Are Dragons Evil

[Aldarion]

This is the first post of my blog series about whether dragons are, in fact, evil. It covers the Bible, as the entire series is a result of my discussion with a quite religious relative on whether dragons are evil and whether I should use a dragon as logo for my blog (the same dragon I'm using as an avatar here - and yes, I drew it myself). The answer to the question is, naturally: it is complicated.

Are Dragons Evil, Part 1 – Introduction and Bible

Introduction “Are dragons evil” is a question which is important for many religious people, but may also interest those who are not religious as well. And since mythology is the basis o…

military-fantasy.com

Summa summarum: as I said, complicated. But as can be seen from above, even the Bible - the Old Testament, especially - does not support the idea that all dragons are somehow inherently evil. Dangerous, independent and violent, yes, those are all true - though even the "violent" part is not actually true for all dragons. But evil, no - or at least no more than any other living beings.

 

[Scottty]

Let's start by making clear what a "dragon" is. In the KJV, I think it's mostly a mistranslation for some more mundane animal. Job wasn't bedding down in the wild next to Smaug-like giant firebreathing lizards.

 

[Aldarion]

Let's start by making clear what a "dtagon" is. In the KJV, I think it's mostly a mistranslation for some more mundane animal. Job wasn't bedding down in the wild next to Smaug-like giant firebreathing lizards.

Actually, most of mundane animals in today's Bible - such as a whale - are mistranslations of "tannyn", which basically means "dragon". And I hardly think you can expect a mundane animal to breathe fire.

 

[Scottty]

Actually, most of mundane animals in today's Bible - such as a whale - are mistranslations of "tannyn", which basically means "dragon". And I hardly think you can expect a mundane animal to breathe fire.

I think that's an overspecific interpretation of a more broad and fuzzy ancient Hebrew word.

 

[absenceofmalice]

which basically means

But what does it actually mean.

 

[Aldarion]

I think that's an overspecific interpretation of a more broad and fuzzy ancient Hebrew word.

But what does it actually mean.

It is not Hebrew, or rather, it is not solely or originally Hebrew. Tannin is an ancient Canaanite monster, from the Baal Cycle. It was a sea serpent, which is to say, a dragon. Hebrews "borrowed" it from there, and there is nothing in the Bible, or anywhere else I have read, that indicates they changed its nature in the process.

Also, Aaron's staff becomes tannin in the Book of Exodus. Considering it is a staff, and that most common translation is that of a "snake", it is clear that in this particular case tannin can only mean dragon (original dragons are serpents; "winged lizard" type only appears relatively recently).

 

[absenceofmalice]

It is not Hebrew, or rather, it is not solely or originally Hebrew. Tannin is an ancient Canaanite monster, from the Baal Cycle. It was a sea serpent, which is to say, a dragon. Hebrews "borrowed" it from there, and there is nothing in the Bible, or anywhere else I have read, that indicates they changed its nature in the process.

Also, Aaron's staff becomes tannin in the Book of Exodus. Considering it is a staff, and that most common translation is that of a "snake", it is clear that in this particular case tannin can only mean dragon (original dragons are serpents; "winged lizard" type only appears relatively recently).

But what does it actually mean.

 

[Bear Ribs]

A specific dragon in the new testament is undoubtedly evil. There it's translated from drakon in Greek which is much closer to our modern word. It appears 13 times, all in Revelation, all referring to Satan. Drakon, dragon, appears nowhere else in the Greek scriptures. However Satan is called out as The Great Dragon, a specific one. He doesn't seem representative of all dragons anymore than Satan represents all snakes or all lions.

I think it's worth separating drakon and tanniyn as the words don't perfectly match up. Tanniyn have a number of properties and ranges of qualities. Tanniyn can be poisonous (Deuteronomy 32:33). Tanniyn are solitary (Job 30:29). and is quite powerful (Isaiah 27:1, 51:9). and can make a wailing noise (Micah 1:8). Some live in the water (Psalm 74:13, Isaiah 27:1) and some in deserted cities (Jeremiah 9:11) or in the wilderness (Isaiah 43:20 ). They vary in size with some being huge but the example of Aaron's staff indicates they can be small.

Overall it's pretty clear to me that tanniyn is not a single species but a whole range of different creatures, some aquatic, some desert-dwelling. It's very hard for me to reconcile "loud" and "venomous" as those qualities almost never overlap in nature (and don't in any creature I'm aware of in the fertile crescent) which makes me conclude that's two different species of tanniyn. The largest percentage seem to map to serpents but the wailing noise must come from something else, serpents aren't known for their loud cries. Personally I find it maps best to "beast" in our language rather than any specific clade with context giving more specifics as to what kind of beast.

Henry Morris, in his book The Biblical Basis for Modern Science had the interesting proposal that tanniyn refers to dinosaurs. I don't actually agree with his reasoning but it's an interesting conjecture. The problem with it of course is that we call dinosaurs what they are because of specific characteristics, such as being known only from fossils. Were a dinosaurs alive today we'd call have entire listings and probably put them in dozens of different classifications, some lizard, some bird. We would not conclude that a Gorgosaurus and a Stegosaurus should go remotely in the same classification if we weren't using "ancient fossil" as part of our definition. The ancient Hebrews similarly would not call everything we do a "dinosaur" because they didn't use our methods of classification.

