The snake in Genesis?

Factual Questions
1

I’m taking a literature class where we read Genesis. The question of what the snake represent came up. Since the idea of Satan developed later and it was only a later interpretation that the snake was Satan, the teacher suggested that the snake must have represented something else to the authors of the story. He says that it was a phallic symbol associated with the godess worshiped by another group of people in the region.

I also heard something similar from a pagan acquaintance
once. She was describing why she strongly disliked Judaism. After recounting how the patriarchs were really merciless raiders who drove peaceful people out of their lands, she mentioned that the religion of those people was much better because they worshiped a goddess.

Anyway, I was just wondering what the substance to all this is?

2

The snake was the most cunnning animal that lived in the garden of Eden.Which makes me think the snake was an adder. A black-colored adder. :slight_smile:

3

I’m no expert on the subject, but fwiw - afaik the archaelogical evidence disputes the idea that that the patriarchs invaded Canaan - which I assume is what your pagan friend is referring to. The bible does present them as merciless invaders. Actually merciless is an understatment, try horrific (read a bit of the blood-soaked book of Joshua to get the flavor).

That doesn’t make it so though. Judaism apparently was a religion native to the area. (The Exodus, the 40 years wandering in the desert, etc seem to be purely mythological events).

That’s the limit of my knowledge. Of course the early Israelites were surrounded but other cultures and religions, and some of this was absorbed into the religion (e.g. the story of the Flood is seen I think it’s in Gilgamesh - but anyway in the earlier Mesopotamian cultures - which were teeming with major and minor gods and godesses. So I wouldn’t be surprised if they encountered religions with snake Gods. Hopefully somebody more knowledgable will have a better answer.

4

—From The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets by Barbara G. Walker

Cites:
[sup]1[/sup]Robert Graves, The Greek Myths v. 1, p. 27.
[sup]2[/sup]F. R. Tennant, The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin, p. 154.
[sup]3[/sup]Theodor Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament, p. 576.
[sup]4[/sup]Robert Briffault, The Mothers, v. 3, p. 108.

Walker has lots more on the Biblical Serpent, but I forbore to post more so as to stay within “fair use” limits. Look up Moses and “Nehushtan” sometime.

5

Yes, we also read Gilgamesh. The flood story in it is clearly derived from the same oral tradition as the one in Genesis, although I’d say the one in Gilgamesh is far more entertaining.

6

I don’t have my bible commentaries or my textbooks handy at the moment, so I can’t provide much in the way of specific details, but I know that snakes were common symbols of sexuality and mystical wisdom in many ancient cultures. Talking animals, of course, appear in myths and folktales from almost every culture, so I don’t know that there has to be a specific meaning behind it. (Why did Little Red Riding Hood run into a Big, Bad Wolf? After all, that story also has alegorical features.) Plus, of course, the story also functions as a just-so story about why snakes have no legs. I don’t think there is one specific answer or meaning to the snake (You’d prefer maybe a wildebeest?), but it had to be some animal, and there are lots of reasons why a snake was a good and obvious choice.

As for the second part, its a stretch for several reasons. First of all, it’s hardly as if pagans never drove out indiginous peoples from their lands. That’s the history of the world. The early Israelites were a nomidic tribe, and they fought over land like every other nomadic tribe history. If they hadn’t, they’d be extinct. There is no population group on earth that didn’t take its land violently from someone else (except possibly for some aboriginal peoples in Australia and a few islands.)

Accusing the Jewish Patriarchs of this is doubly questionable. The Bible certainly records the Israelites brutally conquering the tribes of Canaan, but this was well after the time of the Patriarchs. It also records the same event (the “conquest” of Canaan) occuring by a long, drawn-out process of migration and assymilation, which is far more historically likely. The tales of wiping out the Canaanites in a primative blitzkrieg are almost certainly national myths like American stories about George Washington crossing the Delaware or cowboy heros “taming” the West.

