13<\/strong>. The verse reads,<\/p>\n The wing of the ostrich beats joyously,<\/p>\n Is it a kindly pinion and feather?<\/p>\n The word rendered ostrich<\/em> means lit. crying<\/em> or wailing<\/em>, that is, the cryer or wailer; the female ostrich is probably meant, see on ch. Job 30:29<\/span>. The word “kindly,” lit. pious<\/em>, is the name given to the stork (Psa 104:17<\/span>), whose affection for its young is proverbial, and there may be in the term an allusion to this bird, which the ostrich in some points resembles externally, but from which it differs so strangely in disposition.<\/p>\n 13 18<\/strong>. The ostrich.<\/p>\n Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? – <\/B>In the previous verses the appeal had been to the wild and untamable animals of the desert. In the prosecution of the argument, it was natural to allude to the feathered tribes which resided there also, and which were distinguished for their strength or fleetness of wing, as proof of the wisdom and the superintending providence of God. The idea is, that these animals, far away from the abodes of man, where it could not be pretended that man had anything to do with their training, had habits and instincts special to themselves, which showed great variety in the divine plans, and at the same time consummate wisdom. The appeal in the following verses Job 39:13-18<\/span> is to the remarkable habits of the ostrich, as illustrating the wisdom and the superintending providence of God. There has been very great variety in the translation of this verse, and it is important to ascertain its real meaning, in order to know whether there is any allusion here to the peacock, or whether it refers wholly to the ostrich. The Septuagint did not understand the passage, and a part of the words they endeavored to translate, but the others are retained without any attempt to explain them. Their version is, , <\/SPAN><\/span> Pterux<\/I> terpomenon<\/I> neelassa<\/I>, ean<\/I> sullabe<\/I> asida<\/I> kai<\/I> nessa<\/I> – the wing of the exulting Neelassa if she conceives or comprehends <\/B>the Asia and Nessa. Jerome renders it, The wing of the ostrich is like the wings of the falcon and the hawk. Schultens renders it, The wing of the ostrich is exulting; but is it the wing and the plumage of the stork? He enumerates no less than twenty different interpretations of the passage. Herder renders it,<\/P> A wing with joyous cry is uplifted yonder;<\/P> Is it the wing and feather of the ostrich?<\/P> Umbreit renders it,<\/P> The wing of the ostrich, which lifts itselfjoyfully,<\/P> Does it not resemble the tail and feather of the stork?<\/P> Rosenmuller renders it,<\/P> The wing of the ostrich exults!<\/P> Truly its wing and plumage is like that of the stork!<\/P> Prof. Lee renders it, Wilt thou confide in the exulting of the wings of the ostrich? Or in her choice feathers and head-plumage, when she leaveth her eggs to the earth, etc. So Coverdale renders it, The ostrich (whose feathers are fairer than the wings of the sparrow-hawk), when he hath laid his eggs upon the ground, he breedeth them in the dust, and forgetteth them. In none of these versions, and in none that I have examined except that of Luther and the common English version, is there any allusion to the peacock; and amidst all the variety of the rendering, and all the difficulty of the passage, there is a common sentiment that the ostrich alone is referred to as the particular subject of the description. It is certain that the description proceeds with reference only to the habits of the ostrich, and it is very evident to my mind that in the whole passage there is no allusion whatever to the peacock.<\/P> Neither the scope of the passage, nor the words employed, it is believed, will admit of such a reference. There is great difficulty in the Hebrew text, which no one has been able fully to explain, but it is sufficiently clear to make it manifest that the ostrich, and not the peacock, is the subject of the appeal. The word which is rendered peacock, <\/span> reneniym<\/I>, is derived from <\/span> ranan<\/I>, to give forth a tremulous and stridulous sound; and then to give forth the voice in vibrations; to shake or trill the voice; and then, as in lamentation or joy the voice is often given forth in that manner, the word comes to mean to utter cries of joy; Isa 12:6<\/span>; Isa 35:6<\/span>; and also cries of lamentation or mourning, Lam 2:19<\/span>. The prevailing sense of the word in the Scriptures is to rejoice; to shout for joy; to exult. The name is here given to the bird referred to, evidently from the sound which it made, and probably from its exulting or joyful cry.<\/P> The word does not elsewhere occur in the Scriptures as applicable to a bird, and there is no reason whatever, either from its etymology, or from the connection in which it is found here, to suppose that it refers to the peacock. Another reason is suggested by Scheutzer (Phys. Sac. in loc<\/I>.), why the peacock cannot be intended here. It is, that the peacock is originally an East Indian fowl, and that it was imported at comparatively a late period in the Jewish history, and was doubtless unknown in the time of Job. In 1Ki 10:22<\/span>, and 2Ch 9:21<\/span>, it appears that peacocks were among the remarkable productions of distant countries that were imported for use or luxury by Solomon, a fact which would not have occurred had they been common in the patriarchal times. To these reasons to show that the peacock is not referred to here, Bochart, whose chapters on the subject deserve a careful attention (Hieroz. P. ii. L. ii. c. xvi. xvii.), has added the following:<\/P> (1) That if the peacock had been intended here, the allusion would not have been so brief. Of so remarkable a bird there would have been an extended description as there is of the ostrich, and of the unicorn and the horse. If the allusion is to the peacock, it is by a bare mention of the name, and by no argument, as in other cases, from the habits and instincts of the fowl.