A tale of two monsters: The Chaoskampf myth and Revelation 13

Authors

  • Hugo A. Cotro Universidad Adventista del Plata

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56487/dl.v21i1.1025

Abstract

Suplemento especial DavarLogos

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

E.g., for Jacob B. Smith, the sea is the Mediterranean while the earth represents Palestine

(A Revelation of Jesus Christ: Acommentary on the book of Revelation [Scottdale,PA: Herald

Press, 1961], 192, 202). JohnT.Hinds thinks the sea symbolizes the agitated state of men and

nations, but the earth is for him the RomanEmpire (Revelation [Nashville,TN: Gospel Advocate, 1976], 184, 191). GrantR.Osborne regards both the sea and the earth as representations of the realm of evil (Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

[GrandRapids,MI: Eerdmans, 2002], 478).

For instance, Louis A. Brighton suggests as many as five representative layers simultaneously

present in the sea motif: the source and abode of evil, nations in turmoil, chaos, the Western

Mediterranean, and wicked people hostile to God (Revelation, Concordia Commentary:

A Theological Exposition of Sacred Scripture [SaintLouis,MO: Concordia, 1999], 348, 349).

Scholars such as David E. Aune and Gregory K. Beale see in the sea a representation of the

Western Mediterranean as the provenance of the Roman dominion from the perspective of Asia

(DavidE.Aune, Revelation 6-16, WBC52b [Nashville,TN: Nelson, 1998], 732, 733; Gregory K. Beale, The book of Revelation, The New International Greek Testament Commentary

[GrandRapids,MI: Eerdmans, 1999], 680, 682). Others think it is a symbol of Diaspora Judaism (Rick Van de Water, “Reconsidering the Beast from the Sea,” NTS 46 [2000]: 245-261).

And even others, such as M.Eugene Boring and DavidL.Barr interpret the sea as a symbol of the

Roman empire itself (M.EugeneBoring, Revelation, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for

Teaching and Preaching [Louisville,KY: John Knox, 1989], 155, 156; David L. Barr, Tales of the

end: A narrative commentary on the book of Revelation [Santa Rosa,CA: Polebridge, 1998], 127).

In regard to the earth, Leon Morris and Josephine M. Ford, among others, point to Asia Minor

as the referent behindγῆ, while some others see it as a representation of Palestinian Judaism

(LeonMorris, Revelation, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids,MI:

Eerdmans, 1987], 166; JosephineM.Ford, Revelation, AnchorBible 38 [GardenCity,NY: Doubleday, 1975], 213; Van de Water, “Reconsidering,” 245-261).

Friedrich Duesterdieck, an exponent of this view, says the second beast is said to come out of

the earth because it is to work upon its inhabitants. Thus, the reference to the earth is a literary

association (FriedrichH.C.Duesterdieck, Critical and exegetical handbook to the Revelation of

John, translated from the 3rd ed. of the German, ed. Henry E. Jacobs [New York: Funk and

Wagnalls, 1887], 379). Richard C. Lenski sees the earth and sea as two literary images pointing to a mundane origin, with no further symbolism (The interpretation of St. John’s Revelation

[Minneapolis,MN: Augsburg, 1963], 139).

Isa 17,12.13; Jer 51,13.42.55.56; Ezek 26,3.

So Simon Kistemaker, Revelation, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids,MI: Baker,

, 377; HenryB. Swete, TheApocalypse of St. John: The Greek text with introduction, notes,

and indices (GrandRapids,MI: Eerdmans, 1951), 161.

Building on the previous work of Hermann Günkel (Creation and chaos in the primeval era and

the eschaton: A religio-historical study of Genesis 1 and Revelation12 [Grand Rapids,MI: Eerdmans, 2006]), Willhelm Bousset (The antichrist legend: A chapter in Christian and Jewish folklore [Atlanta,GA: Scholars Press, 1999]), and others; of these, Adela Yarbro Collins has been

one of the foremost modern expositors of this view in her The combat myth in the book of Revelation (Missoula,MT: Scholars Press, 1976), 164-166. Seealso Wilfrid J.Harrington, Revelation,

Sacra Pagina 16 (Collegeville,MN: Liturgical Press, 1993), 138; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza,

Revelation: Vision of a just world (Minneapolis,MN: Fortress, 1991), 83; Earle Hilgert, The ship

and related symbols in the NewTestament (Assen: Royal Vangorcum, 1962), 43. On an unfounded and excessive earlier enthusiasm on some alleged parallels between the ancient NearEastern

mythical literature and theOT, see Peter C. Craigie, “Ugaritic and the Bible: Progress and regress in fifty years of literary study,” in Ugaritic in retrospect: Fifty years of Ugarit and Ugaritic,

ed.GordonD.Yound (WinonaLake,IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 100, 101. See also Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL81 (1962): 1-13; TerenceL.Donaldson, “Parallels: Use, misuse and

limitations,” EQ55 (1983): 193, 196; Pierre Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St.John

(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 67, 68. On the main limitations of this kind of comparative

studies, seeJohnCourt, Myth and history in the book of Revelation (London: SPCK, 1979), 18.

On the analogic rather than genealogic relationship between the Bible and its contemporary

cultural background, see AdolfDeissmann, Light from the Ancient East (NewYork: George H.

Doran, 1927), 266. On the philosophical and cultural roots and presuppositions informing the

history-of-religions movement in nineteenth-century Germany, see George S.Williamson, The

longing for myth in Germany: Religion and aesthetic culture from Romanticism to Nietzsche (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2004).

According to this view, each ancient Near people had its own version of that myth. The Babylonians preserved the battle between Marduk and Tiamat in their poem EnumaElish (lit.“When

on high”), named after the words with which the story starts. In the case of the Canaanites, the

primeval contenders were Baal and the sea god. In the Egyptian version of the myth, the protagonists of the conflict were Horus and Seth. The Greeks had Apollo and Python. With some

variations, the essential characteristics of the ANEchaos-combat myth can be summarized as a

contest between two deities, one represented as a primeval, chaotic sea opposed to order, life and

creation on the one hand, and a creator deity defeating the former after a cruel struggle. In some

forms of the myth, the hero recovers after being wounded or even killed by his contender, to

finally defeat him, thus bringing order and life from chaos and sterility and becoming the head

of the pantheon.

See her published dissertation, The combat myth in the book of Revelation, 2, 3, 164-166; see also

Adela Yarbro Collins, TheApocalypse, New Testament Message 22 (Collegeville,MN: Liturgical

Press, 1990), 90, 94, 95. For a more recent sample of Yarbro Collins’s sustained chaos myth

reading of Revelation, see Adela Yarbro Collins, Cosmology and eschatology in Jewish and Christian apocalypticism (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 205; Yarbro Collins, “Source criticism of the book of

Revelation,” BR43 (1998): 51; “Apocalyptic themes in biblical literature,” Int 53 (1999): 117,

-128; Yarbro Collins, “Feminine symbolism in the book of Revelation,” in Afeminist

companion to the Apocalypse of John, ed.Amy-Jill Levine and Maria Mayo Robbins, Feminist

Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings 13 (London: T&TClark,

, 9, 10, 131-146. Although source criticism and the comparative method of the history

of religions have become a working consensus among the critical scholars, particularly in regard

to the book of Daniel, one of John’s main sources for Revelation13, there is also an important

number of others questioning both the presuppositions and the methodological limitations of

both paradigms. See, for instance, AdolfDeissmann, Light from the Ancient East (NewYork:

George H. Doran, 1927), 266; Arthur J. Ferch, “Daniel 7 and Ugarit: A reconsideration,”

JBL99 (1980): 75-86; Andrew Steinmann, Daniel, Concordia Commentary (St.Louis,MO:

Concordia Publishing House, 2008), 333-335; Peter C. Craigie, “Ugaritic and the Bible: Progress and regress in fifty years of literary study,” in Ugaritic in retrospect: Fiftyyears of Ugarit and

