Why do we think the 'forbidden fruit' is an apple?

[Abramelin]

At a certain point, readers of the Old French version of Genesis understood the statement 'Adam and Eve ate a pom' to mean 'Adam and Eve ate an apple,' explains Azzan Yadin-Israel.

How did the apple from the Garden of Eden become the “forbidden fruit” symbolizing temptation, sin, and the fall of man?

“‘Adam and Eve ate a pom,’ meant ‘Adam and Eve ate a fruit.’ Over time, however, the meaning of pom changed.”

An attention-grabbing Super Bowl ad looked at what would have happened if Adam and Eve ate an avocado instead of an apple. Although a spoof, the Bible never actually specifies what Adam and Eve ate in the Garden of Eden.

Azzan Yadin-Israel, a professor of Jewish studies and classics at Rutgers University, tackles the question in his new book Temptation Transformed: The Story of How the Forbidden Fruit Became an Apple (University of Chicago Press, 2022).

https://www.futurity.org/forbidden-fruit-apple-2877092-2/

[Anthill Tiger]

Im not so sure that it matters what type of fruit was used as a symbol but it would be interesting to know for sure...

[khol]

All due respect its just a story anyway and not to be taken seriously so who really cares. People are motivated by there own greed and selfishness not by some devil dude conjured up by religious zealots

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, khol said:

All due respect its just a story anyway and not to be taken seriously so who really cares. People are motivated by there own greed and selfishness not by some devil dude conjured up by religious zealots

Exactly, any narrative is just a projection of ones owns needs, fears, issues, beliefs etc. etc. In Judiasm, for ex the value of tales or literal interpretation iare the insights into ones own conceptions, the filters one superimposes to cope, it tells us nothing of any god it just tells us about ones beliefs. 

Edited February 20 by Sherapy

[+Hammerclaw]

5 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Exactly, any narrative is just a projection of ones owns needs, fears, issues, etc. etc. In Judiasm, for ex the value of tales or literal interpretation iare the insights into ones our conceptions, the filters one superimposes to cope, it tells us notjing of any god it just telks us ones own beliefd. 

par·a·ble

[ˈperəb(ə)l]

 

NOUN

parables (plural noun)

1. a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels:

   "the parable of the blind men and the elephant" · "a modern-day parable"

   Parable is a figure of speech, which presents a short story, typically with a moral lesson at the end. You often have heard stories from your elders, such as The Boy Who Cried Wolf, and All is Vanity. These are parables, because they teach you a certain moral lesson. Parable is, in fact, a Greek word, parable, which means “comparison."

Edited February 20 by Hammerclaw

[Tatetopa]

2 hours ago, khol said:

All due respect its just a story anyway and not to be taken seriously so who really cares. People are motivated by there own greed and selfishness not by some devil dude conjured up by religious zealots

True, and yet a story also reveals something of the teller of the tale.  In China, there are the peaches of immortality.  My grandma could grow marvelous, glowing (almost anyway)  peaches in Texas.  I live in the Pacific Northwest in a place too wet for stone fruits to flourish, but I grow several different apples.

If the garden of Eden was tropical and written about by people who know that climate, it might have been a forbidden peach, or even a pomegranate .  Instead it was a cold and moisture tolerant apple.  Does that say something about who told the tale and where they lived and what grew there?

 

 

[Guyver]

I can’t speak to the way that Jewish people view the story, but for Christians, the forbidden fruit represents original sin.  That original sin was disobedience and it caused not only Adam and Eve to die, but that sin and death was passed to all men who would be born in the future, thus condemning all humans.  Apparently this law of sin and death that required the blood of Christ for redemption only applies to people, and not the animals.

[cormac mac airt]

The one thing that gets me from the start, if one is to believe any of it leading into Genesis 3:22, is that God apparently never wanted sentient beings but instead wanted bobble-headed automatons who would do what He said when He said it and because He said it. No questioning Him. 
 

cormac

Edited February 20 by cormac mac airt
Punctuation

[Kenemet]

3 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

The one thing that gets me from the start, if one is to believe any of it leading into Genesis 3:22, is that God apparently never wanted sentient beings but instead wanted bobble-headed automatons who would do what He said when He said it and because He said it. No questioning Him. 
 

cormac

If he's omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent, then he knew exactly what the humans would do and with predestination has set it up to send a lot of people to hell... for whatever reasons.