As for the Patriarchs, there is little enough evidence that Moses existed as a historical figure. There is almost no evidence at all that the Patriarchs (who were never described as conquering anything, though they engaged in warfare for other reasons) were actual people. Ancient Near Eastern peoples commonly saw themselves as the metaphorical decendants of ancient father figures (usually eponymous, i.e., having the same name as the tribe) in much the same way that Americans refer to Washington as “the Father of the County” without actually being decended from him or the other “Founding Fathers.” The Patriarchs were probably originally the seperate tribal “Fathers” of different goups which eventually merged into the Israelites. While there may very well be historical elements in the biblical stories about them, there was almost ceratinly no historical individual you could point to and identify specifically as Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob.

7

Is the snake Satan? I say no. But then, what is he? What has always bothered me about this part of Genesis is that the serpent, allegedly the villain of the story, is the only character in the story who is not, in some way, a jerk. I realize this goes into Great Debates territory, my questions are honest and I want to know what this story really means. My take:

The Set-Up
“And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Gen 2:9

Why make an tree that grants a power you don’t want in general circulation? Then make intelligent, inquisitive being, show them this beautiful tree full of lush fruit, and say, “You can have anything you want… except THAT!” It doesn’t take an omniscient being to see this is a frame job. But why? Is it a test? Did we fail?

The Lie:
“God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”
Gen 3:3

Adam and Eve do not drop dead upon eating the fruit, which is what they were led to believe by the whole “touch it and die” bit. Rather, God punished them with an eventual death for defying him; the tree didn’t kill them, just raised their awareness. Why is He so worried about them eating this fruit?

The Truth:
“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Gen 3:5

According the the snake, God feels that beings besides Himself who know the difference between good and evil are a threat to him. Why? Because if people know what evil is, they’ll become evil? That doesn’t fly, because Adam and Eve were “evil” by defying God before they ever ate the apple. At least now they know it’s wrong. Why keep them in the dark?

The Result:
“And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked” Gen 3: 7

The serpent was right; they’re alive and, like God, they are self-aware and know right from wrong. Was this was God was so afraid of? Why is being naked, a natural state, now a state of shame? How does knowing good and evil relate to shame over nakedness? I’m confused. Clearly sexuality is linked to a higher state of awareness, but the exact nature of the connection eludes me.

The Narcs:
“And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Gen 3:11-12

Adam is awfully quick to point the finger. “She told me to do it!” Who wears the pants, I mean, fig leaf in this family?

“And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.” Gen 3:13

No, baby, the snake just told you the truth. You made the choice to do what you were told not to do. You have free will, even if you don’t understand the consequences of your actions. How is that “beguiling”? Way to pass the buck. Why did the snake even involve himself in this situation? He had to know he’d be taking the rap for this.

What does this incident say about the nature of the human race? Is narc’ing essential to our character? Did God do a really bad job making us, in light of the performance of our progenitors thus far?

The Consequences:

“And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Gen 3:14-15

To prevent future such collaborations, God sows emnity between the phallic symbol that tells the truth and the woman. I find this very curious. Does anyone have an explanation for this? The phallic symbol part doesn’t work for me here, because the snake is obviously more than just a sperm donor and giant dildo. He set these two people free from the tyranny of one who would keep them ignorant. His motivation, though, continues to elude me. He and God must have a history we’re not being told.

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Gen 3:16

Because Adam is so weak-willed, God has to mandate Eve’s submission to him in the future. Also, he causes making new humans painful and difficult. Hmmm. Curious.

“And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” Gen 3:17-19

What bad parenting this is! You make a tree that’s really alluring but which grants a power you don’t want to share, give a didactic order to a pair of kids NOT to touch it, lie to them about why they shouldn’t do it, all of which makes it well nigh irresistible, and then when they wise up and realize you’re full of it, your response is strictly punitive. Bravo.

It Gets Worse:
“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” Gen 3:22

God, realizing that his creations don’t take His deceitful orders well and now are halfway to being His equals, kicks Adam and Eve out of Heaven before they become immortal too. He goes on to station cherubim with flaming swords around Eden to prevent future entry. Too bad they chose the wrong tree for their first snack, eh?

This portion of the Bible has always puzzled me greatly. How is the snake the bad guy in this story? He sets Adam and Eve free of a life not much better than that of a thoughtless, heedless animal-- he gave them the capacity to reflect, to know what is good and what is evil. Why did God want to deny them this? Why did the snake want them to have it? Why did God lie? Why was His punishment so harsh? Conversely, why didn’t he just destroy Adam and Eve and start over with a better pair?

