The Orthodox Jewish Bible translates the term as hippopotamus, which is interesting.
1 Like
Indeed, the fact that scholars through the centuries have speculated variously reminds us just how ambiguous is the description. Of course, that entirely makes sense because Job 40 (and the book as a whole) is not a zoological treatise. It is a very interesting type of literary genre using long dialogues to communicate very heavy theological ideas.
1 Like
This distinction between named animals (ostrich, for instance) vs. ambiguously referenced animals (leviathan, behemoth) in Job reminds me a bit of parables (where people are not named) vs. narrative (where they are named.) I don’t know if there is anything to it at all in this case (and I’m probably not using the correct terms, here, either, so please excuse that.) @Joel_Duff makes a case that Job’s ostrich was the same as our modern day ostrich, such that the behavioral details provided in Job’s narrative accurately reflect the ostrich and are intended to be deliberate and profitable (in terms of lessons learned by comparison.) With the “unidentified” leviathan, do you suppose that the author assumed that the contemporary readers knew exactly what animal was being described? Or do you suppose that the purpose in their example was more symbolic and that the point (as you describe) was the “heavy theological ideas?”
1 Like
The leviathan has quite a reputation throughout that ancient world, so I think that it is very loaded with symbolism and “mythic meaning”. I doubt that it had much in common with real animals, though no doubt it had origins in the fearsome traits of various creatures which startled ancient peoples.
2 Likes
@AllenWitmerMiller
Thank you for taking the time to converse with me in this interesting discussion!
Rhetorical questions aside, what I was getting at here is this: if the text in Job uses the word for “tail” to designate an elephant’s trunk, why does it then describe the river surging against the mouth of behemoth (while it is drinking?) since an elephant uses its trunk to drink?
Since the elephant’s trunk is basically an extension of its nose, why does the text later reference the nose of behemoth? These are big problems for the elephant interpretation of behemoth, not even pressing the most obvious issue: the elephant’s tail. Interpreting “tail” to mean “trunk” simply does not make sense (as we have seen, given the preceding points etc.).
I’m afraid not. The identity of behemoth was a perplexing enigma until we discovered fossils of a creature that fits the bill! Can you at least agree with me that YEC was the most mainstream (even though it was not the only) interpretation of Genesis before the relatively recent ascent of the ideas of evolution and an old earth?
Of course the different traits of behemoth can be attributed to different animals. However, a sauropod (or maybe some other sort of) dinosaur is definitely the best fit.
That fellow is right. It could have been a sauropod. Not only that, but the case for behemoth being a sauropod is stronger than the case for behemoth being an elephant (which is a stretch, as we have seen).
Now, you are definitely free to disagree with me, as that is a big part of what PS is all about. However, I encourage you to come up with a better interpretation of Job 40 than the elephant, as that interpretation appears to be a far weaker one than the sauropod (although there is a possibility that some other sort of dinosaur would be a better fit), based solely on the text.
Have a nice evening,
-Jonathan
1 Like
It is definitely a fun topic! (I was a Young Earth Creationist years ago at the height of THE GENESIS FLOOD (1962, Henry Morris & John Whitcomb Jr.) era and therefore, so lots of such themes are interesting to me.)
How are the two concepts exclusive? You’ve lost me on this. What prevents a river from surging against an elephant’s mouth while it is drinking? (You realize that elephant’s use their trunks to propel water into the mouth, right? The trunk is useful for collecting about two gallons of water at a time so that an elephant doesn’t have to bend down to drink from water below it. But when standing in very deep water, there is nothing to prevent an elephant from opening its mouth and drinking water.)
I don’t understand why you think the two concepts are somehow in conflict.
I explained that in a previous post. I’m not clear why you see a problem with this.
Why do some languages have different words for the left and right hand while also having a single word for both? Why do ophthalmologists have single words to separately refer to the left eye versus the right eye while also calling them both eyes?
This is called assuming the consequent.