[khol]

4 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Does that say something about who told the tale and where they lived and what grew 

Its really about control and manipulation which created divisions amongst people. Divisions that continue on into present day. Religion is a form of oppression that has hindered our advancements. The indoctrination of children is a crime against humanity. Its like some Steven King novel spanning thousands of years...a horror show. But if your good and do as we say you'll be saved...

We've probably all seen this but its worth a watch again.. some colorful language 

 

 

 

[eight bits]

On the original question, not that I dispute what the professor says, but I think that an important contributing factor is the artistic convention for depicting the scene.

Why are Dorothy's shoes ruby red in the iconic film The Wizard of Oz? In the book, they aren't red, they're silver. They became red because Victor Fleming, the director of the film, realized that silver looks blah against a gold background (as in the yellow brick road), whereas saturated red looks glorious with gold.

Red also looks great against green and unsaturated pink (= Euroskin color, 'cause the first humans must have been a white dude and dudette, right? I mean, if Jesus was white, then how could they not have been?). There's a lot of green trees and skin in the story, and when you paint it, the fruit has to be some specific fruit. I think an apple is all but inevitable.

It is also interesting that while Christians emphasize the interaction between the All Mother and Serpent (whom they identify with Satan), Serpent's spiel isn't the only factor in her decision.

Quote

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took some of its fruit, and ate. Then she gave some to her husband with her, and he ate it, too. (Genesis 3:6)

To do justice to the scene as written, the visual artist is obliged to ramp up the aesthetics, which is curious when you think about it. The scene should be one of abject horror - this is the root cause of death, disease, and suffering. It should be horrible and repulsive, but no - it is visually beautful according to The Word of God.

Meh, it's a strange book.

[+razman]

4 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

The one thing that gets me from the start, if one is to believe any of it leading into Genesis 3:22, is that God apparently never wanted sentient beings but instead wanted bobble-headed automatons who would do what He said when He said it and because He said it. No questioning Him. 
 

cormac

Well he definitely ended up with something different. 

[+Sherapy]

5 hours ago, Guyver said:

I can’t speak to the way that Jewish people view the story, but for Christians, the forbidden fruit represents original sin.  That original sin was disobedience and it caused not only Adam and Eve to die, but that sin and death was passed to all men who would be born in the future, thus condemning all humans.  Apparently this law of sin and death that required the blood of Christ for redemption only applies to people, and not the animals.

My two cents is when in the OT one looks thru the lens of Judaism. I personally take any Christian interpretation with a huge grain of salt for the most part unless it is 8ty. A exceptional book written by James Kugel’s “How to read the Bible” is my go to. 
 

Biologically we are born, we live, then we die. I get that for some going on some supernatural quest the idea of don’t deal with anything, just get thru life and hold to a woo conceptualization that there really is no such thing as death is living the delusion. That was my mom and sadly she missed a lot of opportunities to connect, to live, to engage, she got so looney she was committed twice.  I have actually read posters who think that death is made up.  

Edited February 21 by Sherapy

[Abramelin]

If there was any 'magical fruit' in the Garden of Eden, it must have been the heads of Amanita muscaria, the fly agaric.

Aka "raven's bread", heh.

Read John Allegro's book...

Edited February 21 by Abramelin

[Crazy Horse]

Because it looks good on a computer...

[Abramelin]

18 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Because it looks good on a computer...

What does look good on a compute??

[jmccr8]

20 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Because it looks good on a computer...

Hi Crazy Horse

If Apple was in Eden at that time it likely had malware then

[lightly]

I’ve come to see that story…the tree of KNOWLEDGE ..and consuming (a fruit of) knowledge ..as a tale of man becoming self aware.  He came to see himself as SEPARATE from all else (god). .and ‘learned’ that he would DIE.   (fear of death was born?)       That story/idea was probably passed down since before man could read or write.??    food for thought?         Maybe that’s a silly oversimplification..it’s what I do best!*    

Edited February 27 by lightly

[029b10]

On 2/20/2023 at 6:57 AM, Abramelin said:

At a certain point, readers of the Old French version of Genesis understood the statement 'Adam and Eve ate a pom' to mean 'Adam and Eve ate an apple,' explains Azzan Yadin-Israel.

