Bill Maher Is Clever, But No Scholar… Did Eve Really Converse With a Snake?
By DONALD DeMARCO
Bill Maher is the host of Politically Incorrect, despite his left-wing leaning toward political correctness. His film Religulous, is an unrelieved attempt to discredit all religions. The title is a hybrid of religion and ridiculousness. Maher is clever, but hardly a scholar.
In one segment of his film, he conducts a brief interview with Mark Pryor, at that time, senator of Arkansas. “It worries me,” says Maher, “that people are running the country who think…who believe in a talking snake.”
The inquisitor would have been more true to the biblical account had he referred to a “serpent” rather than to a “snake.” He caught the senator off guard and unprepared. Pryor resorted to a bit of self-deprecating humor: “You don’t have to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate.” It was an ill-advised response and cast all the other senators in a bad light.
The segment had a great deal of exposure. It was shown in theaters, on TV, and on YouTube where it elicited no end of responses. The responses were mixed. “Pryor has the IQ of a fence post,” said one. Another quipped that he believed in talking snakes because he saw one hosting Politically Incorrect.
It is ironic that Maher, who regards himself as ultra-liberal, would interpret the passage in Genesis literally whereas most Jews and Christians would grasp its metaphorical significance. Maher was acting as a fundamentalist, the last thing he would like to be known as.
Yet, he would have no trouble with the metaphorical way in which “snake” is commonly used in society. “Snake eyes” does not mean that they are literally staring at us from the pips of the dice. The 1948 movie Snake Pit is not about snakes at all but inmates of an insane asylum. A “snake in the grass” does not necessarily refer to a snake. And “Jake the Snake” refers to wrestler Jack Roberts, as well as to NFL quarterbacks Jason Plummer and Kenny Stabler.
Maher would have received a more illuminating response had he questioned St. Augustine. The Bishop of Hippo maintained that the first task of the theologian is exegesis, that is, going beyond the literal meaning of words by various stages of analogous interpretation.
God’s vocabulary, so to speak, is much more extensive than ours. Therefore, most of our words must perform double or triple meanings. A literal interpretation of a particular word could clash with science. Augustine, quite sensibly, did not want reason and faith to contradict each other. He did not want the Church to be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger provided some important illumination in his book, In the Beginning, A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation. “The image of the serpent,” he writes, “is taken from the Eastern fertility cults.” These fertility cults had been strong temptations for Israel over the course of centuries. They were urging Israel to abandon its covenant with God and conform to the religious milieu of the time. Ratzinger, therefore, viewed the serpent “as a symbol of the attraction that these religions exerted over Israel in contrast with the mystery of the God of the covenant.”
Claus Westermann, in his Commentary on Genesis, explains that the function of the serpent derives from the structure of the narrative. For example, there was not a third person in the Garden of Eden to confront Eve. Furthermore, an animal that talks is characteristic of a fable or tale. By virtue of this fairy-tale device, the narrator carries us far beyond the here and now and back into the realm of the primeval. This literary device of the animal that talks was common to primitive narrative.
According to the distinguished biblical scholar Gerhard von Rad, “Wherever man and serpent meet, the meeting always involves life and death.” The “cunningness” of the serpent, to use the descriptive term employed in Genesis, is associated with its ability to produce poison and change its skin. The portrayal of the serpent and the temptation it offers mankind is rich in suggestion and profound in implication.
Scripture prevails despite the many attempts that have been made throughout the ages to discredit it. Obviously, it is not to be taken literally as Bill Maher does in his film Religulous.
Faith in Sacred Scripture as an expression of the Word of God does not exclude reason. In fact, reason comes to the defense of Scripture.
Bill Mayer is essentially a comedian. He thinks that everything is funny. That is how he earns his bread and butter. But things that are profound are not funny. In being profound they answer the basic questions in life: Who am I? Where am I going? Does God exist and what does He expect from me?
- + + (Dr. Donald DeMarco is professor emeritus, St. Jerome’s University, and an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College. He is the author of 41 books.)
