https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=184
Behemoth and Leviathan--Creatures of Controversy
Many have heard of Hercules, the Greek hero remembered for his
strength, courage, and numerous legendary exploits. In his journeys, he
encountered, among other things, the multi-headed monsters Geryon (whose
oxen he ultimately captured) and the Hydra (whom he killed). Still
others may recall the Greek hero Odysseus (Ulysses in Latin) in Homer’s
work,
The Odyssey. His adventures came to life as he found
himself face to face with the man-eating giant, Polyphemus, and then
with the goddess Calypso, who offered him immortality if he would
abandon his quest for home. Such adventurous stories always are
entertaining to read. They allow a person to dream about what it would
be like to live in a world with such fantastic beings.
In Job 40 and 41, God describes two amazing creatures that some have
compared to the monsters of pagan mythology. Behemoth and leviathan are
so famous that an ocean liner was named after one, while the other has
become a synonym for objects of enormous size. Are these two animals—as
described in God’s last speech to Job—simply mythological monsters that
should be considered in the same light as those beasts conquered by
Hercules and Odysseus? Are they simply fictitious creatures of an
extraordinary time when pagan gods allegedly ruled the world? Or, are
the two beasts God described in Job 40-41 real flesh-and-blood animals?
Furthermore, if it can be established that these creatures are real,
what are their identities?
MYTHOLOGY AND THE BIBLE
Over the last several centuries, many have attempted to mythologize the
inspired Word of God. Atheists vigorously attack the Genesis account of
creation, calling it nothing more than a fictitious story that should
be placed alongside (or even “behind”) myths like the Babylonian
creation account. Liberal theologians similarly labor to make Scripture
conform to secular sources, claiming that the Israelite religion is a
mere “Yahwization” of pagan religions (i.e., attributing to Yahweh what
pagan religions attributed to their gods) [see Brantley, 1993, 13:50].
Such attempts to mythologize Scripture represent a blatant attack upon
God’s Word.
But even though the Bible is not based on pagan mythology, on occasion
it does contain unmistakable allusions to it. Consider, for example,
Isaiah 27:1: “In that day Jehovah with his hard and great and strong
sword will punish leviathan the swift serpent, and leviathan the crooked
serpent; and he will slay the monster that is in the sea.” Here, the
inspired writer makes reference to leviathan in a prophetic passage
depicting the future victory of God over His foes. As Pfeiffer has
observed:
Isaiah was, of course, a strict monotheist. He did, however, draw upon
the common stock of poetic imagery known to his people just as
contemporary writers allude to mythology to illustrate a point without
thereby expressing or encouraging faith in the story so used (1960,
32:209).
Among the clay tablets found in ancient Ugarit (present-day Ras
Shamra), there was one that described with similar words a creature
called Lotan: “When thou hast smitten Lotan, the fleeing serpent [and]
hast put to an end the tortuous serpent, the mighty one with seven
heads...” (as quoted in Pfeiffer, 32:209). In explaining the language of
Isaiah and other Bible writers, John Day commented:
Canaanite mythic imagery was the most impressive means in that ancient
cultural milieu whereby to display the sovereignty and transcendence of
Yahweh, along with His superiority over Baal and all other earthly
contenders. Although the Hebrews did not borrow the theology of Canaan, they did borrow its imagery—here the imagery of Baal’s enemy, Sea/Dragon/Leviathan (1998, 155:436, emp. added).
Day believes the problem is not one of borrowed
mythology, but one of borrowed
imagery.
In summarizing his view on this subject, R. Laird Harris wrote: “We may
conclude that mythological symbols are used in the Bible for purposes
of illustration and communication of truth
without in the least adopting the mythology or approving of its ideas”
(1992, p. 165, emp. added). To suggest that the godly men and writers
of the Old Testament believed in these mythological creatures is to make
an abrasive and completely unwarranted assumption. In the words of Old
Testament scholar, J. Barton Payne, such a view should be “roundly
denied” (1980, 1:472). Elmer Smick noted:
Reading primitive meaning into a piece of monotheistic literature where
the idiom can be viewed as a result of simple observation or the use of
quaint expressions is poor methodology. On the other hand, we must be
cautioned against the rejection of all mythological usage in a strained
attempt to remove the writers of Scripture from such contamination
(1970, p. 222).
