Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Joel Stucki" <joel AT stucki.ws>]

On 7/16/06, Rochelle Altman <willaa AT netvision.net.il> wrote:
> >
> >>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?

A point of clarification here. I was intending that seafaring was yet
very primitive and generally did not include deep sea ventures or
sophisticated navigation that would have made frequent contact with
these creatures more likely. I did not intend to suggest that
seafaring had not existed for a long time.

> >
> >>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?

I am saying that I don't think the ancient texts referenced a giant
squid because I do not believe any ancient author knew what a giant
squid was. All they probably had was different stories about big
monsters that people ran into. These could be anything from whales to
sharks to sea turtles or squid. All of these were exaggerated by
imagination and excitement of the moment. Tales probably merged and
got better on the retelling. The idea of associating the description
of Leviathan with a specific animal would first require that the
ancients knew with some detail what the intended animal looked like. I
don't believe anyone in that time frame had any idea what a giant
squid looked like.

> >
> >>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.
> >
> >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?

I said injustice not mocks or denigrates. To be unjust is to be other
than fair. I believe that holding ancient writers to a standard of
knowledge not available to them is unjust.

> > That's your take
> >Joel, not mine.
More precisely it's your take on my take :) Only I have authority to
state my take. Please do not attempt to do so again.

> > 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.

I don't think I missed the point; I just didn't agree with it. I do
not think that the identity of Leviathan has much bearing on the
truthfulness of the Tanakh. If you feel this is an important issue
then by all means I would encourage you to continue your efforts. I am
sure a creation as noble as the giant squid was placed here for a
grand purpose.  If it strengthens your faith to consider it as the
inspiration for Leviathan then I am sure that Leviathan, the squids,
and their Creator are all pleased with the situation.

Joel Stucki