Old Testament as narrative.

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

Alyoshka,

The serpent (not that I interpret the creation narrative literally) is deliberately deceptive. In 3:1 he asks Eve “Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden?” Why would the serpent ask Eve if God said they couldn’t eat from “any” tree of the garden, when actually God said they COULD eat of any tree of the garden, save one? 1. To make them feel restricted from eating from ALL the trees (since they couldn’t eat from ALL of them), not just 2) to make them feel restricted from eating from that particular tree. Double wammy. Crafty, indeed. But it’s just the beginning. In verse 4 the serpent says, “You surely will not die!” But, they surely do. Physical death is not the central point here (as some young-earthians might think), but separation from God (a worse, more ultimate kind of death). Strike two. The final blow comes when the serpent tells them his version of God’s motive. Rather than telling them the truth–that God wants them to KNOW only good, he puts a massive spin on it and tells them God doesn’t want them to be as wise as he is. Bull-oney. The only “wisdom” they ever got out of the deal was a loss of innocence. Before they fell in the serpent’s trap, they were naked and unashamed, like any innocent kid or wild animal…able to have loads of innocent fun together without all the gender war-game crap. The serpent is definitely a bad guy here. Same one referred to in Job, 1 Chronicles, Revelation (“that old serpent” 12:9), et cetera. He is already considered terrible by the writer of Genesis. Which narrative was ‘told’ first? Do you know?

Liteninbolt,

The fall of Satan from heaven is referred to by Jesus in Luke 10:18–he is not talking about a literal fall from a literal heaven, but about a rapid decrease in Satan’s power because of the 70 disciples Jesus sent out.

The point of Job is not any wisdom he gained, or what he did or didn’t do wrong. Job is a counter-argument against those who would say that the only reason to be “good” (to love what is good, to love God) is for selfish reasons…family, possessions, health, acceptance (definitely not a “prosperity gospel”)–Job never cursed God despite all his loss and pain, but instead wrestled with God, like Jacob did–that is relationship. [ Of course family, possessions, health and acceptance are not bad…that isn’t the point, either (hence, Job is restored). ] And Genesis and Job both deal with theodicy…Genesis deals with why things are so screwed up, Job deals with the issue of bad things happening to good people…it all comes back to the ultimate purpose, our freedom to love. “Wisdom” without love is a noisy gong, a clanging cymbal.

Seems we’ve had this sort of discussion earlier in ILP.

I hope you’ll join me at the Project this year.

22

There is your reading of the text, where the serpent is crafty, and there is my reading, where the serpent is just sharing its knowledge. Your arguments only show the possibility of your reading, they don’t discount mine. (And to be perfectly honest, I think both readings are true: but mine comes first.)

Look at it this way: where does God say, prior to Genesis 3 where the serpent (or in your reading Satan) appears, “Let there be Satan”? Why isn’t Satan mentioned beforehand?

What God does say is “Let there be creatures that go upon the earth,” which is clearly what the serpent is, and that “these creatures were good.” So what else could this possibly mean than that the serpent is good and, according to my reading, is only sharing its knowledge? How do you turn what is clearly a good creature evil? Where does this happen in the text?

I say your reading is true since once the serpent deteriorates (genealogically) into Satan, then the story can be reread such that the serpent is Satan, and it works perfectly well. (So well that, well, it is the dominant view! As per your reading’s popularity…)

23

This isn’t a literal story. It’s packed with symbolism. Really, we are not talking about an actual event, but a story someone told–we are discussing the intentions of an author. If a people changes in how they understand (write about) something, does not mean that something has changed [and if their understanding (never) changes, it does not mean that thing (never) changes]. Some say Satan disguised himself as a serpent (wolf in sheep’s clothing type thing), interpreting the dust as death and the heel-biting as symbolic of the struggle between us and Satan. Others say it reads like all the other creation myths of various cultures that explain why a certain animal/constellation got the way it is and so doesn’t have to make perfect sense (perhaps you are half right and the serpent is not yet “the adversary” or Satan, but is ‘taken’ to be after those concepts are more developed, but it seems the elements are all there for him to be the same “adversary character” referred to in Job). Some say both. Whichever way, there is no doubt the serpent is portrayed as deceptive in the narrative. I have a feeling your argument that the serpent is good is not even a position you actually hold (if you do hold it, do you think Eve was lying when she said “The serpent deceived me”?..God does not accuse her of lying, but proceeds right to the curse).

My reading is only true if it ‘is’ true, and my reading certainly is not the dominant one (which, too, is only true if it ‘is’ true, which the findings of science contradict), taking into account that I do not interpret it literally. It would seem now you want to discuss epistemology?..I am still in the process of studying it, but see my blog (ichthus77.blogspot.com) and forum (ichthus.yuku.com).

Shall we move on? There’s a whole year of Bible ahead of us.

24

Oh, I hold it alright. It’s the only conclusion to draw given what we’re told in Genesis 1-2, where we’re told that the creatures God created were good. I still don’t know how you get around this… I don’t get where Satan comes from for you… Was it just always there with God, prior to creating?

(Also note that the serpent is described as the craftiest creature, but the word used, arum, means sensible, wise, etc, and is often used as a desirable quality in scripture (though it is an ambiguous term nonetheless).)

Was Eve lying? Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the serpent. And let’s be fair: the serpent was involved and so holds some of the blame. All three are responsible. Although the serpent was just sharing its knowledge, that is a dangerous game, and Adam and Eve clearly weren’t ready for it.

Also, I don’t know why you keep stressing that this wasn’t a real event. I’m talking about the story. I don’t care if it happened.

