The Good and Evil Serpent (162 page)

50
. J. G. Frazer,
Folk-Lore in the Old Testament
(London, 1918).

51
. As J. Skinner pointed out long ago, the Yahwist implies that the Garden of Eden was planted after the creation of man. See Skinner,
Genesis
(Edinburgh, 1930 [2nd ed.]) p. 57.

52
. A woodcutting of the sixteenth century shows Adam, the woman, and the serpent; what is remarkable is the depiction of the tree of knowledge as a human skeleton. See C. Baudelaire,
Sämtliche Werke/Briefe
, 6 vols., ed. F. Kemp et al. (Munich, 1975) vol. 4, Illus. No. 15.

53
. As U. Cassuto asked: “If we answer that the cunning of the serpent was the determining factor, then why just this and not another wily creature, like the fox?” Cassuto,
A Commentary on the Book of Genesis
, trans. I. Abrahams (Jerusalem, 1961) vol. 1, p. 140.

54
. Cf. esp. Ps 1, Isa 5, 1QH 16
(olim
8),
PssSol
, and
OdesSol
11.

55
. I am aware that Gunkel thought that the creation narrative in Genesis was not a “story,” but he, as W. R. Scott points out, was not as precise as he imagined and often also referred to the creation narrative as a story. See Scott’s reflections in H. Gunkel,
The Story of Genesis
, trans. J. J. Scullion and ed. W. R. Scott (Oakland, Calif., 1994) p. xi.

56
. Speiser,
Genesis
, p. 25.

57
. Speiser,
Genesis
, p. 23.

58
. Th. C. Vriezen,
Onderzoek naar de Paradizsvoorstelling bij de oude Semietische Volken
(Wagenigen, 1937); see the succinct summary in English by C. Westermann in
Genesis 1–11
, trans. J. J. Scullion (Minneapolis, 1974) p. 237.

59
. E. Williams-Forte, “The Snake and the Tree in the Iconography and Texts of Syria During the Bronze Age,” in
Ancient Seals and the Bible
, ed. L. Gorelick and E. Williams-Forte (Malibu, Calif., 1983) pp. 18–43.

60
. Joines, “The Serpent in Gen 3,”
ZAW
87 (1975) 1–11.

61
. Pagels,
Adam, Eve, and the Serpent
(New York, 1988) p. 69. As reviewers of Pagels’s book point out, there is in this work a “paucity of references to Adam, Eve, or the serpent.” See esp. A. Jacobs, “Provocative and Tendentious,”
The Reformed Journal
39 (1989) p. 21.

62
. J. Bellamy,
The Ophion or the Theology of the Serpent and the Unity of God
(London, 1911) pp. vi-vii.

63
. For example, T. L. Brodie sees Genesis as a complex unity that has been influenced by Homer. See Brodie,
Genesis as Dialogue
(Oxford, New York, 2001); esp. see “Sources: Genesis’s Use of Homer’s
Odyssey,”
and “Sources: The Theory of Four Hypothetical Documents (J, E, D, and P).” Brodie does not discuss the image of the serpent in this book.

64
. E.g., see G. von Rad,
Das Formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch
(Stuttgart, 1938); W. Brueggemann, “David and His Theologian,”
CBQ
30 (1968) 156–81; P. Ellis,
The Yahwist: The Bible’s First Theologian
(Collegeville, 1968) 21–50.

65
. See esp. E. Ulrich,
The Dead Sea Scrolls and Origins of the Bible
(Grand Rapids, Leiden, 1999) p. 11.

66
.
The Book of Genesis
(New York, 1965) pp. 47–48.

67
. E. J. Young,
An Introduction to the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids, 1965) p. 33.

68
.
The Old Testament: An Introduction
, trans. P. Ackroyd (New York, 1966) p. 198.

69
. Joines,
Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament
, p. 31.

70
. S. R. Driver,
An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament
(New York, 1956) pp. 123–24. Le Grande Davies concurred with Driver: “All of the theories merely propound prejudices or feelings.” “Serpent Imagery in Ancient Israel,” p. 41. There are limits; the story of Gen 3 took its present form by at least 800
BCE
(according to most experts, viz. Kittel, Kuenen, and Wellhausen).

71
. As A. Fanuli states, the originality of the Yahwist is the framing of Israel’s history as “storia universale” as well as an attractive presentation: “é
un’unica storia di salvezza”
(his italics). A. Fanuli in
La spiritualità dell’Antico Testamento
, ed. A. Fanuli (Rome, 1988) p. 219.

