The Good and Evil Serpent (164 page)

203
. For an English translation, see H. Freedman and M. Simon,
Midrash Rabbah
p. 162.

204
. See Appendix I and especially the section on Gen 1:24.

205
. I have enjoyed and benefited from conversations on this perspective with A. M. V. Capers.

206
. Urbach saw that the serpent’s punishment “implies a change in its original nature and qualities.” Urbach,
The Sages
, vol. 1, p. 422.

207
. P. Joüon, “Le grand dragon, l’ancien serpent,”
RSR
17 (1927) 444–46; the quotation is on p. 444.

208
. See Ephrem Syrus,
Commentary on Genesis
42.18–26; and T. Kronholm,
Motifs from Genesis 1–11 in the Genuine Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian
(Lund, 1978) p. 112.

209
. See the reflections on imagination and art by P. Zanker,
Un ‘arte per l’impero: Funzione e intenzione delle immagini nel mondo romano
, ed. E. Polito (Milan, 2002).

210
. I am grateful to Noel Freedman for discussion on this issue.

211
. It is clear that the serpent is in no way like God’s adversary as “Satan” in the book of Job, in which Satan seems still to be among God’s favored angels.

212
. For pre-Yahwistic traditions, see L. Ruppert, “Die Sündenfallerzählung (Gn 3) in vorjahwistischer Tradition und Interpretation,”
BZ
NF 15 (1971) 187.

213
. The words “good and evil” may be an addition by the Yahwist. They look redactional.

214
. H. Ringgren.
Israelite Religion
, trans. D. Green (London, 1966).

215
. This point, always evident in my thought, jumped out as I discussed the symbol of the serpent with Muslims in the Old City of Jerusalem. They especially were fond of how Muhammed retold the story of Moses’ use of serpent magic before Pharaoh.

216
. See the comments by C. Westermann,
Am Anfang: 1. Mose
(NeukirchenerVluyn, 1986) part 1, p. 38.

217
. See A. Levene,
The Early Syrian Fathers on Genesis
(London, 1951) pp. 75–76.

218
. See E. van Wolde,
Stories of the Beginning
, trans. J. Bowden (Harrisburg, 1996) esp. pp. 50–51.

219
. Here I am grateful to Noel Freedman for conversations on the meaning of Gen 3.

220
. Gen 1:26 and 2:7 were problematic for Jews because they implied that someone else, perhaps angels, made the human. According to the Samaritan Malef, the Angel of Yahweh made the human body and God created the soul or spirit of the human. See E. C. Baguley, “A Critical Edition, with Translation, of the Hebrew Text of the Malef” (PhD diss., University of Leeds, 1962) p. 234. I am indebted to J. Fossum for this information; see his “Gen. 1,26 and 2,7 in Judaism, Samaritanism, and Gnosticism,”
JSJ
16 (1985) 202–39.

221
. See J. J. M. Roberts, “Does God Lie?,”
The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays
(Winona Lake, Ind., 2002) pp. 123–31. Roberts points to the potential importance of understanding the serpent and Eve in Gen 3, but he does not broach the issue of God lying in this text.

222
. Note other etymological connections: Latin provides
homo
(human) and
humus
(earth); Greek has
chthon
(earth),
chamai
(on the earth), and
epichthonios
(human). This observation is discussed by R. Graves and R. Patai in
Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis
(New York, 1966) p. 63.

223
. P. Tillich, “The Meaning and Justification of Religious Symbols,” in
Religious Experience and Truth
, ed. S. Hook (New York, 1968) pp. 3–11; the quotation is on p. 5.

224
. As Westermann states, the author provides no explication for the origin of evil. Westermann,
Am Anfang
, part 1, p. 38.

225
. For permission to publish this photograph, I am grateful to Dott. Silvia Gozzi and Dott. Chiara Silla, the Comune di Firenze, and the Musei comunali di Firenze.

226
. L. Hansmann and L. Kriss-Rettenbeck,
Amulett und Talisman: Erscheinungsform und Geschichte
(Munich, 1966); see esp. Illus. No. 196 (anguipede demon), 4665 (numerous serpent amulets), 474 (amulet against a serpent’s bite), 608 (a hand with the finger closest to the little finger as a serpent), 639 (an amulet with a serpent biting a circle), 765 (a ring with a serpent [eighteenth/nineteenth cent. CE]), and especially 827 (Adam and the woman with a female serpent wound around a tree whose branches are depicted as antlers). See Illus. No. 99, a wood cutting of 1487 from the Netherlands; it shows Adam, the woman, and the serpent who is curled around the tree and looking only at Adam. This woodcut is remarkable because Eve is only beginning to eat the “apple,” yet Adam has already covered his privates.

