The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Didn't see where there was an option to take a poll anymore and wasn't sure if this is the place to pose this question, thou this is good enough.

I am looking for some insight as to what Behemoth and Leviathan are!
There are some interesting positions out there such as dinosaurs, mythical creatures and the likes.
So I would like to hear from others here at the forum what there thoughts are.
All of the scripture quotes are (KJV).

In the book of Job, towards chapter 38 thru the end, where God begins to reveal to Job his
Omnipotence.

I have always wondered what sort of animals God was describing when he said.

Job 40:15 ¶ Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 40:18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

This is the only occurrence of this word in the entire Bible. As suggested in the definition of several bible commentaries, it is a Hippopotamus

Job 41:1 ¶ Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Job 41:2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
Isa 27:1 ¶ In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea
Isa 51:9 ¶ Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon?
Ps 104:26 There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.
Eze 29:3 Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself
Ps 74:13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.
This one has been considered to be a crocodile by most.

_________________
Kola,

Jeremiah 29:13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.

Even as noah released a raven and a dove representing the flesh and the spirit even these two beasts represent spiritual things. Although they may be extinct in nature they are truly alive in spirit. If you read Job 41:34 speaking of Leviathan, you will find out he is the King over all the children of Pride. Behemoth is different but by study and prayer we can understand who he represents also. We know satan was cast out of heaven because pride was found in him. We can asume all his children would be full of pride. Jesus spoke of a farmer who sowed good seed in a field some fell by the way some on stony ground some among the thorns some on good ground. He explained to the deciples that it was given to them to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God but to those who are without he spoke to them in parables. I pray this helps you with your quest to find out what the animals really represent.

The tail of a Hippo does not have the appearance or the movement of anything that resembles a "cedar".

That is my problem with the hippo interpretation.

As is typical of Hebrew poetry, the description of the behemoth consists of couplets: two lines that are thematically linked together. In each couplet, the second line generally restates or expands in a complementary fashion on what the first line says.

Verse 16 says, "Behold, his strength in his loins, / and his power in the muscles of his belly." Both halves deal with strength, and "loins" and "belly" are closely related (loins either refers to the pubic region or hips, such as Genesis 37:34 and Exodus 28:42, or to the centre of a person's strength, such as Proverbs 31:17 and Nahum 2:1).

Verse 18 says "His bones are tubes of bronze, / his limbs like bars of iron." Again, the symmetry between the halves of the verse is obvious. So, we can expect that verse 17 also has this form, and since the verses on each side of it deal with strength, we can expect verse 17 to deal with strength as well.

Here's what it says in the KJV (I've again added a slash to divide the lines): "He moveth his tail like a cedar: / the sinews of his stones are wrapped together." There's two words that are interesting. First, the Hebrew word translated in the KJV as "stones" only occurs here in the Bible, so its meaning is speculative. In the KJV and other early English translations, it is rendered as "stones", a word which means "testicles" when it refers to a body part (see Leviticus 21:20 and Deuteronomy 23:1 for other examples of this usage). In the Latin Vulgate, this word is translated testiculorum. In newer translations, it is often translated as "thighs" instead, although I'm not aware of much reason for this change, aside from the fact that it's less likely to induce giggles when read aloud from the pulpit. It appears quite likely that this word indeed refers to the creature's testicles.

The second interesting word is "moveth", which in Hebrew is the word chaphets. While this Hebrew word occurs 75 times in the Bible, it is only translated as "moveth" here.* Every other time it is translated as either "delight", "please", "pleasure" or variations on that. In the Greek Septuagint, this word is translated as histemi, a word with a meaning that includes "to cause to make stand", "to make firm" and "to uphold or sustain".

Why don't translators consistently render the word in this instance and instead use a nearly opposite meaning, "moveth"? Perhaps because it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense otherwise -- unless you put all the pieces together. Verses 16-18 all describe the strength of the behemoth. Verse 16 ends with describing the force it has in its loins. In the next verse, the second half talks about tightly wrapped testicles, and we can expect that the first half somehow complements this thought. It refers to a "tail" that is delighted or pleasured so it is as firm, upheld and sustained as a cedar tree.

