From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ancient Near East  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The Biblical Serpent and the Eden Story[edit]

I would welcome informed and sourced comments in this article about whether or not Ningishzida is believed to be an origin for the Biblical serpent. --Tediouspedant (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hiya, please add references to the historical roots section based on the following: That is the libation cup in question. Found it while researching something i may get permanently etched in to my dermis tomorrow. And a further reference to cite is Cirlot's Dictionary of Symbols second edition pages 35 and 6. (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew equivalent? I heard that the Sumerian "Ningishzida" might be related to the Hebrew: דָּ֫עַת עֵץ דָּ֫עַת - "nachash ets daath" meaning "serpent (of the) tree (of) knowledge". Can any expert comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This article needs help[edit]

I'll be back to fix it, but before I did come back to, I just made sure I fixed the sumerian syllabic spelling of it from nin-ngish-zi-da to nin-ngish-zid-da, in which you will find on the index of proper nouns at ETCSL for the name. Abdishtar (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


It is correct that the ETCSL spells nin-ngish-zid-da but if you take a cuneiform sign list the sign is not ZID but ZI (you can check on the official sign list on Enenuru catalog)

Alex Demontis —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words[edit]

Where it is implied that "some say" the intertwining snakes are copulating, this is repeated in , only there it is given as a proper citation. 28.Apr 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I just restructured the part of the article where that sentence occurs. Originally, it was a parenthetical within another parenthetical, and quite awkward for reading. Something I noticed is that it had a bracketed number (as plain text, not a live reference link) so I suspected someone had cut and pasted the sentence from the Caduceus article. Just looked at that article and it is pretty much word for word in that article. In the edit summary I mentioned that that particular sentence probably doesn't belong in this article. Does anyone have any problem with it just being removed? It is, after all, speaking more of the supposed origins (from the ancient Greek perspective) of the caduceus, which does not touch on Ninğišzida in anyway. — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoever put this was implying that the "some" is Walter Burkert, Greek Religion London: Cambridge University Press, 1985: p. 158. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)