Vtus Testamentum, Vol. XXV, Fase.

A RETURN TO THE PROBLEMS OF BEHEMOTH AND LEVIATHAN

BY

J. V. KINNIER WILSON
Cambridge

The familiar and formidable animals of the Fortieth and Fortyfirst chapters of the Book of Job have not for a number of years been the subject of close discussion, and it may be that, in daring to lay an academic hand upon them in this study, I shall have cause to remember the battle and will not do so again. Nevertheless, a case can be made for reopening the question of their identifications and it is the purpose of the following pages to present the results of a new enquiry. These results were first communicated to members of the Society for Old Testament Study on the occasion of its Thirty-ninth Summer Meeting held at Grey College, Durham, England, in mid-July, 1963. Apart from the addition of appropriate bibliography and some technical notes, the present study is largely the same paper as was then given, maintained at its original and rather simple level of argument. It will be appropriate to introduce the subject with a brief rsum of the different views which have been held in the matter. And here it may first be mentioned that, although quite unwittingly at the time, the paper of 1963 was read on an important tercentenary occasion. It was in fact in 1663 that there was published in London, in two large folio volumes, the first edition of Samuel BOCHART'S Hierot(picony sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacrae Scripturae. The relevance of this long standard work, and BOCHART'S position regarding the animals of our interest, can be quickly seen from chapter headings to be found in his second volume, Book V. Thus one reads : "Chap. XV. [Probatur] mM Behemoth Job. 40.10 non esse Elephantem, ut volunt, sed Hippopotamum''. Another reads: "Chap. XVI. Job. 40.20. etc., Leviathanis nomine non significari Balaenam, sed Crocodilum". Additionally two further chapters are devoted to Leviathan, namely, Chap. XVII which is concerned with the animal as it is described in Job xli, and Chap. XVIII which examines its place in the Talmud. BOCHART was a fine scholar in his day, and one may suppose that Hiero^picon gave much credence to the idea that Behemoth and

j . v. K I N N I E R WILSON

Leviathan in the Job story should be regarded as actual living animals. However, only four years later, in 1667, another side to the argument appeared with the publication of John MILTON'S Paradise Lost. In this account both Behemoth and Leviathan are portrayed as creatures of vast size. Thus during the creation of the first animals there was an occasion (Book VII, 470-472) when scarce from his mould Behemoth, biggest born of earth, upheaved His vastness; and similarly in Book I, 200if., we are introduced to that sea-beast Leviathan, which God of all his works Created hugest that swim the ocean-stream. Him, haply slumbering on the Norway foam, The pilot of some small night-foundered skiff, Deeming some island, oft, as seamen tell, With fixed anchor in his scaly rind, Moors by his side under the lee, while night Invests the sea, and wished morn delays. Since MILTON, a son of Christ's College, Cambridge, was both scholar and poet, his views deserve their place; and indeed, as far as Leviathan is concerned, one could point to the witness of certain early copper-plate prints that belief in even very large sea-serpents was at one time quite generally held. After such beginningsand particularly perhaps in the years following the publication, in 1876, of George SMITH'S The Chaldean Account of Genesisthere came a time when comparative mythology began increasingly to be studied, and by the end of the nineteenth century the trend was evidently towards some kind of mythological solution to the problem. C. H. TOY first set the new scene in 1892 1)9 his argument being that Behemoth and Leviathan were water-animals and therefore associable with the primeval seas Apsu and Tiamat as they appeared to be presented in the emerging Babylonian Epic of Creation. Shortly afterwards Hermann GUNKEL 2) took the rather different position that the two animals of the poem were dependent respectively on the figures of Kingu and Tiamat in the Creation story. The name of T. K. CHEYNE 3) is to be associated with the mythological
x

) Judaism and Christianity, p p . 162 fF. ) Schpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und End^eit (1895), p p . 41 ff. 3 ) Encyclopaedia Biblica I (1899), p p . 519 ff.
2