What ever could it be referring to?

And, how could this fit into the purpose of God's speech, which was to take Job down a few notches by showing wonders in God's creation that surpass or mystify Job in various ways? Is it at all relevant that male hippos happen to be one of the most well-endowed land animals?

I wonder. I know I'll never cease to be humbled by Job 40:17. I mean... like a cedar tree! Wow.

---

* Edit: The NET Bible notes on this verse say that the verb khafats occurs only here. Perhaps there is a question of whether the other occurrences of the same letters refer to the same word or not. In any case, the NET note continues: "It may have the meaning 'to make stiff; to make taut' (Arabic). The LXX and the Syriac versions support this with 'erects.' But there is another Arabic word that could be cognate, meaning 'arch, bend.' This would give the idea of the tail swaying. The other reading seems to make better sense here. However, 'stiff' presents a serious problem with the view that the animal is the hippopotamus." Of course, the "make stiff/erect" meaning is not at all problematic if the animal is a hippo, as described above, and there's no reason to use the more obscure (and opposite) meaning of "arch, bend", since when placed in context, the normal meaning is quite sensible.

_________________
"Therefore, my beloved, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord, because you know that in the Lord your labour is not in vain." (1 Cor. 15:58, NRSV)

Unmarked Scripture is from the ESV.

Hello,
I read this thread about a week ago now, and - - it rather bothered me... as - - it seemed like such a varient reading or interpretation - - that it rather bothered me - - to see that no one seemed to be interested enough to correct it.

Was written in Aug of 2006. This is March, 2007? 6 months - - and with all the Christians bouncing around - - no one thought to correct it?

Anyway, it embarrased me to allow it to stand, so I thought that perhaps I would strive to find a slightly better offering. I found it here.

http://creationwiki.org/Behemoth%2C_fro ... EvoWiki%29
(hopefully the link will work)

I will now review this above article.

First off - - He stiffens his penis like a pine?
The word tail (Hebrew Zanab)(above penis) translates to tail, end, stump, and is [Strongs number 2180]. Ex 4:4. Moses was to take up the serpent by the tail. Etc., etc. Sampson tied the foxes' TAILS together. etc., etc., Is used thusly - - about 10 times.

The other word under question is stones. [strongs 6344] Yes, this word is somewhat under question, as it only appears once in the Bible.

Perhaps we should save time and argument and address a related claim: "Stones" refers to "testicles". Although EvoWiki has not made this claim, (yet) it is common among the tail=penis crowd.

The passage reads: He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together



Hence, stones for testicles has a word = 'eshek.
And so what is pached? Saying that it is testicles, seems to streach things. Then calling the tail a penis, is NOT quite good proper Scriptural renderings.

Now will go forth once more, and will look at the reason behind, or the bias behind the argument that this tail is a penis.

If it is a P, then - - it seems as though this MAY be a hippo.... and may not be a dinasaur, as a cedar tail seems to indicate.

So - - is it a hippo? No. It really can NOT be. Reading further - - gives us this.




So what is it? Ha. Is not a hippo, so - - perhaps someday we might be able to ask Job. I suspect, that this will give us the true answer.... and everything else is conjecture.

but - - I hope at least that, perhaps, I have brought a little bit of light into the world this day.

As an aside, I rather like the creationwiki page. I found it to be quite complete, and sharp in it's analysis.

Bert

Behemoth is/was a large beast that seems to most resemble that of the Brontosaur.

Leviathan is a sea "dragon" that resembles nothing most people have seen in the oceans these days. Keep in mind that the deepest depths of our world's oceans have been explored less than outer space.

I recall verses about the end of times mentioning Leviathan will wake up. I think it's in revelations, but I'll have to go digging, it's been awhile.

Most people approach faith and the Holy Word of God with the same mindset as doubting Thomas. They have to explain everything with examples they can see, touch, and taste, not stopping to consider that they are not omniscient and despite the marvels of modern technology, they have not, "seen all there is to see" in this world. There are many mysteries that God has not chosen to reveal to us and it is quite possible that Behemoth and Leviathon are both unique creatures that scientists have never encountered before in any form, living or dead.

