Please, “enuf” with all the words about how you are not using a lot of words on the topic of emotion.
As for the question of Persia… I really thought I had answered it. You asked me yet another question (which I thought was even more important): what Bible Scholars can we look to for discussions and analysis that promote the same position I do (or similar ones)? I thought I was particularly punctual about providing you with those names.
Now… as to the VERY SPECIFIC Question: “Is my thesis that the appearance of the serpent in the Garden story in Genesis 2-3 is a direct product of Persian influence on the thought of the Israelite writers?”
The quick answer is: PARTIALLY! (as I bring down the hammers of Thor in the shape of cute puffy lightning pillows!).
The scenario, roughly speaking, is that the Persians probably considered the Israelite religion a little on the unsavory side of things. And so in order to win the support of the Persians for returning to their city, the Jewish priests agreed to some general ideas:
ween their countrymen of their infatuation with snakes;
ween them of their love of idols and images;
introduce some of the more high-minded religious stories that the Persians enjoyed
in the Babylonian libraries;
Promote some Persian holy seasons in a form that suits Jewish sensibilities.
“All the words” that I originally wrote on the topic of emotion (a topic which you introduced, not me) amounted to 16 words. I’m sorry if that was too long for you.
OK, I get it. You are offering a highly speculative account of the origin of the Genesis text, based on conjectures about the relationship between the Jews in Exile and their Persian “hosts.” And while this speculative account is based to some extent on ideas you have read in Biblical scholars from Copenhagen (a school which is not exactly a world leader in Hebrew Bible scholarship), you can’t actually provide (or at least, haven’t yet provided) any statements from your scholarly sources specifically about the Garden narrative or the figure of the serpent.
I will refrain from assenting to speculations like these for the moment. You are welcome to provide specific references from your scholars to the serpent and the Garden story, in an effort to change my mind, but for now I remain unconvinced.
Since neither Joshua (whose comment I was originally addressing) nor others here seem interested in commenting further on the nature of the serpent in the text of Genesis, I think I will exit this discussion.
A middle ground is possible. Suppose the snake story is ancient, considerably predating any Persian influence. And further suppose that the snake story was reinterpreted under Persian influence to make him more than just a clever animal, who was after all being helpful by telling Eve the truth, and turn him into a bad influence. And perhaps that had some influence on the final form of the text, though really I don’t see much evidence of villainy in the story. A little heel-bruising is about all, and that sounds more like “He will punch you in the nose, and you will punch him in the fist.”
And there may have been a third round of interpretation, in which the snake is identified with Satan.
Agreed. I’m less than convinced of much of what is concluded by Biblical scholars about the origin of our present texts, because there is often a high ratio of speculation to evidence in their reasoning. That’s not to say that all their speculations are wrong, but only that a rational person isn’t bound to accept their speculations, in the way a rational person is bound to accept the demonstrations of Euclid.
