Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> 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