The Good and Evil Serpent (166 page)

318
. Cogan and Tadmor,
II Kings
, p. 217, reject Rowley’s suggetion as “highly speculative.”

319
. H. H. Rowley, “Zadok and Nehushtan,”
JBL
58 (1939) 113–41. Joines also claims a Canaanite origin for the serpent cult; Joines,
JBL
87 (1968) 245–56.

320
. This conclusion has been defended by leading experts of this period in the history of Israel, namely Bentzen, Rowley, Ringgren, Zimmerli, and Ramsey. For a recent succint discussion, see G. W. Ramsey, “Zadok,”
AYBD
6.1034–36.

321
. Joines,
JBL
87 (1968) 256.

322
. In this work, my transliterations are without the diacritics and supralinears that confuse those who are not specialists in Semitics.

323
. Milgrom insightfully suggests that “the paronomasia, or word play, adds to its homeopathic powers.” Milgrom,
Numbers
, p. 174.

324
. Montgomery,
The Books of Kings
, p. 481.

325
. Long,
2 Kings
, p. 195.

326
. I do not think it likely that Israelite religion was to a degree a continuation of Canaanite culture, as G. W. Ahlström and N. P. Lemche have concluded. See Ahlström,
Who Were the Israelites?
(Winona Lake, Ind., 1986) and Lemche,
The Development of the Israelite Religion in the Light of Recent Studies on the Early History of Israel
(Leiden, 1991).

327
. This is developed attractively by Koh in “An Archaeological Investigation of the Snake Cult in the Southern Levant;” see esp. p. 140.

328
. The precursor of the developed caduceus is found on an intricately carved flint knife found in northern Egypt. See the drawing and discussion in J. T. Burns, “Origin and Date of the Caduceus Motif,”
Journal of the American Medical Association
202 (1967) 163–67.

329
. I am indebted to R. Reich for this insight shared with me as we stood before the massive stone walls that he has recently uncovered beneath “David’s City” in eastern Jerusalem.

7. The Symbolism of the Serpent in the Gospel of John

1
. H. Gerhard, “Über Agathodämon und Bona Dea,”
Akademie der Wissenschaften
(24 June 1847) 463–99.

2
. See K. Aland,
Vollständige Konkordanz zum Griechischen Neuen Testament
, 3 vols. (Berlin, New York, 1978–1983).

3
. See P. Joüon, “Le Grand Dragon,”
RSR
17 (1927) 444–46; B. Renz,
Der orientalische Schlangendrache
(Augsburg, 1930); W. Foerster, “ôpâKcov,”
TDNT
2 (1964) 281–83. The nouns àareîç and èprestôv do not receive a separate entry in
TDNT
.

4
. See Foerster, “Ë/iôva,”
TDNT
2 (1964) 815–16.

5
. See Foerster, “ôcpiç,”
TDNT
5 (1967) 566–71.

6
. In L. Réau’s
Iconographie de l’art chrétienne
(1955), under animals as symbols of Christ we are told that the following animals symbolized Christ: the lamb, the dove, the fish, the hart (or stag), the peacock, the eagle, the ostrich, the weasel, “le Bélier,” the scapegoat, “le Caladre,” “la Carista,” the cock, the dolphin, the griffin, the lobster, the water snake, the unicorn, the lion, the lynx, the pelican, the phoenix, “la Sauterelle,” the serpent, the bull, and the calf. Lost in the forest may be the living sprout: “The serpent is almost always an image of a demon; however, it may, in certain passages, signify the Christ” (p. 98).

7
. See the image of the personification of sin from the Chancel of Salerno (second half of the twelfth cent.) in W. Kemp, “Schlange, Schlangen,”
Lexicon der christlichen Ikonographie
(1990), vol. 4, p. 79.

8
. C. H. Dodd,
The Epistle to the Romans
(London, 1932), E. P. Sanders,
Paul and Palestinian Judaism
(Philadelphia, 1977), H. Räisänen,
Paul and the Law
(Tübingen, 1987 [2nd ed.]).

9
. K. Ehrensperger,
That We May be Mutually Encouraged
(New York, London, 2004).

10
. See LSJM 2.1299.

11
. The image of the serpent often is seen with a bird. We earlier drew attention to the serpent together with the dove on ceramics found at Beth Shan. Also see W. Fauth, “Widder, Schlange und Vogel am heiligen Baum zur ikonographie einer Anatolisch-Mediterranen Symbolkonstellation,”
Anatolica
6 (1977–78) 129–57 with 12 Plates.