<\/P> (2) The word which is used here as a description of the bird referred to, <\/span> reneniym<\/I>, derived from the musical properties of the bird, is by no means applicable to the peacock. It is of all fowls, perhaps, least distinguished for beauty of voice.<\/P> (3) The property ascribed to the fowl here of exulting in the wing, by no means agrees with the peacock. The glory and beauty of that bird is in the tail, and not in the wing. Yet the wing is here, from some cause, particularly specified. Bochart has demonstrated at great length, and with entire clearness, that the peacock was a foreign fowl, and that it must have been unknown in Judea and Arabia, as it was in Greece and Rome, at a period long after the time in which the book of Job is commonly supposed to have been written. The proper translation of the Hebrew here then would be, The wing of the exulting fowls moves joyfully – <\/span> nealasah<\/I>. The attention seems to be directed to the wing, as being lifted up, or as vibrating with rapidity, or as being triumphant in its movement in eluding the pursuer. It is not its beauty particularly that attracts the attention, but its exulting, joyful, triumphant, appearance.<\/P> Or wings and feathers unto the ostrich? – <\/B>Margin, or, the feathers of the stork and ostrich. Most commentators have despaired of making any sense out of the Hebrew in this place, and there have been almost as many conjectures as there have been expositors. The Hebrew is, <\/span> <\/span> <\/span> ‘im’ebrah<\/I> chasydah<\/I> v<\/I>e<\/I><\/SUP>notsah<\/I>. A literal translation of it would be, Is it the wing of the stork, and the plumage, or feathers? The object seems to be to institute a comparison of some kind between the ostrich and the stork. This comparison, it would seem, relates partly to the wings and plumage of the two birds, and partly to their habits and instincts; though the latter point of comparison appears to be couched in the mere name. So far as I can understand the passage, the comparison relates first to the wings and plumage. The point of vision is that of the sudden appearance of the ostrich with exulting wing, and the attention is directed to it as in the bounding speed of its movements when in rapid flight.<\/P> In this view the usual name is not given to the bird – <\/span> <\/span> b<\/I>e<\/I><\/SUP>noth<\/I> yaanah<\/I>, Isa 13:21<\/span>; Isa 34:13<\/span>; Isa 43:20<\/span>; Jer 50:39<\/span>, but merely the name of fowls making a stridulous or whizzing sound – <\/span> reneniym<\/I>. The question is then asked whether it has the wing and plumage of the stork – evidently implying that the wing of the stork might be supposed to be adapted to such a flight, but that it was remarkable that without such wings the ostrich was able to outstrip even the fleetest animal. The question is designed to turn the attention to the fact that the ostrich accomplishes its flight in this remarkable manner without being endowed with wings like the stork, which is capable of sustaining by its wings a long and rapid flight. The other point of the comparison seems couched in the name given to the stork, and the design is to contrast the habits of the ostrich with those of this bird – particularly in reference to their care for their young. The name given to the stork is <\/span> chasydah<\/I>, meaning literally the pious, a name usually given to it – avis pia,<\/I> from its tenderness toward its young – a virtue for which it was celebrated by the ancients, Pliny Hist. Nat. x; Aelian Hist. An. 3, 23. On the contrary, the Arabs call the ostrich the impious or ungodly bird, on account of its neglect and cruelty toward its young. The fact that the ostrich thus neglects its young, is dwelt upon in the passage before us Job 39:14-17<\/span>, and in this respect she is placed in strong contrast with the stork. The verse then, I suppose, may be rendered thus:<\/P> A wing of exulting fowls moves joyfully!<\/P> Is it the wing and the plumage of the pious bird?<\/P> This means that with both (in regard to the wing and the habits of the two) there was a strong contrast, and yet designing to show that what seems to be a defect in the size and rigor of the wing, and what seems to be stupid forgetfulness of the bird in regard to its young, is proof of the wisdom of the Creator, who has so made it as to be able to outstrip the fleetest horse, and to be adapted to its shy and timid mode of life in the desert. The ostrich, whose principal characteristics are beautifully and strikingly detailed in this passage in Job, is a native of the torrid regions of Arabia and Africa. It is the largest of the feathered tribes and is the connecting link between quadrupeds and fowls. It has the general properties and outlines of a bird, and yet retains many of the marks of the quadruped. In appearance, the ostrich resembles the camel, and is almost as tall; and in the East is called the camel-bird (Calmet).