As to the identity of behemoth being a “perplexing enigma”, that was because the text doesn’t give anything approaching sufficient zoological/anatomical details which would unambiguously identify the animal. The discovery of sauropod fossils did nothing to resolve that ambiguity. You still have not explained what aspect of sauropod anatomy, physiology, or behavior resolved the zoological ambiguities of Job 40.
Putting aside whether or not that idea is in agreement, why would it matter whether a particular interpretation is the earliest or “most mainstream”? Lots or old, original, and/or “most mainstream” ideas are completely wrong. This is drifting further into a logical fallacy.
You haven’t yet listed any criteria which at all favors a sauropod. Of all of the possible animals which are strong, fearless, and “dominant” (so to speak) in their ecosystems, what does the Job 40 text state that is a compelling fit for a sauropod? Indeed, why not a Tyrannosaurus rex? (After all, many Young Earth Creationists claim that prior to the Fall, the T rex ate grass much like all sorts of herbivores, including oxen. And since “nobody was there to see”, who is to say that the T rex in Job’s day wasn’t an omnivore who ate grass? Why not one of the very large mammalian megafauna which died out just a few thousand years ago?)
So then you agree that I could just as easily say the magic words and argue that “It could have been a T rex!” or “It could have been a mammalian megafauna much like those who lived after the last Ice Age!”?
If some exegetical discovery exposes weaknesses in the elephant interpretation, I’ll change my position.
I know far more Hebrew professors who consider the elephant a more likely and stronger interpretation than a sauropod—based solely on the text. You will not find a lot of scholars outside the YEC origins industry who favor the sauropod interpretation. (I studied Hebrew under several Jewish rabbis and all of them thought the sauropod interpretation quite humorous.)
What criteria in the Job 40 text point to a dinosaur and not a mammal? I’m baffled where you are getting any of this from the text.
Here are the verses in question from the ESV translation. I find the differences interesting. Stiff like a ceder? I thought an elephant’s trunk was supposed to be flexible? The more literal the translation gets, the less the elephant interpretation seems to work…
“Behold, Behemoth,c
which I made as I made you;
he eats grass like an ox.
16 Behold, his strength in his loins,
and his power in the muscles of his belly.
17 He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like bars of iron.19 “He is the first of the worksd of God;
let him who made him bring near his sword!
20 For the mountains yield food for him
where all the wild beasts play.
21 Under the lotus plants he lies,
in the shelter of the reeds and in the marsh.
22 For his shade the lotus trees cover him;
the willows of the brook surround him.
23 Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened;
he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth.
24 Can one take him by his eyes,e
or pierce his nose with a snare?
Would an elephant be secure/confident in rushing water that deep? Probably not, as the stories of elephants being washed away in flooding rivers tell us. Also, how often do elephants get into water that deep? If the answer is “not very often” then why does God describe behemoth in such a way (if behemoth is supposed to be an elephant)?
We just ran into another problem now that I finally looked up the passage we are discussing in the ESV.
Well, maybe the tail thing for starters. Besides, the sauropod interpretation still works well (better than the elephant interpretation, I might add).
I tend to agree. Behemoth being an elephant might be one of these ideas.
Behemoth “ate grass like an ox” (in other words, was an herbivore). As far as we know, post-fall T. rex was not.
If you are suggesting that behemoth might have been a mammoth, that idea still has just as many problems as the elephant interpretation.
If this were a valid argument, I would have stopped debating evolutionists long ago. Please stick to scriptural arguments, not faulty appeals to authority. What arguments do these Hebrew professors make that you have not yet brought forward? Besides, didn’t you say that there was no guarantee that Job spoke Hebrew?
If you can find a mammal (or pretty much any other animal, for that matter) that fits the description of behemoth better than a sauropod (or other type of dinosaur), I will gladly change my mind. However, I still find the elephant interpretation you favor to be most unconvincing.
Now, @AllenWitmerMiller, I do not at all mean to come across as abrasive, rude, or disrespectful. However, I honestly think that you need to find a new behemoth interpretation.
God bless,
-Jonathan
Are you sure that you didn’t miss one of my early posts on this topic? I said the very opposite. Cedars aren’t “stiff” or rigid at all. They flex in the wind and it is easy to bend the branches.
