Old Testament as narrative.

Well, I’ve got an outline done which reads through the Bible (not just the Old Testament) chronologically and combines parallel passages. I’m so looking forward to starting it in 2011. I created a website so others can join me if they want to. All are welcome.

http://biblenarrativeproject.blogspot.com

The narrative of the bible has already been fully provided:

The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree…

rib-woman…lol…I like that.

It begins…

http://biblenarrativeproject.blogspot.com/2011/01/january-1-genesis-1-3-job-1-psalm-8-102.html

Happy new year :slight_smile:

I read your bit on Job. I wonder if you notice that it’s not Satan in Job, but the Satan, and what this means for the story. While you are right that Satan works to turn others from God, the Satan is something else, and understanding it contextualizes the book.

Since alyoshka brought it up Ichthus, is it your opinion that satan also intervened in Job’s thought process as well as being responsible for the physical woes that came upon him?

[Disclaimer: I do not interpret the Genesis narrative of Adam and Eve literally.]

Regarding Satan in the book of Job (alyoshka & liteninbolt), yes, my study notes say it is “the accuser” or “the adversary” … by 1 Chronicles 21:1 “Satan” becomes a proper name for that character…who (as you say) works to turn others from God. Notice the wife is not considered identical with “the accuser,” though she suggests Job curse God and die…so it does not mean any old accuser…but “the” accuser (adversary).

Litenin, I accidentally read past the first chapter of Job and read the second chapter as well (where Satan gives Job boils)…it doesn’t say anything about Satan putting thoughts in Job’s head. That isn’t to say that such things are impossible…just that the text is silent about it in this instance. Of course, the situation he is in influences how he feels and what he thinks about, but that isn’t exactly the same thing.

It is fascinating to read the beginning of Genesis and Job together…to compare them. Satan (adversary/serpent) comes up in both of them, up to the same old tricks in both of them. And the humans involved…they always have a choice (freedom is at the center of both narratives–smack dab in the middle of the Garden, even, in Genesis). They both start out “righteous”. Adam and Eve have their fruit and they take it, Job has his cursing…but refuses it. Adam and Eve are aware of Satan (the serpent), Job is not. Adam and Eve do not consult God (to which they have access)–Job has a long speech/prayer, though he does not know if God will even answer. And in the end, God speaks to them both, and they both have to live with the consequences of their choices. Adam and Eve chose apart from God and so get separation from him, Job spoke to God throughout his struggle and is restored. And, in the ‘real’ end (there really is only one), Satan loses, either way. (cross-posting this last paragraph to the Project)

[ The wives are both bad influences, but where Adam allows the influence (even to the point of blaming it all on his wife, who tries to then blame it all on the serpent), Job refuses it. I’m not sure it’s necessary to take this any further…just an observation. ]

This is precisely my project, to read Genesis 1-3 and Job together. But I must object to your Miltonian perception of things. The serpent and the Satan are not Satan. These are three distinct characters but that are nevertheless related genealogically.

The serpent, for instance, isn’t “up to the same old tricks” unless by this you mean its trying to share its knowledge with Eve. That’s all the serpent is doing. It’s not trying to deceive them (as Satan would).

What you need to understand is that the serpent is a good creature, and Satan is evil, and something terrible happens in between these. The Satan (of Job) is the missing link.

Hi Ichthus. I would also like to place a disclaimer. People’s interpretations of the Bible are their own. I try my best not to judge anyone’s thoughts (even to exclusiveness of my own private thoughts concerning others those interpretations) of their beliefs on scripture. God knows I have my own logs in my eyes to contend with. When questions arise in my mind, it is mainly due to what seems plainly evident on the language of the Bible. Such as, “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (‘me’ referring to Jesus)” for example. When something I see that flies into the face of counter scripture, then I will question somenone’s level of comprehension. This disclaimer has nothing to do with what has so far been discussed in this thread thus far.

I have given thought on the response you’ve made in this thread. I see parallels between Adam & Eve, Job and the fall of satan from Heaven. If you know of a text which shows concordances or parallels in Bible scripture, I would be most appreciative for the suggestion.

It is possible that satan wheedled some amount of doubt upon Job’s mind. The only thing that deters my reasoning from that is because God Himself told the devil on the outset that Job could not be turned from God’s Favored Eye. In my best reckoning, the greatest harm Job exercised was questioning The Creator’s preponderance for what befell him. While it cost him his family and material possesions, the greatest thing he retained was his spiritual connection with God. Whether this is perceived as an allegorical, parabolic or literal dissertation, the message of this in the pages of the Bible appears the utmost important aspect of all of this. The wisdom gained by Job if it is a literal translation far out breachs any suffering he sustained for the good it contains for all mankind in my opinion.

In regard to the wives of these two incidents, they were no more guilty or innocent of trangressions that were made. They having minds and conscience of their own might have fallen into the same situation if the tables were turned. Gender in my opinion is only applicable to this world, not within the confines of God’s realm.

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.

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…)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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