<\/P> It is covered with a plumage that resembles hair more nearly than feathers; and its internal parts bear as near a resemblance to those of the quadruped as of the bird creation – Goldsmith. See also Poirets Travels in the Barbary States, as quoted by Rosenmuller, Alte u. neue Morgenland, No. 770. A full description is there given of the appearance and habits of the ostrich. Its head and bill resemble those of a duck; the neck may be compared with that of the swan, though it is much longer; the legs and thighs resemble those of a hen, but are fleshy and large. The end of the foot is cloven, and has two very large toes, which like the leg are covered with scales. The height of the ostrich is usually seven feet from the head to the ground; but from the back it is only four, so that the head and the neck are about three feet long. From the head to the end of the tail, when the neck is stretched in a right line, the length is seven feet.<\/P> One of the wings with the feathers spread out is three feet in length. At the end of the wing there is a species of spur almost like the quill of a porcupine. It is an inch long, and is hollow, and of a bony substance. The plumage is generally white and black, though some of them are said to be gray. There are no feathers on the sides of the thighs, nor under the wings. It has not, like most birds, feathers of various kinds, but they are all bearded with detached hairs or filaments, without consistence and reciprocal adherence. The feathers of the ostrich are almost as soft as down, and are therefore wholly unfit for flying, or to defend the body from external injury. The feathers of other birds have the web broader on one side than the other, but those of the ostrich have the shaft exactly in the middle. In other birds, the filaments that compose the feathers of the wings are firmly attached to each other, or are hooked together, so that they are adapted to catch and resist the air; on those of the ostrich no such attachments are found.<\/P> The consequence is, that they cannot oppose to the air a suitable resistance, as is the case with other birds, and are therefore incapable of flying, and in fact never mount on the wing. The wing is used (see the notes at Job 39:18<\/span>) only to balance the bird, and to aid it in running. The great size of the bird – weighing 75 or 80 pounds – would require an immense power of wing to elevate it in the air, and it has, therefore, been furnished with the means of surpassing all other animals in the rapidity with which it runs, so that it may escape its pursuers. The ostrich is made to live in the wilderness, and it was called by the ancients a lover of the deserts. It is shy and timorous in no common degree, and avoids the cultivated fields and the abodes of man, and retreats into the utmost recesses of the desert. In those dreary wastes its subsistence is the few tufts of coarse grass which are scattered here and there, but it will eat almost anything that comes in its way.<\/P> It is the most voracious of animals, and will devour leather, glass, hair, iron, stones, or anything that is given. Valisnieri found the first stomach filled with a quantity of incongruous substances; grass, nuts, cords, stones, glass, brass, copper, iron, tin, lead, and wood, and among the rest, a piece of stone that weighed more than a pound. It would seem that the ostrich is obliged to fill up the great capacity of its stomach in order to be at ease; but that, nutritious substances not occurring, it pours in whatever is at hand to supply the void. The flesh of the ostrich was forbidden by the laws of Moses to be eaten Lev 11:13<\/span>, but it is eaten by some of the savage nations of Africa, who hunt them for their flesh, which they regard as a dainty. The principal value of the ostrich, however, and the principal reason why it is hunted. is in the long feathers that compose the wing and the tail, and which are used so extensively for ornaments, The ancients used these plumes in their helmets; the ladies, in the East, as well as in the West, use them to decorate their persons, and they have been extensively employed also as badges of mourning on hearses. The Arabians assert that the ostrich never drinks, and the chosen place of its habitation – the waste, sandy desert – seems to confirm the assertion. As the ostrich, in the passage before us, is contrasted with the stork, the accompanying illustrations will serve to explain the passage.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 13<\/span>. The goodly wings unto the peacocks?<\/B><\/I>] I believe peacocks<\/I> are not intended here; and the Hebrew word renanim<\/I> should be translated ostriches<\/I>; and the term chasidah<\/I>, which we translate ostrich<\/I>, should be, as it is elsewhere translated, stork<\/I>; and perhaps the word notsah<\/I>, rendered here feathers<\/I>, should be translated hawk<\/I>, or pelican<\/I>.<\/P> <\/P> The Vulgate<\/I> has, Penna struthionis similis est pennis herodii et<\/I> accipitris<\/I>; “the feather of the ostrich is like to that of the stork and the hawk.” The Chaldee<\/I> has, “The wing of the wild cock, who crows and claps his wings, is like to the wing of the stork and the hawk.” The Septuagint<\/I>, not knowing what to make of these different terms, have left them all untranslated, so as to make a sentence without sense. Mr. Good<\/I> has come nearest both to the original<\/I> and to the meaning, by translating thus: – <\/P> “The wing of the ostrich tribe is for flapping;<\/P> But of the stork and falcon for flight.”