Ugaritic, ed.Gordon D. Young (Winona Lake,IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 100, 101; Peter C. Craigie,“The poetry of Ugarit and Israel,” TynBul 22 (1971): 3-31; Bruce M. Metzger, “Considerations of methodology in the study of the mystery religions and early Christianity,” HTR 48

(1955): 1-20; Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL81 (1962): 1-13; TerenceL.Donaldson,

“Parallels: Use, misuse and limitations,” EQ55 (1983): 193, 196; Pierre Prigent, Commentary on

the Apocalypse of St.John (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 67, 68; John Court, Myth and history in the book of Revelation (London: SPCK, 1979), 18; Martin McNamara, The New Testament

and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Analecta Biblica 27a (Rome: Pontifical Biblical

Institute, 1978), 191; Gregory K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish apocalyptic literature and in

the Revelation of St.John (Lanham,MD: University Press of America, 1984), 230, 231; Gregory

K. Beale, Revelation, 634; Morris, Revelation, 156; Prigent, Apocalypse, 178; Eggler, Influences

and traditions, 7-14, 28-35. For at least two critical scholars favorable to a biblical provenance

of the symbolism of the beasts in Dan7, see Louis F. Hartmann and Alexander A. DiLella, The

book of Daniel, Anchor Bible 23 (GardenCity,NY: Doubleday, 1978), 212.

See Hermann Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine Religionsgeschichtliche

Untersuchung über Gen1 und Apokalypse Johannis 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht,

; published in English under the title Creation and chaos: Inthe primeval era and the eschaton; A religio-historical study of Genesis 1 and Revelation12 (Grand Rapids,MI: Eerdmans,

, 91-95; Ford, Revelation, 210; Robert H. Charles, Eschatology: The doctrine of a future life

(New York: Schocken Books, 1963), 407, note 1. Sharing this view, Gunkel’s work was followed

by Willhelm Bousset’s, The antichrist legend: A chapter in Christian and Jewish folklore (Atlanta,GA: Scholars Press, 1999), originally published in German in 1895.

Yarbro Collins, Combat myth, 1

Ibid., 2.

Ibid., 3.

See also Ford, Revelation, 218.

Yarbro Collins, Combat myth, 67. Albrecht Dieterich was the first to argue that the Leto myth

was a parallel to the woman in Rev 12 in his Abraxas: Studien zur Religionsgeschichte des Spätern

Altertums (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1891), 117 passim. On this, see Diane Treacy-Cole, “Women

in the wilderness: Rereading Revelation12,” in Wilderness: Essays in honour of Frances Young,

ed.R. S. Sugirtharajah (Edinburgh: T&TClark, 2005), 45.

E.g., 4 Esdr (or 2 Esdr) 6,49-53; 2 Apoc. Bar. 29,3-8; 1 Enoch 60,7-11, 34; Apoc. Abr. 10,21;

Joseph and Aseneth 12. Besides these, Beale also mentions the Babylonian Talmud, tractate

B.Bat. 74b-75a; Pesikta de RabKahana, supplement 2.4, and Mid.Lev 13,3 (Revelation, 682,

; J. B. Smith also includes 4 Ezra 4,19; 6,41.42; 16,58; Sir 43,23; and Pr Man 3 (Revelation, 238). See also Ben Witherington III, Revelation, New Cambridge Bible Commentary

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 180, 181, note 294; Leonard L. Thompson,

Revelation, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville,TN: Abingdon, 1998), 138,

; Boring, Revelation, 155; David E. Aune, Apocalypticism, prophecy, and magic in early Christianity: Collected essays (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 137, 161 passim. However, Aune

recognizes that “among the protological and eschatological myths of the Jewish apocalyptic

there is no close parallel to Revelation 13” (Apocalypticism, prophecy, and magic in early Christianity: Collected essays, 137). Robert W. Wall is even more cautious: “It is not clear how or if

he [ John] intends to use particulars of that myth [i.e., on the Jewish apocalyptic Behemoth

and Leviathan] to interpret the evil role of this second beast” (Revelation, New International

Biblical Commentary 18 [Peabody,MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991], 171). Gerhard Krodel

is openly against any link between the land beast of Rev 13,11 and Job 40 or later Jewish speculation on it (1Enoch 60,7-10 explicitly quoted) on the other (Revelation, Augsburg Commentary

on the New Testament [Minneapolis,MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1989], 253).

For a comprehensive array of scholarly opinions about the similarities between the Ras Shamra

literature and Isa 27,1, seeLoren R. Fisher, ed., Ras Shamra Parallels, Analecta Orientalia 49

(Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1972), 1:33-35. Among the authors favorable to the

OT borrowing of AncientNear eastern mythic tales, see Hilgert, Ship and related symbols, 43;

Vacher Burch, Anthropology and the Apocalypse (London: Macmillan, 1939), 87 passim. On

such proposed parallelisms as unfounded, see Craigie, “Ugaritic,” 100, 101; cf. Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” 1-13; T. L. Donaldson, “Parallels: Use, misuse and limitations,” 193, 196; Prigent,

Commentary, 67, 68; Martin McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the

Pentateuch, Analecta Biblica 27a (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978), 191.

See, for instance, Beale, Revelation, 682, 683. For a reassessment and dismissal of such alleged

mythic traces in OTtexts, see Rebecca Sally Watson, Chaos uncreated: A reassessment of the

theme of “chaos” in the Hebrew Bible (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005), 369 and following.

OnJob 40-41, see ibid., 319, 333-368, 392, 394, passim. On Ps 74, see ibid., 152-168, 193, 391,

OnIsa 51,9-11, see ibid., 273, 291, 300, 318. On Isa 27, see ibid., 273, 327-332, 366-368,

, 394.

James Pritchard, ANET, 3rd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), 1969. For an updated collection of ancient Near Eastern mythic documents, see William Hallo, The context of

Scripture: Canonical compositions from the biblical world; The context of Scripture (Leiden: Brill,

, vol. 1.

In this regard, S. N. Kramer comments in his introductory note on the Sumerian paradise myth

of Enki and Ninhursag: “The main purpose of the myth as a whole is by no means clear and the

literary and mythological implications of its numerous and varied motifs are not readily analyzable” (S. N. Kramer, “Sumerian myths and epic tales,” in Pritchard, ANET, 3rd ed., 37).

In the introductory comment to his translation of the Hittite myths, epics, and legends in

Pritchard’s ANET, AlbrechtGoetze states: “The nature of this publication has made it necessary

to be liberal with restorations and to adopt sometimes rather free translations. Some scholars

may feel that on occasion I have gone beyond the justifiable in this respect” (Albrecht Goetze,

“Hittite myths, epics, and legends,” in Pritchard, ANET, 3rd ed., 120, note 1).

Ibid., 60.

To illustrate with an example from mathematics, it could be said that several conjuncts of

different components are closely related to each other in the light of some shared elements.

If conjunct A includes the numbers 1 and 2, and a conjunct B has 3 and 4, one could say that

they have commonalities which link them together: (1)they are integrated only by numbers,

(2)they have two numbers each, (3)there is one odd number in both cases, (4)there is one

multiple of two in each, and finally (5)there is a progression among the digits integrating

both groups. And they are still two different conjuncts. But suppose that we have a conjunctX

made up of the numbers 1, 2, 3; a conjunctY integrated by the elements 0, a, ?, red; and a

conjunct Z containing %, *, f5, @, 4. The number and nature of the components is different

in each case, and the only thing they have in common is one arabic number each. Thus, it is

difficult to see how the three conjuncts could be regarded as variations from a same common

ancestor or branches from a same family tree. In the same way, the different mythic materials

proposed as an interpretative pattern of Rev 12 and 13 make it difficult to recognize a derivative relationship or a common pattern. On the ANE myths as too historically distant and

too dissimilar from the storyline in Rev 12, see András Dávid Pataki, “A non-combat myth in

Revelation 12,” NTS 57 (2011): 271, 272.

