Forgot this totem from Gobekli Tepe. Note the snake. The oldest of them all.
It’s certainly fun to believe they come from contact with the gods of the bible, but I think the real explanation is much less sexy. The snake is seen as a sacred animal because it is associated with rebirth and immortality, because it sheds it’s skin.
I won’t attempt a survey … I will simply point to the Sumerian example:
Sumerians believed that snakes were capable of self-reproduction, because they had no obvious indications of gender… and no feathers or fur to make this lack of gender distinction less than obvious.
Thus snakes were considered potent in fertility and reproduction.
Snakes shed their skin and seemed to be renewed… so they seemed to have power over aging, and against death itself.
And because they had powers over fertility and immortality … they were considered most wise.
For whatever reason, Zoroaster had a “thing” about snakes … and he taught that killing a snake each day was a very good deed indeed.
Greeks would put 2 snakes in a wagon and send it outside the city limits to let the snakes choose a new temple location.
Moses, aka Moshe, aka cuneiform “MS”, could be translated by Sumerian and Akkadian scribes:
Hero, Priest, Snake…
in the same way that Greeks used the term “Pythoness” to mean an egg laying snake or a female Priestess of a snake cult.
MS, aka Moshe, was armed with a snake in his possession at all times - - the rod of Moses. The Snake/Rod of Moses had symbolic power over the waters of the Red Sea… and the sub-terrestrial waters of the Sinai or of Edom. And how did Moses save his people from snakes? He put a snake idol on a stick … which traveled wherever the Exodus camp went … and was preserved and hailed for centuries, until finally just a century before the Exile it was taken down … an obvious symbol and “weapon” of the Old Religion.
Thanks. I would think that most cultures would associate snakes coming from underground, that they would represent the underworld and maybe the earth or death versus birds in the sky that may Represent the heavens.
That said the altered skulls, the serpentine or reptilian statues and descriptions of a serpentine people suggest that there was a group of humans that were serpentine looking whether naturally or altered.
The Minoans have illustrations of priestesses holding up snakes… so are the Minoans candidates for being serpentine? Frankly, I’ve never heard of any ancients referring to humans looking serpentine. What exactly are you talking about? Is this some kind of YEC fantasy?
The Nabataeans had a rather giant snake sculpture (the base of it can still be seen at Petra). Guess who is supposed to be buried in the vault beneath that statue?: Moses, aka Moshe, aka “MS” (in Sumerian/Babylonian:
MS = hero, priest, snake).
As for snakes and the underground … while there are occasional references of humans ascending into the sky … there are no explicit discussions of humans spending an afterlife in the sky/heavens until the Persian Zoroaster introduces the idea that the underworld is for evil people and somewhere in the sky is the place for saintly people.
Even the Egyptians, with all their symbolism around the sun and Ra still believed the Sun spent half of each day int he Underworld. And the Pharaoh would eventually unite with Osiris, and Osiris’ home location was also in the underworld.
The Greek’s had their Elysium underground, or even an Island protected by a river or an ocean as a home for the noble dead.
Easter blessings!
I am sticking with the Heiser’s interpretation of the Nacash as a divine being.
Snake-deceiver-shining one (Lucifer)
The seed of the serpent and the seed of man are enemies.
Matthew 23: you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those that murdered the prophets. You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape from being condemned to hell?
Isiah 14:29. From the root of the snake will spring up a viper it’s fruit will be darting venomous serpent.
John 8:44 you belong to your father the devil. He was a murderer from the beginning not holding to the truth for there is no truth in him. He who belongs to God hears what God says.
What is the wider context of this verse?
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers
(29) Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina.—Better, Rejoice not thou, Philistia, all of thee; i.e., give not thyself wholly to rejoicing. Here, as in Exodus 15:14, “Palestina” is used, not in the wider meaning with which we are familiar, but specifically as the country of the Philistines. The historical circumstances connected with the “oracle” before us are found in 2Chronicles 18:18. The Philistines had invaded the low country (Shetphēlah), and the district known as the Negeb, or “south” of Judah, in the reign of Ahaz. He had called in the help of Tiglath-pileser, the Assyrian king, to assist him as against Rezin and Pekah (Isaiah 7), so probably against these new invaders. Sargon (who succeeded Tiglath-pileser, B.C. 723) invaded Ashdod in B.C. 710 (Isaiah 20:1; Records of the Past, vii. 40). Sennacherib records a like attack on Ashkelon and (according to Rawlinson’s interpretation) Ekron (Records of the Past, vii. 61). With these data we are able to enter on the interpretation of Isaiah’s prediction.
Because the rod of him that smote thee is broken.—The “rod,” as in Isaiah 10:24, is the power of Tiglath-pileser. The Philistines were exulting in his death, or in that of Ahaz as his ally, as though their peril was past. They are told that their exultation was premature.
Out of the serpent’s root.—The three forms of serpent life (we need not be careful about their identification from the zoologist’s point of view) may represent the three Assyrian kings named above, from whose invasions the Philistines were to suffer. Each form was more terrible than the preceding. The fiery flying serpent (Isaiah 30:6; Numbers 21:6), which represented Sennacherib, was the most formidable of the three. So in Isaiah 27:1, the “piercing serpent,” the “crooked serpent,” and the “dragon” are symbols of the Assyrian power. Some critics, however, led chiefly by the first words of the next verse, find in the three serpents—(1) Ahaz, (2) Hezekiah, (3) the ideal king of Isaiah 11:1-9.
