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 Judaism and Hellenism. Jewish obedience to divine authority is the “true and right human way” (Kass 68), while autonomous knowledge pursued outside of divine prohibition is “deeply questionable and the probable source of all…unhappiness” (Kass 64). In contrast, Oedipus's quest for knowledge results in the tragic realization of his origins and self-punishment. However, Oedipus displays greatness “by virtue of his inner strength: strength to pursue the truth at any personal cost, and strength to accept and endure it once found” (Dodds 28), thus exemplifying the Hellenistic ardor for knowledge. In this article I will argue that, although knowledge is indeed dangerous and can be harmful to the truth seeker himself, the pursuit of knowledge is justified if we can fully embrace the consequences of knowledge. “Hellenism can therefore effectively serve the needs of Judaism” (Arnold 158) regarding the virtue of knowledge pursued, insofar as it is combined with Jewish discretion and good judgment. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayIn Genesis 2, Jewish obedience to divine authority is emphasized through the explicit commandment not to eat from 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 only highlights the fallibility of autonomous human reasoning against divine commandment. The Jewish God does not forbid human reasoning and knowledge, unless it seeks to exist independently of divine authority. In Genesis 2, it is said that man is made in the image of God, which means that he possesses the ability to exercise speech and reason, freedom in doing and doing, 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) that it is the consequence of autonomous knowledge. This 'radical self-awareness' is the full development of awareness of the differences between binary opposites, an awareness that is finally illuminated after man's transgression, causing his separation and fall. As Leon Kass explains, naming animals is an exercise in man's first use of reasoning, "since the ability to name is based on the rational ability to recognize otherness and identity" (74). While this act itself does not give rise to forbidden knowledge, it awakens consciousness in man, as man is given the ability to project independent, subjective knowledge into the objective reality he encounters, ultimately giving rise to the ability to acquire a autonomous knowledge. Language is the subsequent demonstration of man's reasoning, and is misused as a tool to distort and misrepresent God's commandments. The serpent manipulates language so as to cause the woman to question God's divine prohibition, asking a question that alludes to undermining the authority of the divine commandment: 'Did God really say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?' ' (3,1) It is clear that the serpent has no intention of clarifying the commandment,but rather to provoke indignation and disbelief towards the need to obey. Language is then 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 shall not surely die" (3:4), the serpent is "both right and wrong" (Buber 44), since the early humans simply include knowledge of future death. Furthermore, the serpent introduces the idea that the reason for God's prohibition is largely selfish, since eating from the tree would cause the man and woman "to be like God, knowing good and evil" (3 :5). With just one sentence he undermines God's authority and promotes autonomy. Encouraged by the serpent's call to rebellion, the woman sees the tree for what it is "aside from the prohibition" (White 135). As a result, he begins to see the tree with an independent subjective desire, as White explains, through "nonverbal perceptual experience, simple awareness of possibilities, and the strength of desire" (135). The strength of this desire that arises from the newfound consciousness thus culminates in his autonomous judgment that the tree was 'good to eat... a delight for the eyes... desired to make one wise' (3.6). Within the same sentence the transgression of her eating the fruit and offering it to her husband occurs, indicating a rapid and subsequent action. The act of choosing freely for oneself is thus described as the cause of man's fall: "All free choice involves reaching for and acting on our knowledge of good or evil" (Kass 65), and this in definitive indicates the fallibility of human reasoning and the importance of divine obedience. Naming and language development amounts to a misuse and disabuse of practical reasoning against better judgment. The serpent facilitates the development of a consciousness that appeals to an independent and subjective interpretation of the tree beyond the divine prohibition, leading to man's transgression and fall. In addition to underlining the fallibility of human reasoning, the story of Genesis 3 emphasizes the