72
. I. Engnell, “ ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Life’ in the Creation Story,”
VTSupp
3 (1955) pp. 112–16. Also see Engnell,
Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East
(Oxford, 1967).

73
. Gunkel,
Genesis
, p. 4.

74
. For his textual work, see G. von Rad,
Das erste Buch Mose
(Göttingen, 1981 [11th ed.]) pp. 50–83.

75
. Still valuable is W. R. Cooper, “Observations on the Serpent Myths of Ancient Egypt,”
Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute
6 (1873) pp. 321–91; esp. note the 126 illustrations. Cooper was convinced: “The study of Egyptian mythology will throw more light upon the restrictive customs of the Jews, the allusions of the prophets … than that of any other country” (p. 391). We have seen that this view is now modified to account for the presence of Egyptian and other elements within Canaanite culture.

76
. As cited by G. von Rad,
Genesis
, trans. J. H. Marks (Philadelphia, 1973 [rev.ed.]) p. 86.

77
. Ibid., p. 88.

78
. U. Cassuto,
A Commentary on the Book of Genesis
, trans. I. Abrahams (Jerusalem, 1961) vols. 1, pp. 142–43.

79
. E. Wiesel, “The Serpent,”
BRev
13.6 (1997) 18–19; the quotation is on p. 19 (trans. A. Martin). Wiesel speaks of “Eve,” but does recognize that there are two trees in Eden (p. 18).

80
. Speiser,
Genesis
, p. 23.

81
. Moberly is essentially right to point out that the language of Gen 2–3 is “the mature language of classical Hebew,” but there are exceptions to this rule, and the earlier myths have shaped the story. See Moberly,
JTS
NS 39 (1988) 1.

82
. Note how different this critical text is from the popular one found in handy editions of the LXX. See J. W. Wevers, ed.,
Genesis
(Göttingen, 1974) p. 89.

83
. The punctuation is less important; there is no punctuation in the Uncial Greek. The Greek text, however, does clarify that the Greeks, and not just the ones who added the punctuation marks, knew that the words formed an interrogative sentence.

84
. For informed discussions and guides to publications, see E. Tov,
The Greek and Hebrew Bible
(Leiden, Boston, 1999).

85
. Fanuli,
La spiritualità dell’Antico Testamento
, p. 229: “L’influenza ‘astuta’ (Gen 3, 1) e nefasta del serpente.”

86
. Gunkel,
Genesis
, pp. 15–16.

87
.
La Bible de Jérusalem
(Paris, 1998 [new rev. and corrected ed.]) p. 41.

88
. Translation from the LXX; see M. Harl,
La Genèse
(Paris, 1986) p. 106.

89
. M. Maher, translator,
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis
(Edinburgh, 1992) p. 25 (italics his).

90
. Moberly,
JTS
NS 39 (1988) 4.

91
. B. Gosse, “L’écriture de Gn 3, le serpent dualité de la femme et de l’homme,”
BN
98 (1999) 19–20; the quotation is from p. 19.

92
. Contrast the far more insightful reflections on the wisdom of the serpent by B. Renz, “Die Kluge Schlange,”
BZ
24 (1938–1939) 241.

93
. See T. Muraoka,
Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint
(Grand Rapids, 1988) p. 115.

94
. The Greek translator cannot preserve the paronomasia that links the nudity of the humans with the serpent as “the most clever (or wise) of all the beasts of the land;” the Greek word for nudity is
gumnoi
. See Wevers, ed.,
Genesis
, p. 89.

95
. Plato,
Politicus
263d and Aristotle,
Historia Animalium
488
^b
15.

96
. See Harl,
Genèse
, p. 107.

97
. Maher, trans.,
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis
, p. 25 (italics his).

98
. For the text, see M. Ginsburger, ed.,
Pseudo-Jonathan
(Berlin, 1903) p. 5.

99
. In this book, which is designed for many who have no knowledge about transliteration techniques, I have decided not to use the scholarly norm, since
hkm
may remain meaningless to them. Readers may not know that
h
denote the sound “ch.” Also, transliterations like
s
will be avoided since many readers will not grasp that “sh” is intended.

100
. J. W. Etheridge,
The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch
(New York, 1968) p. 40 (Onkelos). Words within brackets are mine.

101
. A. Sperber, ed.,
The Bible in Aramaic: Volume 1, The Pentateuch According to Targum Onkelos
(Leiden, 1959) p. 4.