These are the Egyptian “the repulsing of the dragon and the creation,” “the primeval establishment of order,” “the repulsing of the dragon,” “the contest of Horus and Seth for the rule,” the

Sumerian paradise myth about Enki and Ninhursag, the tale about Dumuzi and Enkidu,

the dispute between the shepherd-god and the farmer-god, the Assyrian creation epic (EnumaElish), the myth of Zu, the Hittite myth of kingship in heaven, the song of Ullikummis, and

the myth of Illuyankas. Insome of them, the combat motif is only secondary or even tangential.

In some cases, both motifs (creation and conflict) are present in the same myth, as two thematic

axes within the same narrative. That is the situation in the Egyptian saga “the repulsing of the

dragon and the creation,” and in “the primeval establishment of order.”

The Akkadian myth of Zu, the Hittite myth of Illuyankas, the Canaanite or Ugaritic epic of Baal

versus Yamm, and the Babylonian saga of Tiamat and Marduk. Besides those Semitic examples,

she also includes the Egyptian conflict between Horus and Seth and that of Apollo with Python

in Greece (see Yarbro Collins, Combat myth, 2).

The Egyptian myth of the conflict between Seth-Typhon and Isis-Horus. Although there is an

element of struggle in the other four which Yarbro Collins quotes, namely those of Zu and

Illuyankas, Tiamat versus Marduk, and Baal versus Yamm, creation, not conflict, is the main

thematic focus of these. Even counting all five, they are still not a convincing representation of a

pervasive mythic paradigm

The same applies to a careful reading of those same myths in the more recent compilation by

William Hallo, The context of Scripture, vol. 1: Canonical composition from the biblical world

(Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1997).

Contrary to E. A. Speiser’s introductory comments on the Babylonian creation epic (the EnumaElish): “The struggle between cosmic order and chaos was to the ancient Mesopotamians a

fateful drama that was renewed at the turn of each year” (E. A. Speiser, “Akkadian myths and

epics,” in Pritchard, ANET, 3d ed., 60).

A clear example of this are the Egyptian myths known as “The fields of paradise” (Pritchard,

rd ed., 33), “The repulsing of the dragon” (ibid., 11), and “The repulsing of the dragon and the

creation” (ibid., 6), all of them having to do with the “disappearing” of the sun every night and

its “rebirth” every morning.

Werner Jaeger, The theology of the early Greek philosophers (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948), 13

Ibid.

Ibid., 14, 32, 55, 63, 67, 139.

In her dissertation, Yarbro Collins proposes a late version of the Leto-Apollo-Python myth (The

combat myth in the book of Revelation, 67-70).

That is, unless we regard the struggle between Michael and the dragon in 12,7-9 as an echo of

the combat myth. Nevertheless, there seem to be some obstacles to such an association: (1)That

battle is not explicitly said to occur prior to creation—the dragon is hurled down to an already

extant earth—nor is related to creation, mostly in the light of 12,7-12. Even the echoes of Eden

in 12,1-6 do not preclude a chronological post-creation defeat and hurling down of the dragon

(2)nor is it related to a primeval chaos. (3)The most natural reading makes Michael not the

divine hero of the story, but the leader of the angelic host defeating the dragon-villain in heaven

by God’s implicit request. However, it must be recognized that there is a narrative correlation

between the Child’s being caught up in 12,5.6 and the dragon’s casting down in 12,7-9, as is

also clear from the chronologic sequence of 12,5.6 and 12,13.14 (cf.Phil 2,5-11, Col 1,15-19;

,10.12.15; 1Pet 3,22). (4)The long-lasting or even incessant struggle between the deities of

chaos and those of creation is totally absent in Rev 12. See Charles Bigg, The Church’s task under

the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905), 50, 51; Charles K. Barrett, The New Testament background: Selected documents (NewYork: Harper, 1961), 120, 130.

The reference to Christ’s resurrection implicit in the blood mentioned in Rev 12,11 would

be chronologically far later than a primeval, chaos-related conflict as that allegedly reflected

in Rev 12,7-9; therefore, his death would have no direct narrative connection with the battle

between Michael and the dragon. Whenever this conflict occurred far in the past, the son of

the woman was still in the future from a historical perspective (cf.Gal 4,4; Eph1,10). If, on the

other hand, the conflict in 12,7-9 is chronologically linked to Christ’s victory over sin and death,

and his consequent enthronement, then the whole scene is neither primeval and pre-creation, as

the chaos myth requires, nor eschatological, as the allegedly postexilic elaboration of the same

myth implies. Additionally, in Rev 12 and 13, the struggle of the dragon is not about creation.

Unlike in the chaos myth, that struggle is not against the God of creation but against the woman

and the remnant of her seed (seeRev 12,17). Moreover, the NewTestament authors consistently

speak of Christ’s death as a freely consented action and as a divine initiative (seeMatt 26,53.54;

John10,17.18; Phil 2,5-11), not as a defeat inflicted by the forces of evil, as is the case with the

hero in some ANE myths prior to his recovery and eventual triumph over his contender. On the

chronology of Rev 12, see Paulien, “Hermeneutics,” 261-266

For Witherington, one of the proponents of the chaos myth reading of Rev 12, 13, “The first of

the two Beasts [of Rev 13] comes from the sea and, like Tiamat, is a seven-headed Beast with ten

horns” (Revelation, 180). Unfortunately, he does not provide the source of such a characterization of Tiamat, which is certainly not evident, either in Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern texts or

in Hallo’s collection. On this alleged link between the sea-beast and ancient myth, Beale says:

“Many understand the seven heads in Revelation13 as a reference to a sea-monster myth from

before the time of Daniel…Daniel 7 is however the more probable source since other features

of the Danielic beasts are also applied to the one beast in Revelation13:2” (Gregory K. Beale,

The use of Daniel in Jewish apocalyptic literature and in the Revelation of St.John [Lanham,MD:

University Press of America, 1984], 230, 231). Afurther corroboration of what Beale says is that

most of the features of the beast in Rev 13 are totally absent in the proposed ancient NearEastern mythic literature, namely the ten diadems, the ten horns, the ten kings, and the blasphemous

names, all of which connect Rev 13 with Dan7,8ff. Therefore, it seems clear that thisOT source

and its original context should determine the interpretation of the “coming out of the sea” in

Rev 13,1. Contrary to Andrew R. Angel, Chaos and the Son of Man: The Hebrew Chaoskampf

tradition in the period 513BCEto 200CE (London: T&TClark, 2006), 192-200.

The same reluctance to destroy is attested, not this time by the lesser gods, but by the humans in

the Sumerian myth of the deluge. See the introductory note to the myth in Pritchard, ANET,

rd ed., 42.

Contrary to G. R. Beasley-Murray, Tiamat is not represented as a seven-headed monster in the

Babylonian literature (The book of Revelation, New Century Bible Commentary [GrandRapids,MI: Eerdmans, 1974], 208). For instance, tabletIV, line 70 of the EnumaElish in Pritchard’s

ANET has Tiamat with only one neck. In fact, there seems to be no standardized literary or

iconographic representation of Tiamat, who at times appears as a domesticated two-horned,

one-headed small beast at the feet of god Marduk or Bel (e.g., see Siegfried H. Horn, SDABD

, s. v.“Bel”).

The Enuma Elish is not theology but rather a religious cosmology in that it is not a reflexion(λόγος) primarily about the deity (θεός), but about nature. Its aim and main interest, unlike

in the theogonies, is not the supernatural, but the sensible world. Religion is the envelope rather

than the content proper, even though it was at the same time certainly the all-pervading way of

expression of a mythical mindset such as that of the ANE.

Against this, E. A. Speiser states in his introductory comment on that Babylonian creation epic:

“The struggle between cosmic order and chaos was to the ancient Mesopotamians a fateful drama that was renewed at the turn of each year” (Speiser, “Akkadian myths and epics,” in Pritchard,

ANET, 3rd ed., 60).

See Tim Dunston, “As it was,” Spectrum34, No. 1 (Winter 2006): 33-37.

