The Serpent in the Old Testament

Author(s): Ross G. Murison

Reviewed work(s):
Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Jan.,
1905), pp. 115-130
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/527699 .
Accessed: 01/11/2012 13:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures.

http://www.jstor.org
 THE SERPENT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

BY Ross G. MURISON,M.A., PH.D.,

Lecturer in Oriental Languages, Toronto University.

All animals with which primitive man has come in contact

have received some reverence or worship, but the three which sit
highest in the house of the gods are the Serpent, the Crow, and
the Hare. The serpent has been the most universally worshiped
of all animals; wherever it has been known, there it has been
reverenced. The reason is not far to seek. The primal cause of
the superstitious regard of any animal lies in its "uncanniness"
-a quality which the serpent possesses in a very high degree.
The characteristics which have led mankind to give the ser-
pent such a high place in their regard may be thus summarized:
its motions, whether proceeding forward like a "streak of bur-
nished light," or still more wonderfully executing without haste
and without confusion the most intricate figures;' its lightning-
like rapidity in attacking its victims; its tongue continually flick-
ering in and out of its mouth;2 its power of looking like its
environment;3 its specter-like silence and subtlety; its faculty of
sudden appearance and disappearance; its infinite patience and
watchfulness; its power of continuing for hours with head raised
aloft, and with brilliant eyes fixed on some object which has
excited its suspicion or curiosity; its wonderful quietude when
lying day after day upon the same spot as if asleep, yet eternally
awake, and with open eyes fixed on all who observe it; its power
of existing for long periods without food and with no diminution
of its vigor; its periodical renewing of its youth by sloughing its
skin; its longevity; its deadly venom; its power of fascination;
its habit of frequenting ruins, lonely places, caves, and subter-
ranean abodes.
Being possessed of so many qualities, seemingly demoniacal,
others were naturally soon added, and serpent-worship, direct and
1 Of. Prov. 30:19. Kipling in his Jungle Book gives a vivid description of a serpent
performing these evolutions.
2 The reason for this unceasing motion of the serpent's tongue yet awaits a satisfactory
explanation.
3All wild animals have this power in a greater or less degree.
115
116 HEBRAICA

symbolical, arose.' By reason of tradition, Christians have an

almost unconquerable repugnance to the whole serpent kind. Yet
the snake has not always been, and by many peoples is not yet,
regarded with aversion, but with friendly regard.' This demands
explanation. From its uncanniness, and especially from its deadly
poison, we should expect fear to predominate in the feeling aroused
by the serpent. But the fact that a poisonous snake rarely uses
its power against man except to avenge an insult or injury would
produce a belief in its friendliness, or at least in its neutrality,
which might be inclined to friendliness.6 The principal reason is,
however, to be found in the fondness of the serpent for lurking
about human dwellings. The silent, but ever-watchful, snake
gliding about the house came to be looked upon as its protector.
This belief in the guardianship exercised by the serpent is its
first and most constant attribute.7
In close relation to this is the belief common among primitive
people in a serpent ancestry. To them the dead must have a
material body and a specific location, and the popular conception
gave to them most often an animal form. The serpent was very
frequently regarded as the dwelling-place of a departed soul,
because of its habit of frequenting graves and houses.8
41 shall here make no examination of what has been well called the " portentous non"
sense" of Phallic symbolism. Phallicism was doubtless a most widespread cult, and
naturally enough the serpent appears in its symbolism, but such was merely an incident in,
not the essence of, serpent-worship. While Phallic practices were probably common in
Israel, there is no sure reference to it in the Old Testament (cf., however, W. R. Smith,
Religion of the Semites, Note D, on Isa. 57:8).
5The serpent was often kept as a pet. In ancient Greek pictures a serpent is frequently
seen under the table in place of a dog (Journal of Hellenistic Studies, Vol. V, p. 113). The
most common serpent of Greece and Italy is the Coluber Aesculapii, which attains a length
of about three feet, is of a mild disposition, and easily domesticated. Elian says the
ancient Egyptians kept snakes as pets.
6 American Indians believe that a rattlesnake will not bite an Indian except in revenge
(Emerson, Indian Myths, p. 43). Among the Zulus the murder of a venomous snake had to
be atoned for (Ratzel, History of Mankind, Vol. II, p. 356).
7In classical language, its fortune; in colloquial parlance, its mascot. Should a serpent
take up its abode in a Zulu house, it is itongo--the god of the house (Ratzel, op. cit., Vol. II
p. 356). In Armenia to this day the harmless house snakes are regarded as the family pro-
tectors, and every village and district is supposed to have its invisible guardian serpent to
whom offerings are made (Abeghian, Der armenische Volksglaube, pp. 74sq.). In the Punjab
every householder places his house under the protection of a naga, or harmless snake
(Crooke, Folklore of India, Vol. II, p. 144). The Roman genius loci often appeared as a ser-
pent, and the royal and divine serpent-symbol of Egypt typifies guardianship. In modern
Egypt every house has a serpent as its harras-el-bet, or protector of the house, which is fed
on milk and eggs. In Cairo each quarter of the city is believed to have a guardian spirit in
the shape of a serpent. One of the most common designs on Assyrian amulets is the serpent,
and its place as guardian may be implied from its representation on boundary stones, for
example on those of Merodach-Baladan and Nebuchadrezzar.
8 There seems to have been a natural relation supposed to exist between mankind and
the serpent. When a huge serpent issued from the body of the crucified Cleomenes the
 THE SERPENT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 117