12
. See the comments by A. Byatt in
New Testament Metaphors
(Edinburgh, 1995) p. 36.

13
. Among many publications, see Byatt,
New Testament Metaphors
, esp. pp. 36 and 52.

14
. Gregory of Nyssa,
On Virginity
16; trans. W. Moore and H. A. Wilson, “Gregory of Nyssa: On Virginity,”
NPNF2
5, p. 362.

15
. Augustine,
On Christian Doctrine
1.14.13; trans. J. F. Shaw, “Augustine: On Christian Doctrine,”
NPNF1
2, p. 526.

16
. Augustine,
Sermons on New-Testament Lessons
23.3; trans. R. G. MacMullen, “The Works of St. Augustine: Sermons on New Testament Lessons,”
NPNF1
6, p. 334.

17
. Long ago, E. Nestle rightly saw that John the Baptizer and Jesus use the expression “generation of vipers” to denote that the ones targeted “are not ordinary serpents, but venomous vipers.” Nestle, “Generation of Vipers,”
ExpTim
23 (1911–12) 185. This comment is significant; it reveals a perception of good and evil ophidian symbolism.

18
. Ovid,
Metam
. 3.531–32. Again in 7.212 Medea bewails her plight and refers to the “serpent-born band”
(vos serpentigenis)
. Translations mine. For the Latin see Miller (LCL 1971) vol. 1, pp. 160–61. The Latin
“anguigena”
denote the offspring of a serpent; the word is typical of Ovid. See the
Oxford Latin Dictionary
(Oxford and London, 1968) vol. 1, p. 129.

19
. O. Betz, “Die Proselytentaufe der Qumransekte und die Taufe im Neuen Testament,”
RevQ
2.1 (1958) 213–34.

20
. See L. Schiffman in DJD 20 (1997) 41–42.

21
. Brackets are used to denote restorations (the leather either has a hole in it or the ink has been abraded away).

22
. R. E. Brown concluded (when he wrote his Commentary) that the Fourth Gospel reflects five stages of composition. See Brown,
The Gospel According to John
(Anchor Yale Bible; Garden City, N.Y., 1966; rpt. New Haven) vol. 1, pp. xxiv-xxxix.

23
. See the contributions in P. L. Hofrichter, ed.,
Für und wider die Priorität des Johannesevangeliums
(Zürich, New York, 2002); Charlesworth, “The Priority of John? Reflections on the Essenes and the First Edition of John,” in
Für und wider die Priorität des Johannesevangeliums
, pp. 73–114. Although M. Slee focuses on the
Didache
and Matthew, she clarifies the importance of Antioch for Jesus’ followers in the first century CE. See Slee,
The Church in Antioch in the First Century CE
(Sheffield, 2003).

24
. See esp. the contributions in Charlesworth, ed.,
John and the Dead Sea Scrolls
(New York, 1991); also see Charlesworth, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel According to John,” in
Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith
, ed. R. A. Culpepper and C. C. Black (Louisville, 1996) pp. 65–97; J. Ashton,
Understanding the Fourth Gospel
(Oxford, 1991) p. 237; and E. Ruckstuhl,
Jesus im Horizont der Evangelien
(Stuttgart, 1988) p. 393.

25
. P. Gardner-Smith concluded that the Fourth Evangelist did not know any of the Synoptics; see his
Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels
(Cambridge, 1938). Now, see esp. D. M. Smith,
John Among the Gospels
(Minneapolis, 1992 [see the rev. ed., published by University of South Carolina Press in 2001]).

26
. See Charlesworth,
The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John?
(Valley Forge, Pa., 1995).

27
. M. L. Robert, “Dans une maison d’Éphèse: Un serpent et un chiffre,”
CRAI
(1982) 126–32.

28
. I am indebted to insights shared by S. R. F. Price; see his
Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor
(Cambridge, New York, 1987); see esp. “Images,” pp. 170–206.

29
. I am influenced by the division of texts provided by M. E. Boismard and A. La-mouille,
Synopsis Graeca Quattuor Evangeliorum
(Leuven, Paris, 1986) p. 29.

30
. Translation and italics mine.