<\/P> Though the wings of the ostrich, says he, cannot raise it from the ground, yet by the motion here alluded to, by a perpetual<\/I> vibration<\/I>, or flapping <\/I>– by perpetually catching or drinking in<\/I> the wind, (as the term neelasah<\/I> implies, which we render goodly<\/I>,) they give it a rapidity of running beyond that possessed by any other animal in the world. Adanson<\/I> informs us, that when he was at the factory in Padore, he was in possession of two tame ostriches; and to try their strength, says he, “I made a full-grown negro mount the smallest, and two others the largest. This burden did not seem at all disproportioned to their strength. At first they went a pretty high trot; and, when they were heated a little, they expanded their wings, as if it were to catch the<\/I> wind<\/I>, and they moved with such fleetness as to seem to be off the ground. And I am satisfied that those ostriches would have distanced the fleetest race-horses that were ever bred in England.”<\/P> <\/P> As to notsah<\/I>, here translated falcon<\/I>, Mr. Good<\/I> observes, that the term [Arabian] naz<\/I> is used generally by the Arabian writers to signify both falcon<\/I> and hawk<\/I>; and there can be little doubt that such is the real meaning of the Hebrew word; and that it imports various species of the falcon family, as jer-falcon, gos-hawk<\/I>, and sparrow-hawk<\/I>.<\/P> <\/P> “The argument drawn from natural history advances from quadrupeds<\/I> to birds<\/I>; and of birds, those only are selected for description which are most common to the country in which the scene lies, and at the same time are most singular in their properties. Thus the ostrich<\/I> is admirably contrasted with the stork<\/I> and the eagle<\/I>, as affording us an instance of a winged animal totally incapable of flight, but endued with an unrivalled rapidity of running, compared with birds whose flight is proverbially fleet, powerful, and persevering. Let man, in the pride of his wisdom, explain or arraign this difference of construction.<\/P> <\/P> “Again, the ostrich<\/I> is peculiarly opposed to the stork<\/I> and to some species of the eagle<\/I> in another sense, and a sense adverted to in the verses immediately ensuing; for the ostrich<\/I> is well known to take little<\/I> or no care<\/I> of its eggs<\/I>, or of its young,<\/I> while the stork<\/I> ever has been, and ever deserves to be, held in proverbial repute for its parental tenderness<\/I>. The Hebrew word chasidah<\/I>, imports kindness or affection; and our own term stork<\/I>, if derived from the Greek , storge<\/I>, as some pretend, has the same original meaning.” – GOOD’S JOB.<\/P> <\/p>\n Gavest thou:<\/B> the style of this book is very concise, and some verb is manifestly wanting to supply the sense; and this seems to be fitly understood out of Job 39:19<\/span>, where it is expressed. The goodly<\/I>; or, triumphant<\/I>; that wherein it triumpheth or prideth itself. Wings<\/I>, or feathers<\/I>; Heb. wing<\/I> or feather<\/I>. The peacocks beauty lies in its tail; which may well enough be comprehended under this name, as it is confessed that the Latin word ala<\/I>, which properly signifies a wing<\/I>, is used by Martial and Claudian to express the peacocks tail. <\/P> The peacocks; <\/B>or, as some render it, to the ostrich<\/I>, whose wings are much more great and goodly than those of the peacock. And for the other word in the next clause, which is rendered <\/P> ostrich, <\/B>they translate it another way; for that the Hebrew word hasidah<\/I> doth not signify an ostrich<\/I>, seems plain from the mention and description of that bird, Psa 104:17<\/span>; Jer 8:7<\/span>; Lam 4:3<\/span>; Zec 5:9<\/span>, which doth not at all agree to the ostrich. And forasmuch as the following verses do evidently speak of the ostrich, and it is absurd to discourse of a bird which had not been so much as named, and consequently the name of it must be found in this verse, and there is no other word in this verse which bids so fair for it, it may seem probable that this word is not to be rendered the peacock<\/I>, (though it be so taken by most,) but the ostrich<\/I>. Nor is it likely that both the peacock and the ostrich should be crowded together into one verse, especially when all the following characters belong only to the latter of them. Add to this, that it is confessed, even by the Hebrew writers themselves, that there is a great uncertainty in the signification of the names of birds and beasts; and therefore it is not strange if many interpreters were mistaken in the signification of this word. Or <\/P> wings and feathers unto the ostrich:<\/B> or, or the wings or feathers of the stork<\/I> (or, or<\/I>) the ostrich<\/I>. Or, didst thou give (which may be repeated out of the former branch) <\/P> the wings and feathers to the stork?<\/B> Or, verily<\/I> (the particle im<\/I> being oft used as a note of confirmation, as Psa 59:16<\/span>; 63:7<\/span>; Pro 3:34<\/span>; 23:18<\/span>) it hath <\/P> wings and feathers<\/B> like those of a stork<\/I>; for so indeed they are, black and white like them. And this may be noted as a great and a remarkable work of God, that it should really have wings and feathers as other birds have, and particularly the stork, who comes nearest to it in bulk and colour, although otherwise, by its vast bulk, it might seem to be a beast rather than a bird, as it is also called by Aristotle, and Pliny, and others. <\/P> <\/p>\n 13.