That is, unless we take the encouragement by an obscure female character called Mummu as

material help to defeat his contenders led by Tiamat.

In James B. Pritchard, ed., The ancient Near East: A new anthology of texts and pictures, 2 vols.

(Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), 2:22-26.

Pritchard, ANET, 3rd ed., 112.

See John J. Collins, Daniel: With and introduction to apocalyptic literature (Grand Rapids,MI:

Eerdmans, 1984), 76; Collins, “Apocalyptic genre and mythic allusions in Daniel,” JSOT21

(1981): 90-93.

Collins, Daniel, 129-142.

On this, see Arthur J. Ferch, “Daniel 7 and Ugarit: A reconsideration,” JBL 99 (1980): 76, 77.

Ibid., 142.

The fact that mythic monsters such as the Canaanite Lotan, the dragon or serpent of Rev 12,

and the sea-beast of Rev 13 are all seven-headed has been seen by the chaos-myth-reading proponents as further evidence of the derivative connection and shared mythic identity behind those

fabulous beasts, namely chaos. But seven as the number of heads in both cases is a connection

looser than it seems at first glance. That number as a literary expression for fullness has a long

history in the literature of the ancient Near East (e.g., Pritchard, ANET, 3rd ed., 47, 52ff., 121,

, 145, 149, 150, etc.; cf.Gen2,1-3). Thus, a parallel and independent borrowing from a common previous stock of language and imagery would be at least as valid an explanation as the

other for this coincidence.

Although this may qualify as conflict, it is, however, not a conflict between a divine chaotic

sea and a creation deity. In this respect, Anath is not a goddess of creation, but rather one of

destruction. So, in this case we would have chaos conquering chaos, so to say.

On this see H. L. Ginsberg, “Ugaritic myths, epics, and legends,” in Pritchard, ANET, 2nd

ed. (Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955), 137, note 10, and 138, note 2. Neither

Ginsberg norspeisergive any clue about the rationale behind that connection other than quoting Ps 74,14, where a leviathan of more than one head is mentioned. For a reassessment and

dismissal of some claimed mythic borrowings, as those allegedly reflected in Ps 74 and Isa 27,

see Watson, Chaos uncreated, 152-168, 193, 273, 291, 300, 318, 327-332, 366-368, 391, 394

and following pages; DavidT.Tsumura, “The creation motif in Psalm74:12-14? A reappraisal

of the theory of the dragon myth,” JBL134, No. 3 (2015): 547-555; DavidT.Tsumura, “The

‘Chaoskampf ’ motif in Ugaritic and Hebrew literatures,” in Le Royaume D’Ougarit de la

Crete a L’Euphrate: Nouveaux Axes de Recherche, Jean-Marc Michaud, ed. (Actes du Congrès

International de Sherbrooke 2005, Faculté de Théologie, d’Éthique et de Philosophie, Université de Sherbrooke, July 5-8, 2005), 476.

This kind of formulaic praise title seems to have functioned as a device aimed at placating the

netherworld deities or getting their favor (see, for instance, Gilbert Murray, Five stages of Greek

religion [GardenCity,NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1955], 5 and following pages).

Not included by Yarbro Collins in her study.

Something like the difference between an insect repellent and an insecticide.

Pritchard, ANET, 3rd ed., 14

Bigg, Church’s task, 44, 45.

Interestingly, on the mythical struggle between the Persian supreme god Ormuzd and his

counterpart Ahriman, the spirit of evil, Bigg comments that “there is no victory of a hero over

a villain…That struggle keeps everything in place and working, is the essence of Pantheism”

(ibid., 51), something of which there is no echo, either in Revelation or elsewhere in the Bible.

The myth of Hesiod (VIII BC) in his Homeric hymns and his Theogony. See Hugh G.

Evelyn-White, trans., Hesiod: The homeric hymns and Homerica (London: William Heineman,

.

If the Storm-god can be regarded as a hero of the story—unlike the one in Rev 12—in view of

his crime, as in the later version of the same Hittite myth (see Pritchard, ANET, 3rd ed., 126).

On this, see Craigie, Ugaritic, 100, 101; Ferch, “Daniel 7 and Ugaritic,” 76, 77. The introductory critical remarks and the footnotes in Pritchard’s ANET, 3rd ed., are highly populated with

expressions such as “unknown,” “very doubtful,” “uncertain,” “fragmentary,” “obscure,” “poorly

preserved,” “unintelligible,” “quite enigmatic,” “not clear,” “defective,” “incomplete,” “breaks in

the text,” “missing lines and even tablets,” “gaps in the narrative,” and the like.

Pritchard, ANET, 3rd ed., 111, note 11.

Ibid., 111-113 (see the editorial introduction and concluding paragraphs).

In this respect, a line-by-line comparison between the translations of the Myth of Zu in the

st and 3rd editions of Pritchard’s ANET furnishes some examples of how interpretative and

subjective the translation of ancient documents such as these may be, even in places where the

text is complete and well-preserved. For instance, while on line 24 of tablet 2 of the Susa version

(as well as on line 53 of column2 of the Assyrian version), the god Anu is said to command the

god Adad not to go on his journey against Zu, according to the first edition of ANET, the third

edition has Anu bidding the god to forego the journey. There is no need to say how much more

subjective and interpretative the task becomes where the text is fragmentary, incomplete, or

badly preserved. On this, see also Craigie, Ugaritic, 100, 101.

Pritchard, ANET, 2nd ed., 129. On these uncertainties, see also Ferch, Daniel 7 and Ugaritic,

, 77.

Pritchard, ANET, 3rd ed., 17.

Hallo, The context of Scripture, 1:xxvi.

One under the heading “The repulsing of the dragon and the creation” (Pritchard, ANET, 3rd

ed., 6, 7), and another bearing the title “The repulsing of the dragon” (ibid., 11, 12).

According to the Egyptian legend about creation by the god Atum, this came into existence on

top of a primeval hillock arising out of the waters of chaos. See ibid., 3.

On this, see Ferch, “Daniel 7 and Ugaritic,” 86.

On this, Heinrich Schlier comments: “From the beginning [alluding to 2 Peter] the objection

was evidently raised that the original Christian message retailed myths. Equally from the beginning, however, that accusation was rebutted, and this was done with full awareness of the

qualitative difference between myth and saving event. From the beginning too the Christian

community was warned against myth. Its members, it is said in the pastoral epistles [probably

alluding to e.g., 1Tim1,4.6; 2Tim4,4; Titus 1,14; 2,9] were to be on their guard…The New

Testament recognized, therefore… that an abyss separated the muthos which they saw in the

world around them from the logos of Christian preaching” (The relevance of the New Testament

[NewYork: Herder and Herder, 1968], 76). On some risks of the comparative method, mostly

as applied in the 40s and well into the 70s, see Craigie, Ugaritic, 100, 101. On the singularity of

the biblical materials in compare to its milieu, seeJohnN.Oswalt, The Bible among the myths:

Unique revelation or just ancient literature? (GrandRapids,MI: Zondervan, 2009), 64-80.

On the relationship between some heathen religions and early Christianity, Bigg asks: “Did Isis

and Mithra borrow from the Church or the Church from them?” (Church’s task, 42). On one

hand, these more noble pagan cults no doubt prepared the way for the far more noble Christian doctrine (see ibid., 58, 59). On the other, and mostly from the second centuryAD, they

also paved the way for a deviation of the Christian church from its original and distinctive essence. That explains the many elements—ritual as well as doctrinal—increasingly shared by the

church and those religions from the second century on, and mostly in the third and fourth. See

on this Edwin Hatch, The influence of Greek ideas on Christianity (New York: Harper, 1957).