material consequences of the transgression against divine obedience, which was that "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they saw that they were naked" (3.7 ). This discovery of nakedness is only possible through the 'knowledge of opposition' (Buber 46), as one comes to the realization of the 'sick or evil' in the state of nakedness. Nakedness, 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 the mind that judges and induces shame” (Kass 67). Consequently, this "radical self-consciousness" is produced within us, which induces a constant state of anxiety and imperfectibility. This realization of deficiency 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 that they will desire but never achieve…superiority” (White 137 ). Therefore, the story of the fall of man negatively presents the pursuit of autonomous knowledge and its fruits, since such aspects of life will only give rise to internal conflicts and dissatisfaction. Initially, Oedipus Rex 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 superficial “knowledge” (196) that arises from Oedipus' lack of awareness of the terrible knowledge he is seeking. I will therefore argue that the tragic realization of identity adds a caveat to the valorization of the Hellenistic quest forknowledge, or that the truths discovered do not necessarily lead to the best consequences. However, a man's strength lies in resistance to such terrible truths. Oedipus's initial "knowledge" is a commitment to the pursuit of a kind of superficial knowledge, the kind of knowledge that already conforms to Oedipus's truths and beliefs. The very name “Oedipus,” translated as “know the foot,” is an example of the triumph of man's intelligence against the monstrosity of the Sphinx (Segal 41). It is a sign of pride that the protagonist is able to solve the puzzle, "the flight of [his] own intelligence that has hit the mark" (453). Yet the double meaning of his name as 'swollen foot' (oidein, pous) and 'know where' (oida pou) evokes the greater mystery of his identity and origins (Segal 141), knowledge that has thus far eluded him. Therefore, his claim to knowledge and intelligence is limited at this point precisely because he lacks personal knowledge. This selfish quest for knowledge plays out in the search for the king's killer. When the prophet Tiresias does not speak, Oedipus reacts with immediate anger and comes to the rash conclusion that Tiresias is in conspiracy with Creon to blame Oedipus for the murder. Ironically, he refutes and mocks Tiresias' claim to know the truth on the basis of his physical blindness: "You have lost your power, blind as stone, deaf as stone: senses, eyes blind as stone!" (422-2) Furthermore, he continues to dismiss Creon's attempts to explain the falsity of his conspiracy delusion, in his response "but I will be slow to learn from you." I find you a threat” (611-12). His sheer determination to reach the truth obscures and hinders his quest, so that any challenge or obstacle to his quest (such as Tiresias) is immediately ignored and cast aside. After realizing the truth, Oedipus perceives his metaphorical blindness to his own personal knowledge. In his act of self-blinding, he gives up relying on intelligence and reasoning, which once prevented him from "seeing" the truth. His self-blinding, prophesied by the blind Tiresias, "with darkness upon your eyes, which now see so straight" (454), indicates an attempt to exchange his physical sight for his metaphorical blindness. The act of self-blinding can be seen as a symbolic denial of his pride and arrogance in his "knowledge", a denial of oida, the very quality of "knowing", which also comes from the root of the word "I have seen". (Rye 42). Therefore, we can understand that Oedipus gives up the pursuit of superficial knowledge on which he had previously relied. However, the play also affirms the greatness of Oedipus as he shows a constant perseverance in discovering the truth and a respectable fortitude in bearing and accepting the terrible truth. He takes full responsibility for the transgression committed and imposes an impartial punishment on himself: "Take me away, far, far from Thebes" (1477), as well as mastery of his destiny by saying "It is mine alone, my destiny" - I am Oedipus! ». (1446) Although his fate seems to demand great pity from the public, Oedipus turns out to be heroic; his acceptance and embrace of his end are both humanistic and noble, as he has faced the consequences of discovering a painful truth. Consequently, Oedipus Rex can be seen as largely Jewish in its view that human reasoning is ultimately fallible, condemning arrogant overconfidence in human "knowledge" while favoring humble religious submission (Lear 198). At the same time, it draws on elements of Hellenism as it praises those seeking knowledge with the ability to fully endure and accept the consequences.