Skip to main content

What's the drama and who's the snake?

Thanks to James McGrath for lovely quote which inspires me to make two observations about Gen 2-3.

1. The suspense of Gen 2:18-20 relies on the reader not having read Gen 1:26-28.  The way the story is being told the audience are expected not to know what partner might be found for the man.  But Gen 1:26-28 has already given it away, man goes with woman and the two of them are supposed to "go forth and multiply."  Thus the suspense and resolution of Gen 2:18-25, which arrives at essentially the same answers by a different route makes no sense if treated as part of a continuous narrative with Gen 1.  The two creation accounts should not be harmonized but read as alternative accounts.  This is not because I feel the need to do this to satisfy some modernist need to justify my enjoyment of and adherence to these ancient myths, but because the text (which I believe is God's word) actually demands it. 

2. The serpent is introduced in 3:1 as being "more crafty than any other wild animal that God had made."  Because of this, and the resultant loss of limb for said serpent in 2:14, I have never understood the ease with which this chatty little reptile is conflated with Satan and the Devil.  To do so takes the story out of the category of myth and into allegory.  If it is allegorical then why do we need to get so excited about whether or not it is historical?  This also makes it hard for me to accept that in Gen 3:15 we find the proto-euangelion.  To me 3:15 is simply a folksy explanation of why snakes are nasty.  The true proto-euangelion is, IMHO at least, Gen 12:1-3 and it would seem that here the Apostle Paul agrees with me (cf. Gal 3:8, which might count for something with some people).

Let me know what you think :-)


  1. Even simpler perhaps--talking animals abound in all sorts of literature. It's my understanding that Canaanite lit was full of talking snakes and other animals.

  2. Er, not sure I get your point Anon, but welcome to the blog nonetheless. And what a wonderful generalisation to make, in fact in your understanding i expect ancient Canaanite literature was practically a draft version of Aesop's fables.

    The question is not whether or not the Bible's authors used the imagery and symbolism of the world around it (of course they did what else could they use?), but what is meant when it does and how it subverts, contradicts, or even affirms the world with which it is engaging.

  3. Your view agrees with that of John Walton's in his NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY on GENESIS.

    However, many Evangelicals continue to argue that the serpent is connected in some way with Satan, since Revelation calls Satan a serpent.

    I agree with you it's an allegory at best.

    Also, the text does not state that the serpent lost legs, it merely says it was cursed to go on its belly. For all anyone knows the serpent could have had wings, and "winged serpents" I think are mentioned in the Bible and in other ancient literature.

  4. ETB, welcome back, and thanks for a more moderate comment! :-) Interested to hear about Walton, will look that up. I think however if we are to see this as based on or using some sort of folk tale the question it would most likely be answering is not "why don't snakes have wings?" as a snake does not resemble any bird, but "why don't snakes have legs?" as snakes quite clearly resemble lizards but with nits missing. i think Leviticus' urity laws demonstrate that taxonomy was not alien to the ancient mind. but i concede it is a moot (and interesting) point. pax


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That one time Jesus got the Bible wrong

It's so typical isn't it? You are preaching all day long, training your disciples, sparring with the Pharisees, encouraging the poor and down trodden, healing the sick and casting out demons, all day, day after day, and even when you go up a mountain to get a rest the crowds hunt you down and follow you up, and then the one time you get a bit muddled up with some of the details of a biblical text . . . that is the one they write down in the first gospel - verbatim. At least Matthew and Luke had the good sense to do some editing. But Mark, he always had his eye on giving the public the "historical Jesus" whoever that is supposed to be . . . warts and all. Thanks a lot Mark!

Some think I made the mistake on purpose, just to show the Pharisees up.

For some there is no mistake worth mentioning, only a slightly ambiguous turn of phrase.

Others think I am doing something tricky with Abiathar's name, getting him to figuratively stand in for the priesthood.

It really has…

Thor Ragnarok and Parihaka: Postcolonial Apocalypse

Thor: Ragnarok is a riot of colour, sound, violence, humour, sci-fi and fantasy. As a piece of entertainment it is the best Marvel has produced so far. As in many of Taika Waititi's films the plot often seems secondary to the humour and a number of quirky moments seemed only to serve for a quick giggle. I left the theatre overwhelmed by the sensory experience, but ultimately unimpressed by any deeper meaning.

It wasn't until the second morning after my trip to the movies that I woke to the realisation that the movie could function as a profound postcolonial metaphor (I do some of my best thinking while alseep, also it can take me a while for the penny to drop). Unfortunately a quick google showed me that I was neither the first, nor the second to have this thought.

[Spoiler Alert!]

It's easy to miss with all the other stuff going on but Thor undergoes a postcolonial awakening during the film as he slowly realises that his beloved Asgard and its dominion of the nine realms …

Dale Martin does Mark

Dale Martin is an important and frequently controversial NT scholar. Those of us who can't make it to Yale to hear him teach can access some of his lectures, in fact his entire introduction to the NT course, through the magic of the internet.

Here he is holding forth on Mark . . .