I intend in this post to throw an idea into the ring for consideration. I have very little with which to defend the idea but I find it of interest. I have nothing stronger than that as my motive for posting it here:
that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was an allusion to the seduction of Greek wisdom
Early last year I posted — solely for the purpose of showing that the idea was not unknown among scholars — a summary of one academic proposal that Plato at one point was ultimately drawing upon the biblical Garden of Eden story of “the fall”. I still have strong reservations about the case made in that article and for that reason I have from time to time returned to have another look at the relevant sources to see if more cogent sense can be made of the comparisons or if the notion should be dropped entirely. Now I would like to propose a more plausible and cogent case for the reverse: that the biblical authors were drawing upon Plato. (The idea that the Hebrew Bible drew upon Greek literature is a minority view among scholars but nonetheless a reputable one that has been published in academic sources: see Niels Peter Lemche, Mandell and Freedman, Jan-Wim Wessellius, Philippe Wajdenbaum, Russell Gmirkin, and related posts etc)
The Ambiguity of the Serpent: Greek versus Biblical
It is impressive to note how ophidian or anguine symbolism permeates Greek and Roman legends and myths, shaping Hellenistic culture. (Charlesworth, 127)
Yes, the serpent was a positive image among the Greeks of the classical and hellenistic eras of their chief god Zeus, but I will offer a more specific literary connection.
Evangelia Dafni attempted to argue that Plato’s panegyric of Socrates was indebted to some extent to the serpent who tempted Eve (see first link above). A key weakness in the argument, I believe, was its failure to provide a clear motive for the borrowing. If there was borrowing from the Hebrews it seemed to fail to add anything extra to the understanding of Plato’s text.
But notice how different everything looks in reverse. A potentially new depth of meaning is indeed added to the Genesis narrative by inverting Dafni’s suggestion.
Socrates can justly be considered the paragon of Greek wisdom. One might say that Socrates was the midwife at the birth of Greek philosophy, epitomized by Plato and Aristotle and their offshoots. In his dialogue The Symposium Socrates is directly compared with a viper whose bite is compared with Socrates overpowering his interlocutor by his unassailable questioning and speech. Socrates is depicted as being in a class of his own above all other mortals because of his wisdom as Eden’s serpent is wise above all the beasts of the earth. Socrates offers the wisdom of the gods. If one who had not met Socrates felt no disgrace or shame about his person, after an encounter with Socrates he would indeed be overwhelmed with shame of his former state of ignorance — as Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness until after they succumbed to the serpent’s temptation. What Socrates offers with his words is described as full of beauty, desirability and wisdom.
At this point, let’s recall the passage in Genesis:
2:25 And the two were naked, both Adam and his wife, and were not ashamed.
3:1 Now the serpent was more φρονιμώτατος [LXX = discerning, prudent, wise] than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
Let’s back up a little and start at the beginning.
Socrates is telling his companions a story of his encounter with the prophetess Diotima of Mantineia (punning names that could be translated literally as “Fear-God of Prophet-ville” – Rouse, 97) who educated him about the nature of love and immortality. Interestingly (perhaps, for me at any rate) Socrates deems the act of sexual intercourse between a man and woman as generating a form of immortality:
“To the mortal creature, generation is a sort of eternity and immortality,” she replied; “and . . . . we needs must yearn for immortality no less than for good . . . .”
All this she taught me at various times . . . . (Symposium, 206e-207a)
The discussion extends to addressing various ways humans can be thought of as immortal (“continually becoming a new person”), not unlike (this is my own comparison here, not that of Socrates) the common ancient image (as ancient as the epic of Gilgamesh) of the serpent regularly shedding its old skin in a process of “eternal” renewal.
I was astonished at her words, and said: “Is this really true, O thou wise Diotima?”