<\/B> Rather, “the wing ofthe ostrich hen”literally, “the crying bird”; asthe Arab name for it means “song”; referring to its nightcries (Job 30:29<\/span>; Mic 1:8<\/span>)vibrating joyously. “Is it not like the quill and feathers ofthe pious bird<\/I>” (the stork)? [UMBREIT].The vibrating, quivering wing,<\/I> serving for sail and oar atonce, is characteristic of the ostrich in full course. Its white andblack feathers in the wing and tail are like the stork’s. But, unlikethat bird, the symbol of parental love in the East, it with seemingwant of natural (pious) affection deserts its young. Both birds arepoetically called by descriptive, instead of their usual appellative,names.<\/P><\/p>\n [Gavest thou] the goodly wings unto the peacocks<\/strong>?…. Rather “ostriches”, as the Vulgate Latin and Tigurine versions render it; some render it, “the wing of those that exult is joyful”, so Montanus; that is, of the ostriches; who, in confidence of their wings, exult and glory over the horse and his rider, Job 39:18<\/span>; for peacocks are not remarkable for their wings, but for their tails; whereas the wings of the ostrich are as sails unto them, as several writers observe k; and with which they rather run, or row, than fly: hence it is called by Plautus l “passer marinus”, the sea sparrow: and the feathers of it are more goodly than those of the wings of the peacock; and besides, it is a question whether the peacock was where Job lived, and in his times; since it is originally from the Indies, and from thence it was brought to Judea in the times of Solomon; and was not known in Greece and Rome m until later ages. Alexander the Great, when he first saw them in India, was surprised at them; and yet Solon n speaks of them in his time as seen by him, which was at least two hundred years before Alexander; though at Rome not common in the times of Horace o, who calls a peacock “rara avis”; and speaks of them as sold for a great price; but ostriches were well known in Arabia, where Job lived, as is testified by Xenophon p, Strabo q, and Diodorus Siculus r. Moreover, what is said in the following verses is only true of the ostrich, and that only is spoken of here and there, as it follows;<\/p>\n or wings and feathers unto the ostrich<\/strong>; or whose wings and feathers are like the storks; and so Bochart renders the words, truly they have “the wing and feather of the stork”; the colours of which are black and white, from whence it has its name s in Greek; and so Leo Africanus t says of the ostriches, that they have in their wings large feathers of a black and white colour; and this was a creature well known in Arabia u, in which Job lived.<\/p>\n k Xenophon. de Expedit. Cyri, l. 1. Aelian. de. Animal. l. 2. c. 77. l Persa, Act. 2. Sc. 2. v. 17. m Aelian. de Animal. l. 5. c. 21. n Laert. Vit. Solon. l. 1. c. 2. o Sermon. l. 2. Sat. 2. v. 25, 26. Vid. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 10. c. 20. Macrob. Saturnal. l. 3. c. 13. p Ut supra. (Xenophon. de Expedit. Cyri, l. 1.) q Geograph. l. 16. p. 531. r Bibliothec. l. 2. p. 133. s Suidas in voce . t Descriptio Africae, l. 9. p. 766. u Diodor. Sicul. ut supra. (Bibliothec. l. 2. p. 133.)<\/p>\n 13 The wing of the ostrich vibrates joyously,<\/p>\n Is she pious, wing and feather?<\/p>\n 14 No, she leaveth her eggs in the earth<\/p>\n And broodeth over the dust,<\/p>\n 15 Forgetting that a foot may crush them,<\/p>\n And the beast of the field trample them.<\/p>\n 16 She treateth her young ones harshly as if they were not hers;<\/p>\n In vain is her labour, without her being distressed.<\/p>\n 17 For Eloah hath caused her to forget wisdom,<\/p>\n And gave her no share of understanding.<\/p>\n 18 At the time when she lasheth herself aloft,<\/p>\n She derideth the horse and horseman.<\/p>\n As the wild ass and the ox-like oryx cannot be tamed by man, and employed in his service like the domestic ass and ox, so the ostrich, although resembling the stork in its stilt-like structure, the colour of its feathers, and its gregarious life, still has characteristics totally different from those one ought to look for according to this similarity. , a wail, prop. a tremulous shrill sound (vid., Job 39:23<\/span>), is a name of the female ostrich, whose peculiar cry is called in Arabic zimar <\/em> ( ). (from , which in comparison with , , rarely occurs) signifies to make gestures of joy. , Job 39:13<\/span><\/em>, is an interrogative an;<\/em> , pia <\/em>, is a play upon the name of the stork, which is so called: pia instar ciconiae <\/em> (on this figure of speech, comp. Mehren’s Rehtorik der Araber,<\/em> S. 178). , Job 39:14<\/span><\/em>, establishes the negation implied in the question, as e.g., Isa 28:28<\/span>. The idea is not that the hen-ostrich abandons the hatching of her eggs to the earth ( as Psa 16:10<\/span>), and makes them “glow over the dust” (Schlottm.), for the maturing energy compensating for the sitting of the parent bird proceeds from the sun’s heat, which ought to have been mentioned; one would also expect a Hiph<\/em>. instead of the Piel<\/em> , which can be understood only of hatching by her own warmth. The hen-ostrich also really broods herself, although from time to time she abandons the to the sun.<\/p>\n (Note: It does, however, as it appears, actually occur, that the female leaves the work of hatching to the sun by day, and to the male at night, and does not sit at all herself; vid., Funke’s Naturgeschichte<\/em>, revised by Taschenberg (1864), S. 243f.)