25

Only conclusion? What of the wolf in sheep’s clothing interpretation? The Genesis narrative is not ‘about’ the origin of Satan (especially if you are right that the serpent is not yet “the adversary” or Satan, but is ‘taken’ to be after those concepts are more developed)–you expect too much of it. Where do I think Satan comes from? He was not there prior to ‘all’ creation, for sure–that would make him God. Other than that–I have no idea.

Interestingly, the word translated “crafty” is translated that way in Job, as well, and with a negative connotation:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=job+5:12;job+15:5&t=nas

It is otherwise used only in Proverbs, and only 8 times (desirably, yes):
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/aruwm.html

I would say that doesn’t count as “often” enough to outweigh all the evidence in the text that the serpent’s sort of “crafty” is a (decidedly) deceptive one.

Who is ever ready for their innocence to be lost?

Be well.

26

It would require that there be a wolf, which flies in the face of God’s declaration of goodness. Again, there is nothing between God’s creation/declaration in Genesis 1 and the serpent’s appearance to suggest that the serpent is anything but a good creature. To say otherwise is to do some highly imaginitive reading.

Just try to push aside your preconceptions for a moment and read Genesis 1-3 thinking that the serpent is good and only sharing its knowledge… If you do this, you’ll find that it works very well with what we’re given… Just as well or better than your reading, which requires a lot more “reading into things,” i.e., finding deception where there is none, jumping to John’s Revelation for an association between the serpent and Satan, etc…

Genesis 1-2 isn’t, that’s correct, but Genesis 3 is all about the origin of Satan. What do you think we see born when Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the serpent? These accusations are the first signs of Satan. What do you think the future enmity God declares between Eve’s offspring and the serpent’s is about? This declaration presages our future war with Satan.

Exactly. And don’t you think you should have this figured out before you start reading Job, for instance, where (an antecedent to) the character plays such a critical role? I get that your work so far is preliminary, but my point all along is that this question is decisive for understanding the text. (Why do you think God’s first question to the Satan is “Where did you come from?!”)

So anyways, I wish you all the best in your work, but I think it would be far more fruitful, and groundbreaking, if you tried to tackle this unappreciated problem.

27

Genesis 3 is poetry about the first sin that kicked off this mess we’re in. I do find it odd that the serpent is spoken of as one of the beasts God originally calls good (not ‘morally’ good…just…‘really awesome’ good). The text does not say Satan disguised himself as one of the beasts, and the curse on the serpent does not make sense unless the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” interpretation is false (unless the serpent, the dust, the heel-biting is purely symbolic…the serpent symbolic of “the” adversary, so that it is not actually one of the beasts God called ‘really awesome’ good…but the author says it is…arg!..and if it is, then why was it in the Garden? why did the author have Adam and Eve kicked out when they sinned, if the serpent was permitted?..and I come back to this: it’s poetry…it’s doesn’t have to make perfect sense). So.

Nevertheless…

Why do you think the author of Genesis has the serpent ask Eve if they can’t eat from ANY tree?

Why do you think the author of Genesis has the serpent contradict God with “You surely will not die!”

Why do you think the author of Genesis has the serpent accuse God of having unworthy motives…just like “the adversary” in Job accuses Job of having unworthy motives?

How is this a “good” crafty?

If Adam and Eve’s accusations were the birth of the accuser (which would require a literal reading of the text–again, I don’t read it literally), that makes them Satan (it’s their blame game)–that’s a whole lot of eisogesis on your part. So it is them inflicting all that stuff on Job? Doesn’t work. 'Course, you could “read into the text” and notice that God asks both the (if literal) “first couple” and the adversary where they are…

God asks people a lot of questions, have you noticed? This has to be my last post on this passage for now.

28

Poetry aside, it has to make perfect sense. These points of nonsense are precisely what makes Biblical literature so engaging. Whenever you hit one (and there are oh so many), it shows you how far you are from understanding, and it compels you to move forward, and deeper, into the mystery. You can’t just say “Oh, it’s poetry, it doesn’t have to make sense.” That is to give up at the first sign of difficulty.

This is not what I said. Satan (and the Satan) are ancestors of the serpent. They are related genealogically. Adam and Eve aren’t Satan. They are the first idolators.

29

So, then what do you propose the serpent represented originally? Is it the unholy ghost? Man’s egocentric predicament?

30

The serpent is a representative of the world God created in Genesis 1. Again, it is one of the creatures that God saw was good. It is, in Genesis 3 and beyond, one of the creatures caught up in–and partially responsible for–the cosmic repercussions of human idolatry, oppression.

As a result of the oppressive order that it lives and breeds under (post Genesis 3), the serpent gives rise to offspring like the Satan, and Satan, who are disillusioned by the (oppressive) world and by God (who created the world) respectively.

Make sense? The serpent is an originally good creature subjected to oppression. Oppression then has a perverting effect on its offspring, resulting in the Satan (of Job) and Satan (of the New Testament).

It’s just like, if you’re Freud, those innocent sexual feelings that you felt toward your mother (or father) in childhood. Their repression leads to perverted offspring, like, who knows, maybe you marry someone like your mother/father. Or maybe you feel hatred toward your father/mother, since they possess what you desire. Freud’s return of the repressed is the psychological equivalent of Satan, who is, if you want something concrete to compare it to, a sort of cosmic neurosis.

31

Just in case anyone is interested…I did what I set out to do in the original post: http://ichthus77.blogspot.com/2011/12/bible-narrative-project-year-in-review.html

Merry Christmas