By a combination of the two preceding views arose the concep-

tion of the serpent as an avenger. In the earliest beliefs the
Greek Erinyes were the spirits of the dead in serpent form, who
remained around the house or grave to avenge any injury or insult
offered it, and although as early as the time of Homer the Erinyes
had become more or less an abstraction, in Virgil the serpents
still issue from the grave.
The serpent was also frequently regarded as the symbol or
cause of life and healing.' Asklepios, Apollo, and Hygeia were
all worshiped in this form, and during a plague in Rome a sacred
serpent was brought from Greece to stay the pestilence. To this
day the Moslem peasantry of Egypt believe most firmly in the
Shekh Heridi, a serpent with shrine and priests, and cures as
wonderful as those wrought by the good Ste Anne de Beaupre
are reputed to be done by it."o Wisdom was ascribed to the
serpent, and it has also been employed as the symbol of time or
eternity.
The beliefs about the serpent may well be called catholic, and
were doubtless held firmly by the ancient Hebrews; and we
should expect, therefore, to find traces of them, or some of them,
in the Bible.
In Tristram's Fauna of Palestine thirty-three species of
serpents are enumerated, but of these only six are poisonous, and
deaths from snake-bite are rare at the present day. Like our-
selves, the people do not clearly distinguish between the harmless
snakes and their deadly kinsfolk, so that many or most of the
innocuous serpents are also dreaded.
The generic word for serpent is naiash (zj•). The same
word also denotes divination (Gen. 30:27; Lev. 19:26; Numb.
23:23), which shows the high reputation of the snake for wisdom.
people were terrified, for this showed him to have been a semi-divine hero. They were
pacified on being reminded that, as the body of a bull produced bees, and that of a horse,
wasps, so the body of a man produced serpents (Journal of Hellenistic Studies, Vol. XIX,
pp. 205sqq.). By modern Greek peasants an unbaptized babe is called Spacovha (" little ser-
pent"), and is no doubt in danger of being spirited away in that form (ibid., p. 216). With
this may be compared the old Arab custom of hiding a new-born baby under a caldron until
daylight. Iron by its magical properties would keep it safe from jinn until it could be put
under the protection of a deity (Kinship, p. 154).
9 In 1899a court in Larnaca, Cyprus, awarded ?80 (Turkish) as damages for the loss of
a snake's horn which had been lent to cure a certain disease.
10Native Christians generally identify Shekh Heridi with Asmodeus, the evil spirit
exorcised from Sarrah by the fish liver and banished to Egypt (Tobit, 3:8). Perhaps the
worship of this serpent may have suggested to the writer of Tobit this destination for the
demon. Moslems, as a rule, hate the serpent as much as Christians do, and a Mohammedan
will carefully break every hair which comes out of his beard lest it become a reptile.
118 HEBRAICA

The enchanter is the wise man, the man who has supernatural
knowledge and power. In course of time the magician and his
arts came to be regarded as evil, but when the name for serpent
became the name for magic, it simply meant that the enchanter,
medicine-man, or priest was as clever as a serpent. It is barely
possible that the Arab word hanash, "to enchant," and nahash
are etymologically connected.
The Pethen"('1 , Deut. 32:33; Isa. 11:8; Ps. 58:5; 91:13;
Job 20:14, 16; etymology uncertain; cf. Ass. pitnu, "a noose, or
snare") is most probably the serpent known in Egypt as the
hayye'2 (coluber or naja haie, cerastes candidus), the common
asp-a serpent very closely allied to the cobra of India, but
without the spectacle markings. Like it also, although very
poisonous, it is the favorite serpent of charmers and jugglers.
It is not found now in great numbers in Palestine, but the refer-
ence to "charming" (Ps. 58:5, 6) seems to make it certain that
the hayye is referred to by this name.13
The Shephiphon ( is mentioned once (Gen. 49:17).
"tl)
According to Jerome, it is the cerastes (cerastes cornutus or
cerastes hasselquistii), a blunt-nosed, two-horned, highly poison-
ous viper which lurks in the sand, to which it has a very striking
resemblance. It is much dreaded on account of the deadliness of
its venom and its ferocity. Tristram says: "I have seen my
horse rear, and shake with terror, on descrying this little snake
lurking in the depression of a camel's foot-mark." The char-
acteristics ascribed to Dan as a tribal head make the identification
of Shephiphon certain.
The Eph'eh (MsER, Isa. 30:6; 59:5; Job 20:16) gets its
name from the hissing sound it makes, and may be the
daboia, but more than one species may have been included
under the name. In Arabic the name is usually given to the
Algerine viper (echidna arietans), a small but very malignant
serpent.
The word 'Akhshub ( Id7Y, once only, Ps. 140:4) is trans-
lated "adder," but this is only a guess, for there is no root
11It is not impossible that the Greek python is from some form of this word. For
python there is no derivation to be found in Greek (cf. Liddell and Scott, Lexicon).
12This is the common Arabic name for serpent and is cognate to the word for life. In
Egypt the name has become limited to the cobra or uraeus.
13In an old commentary on this passage it is gravely related that the asp has been
known to put the point of its tail in one ear and lay the other on the ground to keep itself
from being charmed.
 THE SERPENT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 119

