The Good and Evil Serpent (80 page)

In the endeavor to answer these questions, we should read not only the Hebrew text but also heed the Septuagint’s translation of the Hebrew. For example, the word to denote the “standard” (
) which Moses placed the copper serpent has unusual symbolic power. The Greek means “upon a symbol-stake” (
[21:8, 9]) and the emphasis is on “sign.”
²³⁹
The selfsame Greek noun,
semeion
, was chosen by the author of the Gospel of John to represent the “miracles” of Jesus as “miraculous signs.” This observation seems important; we will conclude by exploring to what extent the Fourth Evangelist was influenced by Numbers 21.

Scholars’ Reflections

Scholars’ work on Numbers 21 is more informed by serpent iconography and symbology than we have seen in Genesis 3. Their attention to the serpent in Numbers 21 and 2 Kings 18 is not so distorted by misleading exegesis and interpretation. Most commentators know the importance of serpent imagery for the authors of these sections of the Hebrew Bible. Hence, our examination will not need to be so extensive or corrective.

While it is not certain whether Numbers 21:4–9 belongs to the Yahwist or the Elohist,
²⁴⁰
it seems likely that the narrative is the work of the Elohist who has inherited a considerable amount of diverse earlier traditions.
²⁴¹
The narrative in Numbers 21:4–9 thus may well be a composite work by a northern Israelite writer (the Elohist) who was indebted to and incorporated (perhaps earlier) Judean sources (perhaps ultimately from the Yah-wist). While the earliest source may go back to the ninth century (or even earlier), the present narrative reached its present form sometime about the seventh century
BCE
and in Judah.
²⁴²
More than one tradition in the account is evident, notably in the mixing of singular and plural verbs (cf. vv. 6 and 7), and the confusion of one (v. 9) or many serpents (vv. 6, 8).
²⁴³

Both the author of Numbers 21:4–9 and the author of 2 Kings 18:4 attribute to Moses the making of a serpent of copper (or bronze).
²⁴⁴
Do these passages reflect some historical event or are they mere fabricated leg-end?
²⁴⁵
There seem to be three possible explanations to ponder.

1. The first possible explanation is that the account in Numbers 21:4–9 is legend without any historical reliability. There are problems with taking Numbers 21 as strictly historical. As G. B. Gray stated, the story of Moses’ making a copper (or bronze) serpent contains neither an adequate explanation of the choice of this particular form of miracle, nor any clarification of how the Israelite nomads on the march were in a position to manufacture, with the speed which the circumstances demanded, so important a work in metal.
²⁴⁶

The historicity of the Pentateuchal narrative depends on authors who wrote hundreds of years after the events they describe and relate. That is, Moses would have made a copper serpent sometime in the thirteenth century
BCE
, but the account would have not been written until the tenth century
BCE
and most likely much later. The transmission of oral traditions during these centuries was altered by nonhistorical interests, such as the movement from nomadic to urban settings and the continuing influence of myths and ideas that developed from Moses to David, and most likely later. The author (or editor) who gave us Numbers 21:4–9 was not seeking to be an objective historian; he was interested in reporting how the Lord heard the cries of the Israelites and provided a means so that those bitten could, through faith, look up to the copper serpent made by Moses, “and (continue) to live” (
; Num 21:8, 9). The motives for writing the account, therefore, were to provide comfort for Israelites who were suffering from snakes, and to celebrate Yahweh, who brings healing and life.

These comments are generally acknowledged by the experts, but such arguments leave open the possibility that there may be reliable historical traditions linking Hezekiah’s time with Moses’ time. One should observe that to choose between legend and history is to categorize ancient texts, such as Numbers 21, within false alternatives. History may be transmitted in myths, legends, and liturgies.

2. The second possibility is that the narrative in Numbers 21:4–9 is grounded in history. The story is not only about the upraised serpent; it depicts the plague of serpents
(die Schlangenplage)
and the upraised serpent. Moses made a copper serpent that was not regarded as an idol, but later in the Temple in Jerusalem it may have been treated in this fashion.