Hello Wayfarer,

I agree totally - - and to a certain extent, I hugely admire the KJV Authors. They admitted they did not KNOW what it was, so they coined a new word to discribe them. Behemouth, and Levitan. This is in opposition to most current Bibles, whereby they seem to need to make it all simple - - even if it is NOT all that simple. The Ancients did not know what to call these animals, as these animals do not FIT - so instead, they put in any old thing, just to show how wise, they themselves are, I think.

But the new animals, just do not FIT. Would be nice, if they did, but hippo? And then twisting it's tail around, so it SEEMS to fit?

Oh well. The Lord is Great anyway. Is more HIS problem, than mine I guess.

Bert

I happened across this old thread while viewing some old posts, and noticed that Bert responded to my post a number of months after I posted it. Not to be outdone, I'll now respond to that a number of years after it was posted! However, I think Bert is still around here, so perhaps it isn't too late. And, Job 40:17 isn't going anywhere, so it's never too late to look more closely at it.

I agree with the article Bert linked to that zanab means tail (or end, in some cases). That should have been clear from my post too. My claim is that in this verse it is being used as a euphemism for male genitalia, not that it literally means that. If anyone thinks that Scripture never uses euphemisms like that, I recommend searching the KJV for "pisseth against the wall", a euphemistic way of referring to a human with a penis. Newer translations often sanitize the Hebrew idiom for us, rendering it simply as "male".

Another place where modern translations "fix" language that can make us squeamish is of course the word "stones". Both Bert and I noted that the Hebrew word in question only occurs here. However, I pointed out that it has traditionally been translated in a way that means testicles, both in the Latin Vulgate and in the KJV and other early English translations. The argument raised against this is that there is another Hebrew word that means testicles. This does not help in determining the meaning of this word -- there is no requirement for a Hebrew word to not mean something similar to another Hebrew word. The translation of "thighs" found in many newer versions appears to be based more on making the text pulpit-friendly than any new insights into the Hebrew. If there is further evidence favouring "thighs", I have not yet seen it.

Also, the article Bert linked to did not deal with the verb, chaphets, which is the key to the interpretation. Reading that verb as meaning "moves" requires an extremely creative translation of the Hebrew, since chaphets is not a word that rarely occurs in Hebrew. We have 75 other occurrences of it, and not once does it mean anything like "moves". Both that word, and its translation in the Latin Vulgate, point to a quite different understanding of what this phrase is saying. Put another way, while my suggested translation requires zanab to be used euphemistically, the "moves-tail-like-cedar" reading requires chaphets to mean its near-opposite. Both views have to nuance a word in order to arrive at their meaning.

Combine those points, and add the structure of the surrounding verses with their parallelisms and focus on strength, and I think the interpretation I mentioned stands quite well -- almost as firmly as a cedar tree!

Bert's article also commented on Job 40:20 which refers to behemoth getting food from the mountains. The Hebrew word here is har, which can refer to hills, mountains, or hill country. Because of the word's wide meaning, it isn't much help in narrowing down which animal is referred to. Other verses reveal a grass-based diet (Job 40:15), and show that while the animal is large, it is not so large that lotus plants can't shade it or the reeds of the brook can't cover it (Job 40:21). More fantastical interpretations, such as dinosaurs, may not be entirely ruled out by the text, but a hippo also fits quite well, and I think it makes far better sense of that cryptic phrase in Job 40:17.

_________________
"Therefore, my beloved, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord, because you know that in the Lord your labour is not in vain." (1 Cor. 15:58, NRSV)

Unmarked Scripture is from the ESV.

פַחֲדָו (Job 40:17) is read as "thigh" in the BDB lexicon, Holladay's lexicon, and the Theological Wordbook of the OT. Do you have something that suggests otherwise? The term אָֽשֶׁךְ is "testicles" in Lev. 21:20 and שָׁפְכָ֖ה in Deuteronomy 23:1 (verse 2 of the Hebrew). In other words, we are talking about three different terms. I'm just wondering what other evidence you have suggesting the term in Job might mean more than is suggested by all modern translations?