One should add the assimilation of paganism into Christianity, mostly in the context of the

struggle to prevail in the contest for the adherence of the masses within the Empire, something

that lasted into the fourth century. Bigg speaks of “a growing tendency to assimilate Mithra to

Jesus…Later heathenism freely appropriated the ideas, the practices, the language of the Christian church” (Bigg, Church’stask, 56; see also Franz Cumont, The Oriental religions in Roman

paganism [Chicago,IL: Open Court, 1911], xviii). Thus, assimilation between Christianity and

paganism was a two-way road, mostly from the second century. However, anideological dependence of the former on the latter is still wanting to be cogently demonstrated, mostly when a

first century NT is called into play. On a reassessment of the date of theNT writings and the arguments in favor of an early date for them, seeJohnA.T.Robinson, Redating the NewTestament

(Philadelphia,PA: Westminster, 1976), 221-253. On the danger of some hurried conclusions

on religious derivation and borrowing based on outer likeness, Cumont rightly warns: “All these

facts constitute a series of very delicate problems of chronology and interrelation [between paganism and Christianity], and it would be rash to attempt to solve them enbloc…A word [in

common] is not a demonstration, and we must be careful not to infer an influence from an

analogy…Resemblance does not necessarily presuppose imitation, and frequently a similarity of

ideas and practices must be explained by common origin, exclusive of any borrowing” (Oriental

religions, xviii). See also Deissmann, Light, 266.

Hallo, The context of Scripture, 1:xxv; cf. Hallo, “New moons and Sabbaths: A case study in the

contrastive approach,” HUCA48 (1977): 15-17. On the singularity of the Bible in comparison

with its surrounding milieu, see Oswalt, The Bible among the myths, 64-80; Nahum M. Sarna,

UnderstandingGenesis (NewYork: Schocken, 1970), xxvii. On the need of a balance between

the extreme proposals of total discontinuity with the environment on one hand, and mere continuity and derivation on the other, see Ferch, “Daniel 7 and Ugaritic,” 86.

Yarbro Collins, Combat myth, 61.

See Pritchard, ANET, 3rd ed., 61-72.

E.g., William M. Ramsay, The letters to the seven churches of Asia (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,

, 114-127, 140. Asian Christian subjects of the empire seem not to have been an exemption to this rule, in view of the messages to several of the seven churches in Rev 2 and 3.

On this, see L. Thompson, Apocalypse and empire, 7, 22, 29, 95; L. Thompson, “A sociological

analysis of tribulation in the Apocalypse of John,” Semeia 36 (1986): 147-174; Krodel, Revelation, 38; David Maggie, Roman rule in Asia Minor, to the end of the third century after Christ

(Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950), 576-582; Henri W. Pleket, “Domitian, the

Senate and the Provinces,” Mnemosyne 14 (1961): 296-315; Richard B. Vinson, “The social

world of the book of Revelation,” Review and Expositor 98 (Winter 2001): 11-33.

See Clement’s commendation of the Roman army in his Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians (1 Clem. 37,1-3), fromAD95-97. Paradoxically, some have proposed a sort of apocalyptic reversed perception of order as chaos in virtue of which “apocalyptic faith tends to

reverse the original association of destructiveness with chaos and of life with order, because

of its strong sense of the repressiveness of order” (William A. Beardslee, Literary criticism of

the NewTestament [Philadelphia,PA: Fortress, 1970], 62). Although such an alleged pattern

of reversion could be arguable in a mood like that of the postexilic Jewish apocalypses, two

things should be kept in mind to avoid an unfounded reading of such a pattern into John’s Revelation. On one hand, there are noticeable examples of Jewish apocalypses exhibiting the idea

of the Jewish political fate under the foreign Roman invader as God’s deserved judgment due

to Israel’s national apostasy (e.g., Apoc.Abr. 27-30; 4Apoc.Bar. 6,23; Jub. 16,26.34; 23,16-21;

PseudoPhilo’s Bib.Ant. 19,2.3.5-7; Pss. Sol. 2,2-20, especially vv. 6 and 20; 1Enoch 89,59-64;

,22.25; Tg.Pseudo Jonatan Deut 32,8; Pss. Sol. 8,15; Josephus’ BJ 3.351-354; 5.412; 6.110;

T. 12Patr. 21; 4Q381). On this, see Margaret Barker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ: Which God

gave to Him to show to his servants what must soon take place (Edinburgh: T&TClark, 2000),

, 235, 237. Onthe other hand, the numerous and significant differences between Revelation and the postexilic Jewish apocalyptic literature should make one carefully ponder such an

option, mostly in view of the lack of both external and internal evidence of any anti-Roman

stand of John in Revelation.

Cf. SybOr 5.

See note 71 on the Christian attitude to the Jewish national disaster in AD 70.

E.g., Mark 12,14-17; Rom 13; 1 Pet 2,13-17.

See Dan 1,1.2; 2,20.21.37.38.46-49; 4,25.31.32.34-37; 5,18-21; 6,25-27; 9,1-19; 10,13.20.

Cf. the use of the divine passives in Daniel and Revelation as an affirmation of the divine sovereignty over even the human political powers opposed to him and his people within a covenantal

dynamics.

See C. T. Cruttwell, A history of Roman literature: From the earliest period to the death of MarcusAurelius (NewYork: Charles Scribneŕs Sons, 1895), 333, 334; Herbert Jennings Rose,

A handbook of Greek literature, 4th ed. (Wauconda,IL: Bolchazy Carducci, 1996), 204, note 59;

; Giulio Guidorizzi, Igino, Miti (Milano: Adelphi, 2000), xxxviii-xlii.

On the proposed parallelism between some mythological figures in the Ugaritic and Sumero-Akkadian texts and Job’s Leviathan and Behemoth, see Marvin H. Pope, Job, 3rd ed., Anchor

Bible (GardenCity,NY: Doubleday, 1965), 268; in support of such a mythic connection and

borrowing, see Pritchard, ANET, 2nd ed., 83-85. See also, in agreement, Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 215, note 1; Ford, Revelation, 216. Boring recognizes, in agreement with PaulD.Hanson

and HaroldH.Rowley, that the biblical “apocalyptic” as such was not “a late borrowing of foreign ideas” (Revelation, 43).

J. B. Smith broadens the list of OT passages presumably reflecting the Near Eastern chaos myth

by including Gen1,9; Job 7,12; 9,8; 26,8-13; 28,25; 38,8-11; Prov 8,27-29; Jer 5,22; Ps 24,2;

,12-17; 77,16; 89,9.10, and Isa 51,9.10 (Revelation, 238). Contra such a proposed link between those OT texts and some mythic ideas on chaos and combat, see Watson, Chaos uncreated, 128, 129, 140, 147-168, 173, 188, 193, 227-368, 391 and following pages.

On this, see Beale, Revelation, 682, 683; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 16, 40-43; Angel, Chaos

and the Son of man, 192-200. Fora sample of critical scholarship favorable to the Canaanite

myths on the struggle between the sea Yam and Baal as the background of Dan7, see JohnJ.Collins, Daniel, 76; Collins, “Apocalyptic Genre and Mythic Allusions,” 90-93. For a dismissal of

such a background on account of the numerous and important differences between Dan7 and

the Canaanite lore, see Ferch, “Daniel 7 and Ugarit,” 79-81.

For a sample of critical scholarship favorable to the Canaanite myths on the struggle between

the sea Yam and Baal as the background of Dan7, see Collins, Daniel, 76; Collins, “Apocalyptic

Genre and Mythic Allusions,” 90-93; Andrew Angel, “The Sea in 4Q541 7.3 and in Dan7:2,”

Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010): 474-478; John Day, God’s conflict with the dragon and the sea:

Echoes of a Canaanite myth in the OldTestament(Eugene,OR: Wipf and Stock, 2020), 151-176.

For a dismissal of such a background on account of the numerous and important differences

between Dan7 and the Canaanite lore, see Ferch, “Daniel 7 and Ugarit,” 79-81.

For an extensive list of statements against such a derivative relationship between the ancient

Near Eastern traditions andDan7, recognized by Yarbro Collins as the source and prototype

of the language and imagery of Rev 13, see JürgEggler, Influences and traditions Underlying the

vision of Daniel 7:2-14; The research history from the end of the 19th century to the present, Orbis

Biblicus et Orientalis 177 (Fribourg: Fribourg University Press, 2000), 7-14. He includes there

a series of significant differences between the Canaanite version of the combat myth and the

content of Dan7; these are illuminating for the study of the claimed connection between such a

myth and Rev 13 (ibid., 13, 14). On this, see also Steinmann, Daniel, 333; Ferch, “Daniel 7 and

Ugarit.”

