The different treatments of knowledge in the early stages of the book of Genesis and in the tragedy Oedipus Rex reveal a fundamental difference in the representative traditions of Hebraism and Hellenism. Hebrew obedience to divine authority is “the true and right human way” (Kass 68), while autonomous knowledge sought outside of divine prohibition is “deeply questionable and the likely source of all…misfortune” ( Kass 64). On the other hand, Oedipus's quest for knowledge results in the tragic realization of his origins and his self-punishment. However, Oedipus demonstrates greatness "by virtue of his inner strength: the strength to seek the truth whatever the personal cost, and the strength to accept and endure it when it is found" (Dodds 28), thus illustrating the Hellenistic ardor for knowledge. In this article I will argue that although knowledge is indeed dangerous and can harm the seeker of truth himself, the pursuit of knowledge is justified if we can fully bear the consequences. “Hellenism can therefore effectively serve the needs of Hebraism” (Arnold 158) with regard to the virtue of knowledge pursued, to the extent that it is combined with Hebraic discretion and good judgment. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay In Genesis 2, Hebrew obedience to divine authority is underscored by the explicit command not to eat of “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” » (2:9), and the fall of man following the transgression of the commandment clearly illustrates the dangers of disobedience to divine authority. However, I will also argue that the story of the Fall of Man does not oppose the pursuit of knowledge per se, but simply highlights the fallibility of autonomous human reasoning against commandment divine. The Hebrew God does not prohibit human reasoning and knowledge, unless he seeks to exist independently of divine authority. In Genesis 2, man is said to be created in the image of God, meaning that he possesses the ability to exercise speech and reason, the freedom to act and create, powers of contemplation, judgment and care (Kass 38). However, it is in man's development of practical reasoning through naming, language, rationalization and questioning that he abuses his reasoning faculties and transgresses, resulting in this "radical self-consciousness » (Kass 89) which is the consequence of autonomous knowledge. This “radical self-awareness” is the full development of awareness of the differences between binary opposites, a consciousness that ultimately illuminates after man's transgression, causing his own separation and downfall. As Leon Kass explains, naming animals is an exercise in the first use of human reasoning, “because the capacity to name is based on the rational capacity to recognize otherness and similarity” (74). Although this act in itself does not give rise to forbidden knowledge, it awakens consciousness in man, as he receives the ability to project independent, subjective knowledge onto the objective reality he encounters, ultimately giving rise the ability to acquire independent knowledge. Language is the further demonstration of man's reasoning, and it is misused as a tool to distort and misrepresent the divine commandments. The serpent manipulates language in an attempt to make the woman question God's divine prohibition, asking a question that alludes to the weakening ofthe authority of divine command: “Did God really say, “You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?” (3:1) It is clear that the serpent does not intend to clarify the commandment, but rather to provoke indignation and disbelief at the need to obey. Language is thus used as a tool to provoke self-awareness and question objective statements or commandments. The serpent also uses language to superficially distort the meaning of God's commandments. In saying that 'You will not surely die' (3:4), the serpent is "both right and wrong" (Buber 44), as early humans simply understand the knowledge of death to come. Additionally, the serpent introduces the idea that the motive for God's prohibition is largely selfish, as eating from the tree would cause man and woman to "be like God, knowing good and evil" (3:5). In a single sentence, he undermines God's authority and promotes self-reliance. Encouraged by the serpent's call to rebellion, the woman sees the tree as it is "outside the forbidden" (White 135). As a result, she begins to see the tree with an independent subjective desire, as White explains, through "a nonverbal perceptual experience, a simple awareness of the possibility and force of desire" (135). The strength of this desire born of a rediscovered awareness thus culminates in his independent judgment that the tree was “good for food… a delight for the eyes… desired to make one wise” (3:6). In the same sentence, the transgression of her eating the fruit and offering it to her husband occurs, indicating a successive and rapid action. The act of freely choosing for oneself is thus described as the cause of man's fall: "All free choice involves reaching for and acting according to our own knowledge of good or evil" (Kass 65), which ultimately highlights the fallibility of human reasoning and the importance of divine obedience. To name and develop language is to abuse