The Good and Evil Serpent (161 page)

448
.
Antiken Denkm
. (1850) vol. 2, p. 264; as cited by Küster at the commencement of his
Die Schlange in der griechischen Kunst und Religion
, p. 1. Also see the similar insights provided by M. Provera in “Il tema e culto del serpente nella tradizione biblica e profana,”
BeO
166 (1990) 209–14.

449
. In his encyclopedia on symbols, H. Biedermann rightly begins his entry on serpent symbolism by stressing its complex contradictory symbolic power. Biedermann,
Enciclopedia dei Simboli
(Milan, 2001) p. 483.

450
.
Meaning in the Visual Arts
, p. 32. I am indebted to E. H. Gombrich who highlighted this caveat. See his “Introduction: Aims and Limits of Iconology,” in
Symbolic Images: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance
(Oxford, 1972 [3rd ed.]) pp. 1–22. I am grateful to the director of the Warburg Institute, London, for discussions on iconology and for drawing my attention to Gombrich’s work.

6. Serpent Symbolism in the Hebrew Bible

1
. See, e.g., J. Maringer, “Die Schlange in Kunst und Kult der vorgeschichtlichen Menschen,”
Anthropos
72 (1977) 881–920.

2
. See P. Joüon, “Le grand dragon, l’ancien serpent,”
RSR
17 (1927) 444–46; B. Renz,
Der orientalische Schlangendrache
(Augsburg, 1930); W. Foerster, “òpaKcov,”
TDNT
3 (1964) 281–83.

3
. See W. Foerster,
TDNT
2 (1964) 815–16.

4
. See Appendix II and Foerster,
TDNT
5 (1967) 566–71.

5
. See the reflections by many who study symbolism; notably, consult G. Busi in his
Mistica Ebraica
, ed. G. Busi and E. Loewenthal (Turin, 1995) p. xii.

6
. H. and H. A. Frankfort,
Before Philosophy
(Baltimore, 1949) pp. 19–20.

7
.
TDNT
5 (1967) 567.

8
. The following section is directed to those who have not been trained in the science of biblical research.

9
. There are thirty-nine books in the Old Testament, since, for example, the Minor Prophets are counted as only one book in the HB but twelve in the OT.

10
. D. E. Aune, “On the Origins of the ‘Council of Javneh’ Myth,”
JBL
110 (1991) 491–93. S. Talmon, “The Crystallization of the ‘Canon of Hebrew Scriptures’ in the Light of Biblical Scrolls from Qumran,” in
The Bible as Book
, ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov (London, 2002) pp. 5–20. L. M. McDonald,
The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon
(Peabody, Mass., 1995 [rev. and expanded ed.]).

11
. I am grateful to S. Talmon for discussions on the “Book of the People.”

12
. Also see Appendix I.

13
. Scholars have correctly concluded, for centuries, that two authors composed the beginning chapters of Genesis; the P writer is identified by his penchant for calling God “Elohim,” and the Yahwist called God “Yahweh (or the Lord) God.” See the following discussion of “JEDP” at the beginning of the exegesis of Gen 3.

14
. This aspect of Gen 3 cannot be traced to other cultures, such as Babylonia. There is no good parallel to it, as many experts have pointed out. See esp. J. Ernst,
Die eschatologischen Gegenspieler in den Schriften des Neuen Testaments
(Regensberg, 1967) pp. 244–45.

15
. During the time of writing this chapter, the standard for spelling “worshipers” changed to “worshippers.” I have corrected all these spellings.

16
.“Nechushtan” is the vocalization I have chosen to help the person who is not a biblical scholar.

17
. I have chosen not to use capitalization for trees in Eden.

18
. R. Guénon,
Simboli della Scienza sacra
, trans. F. Zambon (Milan, 1975 [French original was published in 1962]). See esp. the suggestion that the descriptions of the earthly Paradise symbolize the heavenly Jerusalem; p. 287: “C’è inoltre da notare che di tutto il simbolismo végétale del Paradiso terrestre solo l’ Albero della Vita’ sussiste con questo carattere nella descrizione della Gerusalemme celeste.”

19
. I am indebted to the reflections by B. W. Anderson in
Creation in the Old Testament
(Philadelphia, London, 1984) esp. pp. 1–2.

20
. M. J. Gruenthaner, “The Demonology of the Old Testament,”
CBQ
6 (1944) 6–27; the quotations are from pp. 7 and 8, respectively.

21
. See M. Giebel,
Tiere in der Antike
(Darmstadt, 2003) p. 166.

22
. D. Patte, ed.,
Genesis 2 and 3: Kaleidoscopic Structural Readings
(Chico, Calif., 1980) p. 4.

23
. While the Jews who have given us the apocryphal books and the Haggadah and the early and later Christian scholars have been interested in the serpent in Gen 3, early rabbinic Jews did not seem fascinated or concerned with serpent imagery. Hillel and Shammai are reputed to have debated the meaning of Gen 2:4 and 3:4 but not 3:1; see N. Sed,
La Mystique cosmologique juive
(Paris, New York, 1981) esp. p. 31. As we shall demonstrate, and as Urbach indicated, “The story of the serpent in the Book of Genesis … which left no trace in the Biblical books, received extensive treatment in the apocryphal literature and in the Hagada [sic].” E. E. Urbach,
The Sages
2 vols., trans. I. Abrahams (Jerusalem, 1979) vol. 1, p. 167.

24
. A. de Gubernatis,
Zoological Mythology
(New York, 1972) vol. 2, p. 389.

25
.
The Book of Genesis
(New York, 1965) p. 59.