E.g., Lev 26,19; Hos 13,7.8; cf. Jer 4,7.13; 15,12; 28,13.14; 48,40; 49,19.22; 50,17.44;

Lam4,19; Ezek 17,3; Mic 4,13; Hab 1,8. For a discussion of the OT as the closer source of

traditions and the main influence on the formulation of Dan 7,2-14, see Eggler, Influences

and traditions, 28-35. On Hos 13,7.8 as the main beastly figure behind Dan 7,3-7 see Thomas, Revelation 8-22, 156. On theOT rather than the Mesopotamian myths as the source of

Dan 7, see Steinmann, Daniel, 334, 335.

Stephen B. Reid, Enoch and Daniel: A form critical and sociological study of historical Apocalypses

(Berkeley,CA: Bibal Press, 1989), 82, 83; Steinmann, Daniel, 333-335.

Maurice Casey, Son of man: The interpretation and influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK,

, 18; Steinmann, Daniel, 333-335.

Eggler, Influences and traditions, 33.

Steinmann, Daniel, 334, 335. For a critical scholar favorable to a biblical provenance of the

symbolism of the beasts in Dan7, see Louis F. Hartmann and Alexander A. DiLella, The book of

Daniel, Anchor Bible 23 (Garden City,NY: Doubleday, 1978), 212.

An example is the Hebrew cosmogony recorded in Gen 1, which is in a clearly antithetic or

polemic dialogue with the ancient Near Eastern mythical cosmogonies prevalent in the second

millennium BC. See on this Larry G. Herr, “Genesis One in Historical-Critical Perspective,”

Spectrum 13, No. 2 (1982): 51-62; Jean Flori, Los orígenes: una desmitificación (Madrid: Safeliz, 1988); Randall W. Younker, God’s creation: Exploring the Genesis story (Boise, ID: Pacific

Press, 1998), 11; Gerald W. Wheeler, Thetwo-taled dinosaur (Nashville,TN: Southern, 1975),

-191; Dunston. “As It Was,” 33-37; Gordon H. Johnston, “Genesis 1 and ancient Egyptian

myths,” BSac 165 (2008): 178-184.

The same argument is also valid against any derivative relationship between Rev 13 and those

same myths (on this, see Beale, Revelation, 683). For some good examples of that typically

counter-mythical use of mythology in Revelation, see, for instance, Jon Paulien, “Basic exegesis

of Revelation,” in Revelation, The Bible Explorer Audio-Cassette Series (Harrisburg,PA: Ambassador Group, 1996), sound cassette 1, theme 7. Cf. András Dávid Pataki, “A non-combat

myth in Revelation 12,” NTS 57 (2011): 258-272; Jan Willem Van Henten, “Dragon myth and

imperial ideology in Revelation12-13,” in The reality of Apocalypse: rhetoric and politics in the

book of Revelation, ed. David L. Barr, Symposium Series 39 (Atlanta,GA: Society of Biblical

Literature, 2006), 181-203.

Steinmann, Daniel, 334. See also Ernest C. Lucas, “The source of Daniel’s animal imagery,” TynBul 41 (1990): 161-185, especially 185; Beale, Revelation, 683; George B. Caird, The language

and imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia,PA: Westminster, 1980), 229.

On this high transmutation, see Steinmann, Daniel, 333; Beale, Revelation, 683; Ann E. Gardner, “Daniel 7:2-14: Another look at its mythic pattern,” Biblica 82 (2001): 250; Caird, Language and imagery, 229.

Ferch, “Daniel 7 and Ugaritic,” 86.

See also Eggler, Influences and traditions, 8, 13, 14.

On these shared OT sources, see Hugo A. Cotro, “Up from sea and earth: Revelation 13,1.11 in

context” (Ph.D. dissertation, Andrews University, 2015), 217-263

Beale, Revelation, 682; Aune, Apocalypticism, 161; Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation to John:

A commentary on the Greek text of the Apocalypse (Downers Grove,IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005),

; William Whitney Jr., “The place of the ‘Wild Beast Hunt’ of Sib. Or. 3:806 in biblical and

rabbinic tradition,” JSJ 25 ( June 1994): 80, 81; Bauckham, Theology, 89, 90; Aune, Revelation

-16, 728, 729, 755. Contrary to the alleged presence of the chaos and combat myths in Job 40-

, see, for instance, Watson, Chaos uncreated, particularly 319, 333-368, 392.

The MT Hebrew expression translated as “everything under heaven”—or a similar phrasing in

the English versions (e.g.,NIV, KJV, RSV, etc.)—is םִי ֽ ָמ ָשּׁ ַל־ה ָכּ and appears only seven times

in theOT (Gen7,19; Deut 2,25; 4,19; Job 28,24; 37,3; 41,3; Dan9,12), either in the context

of God’s sovereignty over his creation or in a cosmographic sense, but still with a sovereignty-over-his-creation flavor; cf. 40,15.

Vern S. Poythress, The returning King: A guide to the book of Revelation (Phillipsburg,NJ:

P&RPublishing, 2000), 145

In the Hebrew text, vv. 1-34 of chap. 41 are numbered as 40,25 through 41,26.

Contrary to Beale, Meredith G. Kline convincingly argues that the Behemoth and Leviathan

of Job 40-41 are not two Satanic representations, but God’s champions against Job within the

rhetoric plot of the book. See “Trial by ordeal,” in Through Christ’s word, ed.W.R.Godfrey and

J.L.Boyd (Phillipsburg,NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed,1985), 90, 91; Meredith G. Kline, Job,

Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago,IL: Moody, 1963), 488. On the Behemoth and Leviathan of Job 40, further and mythically elaborated in later Judaism as an alleged source of the

language and imagery of Rev 13, Prigent says: “The two beasts of Job 40 undoubtedly cannot

have served as a model here…In later Judaism, their only eschatological role is to serve as food

in occasion of the messianic banquet. That is why it seems unlikely that this tradition should be

cited to explain the duality of the beasts of Revelation13” (Commentary, 402, note 1; 414).

Poythress, Returning King, 145.

E.g., Rev 1,16; 2,12; 19,15.21a; 4 Ezra 13,10.11; cf. also Job 41,18 [LXX41,10] and Revelation1,14; 19,12; 4Ezra 13,4.

Even from a source, form, or redaction-critical perspective, the final form of the book has been

assigned a date not later than the fifth centuryBC, between two and three centuries before

theLXX and Qumran’s OT, whose text is notably similar to the twelve-centuries-laterMT.

It has been suggested that the LXX reflects a Hebrew text earlier than that of theMT

(e.g., Craig A. Evans, Noncanonicalwritings and NewTestament interpretation [Peabody, MA:

Hendricksen, 1992], 73, 74). This poses two questions: (1)Could the Hebrew text behind LXX

Job 40-41 be even earlier than that behind Qumran’s fragments of Job, which unfortunately do

not include the two chapters? This is quite unlikely, considering that one of the Qumran copies

of Job is written in the paleo-Hebrew script common before the sixth-century BC Babylonian

exile (see Martin Abegg Jr., PeterFlint, and EugeneUlrich, The Dead Sea scrolls Bible [San Francisco,CA: Harper, 1999], 590), which takes us back to the date of the final form of the book

according to the critics. (2) Since we have two contemporary (from the third and second centuriesBC), but different Hebrew texts behind Job, one with some mythical flavor in theLXX

and one non-mythical in theMT, we need to find out what happened. There seem to be two

options: either an earlier non-mythical text gave origin to a mythologically flavored one in the

process of transmission, or an originally mythical text was expurgated later by some orthodox or

anti-mythical scribal trend. In view of the consistent and sustained anti-mythical thrust of the

OT canonic literature (as exhibited as early as in the QumranOT), the former is the most likely.

