Biblical Hebrew Forum

["John Ronning" <ronning AT ilink.nis.za>]

Trevor,

As Lee Martin pointed out, Cassuto does have a discussion of the word-play
between "naked" (Gen 2:25) and "crafty" (Gen 3:1) in his Genesis commentary
(part I).  Cassuto also noted that this word-play is not "accidental" as the
author deliberately chose the variant of "naked" in 2:25 which is closer to
the spelling of "crafty," whereas in Genesis 3 he consistently uses the
variant `eyrom or its plural.  As Cassuto noted, he (or a later scribe) even
added a waw to indicate the short vowel in "naked" in 2:25 (an unusual
practice) so as to increase the similarity in appearance (note their
respective positions in the BHS text.

The next question is, what is the purpose of the word-play?  Cassuto's
explanation is hardly convincing since he allegorizes the account of the
serpent, making the serpent the "cunning within Eve."  It seems more
reasonable to see the purpose as being to point us to a comparision between
the serpent and Adam and Eve.  3:1 seems to say that the serpent is a mere
animal.  The word-play invites us to compare it to Adam and Eve;
specifically, to compare its shrewdness (displayed in the moral downfall of
Adam and Eve in chapter 3), with the child-like innocence (exemplified by
their nakedness without shame) of Adam and Eve (which contributed to their
seductibility).

Thus Genesis 3 begins with a "mixed message" concerning the identity of the
serpent.  It seems to say forthrightly that it is a mere animal, but by
word-play that it is superior to humans.  In hindsight, at the end of the
chapter, it appears to be more like God and the Cherubim who have the
"knowledge of good and evil" (3:22) which Adam and Eve did not have up to
that time.  The suggestion is that the serpent is more like an evil version
of the Cherubim mentioned in Gen 3:24.

If the "serpent" is not a mere animal, the next question concerns the
interpretation of the curse on the serpent; for example, what is the seed of
the serpent?  This question is answered in the next chapter as we see the
fulfillment of the predicted enmity of Gen 3:15 not between snakes and
humans, but between Cain and Abel, and we see Cain modeled after the serpent
in at least three ways: he is a liar, he is a murderer, and he is cursed.
We also see an unusual use of the word "father" in Genesis 4, as if to show
us in what sense the serpent is Cain's "father."  Note Gen 4:20-21 where
"father" means originator or inventor or teacher of certain practices.

With this interpretation we also see a parallel development between chapter
3 and chapter 4.  Chapter 3 starts off with a "mixed message" concerning the
identity of the serpent, and the message is cleared up by the end of the
chapter as we see the serpent not a mere animal after all, but more like an
evil angel.  Genesis 4 also starts off with a mixed message concerning the
identity of the serpent's seed Cain.  Eve identifies him as her seed (v. 1)
but in the same verse we see that the author avoids the use of the word
"son" in the otherwise very stereotypical birth formula (as Nachmanides
noticed); cf. Gen 4:25 and others where the "birth plus name-giving" formula
includes the word "son" or "daughter" or "twins" or some circumlocution.
But by the end of the chapter the mixed message is resolved as Eve rejects
the identity of Cain as her seed (4:25).  It should be added here that we
are not talking about physical relationships, as a common misinterpretation
of these features of the narrative held that the snake was literally Cain's
father - Gen 4:1 could not be any clearer that Adam is Cain's physical
father.  Spiritually, those like the serpent are the serpent's seed (i.e.
humans as they are born into the world), and those like Abel who have
experienced the creative work of God in their lives are the "seed of the
woman."

Hope that clears things up.

John Ronning