Maybe someone who knows a lot more about why this passage was written can help me understand it. I know there are truths and connections just under the surface that continue to elude me. My consternation is sincere even if my tone is flip.

8

It’s just a talking snake. Like all the other talking animals of mythological explanation stories (aka ‘etiologies,’ also, ‘aetiologies’).

Since humans have an instinctual dread of snakes (like many mammals), it isn’t much of a leap to make the snake the one who talked Eve into disobedience (nevermind that God gave Adam the order before Eve was created and Adam quickly did what Eve did without even giving the slightest bit of consideration to what he was about to do, unlike Eve).

Then the story explains (it’s an etiology, after all) why the snake has no legs and must crawl on the ground… as punishment for tempting humans.

And, yes, it was only later theologizing that conflated Satan with the serpent. To make the snake in that story equivalent with pagan snake-gods is the equivalent of equating the snake with Satan: an exercise in eisegesis (i.e., reading things into the story that isn’t there).

Peace.

9

  1. Take a culture’s ancient mythological creation/explanation stories handed down for generations.

  2. Have the stories as they’re being told get reworked over and over again by story-tellers who are influenced by the irrational, ahistorical, and non-scientific beliefs of their culture and the surrounding cultures.

  3. Once the culture develops writing, have the stories in all their conflicting forms (from one region to another) written down.

  4. Have a unified central agency centuries later decide that all these writings need to be codified into one book (actually, onto one scroll).

And this is what produced the two creation accounts of Genesis. (The first one is the six days of creation with the male and female being made at the same time in God’s image. The second is the story of the Garden, Adam in the Garden, Adam given the animals for company but they’re not sufficient, the creation of Eve for Adam, and ‘the Fall.’)

This ‘central agency’ was most likely the priestly caste during the captivity in Babylon and shortly after their return home. Israel had no more strong king to lead them. The priests codified most of the books (scrolls) of the Hebrew Scriptures at this time through the collection and editing of previous documents and oral traditions. They wound up with two creation stories that were too divergent to conflate, so they included both.

The first creation story is very theological, and even very scientific. It describes the creation of a natural world not filled with spirits and gods, but just totally natural following natural laws guided by the One who set things in motion. The order of created things even follows the big bang and evolutionary scale (to a degree… there are scientific mistakes, like the sky is a physical bowl over head).

The second story is very mythological and is a mishmash of etiologies slapped together so that it makes no sense except to describe how things are now (child birth is painful, work is hard, people die, people sin, serpents have no legs). The explanation of why all those things are the way they are is just gobbledy-gook which may have made sense one time in another form, but is just irrational in its now given form. It’s more like a children’s fantasy story with really big holes in the plot that children don’t see, but adults do.

Hope that helps.

Peace.

10

Here’s a thread in which I offered my own slight theological interpretation of the story.

11

Sorry mates…too late in my day to read just what you think. In my mind, if they say it’s a snake…it’s a friggin’ snake. Now the real question is…does it hiss? or does it strike?

12

Because it’s a European story and wolves are seenn as shifty, menacing, and untrustworthy creatures. And, most importantly, predators.

If you’d care to indulge me in some analysis: There’s the big, hairy male “wolf” and the innocent little girl who strays from the path…well, you have the powerful male and the helpless females (who can only be saved by men). In the Brothers Grim version I’m glancing at, he’s a “wicked creature,” eager to catch both our tender young heroine and her grandmother. In other words, girls, stray off the path and you’ll be “eaten” by all those preadators out there.

To get back on topic, the wolf was probably the predator your average European farmer is going to be familiar with, versus lions or tigers or crazed lemurs. He also consorted with The Debbil.

From Here

13

Snakes pop up in ancient myths associated with human mortality, often as thieves of some object which would grant immortality. Snakes were symbols of immortality because they shed their skin. People thought snakes were dying and being “reborn” out of their skin so there must have been something they ate which made them immortal.

It sounds simplistic, I know, but there it is. Snakes had the secret to immortality and humans didn’t.

Snakes were also a sacred animal to Egyptians, therefore they were seen as sinister by the Hebrew myth-makers.

14

IIRC, the snake is also a symbol of wisdom. This fits with the snake helping mankind know the difference between good and evil.

