The Good and Evil Serpent (75 page)

Genesis 3:20 (“And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living [humans]”) seems out of context and perhaps inserted in its present place by a later editor (redactor). However, as A. J. Williams perceives, it actually provides “an important insight into the whole context of Gen 3.”
¹⁶⁹
The verse reveals an important relationship between Eve and the serpent, which was already present in the narrative.

H. Gressmann probably erred in thinking that Eve and the serpent were originally identical;
¹⁷⁰
although there was probably far more kinship between “Eve” and the serpent in the mind of the Yahwist and his contemporaries than Genesis 3 now suggests to modern minds.
¹⁷¹
The ancient mother goddesses wreathed with serpents, or a serpent, does not seem significantly to shape the presentation of Eve in Genesis 3:20. Although too speculative to many biblical experts, W. F. Albright’s claim that Eve had originally been a serpent goddess is stunningly astute and perceptive.
¹⁷²

There is some enigma in Genesis 3:20. It should, however, be seen against the context of Genesis 2–3. That is, “life” in Genesis 3:20 is intended to be seen in light of the “curse” of Genesis 3:16 and the “naming” in Genesis 2:20. Eve, the one who (along with the Nachash) brought death to humans, is to be the mother of all life.

What new perceptions are released when we recognize that the woman and the serpent may well both be feminine beings? If males are dominant in the society of the Yahwist, what do we learn when we comprehend that the serpent may well be feminine yet has a role more dominant and powerful than Adam (the man) in the narrative?
¹⁷³
Again, with such penetrating questions the importance and positive attributes of the serpent begin to appear.

Seventh, what is meant by the woman’s excuse, “the serpent tricked (or deceived) me” (3:13)? Has the Yahwist’s source, or the Yahwist himself, included the concept of the serpent as the cosmic trickster, the Deceiver, or the Liar? The Hebrew verb translated as “tricked” (the Hiphil of
II) also means “cheat” or “deceive.” Thus, it is misleading to assume that the Yahwist knew his reader would realize the serpent was a trickster. The words in Genesis 3:13 appear in the narrative to explain the woman’s attempt to escape blame and punishment. The attempt of the woman to offer an excuse should not be assumed to be an accurate assessment of what the serpent has said and done.

Before proceeding further, we may learn from those who approach Genesis 2–3 from structuralism. R. Couffignal follows C. Lévi-Strauss’ method for exploring the unknown realm
(terra incognita)
of the Garden of Eden. Cleverly seeing that the introduction of the first humans is “le commencement du commencement,” he imagines the following structure in Genesis 2–3:

In this structure, Couffignal finds that the serpent is “the trickster par excellence, the Deceiver” (“le
trickster
par excellence, le Décepteur”).

Is this “exegesis” a result of philological and textual analysis? Focusing on myths and not examining the text misleads Couffignal. For example, he imagines that “the serpent of Eden” (“le serpent de l’Eden”) is “the Guardian of God’s treasure” (“le gardien du trésor des dieux).”
¹⁷⁴
In Genesis 2–3, the fruit and the tree are not defined by the Yahwist as God’s treasure, and the Nachash is not described as a guardian, as in the Garden of the Hesperides.

Eighth, has the serpent or God lied? Moberly rightly points out the “fact that apparently the serpent and not God spoke the truth.” He then suggests that this point may be “the central issue that the story raises.”
¹⁷⁵
How theologically sophisticated was the Yahwist? I shy away from concluding that he knew that God Yahweh was supercategorical and could not be subsumed under ethical norms, such as “truth.” I can imagine, however, that the Yahwist grasped that God Yahweh could not be controlled or understood, and that the Creator remains far too elusive. He probably comprehended that God cannot be defined by consistency.

In such reasoning, we must avoid another misleading dichotomy. Far too often critical scholars distinguish too neatly between allegory and reality, concluding that the Paradise Story is simply allegory. The Yahwist did not fall into the trap of assuming that his stories were merely allegories and not a description of reality. For him, the narrative of Genesis 3 “really took place.”
¹⁷⁶
If we are to enter into his “real world,” we need to imagine, on reading Genesis out loud, that the Nachash was attractive as well as someone with whom the woman could engage within a meaningful world of discourse. As von Rad stated, what distinguishes the Nachash “from the rest of the animals is exclusively its greater cleverness.”
¹⁷⁷
He was indeed the cleverest of all the beasts of the field created by God Yahweh.

If the serpent lied, then he is indeed the Deceiver or Liar (Neg. 5). If he had not lied, then he may symbolize a wise creature that knew and told the truth. God had said to Adam that if he ate from the forbidden tree, he would die on the same day. The serpent disagreed with God; he said if the woman ate from the forbidden fruit she would not die but obtain knowledge. Thus, the Nachash is portrayed as an authority on life and, as Joines stated, “This reptile was a respectable representative of life or recurring youthfulness.”
¹⁷⁸
These deep meanings of serpent symbology were clarified in the preceding chapter (cf. Pos. 20, 23, 26, and 27) and are evident when one sees a snake rise up before one, defining life and its limits.