Perhaps another evidence in favor of this option is that the Hebrew text of the canonic Qumran

is so close to that of the MT, even within a library that included such mythologically flavored

books as 1Enoch andTobit. In other words, the syncretic variety witnessed in the composition

of the Qumran’s library would have been a suitable milieu for a mythically flavored version of

Job such as that of the LXX.

Beale, Revelation, 682.

Another example is found in Mic 1,8, where the LXX renders the MT הֽ ָנ ֲעַי”) ostrich”) as

σειρήνες (“sirens”). See also MichaelW.Holmes on LXX Ps 91,13 [MT92,12] as a witness of the

phoenix-bird myth in the Greek OT (The apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations

[GrandRapids,MI: Baker, 1992], 59, note 66)

Perhaps some good examples of such a relative and superficial accommodation of postexilic Judaism are “The letter of Aristeas,” “The wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach” and Philo’s works.

Poythress, Returning King, 145. Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich say in this respect: “The Hebrew text

of the book of Job is the most problematic found in the Bible. This is due not only to its subject

matter, but also to the fact that it is also poetry, that it is high dramatic art of lyric quality” (Dead

Sea Bible, 591); Poythress, Returning King, 45.

The distribution is the following according to the software Bible Works version 9: δράκοντα

(11 times): Ps 90,13; Job 26,13; 40,25; Isa 27,1 (3x); Ezek 29,3; Bel 1,25.28; Bel(Theodotion) 1,25.28; δράκοντες(6 times): Exod 7,12; Esth1,1 (Greek addition); 10,3 (Greek addition);

Ps 148,7; Jer 27,8; Lam4,3; δράκοντι (2 times): Sir 25,16; Amos 9,3; δράκοντος (4 times):

Ps 73,14; Pss. Sol. 2,25; Bel 1,27; Bel(TH) 1,27; δρακόντων (9 times): Deut 32,33; Ps 73,13;

Odes Sol. 2,33; Job 4,10; 20,16; 38,39; Wis 16,10; Mic 1,8; Jer 9,10; δράκων (10 times):

Exod 7,9.10; Ps 103,26; Eccl 4,6 (wrongly included here seemingly due to a confusion between

δράκος [the genitive feminine singular form of the noun ἡ δράξ: handful, hand] and δράκων;

e.g.,see the vocabulary at the end of Allen Wikgren, Ernest C. Colwell, and Ralph Marcus, Hellenistic Greek texts [Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press, 1947], 226); Job 7,12; Jer 28,34;

Ezek 32,2; Bel 1,23; Bel(TH) 1,23.27.

Exod 7,9.10.12; Deut 32,33; Job 7,12; Pss 73,13; 90,13; 148,7; Isa 27,1; Jer 9,10; 28,34; Lam4,3;

Ezek 29,3; 32,2; Mic 1,8.

Job 26,13; Isa 27,1 (2x); Amos 9,3; see also Werner Foerster, “δράκων,” TDNT, 2:281.

Job 40,25; Isa 27,1 (2x); Pss 73,14; 103,26.

Job 4,10; 38,39.

Job 20,16.

In some cases the giant moray eel of the Red Sea could be a good contextual candidate.

This would explain the nuance of evil inextricably associated with that representative animal

in those passages. The same phenomenon of the personification of evil in an otherwise morally

neutral figure is attested in the very first occurrence of the serpent imagery and language in the

Bible, namely Gen3,1-5.13-15, where it is difficult, if not impossible, to decide when the snake

is the actual animal, when a seemingly conscious and voluntary instrument of the Satanic deceit,

or when it is Satan himself. For instance, “Satan” could be read instead of “serpent” in Gen3,1-5,

still making perfect sense. For the same phenomenon of interchangeability, see Rev12,9, which

thus seems to operate as a sort of Christian-inspired midrash of Gen3,15. On this, see Ramsey J.

Michaels, Interpreting the book of Revelation, New Testament Series 7 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992), 125; Ramsey J. Michaels, Revelation, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series

(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 122, 156; Paul S. Minear, I saw a New Earth:

An introduction to the visions of the Apocalypse (Washington, DC: Corpus Books, 1968), 254,

; Eugenio Corsini, The Apocalypse: The perennial revelation of Jesus Christ, Good News Studies 5 (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983), 231; AndréFeuillet, The Apocalypse (Staten

Island, NY: Alba House, 1965), 79. Contrary to Swete, for whom “the woman with child has

no parallel in the OT…it may be confidently regarded as essentially a creation of the writer’s

mind” (Apocalypse, cxxxiii). On midrash as an exegetical method reflected in Revelation in general, see Jon Paulien, Decoding Revelation’s trumpets: Literary allusions and the interpretation

of Revelation 8:7-12, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series 11 (Berrien

Springs,MI: Andrews University Press, 1987), 57-60. This nuance of evil associated with the

actual animal, when used as a representation of human powers opposed to God, is not the same

as seeing there a derivative relationship with the so-called chaos myth; see also Margaret Barker, for whom “the monsters [commenting on the sea-beast of Rev 13:1] had become political

ciphers long before the time of Daniel [according to a 2nd-century BC dating]. In the Hebrew

Scriptures Egypt was Rahab, the sea monster (Isa 30:7) and the Lord threatened her with the

fate of Prince Sea and Judge River (Isa 19:1, 5)…In the sixth century BCE., Ezekiel has described

Egypt as a dragon (Ezek 32:2, 3)” (Revelation, 231).

Noticeably, in the context, which makes “serpent” or “snake” the only viable and reasonable

translation of יןִֽנּ ַת here, the software Bible Works has as the only lexicographic note on δράκων

in the LXX of this passage the Bible Societies Greek NewTestament’s accompanying dictionary

entry for δράκων: “Figurative term for the devil,” overlooking thus the fact that this definition

is intended for the only place where the word occurs in the GreekNewTestament, namely the

book of Revelation (12,3.4.7.9.13.16.17; 13,2.4.11; 16,13; 20,2), where its only given and explicit meaning is in fact “the devil” (see 12,9).

The plural ם֖ ִינִנּ ַתּ in v. 33a implies an animal species, not a mythical singular monster. Furthermore, it is in parallel to the also plural ים֖ ִנ ָת ְפּ”) serpents”) in33b.

The LXX has δρακόντων while the MT reads ים ֣ ִיר ִפ ְכ) young lions), which is in perfect and close

correspondence with הֵי ְר ַ֭א and ל ַח ֑ ָשׁ, both meaning “lion,” in the same verse.

The context, as well as the language and imagery of the passage, is clearly one of creation and

marine life.

The LXX has δρακόντων in v. 39b while the MT reads ים ֣ ִיר ִפ ְכּ) young lions) there, which is in

parallel to יא ֣ ִב ָל”) lion”) in39a. Cf.Job 4,10.

Where the ל ַח ֣ ַשׁ) lion) of 13a is in parallel with יר ֣ ִפ ְכּ) young lion) in 13b, and the יןִֽנּ ַת of 13b

corresponds to the ן ֶת֣ ֶפ) serpent) of 13a.

Note that ן ָ֗תָי ְו ִ֜ל is said to be a God-created animal “to play in the sea.” Furthermore, neither is

the context related to evil nor has the word such a nuance.

Note the plural denoting an animal species and not only a unique mythical monster, as well as

the order to praise God and the overall creation context and language.

Note the plural, implying an animal species instead of a singular or unique entity, together with

the context of Jerusalem’s desolation in the typically covenantal terminology of a city turned

into a wasteland, only inhabited by wild beasts such as the serpents.

The word δράκοντες is an addition of the LXX instead of the Hebrew ים ֖ ִודּתּ ַע) male goats) in

the context of God’s punishment against his apostate covenantal people according to the classical OT formula of sword, famine, pestilence, and wild beasts. The plural reinforces this since it

implies a species rather than a unique entity.