and disabuse practical reasoning in exchange for better judgment. The serpent facilitates the development of a consciousness that calls upon an independent and subjective interpretation of the tree beyond divine prohibition, leading to the transgression and fall of Man. Beyond the fallibility of human reasoning, the story of Genesis 3 highlights the material consequences of transgression against divine obedience, namely that "then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked” (3:7). This discovery of nudity is only possible through the “knowledge of the opposite” (Buber 46), as they come to the realization of “evil or evil” in the state of undress. Nudity, which was supposed to be their natural state of perfection, is now a perceived flaw and imperfection, "a wickedness of our own nature...the first discovery of judgment and shame of the mind" (Kass 67). As a result, this “radical self-awareness” occurs within us, and then induces a constant state of anxiety and imperfection. This awareness of deficit in relation to divinity is aptly summarized by Hugh C. White as an eternal struggle defined by "narcissistic conflict with their opposites...a humiliating inferiority which they will desire but never achieve...superiority" (White 137). Thus, the story of the Fall of Man negatively presents the pursuit of autonomous knowledge and its fruits, because such parts of life will only give rise to inner conflict and dissatisfaction. Initially, Oedipus the King is the traditional embodiment of the Hellenistic thirst for knowledge; however, through the tragic turn of events, Sophocles offers a “critique of impure reason” (Lear 194), a “knowledge”superficial (196) which comes from Oedipus' lack of awareness of the terrible knowledge he seeks. I will therefore argue that the tragic realization of identity adds a caveat to the valorized Hellenistic quest for knowledge, namely that discovered truths do not necessarily lead to the best consequences. Nevertheless, a man's strength lies in the endurance of these terrible truths. Oedipus's initial "knowledge" is a commitment to the pursuit of a superficial type of knowledge, the kind of knowledge that is already consistent with Oedipus's own truths and beliefs. The very name “Oedipus,” translated as “knowing foot,” is an example of the triumph of man’s intelligence against the monstrosity of the Sphinx (Segal 41). It is a mark of pride that the protagonist is able to solve the riddle, “the flight of [his] own intelligence which hit the mark” (453). Yet the double meaning of his name, “swollen foot” (oidein, pous) and “know where” (oida pou), evokes the greater mystery of his own identity and origins (Segal 141), a knowledge that has escaped so far. Thus, his claims to knowledge and intelligence are limited at this stage precisely because he lacks personal knowledge. This selfish quest for knowledge plays out in the quest for the king's murderer. When the prophet Tiresias does not speak, Oedipus retaliates with immediate anger and comes to the rash conclusion that Tiresias is in conspiracy with Creon to frame Oedipus for the murder. Ironically, he refutes and mocks Tiresias' claim that he knows the truth based on his physical blindness: "You have lost your power, blind as stone, deaf as stone, your senses, your eyes blind as stone. rock ! (422-2) Furthermore, he continues to reject Creon's attempts to explain the falsity of his conspiracy illusion, in his response "but I will be slow to learn – from you." I find you a threat” (611-12). His sheer determination to attain the truth thus obscures and hinders his discovery of the truth, so that any challenge or obstacle to his quest (like Teiresias) is immediately ignored and dismissed. Upon realizing the truth, Oedipus perceives his metaphorical blindness to his own personal knowledge. In his act of blindness, he renounces his dependence on intelligence and reasoning, which once prevented him from “seeing” the truth. His self-blindness, prophesied by the blind Tiresias, "with darkness upon your eyes, which now have such clear vision" (454), indicates an attempt to exchange his physical sight for his metaphorical blindness. The act of blinding oneself can be seen as a symbolic negation of one's pride and arrogance in one's "knowledge", a negation of oida, the very quality of "knowing", which also comes from the root of the word " I saw ". (Ségal 42). Thus, we can understand that Oedipus renounces the search for superficial knowledge on which he previously relied. Yet the play also affirms the greatness of Oedipus as he demonstrates constant perseverance in discovering the truth and respectable courage in enduring and accepting the terrible truth. He assumes full responsibility for the transgression he has committed and imposes an impartial punishment on himself: “Take me far, far from Thebes” (1477), as well as responsibility for his destiny by saying: “It is mine alone, my destiny.” - I am Oedipus! (1446) Although his fate seems to demand great pity from the audience, Oedipus emerges heroic; his acceptance and acceptance of his disappearance is both humanistic and noble, as he has faced the consequences of discovering a painful truth. Therefore, Oedipus Rex can be seen as largely Hebrew in his view that human reasoning.