Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Joel Stucki wrote:

>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.

Primitive? Did not include deep sea ventures? There has been contact _by 
sea_ between the Atlantic coasts of the British Isles, Scandinavia, and the 
Atlantic coast of France with the Atlantic coast of the Iberian Peninsula 
since 10,000 BCE. The mtDNA study (longue duree) published in 2004 
establishes the connection. Blue water sailing has been around for a very 
long time.
Then there's the Uluburun shipwreck to testify to the advanced designs of 
shipbuilding ca. 1700 BCE. On the Red Sea side, the ancient Egyptian 
shipyard that was found in 2005 also denies your label of "primitive" -- as 
does Cornish tin found in Eastern Med bronze.

Did seafarers see the creature? Undoubtedly or (1) there would not have 
been stories in circulation about the Leviathan, and (2) the word would not 
have been around to have been borrowed for use in Hebrew.

You still are missing my point. That we know can know what is 
described  was a giant squid has little to do with what the ancients 
thought it was. The ancients did not have to know -- in our sense -- what 
the creature was for us to be able to see what it was.

You have taken me to task for stating that your interpretation was not mine 
-- when this is merely a truth statement. Do not do it again? One can only 
go by what is written and what you wrote is quite different from what I 
wrote and am writing.

Further, I do not think I can make it clearer that I do not deal with 
"faith." I work with the MT as *literature*. Great literature, to be sure, 
but literature nonetheless. I must admit that the pot calling the kettle 
black aspect of your assumption that "faith" is the operand is so far off 
the mark that it's hilariously funny.

Thanks, I can always use a good laugh.

Rochelle Altman

> 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?
>
>
>
> > >
> > >>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