The problematic word picture of a serpent suckling her young seems to have prompted most of the

translators to render the Greek δράκοντες for the surprising “jackals” (e.g.,ASV, NAB, NIV, NJB).

This is an interesting example of transition and blurring of literary boundaries between the representative element and the representation based on it. The crushing of the heads (plural י ֥ ֵשׁא ָר (

of the sea snakes (plural ים ִ֗ינִנּ ַ֜ת (of v. 13 becomes an apt representation of and is fused with

Pharaoh’s army’s defeat at the Red Sea in v. 14, where the author changes from the plurality of

snakes and heads to a unique snake (ן ֑ ָתָי ְו ִל )with several heads (י ֥ ֵשׁא ָר(. For the plurality of heads

in a symbolic construct based on an actual animal, see Dan7,6b, where the four-headed third

beast coming from the sea is not a mythical monster, but a symbolic stylization of an actual animal, namely the leopard, representing the Greco-MacedonianEmpire (cf.Dan8). The same can

be said of the tricephalous Roman eagle of 4Ezra 11,1.2, also originated in the sea; cf. also the

seven-headed serpent of Rev 12. Commenting on Pss. Sol. 2,25 (“Do not delay, O God, to repay

to them [the Gentile oppressors of God’s people] on [their] heads; to declare dishonorable the

arrogance of the dragon”), Robert B. Wright says: “This may be a pun on ‘head’; i.e. turn it back

on their leader (as happens in the next verses)” (“Psalms of Solomon: A new translation and

introduction,” inTheOldTestament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols., ed. James H. Charlesworth [Garden

City, NY: Doubleday, 1985], 2:653, note y).

Francesco S. Porporato saw the “fleeing” and the “twisting” of Leviathan in Isa 27,1 as a metaphorical reference to the rapid Tigris and to the sinuous Euphrates, respectively, while the

monster with seven heads would represent the Nile with its delta (“Miti e inspirazione biblica,”

Civilta Cattolica 42 [1941]: 281).

Nothing in the passage would prevent the rendering of ין ִ֔נּ ַתּ as “serpent” or “snake.” Even the

metaphoric language employed (e.g.,the comparative particle ַכּ (implies a comparison between

two realities familiar to the reader, namely KingNebuchadnezzar and a known animal of prey.

Bel 1,23.25.27.28; Esth 1,1 [LXX]; 10,3; Sir 25,16; Pss. Sol. 2,25; Odes Sol. 2,33; Wis 16,10.

Translated as “snake” in the NEB.

See Beale, Revelation, 682; 2 Apoc. Bar. 29,3-8.

See the Greek additions to chap. 10 in the LXX.

“Psalms of Solomon,” in The Old Testament pseudepigrapha, ed. J. Charlesworth, 2:653, notea2.

Curiously, while some works on the Pseudepigrapha state that the second chapter of the Odes of

Solomon is still lost (e.g.,J.Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2:735; J. Charlesworth,

The odes of Solomon [Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977], 18; J. Charlesworth, Critical reflections on the odes of Solomon [Sheffield,GB: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998], 38; Rendel Harris and Alphonse Mingana, eds., The odes and Psalms of Solomon [London: Longmans, Green

and Co., 1920], 215), the complete Greek text (vv. 1-43) appears in Alfred Rahlfs’s Septuagint,

vols., 3rd ed. (New York: Societate Biblica Americana, 1949), in Henry B. Swete, The Old

Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

, as well as in version9 of the software Bible Works, which reproduces Rahlfs’sLXX.

E.g., Gen 7-9; cf. Rev 20; 21; 2 Pet 3,3-13.

Webster’s third new international dictionary suggests defining the word as: “To repeat the principal points…stages or phases [of something]” (1966), s.v. “recapitulation.

On the lack of any connotation of evil in the primeval sea of Gen 1, see Younker, God’s creation,

; Chilton, Days of vengeance, 327 (quoting Gen1,31 in support of his idea; cf. v. 10b); Corsini,

The Apocalypse, 232, 233; Thomas, Revelation 8-22, 161.

Along the same line, Barr, Tales of the end, 106; Sophie Laws, while insisting on seeing in the

וםֹה ְתּ of Gen1,2 a “watery chaos before creation,” in what she regards as the “demythologized

Israel’s creation myth in its normative biblical form,” also recognizes that “Israel did not adopt

this myth” and that “a battle between God and a chaos monster is no part of the story of creation in Genesis 1 and 2” (In the light, 39); cf. Hilgert, for whom “this myth is never recounted

explicitly in the OT” (Ship and related symbols, 43). See also Younker, God’s creation, 10, 11, 27;

Gerald W. Wheeler, The two-taled dinosaur (Nashville,TN: Southern, 1975), 182-191; Dunston, “As it was,” 33-37; Chilton, Days of vengeance, 327; Gerhard F. Hasel, “The significance

of the cosmology in Genesis 1 in relation to ancient Near Eastern parallels,” AUSS 10 (1972):

-7, 20. Nahum M. Sarna says in agreement: “The Genesis creation account in its non-political,

non-cultic and non-mythological nature and function represents a complete break with Near

Eastern tradition” (Understanding Genesis [New York: Schocken, 1970], 9). DavidF.Payne also

agrees when he comments: “The biblical account [of creation] is theologically not only far different from, but totally opposed to the ancient Near Eastern myths” (Genesis one reconsidered

[London: Tyndale, 1968], 29). See also David Toshio Tsumura: The earth and the waters in Genesis 1 and 2, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 83 (Sheffield: JSOT,

, 45-61; Creation and destruction: A reappraisal of the Chaoskampf theory in the OldTestament (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 36-57, 143; “TheChaoskampf myth in the biblical tradition,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 140, No. 4 (2020): 963-969; Robert

Reed Lessing, “Yahweh versus Marduk: Creation theology in Isaiah40-55,” CJ 36 (2010): 239,

; Gordon H. Johnston, “Genesis 1 and ancient Egyptian creation myths,” BSac 165 (2008):

-194 Cf. John H. Walton, “Creation in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and the ancient Near East: Order out

of disorder after Chaoskampf,” CTJ 43 (2008): 55, 62; Roberto Ouro, “Similarities and differences between the Old Testament and the ancient Near Eastern texts,” AUSS 49 (2011): 13, 14;

Oswalt, The Bible among the myths, 64-80.

On וּה ֹ֔ב ָו ֙וּה ֹ֙ת in Gen1,2 as a synonym of “uninhabited and formless,” unlike the idea of disorder

and active opposition to creation behind the chaos myth construct, see “Genesis,” Seventh-day

Adventist Bible commentary, ed. Francis D. Nichol (Washington,DC: Review & Herald, 1992),

:220, 221; cf. Job 26,7; Isa 40,17.23; 49,4. This is contrary to L. Thompson, for whom the sea in

Rev 13,1 is “an image of the abyss of chaos over which God had to be victorious in order to create

an ordered world” (Revelation, 138). For some other proponents of the Babylonian Tiamat as

behind the Hebrew וםֹה ְתּ in Gen1, see Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 16, 42, 43; Yarbro Collins,

The Apocalypse, 86, 90, 91; Robert H. Charles, A critical and exegetical commentary on the Revelation of St. John, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T&TClark, 1920), 2:204, 205; Aune, Revelation 6-16, 779;

Krodel, Revelation, 247; David S.Russell, The method and message of Jewish apocalyptic (Philadelphia,PA: Westminster, 1964), 123-125; Robert H. Mounce, The book of Revelation, rev. ed., The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids,MI: Eerdmans, 1977), 5;

Boring, Revelation, 155, 156, 160; Burch, Anthropology, 97; Thomas E. Schmidt, “‘And the sea

was no more’: Water as people, not place,” in To tell the mystery: Essays in New Testament eschatology in honor of Robert H. Gundry, ed. Thomas E. Schmidt and Moisés Silva, Journal for the

Study of the New Testament Series 100 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 238, 239.

Dunston, “As it was,” 35, 36

Downloads

Published

2022-06-23