<\/p>\n That which contrasts with the of the stork, which is here made prominent, is that she lays here eggs in a hole in the ground, and partly, when the nest is full, above round about it, while , Psa 104:17<\/span>. is construed in accordance with its meaning as fem. sing.,<\/em> Ew. 318, a<\/em>. Since she acts thus, what next happens consistently therewith is told by the not aoristic but only consecutive : and so she forgets that the foot may crush ( , to press together, break by pressure, as , Isa 59:5<\/span> = , that which is crushed, comp. = , Zec 5:4<\/span>) them (i.e., the eggs, Ges. 146, 3), and the beast of the field may trample them down, crush them ( as Arab. das <\/em>, to crush by treading upon anything, to tread out).<\/p>\n Job 39:16<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> The difficulty of (from , Arab. qsh <\/em>, hardened from , Arab. qsa <\/em>) being used of the hen-ostrich in the masc.,<\/em> may be removed by the pointing (Ew.); but this alteration is unnecessary, since the Hebr. also uses the masc<\/em>. for the fem<\/em>. where it might be regarded as impossible (vid., Job 39:3<\/span><\/em>, and comp. e.g., Isa 32:11<\/span>.). Jer. translates correctly according to the sense: quasi non sint sui ,<\/em> but is not directly equivalent to ; what is meant is, that by the harshness of her conduct she treats her young as not belonging to her, so that they become strange to her, Ew. 217, d<\/em>. In Job 39:16<\/span><\/em> the accentuation varies: in vain ( with Rebia mugrasch<\/em>) is her labour that is devoid of anxiety; or: in vain is her labour ( ( ruobal r with Tarcha<\/em>, with Munach vicarium<\/em>) without anxiety (on her part); or: in vain is her labour ( with Mercha<\/em>, with Rebia mugrasch<\/em>), yet she is without anxiety. The middle of these renderings ( in all of them, like Isa 49:4<\/span> = , Isa 65:23<\/span> and freq.) seems to us the most pleasing: the labour of birth and of the brooding undertaken in places where the eggs are put beyond the danger of being crushed, is without result, without the want of success distressing her, since she does not anticipate it, and therefore also takes no measures to prevent it. The eggs that are only just covered with earth, or that lie round about the nest, actually become a prey to the jackals, wild-cats, and other animals; and men can get them for themselves one by one, if they only take care to prevent their footprints being recognised; for if the ostrich observes that its nest is discovered, it tramples upon its own eggs, and makes its nest elsewhere (Schlottm., according to Lichtenstein’s Sdafrik. Reise<\/em>). That it thus abandons its eggs to the danger of being crushed and to plunder, arises, according to Job 39:17<\/span>, from the fact that God has caused it to forget wisdom, i.e., as Job 39:17<\/span><\/em> explains, has extinguished in it, deprived it of, the share thereof ( as Isa 53:12<\/span>, lxx , as Act 8:21<\/span>) which it might have had. It is only one of the stupidities of the ostrich that is made prominent here; the proverbial ahmaq min en – naame <\/em>, “more foolish than the ostrich,” has its origin in more such characteristics. But if the care with which other animals guard their young ones is denied to it, it has in its stead another remarkable characteristic: at the time when ( here followed by an elliptical relative clause, which is clearly possible, just as with , Job 6:17<\/span>) it stretches (itself) on high, i.e., it starts up with alacrity from its ease (on the radical signification of = ), and hurries forth with a powerful flapping of its wings, half running half flying, it derides the horse and its rider – they do not overtake it, it is the swiftest of all animals; wherefore Arab. ‘ da mn ‘l – dlm<\/em> zalm <\/em>, equivalent to delm <\/em> according to a less exact pronunciation, supra<\/em>, p. 582, note) and Arab. ‘nfr mn ‘l – namt <\/em>, fleeter than the ostrich, is just as proverbial as the above Arab. ‘hmq mn ‘l – wanat ;<\/em> and “on ostrich’s wings” is equivalent to driving along with incomparable swiftness. Moreover, on and , which refer to the female, it is to be observed that she is very anxious, and deserts everything in her fright, while the male ostrich does not forsake his young, and flees no danger.<\/p>\n (Note: We take this remark from Doumas, Horse of the Sahara<\/em>. The following contribution from Wetzstein only came to hand after the exposition was completed: “The female ostriches are called not from the whirring of their wings when flapped about, but from their piercing screeching cry when defending their eggs against beasts of prey (chiefly hyaenas), or when searching for the male bird. Now they are called rubd <\/em>, from sing. rubda <\/em> (instead of rabda <\/em>), from the black colour of their long wing-feathers; for only the male, which is called (pronounce hetsh <\/em>), has white. The ostrich-tribe has the name of bat (Arab. bdt ‘l – wanat <\/em>), ‘inhabitant of the desert,’ because it is only at home in the most lonely parts of the steppe, in perfectly barren deserts. Neshwn<\/em> the Himjarite, in his ‘Shems el-‘olm’<\/em> (MSS in the Royal Library at Berlin, sectio Wetzst<\/em>. I No. 149, Bd. i.f. 110 b<\/em>), defines the word el – wana <\/em> by: , a white (chalky or sandy) district, which brings forth nothing; and the Kms<\/em> explains it by , a hard (unfruitful) district. In perfect analogy with the Hebr. the Arabic calls the ostrich abu <\/em> (and umm <\/em>) es – sahara ,<\/em> ‘possessor of the sterile deserts.’ The name , Lam 4:3<\/span>, is perfectly correct, and corresponds to the form (steinbocks); the form (Arab. fl <\/em>) is frequently the Nisbe<\/em> of and , according to which = and = , ‘inhabitant of the inaccessible rocks.’ Hence, says Neshwn<\/em> (against the non-Semite Firzbdi<\/em>), wal <\/em> ( and wala <\/em>) is exclusively the high place of the rocks, and wail <\/em> ( exclusively the steinbock. The most common Arabic name of the ostrich is naame <\/em>, , collective naam <\/em>, from the softness ( nuuma <\/em>, ) of its feathers, with which the Arab women (in Damascus frequently) stuff cushions and pillows. Umm thelathin <\/em>, ‘mother of thirty,’ is the name of the female ostrich, because as a rule she lays thirty eggs. The ostrich egg is called in the steppe dahwa <\/em>, (coll. dahu <\/em>), a word that is certainly very ancient. Nevertheless the Hauranites prefer the word medha<\/em>, . A place hollowed out in the ground serves as a nest, which the ostrich likes best to dig in the hot sand, on which account they are very common in the sandy tracts of Ard ed-Dehan <\/em> ( ), between the Shemmar<\/em> mountains and the Sawd<\/em> (Chaldaea). Thence at the end of April come the ostrich hunters with their spoil, the hides of the birds together with the feathers, to Syria. Such an unplucked hide is called gizze <\/em> ( ). The hunters inform us that the female sits alone on the nest from early in the day until evening, and from evening until early in the morning with the male, which wanders about throughout the day. The statement that the ostrich does not sit on its eggs, is perhaps based on the fact that the female frequently, and always before the hunters, forsakes the eggs during the first period of brooding. Even. Job 39:14<\/span> and Job 39:15<\/span> do not say more than this. But when the time of hatching (called el – faqs <\/em>, ) is near, the hen no longer leaves the eggs. The same observation is also made with regard to the partridge of Palestine ( el – hagel <\/em>, ), which has many other characteristics in common with the ostrich.<\/p>\n That the ostrich is accounted stupid (Job 39:17<\/span>) may arise from the fact, that when the female has been frightened from the eggs she always seeks out the male with a loud cry; she then, as the hunters unanimously assert, brings him forcibly back to the nest (hence its Arabic name zalm <\/em>, ‘the violent one’). During the interval the hunter has buried himself in the sand, and on their arrival, by a good shot often kills both together in the nest. It may also be accounted as stupidity, that, when the wind is calm, instead of flying before the riding hunters, the bird tries to hide itself behind a mound or in the hollows of the ground. But that, when escape is impossible, it is said to try to hide its head in the sand, the hunters regard as an absurdity. If the wind aids it, the fleeing ostrich spreads out the feathers of its tail like a sail, and by constantly steering itself with its extended wings, it escapes its pursuers with ease. The word , Job 39:18<\/span>, appears to be a hunting expression, and (without an accus. objecti<\/em>) to describe this spreading out of the feathers, therefore to be perfectly synonymous with the (Arab. t’rs <\/em>) of the ostrich hunters of the present day. Thus sings the poet Rshid<\/em> of the hunting race of the Sulubt:<\/em> ‘And the head (of the bride with its loosened locks) resembles the (soft and black) feathers of the ostrich-hen, when she spreads them out ( arrashanna <\/em>). They saw the hunter coming upon them where there was no hiding-place, And stretched their legs as they fled.’ The prohibition to eat the ostrich in the Thora (Lev 11:16<\/span>; Deu 14:15<\/span>) is perhaps based upon the cruelty of the hunt; for it is with the rarest exceptions always killed only on its eggs. The female, which, as has been said already, does not flee towards the end of the time of brooding, stoops on the approach of the hunter, inclines the head on one side and looks motionless at her enemy. Several Beduins have said to me, that a man must have a hard heart to fire under such circumstances. If the bird is killed, the hunter covers the blood with sand, puts the female again upon the eggs, buries himself at some distance in the sand, and waits till evening, when the male comes, which is now shot likewise, beside the female. The Mosaic law might accordingly have forbidden the hunting of the ostrich from the same feeling of humanity which unmistakeably regulated it in other decisions (as Exo 23:19<\/span>; Deu 22:6<\/span>., Lev 22:28<\/span>, and freq.).)<\/p>\n Description of the Peacock and Ostrich.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 1520.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> 13 Gavest thou<\/I> the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich? 14 Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust, 15 And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them. 16 She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were<\/I> not hers: her labour is in vain without fear; 17 Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding. 18 What time she lifteth up herself on high, she scorneth the horse and his rider.<\/P> The ostrich is a wonderful animal, a very large bird, but it never flies. Some have called it a winged camel.