26
. Moberly,
JTS
NS 39 (1988) 1–27.

27
. Ibid., p. 13.

28
. P. Diel,
Symbolism in the Bible: The Universality of Symbolic Language and Its Psychological Significance
, trans. N. Marans (San Francisco, 1986) pp. 11–12.

29
. E. Hampton-Cook, “The Serpent in Eden (Gen. iii),”
Expository Times
18 (1906–1907) 287.

30
. See esp. J. S. Hanson, “Dreams and Visions in the Greco-Roman World and Early Christianity,” in
ANRW
II 23.2 (1980) 1395–1426; see esp. pp. 1397–98.

31
. See J.-P. Picot, “Genèse et récits contemporains de contre-utopie: Eve et le serpent,” in
La Bible: Images, Mythes et Traditions
(Paris, 1995) pp. 45–60. On p. 44, Picot rightly clarifies that Eve has not yet been named: “Et voilà Eve au côté d’Adam, Eve qui n’a pas encore de nom.”

32
. According to the Midrashim (rabbinic commentary on biblical texts), the serpent was jealous of the humans because the angels roasted the meat and poured the wine for the couple. This is attractive and imaginative hermeneutics, but it is not modern critical scholarship.

33
. E. E. Day and G. D. Jordan, “Serpent,”
ISBE
4.417–18; the quotation is from p. 417.

34
. This is pointed out by J.-P. Picot, “Genèse et récits contemporains de contre-utopie,” 45–60.

35
. The text has “he” (
); does that not suggest either that the snake was perceived to be male or that there is a paronomasia between N1H and mn? Such would not be surprising since paronomasia shapes the flow of thought in Gen 3.

36
. This verse seems intrusive because it attributes to the anonymous woman a very high role. See A. J. Williams, “The Relationship of Genesis 3:20 to the Serpent,”
ZAW
89 (1977) 357–74.

37
. Cf. D. I. O. Smit, “Serpens aut Daemonium?” in
Miscellanea Biblica et Orienta-lia
, ed. A. Metzinger (Rome, 1951) pp. 94–97.

38
. L. Réau,
Iconographie de l’art chrétien
, 6 vols. (Paris, 1955–1959); see vol. 1, pp. 98–99.

39
. See C. F. Keil,
Biblischer Commentar über die Bücher Moses: Genesis und Exodus
(Leipzig, 1866 [2nd ed.]) vol. 1, p. 56. Keil explains his way out of the problem that the serpent has supernatural knowledge by the amazing subjective claim that this knowledge comes “not from the Serpent himself” (“nicht aus der Schlange selbst”) but “only from a higher Spirit” (“nur von einem höheren Geist”) p. 56. Now, why would the serpent, as Satan, receive such a higher spirit? It is best to allow an ancient author to say something shocking and to listen to him. It is evident that at this point the Yahwist has inherited the myth of the serpent itself being a higher spirit.

40
. This fact was stressed long ago by H. Gunkel, one of the most insightful commentators on Genesis. See Gunkel,
Genesis
(Göttingen, 1977 [9th ed.]) p. 15, “Die spätere, jüdisch-christliche Erklärung (Sap Sal 2:24, Joh 8:44, ApJoh 12:9, 20:2), die Schlange sei der Teufel, ist unrichtig.”

41
. The story of the serpent with Adam and “Eve” in the Garden of Eden is so well known that the
New Yorker
has run cartoons featuring it. For example, the drawing by Whitney Darrow depicts in comic fashion an astronaut, who has landed on some far-off planet, running from his spacecraft toward a reclining Adam, a large upraised and benign serpent, and headed primarily for Eve, whose right hand reaches up to an apple, and to whom he shouts, “Miss! Oh, Miss! For God’s sake, stop!” See
The New Yorker Album of Drawings 192 5–1975
(New York, 1978) no pages, but about one-fifth into the book.

42
. Transliterations added by me.

43
. E. A. Speiser,
Genesis
(Garden City, N.Y., 1964) pp. 14–23. I have added transliterations of the Hebrew to draw attention to word plays (paronomasia) and to thoughts that unite the folktale like a special colored thread in a tapestry.

44
. The Yahwist is far too early to imagine deep influences from Greece and Rome.

45
. See, e.g., H.-P. Müller,
Mythos—Kerygma—Wahrheit
(Berllin, New York, 1991) esp. pp. 3–42.

46
. See the similar thoughts expressed by Le Grande Davies, “Serpent Imagery in Ancient Israel,” p. 42.

47
. Eliade,
Myth and Reality
, trans. W. R. Trask (New York, 1968) p. 6. I am indebted to Le Grande Davies for this reference (p. 43).

48
. E. Phillips rightly asks why the relation between the two trees is “stunningly ambiguous.” Phillips, “Serpent Intertexts: Tantalizing Twists in the Tales,”
BBR 10
(2000) 233–45; the quotation is on p. 236.

49
. E. O. James rightly sees that the tree of life seems to be “introduced as if it were an after thought.” James,
The Tree of Life: An Archeological Study
(Leiden, 1966) p. 75. James shows no interest in the serpent or snake. Contrast U. Holmberg’s
Der Baum des Lebens
. She is primarily interested in the goddess, but she includes an interest in the serpent. See Holmberg,
Der Baum des Lebens: Göttinnen und Baumkult
(Bern, 1996); see Illus. No. 34 (serpent entwined on a tree), 37 (serpent goddess Ganga), 41 (the goddess Erde with a serpent), 53 (a serpent three times curled around the navel stone), 67 (two serpents, upraised, beneath a three-headed goddess).