In the book of Job, there no doubt are allusions to mythology (cf. 3:8;
26:12), but Job itself is not a mythological book. Rather, Job is
presented as a devout monotheist who rejected then-popular mythological
concepts (cf. 31:26-28). It is quite possible that a mythological
element can be seen in the poetic language of Job 3:8: “Let them curse
it that curse the day, who are ready to rouse up leviathan” (Job 3:8;
see Hailey, 1994, p. 49). [The
KJV rendering “who
are ready to raise up their mourning” misses the reference to
leviathan, which is obvious in the original language.] Many scholars
identify the leviathan of this verse with a mythological creature
described in Ugaritic myths. According to such mythology, a marine
monster named Lotan was capable of altering the entire world order by
eclipsing the Sun or Moon with its body (Payne, 1980, 1:472). Smick has
suggested, then, that in the context of chapter 3, “Job, in a cursing
mood, employs the most vivid, forceful, proverbial language available to
call for the obliteration of that day” (1978, 40[2]:215). In his
commentary on Job, Roy Zuck made the following observation concerning
mythology and its relation to the book.
Was Job indicating belief in a creature of mythology? No, he was
probably doing nothing more than utilizing for poetic purposes a common
notion that his hearers would understand. This would have been similar
to modern adults referring to Santa Claus. Mentioning his name does not
mean that one believes such a person exists (1978, p. 24).
Thus, even though the Bible may make allusions to mythology, “neither
the book of Job nor any of the Old Testament has the slightest hint of
belief in any such mythology” (Smick, 1970, p. 229).
BEHEMOTH AND LEVIATHAN—
MYTHOLOGICAL OR LITERAL?
For centuries, students of the Bible have questioned the identity of
behemoth and leviathan. “In the Middle Ages, some theologians, like
Albert Magnus, conceived of behemoth as a symbol of sensuality and sin.
Others, like Thomas Aquinas, equated behemoth with the elephant, and
leviathan with the whale” (Gordis, 1978, p. 569)—both being natural
monsters in the
literal sense, but representing diabolical power in a
figurative
sense. In 1663, Samuel Bochart published a two-volume work identifying
the two animals under consideration as the hippopotamus and the
crocodile. Then, as additional extrabiblical literature came to light in
the middle-to-late nineteenth century (most notably from Mesopotamia),
the mythological interpretation was revived and comparative mythology
became very popular among biblical scholars.
By the closing of the nineteenth century, some scholars began to see
mythology as the solution to the “identification problem” of the
creatures described in Job 40-41. That problem was stated by T.K. Cheyne
as early as 1887 when he observed that “...neither Behemoth nor
Leviathan corresponds strictly to any known animal” (p. 56). In 1892,
C.H. Toy argued that behemoth and leviathan were water animals
associated with the “primeval seas Apsu and Tiamat as they appeared to
be presented in the emerging Babylonian Epic of Creation” (as quoted in
Wilson, 1975, 25:2). In his commentary on Job, Tur-Sinai dismissed
behemoth altogether, and suggested instead that the passage of Scripture
from Job 40:15 through the end of the chapter is concerned with only
one powerful figure—the mythological leviathan (1967, p. 558). Marvin
Pope probably is the most recent well-known supporter of the
mythological view. Using the Ugaritic texts as support for his theory,
Pope has proposed that behemoth and leviathan of Job 40-41 are the same
mythological creatures found in the ancient Jewish writings of Enoch, IV
Ezra, and the Apocalypse of Baruch.
Arguments for the Mythological View
Some scholars believe behemoth and leviathan are mythological monsters
due largely to the fact that similar creatures are mentioned in pagan
myths. Those holding to this view do admit that the plural form
behemot
occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament without any hint of mythological
implications (cf. Psalms 8:8; 50:10; Joel 1:20; 2:22; Habakkuk 2:17).
Generally speaking, for example, in Scripture behemoth often refers to
ordinary cattle. But those same scholars quickly point out the instances
in which behemoth is used in some of the ancient Jewish writings that
echo ancient pagan mythology. By citing extrabiblical texts such as 1
Enoch 60:7-9, 4 Ezra 49-52, and 2 Baruch 29:4, Pope has suggested that
behemoth had a prototype in pre-Israelite mythology that was connected
in some ancient myth, or played similar roles in different myths (1965,
p. 269).