_________________
Everyone is equal at the foot of the cross...just some are more equal than others.
Forum Code of Conduct
Bible.org Doctrinal Statement
rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com
iheartbarth.wordpress.com
bluechippastor.org
Twitter: @RickWadholmJr

Hi Antipater,

I'm wondering why the translation of that word in Job has changed in the last few hundred years. Since the word only occurs once in Scripture, what is the extrabiblical evidence that led to this change? What do we know that the translators of the Vulgate and early English translations didn't know? These aren't rhetorical questions -- I'm really curious as to what led to the change in definition for that word.

I can see how the meaning of testicles wouldn't make sense if the first half of the verse was just thought to be talking about a literal tail. In that case, it seems really out of place. That seems to be the same kind of reasoning that led the verb for delight/desire/pleasure to be changed to "move" in this one instance -- the normal meaning doesn't seem to fit very well with a literal tail, nor does it explain how a literal tail would be in any way comparable to a cedar tree. However, tightly wrapped testicles does parallel this thought quite strikingly if it instead refers to an animal ready to mate. Both halves of the parallelism are describing physical changes that happen in such a circumstance.

Further, this view makes far better sense of the Hebrew poetry. Verse 16 describes the two centres of the creature's strength, its lions and belly muscles. Verse 17 takes the loins to their external manifestations, the genitals. Verse 18 takes the belly muscles to their external manifestations, the limbs. The externals are shown to be as potent as the centre they come from. If verse 17 is just speaking about the tail and thighs, then the verses appear to be more a collection of random thoughts than a careful poetic structure.

_________________
"Therefore, my beloved, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord, because you know that in the Lord your labour is not in vain." (1 Cor. 15:58, NRSV)

Unmarked Scripture is from the ESV.

It makes its tail (זָנָב) stiff like a cedar, the sinews of its thighs are tightly wound. (Job 40:17 NET)

זָנָב is contrasted numerous times in the Hebrew with the רֹאשׁ "head" and thus is normally translated "tail" (Deut. 28:13, 44; Isa. 9:13-14; 19:15). It is also what Moses was commanded to grab of the staff turned serpent (and I've never heard of a serpent with an "appendage" like what you are suggesting for the translational value in Job ). Further, the LXX here is οὐρὰν which also means "tail, rear, backwards", but "tail" with regard to animals. The "moving" or "making stiff" is suggested by the Arabic hafada "lower, depress"....though you are correct that this term is translated "delight, wish" elsewhere very often.

"Thighs" is suggested from the Arabic fahidhun (sorry I can't write the Arabic in its proper transliteration) which is why it was unknown to the Vulgate or the KJV. However, the more ancient νεῦρα of the LXX means "tendons, sinews".

It still offers a careful poetic structure with reference to the places of particular strength on this creature.

_________________
Everyone is equal at the foot of the cross...just some are more equal than others.
Forum Code of Conduct
Bible.org Doctrinal Statement
rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com
iheartbarth.wordpress.com
bluechippastor.org
Twitter: @RickWadholmJr

Antipater, we have no disagreement over "tail". From my first post I've suggested it is being used euphemistically, not that it literally means something other than a tail/end. One can't disprove a metaphor by saying the word literally means something else, and it's the same with a euphemism. The whole point is that a different, yet suggestively related word, is being used for a different purpose. Elsewhere in Scripture, I think "horn" is used euphemistically for the same referent -- the word "penis" is not typically used directly.

For the verb, we're on the same page. Whether it is translated as "made stiff" or "delight", it fits far better with the interpretation I've outlined than with the idea it's describing the curvy tail of a dinosaur. Translating it as "bends" or "moves" does not appear to have much justification.

Thanks for the further information about "stones"/"thighs". I was aware the Septuagint used "sinews", which doesn't directly support either of the other readings. I guess I will try to dig into how similar fahidhun is to the Hebrew word in this verse.


