Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rochelle Altman <willaa AT netvision.net.il>]

Hate to intrude with biological data, but if you read the description of 
the leviathan, with its long snaky "arms," etc., the creature is a giant 
squid, also referred to as a Kraken. It is indeed a creature of the deeps 
(tehom) and would have been extremely frightening to men in a small boat. 
Indeed, sightings of giant squid as late as the 19th-century CE scared the 
h..l out of mariners. Tales of the "Kraken" (giant squid) overturning large 
sailing vessels persisted. (Many illustrations available, too.) Giant squid 
have tentacles up to 90 feet in length.

The area between Rhodes and the current Syrian coast is squid heaven. The 
Rhodes Deep (4,000 plus feet) is deep enough to support giant squid.

If as late as the 19th-century men still were afraid of the creature, is it 
at all surprising that 3,000 years ago mariners were terrified of the thing 
and thought that only a god could handle it? Come to think of it; would 
anyone out here like to tussle with a creature with tentacles 60 feet in 
length. let alone 90 feet?  Sperm whales with sucker scars indicate that 
there are 90-foot giant squids out there, though the largest tentacles so 
far found (dead to be sure) was ca. 65 feet.

Think of the size of a sperm whale, then think about sucker scars on their 
sides... giant sea monster of the deeps, leviathan? To be sure!

As a point of information, except in visions, there are no mythical 
creatures in the Tanakh. What later interpreters came up with is neither 
here nor there.
Not everything in the Tanakh is symbolic; quite a bit is straight-forward 
reportage, albeit, poetically written. (Yes, Yitchak Sapir, poetically. 
Only neophytes to literature make a hard and fast line between poetry and 
prose.)

