The Good and Evil Serpent (67 page)

Figure 78
. Babylonian Clay Table with a Serpent in the Center. Circa 2000 BCE. JHC Collection

Before proceeding further, I may now introduce an example of ancient iconography that is challenging and enlightening. An artifact was found recently in the area of Hebron. It was made about 2000
BCE
. It is a Babylonian clay tablet (9.2 centimers x 10.1 centimeters) with two male figures; the one on the left is fully garbed (8.6 centimeters high), and the one on the right is nude (8 centimeters high). The figure on the left seems to be a priest, which makes sense since he is taller and clothed in a long garment. His eyes, ear, and headdress (or braided hair) received the artist’s attention. He holds an object in his right hand, and his left is lifted up toward something in the center. The man on the right has an object below his mouth and holds something upright before him with his left hand. His ear, eye, widely open mouth, and phallus are detailed.

What is in that something in the center? The central figure is either a tree or a serpent. The latter becomes more obvious after close examination. The upward curved circles on its body simulate the ribs of a reptile. The serpent’s mouth is open, and a tongue protrudes. An eye is visible. The bottom of the serpent is turned upward and to the right. Most likely “a foot” is intended. The serpent is able to stand upright because of this foot and the help of the nude man.

What are the objects in the priest’s right hand and below the nude man’s mouth? The priest seems to be holding a harp under his right elbow, strumming it with a curved object in his right hand. The harp seems to have fourteen horizontal strings. His left hand rises upward and holds a rattle or a scepter. The nude man seems to be blowing into some object that hangs from his mouth, and a similar object, perhaps a rattle, is held in his right hand. His left hand holds the serpent. The viewer perhaps is to imagine a liturgical dance with music. The object of veneration by the priest and nude man is clearly the serpent, who is strong, mighty, and full of life. He is not only in the center but also clearly longer than either male (from tongue to tail is 10.1 centimeters). The scene is not erotic; it is cultic. We have been given a glimpse into the worship of and through the serpent at the beginning of the second millennium
BCE
.

DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH

From about the tenth century
BCE
until less than two hundred years ago, the Genesis account of creation was assumed to be factual and reliable by most in the West, but critics of the biblical story of creation began to appear with regularity in the seventeenth century. Many around the world today also assume it is a definitive account of creation. Most learned individuals know that the account is not about how the world began, but about who is behind the processes that continue until today. Two major events in the nineteenth century changed the presuppositions by which we now read Genesis. In 1853, the library of Ashurbanipal was unearthed, and it revealed a creation story prior to and strikingly similar to the famous stories in Genesis. The second event was even more mind-altering. In 1859, Charles Darwin published
On the Origin of Species
, which eventually made “evolution” a household word.
¹⁹

The biblical text is not an “inanimate thing.” It is alive. The ancient authors filled it with passion and dynamic meaning that is available to even those not professionally trained in biblical research.

Once Jerome was asked by a hunter what he did. Jerome replied that he studied a text until something moved, then he went after it. A similar thought was shared by Matthias Flaccius Illyricus. Illyricus, the father of biblical hermeneutics, was a Lutheran whom Melanchthon called “the Croatian snake.” He wrote and published 263 publications in this field. Along with Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin, Illyricus is one of the four geniuses of the Reformation. In 1555, he stressed that the Bible is alive like a living body, and that the three dimensions of hermeneutics are analytic, heuristic, and synthetic.

Biblical scholars today know the dangers of theological exegesis that is shaped by dogmatics. They do not make the mistake of assuming, as had M. J. Gruenthaner, that the “Serpent who plays such a sinister part in the fall of our first parents is the first principle of evil which we encounter in the Bible.” Contextualizing the text, we know that the Yahwist is not one who was convinced that the “response of the Serpent” attempts “to dethrone God in the heart of His creatures, by inciting them to rebellion; at the same time it is an effort to destroy these creatures, body and soul.”
²⁰
Such interpretations arise out of Christian dogmatics; sound scholarship derives from a study of the historical context of the text, and—for us—the presence of serpent symbology in a text that the biblical author composed.

Two fundamental presuppositions shape the following search for a refined exegesis of the biblical passages in which serpent symbolism dominates. First, texts obtain meaning from contexts; these contexts are not only textual and narrative but also historical and sociological. Second, the biblical authors, editors, and compilers—and especially those who read and memorized the Scriptures—lived in cultures virtually teeming with serpent iconography and symbology.

The following work will proceed by focusing on the four main biblical passages in which serpent symbolism is focused: Genesis 3, Numbers 21, 2 Kings 18, and subsequently John 3. Each text will be studied according to the following paradigm:

1. Initial Observations
   
2. Text and Translation
   
3. Questions
   
4. Scholars’ Reflections (which are not always scholarly)
   
5. Serpent Symbology and Exegesis
   
6. Summary
   

GENESIS 3

Initial Observations

Clearly, more than one reading of a story is permissible, indeed required. I shall offer an interpretation of Genesis 3, with a focus on the serpent, that significantly differs from the traditional one in which the serpent is simply the origin of evil. A penetrating study of serpent symbolism, evident in the preceding chapter, precludes assuming that the serpent of the Eden Story is a
kakodaimon
, an evil demon or snake, whose bite brought death to humans. This interpretation, found in M. Giebel’s
Tiere in der Antike
, shows no exegetical examination of Genesis 3 and fails to observe that the Nachash has no venom and does not bite Adam and the woman.
²¹
Furthermore, I doubt that the Yahwist would agree that the serpent functions only to clarify the origin of evil.

