“... In the Gospel of Philip, however, the picture appears to be much more in line with the traditional view of the tree of life. It contains two passages that refer to it, the second of which is stronger than the first. Unfortunately, the first is badly damaged. The tree of life is not specifi- cally mentioned in the readable portions, but its presence can be assumed from the first sentence and from the general sense of contrast with the tree of knowledge of good and evil. “There are two trees growing in Paradise. The one bears [animals], the other bears men. Adam [ate] from the tree which bore animals (thērion). [He] became an animal, and he brought forth animals. For this reason the children of Adam worship [animals]. The tree [. . .] fruit is [. . .] increased. [. . .] ate the [. . .] fruit of the [. . .] bears men, [. . .] man. [. . .]” (71.22–34). It is interesting, though, that in this passage the tree of knowledge is not described positively: eating from it meant that Adam bore animals. In this passage the tree of life, if I am reading the sense of the lacunae correctly, would have been positive: eating it produces men in contrast to animals, although it is difficult to know exactly what that might mean here.52 ...”