available from which a suitable meaning may be derived. The

versions all agree that some kind of a serpent is meant, but the
Targum rendering is "spider" ( i, Heb. ••Y), which
may be the correct reading. The spider and serpent are paral-
leled in another passage (Isa. 59:5).
The name Qipoz (T11p, once only, Isa. 34:15) is translated
by the A.V. as "great owl," but from the Arabic Qiffazatun it
is now known to be the arrow snake (eryx jaculus), a reptile
very common and harmless, but exceedingly rapid in its move-
ments, hence its name.
Serpents are sometimes referred to as Zohelim (t'bMT,
"creepers," Deut. 32:24, "creepers in the dust;" Mic. 7:17,
"creepers on the earth").'4 The name comes from a root mean-
ing to withdraw or retire (cf. Job 32:6). When Adonijah sought
to make himself king, he went to the stone Zoheleth to complete
his preparations and be crowned (1 Kings 1:9). Some connect
this name with Saturn (called in Arabic Zuhal because of its
remoteness); but actual worship of so specialized a form did not
exist in Israel at this early date. The name means "Serpent
Stone;" and was most probably applied to it because of its shape
or markings, and hence from very early times it would be regarded
as sacred. It thus became a landmark and a common meeting-
place for the transaction of business and the taking of oaths.'5 If
the serpent was the totem of the Davidic house, as is claimed by
Robertson Smith, then by that family Zoheleth would be regarded
with special veneration.
The most dreaded of all the serpents mentioned in the Old
Testament is the Siph'oni ("MI, Isa. 11:8; 59:5; Jer. 8:17;
Prov. 23:32; .32, a collective form, Isa. 14:29). The English
version translates by "adder" with variant "cockatrice" (A.V.)
or "basilisk" (R.V.). Because of the fear in which it was held
most commentators now take it to refer to the yellow viper,
Daboia Xanthina, the largest and most feared of the reptiles of
Palestine. The Daboia is peculiarly an Indian species and is
almost the same as the dreaded Tic-polonga of Ceylon (D.
Russelii). The objection to this identification is the mention of
the eggs of the Siph'oni (Isa. 59:5), whereas the Daboia, being
14Duhm suggests that in Ps. 91 :13 zohel should be read instead of shayal, but there seems
no need of such an emendation. As it stands it gives a good parallelism with the second
part of the verse.
15Cf. the common use of plighting stanes in Scotland in former days.
 120 HEBRAICA

a viper, does not lay eggs." Because of this Riehm identifies

it with the Tarbophis fallax, a very pretty nocturnal snake
which sometimes attains to the length of three feet.'7 It is,
however, non-poisonous, and cannot be the serpent meant.
Riehm says it was believed to have the power of spitting its
venom, and was thus the object of much dread. While myths
like this may have been believed about it, still it was too common
a reptile to inspire such fear as is implied in the Old Testament
without any cause. What the Revisers meant by "basilisk" is
not clear. Many commentators have, or seem to have, a vague
impression that there is somewhere in Africa a small but most
deadly viper of this name which is meant. But neither in
Africa nor anywhere else is there a serpent known by this
name.18
If we understand by "basilisk" what the A.V. means by
"cockatrice," we have most probably the correct meaning. The
Siph'oni was a serpent with fabulous powers for evil."1 The myth
of the basilisk came to the Greeks from Egypt or Assyria, as it
must have taken its rise among peoples accustomed to very
poisonous reptiles. The myth would certainly be an accepted
belief in Palestine. Some have taken the name to be identical
with Typhon, the name of the evil dragon or serpent, the enemy
of the good gods of Egypt. There is a striking similarity
between the names. As no good derivation has yet been found
in the Semitic languages, the word is in all likelihood a foreign
one and may easily be the same as Typhon. In Isa. 11:8 the
word translated "den," R.V., is me'urath, the feminine of ma'or,
16Vipers are ovo-viviparous, i. e., they retain the eggs in their bodies until they are
hatched. It may be said that misbeliefs about serpents are very common, and the writer of
this chapter being in Babylonia such a mistake is to be expected. Even writers of today
fall into the same error. Cheyne on this passage says: "They brood purposes as deadly as
vipers' eggs." The Old Testament writers seem, however, to be well acquainted with the
habits of snakes; e. g., they always speak of the serpent biting, not stinging (in Prov. 23:32
the verb means "to pierce," not " to sting ").
17Called by Germans Katzenschlange; by Rhiem, Ailurophis vivax; by Tristram,
Tachymenis vivax. I use the name given in the British Museum catalogue.
18No serpent called "'basilisk " appears in any zoological list or good dictionary which
I have been able to consult. The only animal known by this name is a small American lizard
of the family Iguanidae which has on its head a hollow crest inflatable at will.
19The basilisk (Gk. basiliscos, Lat. regulus), "little king," was a small serpent, but the
king of all reptiles "because of his stately pace and magnanimous mynde." It went half
upright, and had a coronet upon its head. The deadly power of its poison was such that
shrubs were withered and stones broken by its breath. It killed by its piercing glance.
The name "cockatrice " is a corruption of the Med. Lat. calcatrix, and from the name came
the belief that it was hatched by a serpent or a toad from a cock's egg. The attributes of
the cockatrice were the same as those of the basilisk.
 THE SERPENT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 121

