1 | Page Illustrating han-nāḥāš in the Garden of Eden John R. Roberts SIL International ABSTRACT This paper looks at how han-nāḥāš ‘the snake’ in Gen 3.1–7 has been represented pictorially from Roman times to the present. The 435+ pictorial representations of the Fall of Man scene in Gen 3.1–7 gathered by Cummings (2020) show that han-nāḥāš is represented primarily as a real snake. However, from the 12th century through to the Michelangelo fresco in the 16th century han-nāḥāš is also depicted as Lilith, the female demonic figure in Judaic mythology. There are also some images of the garden of Eden scene where han-nāḥāš appears as a dragon. Basically, the artist has to choose one interpretation of who or what han- nāḥāš is and portray that understanding pictorially. The picture then fixes the interpretation of the text to that chosen by the artist. However, when the intricacies of the various characterizations of “the snake” (han- nāḥāš) in Gen 3.1–5 are examined in order to decide if this is (a) a real snake, (b) a seraph (or other celestial being), (c) a real snake possessed by Satan, or (d) Satan appearing as a snake there are conflicting facets of each characterization which render each of the possible interpretations incoherent. Introduction If you think that illustrating the Fall of Man story will help towards understanding the text, then think again. In this paper we examine how the Fall of Man scene described in Gen 3.1–7 has been depicted pictorially from Roman times to the present. In particular we look at how han-nāḥāš ‘the snake’ has been represented. This is because there have been multiple suggestions in the literature as to who or what han-nāḥāš in Gen 3.1–7 is. He has been viewed variously as (a) a real snake, (b) a seraph (or other celestial being), (c) a real snake possessed by Satan, or (d) Satan appearing as a snake. However, it turns out that when these characterizations are examined carefully there are conflicting facets of each characterization which render each of the possible interpretations incoherent. It is argued that han-nāḥāš is, in fact, a literary character illustrative of a “knowing person” to carry the plot of the story forward. We also research where the inspiration for han-nāḥāš in the garden of Eden came from. Day (2013) critiques a number of proposals for the inspiration of han-nāḥāš in Gen 3 and concludes that the most likely source is the serpent in the Gilgamesh Epic who stole the plant that gave eternal life from Gilgamesh. However, the popular understanding that han-nāḥāš in Gen 3 is Satan cannot be correct as the snake in Gen 3.1–5 is not identified with Satan until the inter-testamental period (Wisdom of Solomon 2.24). Cummings (2020) has gathered over 435 pictorial representations of the Fall of Man scene in Gen 3.1–7 involving han-nāḥāš, Eve, and Adam, spanning from Roman times to the present. Examination of portrayals of the Fall of Man in the garden of Eden shows that han-nāḥāš is most often depicted as a real snake, sometimes on the ground near the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, in earlier illustrations coiled around the trunk of the tree and in later illustrations in the branches of the tree. In some illustrations han-nāḥāš is depicted as a snake standing upright on its tail on the ground like a human being. From the 12th century through to the Michelangelo fresco in the 16th century han-nāḥāš is depicted as Lilith, the female demonic figure in Judaic mythology. The head of han-nāḥāš in this case is that of a woman. There are also some images of the garden of Eden scene where han-nāḥāš appears as a dragon. What is clear is that any depiction of the Fall of Man scene in Gen 3.1–7 has to adopt a particular interpretation of the text including who or what han-nāḥāš is. The picture then fixes the interpretation of the text to that chosen by the artist.