The Good and Evil Serpent (76 page)

In Christian tradition the serpent has been maligned as a figure of Satan, who duped an innocent couple through a blatant lie. As D. O. Procksch, H. Seebass, and others have stated, the Nachash is the last figure in the drama to be introduced; he is one of God’s creations, a beast of the field, and cannot be Satan, a demon, or any mythological creature.
¹⁹³
But that is hardly the figure the Yahwist intended. In his telling, the serpent spoke the truth. The woman and her husband did not die, as Yahweh God had said, “on the day you eat of it” (2:17).
¹⁹⁴

Upon eating of the forbidden fruit, Adam and the woman instantaneously obtain knowledge. They also are now afraid of God Yahweh. Did not this “enlightenment” prove the veracity of the serpent?

According to the narrative, the serpent (to a minor extent), the woman, and the man (clearly and emphatically) are revealed as creatures who cannot accept responsibility for being disobedient to God Yahweh. We learn that it is the concept of disobedience, not falsehood, that defines “sin” in the Eden Story. G. von Rad accurately defined the Eden Story in light of ancient Near Eastern mythology: “How simple and sober is our narrative, compared to the sensual myths of the nations, in letting the meaning of life in Paradise consist completely in the question of obedience to God and not in pleasure and freedom from suffering, etc.”
¹⁹⁵

Since God’s command did not include the serpent and since he did not eat from the forbidden fruit, one should be cautious in concluding that the serpent was disobedient and sinful. Artists know what biblical scholars fail to discern. In painting the expulsion from Eden, one can depict the banishment of Adam and possibly Eve, but not the serpent. He was not banished from Eden. Why? Is it because he did not eat of the fruit and thus did not disobey God Yahweh’s command—which was addressed only to Adam?

Ninth, what does the author mean by stating that the serpent is banned from, or cursed among (which is better), “all cattle” and “all wild creatures” (3:14)? The concept of banning seems inappropriate since the author might have been expected to have mentioned that the serpent was also banned from the birds (2:19–20), with which it is often connected phenomenologically, iconographically, and symbolically (as at Beth Shan). The Hebrew verb Yr—translated as “banned” by Speiser—is the customary word for “cursed,” especially when God is the subject, as in Genesis 3:14. The verb also seems to mean to “restrain (by magic)” or “bind (by a spell).” Perhaps the Yahwist has inherited words and concepts from Canaanite serpent cults in which the serpent’s magic was honored or worshipped.
¹⁹⁶
He certainly would not want to give the impression that the serpent was to be worshipped because it had magical powers. It is far from clear what serpent symbolisms the Yahwist inherited. It is certain, however, that he did not create the symbolism, but was deeply influenced by earlier serpent symbology, much of which was too contradictory for him, or anyone, to comprehend.

Tenth, if the serpent now must “walk [crawl] on its belly” (
) (Gen 3:14),
¹⁹⁷
how did he move before? Did he originally have legs as we know from ancient Near Eastern iconography (see esp.
Fig. 27
)? If the author did not have this thought in mind, the author of his sources, and those who knew them, passed them on, or read his account of the Eden Story would have often made such an assumption. Possibly
Jubilees
3:23, at least according to Glycas (c. 1150) and R. H. Charles, concluded with a mention of the serpent having his legs cut off.
¹⁹⁸
Does this interpretation of Genesis 3:14 appear in Jewish documents?

According to Josephus, the serpent “maliciously induced the woman to taste of the plant of wisdom” and so lost the ability to talk, received “venom beneath his tongue,” and was deprived of feet (Ant 1.42, 50).
¹⁹⁹
Ephrem Syrus also seems to assume that the Nachash originally had feet.
²⁰⁰

The serpent’s transgression was not to use reason or to talk; these were gifts from God. The serpent’s transgression was to use physical force; according to Midrashic exegesis, the serpent pushes the woman into the tree.

The
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
adds to Genesis 3 the removal of the serpent’s feet. Note the addition by the Meturgeman: The Lord God “said to the serpent [
], ‘Because you did this, cursed are you…. Upon your belly you shall go about,
and your feet shall be cut off
].’ “
²⁰¹
According to R. Simeon b. Lakish, in
Midrash Kabbah, Ecclesiastes
, when God had cursed the serpent (Gen 3:14), “the ministering angels descended and cut off its hands and legs [
], and its cry went from one end of the world to the other.”
²⁰²
The same interpretative expansion of Genesis 3:14 appears in
Midrash Kabbah Bereshith
(Genesis) 20.5.
²⁰³

Are these Jews who report that the serpent originally had hands and feet (or legs) merely speculating, or are they perspicacious exegetes? They are assuredly the latter, and they saw what is in the text. They spent their lives debating the meaning of the text: focusing and digesting, and imagining the scene. They did not devote a large portion of their time to research reading and regurgitating the comments of others. Let us go back to Genesis 3 and see what should be before our eyes.

Biblical scholars have assumed the Nachash (
) is a reptile.
²⁰⁴
Everyone can defend such a translation by simply citing a lexicon. But the narrative is definitive in ascertaining the meaning of the Nachash. The author presents his composition with echoes; these clarify that the so-called serpent is not a reptile. Genesis 3 begins with the words that the Nachash
) was the cleverest “beast of the field [
] that the Lord God had made.” The Nachash is thus one of the beasts of the field, not one of the cattle or reptiles. The author cannot expect his reader to know that this verse echoes the subsequent chronologically, yet preceding literarily (P) account in Genesis 1:24. Yet, it is the Priestly Writer who makes it clear that the Nachash cannot be a reptile.

According to this passage (1:24), God created three types of living creatures on the earth: the cattle (
), the creeping animals (or reptiles [
]), “and the beast of the earth” (
). It should be obvious that the Nachash (
) is not like the cattle. Biblical exegetes may be astounded to discover that, in its final form, Genesis does not categorize the Nachash with reptiles.
²⁰⁵