The serpent in Genesis - retroactive continuity

[Justin108]

Contrary to what most Christians believe, the character of Satan in the Bible is a lot less clear than what you'd expect from such a prominent figure in Christian lore.

The character of Satan seems to have evolved from scattered mentions of a supposed enemy to a central character. These scattered mentions, though supposedly of the same character, seems to have a few inconsistencies.

The most curious example of a previously mentioned biblical character that later became Satan through retroactive continuity is the serpent in Genesis. Genesis does not in any way suggest that the serpent was anything other than a serpent. Nowhere in Genesis does it suggest the serpent to be a fallen angel, or that Satan disguised himself as a serpent or controlled the serpent. The serpent was nothing more than a serpent. It was only after John wrote Revelations almost 1500 years later that he turned the character of the serpent in Genesis into Satan. But these are entirely different accounts from entirely different authors 1500 years apart.

Now I understand that supposedly, since every book of the Bible was divinely inspired, God told John that the serpent was Satan all along, but looking at Genesis, it seems far more likely to be a case of retroactive continuity.

A few facts in Genesis that suggest the serpent was NOT Satan.

- There is absolutely no mention of Satan in Genesis, or any reference to the serpent as an angel or a demon or anything other than a serpent.

- Genesis 3:1 refers to the serpent as "more subtil than any of the beasts in the field", suggesting that the serpent was counted among them as "beasts of the field" and not as an angel or celestial being.

- The serpent having the ability to speak does not suggest it to be a supernatural serpent as Balaam's donkey was also shown to have the ability to speak. Furthermore, the Garden of Eden has been shown to have supernatural qualities as it had two trees with supernatural fruit granting either knowledge or immortality. Other supernatural norms in the garden would not be unlikely. Eve's lack of surprise at hearing a serpent talk suggest it to be somewhat of a norm.

- Genesis 3:13-15: So the Lord God said to the serpent: “Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.�- This is probably the most damning of all. Genesis 3:13-15 tells us that:
- the serpent is cursed more than all the cattle, and more than every beast of the field, again suggesting it to be part of the animals in Eden rather than a celestial being
- God cursed the serpent and its "seed'. Unless I'm mistaken, Satan never had any children. The word "seed" is used rather than "children", so this cannot refer to Satan's followers as they are not his "seed". God cursing the serpent's "seed" would only make sense if it was referring to the seed of an actual serpent as the serpent would have offspring, unlike Satan.
- The nature of the curse, "on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust" again only makes sense if we are dealing with an actual serpent and not an impostor. This seems to be an explanation for why serpents have no legs - God cursed the serpent and removed its legs and the legs of its seed. Why would God punish serpents if the serpent deceiving Eve was just an impostor?
- If God did punish Satan and curse him to "go on his belly and eat dust" then the curse didn't stick. In later appearances of Satan, we wasn't crawling on his belly. There is no mention of it in the book of Job, nor was Satan crawling on his belly when he was tempting Jesus.


Is this a sign of the fictional nature of the Bible? Should retroactive continuity be possible in supposed historical documents? Are these clear indications that the serpent becoming Satan was an ad hoc decision on the author of Revelation's behalf? Wouldn't there have been a mention of the serpent being Satan in Genesis if it were the intentions of the author of Genesis for the serpent to be Satan?

[Zzyzx]

.

CONCLUSION: Rather than taking a strictly literal view of the Edenic pronouncements, in the light of numerous bible texts, it seems that the writers were speaking symbolically, using the snake as a fitting metaphor for Satans fate and various other images to convey a prophetic message about mankinds final destiny.

Either way, literal or symbolic, the tale seems HIGHLY imaginative.

Why give any credibility to those ancient tales? Is there assurance that writers (whoever they may have been) had accurate and truthful information? What were their sources? Where did they learn about events in the 'garden' and about supposed supernatural entities?

Were those tales folklore, myths, legends, campfire stories, religious promotion?

[Justin108]

While many insist that God was cursing literal snakes, the Edenic curse was actually addressing Satan the Devil.

Is there any support for this claim within Genesis? As my post demonstrates, there is nothing in Genesis to suggest the snake is in fact Satan. Referencing Revelation, a book written 1500 years later, cannot be used to support your claim for what the author of Genesis supposedly meant. Only Genesis and possibly other books by Moses can give us any insight into what Moses meant when he wrote what he wrote.

