature

It is understandable why the concept of a tree of life arose in antiquity. As

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

only in Genesis 2–3 and in Proverbs, and a similar expression is unknown in

11 Parpola, “Assyrian Tree of Life,” 161.

15 Respectively, Genge, “Zum ‘Lebensbaum’ in den Keilschriftkulturen,” 329; I. Kottsieper,

2 The Tree of Life in the Literature of Mesopotamia

While no unequivocal references to a “tree of life” per se occur in Mesopota-

My [king], mes-tree [which] faithfully [bears fruit],

25 Text in Osborne, Trees and Kings, 60.

semi-divine29 eponymous hero and king is challenged by Enkidu, a feral “wild

3 The Tree of Life in the Literature of Egypt

Hail, let us sing praise to him:

Hail! Let us sing praise to him:

Hail, let us sing praise to him:

Who made the herbage [for] the herds,

The crown placed firmly on his51 head,

4 The Tree of Life in the Literature of the Levant

As the corridor between the more prominent civilizations, it is not surpris-

She (the mare) turns (her) face to Ḥôrānu,

He casts a tamarisk (from) among the trees,

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

the name of Hammurabi, the king’s treasurer, demonstrates how a monarch’s

Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, J. Ebeling, E. Flückiger-Hawker, E. Robson, J. Taylor, and

Kepinski-Lecomte, Christine. L’Arbre Stylisé en Asie Occidentale au 2e Millénaire Avant

The Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern

As noted by Charles Echols in the introduction to the previous chapter, the

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