BEHEMOTH AND LEVIATHAN

school at this time, and indeed he had much earlier stated, although without real development, "The truth is that neither Behemoth nor Leviathan corresponds strictly to any known animal" x ). The turn of the century produced a somewhat compromise proposal in which "the leviathan of Job xli 1-34 is the crocodile, with added traits drawn from the ancient Creation myths" 2) and in more recent times a new approach again was adopted by TUR-SINAI (TORCZYNER) 3) who rather cleverly dismissed Behemoth altogether and suggested that the one long passage from xl 15 onwards is concerned with the single and powerful figure of the mythological Leviathan. He was closely followed in this conclusion by M. Th. HOUTSMA 4 ). Finally in this group M. H. POPE 5) proposed that the Leviathan of Job may be directly equated with the now well-known Itn... d-sbct rasm, "Leviathan with seven heads", found in Ugaritic mythology 6 ), and then sought a suitable understudy for Behemoth in the cgl il ctk, or "ferocious bullock of El", which, in a unique passage, the goddess Anat boasts of having conquered along with Leviathan 7 ). Of much importance in connection with these opinions is the evidence of Ps. lxxiv 14, and its allusion to the tradition of a Leviathan with many heads once smitten by the Almighty in early time. It remains to document those schools of opinion which would regard the Behemoth and Leviathan of the Job narrative as real animals, allowance being made in most cases for a presumed element of exaggeration in the account or for the suggestion that the author was in some part unfamiliar with his subject. We have already seen what was BOCHART'S opinion in 1663. Indeed, the idea that Behemoth was the hippopotamus and Leviathan the crocodile has been remarkably persistent and is associated with such names as HOFFMAN 8 ),
) Job and Solomon (1887), p . 56. ) J. TAYLOR apud HASTINGS, Dictionary of the Bible, first edition (1909), p . 541. 3 ) Originally in Das Buch Hiob (1920), and later in The Book of Job', a new commentary (1957, revised edition, 1967), p p . 556 ff. 4 ) Textkritische Studien sytm Alten Testament (Leiden, 1925), p. 93. 5 ) T h e Anchor Bible '.Job (1965) p p . 268 ff. and 276 ff.
2 x

Cf. C. H . G O R D O N , UT,

Texts, N o . 67, i, 1-3; H . L. G I N S B E R G in P R I T C H A R D ,

AN ET, p . 138; G. R. D R I V E R , Canaanite Myths and Legends, p p . 103 ff. (Baal *I i 1-3, nd 28-30). 7 ) Text, after D R I V E R , of Baal V iii 59. It is to be noted that GINSBERG in AN ET, p. 137, translates 'El's bullock c Atak', and D R I V E R , op. cit., p. 87, 'El's rebellious calf, so that there is n o real agreement as to the most appropriate way of designating the animal. 8 ) Hiob (Kiel, 1891), p p . 89 and 90.

J. V. KINNIER WILSON

BUDDE i), D U H M 2 ), PEAKE 3 ), S. R. DRIVER 4 ), GRAY ), DHORME 6 ),

), HOLSCHER 8 ), FOHRER 9 ), and others. Of these commentators not all hold to the identifications with equal enthusiasm; in many cases it is possible to think that, being unconvinced by the mythological approach, they turn to a real life combination because they see no other course to follow. Moreover, nearly every proposal makes some allowance for a possible or probable displacement of verses in the Leviathan passage, either because of their unsuitability to the identification, or for the reason that the account as a whole seems out of balance with the much shorter Behemoth passage which precedes it. Two further opinions have to be presented. For these the initial difficulty is not so much as the attendant phrase "p5? OT"1W, "which I have made with thee", in the same verse. The argument is that the latter phrase conceals the foreign name of a large animal, and the two scholars who advance this suggestion, G. RICHTER 1 0 ) and G. R. DRIVER U ) , appeal to the Egyptian or specifically Coptic emsah, "crocodile", to reconstruct a Hebrew word "|57 with a similar meaning. In the some studyand indeed originally in a paper "Leviathan and Behemoth" presented to the XXII Congress of Orientalists at IstanbulDRIVER then develops the case for regarding the Leviathan of Job (but excluding Job xl 32-xli 3) as the whale, and in this opinion he found an early ally in F. HORST 1 2 ), whose authority is the account of the Istanbul Congress given by . H. ROWLEY in ThLZ 76 (1951), p. 700. In conclusion, while many will think that identifications of Leviathan as either the tunny 1 3 ) or dolphin 1 4 ) have been sufficiently
KISSANE ) Das Buch Hiob (Gottingen, 1896), p p . 242 ff. and 246 ff. ) Das Buch Hiob (Freiburg, 1897), p . 195. 3 ) T h e Century Bible '.Job (Edinburgh, 1905), p p . 335 if. and 338 ff. 4 ) The Book of Job in the Revised Version (Oxford, 1906), p p . 122 ff. 5 ) With S. R. D R I V E R , A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job {ICC series, E d i n b u r g h , 1921), p p . 352 ff. and 359 ff. e ) Le livre de Job (Paris, 1926), p p . 564 ff. and 570 ff. 7 ) The Book of Job (Dublin, 1939), p p . 286 ff. 8 ) Das Buch Hiob (Tubingen, 1952), p . 94. 9 ) Das Buch Hiob (Kommentar z u m Alten Testament, Band XVI, Gtersloh, 1963), p p . 521 ff. and 525 ff. 10 ) Textstudien %um Buche Hiob (Stuttgart, 1927), p p . 86 f. n ) "Mythical Monsters in the Old Testament", in Studi orientalistici m onore di G. Levi Della Vida (Rome, 1956), I, 234 ff., a study originally b r o u g h t to my
2 x