"a luminary" (Gen. 1:14), and, if the correct reading, must refer
to the gleaming eye of the basilisk or to its coronet.2
The Saraph serpents are mentioned three times (Numb.
21:5-9; Deut. 8:15; Isa. 14:29). If the name be not of foreign
origin, it comes from a root meaning "to burn" (Gen. 11:3; 2
Chron. 16:14; Isa. 44:16). It is generally held that it is given
to them because of their bite, and hence may describe any ser-
pent. This is most unlikely. The same name is applied to the
divine attendants in the vision of Isaiah and cannot there refer
to biting, but to the appearance of the beings. The name is
most likely given to the serpents for the same reason. From the
name, and because the "cherub" was at first probably the
thunder-cloud (cf. Ps. 18:11), it may be concluded that the
"seraph" originally indicated the lightning, the serpent of the
sky. In course of time the name was applied to certain serpents,
presumably with a mythical reference. The "flying serpent" of
Isa. 14:29 is evidently some reptile more or less mythical;
probably a dragon of some kind. Herodotus mentions an inva-
sion of Egypt by flying serpents, which shows that the Arabian
desert was believed to be the home of such reptiles."
The name Tannin ('tr) is used when the writer speaks of
some creature of the reptile kind of which he has no very clear
knowledge. It is large, powerful, and poisonous, but he knows
little of its actual attributes, size, and shape. Among the crea-
tures made on the fifth day are the "great tanninim," or sea-
monsters, but the writer knows nothing more about them. In
Exod. 7:9 (cf. 4:3) and Ps. 91:13 the tanninim are evidently
some kind of serpent; in Isa. 27:1, 51:9; Pss. 74:13, 148:7;
Job 7:12, they are mythical dragons. In Deut. 32:33 the poison
of tanninim is spoken of, and the reference may be either to
dragons or semi-fabulous serpents.
SYMBOLISM OF SERPENT.

In the Old Testament the serpent is almost exclusively the

type of evil of some kind. In the New Testament this is intensi-
fied, and the worst name the Apocalypse can apply to the "devil"
20 It is suggested that the word is a corruption, or dialect form, of 1=I01 (Gen. 19: 30),
or better nr:I1, Jer. 21:13.
21 The belief that a serpent can throw itself for a considerable distance at the object it
desires to strike, and so may be called a "flying serpent," dies hard, as all superstitions and
misbeliefs do (see Imperial Dictionary of the Bible). The thing is impossible.
122 HEBRAICA

is to call him an "old serpent"-a name implying all evil and

mischief. The only clear exception in the whole Bible is in the
language of the Christ himself, who points to the serpent as a
source from which disciples may learn wisdom.
The serpent is itself the author of all evil (Gen., chap. 3); it
is the type of the wicked (Isa. 59:5; Pss. 58:5, 140:4); of
treachery, deceit, and lying-in-wait (Gen. 49:17); of desolation
(Isa. 34:15); of degradation (Mic. 7:17). Serpents are the
instruments of God's punishment (Numb. 21:6; Isa. 14:29; Jer.
8:17; Amos 5:19; Job 20:16). The food and drink of the
wicked are likened to the poison of the serpent (Deut. 32:33;
Job 20:14); also wine itself (Prov. 23:32). The glory of the
messianic reign is figured forth in the saying of the prophets
that even the most deadly serpents shall then be harmless (Isa.
11:8; Ps. 91:13). In Jesus ben Sirach (21:2) the serpent is
the type of sin itself:22 "Flee from sin as from a serpent; if thou
comest nigh it, it will bite thee."
Rods were turned into serpents on two occasions in the
preparation for the exodus; once by God for Moses (Exod.
4:3 sqq.), and again by Aaron and the sages of Egypt in a con-
tention between them (Exod. 7:9 sqq.).23 The two narratives are
very different. The story of Moses is simple and dignified, and
has a worthy purpose in the development of the history; that of
Aaron and the wise men resembles ordinary folklore stories of
contests between magicians. The former narrative is by J, the
latter by P, which may account for the different names used; but
the name tannin (7:9 sqq., LXX, 8pacCdv),is more likely used to
give the idea of some kind of monster, serpent, or dragon, which
could swallow up the dragons of the other wonder-workers. The
fact that the magicians performed the same feat shows that the
action of Aaron was not regarded by the writer or reader as
specially divine or supernatural. The narrative seems to lack
that high moral purpose which we always expect in any divine
interference with the ordinary course of nature."' The serpent
has no symbolism in either case.
22 The meaning of Jer. 46: 22 is very obscure. The text is manifestly corrupt, and the
Masoretic reading impossible.
23 One of the most common feats of an Arab serpent-charmer is to turn the hayye ser-
pent into a stick, i. e., to throw it into a hypnotic, rigid condition. It is said that this is
done by the juggler pressing the nape of the viper's neck in a certain way.
24 It is noteworthy that there is no exhibition of fear when these monsters appear.
Cf.
Exod., chap. 4.
 THE SERPENT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 123

