The Lost World of Adam and Eve (17 page)
Read The Lost World of Adam and Eve Online
Authors: John H. Walton
Tags: #History, #Ancient, #Religion, #Biblical Studies, #Old Testament, #Religion & Science
In the Bible, evidences of centrality would include the use in Ezekiel as it seems associated with the mountain of God and a cosmic tree, as well as the location in Genesis at the source of the rivers. Yet, in Genesis, there is no indication that the trees are considered cosmic trees. The fact that Adam and Eve are sent out of the garden and dwell “to the east” also suggests centrality because when the garden is peripheral, it is as far to the east as one can go.
Evidences that the Genesis garden should be considered peripheral are fewer.
40
Aside from the comment that Adam was “taken” and settled in the garden (the same wording used for the peripheral relocation of Uta-napishti), there is not much support. Two of the four rivers named in Genesis 2 are real rivers in the real world. It is true that the few gardens featured in the mythology of the ancient world are peripheral, but the differences that we have noted between them and the Garden of Eden make that insufficient to construe Eden in the same way. Evidence heavily favors the central location of the Garden of Eden. The presence of God, the source of the rivers (known rivers at that) and the possibility that the tree of wisdom is comparable to the cosmic tree all argue for its centrality. If God is the center, then humans are driven out to the liminal/periphery—instead of humans being at the center and the divine/numinal realm on the periphery.
Yet even as we understand the case for Eden’s centrality, we recognize a sense in which it is removed from easy access (if not numinously peripheral). As noted, two of the rivers are known rivers, but their sources are at the edges of the known world—a region eventually known as Urartu, where the “mountains of Ararat” in the flood narrative are located as well. Though the Tigris and Euphrates are well known, the identities of the Gihon and Pishon have long been debated. One well-supported theory now identifies the Pishon as the Halys River that flows from the region of Urartu around central Asia Minor and into the Black Sea. In this theory, the Gihon is identified as the Aras River flowing eastward from Urartu and into the Caspian Sea.
41
This would place the Garden of Eden in a high mountain valley near Lake Van, and thus explain how Eden is sometimes viewed as being on a mountain (e.g., Ezek 28:14). This region was populated early by the Hurrians, some of whom eventually settled in Canaan and were encountered by the Israelites and their ancestors. The cosmic center can still be located in this remote region far removed from Israel. We therefore might conclude that the garden is considered cosmically central though at the outskirts of the known world.
In the ancient Near East, life and wisdom are the prerogatives of the gods that they are reluctant to grant as they try to maintain distance between themselves and humanity. In the Bible, life and wisdom are possessed by God, and they are made available to humans as they are in relationship to him. The trouble comes when humans try to seize wisdom on their own terms. They are told that the fruit will make them like God, but unfortunately this is as independent agents rather than in relationship to him. In this way, the Bible has a very different read on these issues than its ancient Near Eastern counterparts.
Proposition 14
The Serpent Would Have Been Viewed as a Chaos Creature from the Non-ordered Realm, Promoting Disorder
Christian readers of Genesis have at times been confused by the serpent. Why did God allow such a creature to infiltrate the garden? How could this creature be in a “good” world? Based on New Testament references, the serpent is easily identified as Satan (Rom 16:20; Rev 12:9; 20:2), raising questions about where he came from and what he is doing in this account.
If we are going to understand Genesis as an ancient document, however, we have to read the text first in ancient terms. That means that we cannot immediately jump to the eventual conclusion that the serpent is associated with Satan, for there is no indication that the serpent was so identified during Old Testament times. Before considering the implications of later biblical interpretation, we should understand the ancient text on its own terms. Furthermore, we cannot read the text as if it is communicating in the world of Adam and Eve’s knowledge because, as mentioned in previous chapters, we have an Israelite storyteller communicating to an Israelite audience. That audience would have made certain associations with the serpent imagery that are not necessarily natural to us.