a t t e n t i o n by D . W I N T O N T H O M A S .

) Hiob (Biblischer K o m m e n t a r Altes Testament, Band X V I / 1 , Neukirchen, 1968), p . 46. 13 ) S. SPINNER, BZ 23 (1935-36), p . 148. 14 ) B. D . EERDMANS, Studies in Job (1939), p p . 27 ff.

12

BEHEMOTH AND LEVIATHAN

refuted by DRIVER in the study mentioned, it is proper that they should be included here for the sake of completeness. It is against the background of the above summary, briefly sketched as it has been, that the proposal made in this paper may now be given. Necessarily the summary has been mainly devoted to conclusions, and indeed even in the account which follows no criticism of individual positions has been attempted. It would not in any case be fair to do so without the full discussion they all deserve, so that, in default of this, the proposal is simply placed for consideration alongside those previously made. In this approach we shall begin by considering the main structure of the closing chapters of the Book of Job. This final episode begins at Chapter xxxviii with two long speeches delivered to Job by God from the whirlwind. The first of these with its central theme 'Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?' challenges Job's right to speak on matters beyond his knowledge, and in particular he is questioned about the mysteries of creation of several of God's most intricately formed animals. These are the lioness, mountain goat, wild ass and wild ox, the ostrich, war horse, hawk and vulture. God's second speech concerns Behemoth and Leviathanbut here the passages are supplied with what may be termed an introduction, an introductory eight verses, which have not hitherto been considered in relation to Behemoth and Leviathan, and, indeed, have been thought to be more of an embarrassment to the argument than the reverse. These verses are Job xl 8-14, and their general import is not in doubt. In these lines Job is being invited by God to become God himself. That this is the correct interpretation of the passage is particularly clear from verse 10 : "Pray, deck now thyself in glory and majesty, Clothe now thyself in splendour and state", for both p*tt, "majesty", and m m 1, "majestic splendour" or the like, are unmistakable attributes of divine authority (cf. Is. xxiv 14, etc. ; Ps. xcvi 6 and civ 1). It need only otherwise be said that the idea is in no sense new and is to be found in a number of the commentaries. Thus S. R. DRIVER X ) " A S Job had questioned the justice of God's rule of the world, he is now ironically invited to assume Divine attributes and rule it himself". Similar is the comment of the new
*) The Book of Job in the Revised Version (1906), p . 121. T h e same sentence appears
also in D R I V E R and G R A Y , Job, p. 349,