My question is, why did the snake get involved in this? Why did the snake know what the tree did? Could the snake be a symbol of that quality in human nature that spurs us on to greater knowledge and awareness? But then, why would God want to deny humankind this awareness?

15

Have you ever heard of the expression “Ignorance is bliss”?
I believe that the whole point of “The Fall” is that after humans were created they were ignorant of the difference between right and wrong and were able to have faith in God without questioning. In this uninformed life they were happier because they didn’t know any better. At some point humans started to acquire knowledge about their world (by eating from a tree, Adam and Eve “playing doctor”, whatever) and they realized the difficulties of life. The writers were trying to come up with an explaination for why life is hard and why the followers of the Hebrew God are always straying when times got rough and following other gods. There are certainly other factors in the story, but this is what I get from it.

16

The quotation Jomo Mojo cites is definiately what I’ve been encountering. So what I want to know than is if any of it is accurate. I’m skeptical of this particular article for a number of reasons. If they are true, is there anything other than speculation that connects these other myths to the snake in the Genesis?

Alan, As for my acquaintance, I must have been wrong. She must have said something else than patriarchs. I’ve never read the Old Testament so I’m only have vague ideas of what is what, but it was pretty clear however that she felt that some group in that tradition supplanted what in her judgement was a far better religion.

Another thing we did discuss, though, is this idea that the creation myths in Genesis explain why snakes have no legs. However, there is no mention before that the snake has legs, only that it goes on its belly afterward. In fact the story as it exists today doesn’t make any claim one way or the other as to whether snakes do or don’t have legs.

I think I read that somewhere there is evidence of a palimpsest where Abraham treated as a foreign sheik.

Ruby, I wouldn’t mind seeing something on the great debates about this. You might also make something of the fact that there two trees mentioned in Genesis, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life. Or the difference in the idyllic relationship between Adam and Eve before the fall and adversarial relationship afterwards. I see the narcing as showing how people tend to blame others, but here God isn’t buying it.

Anyway as I understand it, I think that the point interpretation that I’ve been questioning wasn’t so much that the snake was a phallic symbol as that it was a representation of a god of an opposing religion.

moriah, I have also heard this claim of people having evolved an instinctual dread of snakes too, and I was thinking of posting another question as to if it were true. But I had thougth of it too when I read the story in Genesis, but I have to now have to say it is just one possible explanation and one that is an assumption. I mean there is no way the authors could have known that people have an instinctual dread of snakes when the story was written. It could only then be an unconcious reason why the audiences might have found the story compelling, and wouldn’t exclude other reasons for its inclusion either.

17

The problem with that is that ignorance is what caused the Fall in the first place. They didn’t know the difference between right and wrong, but they did have free will, which was obviously a recipe for disaster.

But God broke this faith by deceiving them and tempting them beyond their capacity to resist. It smacks of a set-up to me, though I can’t fathom why God would do that to his beloved creations.

But the problem is, this story makes God look like a real bastard. It hardly inspires greater devotion; the snake has by far more integrity than God does. This seems so glaringly obvious to me, and that’s what I don’t understand-- who wants to worship a God that lies, a God that is so jealous of his power and insecure about us puny mortals that he hands down harsh punishments to creations that are only acting according to their nature?

18

OK, rather than continue to hijack this thread with my own issues, I opened a thread in GD:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4686480#post4686480

I hope to see some of you there.

Thanks.

19

Right, but if the snake had to crawl on its belly as punishment afterwards, that assumes it didn’t before, and how would it get around, pre-fall, if it didn’t have any legs?

And how is there no way the authors could have known that people have an instinctual dread of snakes?

20

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Right, but if the snake had to crawl on its belly as punishment afterwards, that assumes it didn’t before, and how would it get around, pre-fall, if it didn’t have any legs?

[QUOTE]

I can see what your saying. I would tend to agree, but I don’t really find that it’s very clear on this.

Well the claim as I understand it is that evolution or genes are the cause of only two human fears, falling out of trees and snakes. Other specific fears are learned. I have my own doubts about the claim, but I wouldn’t have expected the authors of Genesis to have heard it. Also, the fear snakes couldn’t have been too strong if people actually were worshipping them.