Serpent symbolism was rich in the ancient Near East. We have already made reference to the serpent who stole the plant of life from Gilgamesh, but that is only the beginning. We have discussed the
Tale of Adapa
but have not yet referred to the serpent figure there. In that narrative, the serpent is not involved in any temptation and is not a main character. When Adapa responds to Anu’s invitation to meet with him, one of the guardians of Anu’s palace is Gizzida (= Ningishzida, “Lord of the Productive Tree”), who has the shape of a serpent and is accompanied by horned serpents (
bašmu
). He is known as the guardian of demons who live in the netherworld.
1
In Egypt, we find serpents everywhere from the crown of Pharaoh to pictures on painted sarcophagi, as well as in the Book of the Dead (as deadly enemies along the path to the afterlife). These creatures are associated with both wisdom and death. Apophis was a serpent of chaos who tried to swallow the sun as it rose every morning.
2
Other elements can be found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead that connect to ideas that are evident in the Genesis account, including crawling on the belly, eating dust, a crushing head and striking a heel. The following entries drawn from the
Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament
address some of the details in Genesis:
3
Crawl on your belly (3
:
14).
The Egyptian Pyramid Texts were designed to aid the pharaohs of the Old Kingdom (end of the third millennium) on their journey to the afterlife. Among the over 700 utterances are several dozen spells and curses on snakes that may impede the king’s progress. These utterances contain phrases that are reminiscent of the curse on the serpent in Genesis 3. For instance, the biblical statement that the serpent will “crawl on your belly” is paralleled by frequent spells that call on the snake to lie down, fall down, get down, or crawl away (Pyramid Text 226, 233, 234, 298, 386).
4
Another says that he should “go with [his] face on the path” (PT 288).
These suggest that when God tells the serpent that he will crawl on his belly, there is no suggestion that the serpent had legs that he now loses. Instead, he is going to be docile rather than in an attack position. The serpent on its belly is nonthreatening, while the one reared up is protecting or attacking. Notice that on the Pharaoh’s crown, the serpent (
uraeus
) is pictured as upright and in an attack position. Nevertheless, I should also note that there are occasional depictions of serpent creatures with legs.
5
There is no indication, however, of an occasion in which serpents lost their legs.
Eat dust (3
:
14).
Eating dust is not a comment about the actual diet of a snake. It is more likely a reference to their habitat. Again the Pyramid Texts show some similarity as they attempt to banish the serpent to the dust.
6
The serpent is a creature of the netherworld (that is why the pharaoh encounters it on his journey), and denizens of the netherworld were typically portrayed as eating dust. So in the Descent of Ishtar, the netherworld is described as a place where their food is dust and their bread is clay.
7
Crush your head (3
:
15).
Treading on the serpent is used in Pyramid Texts 299 as an expression of overcoming or defeating it. Specific statements indicate that the “Sandal of Horus tramples the snake underfoot” (PT 378), and “Horus has shattered [the snake’s] mouth with the sole of his foot” (PT 388). This reflects a potentially mortal blow to this deadly enemy. There is no suggestion that the Israelites are borrowing from the Pyramid Texts, only that these texts help us to determine how someone in the ancient Near East might understand such words and phrases.
Strike his heel (3
:
15).
It is true that the ancients were aware that many snakes were not poisonous.
8
But since harmless snakes usually were not seen as aggressive, if someone were bitten by a snake, it was assumed that the snake might be poisonous. Thus the strike to the heel is a potentially mortal blow.
As an example of several of these items, see the Pyramid Texts, utterance 378:
O Snake in the sky! O Centipede on earth! The Sandal of Horus is what tramples the
nhi
-snake underfoot. . . . It is dangerous for me so I have trodden on you; be wise about me (?) and I will not tread on you, for you are the mysterious and invisible one of whom the gods speak; because you are the one who has no legs, because you are the one who has no arms, with which you could walk after your brethren the gods . . . beware of me and I will beware of you.