1 Like
I will agree that this particular serpent was not a regular serpent. It makes no sense for a regular serpent to be living in the underworld as a curse.
I wrote a blog post on Deut 32 and why I think that it DOES describe divine beings with dominion over the nations in historical context:
https://riderontheclouds.wordpress.com/2018/03/26/answers-in-ugarit-1-divine-allotment/
I may make a list of the specific gods and the specific nations which they were given dominion over.
I find it to be no coincidence that there a seventy nations, in Genesis 10 and seventy sons of God in Ugarit, whom were given dominion over the nations according to Deut 32.
I think most researchers will confirm that Ugarit theology doesn’t have a category for “angels” … while the Essenes, influenced by Persian theology as the Pharisees were, teach that what these other Gods were are now called Angels.
With regard to Samson, there was not magic in his hair. Samson’s mother promised he would be raised as a Nararite and take the oath that went with this. He was not to touch anything associated with grapes, not cut his hair or not touch anything unclean. He played fast and loose with all these rules and when he cut his hair, the spirit of God left him, not magic hair. He did not even notice that the spirit of God had departed, as he had been on a long descent.
There is also no magic in the Arc of the Covenant. In the same Book of Judges, the Israelites tried to use the Arc as a lucky charm in battle against the Philistines and lost badly (sorry Harrison Ford). It is only through faith and not articles that we receive God’s blessing.
There are many who believe the Bible is the Word of God without thinking the Earth is 6,000 years old. Generations are typically missing from genealogies in the Bible.
With regard to the book of Job, Young’s Literal Translation and the KJV use the word frost and not snow, not that God could not produce snow. Without miracles, there is no resurrection and there is no reason for faith.
With the miracle of Christ’s death and resurrection we have eternal fellowship with God, not through anything we have done but through His sacrifice.
Happy Easter everyone.
I’m pretty familiar with the lore surrounding Samson. Perhaps you quibble?
If he can do all that carousing without losing his strength …
… but he loses it as soon as his hair is cut off, then the magic is in the hair!
This is actually a fairly well known solar motif … where images of the sun and the sun’s rays are drawn to imitate a hairy head of hair!
When he is made blind, it is equivalent to the sun being in eclipse. But as his hair grows back, it symbolizes the returning strength to the solar deity. << Which also signifies that it’s “all about the hair” !
They did. There is an Ugaritic word mlkm (cognate of course to the Hebrew Malakhim) which refers to a divine messenger, it’s really no different from an OT angel.
Yes, I respectfully disagree. The Bible is consistent cover to cover, there is no magic in items, only through faith.
I believe Samson’s example shows how patient God is with all of us, only when Samson abandoned every aspect of his vow did the spirit of God leave him.
The radical break of the God of the Bible from the near eastern religions around them is the use of magic. In all polytheistic religions, the gods are governed by this “metadivine realm” from which they are born and from which they can be controlled, or at a minimum given protection from by the use of magic.
The God of the Bible is the Creator of all things and unlike the polytheistic gods, is not controlled by a metadivine realm. God is good and the source go goodness, unlike the near eastern gods which are both good and evil. Blessing come from obedience to God’s commandments and living in his will, a good example is Samson’s mother, who by prayer and obedience, not magic, was given a son. (reference Yehezkel Kaufman)
This is a descriptive noun … I agree that the Ugarit theology included divine messengers. They are divine… and they are messengers.
Ningishzida was a divine messenger… he was also represented as an immortal serpent. And he was also represented as a human with 2 serpents emerging out of his shoulders.
“mlk” means king, or messenger (divine or mortal), or in certain contexts it could mean the special sacrifice of a king.
“mlkm” is plural.
Do you have a text that discusses “mlkm” as a special class of divine being? If you don’t, you are just filling in the blanks using a modern view of theology.
Greek has a very same approach: aggelos can mean “messenger” or “angel”. In Revelations 1:20, we read:
“This is the meaning of the mystery of the seven stars you saw in my right hand and the seven gold lampstands: The seven stars are the “aggelos” of the seven churches…”
Shall we translate the Greek word as “angels of the seven churches”? Or as the “messengers of the seven churches”?
I see no reason to doubt what Heiser is saying here:
You seem to have jumped topics on me (again). Do you concur that “mlkm” is a word that can refer to human messengers as well as divine ones?
Do you think the 7 churches referenced in Revelations each had its own angel? Or do you think each had its own “messenger” or “prophet”?
One of the aspects of the career of Muhammed in Islam is that he always referred to himself as God’s Prophet… which, I am going to guess here, was probably the word “mlk”, wouldn’t you think?
Like Jesus, the “messenger” to the Jews, could be understood to be a “king” by the Romans… when they read reports by men trying to cause Jesus harm, saying that they heard a man saying he was God’s “mlk” !!!
Ultimately, the New Testament chose the word Basileus instead of aggelos .
Yes I do. I don’t know how we got here. Even if the word mlkm doesn’t mean divine messengers, the point is that Sons of God absolutely refers to gods with dominion over the nations in both Ugaritic and Biblical literature. The biggest parallel is that both are associated with the number seventy. Both are also referred to as ‘Princes’ (See Daniel 10).