Rochelle Altman
USA and Israel

> > Yet another long, but hopefully informative, post...
> >
> > On 7/14/06, Doug Pickrel wrote, in several posts:
> >
> > > "Leviathan" is the antiquity name
> > > for Satan, the twisted serpent that God cut his heads off and placed them
> > > in the deep.  By the way, "Leviathan" means, "the one who live among 
> > the sea
> > > of humanity."
> > [...]
> > > I know this [...] There are about a
> > > dozen passages in the OT that talks about Leviathan and his fate.  The 
> > late
> > > Louis Gensberg, former President of the NY Jewish Theological 
> > Seminary, and
> > > author of LEGENDS OF THE BIBLE gives the meaning of Leviathan to be 
> > "one who
> > > dwells in the sea of humanity."
> > > You know that often 'sea' in Scriptures is actually meaning nation of
> > > peoples.
> >
> > This may be a good introduction to Leviathan.  If we were to consider that a
> > primordial battle of cosmic proportions between a good God (Marduk, Ba(l,
> > Yahweh) and a Sea god or monster would see its reflex in Christianity or even
> > later Judaism, it would probably be through the use of Satan.
> >
> > The question of the divinity of the Sea god or monster is also perhaps a 
> > little
> > nitpicky.  While Tiamat was a god for the Babylonians, and Yam was a god
> > for Ugarit's citizens, it's also possible that this myth saw its reflexes in
> > creatures that were not "divine" proper, but were simply cosmic creatures
> > that only a god could defeat and subdue.  In that case, it might be argued
> > that the Sea is not divine but simply a super-gigantic cosmic 
> > monster.  In that
> > case, though, it probably nothing more than nitpicking on the exact 
> > definition
> > of the word "divine."  Furthermore, a differentiation between the Sea as a
> > whole, and the Sea monster, may be problematic.  It may be that simply a
> > legendary dragon living in the sea, or a Sea god that had control over 
> > the sea
> > but was not the sea itself, or perhaps the sea itself was thought of as the
> > body of this cosmic monster on whose back lay the Earth, and were this
> > monster not subdued and bound, the Earth would not lay still but would
> > constantly experience earthquakes if not worst fates.  Isa 27:1 or Amos 9:3
> > suggest that the dragon was in the sea.  Job 7:12 may suggest that Yam
> > was a name for a dragon.  Both Babylon's Tiamat and Ugarit's Yam were
> > viewed as symbols of chaos -- perhaps because the sea is so chaotic in
> > nature, and while journey on land does not have to take into account a
> > huge earthquake or the earth suddenly opening up and swallowing you
> > whole, journey across the seas does.
> >
> > As far as evidence goes, it is probably best to start off by bringing the
> > evidence from Ugarit.  From my investigation, Leviathan, Ugarit's "ltn"
> > (pronounced "Lotan"?), appears only once, and another text, a copy
> > of the first mention, would probably mention him if that portion of the
> > tablet was still extant.  The mention, probably part of a speech or
> > message by the death god Mot to Baal, goes:
> >
> > 1. ktmx'c . ltn . bt'n . brx
> > 2. tkly . bt'n . (qltn
> > 3. $ly+ . d. $b(t . r)a$m
> > 4. tt'kx . ttrp . $mm . krs
> > ...
> > t' = th, x' = khet (opposed to het)
> >
> > An Ugaritic linguist, Dennis Pardee, is quoted as translating the above
> > passage as: "When you smite Lotan, the fleeing serpent / finish off the
> > twisting serpent / the close-coiling one with seven heads.' on the following
> > website: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gilgy08.html
> > Websites are not always dependable, but I think the quotes in this particular
> > one are authentic.  In any case, the translation ascribed to Pardee does
> > translate the first three lines appropriately: ktmx'c: k = ki, tmx'c = a verb
> > (Heb. tmxc), bt'n is probably related to Hebrew peten, tkly = from the root
> > kly, to finish, $ly+ = possibly Shafel/Hiphil of lw+ = to hide(?), but
> > some scholars
> > translate as "tyrant"; d ~ Hebrew zh, a pronoun.  The last line is 
> > described by
> > Daniel Sivan, another expert of Ugaritic, as the first of three vague
> > or unclear
> > lines, providing possible translations for them.  I include it because
> > it appears
> > to continue the previous three lines with a comparison to $mm = the heavens,
> > so it is relevant to the arguments that were previously brought on the
> > discussion regarding parallelisms with Shamayim.
> >
> > The above Ugaritic excerpt is significant not only because it is relatively
> > simple to see the linguistic similarities between the Ugaritic language and
> > the Hebrew, making it quite straightforward to read even if you are not 
> > versed
> > in Ugaritic.  But it is also signficant because of its parallel to Isa
> > 27:1.  It
> > appears that Isaiah is alluding to the primordial fight, casting it in
> > a new light,
> > as if saying, "on that day, God will recreate the world from scratch."
> >
> > Today, we can't go back and interview the citizens of Ugarit or the ancient
> > Israelites to tell us what Leviathan was.  But if we could ask of God a 200
> > word essay on who Leviathan was, it might very well read like Job 40:25 -
> > 41:26.  Verse 25, the first after several dealing with behemoth, returns back
> > to the second-person address of the initial verses of Job 40.  This suggests
> > both, that the "behemoth" section is over, and also that the context of these
> > verses is that God has indeed performed these actions.  He is asking of Job,
> > "were you the one who subdued Leviathan and made him an eternal slave?"
> > implying, "I was!"  The cosmic primordial context of the speech is also
> > evident from God's previous speech to Job in which he deals with the
> > creation of the world.
> >
> > Job 40:25 onwards describes in graphic terms who Leviathan was, how
> > powerful he was, and what God did to him.  The description of fire
> > breathing in Job 41:10-13 would definitely befit a dragon as would the
> > mention of scales, of terror and fear wherever it walks, and the
> > comparison elsewhere to a snake.  Job 40:25-26 and 40:31 also describes
> > in graphic terms how God bound and pierced the beast.  This corresponds
> > to repeated uses elsewhere in context with the sea beast of such verbs as
> > prr, rcc, xcb and xll (such as Isa 51:9, Psalms 74:13-14).  The use of the
> > verb &xq in Job 40:29 is comparable to the use in Psalms 104:26.  Ps 104:26
> > also mentions that God created Leviathan, but it is unclear whether this is
> > an innovation on the part of Ps 104, or whether the author of Job and other
> > mentions also viewed Leviathan as a creation of God even if they didn't 
> > say it
> > outright.  The mention of his everlasting covenant as a slave in 40:28 
> > recalls
> > instances such as Job 7:12, where God does not completely destroy the
> > beast but subdues it and binds it.  Job 41 ends off with a clear
> > differentiation
> > between Tehom and Yam and Leviathan.  But it is clear that this Leviathan
> > has great power over Tehom, comparable to that of a "sea god".
> >
> > It is worth mentioning at this point that an argument often raised in this
> > discussion is that "the Bible is monotheistic and therefore doesn't speak of
> > multiple or additional dieties."  But this argument is too general.  In fact,
> > it is texts such as this that would be the evidence for whether the Bible as
> > a whole is monotheistic.  There are clear examples where the Bible makes
> > statements that are consistent with monotheism.  At other times, though,
> > it makes statements that are almost polytheistic or at least consistent with
> > a wider view of polytheism.  Sometimes, much more weight is ascribed to
> > the monotheistic statements than they should.  For example, when God
> > says to destroy idols of other gods, it is not necessarily true that this
> > means that other gods don't exist.  Similarly, the same would be true for
> > claims that the physical idols of the pagans are lifeless and devoid of
> > meaning.  All these directly state is that the idols are simple earthly
> > objects or that the idols should be destroyed.  A good example of a "very
> > polytheistic statement" is in Job 40:29.  The entire context of this chapter,
> > is that God compares himself to Job.  "Can you wear splendor?  Can you
> > thunder your voice?  Is your arm all powerful?  Can you dig out Leviathan?"
> > In all these cases, "you" is essentially a reflex of God.  A question posed
> > by God to Job, comparing what God can and has done to Job's limited
> > mortal power.  It is therefore completely surprising that God mentions Job's
> > "maidens."  Of course, Job has nothing left, least of all maidens.  That's
> > how the entire story of Job begins.  But the implication of Job's maids, is
> > that God does have maidens.  It is therefore best not to harmonize instances
> > of the Bible which suggest monotheism with instances of the Bible which
> > suggest otherwise.  The Bible is inconsistent on this point, and just as
> > one could argue that because some places speak of monotheism, so does
> > everywhere else, one could similarly argue that because some places speak
> > of polytheism, so does everywhere else.
> >
> > Hopefully this post expands the discussion further, illustrating that the
> > Israelites did have a tradition of God defeating a cosmic sea dragon
> > comparable to that of Marduk vs. Tiamat and Ba(l vs. Yam or Ba(l
> > vs. Lotan, and even comparable to Hydra of Greek mythology (both
> > in name, Hydra vs Tehom/Yam, and in myth, as a many-headed
> > serpent;  the constellations Draco and Hydra are also to be probably
> > traced to Babylonian Tiamat).
> >
> > Yitzhak Sapir
> > http://toldot.blogspot.com