The fiery serpents.--The story of these reptiles (bv5r ,

Numb. 21:5-9) is extremely difficult of explanation, if it is to be
taken literally in all its parts. This difficulty has been felt by
both rabbinic and Christian interpreters. Neither of these have
given much attention to the essential questions, but have been
generally content to draw some lessons from the story, or to find
some allegorical meaning in it. The making of an image is in
direct opposition to all the divine Torah to Israel, the aim of
which was to root out all empty symbolism and fetish veneration.
Therefore for God to command that a serpent's image should be
made to be reverenced is so inconsistent as to be unbelievable.
If Nehushlan (2 Kings 18:4) was this image, it simply shows
that the inevitable in the then condition of religion in Israel
happened-the miracle-working image became a god.25
The story divides itself into two parts: (1) the sending of
the serpents as agents of divine vengeance; (2) the making of a
bronze image to heal the bitten ones. The first part (vss. 5-7)
has every appearance of being founded on an actual occurrence.
When it is said God sent serpents, it is merely the Semitic
equivalent of our statement: it happened in God's providence.
The event may or may not have been miraculous; the Semites
did not distinguish. Serpents venomous and harmless are today
quite plentiful in the Arabian Desert, and that they were so in
ancient times we know from Esarhaddon, who says in his Annals
that in his campaign against the Arabs his army marched for
"twenty double leagues through a country where serpents and
scorpions covered the ground like grasshoppers." There is also
a tradition that Alexander lost many soldiers by snake-bite." It
is, however, contrary to the nature of serpents to attack men in
the manner here represented, although the poison serpents are
very easily stirred up to anger.
Three explanations of the narrative may be offered: (1) During
their wanderings the Israelites came into a district infested with
venomous serpents, and many of the people were bitten and died.
25The serpent was regarded by many peoples as a suitable symbol of God. It was so
in Egypt. Primitive peoples are almost bound up to the use of animal similes for the deity.
We can the more readily understand this when we remember that Christians yet use animal
figures to represent God, and use animal names in addressing Him, as in the Agnus Dei, and
"Come Holy Spirit, Heavenly Dove." Neither the sheep nor the dove are remarkable for
special powers, as are the bull and the serpent. The use of the dove image comes probably
from the misunderstanding of a simile; the flight, not the spirit, was like a dove.
26 Strabo, 15: 2: 7.
124 HEBRAICA

According to Semitic theology, this must have been a visitation

of God for the sins of the people, and the murmuring against the
manna appeared to them to be an adequate cause. (2) These
serpents were specially and supernaturally prepared of God for
this purpose. When we take into account the Semitic mode of
expression, this view requires no consideration. (3) The plague
was the outbreak of some disease, the symptoms of which resembled
serpent-bite. As an exact remembrance of the character of the
pestilence was lost, it came to be regarded as an attack of real
serpents. If this view be correct, then what the disease was
cannot now with certainty be ascertained. A very interesting, if
not altogether convincing, theory is put forward by Hirsch in his
Historical and Geographical Pathology.27 According to him, the
plague was an epidemic of the parasite commonly known as
"guinea-worm" (Filaria or Dracunculus medinensis). This para-
site is quite common in parts of Africa, India, and Arabia. It
enters the body in drinking-water (some say through the pores of
the skin), and attacks most frequently the legs and the feet.
There is no social, racial, or other immunity from the attacks of
this filaria.28 The theory that the seraphim which attacked the
Hebrews were Filariae medinensis receives some support from
Plutarch, who states, on the authority of the geographer Agathar-
chides, that the dwellers by the Red Sea suffer from a serious
malady due to "small serpents" (SpavcdvrTaFicpa) which issue
from the skin to gnaw the arms and legs, .and retire underneath
the skin if disturbed, causing intolerable pain."9 It is impossible
to decide absolutely between the first and the third of these
explanations, but one or other of them must be correct.
The first part of the narrative shows the serpents as agents of
vengeance -a role they frequently play in the traditions of many
peoples. In the second part they have a character entirely dif-
ferent, but equally common. The serpent becomes the symbol, or
agent, of healing.
Is the second section by the same hand, and from the same
time, as the first? The whole account is ascribed by critics to
27New Sydenham Society Transactions, 1885.
28A member of the medical staff of Toronto University recently removed several of these
worms from a missionary lately returned from Africa. The operation was difficult owing to
the rapidity with which the filaria moved. Its snake-like movement as it passed from place
to place under the skin could be easily observed.
29Symposion, 8, 9:3. It is noteworthy that the plague attacked the Israelites near the
Red Sea.
 THE SERPENT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 125