I agree with D. Patte that it is illusory to imagine that a story or narrative presents us with only a monolithic meaning. Patte rightly points out that the search for the transparent literal meaning of a text leaves aside its traditional mysterious power, and that “the meaning of a story cannot be posited anymore than can the glitter of a jewel.”
²²

In light of the previous excursions into serpent symbolism, I am convinced that what is about to be proposed now is not only in tension with the traditional exegesis but approximates the original meaning obtained in the paradigm from author, through text, to reader. We have demonstrated repeatedly that those who take a “mono-think” approach to serpent symbolism and those specialists who conclude that one meaning is always dominant simply have read their own presuppositions into the text or have not immersed themselves in the multiple, often intentionally conflicting, meanings of serpent symbolism.

Studying the story of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3 involves examining a pictorial narrative that probably has had more impact on Jewish and Christian exegesis and theology—and art—than any other biblical story.
²³
The explanations of human beginnings in Eden, the “Fall,” and God’s curse appear on center stage today during discussions of creation, evolution, and ecology. Humans in diverse sections of world culture have memorized the story, or portions of it, and understand it from divergent presuppositions, assuming the story is historical, mythical, folklore, or legendary. Put in central focus is the greatest human dream and dread: paradise and punishment. We will be entering the dramatic world of one of the earliest and best literary artworks in human culture.

The major theological libraries contain thousands of publications directly or indirectly devoted to a better understanding of this notoriously difficult narrative. Most of them are Christian and presuppose the story is about “the Fall of man” who was tempted by Satan in the form of a snake. Following the equation found in Revelation 12:9, St. Augustine identified Satan with the dragon
(Hom
. 36). In Albania, the devil is called
dreikj
(dragon); in Romania, he is
dracu
. Noting this and reading Genesis 3 in terms of the equation that the serpent equals Satan, A. de Gubernatis claimed: “A devil without a tail would not be a real devil; it is his tail which betrays him; and this tail is the serpent’s tail.” As will become clear, this presupposition is misleading and distorts the complex drama.
²⁴

The widespread assumption of biblical scholars and theologians, for millennia, has been that the serpent is and symbolizes evil. This presupposition has shaped the interpretation of Genesis. J. Morgenstern, for example, claimed: “The basis of the folk-tale in Gen 3 is, of course, the natural human horror of serpents.”
²⁵
We have seen that recent ophiologi-cal research proves that fear of snakes is learned, not experienced; it is an aspect of nurture, not nature.

One of the most insightful publications on the linguistic and theological subtleties of Genesis 2–3 is R. W. L. Moberly’s article entitled “Did the Serpent Get It Right?”
²⁶
Yet Moberly’s skills are philological and theological; he has not devoted himself to archaeology, iconography, and symbology. Thus, rather surprisingly, he can claim that “in the Old Testament, with the one notable exception of the brazen serpent made by Moses (Num. 21:4–9), the serpent consistently represents hostility and threat to man.”
²⁷
If the serpent tells the truth and what he predicts happens, as Moberly rightly perceives, how can the serpent be hostile and a threat? If Moses uses the magic of the serpent to win Israel’s release from Egyptian bondage, how can the serpent be a threat? If Dan is like a serpent that protects Israel, how can the serpent be hostile and a threat? The preceding forays into serpent symbology should prove to assist, and ground, an exegesis and hermeneutical explication of Genesis 2–3.

The presupposition that the serpent symbolizes evil has also misled those psychologists and biblical scholars too influenced by Freudian psychoanalysis. In
Symbolism in the Bible
, Paul Diel, for example, examines the symbolical meaning of Genesis 3. He claims that the serpent “symbolizes a psychic function devoid of elevation, more or less impossible to grasp consciously, and whose bite is no longer lethal for the life of the body but for the life of the soul.… The serpent is therefore the symbol of guilty vanity, of exalted imagination with respect to oneself and one’s desires.”
²⁸
Much earlier than Diel, E. Hampton-Cook presented a novel interpretation of Genesis 3 that was not based on philological analysis. He argued that the serpent in Genesis 3 “appears to be intended as a striking symbol of our lower, earthly nature, consisting of both mind and body, in rebellion against duty and conscience and the will of God.”
²⁹
The Freudian and Jungian psychologists should have known about the positive attributes of the serpent since they reputedly studied the dreams in which Asclepius appears as a serpent.
³⁰

It is startling how blind some biblical scholars can be to the images in the story of Eden. Despite the fact that the woman remains anonymous during the story,
³¹
or is only defined as “wife,” exegetes habitually call her “Eve” and distort the narrative by discussing how the serpent lied to Eve.
³²
An example is found in the “fully revised”
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
. Note the double error: “In Gen 3 the serpent, chara-racterized by his craftiness
(‘drum
, v. 1), beguiles Eve.”
³³
Yet, in Genesis 3:1 the woman has no name until the narrative reaches its climax;
³⁴
then, the anonymous woman is given a name: “And Adam called his wife’s name ‘Eve,’ because she
³⁵
was the mother of all life” (Gen 3:20).
³⁶
Likewise, the unattractive features of God are either unperceived or sidestepped. Many to whom I point out the apparent correct interpretation (see the following “Questions”) recoil with shock that conceivably God could say something misleading and the serpent speak the truth.

Even more misinterpretation is read eisegetically into the image of the serpent. Despite the ambiguous and sometimes positive image of the serpent in Genesis 3, some distinguished scholars presuppose that the serpent is an evil figure and slant both translation and exegesis so that a negative image of the serpent emerges.
³⁷
The disparaging symbolic meaning of the serpent that begins to appear in the fifth century in some Christian regions is read back into the Genesis story, recasting and misrepresenting one of the main characters. This penchant not only fails to let the images be seen, it is also tantamount to refashioning them.