Some scholars conjecture that Moses most likely did make a serpent and placed it on a pole. They point out that, after all, as previously discussed, a copper serpent—with cultic significance—has been found at Timna’, which was a copper-mining region in the Arabah just north of the Red Sea, and it is roughly contemporaneous with the action attributed to Moses (see
Fig. 22
). A study of this copper snake idol with gilded head, not a photograph, awakens in one the feeling that it is alive and moving. The seven curves may also be more than ornamental. The clear eyes, which are prominent as in almost all serpent images, awaken in the observer thoughts about intelligence and wisdom. Clearly, the metal serpent was crafted to signify many symbolic meanings; all would be positive since it is an idol and found in a cultic setting. One should not overlook the fact that the serpent is made with imperishable material; it has lasted in perfect condition since the twelfth century
BCE
. The material itself thus has symbolic power.
²⁴⁷

According to some experts, this archaeological fact adds historical credence to the story in Numbers 21. There is much wisdom in Milgrom’s comment that the copper snake found at Timna’ supplies iconographical and archaeological evidence that lends credence to the story in Numbers 21. He judges that since the copper snake of Timna’ dates approximately from “the same time and place that Moses fashioned a similar snake,” this suggests “that the snake story was inserted into the itinerary precisely when Israel was in the vicinity of the Timna’ copper mines. This thesis is further supported by textual evidence of a break in the next stage of the itinerary.”
²⁴⁸

According to tradition, Aaron’s rod (Num 17:25) and the receptacle of manna (Exod 16:34) survived from Moses’ day. They may have been visible on occasion in Solomon’s Temple. Some scholars contend that Moses’ copper serpent was also on public display in the Temple. Note the insight shared by Milgrom, that while the meal offering

was sacrificed on the altar, the officer would stare at the snake, hoping to repeat the Mosaic miracle of healing. Thus the sacrifice could in effect have been offered to the snake rather than to Israel’s God. Moreover, since the Canaanites regarded the snake as a cultic symbol of renewed life and fertility, it may have become over time a bridge to pagan worship within the Temple itself.
²⁴⁹

Milgrom’s judgment is undergirded by the vast amount of ophidian imagery we have from about 1300 to 700
BCE
and not later, as we have presented selectively in the previous chapter. It is also likely that a serpent placed in the Temple could be a way to combat idolatry by absorbing its meanings and powers within the cult of Yahweh.

3. The third possible explanation is that, in the seventh century
BCE
, the author of Numbers 21:4–9 inherited and developed a story that had evolved to explain the origin and power of serpent symbolism and the worship of the serpent in the Temple during the time of Hezekiah.
²⁵⁰
As long ago as the beginning of the twentieth century, scholars saw major difficulties with Numbers 21:4–9. For example, H. Holzinger interpreted Numbers 21:4–9 to be a cult legend (“eine künstliche Legende”) that provided legitimacy to the cult of the serpent in the Temple, but did not embody a “Jahwe-idol.”
²⁵¹
Thus, we are left with a possible explanation for the composition of Numbers 21: the story of Moses’ making a metal serpent in the wilderness is an etiological legend that explains and gives legitimacy to the appearance of Nechushtan and its cult in the Temple.
²⁵²
In the words of Gray: “The responsibility of Moses for the making of the bronze serpent is probably merely traditional, this indicating the antiquity of this cult-symbol in Jerusalem. The story of its role as a prophylactic against serpents in Num. 21.6–9 (E) is an aetiological myth.”
²⁵³

Many scholars, like B. Baentsch, see the account in Numbers 21 to be linked with the worship of a serpent mentioned in 2 Kings. Thus, Numbers 21 is a cult legend
(Kultussage)
that was composed to add legitimacy to the Nechushtan in the Temple. The author sought to trace back to Moses the Nechushtan, and to legitimate the worship of a serpent in the Temple.
²⁵⁴
It is conceivable that the cult of Hezekiah’s time originated prior to David within local lore and worship; perhaps the image had originally been Canaanite or Jebusite.
²⁵⁵

Is it possible that Numbers 21:4–9 reflects an attempt to legitimize the worship of a serpent in the Temple? Yes, it is possible that some traditions in this section of Numbers antedate Hezekiah’s reform. Before this king, Israelite worship was varied and not clearly centered only in Jerusalem. At the beginning of Hezekiah’s reign, it apparently was not unusual or inconsistent to worship Yahweh as the only God and to acknowledge how he heals his people through the symbol of the serpent (Pos. 23). The raised serpent in the Temple—at least prior to Hezekiah’s time—was not seen, by at least some Israelites, as inimical to Yahwism. M. Noth disagreed with the scholars who saw that Numbers 21:4–9 was an etiology, but he did point out that the story in Numbers was composed because there was a metal serpent in the Temple.
²⁵⁶

It is clear, regardless of how one chooses among these previous three possibilities, that according to the author of Numbers 21:4–9, Moses’ intention was not to establish a serpent cult, but to use the symbol of a serpent to heal those who had been bitten by a poisonous snake (Pos. 23). The Hebrews therefore were aware of the connection between the serpent and healing, which was well known in ancient Palestine from the serpent cult at Beth Shan in the middle of the second millennium
BCE
to the Asclepian cult in Jerusalem in the Roman Period. And we can continue such a rapid survey to the present, since the Bedouin believe that
jinn
, the desert demons, are like serpents and they congregate around healing waters.