JE, which simply means it is not by P. It stands in a P setting

(vss. 4, 10, 11), being by that writer or school, so that it is of
late date, in its present form. Vss. 5-7 are in the purest classical
Hebrew and seem to belong to the earliest strata of J. It may be
confidently asserted that vss. 8 and 9 are not so old, though there
is nothing in them which can with certainty be declared to be late
Hebrew. The waw with the perfects may be explained as con-
secutives, and the forms to be conditional imperfects: "So it
would be, if the serpent had bitten a man he would look at the
bronze serpent, and would live." Such a construction is very
rare in early Hebrew; it is doubtful if there be any parallel to
this passage so taken, and the n with which vs. 9b opens
seems certainly to be late; early Hebrew would have said 1.
The conclusion one draws is that vss. 5-7 give an old and
accepted tradition, which was incorporated by J, while vss. 8 and
9 were added later, for some special purpose, or from an inde-
pendent source.
Nehushtan.-The story of the bronze serpent has a very close
connection with Nehushtan, a greatly venerated image, destroyed
by Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:4). The verse in Kings, which is the
only reference to Nehushtan there is, is certainly very much later
than its context which it interrupts to illustrate. The demon-
strative pronoun with which it opens points to this, and marks
the verse as having been originally a marginal note or comment,
which was later incorporated into the text. The employment of
perfects with simple waw makes its late origin assured. This
does not destroy the historical character of the narrative, for such
a cult as this serpent worship cannot be the invention of a writer."
This image manifested its divine power as images always have
done, and yet do by acts of healing. Its worship would be par-
ticipated in by Yahweh-worshipers seeking healing, although it
was certainly no part of the religion of Yahweh. It was probably
some Canaanitic cult or fetish adopted by the Judaites. Kittel
thinks the image was placed in the temple by Ahaz, who was fond
of innovations, and who perhaps received it from the Assyrians
(cf. 2 Kings 16:10); but the time between Ahaz and Hezekiah
30oThisverse shows us how little we know of the actual condition of popular religion in
Israel. By the merest accident we learn of an extended and popular serpent-worship in
Judah maintaining itself until late times. A copyist or editor drawing upon his knowledge
of tradition gives in a note some illustrations of Hezekiah's zeal for Yahweh, and in doing
so gives us a wonderful glimpse into Israel's practical faith.
126 HEBRAICA

