The Leviathan—Job 41
About the leviathan there is nearly as much question as regarding the behemoth. It is met with oftener in the Bible than appears in our version, the term being sometimes translated. The idea given by the name, is that of some creature wreathed, or gathering itself up in folds, and in this general signification it seems to be applied to various creatures, in the same general sense as our English word “monster.” In some places it seems to denote a monstrous serpent, as in Job_3:8, of this book, where the word rendered “mourning,” is “leviathan,” and still more distinctly in Isa_27:1, where indeed it is twice distinctly so called, “Leviathan, the piercing [fleet] serpent—leviathan, the crooked [coiling or convolved] serpent.” In other places it denotes a great sea-monster, particularly perhaps the whale, but not excluding any other of the large and monstrous forms inhabiting the great deep, especially such as, when seen in the water, or rather with parts of their bodies above the surface, exhibit that wreathed or convolved appearance in which has originated the various reports and traditions respecting the “sea-serpent.” It is distinctly a marine animal in Psa_104:26, “This great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts. There go the ships; there is that leviathan whom Thou hast made to play therein.” In short, we take the word to be, as nearly as possible, equivalent to our word “monster” in its use, being sometimes employed generally and indeterminately, and sometimes with regard to particular animals, which may or may not, but commonly are, recognizable from the context. It is generally admitted, that whatever be the animals specially referred to in other places, in this place it does mean, and can mean no other than the crocodile. This is so evident, that no one could ever have attempted to show that it was any other creature, but from the necessity supposed to be imposed by other texts, such as those we have cited, of showing that the leviathan must be something else than a crocodile. All difficulty from this source is obviated by the explanation which has just been given; and we can, without any doubt or misgiving from other texts, conclude that the word does here denote a crocodile. Those generally who have questioned this, conceived that it must be a whale, not because they denied that the present passage more obviously refers to the crocodile, but because they perceived that in some other places, where the name occurs, the whale was more clearly denoted, and thought that, therefore, it must bear the same meaning in this place.
The Crocodile
But surely the two points, of the strong armor of the animal described, and his formidable rows of teeth, are almost peculiar to the crocodile among aquatic animals, and are wholly inapplicable to the whale, which has neither scales nor teeth, and which is, in fact, ordinarily taken with “fish-spears” or harpoons, the very mode against which the leviathan is here declared to be invulnerable.
“Do men in company lay snares for him?
Do they divide him among the merchants?
Canst thou fill his slain with barbed irons,
Or his head with fish-spears?”—Job_41:6-7.
Perhaps the real meaning of this passage may be, that it cannot be taken by snares on land, like most of the land animals, nor in the water by harpoons, like most of the merely aquatic animals. This is obviously the case, for no one ever heard of a crocodile being snared on land, or harpooned in the water. The last is, indeed, nearly impossible, as in the water the animal presents above the surface only its least vulnerable parts. But the crocodile may be harpooned on the land, and therefore out of the element in which it has its chief power. Indeed, this is the mode in which it is captured in Angola, where it is taken by the natives for the sake of its flesh. We abridge the description of Ruppell, who often witnessed this procedure. He says that the most favorable season is in winter, when the animal often sleeps on the sand-banks, luxuriating in the rays of the sun, or in the spring, after the pairing time, when the female regularly watches the sand-islands where she has buried her eggs. The native finds out the place, and to leeward of it he digs a hole, throwing up the sand on the side which he expects the animal to take. Here he conceals himself, and the crocodile comes to the accustomed spot, and falls asleep. The huntsman then darts his harpoon with all his force at the animal. The wounded crocodile then rushes to the water, and the man retreats to a canoe, with which a companion hastens to his assistance. A piece of wood, attached to the harpoon by a long cord, floats in the water, and shows the direction in which the crocodile is moving. Pulling at this cord, the huntsmen drag the animal to the surface of the water, where it is again pierced by a second harpoon. The skill of the huntsman consists in giving the harpoon sufficient impulse to pierce through the coat of mail which protects the crocodile. When the animal is struck, it by no means remains inactive; on the contrary, it lashes the water into a foam with its tail. Then indeed, “He maketh the deep to boil like a pot; he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.” It endeavors to bite the rope asunder. This it might do with any ordinary rope; but to prevent it, the rope is made of a great number of thin strands not twisted together, but placed in juxtaposition, and bound round at intervals of two feet. This it cannot bite through at once, and the thin lines get between the teeth, or become entangled among them. Sometimes, by the pulling of the men, and the resistance of the prey, the harpoon breaks out of the crocodile’s body, and it escapes. It is taken for the sake of the flesh, which the natives relish highly, but it has an odor of musk distasteful to Europeans. In North-East Africa this quality of it is not mentioned. Thevenot, who partook of it in Egypt, found it good but rather insipid.