And she answered with all the authority of an accomplished sophist: “Of that, Socrates, you may be assured; — think only of the ambition of men, and you will wonder at the senselessness of their ways, unless you consider how they are stirred by the love of an immortality of fame. They are ready to . . . undergo any sort of toil, and even to die, for the sake of leaving behind them a name which shall be eternal. (208c)
Socrates proceeds to report Diotima’s elucidation of what is truly beautiful, “passing from view to view of beautiful things” until the one learning wisdom finally grasps true beauty and no longer is content with the inferior beauty of the physical world. Diotima concludes:
“Do consider,” she said, “beholding beauty with the eye of the mind, [one] will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but realities . . . and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God and be immortal, if any man ever is.” (212a)
After Socrates’ speech in which the words of a divinely inspired prophet were presenting the ultimate in beauty that could ever be desired by mortals for the sake of an immortal name, who should rudely interrupt the occasion but a drunken Alcibiades. Alcibiades was a “man of the world”, a famed political figure, conscious of his beauty but also one who was enamoured of Socrates, both intellectually and physically.
In Plato’s dialogue each guest had been expected to deliver some kind of ode to “love”. Alcibiades, arriving late, instead will tell all what Socrates himself can be likened to — in similes. Socrates is like the ugly Silenus, grotesque on the outside but cut him open and inside you will find images of the gods. Or he is like the entrancing satyr Marsyas who invented the music of the flute and “bewitched men by the power of his mouth”. The only difference, Alcibiades explains, is that Socrates can enchant and stir a longing for the divine merely by the means of his speech:
The only difference … is that you [=Socrates] do the very same without instruments by bare words! . . .
When one hears you . . . we are overwhelmed and entranced. (215c-d)
Alcibiades brings in another simile with which to liken Socrates and his words: the serpent, specifically the persuasive power of the serpent!
Besides, I share the plight of the man who was bitten by the snake. . . . I have been bitten by a more painful viper, and in the most painful spot where one could be bitten — the heart, or soul, or whatever it should be called — stung and bitten by his discourses in philosophy, which hang on more cruelly than a viper when they seize on a young and not ungifted soul, and make it do and say whatever they will. (217e-218a)
Eve is not bitten by the serpent, of course, but she and Adam do for the first time feel shame as a consequence of listening to him. Shame was the bite Alcibiades said he felt after his time with Socrates. Alcibiades had attempted to seduce Socrates sexually but found him unmoved. Socrates gently chastised him by pointing out that he was trying to exchange what was beautiful to one’s physical eyes and pleasures (bronze) for the true beauty of wisdom (gold) – with the result that Alcibiades felt deep shame for his attempts to attain sexual favour with Socrates:
And there is one experience I have in presence of this man alone, such as nobody would expect in me; and that is, to be made to feel ashamed [αἰσχύνομαι, a form of the same word in LXX Gen 2:25]; he alone can make me feel it. . . I cannot contradict him . . . and, whenever I see him, I am ashamed . . . . (216b-c)
It is at that point where Alcibiades begins to describe his vain attempt to seduce Socrates and its humiliating aftermath.
Socrates was a man like no other:
There are many more quite wonderful things that one could find to praise in Socrates: but . . . it is his not being like any other man in the world, ancient or modern, that is worthy of all wonder. . . .
When you agree to listen to the talk of Socrates . . . you will find his words first full of sense, as no others are . . . (221c-222a)
But, Alcibiades warns, beware of being seduced by his wisdom to the extent that you are stirred to a desire for sexual gratification (an exchange of false beauty for true) and one feel shame as a consequence:
That is a warning to you . . . not to be deceived by this man . . . . (222b)
There we have it. In one episode in Plato’s dialogues we have a blend of a person “more wise” than any other mortal, one likened to a serpent, one whose speech is overpoweringly persuasive, who promises a form of immortality, who displays all that is truly beautiful and to be desired, yet who leaves the ignorant feeling shame over their former condition — specifically in relation to sexual desire.