is too short to permit it becoming a national idol enshrined in the

affections of the people, as is implied by the narrative. It was
most likely a wonder-worker among the Canaanites before the
Hebrews entered the land. These allurements of its worship and
the proofs of its divinity proved too strong for these immigrants,
and it became to them also a god of healing. It may have been
the chief idol of Jerusalem, and remained there after David took
the city and made it his capital; or it may have been removed to
the temple by an early king, perhaps Solomon himself, in order
to add popularity to the shrine which the kings desired should be
the center of the national religion. Robertson Smith accounts
for the place of this image in the temple by making it the totem
symbol of the royal family. It is, however, the totem animal
that is worshiped, not its symbol; and this theory leaves the heal-
ing power of the image unaccounted for, as also the widespread
homage it received. The reigning house might favor the image
because it was of the serpent totem, but this does not explain the
origin of the idol.
The rise of prophecy with its apprehension of the spirituality
of God placed the non-Yahwistic cults and superstitious practices
in Israel upon their defense, when doubtless many "great and
strong arguments" were built upon very slender foundations of
old tradition, or upon none that existed outside the imagination
of some clever apologist. The defenders of Nehushtan would be
especially hard pressed. They had to endure more than the
general polemic, for the story of the fall had begun to circulate,
and it was of a kind to appeal to the imagination of the people.
If Nehushtan is to maintain its place, authority must be had for
it, and none less than Moses would be effective. Accordingly the
old story of the serpents in the wilderness was expanded into a
defense of Nehushtan."
The Serpent of the fall.-The great question of how sin
appeared among men made in the image of God is answered very
simply by saying that God forbade the parents of the race to eat
of the fruit of a certain tree in Paradise, but a serpent tempted
them and they fell. The mystery of sin is explained by a mystery
31Two other explanations are possible. The bronze serpent of Moses was invented in
the reign of Manasseh when that monarch restored the serpent image, as he must certainly
have done, unless the redactor or copyist of Kings who added 18:4 ascribed, through
inadvertence, to Hezekiah's reign, reforms which really belonged to Josiah's (cf. 2 Kings
23:6). Or the explanation may have arisen later to account for such a strange thing in
Israel as serpent-worship.
 THE SERPENT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 127
still greater, if the story is to be understood literally. Rabbinic,
followed by Christian, interpreters have held that Satan, the con-
stant enemy of God and king of all evil spirits, had either taken
the appearance of a serpent, or had entered into the body of one
and so approached the woman. Of such a belief there is abso-
lutely no trace in the narrative, which treats of a serpent and
that only. A serpent tempts; a serpent is punished. It is a
common belief that jinn or spirits appear in animal forms, of
which the serpent is more frequently chosen than any other;"
but the doctrine of the devil is too advanced for the time from
which this narrative dates. Satan does not appear till very late
in the Old Testament (Job 1:6; Zech. 3:1; 1 Chron. 21:1),"
and the first identification of the serpent with Satan is in Wisdom
2:23, 24.34
The idea of a struggle between good and evil is common to
all peoples who have attained to any moral consciousness. For a
non-philosophical people the abstract is too difficult to appre-
hend, and all things are personified. Evil has thus always taken
a definite form, preferably that of a serpent.35 The serpents or
dragons are, however, always evil deities or spirits in that shape,
and had the author of the story of the fall been writing what he
desired to be taken as literal history, he would have made some
mention of evil spirits, ais the belief in them was universal. Since
32To Moslems every serpent has a great deal of demon in it. Jinn and ghul are often
employed as names for serpents (Quran, 27:10; 28:31); Shaitan is also so used. Cf. the
common Christian belief of former days that the devil, disguise himself as he would, could
never divest himself of the goat-hoofs.
33 With 1 Chron. 21:1 cf. 2 Sam. 24:1, where it is said that it was Yahweh, not Satan,
who incited David to number the people.
34 In Talmudic theology Satan is called the "old serpent" (cf. Apoc. 20: 21), because
with him began history. Some held he was made at the same time as Eve, while others
identified him with Sammuel, the angel of death who, from being the highest throne-angel
of God, fell by lust on seeing Eve. Three reasons for the temptation appear in the Talmud:
(1) Satan desired to have complete control of the world (cf. Luke 4: 6, and the story of
Tiamat). (2) He was jealous because the human pair were ministered to by the angels of
service. (3) He was enamored of Eve, and seduced her. The grosser explanation, being
the more easily understood, was the most common. Cain was the son of Eve, and Satan
and many other demons came into existence in the same way, though it is not clear whether
the latter were children or grandchildren of Eve and the serpent. In some places, but not
often or thoroughly, the Talmud rises to the view that the fall was rebellion against God,
with no reference to a particular sin or a literal serpent (Weber, Altsynagogale paldstinische
Theologie, pp. 210 sqq.).
36In Egypt the enemy of good had generally the form of a serpent or dragon; and the
great serpent Apep lay in wait beyond death to destroy souls on their way to the Elysian
fields. In Babylonia, Tiamat was a dragon of most hideous aspect, and in the Vedas Trita
fights with the serpent Ahi. In Zoroastrianism the idea of this struggle was very fully
developed, but the serpent is merely one of the evil beasts, and it was not until influenced
by Genesis that Ahriman takes the form of a serpent and brings the first human pair to
destruction. The Babylonian and probably the Egyptian beliefs must have been known to J.
128 HEBRAICA

he does not, we must conclude that he simply chooses this mode

of expression as the best means of conveying some great prophetic
message.
The idea of the serpent and the tree of knowledge is not
original with the writer. In Babylonian symbolism there is no
object so common as the sacred tree, often with the symbolical
number of seven branches, and guarded by Cherubim. In the
literature so far discovered nothing corresponding to the fall has
been found, but the part of the creation story where it would
occur, if any tradition of it existed, has yet to be brought to
light. An ancient cylinder has, however, been unearthed whose
rude engraving shows two figures seated at a fruit tree, while
behind one of them, from the dress evidently a woman, a serpent
is standing. Some have denied that this has any reference to
the story told in Genesis, but it seems obvious that the two
belong to the same tradition.
Some critics find in the story of the fall two strata. In one
the serpent is not evil but wise, and the initiator of mankind into
knowledge, while in the other and later he becomes a tempter.
As has been seen, the serpent was regarded by the Semites, as
well as by other peoples as being the wisest of animals." In
Genesis the wickedness of the serpent is not expressly declared,
while its superior wisdom is emphasized. The quality attributed
to it is tl')y a word of the same root as '7M~ the highly praised
discretion, or power of discernment which is to be given to the
simple, to those of open mind and needing instruction (Prov.
1:4); the condition in which Adam and Eve are described as
being in before eating of the fruit. There is nothing to show
definitely what is meant by the Babylonian picture, and it may
well be, it represents, not the fall into sin, but the impartation of
knowledge. There was a Babylonian myth about a dragon
which issued from the sea to teach the first people wisdom, and
from the continual appearance of the sacred tree we may perhaps
infer that the original form of the story was connected with this
serpent and the tree. A curious parallel appears in America,
where among certain Indians the medicine tree-that is, the
tree of knowledge rather than of healing-is inhabited by a ser-
pent. Something like this was probably the form in which the
36 The Chinese consider the serpent to be the symbol of supernatural wisdom, and
ascribe to the kings of heaven serpent bodies.
 THE SERPENT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 129

