A tale of two monsters: The Chaoskampf myth and Revelation 13
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56487/dl.v21i1.1025Abstract
Suplemento especial DavarLogosDownloads
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
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 DavarLogos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