227
. Contrast the work of Johann Heinrich Ftissli dated to 1799–1800. This artist, who was fascinated by Milton’s
Paradise Lost
, depicted “Eve” confronted by a much larger figure, the serpent, who seems to be masculine. Cf. C. Becker,
Johann Heinrich Fussli: Das Verlorene Paradies
(Stuttgart, 1997) p. 45.

228
. See the color photograph in G. Neret,
Michelangelo 1475–1564
(Cologne, London, New York, 1998) pp. 34–35.

229
.
Midrash Tehillim
, Comment Two. For the English, see W. G. Braude, trans.,
The Midrash on Psalms
(New Haven, 1959) vol. 1, p. 506. The Hebrew is from S. Buber, ed.,
Mdrsh Thlym
(New York, 1947 [reprinted]) p. 300.

230
. This seems odd; why did the author not say that the woman left her parents? Is some form of
beema
, marriage, envisioned? If so, then the narrative is extremely old (as I have been intimating), but not all of it is old. See Skinner,
Genesis
, p. 70.

231
. Gunkel,
Genesis
, p. 18.

232
. The punishment of the serpent, according to the Midrashim, was to lose his pride and arrogance; henceforth he can no longer walk with an erect head—he must crawl in the dust. Jews and Christians knew that the serpent does not eat dust, so a purely literal interpretation was almost always avoided.

233
. G. von Rad,
Genesis
, p. 87.

234
. Westermann,
Genesis 1–11
, p. 239.

235
. The serpent is sometimes incorrectly depicted slinking out of Paradise, ashamed and powerless. See the penciled sketch of 1851–52 by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld (1794–1872). See M. Bernhard, ed.,
Deutsche Romantik Handzeichnungen
(Herrsching, n.d.) vol. 2, p. 1752.

236
. The Latin is from
Biblia sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem
(Rome, 1936).

237
. Cf. Exod 4:3. L. Shalit relates how a poisonous snake became unconscious and stiff like a staff when it was twirled overhead and held by the tail. Shalit, “How Moses Turned a Staff into a Snake and Back Again,”
BAR
9 (1983) 72–73.

238
. J. Milgrom,
Numbers
(Philadelphia, New York, 5750 or 1990) pp. 173–74.

239
. See the reflections by J. Frey in “Wie Moses die Schlange in der Wüste erhöht hat” in
Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum
, ed. M. Hengel and H. Löhr (Tübingen, 1994) pp. 153–205.

240
. E. W. Davies attributes the account to the Yahwist. See Davies,
Numbers
(Grand Rapids, 1995) p. 215. I am persuaded that in Num 21 the Elohist has incorporated earlier traditions, some of which may be parallel to, or perhaps even from, the Yahwist.

241
. Commentators once unanimously thought the story was primarily from the Elohist; but see the comments and observations by P. J. Budd,
Numbers
(Waco, Tex., 1984) pp. 232–33. M. Noth assigned Num 21:4–9 to the Elohist. See Noth,
Das vierte Buch Mose: Numeri
(Göttingen, 1966) p. 137. H. Jagersma thinks the narrative is primarily E with dependence on J. See Jagersma,
Numberi
(Nijkerk, 1988) vol. 2, p. 85. My position is that articulated by J. de Vaulx, published in his
Les Nombres
(Paris, 1972) p. 235.

242
. In making these judgments, I am indebted to B. A. Levine,
Numbers 1–20
(Anchor Yale Bible; Garden City, N.Y., 1993; rpt. New Haven) pp. 48–49.

243
. For example, see J. de Vaulx,
Les Nombres
, p. 235.

244
. Copper is pure ore smelted in a furnace. Bronze is copper strengthened with tin. Brass, which appears much later in the Roman Period (perhaps in the late first century CE), is copper mixed with zinc.

245
. See also Joines,
JBL
87 (1968) 252–54.

246
. G. B. Gray,
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers
(Edinburgh, New York, 1903, reprinted in 1956) p. 275.

247
. A snake idol is on display in the Nechustan Pavilion, Eretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv (Display Case No. 40, item no. 4 and item identification 90302). After studying numerous pictures of this copper (gold-plated head) serpent (see Illus. No. 28), I was surprised that only studying this one directly awoke in me feelings that it was alive. It is easy then to imagine that it symbolized life and renewed life.