myth reached the writer, but the impression he desires to convey

is that the serpent was the symbol of evil, not good, which
accounts for what appear to be two strata in the Genesis narrative.
The occasion for the narrative may be twofold: (1) to combat
prevailing superstitions; (2) to unfold some prophecy. The
writer is J-a man of Judah, as is generally acknowledged. He
knew therefore of the widespread serpent-worship among his
people-a cult which he would strongly oppose. He could deal
no harder blow at serpent-veneration than by putting into popular
form a story making the serpent the author and symbol of all
evil." But he has another and a higher purpose. The writer is
a prophet of God, of wonderful insight into the moral conditions
of things. He knows the way of sin; he sees man corrupted by
its power; but he sees also that man should, and by God's help
can, be conqueror over it.3" Good, not evil, is the goal of man-
kind. Evil may bruise him as to the heel, but there is a divine
enmity, an unquenchable warfare, appointed by God between man
and sin, and the seed of the woman should and shall bruise the
serpent's head. The great purpose of J in this allegory is to
instruct man as to the real character of sin, to turn him from evil
to good, and to inspire him with hope for the struggle.39
Because the curse pronounced upon the woman is to be
realized in child-bearing, it has frequently been held that the
serpent represents the lusts of the flesh, and the first sin was of
this class. The prophet's personal opinion cannot be known, but
it is utterly alien to his purpose to convey such a meaning. He
is dealing with sin in the abstract, as separation, and the cause
of separation from God, and he makes the curse of sin what was
regarded in his time as its most marked result. Time and again
the Old Testament writers mention the pain of child-birth as a
type of the greatest suffering."0 This, then, was the woman's
curse. In the same manner the curse of the man and the serpent
are what was regarded as the greatest evil attending their life.
37The date of writing would then probably be in the time of Hezekiah. The developed
form of prophecy in this passage would seem to point to a later date than the time of the
first of the great prophets.
38 Cf. Gen. 4: 7.
39Because of the greatness of the prophetic torah in this chapter it seems impossible
that the writer meant it to be taken literally. Since the time of Milton evangelical com-
mentators have generally regarded Gen. 3:15 as the first prediction of the Christ. Calvin
pointed out correctly that it does not refer primarily to the Christ but to mankind.
4oCf. Mic. 4:9; Isa. 13: 8; 21:3.
130 HEBRAICA

Man had to work and sweat to wring the means of subsistence

from the niggardly soil of Canaan, and it is the degradation of
the serpent that he goes upon his belly.4' The malediction,
"Dust thou shalt eat" could never be understood literally."4
Is the name given to the woman (Hawwah, Gen. 3:20) con-
nected with the name for serpent in Arabic (kayyat) and in
Syriac (hewya)? Wellhausen thinks the identity of the name
of the first woman with the Arabic and Syriac is to be explained by
some myth which gave Eve a serpent form.43 He quotes from a
Syriac source which says: "Satan disguised himself as a serpent
in order to look like Eve, and thereby cause her to sin, as one
teaching a parrot to speak, talks from behind a mirror, so that
the parrot thinks it is one like itself who is speaking." The
Arabian dynasty of Edessa, the princely family of Taiji, and the
kings of Abyssinia were supposed to be descended from serpents."
An additional argument for this hypothesis of Wellhausen might
be found in the doctrines of some Gnostic sects. The Ophites,
for example, revered the serpent, and regarded it as the world-
soul, the mother of all. Such a doctrine could not be altogether
new with the Gnostics, but was probably some old Syrian super-
stition, or myth given a philosophical dress. It is, however, very
precarious to build so large an argument upon a name which may
not after all come from an Arabic or Syriac source.45
41 Cf. Sanskrit name uraga, "breast-goer."
42Cf. Isa. 49:23; Pss. 72:9; 102:10.
43 Among certain tribes in Africa the serpent is regarded as the mother of mankind, and
among some North American Indians it is the symbol of the female principle (Emerson,
Indian Myths, p. 380). Ahuacoatl, the name of the Mexican "all mother," is generally
translated "serpent woman," but Brinton translates it "mother of twins." (Rig Veda
Americanus, p. 17.)
44Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 4th ed., p. 313, note; Reste, 2d ed., p. 154.
45 Robertson Smith (Kinship, 177) derives the name from the Arabic ayy, " a family;"
and compares with it, 1 Sam. 18:18, "What am I or my ayy? " (i. e., my kinsfolk, or clan).