31
. The serpent plays a significant role in many modern poems and it is usually a sinister creature. For example, Paul Valéry presents the serpent almost always as the intruding and dangerous presence in the garden of our lives. See Paul Valéry,
Gedichte: Französisch und Deutsch
, ed. R. M. Rilke (Frankfurt, 1988) see esp. pp. 48–49, 52–53, 56–57, 72–73, 78–79, 90–91. I wish to express appreciation to Monica Merkle, executive secretary of the Institut für antikes Judentum und hellenistische Religionsgeschichte of the Universität Tübingen, for helping me find poems about serpents. For poems featuring serpents, in addition to those presented here, see Ernst Lehmann-Leander’s “Der Sündenfall,” in M. Hanke, ed.,
Die schönsten Schüttelgedichte
(Stuttgart, 1967) pp. 41–42; and F. Hölderlin,
Sämtliche Werke
(Leipzig, no date) pp. 261, 304, 821.

32
. X. Léon-Dufour has written an insightful study of symbolism in the Fourth Gospel, but he does not discuss the symbol of the serpent in John 3:14; see his “Spécificité symbolique du langage de Jean,” in
La communauté Johannique et son histoire
, ed. J.-D. Kaestli et al. (Geneva, 1990) pp. 121–34.

33
. W. Thüsing concluded that “lifting up” referred not to the resurrection of Jesus (cf. Bultmann); it denoted only Jesus’ crucifixion. This exegetical error arises by his missing the symbolism and focusing myopically on only one theme. See his
Die Erhöhung und Verherrlichung Jesu im Johannesevangelium
(Münster, 1960; cf. the edition of 1970) pp. 7–8.

34
. See esp.
PssSol
14,
1 En
91 and 93,
Jubilees
16, 1QS 8, 1QH 16,
OdesSol
11. For a helpful, but incomplete, study of the tree and plant in early Jewish thought, see S. Fujita, “The Metaphor of Plant in Jewish Literature of the Intertestamental Period,”
JSJ
7 (1976) 30–45.

35
. For a succinct introduction, see J. Daniélou,
Primitive Christian Symbols
, trans. D. Attwater (Baltimore, 1964).

36
. J. G. Williams, “Serpent and the Son of Man,”
TBT
39 (January 2001) 22–26; see esp. p. 26.

37
. M. Claudius,
Der Wandsbecker Bote
, ed. W. Weber (Zürich, 1947) p. 259; for a discussion of the serpent in biblical theology see pp. 255 and 344.

38
. Brown,
The Gospel According to John
, pp. 145–46.

39
. Carson,
The Gospel According to John
, p. 201.

40
. Morris,
The Gospel According to John
, p. 199.

41
. U. Wilckens,
Das Evangelium nach Johannes
(Göttingen, 2000) p. 71.

42
. K. Wengst,
Das Johannes-evangelium
, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 2000) vol. 1, p. 134.

43
. R. R. Marrs, “John 3:14–15: The Raised Serpent in the Wilderness: The Johannine Use of an Old Testament Account,” in
Johannine Studies: Essays in Honor of Frank Pack
, ed. J. E. Priest (Malibu, 1989) pp. 132–47.

44
. D. M. Smith,
John
(Nashville, 1999) p. 98.

45
. John Chrysostom,
Homilies on St. John
27; cf. (translator not specified), “John Chrysostom: Homilies on St. John,”
NPNF1
14, p. 94.

46
. PE 1.10.45; for the Greek and English see H. W. Attridge and R. A. Oden,
Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History
(Washington, D.C., 1981) pp. 62–63.

47
. See M. G. Kovacs,
The Epic of Gilgamesh
(Stanford, 1989) pp. 106–7.

48
. Arnobius,
Against the Heathen
Book 7, 44;
ANF
6, p. 536. Since this work is directed toward those who are not specialists in early church history, I shall cite the early Christian texts according to the popular and easily available
ANF
and
NPNF
.

49
. B. J. Brooten thinks rightly that the Naasenes (or Ophites) did not see the serpent as “the downfall of humanity,” but rather “as a giver of wisdom and knowledge.” Brooten,
Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroti-cism
(Chicago, London, 1996) p. 338, note 145. For a succinct introduction to the Ophites, see A. Schramm, “Ophiten,”
Paulys Realencyclopädie
35 (1939) cols. 654–59, E. F. Scott, “Ophitism,”
ERE
9.499–501, and G. Quispel, “Ophiten,”
Lexicon für Theologie und Kirche
7 (Freiburg, 1962) cols. 1178–79. Also see Appendix IV.

50
. Theodoret,
Dialogues
3; trans. B. Jackson, “Dialogues,”
NPNF2
3, p. 226.

51
. See the images and insightful research published in Charlesworth, ed.,
The Messiah
(Minneapolis, 1992).

52
. I am grateful to Professor Arthur Charlesworth for this citation.