“480. BEHEMOTH—JOB 40:15-24”

Behemoth—Job_40:15-24

Although in following the bent of our later tastes—which has diminished the interest once taken in some parts of biblical knowledge, and proportionally enlarged it in others—we have not in this work bestowed much attention to natural history; the concluding chapters of the Book of Job are so much occupied with the description of an allusion to some of the noblest of the Lord’s works in animated nature, that our attention is enforced to some of the more prominent and remarkable subjects; and our younger readers in particular would probably be little satisfied if we forbore to tell them something of the unicorn, of behemoth, and of the leviathan. Of the unicorn and of the war-horse, we have already spoken; and now the others will demand our notice.

It is well known that the identity of both the behemoth and the leviathan is open to question, and has been largely discussed. It is a curious fact that the name behemoth, Which is plural in Hebrew, is here used in the singular sense, as the name of a single animal, or rather species of animals; while the same word, when it occurs in the singular, which it often does, behemah, has a plural sense, or rather is a noun of multitude, and is properly translated by “cattle,” or “beasts.” It is, therefore, probably a plural name of excellence, applied to the chief and most powerful of the known animals belonging to the herbivorous order. We say “known,” in the sense of known to Job. It was obviously necessary that the appeal should be throughout to animals of which Job had some knowledge. God knew that in remote regions of the earth there were animals more strongly manifesting his wisdom and power; but the very purpose of the argument required that these should not be named, because Job knew them not. It is not enough to say that God might select from all creation the objects suited to his great discourse—for we are not only to take into account the infinite knowledge of God, but the finite knowledge of the man to whom God spoke. In the present day there is scarcely any prominent animal that can be named existing in any part of the world, the leading characteristics of which would not be recognized, appreciated, and understood by an ordinarily intelligent person. But it was not so in these remote patriarchal times, when people had little knowledge of the creatures which existed beyond the limits of their own regions, or of those of the near regions with which there was not easy intercourse. This is an important consideration, as it goes to evince that the creatures of which we inquire must have, or may anciently have had, their habitat in the part of the world in which Job had his abode, and with the natural products of which he manifests a familiar knowledge.

The Hippopotamus

Now, as to the behemoth, it is generally admitted that the animal must be sought in that class of large animals which Cuvier arranged in one class called pachydermata, by reason of the thickness of their skins, to which belong equally the elephant, the river-horse, and some extinct species of enormous animals, such as the mastodon, or mammoth, and others. For the particular animal in this class, opinions are pretty equally divided between the hippopotamus and the elephant, or with something of a preponderance in favor of the former. Perhaps all the details of the description may be found in the one or the other, but we apprehend that all the particulars of the description cannot be made to apply to either separately taken. The characteristics of the hippopotamus, or river-horse, predominate; but there are some of the circumstances which apply better to the elephant. Hence some have thought that the behemoth is really some extinct species of mastodon, in which the predominant characteristics of the river-horse and the elephant were combined. Otherwise it may be supposed, that the name does not denote any one species of these larger animals in particular, but is a poetical personification of the larger pachydermata generally. The plural form of the name may be cited in favor of this opinion, to which we strongly incline: and in reference to the predominance of the characteristics of the hippopotamus, over those of the elephant in the description—it may be observed, that although so remarkable a creature as the elephant may have been known in Western Asia, in this age, from report and description, if not from very remote tradition of it as among the most wonderful of the animals preserved in the ark, and as having (with others passed through or even lingered in this region in proceeding to its final habitat, there must have been a much better actual knowledge of the river-horse, which once abounded in the Lower Nile, although it has now become comparatively scarce. The presence, for the first time in this country, of a living specimen of the river-horse, which we examined this morning, together with the elephants, in the London Zoological Gardens, gives a peculiar interest to even this limited identification: and we shall therefore note the particulars of the description to see how far they apply.

It is said that the behemoth “eateth grass like an ox,” which is true of all this class of animals; but seeing that the river-horse lives chiefly in the water, it would be likely to be mentioned of it with special admiration. lt amounts to saying—there is a creature that lives in the water, yet seeks its food on the land!

We then learn that the strength of the behemoth is “in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.” This latter circumstance does not apply to the elephant, in which the belly is the weakest and most vulnerable part, owing to the comparative thinness and softness of the skin. But in the river-horse the skin of the belly is as thick as in other parts, and is in some measure rendered callous by being dragged over rough stones, etc., at the bottom of the rivers which it inhabits.

