Obviously behemoth is represented as the primeval beast, the king of all the animals of the dry land, while leviathan is the king of all those of the water, both alike unconquerable by man ib. Some commentators find also in Isa. It is likely that the leviathan and the behemoth were originally referred to in Hab.
Originally God produced a male and a female leviathan, but lest in multiplying the species should destroy the world, He slew the female, reserving her flesh for the banquet that will be given to the righteous on the advent of the Messiah B. The enormous size of the leviathan is thus illustrated by R. Johanan, from whom proceeded nearly all the haggadot concerning this monster: "Once we went in a ship and saw a fish which put his head out of the water.
He had horns upon which was written: 'I am one of the meanest creatures that inhabit the sea. I am three hundred miles in length, and enter this day into the jaws of the leviathan'" B. When the leviathan is hungry, reports R. Dimi in the name of R. Johanan, he sends forth from his mouth a heat so great as to make all the waters of the deep boil, and if he would put his head into paradise no living creature could endure the odor of him ib.
His abode is the Mediterranean Sea; and the waters of the Jordan fall into his mouth Bek. The body of the leviathan, especially his eyes, possesses great illuminating power. Reference A Display caption Catalogue entry. Display caption The Lord points down towards two beasts, Behemoth and Leviathan, and instructs Job about the extent and power of His creation. Gallery label, September Does this text contain inaccurate information or language that you feel we should improve or change?
You might like Left Right. View by appointment. William Blake The Fall of Satan , reprinted William Blake The Wrath of Elihu , reprinted William Blake Job and his Daughters , reprinted William Blake The Vision of Christ , reprinted William Blake Satan before the Throne of God , reprinted William Blake Job and his Family , reprinted In his commentary on Job, Roy Zuck made the following observation concerning mythology and its relation to the book.
Was Job indicating belief in a creature of mythology? No, he was probably doing nothing more than utilizing for poetic purposes a common notion that his hearers would understand. This would have been similar to modern adults referring to Santa Claus. Mentioning his name does not mean that one believes such a person exists , p. For centuries, students of the Bible have questioned the identity of behemoth and leviathan. In , Samuel Bochart published a two-volume work identifying the two animals under consideration as the hippopotamus and the crocodile.
Then, as additional extrabiblical literature came to light in the middle-to-late nineteenth century most notably from Mesopotamia , the mythological interpretation was revived and comparative mythology became very popular among biblical scholars.
That problem was stated by T. In , C. In his commentary on Job, Tur-Sinai dismissed behemoth altogether, and suggested instead that the passage of Scripture from Job through the end of the chapter is concerned with only one powerful figure—the mythological leviathan , p.
Marvin Pope probably is the most recent well-known supporter of the mythological view. Using the Ugaritic texts as support for his theory, Pope has proposed that behemoth and leviathan of Job are the same mythological creatures found in the ancient Jewish writings of Enoch, IV Ezra, and the Apocalypse of Baruch.
Some scholars believe behemoth and leviathan are mythological monsters due largely to the fact that similar creatures are mentioned in pagan myths. Those holding to this view do admit that the plural form behemot occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament without any hint of mythological implications cf. Psalms ; ; Joel ; ; Habakkuk Generally speaking, for example, in Scripture behemoth often refers to ordinary cattle. But those same scholars quickly point out the instances in which behemoth is used in some of the ancient Jewish writings that echo ancient pagan mythology.
By citing extrabiblical texts such as 1 Enoch , 4 Ezra , and 2 Baruch , Pope has suggested that behemoth had a prototype in pre-Israelite mythology that was connected in some ancient myth, or played similar roles in different myths , p.
Pope believes that this bullock of El very well may correspond with the behemoth of Job Excluding Job 41, leviathan occurs once in the meaning of a natural sea-monster Psalm , and three times in the meaning of a mythological creature Job ; Isaiah ; Psalm In commenting on the name leviathan and its use both within and without Scripture, James Williams stated:.