J. V. KINKIER WILSON

edition of The Century Bible: x) "Job is invited to assume the throne of the universe". Now, if this brave idea of the author of the Book of Job really ended at verse 14 (the eighth verse of the 'introduction') it is difficult to see the point of it. More than this, one could argue as do some scholars that the eight verses appear to be altogether intrusive in the context : chapter xxxix had been concerned with the lioness, mountian goat and others amongst God's animals, in chapter xl Job is summoned to put on the cloak of divine majesty, and then from verse 15 the story seemingly returns to the two further animals, Behemoth and Leviathan. But what if the verses are not intrusive, being in fact integral to all that follows? What if, in answer to God's summons, Job does assume the divine office in glory and majesty and must perforce act out the rle of god for a moment of time ? If one dares to think so, then our eight introductory verses take on a new importance for the correct understanding of Behemoth and Leviathan in the book. There are few problems in these verses, but for the sake of the continuity a translation may first be given, after which there follows at once a rendering of the Behemoth passage as we may newly understand it. The full passage is therefore Job xl 6-23. It might suitably be described: The Almighty's challenge to Job to become God like Himself, and the disastrous results of Job's attempt at Creation. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. And the Lord answered Job out of the storm wind, saying : Gird now thy loins like a man! (Again) do I question thee, and thou shalt answer me. Wouldst thou still dispute my authority And declare Me wrong so as to justify thyself Even if thou hadst an arm as strong as God's, And couldst thunder with a voice as loud as His ? Pray, deck now thyself in glory and majesty, Clothe now thyself in splendour and state! Pour forth the outbursts of thine anger, Look upon every one that is proud and abase him; Yea, look upon every one that is proud and bring him low, Tread down the wicked where they stand,

*) H. H. ROWLEY, > (1970), p. 327,

BEHEMOTH AND LEVIATHAN

13. 14. 15.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

Bury them in the dust together, Lay them, with shrouded face, in a common grave, So that even I may confess thee (to be a god) Seeing that thine own right hand can deliver for thee. (So) behold now "Behemoth" which I have made with thy help. He eats grass like an ox; Behold the strength of him in his loins And the might of him in the muscles of his paunch. But his tail is as stiff as a cedar! The sinews of his thighs are (all) intertwined! His ribs are as tubes of copper! His backbone as a bar of iron! Shall this be the first of the works of a 'God' ? Will his 'Maker' then bring near companions for him? Why, the cattle of the mountains would howl at him And every beast of the field laugh (in scorn), (Saying) : 'There doth he lie under the lotus-trees, In the shelter of rushes and marsh, The lotuses covering him with their shadow, The willow-trees compassing him about. Behold, if the river breaks its banks he will not run off; He would stay hidden in his lair though (all) Jordan were rushing forth!"

By way of commentary on the above passage it may first be noted that the difficult verse 15 which has been thought by many commentators to be without sense has been rendered quite literally, 'Behold now "Behemoth" which I have made with thee (or, with thy help)'. Behemoth, it is suggested, was the joint creation of the Almighty (who evidently must Himself initiate the work) and Job. Previous translations of *|57 such as 'like thee', 'equally with thee', 'as well as thee', give a poor sense within the total context of the passage. In vv. 15b and 16 it is presumed that God's share of the joint work is being described, and no comment is necessary. But the situation changes dramatically in verses 17 if. With regard, firstly, to v. 17a, 'But his tail is as stiff as a cedar', the philology is that of recent scholarship x ), and only the exclamation
*) Cf. most easily ROWLEY, op. cit., p . 329.

J. V

KINNIER WILSON

mark is mine. The latter, however, is necessary, for the object of tails is that they should bend; the tail of Job's Behemoth does not. Similarly, in v. 17b, 'The sinews of his thighs are all intertwined', the exclamation mark is again needed. Sinews should not be intertwined or twisted (JHtP); they should be separate. Moreover, the tragedy of Behemoth is clear also from 18, where his ribs, which should be hard and strong, are likened to 'tubes of copper and were therefore hollow and crushable (copper being a soft metal), while his backbone which should be supple and articulate to allow of movement is likened to a 'bar of iron', and so was quite the reverse It should be mentioned that the translations 'ribs' and 'backbone' in the verse have been taken from the LXX ,, 'His ribs are ribs of copper, His backbone is cast iron', although it is possible that D257 refers to strong bones generally. It is of interest that the LXX also discovers an element of the ridiculous in these verses ;*) but we follow GERLEMAN 2 ) in accepting that the version probably regards the whole passage as descriptive of Leviathan. With the new theme developing, the remaining verses have been translated en suite. Thus, firstly, in v. 19a, the initial 1 of 1 VK"O*n has been rendered as an emphatic and sarcastic 'thts' (a majority of translations recognise no emphasis at all at this point), and in 19b the unsuitable , 'his sword', has been emended with other authorities into 13, 'his companions', to give point to what follows. Nothing need be wrong with WVT] if the first letter is taken as the interrogative particle, thus 2 7 , and the suitability of this rendering within the theory as a whole is that, by 'his maker', God is not speaking of Himself but of Job. The repointing of w (jussive) to a straight imperfect is an old, and still necessary, alteration
*) T h u s for 17a the Greek has ' H e makes his tail t o stand u p like a cypress', and this idea may have had something to d o with the strange conclusion of 19 ' , ' H e is the first (product) of G o d ' s modelling, A thing made to be laughed at by His angels' 2 ) Studies in the Septuagmt I, Book of Job (Lund, 1946), p p 40 and 42 f.