248
. Milgrom,
Numbers
, p. 175.

249
. Milgrom,
Numbers
, p. 460.

250
. T. Staubli claims that Num 21:4–9 is to be understood as a projection back into the Wilderness Period to substantiate the Jerusalem cult until Hezkeiah’s reform: “Die biblische Geschichte ist die in die Wüste zurückprojizierte Ätiologie eines Kultbildes, das bis zur Reform unter Hiskija in Jerusalem stand.” T. Staubli,
Die Bücher Leviti-kus, Numeri
(Stuttgart, 1996) p. 286.

251
. H. Holzinger,
Numeri
(Tübingen, Leipzig, 1903) p. 93.

252
. M. Noth was convinced that Num 21:4–9 was not to be understood as an etiological legend (“eine Ätiologie des ‘Nehusthan’ von 2. Kön. 18,4”). See Noth’s comments in his
Das vierte Buch Mose
, p. 137. Noth was convinced that Num 21:4–9 was an occasion to explain the history of a plague of serpents in the wilderness, during the time of Moses. J. Sturdy, among other scholars, concludes that Num 21:4–9 is a “story” that was “developed to explain the origin of a bronze serpent that stood in the temple of Jerusalem down to the reign of Hezekiah.” Sturdy,
Numbers
(Cambridge, New York, 1976) p. 147.

253
. J. Gray,
I & II Kings
(London, 1970 [2nd ed.]) p. 670.

254
. B. Baentsch, Professor of Theology in the University of Jena, was convinced that 2 Kgs 18:4 should be understood as a cult-saying that explained the presence of a serpent image in the Jerusalem Temple: “Wir haben es hier mit einer Kultussage zu tun, die beabsichtigt, die Entstehung des ehernen Schlangenbildes im Tempel zu Jerusalem (II Reg 18:4) zu erklären und dieses durch Zurückführung auf Moses als echtes Stück der unter Jahvereligion zu charakterisieren.” Baentsch,
Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri
(Göttingen, 1903) p. 575.

255
. This position is held also by J. de Vaulx in
Les Nombres
, p.236.

256
. M. Noth, “Num. 21 als Glied der ‘Hexateuch’-Erzahlung,”
ZAW
58 (19401941) 178–80.

257
. J. A. Montgomery pointed out this double meaning and that the root of “brass” or “copper” is
lbs
which means “to hiss.” Montgomery,
The Books of Kings
, ed. H. S. Gehman (Edinburgh, 1951) p. 501. N. Freedman shared this information with me since Professor Gehman, his teacher at Princeton Theological Seminary, completed this commentary after Montgomery’s death.

258
. D. T. Olson,
Numbers
(Louisville, 1996) p. 136.

259
. J. Preuss rightly points out that the type of snake in the wilderness with Moses, according to Num 21, is unknowable: “What type of snakes are here referred to can only be guessed at.” J. Preuss,
Biblical and Talmudic Medicine
, ed. and trans. F. Rosner (New York, 1978) p. 197.

260
. H. Cazelles contended that
seraph
should be conceived “as a winged dragon” (“comme des dragons ailés”). H. Cazelles,
Les Nombres
(Paris, 1958) p. 101.

261
. The snakes were clearly poisonous. Most commentators make this point clear. As A. Dillmann stated over one hundred years ago, the story tells of poisonous snakes (Brandschlangen) through whose “bite many people die” (“Biss vielen Leuten den Tod brachten”). Dillmann,
Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua
(Leipzig, 1886) p. 119. Dillmann draws attention to Strabo (15.2.7), according to whom Alexander the Great lost many soldiers to snakebites. And, as A. Drubbel opines, one should imagine poisoness snakes: “Men heeft te denken aan giftige slangen.” Drubbel,
Numeri
(Roermond en Maaseik, 1963) p. 105.

262
. J. W. Wevers, ed.,
Numeri
(Göttingen, 1982) p. 254.

263
.‘l’n means “serpent,” and N’?p (Jastrow II.1376) “fiery” or “poisonous.” For critical comments on the LXX in Num 21:4–9, see G. Dorival,
La bible d’Alexandrie: Les nombres
(Paris, 1994) pp. 399–401.

264
. See O. Keel, M. Küchler, and C. Uehlinger, “Schlangen,”
Orte und Landschaften der Bibel
(Zurich, Göttingen, 1984) vol. 1, pp. 163–66.

265
. T. E. Lawrence,
Revolt in the Desert
(New York, 1927) p. 93; I am grateful to Milgrom,
Numbers
, p. 318, for this reference.