Much more could be written but I have introduced them in earlier posts. We have seen Russell Gmirkin’s observation that it was Plato who portrayed an idyllic origin scene where animals and humans could converse with one another. I linked above to a similar discussion by Evangelia Dafni who drew attention to Plato’s comparison of Socrates with the serpent — although I believe this post brings an explanation for a possible borrowing from Plato to the Bible. If we ride with the possibility of a Hellenistic origin for the biblical literature, we may see in the serpent’s temptation of Adam and Eve a rebuke to the Greek philosophy that would have stood opposed to the wisdom that must come from an obedience to the commands of God. The image of the serpent as a religious icon had been familiar enough in the Levant for millennia and was most prominent anew in the Hellenistic world with its associations with Zeus, Athena and a host of other Greek associations (compare, for example, the golden fleece in a tree guarded by a serpent) — and even as a fit simile for the shame-inducing yet enlightening and immortality promising wisdom of Socrates.
By no means do I expect the above thoughts to seduce an innocent to partake of the wisdom of a Hellenistic origin of the Hebrew Bible. I present the above thoughts as an observation of some interest to those already persuaded on other grounds for the stories of Genesis being being formed from the raw material of Greek literature, Plato in particular.
Charlesworth, James H. The Good and Evil Serpent: How a Universal Symbol Became Christianized. New Haven Conn.: Yale University Press, 2010.
Dafni, Evangelia G. “Genesis 2–3 and Alcibiades’s Speech in Plato’s Symposium: A Cultural Critical Reading.” HTS Teologiese Studies 71, no. 1 (2015).
Rouse, W. H. D. Great Dialogues of Plato – The Republic – Apology – Crito – Phaedo – Ion – Meno – Symposium. Mentor Books, 1956.
Translations of Plato are a mix of those by Jowett, Fowler and Rouse (above) — with constant reference to the Greek text at the Perseus Digital Library
Neil Godfrey
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- Jesus Mythicism and Historical Knowledge, Part 4: Did Jesus Exist? - 2024-11-27 08:20:47 GMT+0000
- Jesus Mythicism and Historical Knowledge, Part 3: Prediction and History - 2024-11-24 09:10:07 GMT+0000
- Jesus Mythicism and Historical Knowledge, Part 2: Certainty and Uncertainty in History - 2024-11-18 01:15:24 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
If any of the Hellenistic (3rd or 2nd century BCE) origin theories for the Hebrew are valid then there are implications. One is that the staff of Moses may have been modelled on the staff of Asclepius.
Likewise the serpent in the garden of Eden may be related to the serpent(s) of Ascelpius.
Asclepius: The God of Medicine
By Gerald D. Hart
Some notes:
p.177-178
Most academic giants of antiquity proclaimed their esteem
for Asclepius and the words of these philosophers, historians,
rhetoricians, poets, politicians and physicians are cited in
the “Edelstein Testimonies”. (See Article 02)
1) Plato recorded the dying words of Socrates:
“Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius. Pay it
and do not neglect to do so.” (Plato, Phaedro)
2) Sophocles accepted Asclepius into his house
and set up an altar for him. After his death,
the Athenians called Sophacles: “Dexion” [the
one who receives] because of his reception of
Asclepius.
3) The Neo-Platonists believed that Asclepius was
the soul of the world, by which creation was held
together and filled with symmetry and balanced
union.
4) Pausanius (Descriptio Graeciae, 8:28) that Alexander
the Great dedicated his spear and breastplate to
Asclepius at Gortys in Arcadia.
5) 23 CE Tacitus recorded that Tiberius confirmed
the right of asylum to Cos.
6) Aristides (129-89 CE) …
“the one who is guider and ruler of all things,
the saviour of the universe and the guardian
of immortals” (Oration 62)
“give me as much health as I need for my body
to obey that which my soul wishes” (Oration 38)
“Here the stern cable of salvation for all
is anchored in Ascelpius.” (Oration 23)
7) Julian “Asclepius heals our bodies, the Muses
train our souls with the help of Asclepius and
Apollo and Hermes. (Contra Galilaeos).
8) 53 CE Emperor Claudius granted Coans immunity
from taxes and declared their island a place
sanctified only to Asclepius.
9) After earthquake at Epidaurus in 1st half of
2nd century CE, Senator Antoninus rebuilt the
sanctuary and adorned it with magnificent
monuments.
10) Soranus (2nd century) wrote: “Hippocrates,
by birth, was a Coan … who traced his
ancestry back to Heracles (Hercules) and
Asclepius, the 20th in descent from the
former, the 19th to the latter.
11) Galen (129-99 CE) recorded the contemporary
building of the temple of Zeus Asclepius
at Pergamum.
“the ancestral god Asclepius, whose servant
I declare myself to be, for he saved me
when I was suffering from a deadly condition
of an abscess.”
12) Epigrammata Graeca 1027 (2nd-3rd century CE)
exhorted “Wake, Paeon Asclepius, lord of men …”
13) Asclepius was everywhere in literature and
everyone was familiar with his deeds. In the
second century he stood at the peak of his
power and influence and was known through
the ancient world.
14) He became identified as Imhotep Asclepius in
Egypt, Eshmun Asclepius in Phoenicia, Zeus
Asclepius at Pergamum and Jupiter Aesculapius
in Rome. [47,48] One might have justifiably hailed
him as Aesculapius Optimus Maximus.
15) Many of his tenmples occupied prestigious
locations such as the Acropolis at Athens,
and at the city of Carthage …
16) p.205 – Asclepian heritage
Aristophanes, Plutus 639-40:
The chorus in the Greek play ‘Plutus’ sang:
“I shall sing with all my might to Asclepius,
Blest with his offspring, he who brings
great light to mortals.”
FURTHER: http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Therapeutae_of_Asclepius.htm
Actually there is a better case for reading Moses’ staff turning to a crocodile rather than snake. The word used in Exodus 7 is also translated sea monster and dragon elsewhere — and crocodile fits the Nile River setting appropriately, too.
As for the Asclepius snake and rod and Moses’ staff, yes there are similar images there, though the concept of a staff turning into a reptile is quite unlike a pair of snakes entwined around a staff. We do better with the bronze serpent Moses set up as per Numbers 21 — but then to which culture do we turn for the parallel in that case, since I think there are so many other cultural candidates who left us bronze serpents.
Snakes, snakes and trees, snakes and staffs, snakes and healing, snakes and eternal life, snakes and wisdom, snakes and punishment, … the world was full of these images in ancient times, especially from Mesopotamia through to the eastern Mediterranean cultures. It is precarious to single one of them out for comparison with anything in the Bible unless the comparison can be embedded in a complex of explanatory detail — as I have attempted to do in the post above.
Asclepius is, of course, a single snake. The pair of snakes belong to Hermes. So a snake and a rod is a fairly good fit, I think. Which is not to say that I’m buying it yet.
I think you could take it further and do away with the idea that the writer is antagonistic towards the wisdom of Socrates. The ‘shame’ the Plato story describes is not a bad shame, but the cost of having to recognise one’s past ignorance.
I would say that the Genesis story when removed from the usual Sunday School morality lesson, seems to not be about sin or about humans making a bad choice to desire wisdom. If there was something bad about this wisdom, it is not explained. It seems to contradict so many other parts of Jewish literature that would say desiring wisdom is a noble desire. Think about Solomon being rewarded for choosing wisdom over wealth.
Certainly the dualism cults were able to recognise a story that paints the Creator god as petty and controlling. They may have built much of their doctrine on this myth?
Adam and Eve are punished for desiring wisdom, but is the writer really saying they deserved this punishment, or is the writer saying this god is a bit of an arsehole?
I kind of agree. Yahweh is portrayed as quite possessive of the secrets of divine wisdom, like unjust Zeus in the Prometheus myth. See my second comment below.
What a great posting.
Evangelia Dafni has written extensively on the use of Plato by the authors of Genesis. However, she assumes that Genesis pre-dates Plato, drawing on consensus thinking in biblical scholarship, and evidently unaware that this thesis is under now debate. She further imagines that Plato possesses a copy of Genesis, magically transported from the hinterlands of Judea and translated into Greek, which Plato refuses to credit (despite elsewhere acknowledging, even bragging, about having read wisdom from lands around the world). The thesis that the biblical authors knew Plato, which you explore here, is much more compelling in my opinion, his works being widely known in the east.
A minor suggestion I offer in support of your proposal has to do with the striking question the serpent poses to Eve: “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” Opening up a conversation by asking a thought-provoking question was characteristic of elenchus, the Socratic method of eliciting truth by means of question and answer, challenging the listener’s long-held beliefs. Is the conversational gambit in Genesis a direct nod to Socrates?
I think a further exploration of the serpent as Socrates might explore how this resonates with the usual comparison of the serpent with Prometheus in the story of Pandora. Socrates and Prometheus have been compared by a number of classical scholars, of which the following are random selections:
Naas, Michael. “Philosophy Bound: The Fate of the Promethean Socrates.” Research in Phenomenology 25 (1995): 121–41.
Kofman, Sarah, and Winnie Woodhull. “Prometheus, the First Philosopher.” SubStance 15, no. 2 (1986): 26–35.
Prometheus was the benefactor of humankind, giving them both divine fire and knowledge of the arts. Prometheus is the embodiment of forethought (prometheia). Plato [through the figure of Socrates] often recommends prometheia as a virtue. For instance:
“Does it not belong to the rational part to rule, being wise and exercising forethought (prometheian)…” Republic 441e.
“A gift of gods to men, as I believe, was tossed down from some divine source through the agency of a Prometheus together with a gleaming fire.” Philebus 16c, where Prometheus gives humanity the philosophic method.
In Protagoras, which extensively discusses “the knowledge of good and evil,” Socrates identifies himself with Prometheus. “I like the Prometheus of your fable better than Epimetheus, for he is of use to me, and I take Promethean thought continuously in my own life when I am occupied with all these questions.” Protagoras 361c-d.
Both Socrates and Prometheus brought knowledge into the world, both willingly underwent unjust punishment as a result. Prometheus incurred the wrath of Zeus for revealing the secrets of the gods to humankind, and Zeus punished him (rather unjustly) to crucifixion on Mount Caucasus, where eagles ate out his liver every day for a thousand years. Socrates, similarly, was tried and wrongly punished in Athens as an enemy of the Greek gods and made to drink hemlock. The serpent as Prometheus (“Forethought”) was also cursed and punished by the petty terrestrial god of Genesis 2-3 for revealing the secrets of the gods. Under this interpretation, Yahweh Elohim of the Garden is comparable to unjust Zeus in the myth of Prometheus. (Yahweh appears to compare to Zeus, the chief of the terrestrial gods, in Genesis 2-9, as I discuss in my book on Plato’s Timaeus and the Biblical Creation Accounts.) It is thus possible that Genesis 3 sides with humanity and with the serpent [Prometheus] against Yahweh [Zeus], as in the myth of Prometheus.
One wonders if the later gnostic ideas with that very same interpretation really originated in the same Hellenistic milieu as produced the original writings. They understood the text through the Greek narratives that lay beneath it. I have always thought the gnostic view of the God of Adam and Eve was simply perverse. But it is entirely understandable if it arose in as a result of understanding a Hellenistic inspiration of the Genesis account.
“If we ride with the possibility of a Hellenistic origin for the biblical literature, we may see in the serpent’s temptation of Adam and Eve a rebuke to the Greek philosophy that would have stood opposed to the wisdom that must come from an obedience to the commands of God.”
I wonder if Genesis 3 acknowledges a conflict between Greek (Socratic/Platonic) philosophy and Yahwism (the Yahweh cult) as more of a criticism of Yahwism. Certainly Yahweh wins, and those who indulge in Greek love of wisdom (“philosophy”) are thrown out of Eden, but philosophy itself seems portrayed as intrinsically good, despite its attempted suppression by Yahweh. Can we read a hidden invitation to rebelliously partake in Socratic wisdom and become like the gods? What is the real stance of the authors of Genesis 3? What might it say about Platonists vs. Yahwists in ca. 270 BCE?
Interesting comparison of Socrates to the wily serpent, especially by his enemies.
On the snake, however, I’m reminded of Hegel’s view of the Garden of Eden story. It’s the fact that the words of the serpent in Gen. 3:5 are identical with the words of God in Gen 3:22. “the humans have become like one of us, knowing good and evil.”
This shows, said Hegel, that God planned the whole thing. It was a trick. Hegel said it was God’s joke. That is, to create Free Will required a trick so that humans would make a FREE DECISION, and one cannot force freedom. So, a trick was needed.
But the serpent was not wily, nor did the serpent DECEIVE because God admitted that the words of the serpent were TRUE. The eyes of Adam and Eve WERE opened, and they DID become godlike in knowing Good and Evil.
So, Hegel’s serpent was not the traditional LIAR or DECEIVER, but only the TEMPTER. That was its role with Job, too, and with Jesus after his baptism. In that sense, the serpent always worked for God.
Was that also like Socrates?
One possible answer in the affirmative (that the serpent was only a “tempter” and not a liar or deceiver) may lie in Russell Gmirkin’s comment above about the Socrates-Prometheus connections or similarities.
The model I am running with is that Genesis (and indeed the entire Pentateuch) was composed by diverse interests from Samaria and Judea under editorial direction, with each interest group submitting a narrative and with these diverse perspectives amalgamated into what today looks indeed like a combination of multiple source materials — the difference from the Documentary Hypothesis being that instead of J, E, P, D, R etc appearing over a long-term evolutionary time span, they were for most part a collaborative effort from the get-go. There is some support for such a view of how the Pentateuch came about among scholars who are engaged with Pentateuchal studies per se and not, as far as I know, with any stake in a Hellenistic era hypothesis. (The break between Samaritans and Judeans came later — there is evidence for close cooperation in the early Hellenistic period.)
Cfr. Garbini, Giovanni, Scrivere la storia di Israele, pgg. 247ff., from “… che ebbero in Alcimo il loro rappresentante…”.
Garbini is working with the view that there was a rift between Jehud/Judea and the Samaritans from the late Persian/early Hellenistic period. I wonder if he would have modified his position since that book was published (2008) in the light of Pentateuchal studies since then.
Re “The image of the serpent as a religious icon had been familiar enough in the Levant for millennia. . . .” Too many people equate “serpent” with “snake”. The serpent in this story has legs and so is not a snake (his legs are stripped from his as punishment, punishment for telling the truth; nothing the serpent says is untrue).
Too many also claim the serpent was “Satan in disguise” which is ridiculous because that claim includes the claim that Yahweh couldn’t see through the disguise and punishes the serpents (not just the one, but all of them) instead of the real culprit, Satan.
Are the serpents as “religious icons in the Levant,” snakes or serpents as described in the story. Certainly the folk lore regarding such animals, different from snakes, should provide some guidance.
I really don’t know off hand the answer to your specific question. I’d have to take some time to study it further. Meanwhile, notice my quotation from Charlesworth in the insert box in the post — he uses terms that cover both serpents and dragons, I suppose. I can imagine if the serpent before the Fall had legs (assuming that explains God’s punishment that after the “deception” of Eve) it was really more like what we would imagine as a dragon.
Perhaps we should, as per the Charlesworth quote, use the more generic terms like ophidia. Did the Greeks and others think of them as a common class anyway?
I remember a reading Robert M. Price did of this account. It’s never that clear to me how much stock he puts in the hypotheses he throws up – I know he likes to consider a variety options, but like all people he’s sometimes married to an idea of two – but he talked about how the ‘knowledge’ here could possibly be a euphemism for ‘knowledge of sex’, something that was considered knowledge from the gods, just like fire. They are essentially kicked out for knowing now how to ‘create more humans’, and so they don’t eat from more knowledge trees. I don’t think he’s cited anybody in support of that view, or recommended reading material regarding it (at least not in that episode), so I’m taking it as a possibility for now.
It wouldn’t contradict most of this post, the conversation with Socrates steers through and around the topic of sex, but I think it would also be a bit much for the writer to juggle all these balls at once, the criticism of Socrates and Greek philosophy in general, specifically that speech, the serpent symbolism, and the first humans naïvely stumbling upon the sex manual in the trees (missing out on all the other lessons at that!), but only in very symbolic between-the-lines language.
On a completely different note, that abundance of snake imagery in that area reminds me of that apparently apes (or even all monkeys?) are very, very good at picking out snakes in their environment. If that’s correct, I wonder if us being so naturally aware of them is why we have so much stories and legends about them, more than other reptiles. But then again, most of the animals that feature in our stories are friends, food or fearsome, and snakes could be any of the three depending on the species.
If I were to suggest to an ordinary Catholic priest that the Pentateuch might be Hellenistic literature, he would probably think me anti-Semitic. But how controversial is it to say such a thing in Israel? Today (4 November 2024) the Israeli daily Haaretz published an article in which the author (Ariel David) wrote about the research work of a certain Gad Barnea at the University of Haifa:
“When and why these two festivities – Pesach and the Feast of Matzoth – were merged and linked to the biblical narrative of Exodus remains an open question. But if Barnea’s interpretation of the Passover Letter is correct, then this process happened much later than many scholars believed. Passover may have taken its final form in the Hellenistic period, in the late fourth or third century B.C.E., or perhaps even later, under the Hasmonean dynasty that ruled Judea from the second century B.C.E., which may have been eager to transform agropastoral holidays into a major national festival of liberation, Barnea proposes …”
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/2024-11-04/ty-article/new-study-of-passover-letter-may-change-what-we-know-about-the-birth-of-judaism/00000192-dc36-ddcf-a7f7-dc76c3eb0000
Children in Sunday school should probably be taught that biblical history begins with the Hasmonean dynasty, not with King David and the Temple in Jerusalem. But I doubt that the vast majority of Catholics will ever accept this. The romantic notion of the liberated Jewish slaves who wandered through the desert for forty years is far too deeply rooted.
Forget the Catholic Church. Closer to home one can stir up all sorts of blanket vitriolic abuse (including charges of antisemitism, all moderator-facilitated!) for daring to suggest such things about the Pentateuch on Kirby’s earlywritingsforum. It’s a silly retort, the antisemitic charge. Gad Barnea and others who suggest we look at the Hellenistic era for key developments in the Pentateuch are simply saying that Samaritans and Judeans were in touch with the leading scholarly/literary developments of their day and used them to create their own distinctive myth of origins.
Gad Barnea’s conference presentation of 2022 is the one now published in Yahwism under the Achaemenid Empire by De Gruyter — and most wonderfully it is available to all, open access, at https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111018638-001/html
I might add my observation that one paper delivered at that 2022 conference does not appear in the De Gruyter publication — the one by archaeologist Israel Finkelstein. I wrote about it at https://vridar.org/2024/04/12/no-evidence-jerusalem-judea-had-a-writing-culture-in-persian-times-israel-finkelstein/
I don’t know why it wasn’t included but can’t help but wondering about this slide he showed indicating all that we know about scribal culture in Judea during the Persian period:
In that context, of special note is a comment made at the conclusion of Diana Edelman’s presentation (also published in the De Gruyter volume but still available as the conference presentation delivery on Youtube. Someone in the audience remarked that our biblical writings took their early shape in the very impoverished and demographically reduced Judea and Samaria during the Persian period. The reason such a thought is so remarkable is that it is prima facie most unlikely. But the assumption of a pre-Hellenistic origin for the Pentateuch remains difficult to dislodge.
(Other presentations, including Finkelstein’s, are also available at https://www.youtube.com/@yahwistichistory )