BEHEMOTH AND LEVIATHAN

In v. 20 the analysis proposed follows G. R. DRIVER *) in interpreting Via in the light of the common Akk. blu> 'cattle', 'beasts' whereby Vo, 'the cattle of the mountains', becomes nicely parallel to n w n lTr^D 'all the beasts of the field' in the second half of the verse. As to the verbs of the line, the first is taken as an example of Kfrl with ellipse of Vip, 'to lift up (the voice)'. The use is well substantiated, and it may be suggested that a further example occurs with reference to Leviathan in Job xli 17, n*01& VW irifr, 'at the lifting up of his (voice), even the mightiest are afraid'. The expression, however, is found also in happier contexts, as in Is. xlii 11 where iKtiP, 'let them rejoice', is parallel to i r r , 'let them shout (for joy)', and it is something of this nuance which is required in the present context. As to the VDP? f v' 20b, this is retained unaltered, and indeed in the meaning 'they would laugh' it is one of the words which first suggested the theory being presented in these pages 2 ). Finally, the somewhat periphrastic rendering of TWT in v. 23 based on Arab, bataha, 'lay, or fell, flat on the belly', stands in obvious obligation to G. R. DRIVER 3 ), as does also that of ptfST, which is interpreted through Arab. cgasaqa, 'gushed, poured, streamed forth'. My rendering 'breaks its banks' will be seen to be this idea if one imagines a river gushing, pouring or streaming forth through a breach. The general sense is taken to be that nothing, not even a natural calamity, will tempt the shamefaced Behemoth to leave his hide-away at the riverside and confront the mockery of his fellow creatures. As a postscript, a question may be asked concerning the essential nature of Behemoth, as this is presented by his real creator, namely, the author of the book of Job. The answer which we would suggest is that Behemoth was -like', and for three reasons. The first is that there is still every reason to associate the (invented) name of Behemoth with Heb. behe?%h, primarily meaning 'beasts', 'cattle'. Secondly, the phrase 'he eats grass like an ox' suggests that he was indeed to some
) In the Festschrift Levi Delia Vida (cf. note 22, above), p . 237, note 3. ) It is of interest, and may be thought significant, that the same verbs occur together in Ugaritic, e.g. (Baal II 25-26) : shq.btlt.cnt.tfu
2 x

gh.

jptsh....

' T h e virgin Anat did laugh, he lifted u p her voice and cried: ('Be gladdened, Baal; I have b r o u g h t thee glad tidings).' (Translation of G. R. D R I V E R , Canaanite Myths and Legends, p . 97. 3 ) I n Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (ed. , . ROWLEY), p p . 59-60.

10

J. V. KINNIER WILSON

extent like an ox, owing to the Almighty's share in the joint work. And, thirdly, if we have correctly understood the meaning of v. 20 with its picture of the cattle of the mountains laughing in derision at Behemoth, then who should laugh louder than the animals of his own kind and species ? We turn now to Leviathan; and first it may be said that, if the theory being advanced in these pages should be wrong about Behemoth, it will be wrong also about Leviathan. For the view is taken that the eight 'introductory' verses still apply, that Job is still 'decked in glory and majesty', and that, in the bold imagination of our author, he is for a time as God Himself. Yet in this connection it is not so much Leviathan as the battle with Leviathan which will be the main focus of our attention, and, indeed, there is a term which we may not improperly use of Job in this rle. With Behemoth Job became temporarily a Creator-god: with Leviathan we shall introduce the concept of Job as a Hero-god. And our thesis shall be that the one concept is as ridiculous as the other, and that the author of the book meant it to be so. For a moment we may expand a little on the term Hero-god. It is a term which is particularly used in Assyriological studies to denote a young deity who defeats some monster or other adversary in battle. In Sumerian times none was more famous than Ninurta (or Ningirsu), son of Enlil, whose exploits against Asag/Asakku and the 'stormbird', Anz, are well known, and such also was Marduk, god of Babylon, at the time of his encounter with Tiamat, Kingu, and the eleven monsters. The additional point has to be made that the adversary of such a Hero-god was always in fact a mythological adversary. Now, the theory of Job as a Hero-god will hold together only if Leviathan is a mythological animal, and it is first necessary to state that this condition is accepted. In personal belief there are several verses which speak for this conclusion, none perhaps more telling than xli 19-21 which describe graphically the smoke and flame which proceed from the mouth and nostrils of the monster. Moreover, the idea that Leviathan was a great (sea) serpent which may be proposed on the authority of the nh s o Is. li 9, is suggested again by the 'rows of shields' (D^ft ysx) which evidently describe the huge scales of Leviathan in the account of Job xli 7 ff. Yet another argument derives from xl 31 where the text is nwn OTT
VSVMI