102
. The Aramaic and Diez Macho’s translation are from Diez Macho, ed.,
Neo-phyti 1: Génesis
(Madrid/Barcelona, 1968) pp. 12–13.

103
. This is the translation by M. McNamara in his
Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis
(Edinburgh, 1992) p. 59.

104
. For more discussion, see P. Kübel, “Ein Wortspiel in Genesis 3 und sein Hintergrund: Die ‘kluge’ Schlange und die ‘nackten’ Menschen,”
BN
93 (1998) 11–22.

105
. For the Hebrew text, see M. S. Zukermandel,
Tosephta
(Pasewalk, 1880) p. 300.

106
. Neusner, trans.,
The Tosefta
(New York, 1979) vol. Nashim, p. 165.

107
. As Gunkel wrote, the serpent “is the cleverest of animals, he is also more clever than the childish human; he has, according to v. 5, mysterious knowledge, which beside him only God knows” (“ist das klügste der Tiere, sie ist auch klüger als der damals noch kindliche Mensch; sie hat nach v. 5 geheimes Wissen, das außer ihr nur noch Gott selber weiß”). Gunkel,
Genesis
, p. 15.

108
. G. von Rad,
Genesis
, p. 81.

109
. J. F. A. Sawyer, “The Image of God, the Wisdom of Serpents, and the Knowledge of Good and Evil,” in
A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden
, ed. P. Morris and D. Sawyer (Sheffield, 1992) pp. 64–73; the quotation is on p. 66.

110
. For a translation of parts of Gunkel’s well-known masterpiece, see C. A. Muenchow, “The Influence of Babylonian Mythology Upon the Biblical Creation Story,” in
Creation in the Old Testament
, ed. B. W. Anderson (Philadelphia, 1984) pp. 25–52.

111
. Jaros perceives correctly that the serpent is “ein Gottesgeschöpf” and so “keine gottfeindliche Macht repräsentieren könne.” K. Jaros “Die Motive der Heiligen Bäume und der Schlange in Gen 2–3,”
ZAW
92 (1980) 214. Most commentators make the point that the Nachash cannot be Satan, and that he was created by God.

112
. See B. W. Anderson, “The Slaying of the Fleeing, Twisting Serpent: Isaiah 27:1 in Context,” in
Uncovering Ancient Sources: Essays in Memory of H. Neil Richardson
, ed. L. M. Hopfe (Winona Lake, Ind., 1994) pp. 3–15.

113
. W. B. Kristensen, “De Slangenstaf en het Spraakvermogen van Mozes en Aäron,”
Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen
NS 16.14 (1953) 591–610. Kristensen illustrates how Egyptian gods, and perhaps pharaohs, were depicted with serpents as staffs and serpents facing a staff.

114
. Sawyer, “The Image of God, the Wisdom of Serpents, and the Knowledge of Good and Evil,” p. 67.

115
. The translation is from J. Gardner and J. Maier,
Gilgamesh
(New York, 1984) pp. 249–50.

116
.
Before Philosophy
, p. 23.

117
. See the classical study, published in 1895, by Gunkel, translated by C. A. Muen-chow, “The Influence of Babylonian Mythology upon the Biblical Creation Story.”

118
. See J. Armstrong, “Themes in Sumerian and Greek Myth and Visual Imagery,” in
The Paradise Myth
(London, New York, 1969) pp. 8–36.

119
. To be as focused as possible on serpent symbolism, I cannot explore what is meant by the knowledge obtained by the man and his wife. I. Engnell makes a remarkable case that this knowledge means that they are, like God, capable of procreation. Engell, “Knowledge and ‘Life” in the Creation Story,” in
Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East
[H. H. Rowley Festschrift], ed. M. Noth and D. W. Thomas (Leiden, 1960) pp. 103–19; see esp. pp. 115–16.

120
. Cheyne,
Encyclopedia Biblica
, 4.4396.

121
. See C. Milani in
Studi e materiali di archeologia e numismatica
1 (1899–1901) pp. 37ff; also see Buchholz,
Ugarit-Forschungen
32 (2000) 126 and the drawing on p. 168.

122
. The circular border and the fish within it suggest that the signs of the zodiac once encircled this fragment.

123
. R. Seewald’s
Orbis Pictus
contains an allegorical drawing of the human, with a large serpent, curled around a tree, “kissing” the right cheek of a nude “Eve.” See R. Seewald,
Orbis Pictus: Siebzehn Allegorien und Texte über die sichtbare Welt
(Memmingen, 1965) Illus. No. 3 (cf. Illus. No. 4).