That is of course beyond the fact that dinosaurs were extinct multiple years before Moses...

 

[Scottty]

That is of course beyond the fact that dinosaurs were extinct multiple years before Moses...

Or were they? dun-dun-DUN..

 

[Aldarion]

But what does it actually mean.

The word? I haven't got a clue.

@Bear Ribs That is true. But Satan has also been compared to the snake, lion, etc., so Satan = dragon does not mean that dragon = Satan.

Also, your objection isn't actually evidence against. Dragons too are not a single being but a range of different creatures, which can vary wildly even within a single mythology. And one of inspirations for dragons were likely dinosaur fossils. So what you wrote made me even more certain that tannyn are most likely dragons.

 

[MuddyAristocrat]

Of course, I hesitate to incorporate "dragon as good or neutral," in fact, as anything other than "wild beast," into motifs and fiction, because it is indelibly associated in the West with evil, and demons seem to prefer associations, which makes sense given that they are beings of pure intellect. We don't live in a vacuum; that sleepless-eyed guy with the pentagram tattoo and the long dragon wrapped around his arm doesn't have those two tattoos in isolation. Heroin smoking isn't called "chasing the dragon" for nothing (although the phrase is Chinese). The St. Benedict medal says "Let not the dragon be my guide."

 

[S'task]

It's very hard for me to reconcile "loud" and "venomous" as those qualities almost never overlap in nature (and don't in any creature I'm aware of in the fertile crescent) which makes me conclude that's two different species of tanniyn.

Amusingly, the only example I can immediately think of that meets those two qualifications is a family of snakes that literally get their name from the fact they are loud:


Which is most decidedly not a critter of the fertile crescent.

However, given the size and shape of a staff, and the context of the word and the association with venomous, I do understand why many modern translations would go with serpent or snake there's really nothing else that qualifies as fitting those descriptions.

 

[Zachowon]

Depends on what you look at. In eastern myth they arnt evil for the most part.
In western it depends on the dragon.

 

[Aldarion]

This is the second part of the series:

Are Dragons Evil, Part 2 – Ancient Mediterranean and Middle East

Greek Mythology Dragons in Greek mythology are ambivalent. They are very often antagonists, but are much less often outright evil. Greek Dracones usually guarded a sacred spring, grove or golden tr…

military-fantasy.com

 

[Aldarion]

Part 3, about Slavic mythology:

Are Dragons Evil, Part 3 – Slavic

In Slavic languages, dragon is called “zmaj” (Croatian, pronounced as “zmay”) or variations thereof – zmej (Russian), zmij (Ukrainian), smok (Belarussian, Polish), though va…

military-fantasy.com

 

[Aldarion]

Are Dragons Evil, Part 4 – Germanic and West European

Germanic and Norse Mythology In German and Norse mythology dragons typically appear as monstrouous serpents, sometimes with wings and legs but more often as just giant snakes. These dragons (lindwo…

military-fantasy.com

 

[Aldarion]

Are Dragons Evil, Part 5 – Chinese

Chinese dragons are typically portrayed as long, scaled, serpentine creatures with four legs. Dragon is yang, and complements a yin fenghuang (phoenix). Dragons traditionally symbolize potent and a…

military-fantasy.com

 

[Aldarion]

Are Dragons Evil, Part 6 – Japanese

Much of Japanese dragon mythology is an amalgamation of native legends with those from China, Korea and India. The style of dragon was heavily influenced by the Chinese dragon. Japanese dragon, kno…

military-fantasy.com

 

[Bear Ribs]

Lumping in Oriental dragons with Western ones kind of bugs me. Honestly we shouldn't class them both as Dragons at all, they have no similarities beyond being large and scaly. Different body types, temperaments, functions in mythology, power sets, etc. Calling them all dragons always felt lazy to me, if they existed in real life nobody would presume they were closely related.

I feel the same way about people lumping Jiangshi in with Vampires (rigid corpses that have to move by hopping, don't drink blood, and have a whole different set of vulnerabilities revolving around chickens and holding your breath).

 

[Aldarion]

Lumping in Oriental dragons with Western ones kind of bugs me. Honestly we shouldn't class them both as Dragons at all, they have no similarities beyond being large and scaly. Different body types, temperaments, functions in mythology, power sets, etc. Calling them all dragons always felt lazy to me, if they existed in real life nobody would presume they were closely related.

I feel the same way about people lumping Jiangshi in with Vampires (rigid corpses that have to move by hopping, don't drink blood, and have a whole different set of vulnerabilities revolving around chickens and holding your breath).

That is what they were always called, at least in English. Also, old Western dragons are far more similar to Chinese dragons than modern fantasy would give an impression of. Both are snake-like divine beings with magical powers and/or influence on / control of the environment: especially weather. They did evolve in different ways - especially due to (in many ways destructive) influence of Christianity on the Western culture - but origins are the same.