inw

TVDD

x^nn

BEHEMOTH AND LEVIATHAN

11

We would understand this to mean, 'Will you load his skin into a boat, or his head into a fishing vesseP' In this connection the philological support appears to be sound *), and if the verse is accepted in this way the great size of Leviathan is indicated accordingly. As to the possible argument that certain lines in the passage involve hyperbole or exaggeration, we find this difficult to accept in view of the extent to which it is necessary to go to make the idea realistic There are two further matters which may be raised here in connection with the concept of Job, the Hero-god, which we are seeking to develop. The first is that, from all the parallels found in early Near Eastern literature, battles with the monsters of mythology seem always to have occurred in that legendary twilight of the beginning of things, and it is a necessary feature of our interpretation that we set the stage for just such a period of time. Secondly, it is important to note that the one consistent fact about all the Leviathan passages in the OTincluding Ps. lxxiv 14 (God's smiting of Leviathan), Ps. civ 26 (the subdued Leviathan as God's plaything in the sea), and Amos ix 3 (the serpent, Nhs, of the sea)is that they speak for an animal either
*) The starting point is necessarily in which we are inclined t o see another example of the H e b )(?), 'ship', 'boat', as recovered, amongst others, by GINSBERG and A L B R I G H T on the basis of Is n 16 (where it is found parallel t o ), E g skt(y) for, sk ty], and Ugar tkt (cf ALB RI GH T'S study in Festschrift Alfred Bertholet (Tubingen, 1950), 5, note 2) T h e argument is accepted by O LAMBDIN, " E g y p t i a n loan words in the Old Testament", JAOS 73 (1953), p p 154 f T h e same conclusion, although proposed in terms of a H e b TOW as 'ship' or 'bark', is reached by G R D R I V E R in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, pp 52 f (I owe the reference t o J A EMERTON), where also in our J o b passage the L X X translation , 'floating', is advanced as additional evidence for the w o r d O n e may notice also that an even more original suggestion by B U D D E in AW, N F 8 (1931), 198, is the basis of the entry STW, "Scruff", in K O E H L E R BAUM GARTNER, Lexicon in Veten s Testamenti Libros, 921 F r o m this position it is then attractive t o t h i n k that VsVSSl in the second half of the verse incorporates that Vs 1 ?^, 'ship', 'vessel', which many translators see in Is xvin 1, with the support of L X X (), T h e o d o t i o n and (probably) T a r g u m T h e basic evidence will be found in GESENIUS-BUHL, Handwrterbuch, 685, but is treated more completely in G R D R I V E R , op at, 56, where also the Aram K V S V S 'ship', and, indeed, the L X X translation in the verse under discussion is b r o u g h t into the argument Finally, 8 v (Pi c el) in a presumed meaning 'to load', has the support of Akk mullu in this sense as in mre burfa mul-la-ma, 'load the donkeys with juniper w o o d ' , O R GURNEY, AnSt 7,128 References to other examples will be found in VON SODEN, Akkadisches Handwrterbuch 598, under mal, D 3 , " b e l a d e n " , interestingly, they include the line, -ma-al-li eleppa-ki sim-ma-na-a, have laoded your boat with travel provisions', for which see also the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, 7,194.