In his
Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition
, B. F. Batto perceptively writes: “In Christian tradition the serpent has been maligned as a figure of Satan, who duped an innocent couple through a blatant lie. But that is hardly the figure the Yahwist intended.” Batto stressed: “The serpent spoke the truth.”
¹⁷⁹
Many scholars point out that the cleverness of the serpent is underscored in the narrative by his (or her) telling the truth; what he predicts is what happens. The couple gains knowledge.
¹⁸⁰
And the acquisition of knowledge is a divine attribute, as becomes clarified in the Hebrew Bible and throughout Jewish and Christian literature.

The truthfulness of the serpent’s prediction, and correction of God, is clarified twice in the narrative. First, God directly supports the serpent’s wise perception, informing Adam that since he knows he is naked he must have eaten the forbidden fruit. The Yahwist does not inform us about the type of forbidden fruit on the tree. It is not the fig that appears later. It is not the apple, which arose in early Latin Christianity because
malum
, “apple,” rhymed with
malus
, “bad.”
¹⁸¹
The forbidden fruit, according to the Yahwist, would be some mysterious and attractive fruit known perhaps only in Eden (cf. Gen 3:6).

Second, upon eating the forbidden fruit, the woman lives to give some of it to her husband, and they both live to receive God’s banishment. The narrator relates how the serpent’s understanding and prediction are true. Adam must return to dust. Adam and presumably the woman are banished from Eden; later they die. The Yahwist would disagree with those exegetes who conclude that Adam and Eve die because they ate from the forbidden fruit. He concluded his narrative with God’s condemnations. The cause of human death is God Yahweh’s edict concerning Adam, which includes Eve, in Genesis 3:19: Adam
(‘dm)
will return to the ground
(‘dmh)
, because he is from dust and shall return to dust.

The Yahwist’s narrative does not imply, though it is prima facie conceivable, that the serpent has immortality. The Yahwist does suggest that God Yahweh announces that only the humans will die, but that scarcely implies that the serpent will not die. The serpent is cursed, and he is not banished from Eden, but that does not indicate he remains in the garden. He is not damned to mortality and death as is Adam, but that does not imply the serpent obtains immortality. Does the Yahwist know that the serpent symbolized immortality (Pos. 27), and does this understanding prohibit him from stating clearly that the serpent is condemned to death? The serpent symbolized immortality and eternal life in Canaanite culture and in all the cultures contiguous with ancient Palestine (Pos. 20). Has the ambient culture helped to shape the Yahwist’s magnificent story regarding the serpent’s only apparent immortality?

D. Jobling argues that the main problem in the Eden Story is the portrayal of God. Jobling even suggests that to “characterize him [God] as villain is not impossible, in view of 3:8 (the Garden is for his own enjoyment), and vs. 23 (where he feels ‘threatened’ by the man!). As villain, he is the
opponent
of the main program.”
¹⁸²

Jobling frames the problem of God in the Eden Story. God is indeed the liar, in some ways, but he is primarily the Creator and has a right to make demands. Without any demand or prohibition there would be no possibility of human freedom, and God would not have created something “free” of him. The importance of Jobling’s insight and exegesis for us should be clear. It frees us from the millennia of misguided exegesis of Genesis 3 and helps thinkers escape from the misperception that the serpent is the villain in the story.

Retrospectively, in the theology of the Pentateuch, the serpent receives the blame for sin. Death is associated with him (cf. Neg. 1). God proves to be benevolent and prescient; humans die as God predicted. One might even perceive that God’s prediction of death was immediate—life was not defined quantitatively.
¹⁸³
After the act of disobedience, the human, for the first time, and immediately, fears God. And, since the story concludes with etiological concerns, what was predicted by God must come true; that is, since the story is about the origins of such problems as childbirth,
¹⁸⁴
hard physical labor, and death, any prediction about their future existence is proved by the retrospective explanation.

In Genesis 3, however, the serpent is at best indirectly related to the death of Adam and the woman. The threat of death antedates the appearance of the serpent. God had stated emphatically that, if Adam eats of the tree, he would certainly die (Gen 2:17). God’s prohibition may have been comprehended as a prediction, since God foreknew that the command would be broken: “For on the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” The word “you eat” is a verb with a pronominal suffix; it literally means “your eating.” Genesis 2:17 could be understood to mean that God Yahweh, whom the Yahwist knew was not limited by time, said: “And from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you must not eat from it, for on the day of your eating from it you shall most certainly die.” Perhaps there is foreshadowing here in the Yahwist’s narrative, and conceivably he, and certainly subsequent readers, observed that God Yahweh knew that the prohibition would be broken. Indeed, in Genesis 3:11 God Yahweh does not seem shocked or surprised that Adam has broken the single commandment.

The serpent appears to tell the truth. The humans do not die “on the day”;
¹⁸⁵
that is, they do not die immediately.
¹⁸⁶
One could argue that “on the day” eventually included the death of Adam and Eve because the length of days was presupposed.
¹⁸⁷
One might claim that God does not allow Adam and the woman to die immediately because God is full of grace,
¹⁸⁸
but that forces Christian theology on an ancient Israelite text. Such arguments reveal self-pleading and miss the philological fact that
(Gen 2:17, 3:5) denotes not only “on the (that) day,” but also “concomitantly” (i.e., when you eat you die),
¹⁸⁹
“when,”
¹⁹⁰
and “immediately.”
¹⁹¹
The serpent was correct; the woman and Adam ate and did not die immediately.
¹⁹²
As Batto states: