Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Whopper do you have a link to this commentary other then Google books (to hard on my eyes to read on google) I tried to find one but could not. I suck at serfing.
Is not anything that slither considered a serpent?
Maybe it was a talking worm
Anybody got a pic with an apple and a worm lol
Ever heard of a snake eating the dust of the earth?
What about a worm?
If we are going to go literal a worm make far more sense then a snake.
Some very interesting thoughts in the above, Pneuma!
Well, I suppose you could see it as a worm, but Genesis is pretty clear that it was a snake. It may not make sense with what we know about snakes today (or worms, for that matter), but the text is pretty clear. We run a grave risk in biblical interpretation when we come across a passage that is very clear in it's implications, and then try to explain away the author's words because they do not jive with our modern sensibilities. I remember hearing some people claim that there was no way, given what we know about geology, that God could have created everything (in Genesis 1) in 6 literal days - yet that is what the Biblical author believed when he wrote his account. He had no problem with attiributing such power to God. Those arguing for days as "ages" in that particular passage were doing so after the advent of the modern knowledge of the age of the earth, in an attempt to make the two conform to one another. In other words - if we let our own beliefs get in the way of what the storyteller was saying, it can result in a false impression.
Extra-biblical evidence helps with the snake-reading. In the Ancient Near East, it was noticed that snakes had a peculiar ability: they shed their skin. This ability was believed to let them live forever. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh goes on a quest to find eternal life, only to be told by the only two humans who have such a thing (the inspiration for the Biblical Noah and his wife) that it was a gift from the gods and would never be bestowed again to other mortals: he will just have to deal with the fact that humans are mortal, and the fate of mortals is to die. Gilgamesh, despite this crushing news, does get his hands on a plant that will restore youth, however, and decides to take it home for his people, and to plant it. On the way, he decides to take a dip.
Urshanabi guided the ecstatic man away
To the other shore, and when they parted
Gilgamesh was alone again, but not
With loneliness or the memory of death.
He stopped to drink and rest beside a pool
And soon undressed and let himself slip in
The water quitely until he was refreshed,
Leaving the plant unguarded on the ground.
A serpent had smelled is sweet fragrance and saw
Its chance to come from the water, and devoured
The plant, shedding its skin as slough.
When Gilgamesh rose from the pool,
His naked body glistening and refreshed,
The plant was gone; the discarded skin
Of a serpent was all he saw. He sat
Down on the ground, and wept.
(Gilgamesh: A Verse Narrative, Trans. Herbert Mason, pp. 86-87, Mariner Books)
So we have a pesky snake, responsible for robbing mankind of eternal youth (if not immortality) - just as we have a snake in Genesis robbing mankind of immortaliy, essentially. The ancient Near Eastern mind (from which both these stories came) pictured snakes as immortal, for their own various reasons. So, it makes sense that the author of the Genesis 3 account would picture a snake in the role of eternal life/youth-usurper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Whopper could it also not be that the chronicler came to a greater knowledge of God then what Samuel had and was in fact correcting Samuel's belief that God caused David to number Israel?
Well, that is certainly possible. Probable? No - it's not very probable. After all, the Chronicler was working with various records at his disposal - with Samuel/Kings being just one of those sources - and it can be seen that he has a definite pro-Davidic ideology in his writing. This is an excellent example of how later people would interpret the Bible to their own ideas, except we can see it happening IN the Bible already, albeit in one of the late books. If we go by the possibility that the Chronicler had a greater knowledge of God, then what does this reveal about the story of David and Bathsheba - it is conspicusouly missing from the Chronicler's account, yet it was the one event that had the most devastating and long-lasting effects for David and his reign. Was Samuel privvy to false information or just plain incorrect, because the Chronicler could not find it in his heart to repeat the story?
Jacob L. Myers, in the Anchor Bible, writes that the Chronicler was writing his account to deal with the changed conditions that the Jews were dealing with after the return from the Exile. He writes
It must already be apparant that the Chronicler had more in mind than a recounting of the history of Israel (Judah) in the several aspects utilized by him. Be he did not deliberately distort history to fit his purpose; he employed those phases that were apropos and, at numerous points, he manifestly relied on sources sometimes more accurate than those used by the Deuteronomist. In view of that fact one cannot accuse him of writing imaginative history, as has been charged so often. That he had his own way of filling in the gaps, with some embellishments no doubt, was due to the interest of his cause.
(The Anchor Bible, "I Chronicles, Vol. 1, p. xxx, Doubleday, 1965)
So the Chronicler had his own peculiar interests in mind that colored his writing. I. Benzinger, in his 1901 commentary, writes that "the Chronicler is not at all a writer of history in our sense of the term; he does not mean to relate what took place but what serves to edify; he is not a historian, but a Midrashisist" (p. x). He was one of our first examples of extensive biblical interpretation.
As for the Chronicler and David, and whether or not he came into some new knowledge of David and the Census - it still is the most likely answer that he was practicing his craft in favor of David AND God's character. His Davidide tendencies are remarked on by Myers:
For the Deuteronomist the kingdom was promised to David and his descendants - "I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever" (II Samuel 7:13).
Despite the fact that it had almost ceased to exist, the Davidic house was important for the Chronicler. So also was his kingdom. Hence the Davidic monarchy receives full treatment and David himself is given quite extensive coverage. (idem, p. xxx)
So we must read Chronicles carefully, always keeping in mind the changed situation and the Chronicler's goals, remembering that "he is not a historian, but a Midrashisist". In light of that, it's possible that the tradition concerning the Census had been changed prior to the Chronicler's work, but it seems very unlikely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
1 Corinthians 10:19-20
19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
Yes, in time the members of the Divine Council lost their "god"-status and became lesser beings in the minds of the Biblical authors. At the middle point between Israelite belief in many gods and Israelite belief in Yahweh as the top-God, there is a Psalm that relates how Yahweh, portrayed as God, is dissapointed in how the gods of the Divine Council have been handling their jobs, so He decides to kill them all in punishment, and seize power in the Council, and thus - over the whole world:
A Psalm of Asaph:
God stands in the divine assembly;
among the gods He pronounces judgement.
How long will you judge perversely,
showing favor to the wicked?
Judge the wretched and the orphan,
vindicate the lowly and the poor,
rescue the wretched and the needy;
save them from the hand of the wicked.
They neither know nor understand,
they go about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth totter.
I had taken you for gods,
sons of El Elyon (the Most High), all of you;
but you shall die as men do,
fall like any prince.
Arise, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are Your possession!
(Psalm 82)
This was marking a point towards full monotheism. Several things were to happen. The gods were seen as "no-gods" and would be seen as false gods (at first "false" because they could not deliver their adherents, but secondly "false" as being fake), and they would be viewed as mere idols. The Babylonian Exile would happen to the people of Israel and they were faced with a difficult problem: in the Ancient Near East, if a people was defeated by a foreign army, it was understood that their god was also defeated. So how could the Israelites (who shared this same belief at one point) explain their defeat, and keep their identity while in Exile?
They came up with the concept that Yahweh was NOT just the God of the Israelites, but that he was the God of the Universe. Yahweh was not defeated - he was teaching the wayward Israelites a lesson, because they had (conveniently enough!) gone after other gods. Yahweh was using the nations like puppets to chastise Judah. Yahweh was NOW the powerful God of the entire Universe, and it is after this point that some of the greatest proclamations of Israelite Monotheism are to be found in Scripture.
The Israelites came back from the Exile reinvigorated, with a new idea of God, with a new task at hand - a task that the Chronicler would later play a hand in recording and interpreting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Whopper do you have a link to this commentary other then Google books (to hard on my eyes to read on google) I tried to find one but could not. I suck at serfing.
In Google Books, you can change the view to plain-text if it's difficult to read. That would let you change the size of the text.
If that isn't a good copy, just do a search for the book in the search window. This site, by the way, is a fantastic resource for older books. You can find virtually anything here!
I've actually broken down and purchased a tablet - just so I can read books on it that I can't get physical copies of (like the above). It's much easier than sitting in front of a computer heh heh!
Some very interesting thoughts in the above, Pneuma!
file:///C:/Users/Scott/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif (broken link)
Well, I suppose you could see it as a worm, but Genesis is pretty clear that it was a snake. It may not make sense with what we know about snakes today (or worms, for that matter), but the text is pretty clear. We run a grave risk in biblical interpretation when we come across a passage that is very clear in it's implications, and then try to explain away the author's words because they do not jive with our modern sensibilities.
Extra-biblical evidence helps with the snake-reading. In the Ancient Near East, it was noticed that snakes had a peculiar ability: they shed their skin. This ability was believed to let them live forever. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh goes on a quest to find eternal life, only to be told by the only two humans who have such a thing (the inspiration for the Biblical Noah and his wife) that it was a gift from the gods and would never be bestowed again to other mortals: he will just have to deal with the fact that humans are mortal, and the fate of mortals is to die. Gilgamesh, despite this crushing news, does get his hands on a plant that will restore youth, however, and decides to take it home for his people, and to plant it. On the way, he decides to take a dip.
Urshanabi guided the ecstatic man away
To the other shore, and when they parted
Gilgamesh was alone again, but not
With loneliness or the memory of death.
He stopped to drink and rest beside a pool
And soon undressed and let himself slip in
The water quitely until he was refreshed,
Leaving the plant unguarded on the ground.
A serpent had smelled is sweet fragrance and saw
Its chance to come from the water, and devoured
The plant, shedding its skin as slough.
When Gilgamesh rose from the pool,
His naked body glistening and refreshed,
The plant was gone; the discarded skin
Of a serpent was all he saw. He sat
Down on the ground, and wept.
(Gilgamesh: A Verse Narrative, Trans. Herbert Mason, pp. 86-87, Mariner Books)
So we have a pesky snake, responsible for robbing mankind of eternal youth (if not immortality) - just as we have a snake in Genesis robbing mankind of immortaliy, essentially. The ancient Near Eastern mind (from which both these stories came) pictured snakes as immortal, for their own various reasons. So, it makes sense that the author of the Genesis 3 account would picture a snake in the role of eternal life/youth-usurper.
Whopper it is NOT clear from the Genesis account that the serpent is a snake, nor is it clear that the serpent in the Gilgamesh story is a snake. Both speak of a serpent, it is only man's predilection that when they read about a serpent they automatically assume it is speaking of a snake.
As I pointed out in the Genesis account it says the serpent would eat the dust of the earth, a snake does not do this; however, a worm does. IMO that is a pretty clear pic of a worm being the serpent and not a snake.
As for the Gilgamesh story it also only speaks of a serpent that came out of the water and shed it's skin. The shedding of the skin in this story makes one automatically think the serpent here is a snake; however, worms also shed their skin.
Worms are also associated with eternal life and with death.
Therefore if we are going by the plain reading of either of those stories a worm fits the bill far better then a snake.
Quote:
Well, that is certainly possible. Probable? No - it's not very probable. After all, the Chronicler was working with various records at his disposal - with Samuel/Kings being just one of those sources - and it can be seen that he has a definite pro-Davidic ideology in his writing.
Well is it not a fit rule that the more one knows of something the better they understand it? An infant in his knowledge of God has not as great a knowledge of God as an adult.
Lets take the human body for example; what did the first men understand about how the human body worked, not very much I would think. However, when man started to dissect the human body man started to understand better how the human body worked.
Does not the greater knowledge come from the more sources used?
So the chronicler had more sources to learn about God from then Samuel did.
Quote:
This is an excellent example of how later people would interpret the Bible to their own ideas, except we can see it happening IN the Bible already, albeit in one of the late books.
It is also an example of people using more sources to reach their conclusion then just basing their conclusion on one source.
In the Genesis story you used the Gilgamesh story to reach your conclusion that the serpent was a snake. Do you still believe it was a snake or does a worm fit the bill better?
The point is the more information one gathers the greater ones understanding of something is.
Quote:
If we go by the possibility that the Chronicler had a greater knowledge of God, then what does this reveal about the story of David and Bathsheba - it is conspicusouly missing from the Chronicler's account, yet it was the one event that had the most devastating and long-lasting effects for David and his reign. Was Samuel privvy to false information or just plain incorrect, because the Chronicler could not find it in his heart to repeat the story?
Or maybe Samuel was incorrect because of lack of knowledge of God.
Quote:
Jacob L. Myers, in the Anchor Bible, writes that the Chronicler was writing his account to deal with the changed conditions that the Jews were dealing with after the return from the Exile. He writes
It must already be apparant that the Chronicler had more in mind than a recounting of the history of Israel (Judah) in the several aspects utilized by him. Be he did not deliberately distort history to fit his purpose; he employed those phases that were apropos and, at numerous points, he manifestly relied on sources sometimes more accurate than those used by the Deuteronomist. In view of that fact one cannot accuse him of writing imaginative history, as has been charged so often. That he had his own way of filling in the gaps, with some embellishments no doubt, was due to the interest of his cause.
(The Anchor Bible, "I Chronicles, Vol. 1, p. xxx, Doubleday, 1965)
So the Chronicler had his own peculiar interests in mind that colored his writing.
I. Benzinger, in his 1901 commentary, writes that "the Chronicler is not at all a writer of history in our sense of the term; he does not mean to relate what took place but what serves to edify; he is not a historian, but a Midrashisist" (p. x). He was one of our first examples of extensive biblical interpretation.
As for the Chronicler and David, and whether or not he came into some new knowledge of David and the Census - it still is the most likely answer that he was practicing his craft in favor of David AND God's character. His Davidide tendencies are remarked on by Myers:
For the Deuteronomist the kingdom was promised to David and his descendants - "I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever" (II Samuel 7:13).
Despite the fact that it had almost ceased to exist, the Davidic house was important for the Chronicler. So also was his kingdom. Hence the Davidic monarchy receives full treatment and David himself is given quite extensive coverage. (idem, p. xxx)
So we must read Chronicles carefully, always keeping in mind the changed situation and the Chronicler's goals, remembering that "he is not a historian, but a Midrashisist". In light of that, it's possible that the tradition concerning the Census had been changed prior to the Chronicler's work, but it seems very unlikely.
Myers also stated in that quote that the chronicler used sources that were more accurate then the Deuteronomist.
Both you and Myers then come to a conclusion the chronicler did this to color his own interest. That makes absolutely no sense. One does not use more accurate data to color ones own interest but rather they use it to show that the other data had an error in it.
If that isn't a good copy, just do a search for the book in the search window. This site, by the way, is a fantastic resource for older books. You can find virtually anything here!
I've actually broken down and purchased a tablet - just so I can read books on it that I can't get physical copies of (like the above). It's much easier than sitting in front of a computer heh heh!
Whopper it is NOT clear from the Genesis account that the serpent is a snake, nor is it clear that the serpent in the Gilgamesh story is a snake. Both speak of a serpent, it is only man's predilection that when they read about a serpent they automatically assume it is speaking of a snake.
As I pointed out in the Genesis account it says the serpent would eat the dust of the earth, a snake does not do this; however, a worm does. IMO that is a pretty clear pic of a worm being the serpent and not a snake.
As for the Gilgamesh story it also only speaks of a serpent that came out of the water and shed it's skin. The shedding of the skin in this story makes one automatically think the serpent here is a snake; however, worms also shed their skin.
Worms are also associated with eternal life and with death.
Therefore if we are going by the plain reading of either of those stories a worm fits the bill far better then a snake.
Pneuma - I am not basing my reading of the snake in Genesis off of Gilgamesh, or my own presuppositions. I'm basing it off of the actual Hebrew word for snake used in the text.
I am doing the same for the Akkadian word for snake in the Gilgamesh text.
In all honesty, your idea of a plain-sense reading is different from everyone elses'. The words for "worm" and "snake" are different in both Hebrew and Akkadian. Feel free to look them up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Well is it not a fit rule that the more one knows of something the better they understand it? An infant in his knowledge of God has not as great a knowledge of God as an adult.
Lets take the human body for example; what did the first men understand about how the human body worked, not very much I would think. However, when man started to dissect the human body man started to understand better how the human body worked.
Does not the greater knowledge come from the more sources used?
So the chronicler had more sources to learn about God from then Samuel did.
Having more sources at one's disposal does not automatically mean the sources are reliable to begin with, or didn't suffer from their own ideological outlooks. History telling in the Bible is not what we would call history today - it was mixed with religious sentiments and served definnite purposes.
I assume that you do not know the nature of the extra sources at the Chronicler's disposal, so you really cannot comment on how accurate they were, or how extensive they were, or whether any of them actually dealt with the Davidic Census.
In short - an abundance of sources does NOT mean an increase in accuracy. I could add the Koran to my list of sources for the Abrahamic tradition, or even Jewish Rabbinic tradition. Now - do these additional sources add more reliability to an understanding of Abraham? No - not necessarily. They may actually muddle the picture, or change it. No ancient historian was non-biased to some degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
It is also an example of people using more sources to reach their conclusion then just basing their conclusion on one source.
In the Genesis story you used the Gilgamesh story to reach your conclusion that the serpent was a snake. Do you still believe it was a snake or does a worm fit the bill better?
The point is the more information one gathers the greater ones understanding of something is.
Your point is incorrect in these regards, and as should be evident I don't need Gilgamesh to tell me that the Hebrew word for "snake" is used in Genesis.
There are many sources already interwoven into the Pentateuch for example, and they do not increase the accuracy of the overall story. In many aspects, they confuse issues. Two Creation stories, with different details. Two instances of Jacob having his name changed to Israel. These are conflicting traditions stitched together by a later editor, and each tradition had their own individual, particular outlook and interpretation of the events which they are recording. Just like the Chronicler. When you read the Hermann Gunkel book, you will see what I am referring to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Or maybe Samuel was incorrect because of lack of knowledge of God.
It's certainly possible, but not certain, and highly unlikely. The wisest decision, in assessing historical texts, is to see what the oldest source says. It is usually later tradition that will modify it to meet changing circumstances and theology. The point of the episode of the Chronicler in this thread was to show that the idea of "Satan" was a late idea, and one that the author of Samuel would have been entirely unfamiliar with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Myers also stated in that quote that the chronicler used sources that were more accurate then the Deuteronomist.
Both you and Myers then come to a conclusion the chronicler did this to color his own interest. That makes absolutely no sense. One does not use more accurate data to color ones own interest but rather they use it to show that the other data had an error in it.
Myers said that the sources he used were SOMETIMES more accurate - and again, you must do a little more research into which sources he is referring to. I can give one example: certain theophoric names containing Baal as an element are more accurately reflected in Chronicles than in older texts, which replaced Baal with the Hebrew word for "Shame" - thus changing the names of individuals. Ishbaal vs Ishbosheth, for example.
Your last paragraph is flawed in it's approach I think. Again - one must ask the question: WHY was the Chronicler writing? And do you understand why the one commentator called him a Midrashisist? That comment certainly doesn't imply that the Chronicler was striving for more accuracy!
The other flaw is that you're asssuming that the extra sources the Chronicler used were all accurate - see above in this post for why this is not necessarily so.
Chronicles is an interesting book, and a difficult one. But there is a reason why it was placed in the Writings section of the Bible, rather than with the historical books. Even the early canonizers of the Bible recogized certain things about it.
Anyways - if you're really interested in Chronicles, I can certainly refer you to some indepth studies of it. What I think is more important, though, is getting an idea of how history/theology was written in the Bible, and how it differs from our notion of history as an accurate telling of past events.
Pneuma - I am not basing my reading of the snake in Genesis off of Gilgamesh, or my own presuppositions. I'm basing it off of the actual Hebrew word for snake used in the text.
I am doing the same for the Akkadian word for snake in the Gilgamesh text.
In all honesty, your idea of a plain-sense reading is different from everyone elses'. The words for "worm" and "snake" are different in both Hebrew and Akkadian. Feel free to look them up.
There is nothing in the word Nachash that leads one to believe (unless by predilection) it is talking about a snake. It is a generic term used for all serpents, which includes the worm, adder, asp, viper, dragon etc. Thus could be the reason the author who wrote Revelation made mention of the serpent being a dragon. And a dragon is a large worm.
To make it mean snake in the Genesis account one must exclude where it says the nachash will eat the dust of the earth. Snakes do not do this, worms do.
Thus to use the whole story in Genesis a worm fits the bill far better then a snake does.
Quote:
Having more sources at one's disposal does not automatically mean the sources are reliable to begin with, or didn't suffer from their own ideological outlooks. History telling in the Bible is not what we would call history today - it was mixed with religious sentiments and served definnite purposes.
I assume that you do not know the nature of the extra sources at the Chronicler's disposal, so you really cannot comment on how accurate they were, or how extensive they were, or whether any of them actually dealt with the Davidic Census.
Quote:
Myers said that the sources he used were SOMETIMES more accurate
I think you need to reread what Myers actually said Whopper. Speaking of the chronicler Myers say HE manifestly relied on sources sometimes more accurate than those used by the Deuteronomist.
Quote:
It must already be apparant that the Chronicler had more in mind than a recounting of the history of Israel (Judah) in the several aspects utilized by him. Be he did not deliberately distort history to fit his purpose; he employed those phases that were apropos and, at numerous points, he manifestlyrelied on sources sometimes more accurate than those used by the Deuteronomist. In view of that fact one cannot accuse him of writing imaginative history, as has been charged so often. That he had his own way of filling in the gaps, with some embellishments no doubt, was due to the interest of his cause.
(The Anchor Bible, "I Chronicles, Vol. 1, p. xxx, Doubleday, 1965)
So this point still stands
Both you and Myers then come to a conclusion the chronicler did this to color his own interest. That makes absolutely no sense. One does not use more accurate data to color ones own interest but rather they use it to show that the other data had an error in it.
Quote:
Myers said that the sources he used were SOMETIMES more accurate - and again, you must do a little more research into which sources he is referring to. I can give one example: certain theophoric names containing Baal as an element are more accurately reflected in Chronicles than in older texts, which replaced Baal with the Hebrew word for "Shame" - thus changing the names of individuals. Ishbaal vs Ishbosheth, for example.
Your last paragraph is flawed in it's approach I think. Again - one must ask the question: WHY was the Chronicler writing? And do you understand why the one commentator called him a Midrashisist? That comment certainly doesn't imply that the Chronicler was striving for more accuracy!
Whopper what another thinks is just that, what they think, its just guesswork on their behalf. Maybe the chronicler was a Midrashisist but maybe he was not. So like Myers says the chronicler relied on sources sometime more accurate then what Samuel had seems to indicate to me that Myers would disagree with the other authors Midrashisist comment.
Quote:
The other flaw is that you're asssuming that the extra sources the Chronicler used were all accurate - see above in this post for why this is not necessarily so.
The flaw, if it is a flaw is not mine, it is Myers who stated the chronicler used more accurate sources.
Quote:
Chronicles is an interesting book, and a difficult one. But there is a reason why it was placed in the Writings section of the Bible, rather than with the historical books. Even the early canonizers of the Bible recogized certain things about it.
Anyways - if you're really interested in Chronicles, I can certainly refer you to some indepth studies of it. What I think is more important, though, is getting an idea of how history/theology was written in the Bible, and how it differs from our notion of history as an accurate telling of past events.
I am always interested in learning Whopper and plan on reading some of the books you mentioned earlier in this thread. That however does not mean I will agree with them, but I may, who knows. I do try to keep an open mind about things believe it or not.
Quote:
It's certainly possible, but not certain, and highly unlikely. The wisest decision, in assessing historical texts, is to see what the oldest source says. It is usually later tradition that will modify it to meet changing circumstances and theology. The point of the episode of the Chronicler in this thread was to show that the idea of "Satan" was a late idea, and one that the author of Samuel would have been entirely unfamiliar with.
And I have no problem with that Whopper except that you say the idea of satan. Myself I see it as growth from ignorance of satan to knowing he does exist.
There is nothing in the word Nachash that leads one to believe (unless by predilection) it is talking about a snake. It is a generic term used for all serpents, which includes the worm, adder, asp, viper, dragon etc. Thus could be the reason the author who wrote Revelation made mention of the serpent being a dragon. And a dragon is a large worm.
To make it mean snake in the Genesis account one must exclude where it says the nachash will eat the dust of the earth. Snakes do not do this, worms do.
Thus to use the whole story in Genesis a worm fits the bill far better then a snake does.
In the West-Semitic languages, the root forming the common noun nḥÅ¡ means "snake" - not "worm". Whether you translate it as "snake" or "serpent" in English, it has a very long pedigree in the West-Semitic languages - whether it's Ugaritic or Hebrew or whatever. It's well attested, and the ancients knew the difference between a worm and a snake.
"Worm", on the other hand, is an entirely different word. It's one of the meanings of the word that is used in the Book of Job to discuss the "worms" or "maggots" in his flesh, or to desribe the "worms" or "maggots" in the manna in Exodus 16, to give two (out of many) examples. Perhaps later usages of "worm" (like The Great Wyrm, for Dragon) is influencing your insistence that the snake in Genesis was not a snake.
There are other indicators that it was a snake within the account. Worms do not bite people on their heel, for one glaring example. Others could be listed, but you can discover them if you read carefully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
I think you need to reread what Myers actually said Whopper. Speaking of the chronicler Myers say HE manifestly relied on sources sometimes more accurate than those used by the Deuteronomist.
So this point still stands
Both you and Myers then come to a conclusion the chronicler did this to color his own interest. That makes absolutely no sense. One does not use more accurate data to color ones own interest but rather they use it to show that the other data had an error in it.
Whopper what another thinks is just that, what they think, its just guesswork on their behalf. Maybe the chronicler was a Midrashisist but maybe he was not. So like Myers says the chronicler relied on sources sometime more accurate then what Samuel had seems to indicate to me that Myers would disagree with the other authors Midrashisist comment.
The flaw, if it is a flaw is not mine, it is Myers who stated the chronicler used more accurate sources.
I am always interested in learning Whopper and plan on reading some of the books you mentioned earlier in this thread. That however does not mean I will agree with them, but I may, who knows. I do try to keep an open mind about things believe it or not.
Well, as I said - study Chronicles, and some treatements of it, and how inner-biblical interpretation worked (Michael Fishbane's standard work Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel is especially helpful) , and you might see some of the points I was getting at. It's not easy to convey such things in a few posts, I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
And I have no problem with that Whopper except that you say the idea of satan. Myself I see it as growth from ignorance of satan to knowing he does exist.
We'll have to disagree on that one.
Where you say an actual real character, I see an evolution of a concept and an etymological chain of ideas that finally came to fruition once the Israelites were exposed to dualistic ideas. And this isn't just my opinion - it's the scholarly consensus on the subject.
But - you are free to hold you own opinion on it. Just don't let that prevent you from doing some more research on the subject that challenges your belief. We all have to do that from time to time, or we never learn new things.
ὄφις
ophis
of'-is
Probably from G3700 (through the idea of sharpness of vision); a snake, figuratively (as a type of sly cunning) an artful malicious person, especially Satan: - serpent.
G3700
οπτάνομαι, όπτομαι
optanomai optomai
op-tan'-om-ahee, op'-tom-ahee
The first a (middle voice) prolonged form of the second (primary) which is used for it in certain tenses; and both as alternates of G3708; to gaze (that is, with wide open eyes, as at something remarkable; and thus differing from G991, which denotes simply voluntary observation; and from G1492, which expresses merely mechanical, passive or casual vision; while G2300, and still more emphatically its intensive G2334, signifies an earnest but more continued inspection; and G4648 a watching from a distance): - appear, look, see, shew self.
And from the Hebrew Old Testament:
Gen 3:1 והנחשׁ היה ערום מכל חית השׂדה אשׁר עשׂה יהוה אלהים ויאמר אל־האשׁה אף כי־אמר אלהים לא תאכלו מכל עץ הגן׃
H5175
נחשׁ
nâchâsh
naw-khawsh'
From H5172; a snake (from its hiss): - serpent.
H5172
נחשׁ
nâchash
naw-khash'
A primitive root; properly to hiss, that is, whisper a (magic) spell; generally to prognosticate: - X certainly, divine, enchanter, (use) X enchantment, learn by experience, X indeed, diligently observe.
Last edited by Richard1965; 04-10-2012 at 09:27 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