12

J . V. KINNIER WILSON

defeated by God, or under the control of God. God is the only person who is concerned with Leviathan, and, if one accepts the point, it would seem to support the idea that Job's association with Leviathan is on the divine plane also. With these considerations before us, the way is now open to suggest that, in this final episode, the author is taking us back in time to witness a kind of historical re-enactment of the second most important of God's great works after that of creation, namely, the defeat of Leviathan. O n this occasion, however, it is not God who is in charge, but Job. The fire-breathing Leviathan is resurrected in all his pristine fury, but it is not God who prepares to do battle; it is Job,Job, the Hero-god. And, inevitably, the battle never takes place. 'Will you draw out Leviathan with a fish-hook?', asks God in the last of his series of unanswerable questions. O r will you fasten his tongue with a cord? Will you tighten a rope round his nose? Or will you pierce through his gills with a thorn?' 1 ) The pattern of argument is already clear. Faced with the full terror of the animal, Job finds that he has neither the qualities nor even the equipment to capture Leviathan, and almost from the beginning the brave concept of Job the Hero-god is no more. The full weight of the extensive sarcasm may be read in the translations, but with regard to the reconstruction the important point is to realise the essential difference between the Behemoth and the Leviathan passages. The former begins "Behold now Behemoth', but the latter does not begin 'Behold now Leviathan'. It launches straight away into a hypothetical description of Job's attempts to catch the animal. In other words, there is a fundamental difference in the way the two animals are employed in the narrative which one feels that any right interpretation is bound to recognise. It is time to summarise the findings of this paper. Its essential point is that, hitherto, theories concerning Behemoth and Leviathan have made them to be two of a kind, whether two mythological animals or
*) Text of J o b xl 25-26 (although it seems likely that the Leviathan section actually begines at verse 24). It may be noted that ^? in v. 26b will hardly mean 'jaw', which is little involved in the catching of sea creatures. The proposed translation 'gills' invokes the secondary meaning 'cheek'.

BEHEMOTH AND LEVIATHAN

13

two animals of natural history. There has not yet been a theory (such as is now offered) which sees them to be of totally different kinds, and which understands the parallelsim of thought to lie not in the animals themselves, but in two hypothetical aspects of Job,Job the Creatorgod and Job the Hero-god. The evidence for this conclusion comes directly from the book itself, and is contained particularly in the divine summons to Job, 'Deck now thyself in glory and majesty, Clothe now thyself in splendour and state', a summons which had evidently to be obeyed. This construction we think to have several advantages over those previously held. Thus, firstly, we do not find it necessary to ascribe the authorship of the chapters, either in whole or in part, to any other writer but the author of the Book of Job. Both chapters belong naturally, and powerfully, to the climax of the argument. Moreover, the two cycles of speeches from the whirlwind must be seen to be quite different in their motivation, and need to be separated from each other quite as the author has done. It is mistaken, we think, to suggest that Behemoth and Leviathan belong properly in the same milieu as the lioness, mountain goat, wild ass and other animals of the first speech, and that Job xl 7-14 does nothing but interrupt the connection between them. Furthermore, and it is not the least of considerations, the theory offered finds nothing wrong with the order of verses, and only minimal alterations have had to be made to the received text. In particular, it recognises no problem of imbalance in the number of verses ascribed severally to Behemoth and Leviathan, since the view is taken that the two passages do not stand in parallel. Equally, it sees no reason to reduce the number of verses in the long Leviathan section since here, after all, is the climax of the book, and the stronger and the more terrible that Leviathan is made to be, so the smaller and the more humbled does Job become in direct contrast. It is on this note of the humiliation of Job that our account may end. Here is the old ending now seen in a clearer and more powerful light. On the one hand God has invited Job to assume the mantle of a Creator-god, and the ill-starred Behemoth is the result. On the other hand He required of Job that he become the Hero-god and Dragonslayer, and before the immensity of the animal, described verse by verse in an agonizing detail, Job realises that he has no answer. God has indeed granted Job the trial before Him which he asked for, but

14

KINNIER WILSON, BEHEMOTH AND LEVIATHAN

it is not the trial he expected. It is a trial of another sort, one in which his whole argument comes crashing to the ground, and, with it, the fullness of his former pride and presumption. Herein lies the timeless message of the book. Job is the story of a man who refused to believe that he was, or could be, wrong.

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.