Revelation 12 clarifies this by calling Satan, "The original Serpant"

Yes, and this tells us that John assumed the serpent to be Satan, but not that Moses intended the serpent to be Satan. Again, why are we believing a word John said when the entire book of Revelation might have been nothing but the dreams of a mad man? What credibility does John have?

Seed is often used metaphorically in the bible to refer to descendants or offspring. Jesus referred to those that opposed him as "children" (offspring) of the Devil. So there is good reason to conclude that rather than refering to little baby snakes, Genesis 3:15 is actually a metaphor for those that side with Satan and display a similar rebellious attitude to that one.

You are arbitrarily linking two separate metaphors. "Seed" is often used as a metaphor for family and "family" is often used as a metaphor for followers, but to suppose Genesis used "seed" as a metaphor for a metaphor for family is a bit of a stretch. Nowhere else in the entire Bible is "seed" used in this way, not is "seed" used this way in literature as a whole.

CONCLUSION: Rather than taking a strictly literal view of the Edenic pronouncements, in the light of numerous bible texts, it seems that the writers were speaking symbolically, using the snake as a fitting metaphor for Satans fate

The only support you have that the author of Genesis meant the serpent to be Satan is Revelation, which was written 1500 after. As explained above, you cannot reference a completely different author over a thousand years later as support for what the author of Genesis actually meant. If you intend to support your conclusion of what Moses meant in Genesis, reference Moses... not John.

[Willum]

So by investigation of Apep or Apophis we make discovery.
Apep was the original serpent.
Ma'at is the original Eve, stolen from the Egyptians, who created her an impressive amount of time earlier. Making Ra the precursor to Adam. Which makes sense.

All the elements are in the story, Apophis' defeat and curse of bruising ankles and what not. Indeed it explains so much more. Ma'at is the Goddess of light and wisdom, and yet is tricked by the serpent Apophis, her special enemy. Sound familiar.

Etc., etc., etc., you know the story, except now you know it is accredited to previous divinities now. The Egyptian creation story and the adjunct and poorly added Sumerian.

It is amazing no one ever noticed this before.

Or should I say, it is amazing that the Dark Ages did not manage to destroy this bit of mythological history, and be amazed the ruling powers no longer burn people at the stake for noticing the analogy.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 53 by Willum]

It is amazing no one ever noticed this before.

I'm sure people have noticed.

To your conclusions, though, where we often differ is not that there is cultural interplay happening, i.e., the absorption of other cultural texts into the Hebrew imagination. Rather, it is your conclusion that the text isn't transformed in the process, and made to say something new, and create a strong contrast with the old.

You conclude that the Hebrews are simply stealing, and saying the same thing as the Egyptions. Pure plagiarism. I am more inclined to think that they are playing with the original text in order to invoke it, yes, since it is a clear reference point in people's minds, but using it to say something different.

It's like Genesis 1's play with the Enuma Elish. A lot of research has been done to show the similarities. Similar characters, etc. Genesis 1 is clearly playing with it. But it does so in order to contrast a completely different creation narrative. One where chaos (Hebrew Tehom and Sumerian Tiamat) isn't slain by God in order to create the fertile bed for creation, but is an active partner. (God's wind "hovers over" her versus dividing her in half...)

I would venture the same holds here between this Egyptian text and Gen 3.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 54 by theophile]

I suppose I'll concede the point.

But the message is: You're right, but the gods we made up last week are better than the gods (you may have) made up 1500 years earlier.

And they removed any wisdom or gleaning from the story. It doesn't teach anything but you are awful, because your great grandmother up-teen times removed talked to a serpent and took a bite of fruit.

Hardly applicable to any given situation - not really a morale code you can apply. Just a shameless plagiarism of a story to say my gods (for indeed the people who would become Jews were polytheistic at this time) are better than yours, therefore I am better than you, now give me all your land and virgins and I will kill you in gods' name.

PS - Also, you missed the bit about there being the Egyptian conflicting Sumerian stories stolen and poorly integrated into the one that would be Jewish.
Taking that wrinkle into account will surely smooth out our contradictions.