Nice piece. Just a small note regarding the date of the Septuagint, you put it as contemporaneous to philo, when the Septuagint (at least on the pentateuch) was translated at least two centuries before probably as early as the 3rd century bce.
It might be interesting to point out that many medieval Jewish commentators (such as Ibn Ezra) also emphasize that a literalist reading should be adopted here, but for them it shows that the snake alone, not all animals, possessed human language. This is due to its status as the "the shrewdest of all animals" as attested to in Gen 3:1.
This has more in common with common Christian interpretations associating the snake with Satan, although it still maintains a strictly literalist reading. (I would argue that this was indeed the original understanding as well.)
Thanks for the note! I had intended to say that the Septuagint was just in widespread use by the time of Philo... I hopefully made that a little clearer!
Those are great points, too, especially in how those later traditions had their own conception of what "literal" meant. The late Michael Heiser argued for the reading that the serpent was not intended to be just a snake, but rather a divine being, using snake-like language derived from Akkadian and Egyptian traditions. I may have to write a part 2 to include all of these other traditions.
Nice piece. Just a small note regarding the date of the Septuagint, you put it as contemporaneous to philo, when the Septuagint (at least on the pentateuch) was translated at least two centuries before probably as early as the 3rd century bce.
It might be interesting to point out that many medieval Jewish commentators (such as Ibn Ezra) also emphasize that a literalist reading should be adopted here, but for them it shows that the snake alone, not all animals, possessed human language. This is due to its status as the "the shrewdest of all animals" as attested to in Gen 3:1.
This has more in common with common Christian interpretations associating the snake with Satan, although it still maintains a strictly literalist reading. (I would argue that this was indeed the original understanding as well.)
Thanks for the note! I had intended to say that the Septuagint was just in widespread use by the time of Philo... I hopefully made that a little clearer!
Those are great points, too, especially in how those later traditions had their own conception of what "literal" meant. The late Michael Heiser argued for the reading that the serpent was not intended to be just a snake, but rather a divine being, using snake-like language derived from Akkadian and Egyptian traditions. I may have to write a part 2 to include all of these other traditions.
Looking forward!