The mythological significance of Leviathan is well known. Appearing as the Lothan of seven heads that Baal destroys in the Ugaritic myths, he is likewise the sea-serpent of many heads that Elohim defeated in the beginning Ps.
One mythical tradition of the eschaton represents a final battle of Yahweh with Leviathan Isa. This Leviathan is doubtless the mythical origin of the dragon of seven heads in Rev. Leviathan, as well as Behemoth, appears with eschatological significance in Enoch In the following portion of the Ugaritic myth, a discussion is taking place between Baal and Mot Death , wherein Mot gives Baal the credit for having slain Lotan. When you smote Lotan the fleeting serpent, Annihilated the tortuous serpent, The tyrant with seven heads.
Have I not slain Sea, beloved of El? Have I not annihilated [the] River, the great god? Have I not muzzled the Dragon, holding her in a muzzle? After quoting various Ugaritic passages like the ones above, those who support the mythological view seek to make a connection with Psalm and its allusion to the tradition of a leviathan with many heads once smitten by the Almighty long ago.
The psalmist wrote:. Yet God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth. Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: Thou brakest the heads of the sea-monsters in the waters.
Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces ; Thou gavest him to be food to the people inhabiting the wilderness Psalm , emp. Marvin Pope takes the view that the supernatural character of leviathan can be seen quite clearly in this passage, as well as from the myths mentioned above pp.
He thus concluded that the leviathan of Job 41 is identical to the one spoken of in the Ugaritic citations. Supporters of the mythological view make all these comparisons, and many more. A final reason why many scholars hold to the mythological view is simply because they believe correctly that behemoth and leviathan cannot be the hippopotamus and the crocodile. It is obvious that the animals in Job are represented as being beyond the power of men to capture.
Yet it is known that ancient Egyptians hunted and captured both the crocodile and the hippopotamus Driver and Gray, , p.
Also, if the animals really are the hippopotamus and the crocodile, one wonders why there is a shift from the Palestinian animals of the previous chapters to Egyptian animals in chapters ? Mythologizers suggest that the animals described in Job are neither crocodiles, hippopotamuses, nor any other known creature. Thus, they conclude the animals described in these two chapters must be imaginary monsters.
What evidence is there to suggest that the behemoth and leviathan of Job are, in fact, real, literal, historical creatures?
First, of course, it is evident that certain Old Testament passages speak clearly of leviathan and behemoth in various contexts without any hint whatsoever of mythological or symbolic implication. Even though leviathan seemingly refers to a mythological creature in three passages of Scripture Job ; Psalm ; Isaiah , there is at least one passage other than Job 41 that speaks of it as a real animal.
Furthermore, every time behemoth is mentioned outside of Job 40, it refers to real animals Cansdale, , p. In differentiating between whether the passage is speaking of an imaginary or a literal creature, one must be guided by the thrust of the context, not by what similarities might be found between pagan mythology and the Bible Smick, , 40[2] In the context of Job , God is in the midst of asking Job a lengthy series of questions—the entire purpose of which was to show the patriarch that he did not know nearly as much as he thought he did when he charged God foolishly.
If the creatures in Job were, in fact, mythological, Job then could and likely would! These creatures are mythological! That the leviathan was referred to in ancient mythological literature is beyond question. But this does not prove that mythological creatures are under consideration in Job 40 and On the contrary, he is portrayed as a herbivorous animal that even allows other animals to graze nearby without harm 20 , lies peacefully in the shadow of the rushes of the rivers , and leisurely laps up its waters 26 [see Gordis, , p.
As John Hartley noted in his excellent commentary on Job:. Both identifications miss the point of the text. And you will never domesticate the lion, the wild ox, or the war-horse. But I can. Unlike Job, God can, in fact, bring suffering and evil to an end. And Satan cannot resist the snapping of his own neck if God wills it. Who then is he who can stand before me? Who has first given to me, that I should repay him?
Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine. Job And when God gives Job exactly twice what he lost compare with Job , he plays the part of a thief who must repay double Ex
0コメント