Do you understand that it is a conifer? It is a softwood, not a hardwood type of tree!
OK, now I’m convinced you missed the most important of my posts. Perhaps it is over on the thread from which this one was taken. I think it was one of my earliest on this topic, wherever it was.
Seriously?! I raised it because you had appealed to the authority of the most mainstream view as if that carries superlative authority!
No problem. It has been an interesting discussion but I think we are talking past each other by this point—and all of our major arguments have already been posted. Good evening. I’ve got to start winding down my day after wrapping up any other pending threads. Best regards.
1 Like
I brought up the “most mainstream” thing not to prove a point, but as a counter of sorts to your question about the recent origin of the sauropod interpretation of behemoth. Thanks for explaining your thoughts on that (and I hope I have explained myself sufficiently).
I did not miss the earlier posts. This was my reference to the ESV translation of the passages we are discussing (emphasis mine):
Sounds like a sauropod to me!
Yes, the thread splitting has become rather confusing. Nonetheless, I think that I have given copious evidence that interpreting behemoth’s tail to be an elephant’s trunk really doesn’t make sense (especially given the ESV translation).
Thanks again for the discussion! I agree that our best arguments have probably been posted by now, and I would submit that it may be best to let the viewers/readers/lurkers make up their minds at this point. 
Best regards,
-Jonathan
With all this talk about the meaning of “tail”, what is the Hebrew word, and what is its range of usage in Scripture?
The word is zanab. It means “tail” or “end,” specifically referring (besides Job 40:17) to a serpent (Exod 4:4) or a fox (Judg 15:4) (and a dog [Prov 26:17] if following the LXX). It’s seen as the opposite of the head (Deut 28:13, 44; Isa 9:14, 15; 19:15). Also used metaphorically for “stump” (Isa 7:4). FWIW, the lexicons I looked at all assume a hippo in Job 40:17.
So, I think it’s safe to assume “tail” is the meaning of the word in Job 40:17. The interpretive question is whether it is being used metaphorically for either trunk (elephant) or penis (actual animal or mythical mega-beast).
On another note, the meaning of the verb is not clear. This is it’s only OT occurrence. It seems the ancient versions (and modern translations) are “guessing” based on the overall sense of the description. The ancient versions prefer “hold stiff” (e.g., Greek histemi). The lexicons offer “bend down” or “hang,” while noting “hold stiff” as an alternative option. Interesting the number of English translations that stress movement (e.g., “moves” or “sways”), which does not seem to be the focus.
1 Like
Oh yeah. Mentioning the nose separately would preclude the trunk.
Anyways its all hopeless. People show here that they do not know the glory of the diversity of mammals alone?
There were so many hugh, weird, types of mammals that saying the behemoth is a dinosaur is very premature.
Anyways there was no dinosaur division or mammal as I see it.
Why would God be restricted to such group types on creation week. Before the fall?!
there are only KINDS and not many.
What was the leviathan?? There are so many options for these creatures.
YEC is wrong to suggest saurpods as a first option. I don’t think anything like a saurapod lasted many decades after the flood. This KIND was probably unclean.
I just watched for the first ime 1 million BC. It was great and not campy. In some ways better then jurassic park. especially Raquel! I wish sauropds were around , and more Raquels eh.
No. You seem to be assuming some rule of language which simply does not exist.
A major point of agreement!! 
That film is almost as old as the real sauropods!
I remember my freind Murray getting into trouble at school for rather immaturely sticking up a satirical poster with the school principal’s head stuck on Raquel’s body. That would have been in 1,001,968BC.
1 Like
thats funny. As I said I was surprised at it been well done. I heard over the years it was dumb and campy. NOT SO. I only like great movies. They took me there and the creatures were fine. Better acting then jurassic park.
Its not a creationist movie but whatever. Sometimes the Brits can do a great movie.
1 Like
Is that the movie where nobody actually spoke? That in itself makes it an unusual film.
1 Like
They had names and a few other words. they laughed. Laughter is just words/sounds bunched up due to passion/emotion.
Talking doesn’t help them these days.
1 Like