Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Leviathan

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rochelle Altman <willaa AT netvision.net.il>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Leviathan
  • Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:42:35 +0200


Joel,

Now did I claim that the ancients knew taxonomoy? In fact, you specifically stated what it all means.

I think we are ascribing to ancient peoples a level of knowledge about
sea creatures that is completely unwarranted. There is no reason to
suppose that Leviathan is a description of a single real creature. It
is extremely unlikely that anyone before the nineteenth century CE had
any opportunity to examine a giant squid in detail. Any reports of
sighting Leviathan that may have existed for the authors to work with
were probably based on the terrified and confused accounts of multiple
sailors probably dealing with multiple animals.

Yep, and of the same type yet.


I think Leviathan is a conglomeration of the most terrifying aspects
of a sea animal that the ancient mind could conceive.

PRECISELY!!!!!

Trying to assert
that the ancient authors were doing more than this and were actually
trying to describe a specific animal ascribes more education than was
possible. We are talking about a barely literate society that had only
just begun any type of seafaring.

Pardon me, but seafaring and seafarers had been around for millennia by the time of the Torah. The word Leviathan is not Hebrew. Further, who the heck was asserting anything about the authors intentions?

It has only been in very modern
times that we have been able to discern and distinguish between the
various scary animals that sailors have been reporting since man took
to the sea.

And, how does that change things?

What's more than this is I think it does an injustice to these ancient
writers. There is no need to explain their writing in modern
scientific terms. They were not claiming to be skilled in taxonomy.
They were using imagry and allusion to teach important spiritual
truths. The idea that they have to use acurate details about a real
animal to do this bars them from using the important tools of
imagination and emotion that have been employed by all great writers.

Who was trying to explain their writings in modern terms. According to you it denigrates the ancients to note that the sea monster they were so afraid of is a known creature that is indeed scary. To indicate that they did have reasons to fear the creature mocks the authors? That's your take Joel, not mine. What I see is evidence of the truthfulness of yet another little detail in the Tanahk. It is rather sad that you missed the point.

Joel Stucki

Rochelle Altman





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page