APPENDIX. 
141 
King David, it seems, did not think it a ship, or a 
whirlpool. It would certainly be an interesting sight 
to see a whirlpool or a ship eating meat ! The defi¬ 
nition, again, regards this passage in the sense of a 
cruel enemy, (as this serpent undoubtedly is far 
more cruel than the whale,) and refers us to Psalm 
lxxiv. 14, Isaiah li. 9, Ezra xxix. 3, xxxii. 2, 3. Bo- 
chart Hieroz., P. II. Lib. V. cap. xvi., xviii. Here we 
must pause a moment to see what Pontoppidan, the 
Bishop of Bergen, says with regard to these pas¬ 
sages of Scripture, and also what is his opinion with 
regard to what Bochart says on this subject, which 
he gives in section 9, p. 106, of his Natural History 
of Norway, as follows : — 
44 The supposition that the Sea-Snake answers the 
description of the leviathan better than any other 
animal yet known, and may be understood by the 
leviathan, or the crooked serpent (Isaiah xxvii. 1) 
that shall slay the dragon that is in the sea, or that 
it may be the long serpent mentioned in Job xxvi. 
13, is not without some foundation.” 
I insert here the 12th and 13th verses from that 
chapter. 
44 He divideth the sea with his power, and by his 
understanding he smiteth through the proud. By his 
spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath 
formed the crooked serpent.” 
Again, Pontoppidan says, in the same place, — 
44 That it is the Pier ring-Serpent, or the Boom-Ser¬ 
pent, (serpens vectis, according to some authors,) is 
not improbable; for they often lie stretched out be¬ 
fore a creek, like a boom, to block up the passage. 
If Bochart had had any knowledge of this creature, 
which is very little known anywhere but in the 
North, he probably would not have taken the whale 
to be the leviathan. 4 Cetum Hebraei iisdem no¬ 
minibus appellant quibus Draconem, nempe, Than- 
nin et Leviathan, aut ob formse similitudinem, aut 