9
In the above examples, we can see how information about the serpent in the Genesis account can be documented in various ways in the ancient Near East. A separate direction of inquiry could comb the ancient Near East for serpent symbolism, interpret it and then try to bring those elements into an understanding of the Bible without biblical precedent. Unfortunately, such attempts are bound to produce unsatisfactory results because there are just too many different aspects to serpent symbolism. We would have no way to conclude confidently which ones the Israelites would prefer or which would be significant in any given context. Serpent symbolism has been connected to fertility, sexuality, protection, life, death and numerous other important attributes.
10
While many of these motifs may well have been familiar to the mind of an Israelite, especially one who had been recently in Egypt, we want to explore the question of the nature of the serpent in Genesis 3. If the Israelites would not have thought of the serpent as Satan (and there is no evidence that they did—in fact, they have a far less developed idea of Satan than what we find in the New Testament
11
), then what would they have thought?
We can begin with the description that is given in Genesis 3. The main adjective used there identifies the serpent as
‘ārûm,
variously translated as “subtle,” “wily,” “cunning,” “shrewd,” “prudent” or “clever.” It is an adjective that operates primarily in reference to wisdom and is inherently neutral (that is, it is a quality that can be used well—Prov 1:4; 8:5—or in questionable ways—Ex 21:14; Josh 9:4).
12
Ziony Zevit offers a helpful profile of someone who is
‘ārûm:
[They] conceal what they feel and what they know (Prov 12:16; 23). They esteem knowledge and plan how to use it in achieving their objectives (Prov 13:16; 14:8, 18); they do not believe everything that they hear (Prov 14:15); and they know how to avoid trouble and punishment (Prov 22:3; 27:12). In sum they are shrewd and calculating, willing to bend and torture the limits of acceptable behavior but not to cross the line into illegalities. They may be unpleasant and purposely misleading in speech but are not out-and-out liars (Josh 9:4; 1 Sam 23:22). They know how to read people and situations and how to turn their readings to advantage. A keen wit and a rapier tongue are their tools.
13
Ultimately, such a descriptor does not aid us in determining the creature’s nature. Other than that, we can only identify the serpent as one of “the wild animals the L
ORD
God had made” (Gen 3:1). At the same time, we should notice that the serpent is not described as “evil.” This devious creature does not become associated with evil until much later.
14
Recent study has focused attention on the serpent as a chaos creature. Chaos creatures in the ancient world were typically composite creatures that belonged to the sphere of the divine yet were not deified.
15
Their composite features gave them a combination of attributes. In the ancient world the chaos creatures are not thought of as evil. They are amoral but can be mischievous or destructive. They cause problems if left unchecked but can be domesticated and become associates of gods. Demons also function much like chaos creatures, as do liminal creatures (e.g., coyote, screech owl).
16
It is true that the Hebrew word for the serpent,
nā
ḥ
āš,
is one of the normal ways to designate a common snake. Furthermore, the snake in Genesis 3 is identified as among the creatures of the field that God created, and nothing in the text suggests it is a composite creature. Nevertheless, all creatures in the Hebrew Bible, including chaos creatures, are created by God (Gen 1:21; Job 40:15-19; Ps 104:26). That
nā
ḥ
āš
can also designate a chaos creature is evident from its usage in Isaiah 27:1, where it describes Leviathan.
17
Such an understanding is confirmed finally in the apocalypse of John in which the serpent, now Satan, is described as a great dragon (Rev 12:9)—the chaos creature par excellence.
18
We could therefore conclude that the serpent in Genesis 3 is a chaos creature on the basis of its role in the story and other supporting contexts.
19
Richard Averbeck is then correct to observe that this is not just a snake story. “The Israelites would have seen a great deal more in Genesis 3 than a simple tale about snakes and mankind. . . . From their point of view, this would have been the very beginning of a cosmic battle that they were feeling the effects of in their own personal experience and their national history.”
20
Though I am not ready to go as far as he does to conclude that this also represents the fall of Satan, I believe that entering the text from the ancient Israelite viewpoint should lead us to think of the serpent in terms of a chaos creature.