There is great poverty of tail both in the elephant and the river-horse; and “he moveth his tail like a cedar,” seems so little applicable to either, that some have from this questioned that either animal is denoted by the description, while others have rather doubted that the original word does mean a tail, and have asked whether it may not rather denote the proboscis of the elephant. This question we cannot undertake to decide; and shall only observe, that if the tail be intended, that of the river-horse is of somewhat more consequence than that of the elephant. It is thicker and firmer; and so far as mere appearance is concerned, admits of a better comparison to the cedar. But it may be remarked, that the comparison is not founded on the size or form of the tail, but on its action. It is not said that the tail is like a cedar, but that its movements are like those of a cedar; and the river-horse, certainly, no less than the elephant, has a perfect command over its tail, moving and twisting it at pleasure.

The verse which has reference to the bones of the behemoth, is well applicable, figuratively, to all or any of this class of creatures. But what shall we say to, “He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him?” This is certainly obscure, if not unintelligible. “He that made him hath given him his weapon,” seems to convey a more correct interpretation; and it may then be applicable to the sharp-pointed and projecting tusks either of the river-horse or the elephant, and does very probably apply to both.

The singularity of the land habits of our aquatic animals might account for its being noticed as a matter of admiration, that “the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.” It seems more likely to be noticed when an extraordinary circumstance, as in the case of the hippopotamus, than when an ordinary one, as in the case of the elephant. Still the circumstance is equally applicable to the latter animal, and justifies the impression, that there is a kind of poetical reference to the prominent characteristics of both.

That “He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens,” seems at the first view distinctly referable to the river-horse, as this animal sleeps and reposes on the shore, in reedy places near the water. But the elephant also delights in watery places as much as any non-aquatic animal can do; and it is often found under the shady trees, and among the willows of the great rivers.

The next circumstance in the description is highly poetical, “Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.” We cannot doubt the application of this to the river-horse, and it would seem, to any one who had beheld this large animal swimming against a stream with only its head above the water, a perfectly natural image. The wave driven before him would suggest the idea of his drinking up the stream in immense quantities. The mention of the Jordan must not be taken to intimate, that the behemoth lived in or on that river. The reference is to such a river as the creature might suppose itself capable of drinking up. Hence some have translated, “He trusteth that he can draw up a Jordan into his mouth.” The river-horse is confined to great rivers. A river so comparatively small as the Jordan, must in all times have been wholly unsuited to the habits of the animal.

Some will cry—“But here at last we have the elephant, for it is said that, ‘His nose pierceth through snares’—this nose must be the elephant’s proboscis, and may well describe its delicacy of scent and touch, always cautiously applied, and can have no relation to the obtuse perceptions of the river-horse.” We sincerely wish we could find the proboscis of the elephant here. The impossibility of discovering that most essential and curious organ in the description being, indeed, the great difficulty in the way of identifying the behemoth with the elephant. But the real meaning of this clause seems to be, “Who can take him before his eyes (i.e. openly), or pierce his nose with a ring?” This question, which implies the almost insuperable difficulty of capturing the behemoth, and of rendering its vast strength useful, is wholly inapplicable to the elephant, which is constantly captured and trained to various useful services. But it is strikingly true of the hippopotamus, which is so rarely captured, that it required the exertions of a small army to acquire the young specimen which London possesses, and the sluggish and aquatic habits of which render it wholly unsuited to any kind of employment in man’s service. This text is, moreover, of antiquarian interest, as the earliest indication of the practice of running a ring through the nose of certain animals employed in domestic service, especially of such as have been reclaimed from a wild state. This treatment of animals is often shown in the Egyptian sculptures of most ancient date; and in the Assyrian sculptures, even human captives are represented as brought before the king, by ropes fastened to rings passed through the lips and nose; and this affords a striking illustration of 2Ki_19:28, “I will put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips.”

The fantastical Jewish rabbis have preserved, through the Talmud, the notion that the behemoth is a huge animal which has subsisted since the creation without propagating its kind, and which every day eats up all the grass of a thousand hills, and at each draught, takes in as much water as the Jordan yields in six months. It is, as they inform us, reserved to be fattened for the great feast which the faithful are to enjoy in the time of the Messiah. An ox roasted whole is nothing to this.

Autor: JOHN KITTO