Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/173

 account given later of the origin of clothing (3$7$, cf. $21$). It calls attention to the difference between the original and the actual condition of man as conceived by the writer. The consciousness of sex is the result of eating the tree: before then our first parents had the innocence of children, who are often seen naked in the East (Doughty, AD, ii. 475).

V.$25$ is a transition verse, leading over to the main theme to which all that goes before is but the prelude. How long the state of primitive innocence lasted, the writer is at no pains to inform us. This indifference to the non-essential is as characteristic of the popular tale as its graphic wealth of detail in features of real interest. The omission afforded an opportunity for the exercise of later Midrashic ingenuity; Jub. iii. 15 fixes the period at seven years, while R. Eliezer (Ber. R.) finds that it did not last six hours.

'''III. 1-7. The temptation.'''—Attention is at once directed to the quarter where the possibility of evil already lurked amidst the happiness of Eden—the preternatural subtlety of the serpent: But the serpent was wily] The wisdom of the serpent was proverbial in antiquity (Mt. 10$16$: see Bochart, Hieroz. iii. 246 ff.), a belief probably founded less on observation of the creature's actual qualities than on the general idea of its divine or demonic nature: (Sanchuniathon, in Eus. Præp. Ev. i. 10). Hence the epithet might be used of it sensu bono, though the context here makes it certain that the bad sense  is intended (see below).—beyond any beast, etc.] The serpent, therefore, belongs to the category of 'beasts of the field,' and is a creature of Yahwe; and an effort seems to be made to maintain this view throughout the narrative (v.$14$). At the same time it is a being possessing supernatural knowledge, with the power of speech, and animated by hostility towards God. It is this last feature which causes some perplexity. To say that the thoughts which it instils into the mind of the woman were on the serpent's part not evil, but only extremely sagacious, and became sin first in the human consciousness (so Merx, Di. al.), is hardly in accordance with the spirit of the narrative. It is more probable that behind the sober description of the serpent as a mere creature of Yahwe,