In some of the rivers of Africa, the natives are bold enough and skilful enough to combat the crocodile in its own element. Armed only with a short dagger, they dive beneath him and plunge the weapon into his belly. It often happens, however, that the combat is fatal to the man, and frequently his only chance of escape is to thrust his dagger, or if this be lost, his thumbs into the animal’s eyes with all his might, so as to produce great pain and blindness.
The crocodile could, however, only be described to Job as existing in the Nile, and there these practices of West Africa were unknown. It was formerly found in the Delta of that river, from which it has long since disappeared, but it is still abundant in the Thebaid, and in the Upper Nile, and in the tributary branches throughout Nubia and Abyssinia.
The mode of taking this creature by the ancient Egyptians, is described by Herodotus. There was no harpooning in this case, and one would suspect, indeed, that the crocodile of Western must be more vulnerable than that of Eastern Africa. A difference in this respect is quite possible. A hook was baited with a chine of pork, while the attention of the monster was attracted by the cries of a living pig, which the hunters had with them on the shore. In anticipation of prey, he dashed into the river, and meeting the baited hook, instantly seized and swallowed it, and was then dragged ashore; the men then endeavored to blind his eyes with sand, and when this was accomplished, his destruction was easy; but if not, so violent were his struggles, and so dangerous was it to approach him, that it was not without difficulty that he was dispatched. To this mode of taking the leviathan, there seems to be allusion in the first verse, “Canst thou draw out leviathan with a hook?” while the next clause, “Or his tongue with a cord that then lettest down,” or rather, “Canst thou bind his jaws with a cord (or noose),” reminds one of a mode of taking the crocodile which was in use in the time of Thevenot. They were taken in pitfalls, in the usual manner, and left there for several days to be weakened by hunger, when the hunters let down ropes with running nooses, wherewith they fastened their jaws and dragged them up.
The statement of Herodotus, showing that it was necessary to draw near, in order to smite the animal, implies that it was not possible, or not supposed possible, to slay him with missiles, such as harpoons. Indeed, this point is strongly insisted upon in the text—“Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.” It is also said that “he esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood;” a remarkable instance of which is reported to have occurred not long since in Ceylon, where a party of naval officers hunting elephants, were assailed by an alligator. One of the persons, in self-defence, thrust his gun into the open mouth of his assailant, and it was afterwards found that the barrel was completely bitten in two in one place, and deeply indented by the teeth of the animal in another.
The formidably-armed jaws of the crocodile, and its well-jointed and strong armor, are clearly indicated in the description of the leviathan, and can apply to no other creature of the habits stated.
The remarkable clause, “Wilt thou play with him as with a bird?” has been thought by some to indicate the leviathan as untamable, and this has been urged as an objection against its identification with the crocodile, which has undoubtedly been tamed. It is not very certain, however, whether the text indicates the actual processes of taking and taming the crocodile, or declares the difficulty, not impossibility, of so dealing with him. It cannot be taken to declare these things impossible, for we have the same high authority of God’s word for declaring that “Every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed and hath been tamed of mankind,” Jas_3:7. The crocodile certainly was occasionally tamed in Egypt. In some parts of that country, divine honors were paid to those creatures; and at some cities in those parts, individuals of the species were kept in a tame state, and held in high veneration. Strabo mentions one that he saw at Arsinae, and which was carefully fed on what would have been good cheer for a man, but was probably but indifferent fare to a crocodile. “Our host,” says Strabo, “who was a person of consequence, and our guide to all sacred things, went with us to the pond, taking with him from the table, a small cake, some roasted meat, and a small cup of mulled wine. We found the crocodile lying on the margin. The priest immediately went up to him, and while some of them opened his mouth, another put in the cake, crammed down the flesh, and finished by pouring down the wine. The crocodile then jumped into the pond, and swam to the opposite side.”
In further evidence of crocodiles being kept tame, we may refer to one of the marbles in the Townley Collection at the British Museum, which is taken to represent an Egyptian tumbler exercising his feats upon the back of one of these animals. Nor is modern testimony wanting. The Sieur Andre Brüe Note: In Labat’s Nouvelle Relation de l’Afrique Occidentale. Paris, 1728. speaking of the Rio San Domingo (West Africa), says, “What is most remarkable, is that the caymans, or crocodiles, such formidable animals elsewhere, are here so tame that they hurt nobody. It is certain that children play with them, riding upon their backs, and sometimes beating them, without their showing the least resentment. This may be owing to the care which the inhabitants take to feed them and use them well.”
We have no space for all the curious illustrative matter in our hands respecting the crocodile; but the remarkable and finely poetical metaphor, “His eyes are like the eyelids of the morning,” reminds us that the Egyptians employed the eye of the crocodile to denote the rising sun, which has been accounted for by the alleged fact, that the eyes of the animal become first visible when it rises out of the water.
Autor: JOHN KITTO