<\/I> God here gives an account of it, and observes,<\/P> I. Something that it has in common with the peacock, that is, beautiful feathers (<\/span>v.<\/I><\/span> 13<\/span>): Gavest thou proud wings unto the peacocks?<\/I> so some read it. Fine feathers make proud birds. The peacock is an emblem of pride; when he struts, and shows his fine feathers, Solomon in all his glory is not arrayed like him. The ostrich too has goodly feathers, and yet is a foolish bird; for wisdom does not always go along with beauty and gaiety. Other birds do not envy the peacock or the ostrich their gaudy colours, nor complain for want of them; why then should we repine if we see others wear better clothes than we can afford to wear? God gives his gifts variously, and those gifts are not always the most valuable that make the finest show. Who would not rather have the voice of the nightingale than the tail of the peacock, the eye of the eagle and her soaring wing, and the natural affection of the stork, than the beautiful wings and feathers of the ostrich, which can never rise above the earth, and is without natural affection?<\/P> II. Something that is peculiar to itself,<\/P> 1. Carelessness of her young. It is well that this is peculiar to herself, for it is a very bad character. Observe, (1.) How she exposes her eggs; she does not retire to some private place, and make a nest there, as the sparrows and swallows do (Ps. lxxxiv. 3<\/span>), and there lay eggs and hatch her young. Most birds, as well as other animals, are strangely guided by natural instinct in providing for the preservation of their young. But the ostrich is a monster in nature, for she drops her eggs any where upon the ground and takes no care to hatch them. If the sand and the sun will hatch them, well and good; they may for her, for she will not warm them, v.<\/I><\/span> 14<\/span>. Nay, she takes no care to preserve them: The foot<\/I> of the traveller may crush them,<\/I> and the wild beast break them,<\/I> v.<\/span> 15<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. But how then are any young ones brought forth, and whence is it that the species has not perished? We must suppose either that God, by a special providence, with the heat of the sun and the sand (so some think), hatches the neglected eggs of the ostrich, as he feeds the neglected young ones of the raven, or that, though the ostrich often<\/I> leaves her eggs thus, yet not always.<\/I> (2.) The reason why she does thus expose her eggs. It is, [1.] For want of natural affection (v.<\/I><\/span> 16<\/span>): She is hardened against her young ones.<\/I> To be hardened against any is unamiable, even in a brute-creature, much more in a rational creature that boasts of humanity, especially to be hardened against young ones, that cannot help themselves and therefore merit compassion, that give no provocation and therefore merit no hard usage: but it is worst of all for her to be hardened against her own young ones, as though they were not hers, whereas really they are parts of herself. Her labour in laying her eggs is in vain and all lost, because she has not that fear and tender concern for them that she should have. Those are most likely to lose their labour that are least in fear of losing it. [2.] For want of wisdom (v.<\/I><\/span> 17<\/span>): God has deprived her of wisdom.<\/I> This intimates that the art which other animals have to nourish and preserve their young is God’s gift, and that, where it exists not, God denies it, that by the folly of the ostrich, as well as by the wisdom of the ant, we may learn to be wise; for, First,<\/I> As careless as the ostrich is of her eggs so careless many people are of their own souls; they make no provision for them, no proper nest in which they may be safe, leave them exposed to Satan and his temptations, which is a certain evidence that they are deprived of wisdom. Secondly,<\/I> So careless are many parents of their children; some of their bodies, not providing for their own house, their own bowels, and therefore worse than infidels, and as bad as the ostrich; but many more are thus careless of their children’s souls, take no care of their education, send them abroad into the world untaught, unarmed, forgetting what corruption there is in the world through lust, which will certainly crush them. Thus their labour in rearing them comes to be in vain; it were better for their country that they had never been born. Thirdly,<\/I> So careless are too many ministers of their people, with whom they should reside; but they leave them in the earth, and forget how busy Satan is to sow tares while men sleep. They overlook those whom they should oversee, and are really hardened against them.<\/P> 2. Care of herself. She leaves her eggs in danger, but, if she herself be in danger, no creature shall strive more to get out of the way of it than the ostrich, v.<\/I><\/span> 18<\/span>. Then she lifts up her wings on high (the strength of which then stands her in better stead than their beauty), and, with the help of them, runs so fast that a horseman at full speed cannot overtake her: She scorneth the horse and his rider.<\/I> Those that are least under the law of natural affection often contend most for the law of self-preservation. Let not the rider be proud of the swiftness of his horse when such an animal as the ostrich shall out-run him.<\/P> <\/p>\nFuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
<\/P> Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n