How? Can you describe this careful poetic structure if the verse refers to the tail and thigh? For me, the fact that the structure I outlined last post only emerges with that reading is strong evidence in favour of it.

_________________
"Therefore, my beloved, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord, because you know that in the Lord your labour is not in vain." (1 Cor. 15:58, NRSV)

Unmarked Scripture is from the ESV.

Edit: Please ignore that "horn" comment -- I don't remember the details, and it's a red herring I shouldn't have mentioned.

_________________
"Therefore, my beloved, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord, because you know that in the Lord your labour is not in vain." (1 Cor. 15:58, NRSV)

Unmarked Scripture is from the ESV.

15 "Look now at Behemoth, which I made as I made you; it eats grass like the ox.
16 Look at its strength in its loins, and its power in the muscles of its belly.
17 It makes its tail stiff like a cedar, the sinews of its thighs are tightly wound.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like bars of iron.
19 It ranks first among the works of God, the One who made it has furnished it with a sword.
20 For the hills bring it food, where all the wild animals play.
(Job 40:15-20 NET)

What I notice is that not every couplet is a parallel or contrast. Verse 15 offers an insight with no immediate match until verse 20 concerning food. If anything the first half of verse 17 seems to prepare us for verse 18 with the description of likeness while the second half of 17 compares to verse 16. And as well verse seventeens two halves refer to the ability of this creature to use the its tail and thighs as places of particular note for tautness. Perhaps also the tail and thighs are conceived as connected in some poetic manner in this regard. I personally believe the language here to be rather mythic (if I may be permitted to use this term...) in proportions. It is something intended for awe and not for scientific precision (and thus not a precise anatomical description contrary to some hypotheses I've heard elsewhere).

While I don't have a problem with a sexual euphemism (it certainly makes for a symbol of strength and potency in the ANE)....I don't find it to actually be here in this context...though I certainly would not 100% rule it out....I appreciate your comments here Mercury.

_________________
Everyone is equal at the foot of the cross...just some are more equal than others.
Forum Code of Conduct
Bible.org Doctrinal Statement
rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com
iheartbarth.wordpress.com
bluechippastor.org
Twitter: @RickWadholmJr

Thanks, Antipater. I've appreciated our conversation too, and the information you've provided. I agree that the descriptions can't be pressed too far, and especially when it comes to Leviathan in the next section, I also see mythic language in the mix.

In case there's any confusion by others who may read this, I should be clear that the interpretation I've advocated is not my own creation, but the one I find convincing. It is well-known in scholarly research and also available in many popular sources. I haven't listed sources because of the nature of forum discussion, because the key sources that influenced me aren't easily citable (I only encountered more mainstream sources like John Gill's cursory discussion of it later), and because I wanted to discuss the view based on its own merits, not the esteem of its proponents.

Since the interpretation suggests there is a euphemism, there is no simple knock-down proof that it is correct. The confluence of evidence is what convinced me. It's not just that the second half of verse 17 is traditionally thought to refer to testicles, or just that the verb in the first half has traditionally been translated as a near-opposite because its normal meaning doesn't seem to fit a literal tail, or just that the uncomfortable nature of the imagery explains why translators would seek more pulpit-friendly readings if they are at all plausible, or just that it leads to a tighter parallelism within verse 17, or just that the structure of the poetry in verses 16-18 is enhanced in this view, but fitted together I find the case stronger than any individual piece. (Which is not to say that challenges to any piece don't matter -- they certainly deserve close examination, and if they don't hold up, the overall case is weakened.) But, I can certainly see how others may weigh the evidence differently and come to other conclusions. And, again, I've benefited from what you've presented.


Just one clarification to what I wrote earlier about this. In the LXX, the word under discussion (that may mean testicles or thighs) is left untranslated. The word used for "tendons, sinews" is a translation of another word in the verse. So, the reason I said the LXX didn't favour either view is that the translators chose not to translate the disputed word.

_________________
"Therefore, my beloved, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord, because you know that in the Lord your labour is not in vain." (1 Cor. 15:58, NRSV)

Unmarked Scripture is from the ESV.