In the midst of the garden is a certain point, the middle.  Now every tree in the garden was pleasant to the sight, and good for food;the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: Genesis 2:16

On 2/20/2023 at 6:57 AM, Abramelin said:

How did the apple from the Garden of Eden become the “forbidden fruit” symbolizing temptation, sin, and the fall of man?

When man presumed to speak in the LORD's name, which the LORD had not commanded him to speak.

On 2/27/2023 at 11:11 AM, lightly said:

That story/idea was probably passed down since before man could read or write.??    food for thought?    

Ironically, man cannot teach himself how to read and write, and if he could he teach himself he would still lack one thing.  

[Davros of Skaro]

In a Platonic viewpoint what's on Earth is just a lesser copy of what's in the Heavenly realms. Paradise to Paul is in the third Heaven. So this fruit is spiritual in nature.

2 Corinthians 12:1-4

"1 It is necessary to boast; nothing is to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven — whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows. 3 And I know that such a person — whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows — 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat."

Just food for thought. See what I did there?

[Orphalesion]

On 2/20/2023 at 4:33 PM, khol said:

All due respect its just a story anyway and not to be taken seriously so who really cares. People are motivated by there own greed and selfishness not by some devil dude conjured up by religious zealots

What's wrong with discussing mythology, it's origins and its developments?

Plus this also relates and had influence to various famous works of art such as paintings, poetry, murals and so forth.

Edited March 8 by Orphalesion

[khol]

3 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

What's wrong with discussing mythology, it's origins and its developments?

Plus this also relates and had influence to various famous works of art such as paintings, poetry, murals and so forth.

In hindsight I agree with you fully. In fact I even PM'ed Abramelin a while back and apologized for the post lol. I felt it was kinda upfront and rude. I won't deny I'm an Athiest but the positive influences you mention in regards to religion are completley valid. One you didnt mention along with the other excellent examples ( art??..some incredible portrayals!) is music. Some Christmas arrangements are amazing with melodies that capture something....  (:

 

[Orphalesion]

54 minutes ago, khol said:

In hindsight I agree with you fully. In fact I even PM'ed Abramelin a while back and apologized for the post lol. I felt it was kinda upfront and rude. I won't deny I'm an Athiest but the positive influences you mention in regards to religion are completley valid. One you didnt mention along with the other excellent examples ( art??..some incredible portrayals!) is music. Some Christmas arrangements are amazing with melodies that capture something....  (:

It's all good. I'm not a Christian either (though I'm also not an Atheist, to each their own), but I do love all kinds of mythology and I do think Abrahamic mythology is crazier and more interesting than people give it credit for, due to how (as you did correctly point out) it was abused for hundreds of years to control people through religion and dogma.
And yes, it inspired all sorts of good art. Novels too. Even the Lord of the Rings takes, at its core, inspiration from Tolkien's deep faith. 
And as for music here's my two favourite songs inspired by Abrahamic mythology:

 

 

[pellinore]

On 2/21/2023 at 12:08 AM, eight bits said:

On the original question, not that I dispute what the professor says, but I think that an important contributing factor is the artistic convention for depicting the scene.

Why are Dorothy's shoes ruby red in the iconic film The Wizard of Oz? In the book, they aren't red, they're silver. They became red because Victor Fleming, the director of the film, realized that silver looks blah against a gold background (as in the yellow brick road), whereas saturated red looks glorious with gold.

Red also looks great against green and unsaturated pink (= Euroskin color, 'cause the first humans must have been a white dude and dudette, right? I mean, if Jesus was white, then how could they not have been?). There's a lot of green trees and skin in the story, and when you paint it, the fruit has to be some specific fruit. I think an apple is all but inevitable.

It is also interesting that while Christians emphasize the interaction between the All Mother and Serpent (whom they identify with Satan), Serpent's spiel isn't the only factor in her decision.

To do justice to the scene as written, the visual artist is obliged to ramp up the aesthetics, which is curious when you think about it. The scene should be one of abject horror - this is the root cause of death, disease, and suffering. It should be horrible and repulsive, but no - it is visually beautful according to The Word of God.

Meh, it's a strange book.

This led to a great deal of speculation among early Jewish and Christian commentators, and several species became popular candidates, such as the fig and the grape, first and foremost, but also the pomegranate and the citron.

It's nonsense, isn't it? Those fruit don't grow naturally in England. It must have been an apple. 

[jmccr8]

I was just wondering if something wasn’t forbidden like eating a smart apple would it still be desirable?