Scholars also allude to the Ugaritic texts where, they point out, the
violent goddess ‘Anat boasts of having conquered along with Leviathan a
bovine creature called
‘glil’tk that may be rendered “the
ferocious bullock of El” (Pope, p. 269). Pope believes that this bullock
of El very well may correspond with the behemoth of Job 40. He further
suggests that the monstrous bullock of the Ugaritic myths and behemoth
both are connected with the Sumero-Akkadian “bull of heaven” that was
slain by Gilgamesh and Enkidu (Gilgamesh’s foe-turned-friend) from the
Gilgamesh Epic. The “bull of heaven” is said to have brushed Enkidu
“with the thick of his tail” (as quoted in Pope, p. 272). Pope likens
this description to that of the massive tail of the behemoth in 40:17
where God said that “he moveth his tail like a cedar.”
Perhaps the mythological theory rests mostly on the simple evidence of
leviathan’s name and its use elsewhere in biblical and pagan literature.
The name “leviathan” (
liwyatan) appears six times in the Bible
(Job 3:8, 41:1; Psalms 74:14; 104:26; Isaiah 27:1 [twice]; Lipinski,
1995, p. 504). Excluding Job 41, leviathan occurs once in the meaning of
a natural sea-monster (Psalm 104:26), and three times in the meaning of
a mythological creature (Job 3:8; Isaiah 27:1; Psalm 74:14). In
commenting on the name leviathan and its use both within and without
Scripture, James Williams stated:
The mythological significance of Leviathan is well known. Appearing as
the Lothan of seven heads that Baal destroys in the Ugaritic myths, he
is likewise the sea-serpent of many heads that Elohim defeated in the
beginning (Ps. 74.12-14). One mythical tradition of the eschaton
represents a final battle of Yahweh with Leviathan (Isa. 27.1). This
Leviathan is doubtless the mythical origin of the dragon of seven heads
in Rev. 17. Leviathan, as well as Behemoth, appears with eschatological
significance in Enoch 60.7-9, IV Ezra 6.49-52, and Apoc[ryphal] Baruch
24.4 (1992, p. 367).
Unlike Williams (who understands these as mythological creatures in
some texts but as real animals in Job 40-41), others have proposed that
the leviathan in Job 41 might possibly be equated with the “leviathan
with seven heads” found within Ugaritic mythology. Mythologizers
frequently cite Ugaritic passages as “proof ” that the leviathan in Job
41 is, in fact, a mythological monster. In the following portion of the
Ugaritic myth, a discussion is taking place between Baal and Mot
(Death), wherein Mot gives Baal the credit for having slain Lotan.
When you smote Lotan the fleeting serpent,
Annihilated the tortuous serpent,
The tyrant with seven heads.
(as quoted in Pope, p. 276)
In another section of this Canaanite myth, the goddess ‘Anat (Baal’s
sister and the most active goddess in Ugaritic mythology) claims to have
destroyed the seven-headed dragon along with other assorted monsters.
What enemy rises up against Baal,
What adversary against Him who Mounteth the Clouds?
Have I not slain Sea, beloved of El?
Have I not annihilated [the] River, the great god?
Have I not muzzled the Dragon, holding her in a muzzle?
I have slain the Crooked Serpent,
The Foul-fanged with Seven Heads,
I have slain the beloved of earth-deities.
(as quoted in Gray, 1961, p. 129)
After quoting various Ugaritic passages like the ones above, those who
support the mythological view seek to make a connection with Psalm
74:12-14 and its allusion to the tradition of a leviathan with many
heads once smitten by the Almighty long ago. The psalmist wrote:
Yet God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth.
Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: Thou brakest the heads of
the sea-monsters in the waters. Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces; Thou gavest him to be food to the people inhabiting the wilderness (Psalm 74:12-14, emp. added).
Marvin Pope takes the view that the supernatural character of leviathan
can be seen quite clearly in this passage, as well as from the myths
mentioned above (pp. 276-277). He thus concluded that the leviathan of
Job 41 is identical to the one spoken of in the Ugaritic citations.
Mythologizers “see” numerous similarities between the leviathan of Job
41 and the creatures mentioned in pagan myths. Pope has compared God’s
rhetorical question of whether Job could put a rope into leviathan’s
nose or a hook in his jaw (41:2) to the following mythical passage from
the Babylonian Creation Epic: “Ea (father of Marduk) liquidated or
neutralized his foes, he laid hold on Mummu (counselor of Apsu),
holding him by the nose-rope”
(p. 279, emp. added). Then, in commenting on the teeth of leviathan
(Job 41:14), Pope compared them to the “formidable dentition of the
monsters engendered by Tiamat” (p. 284). And finally, Pope expressed how
the beasts’ invincibility is one more reason to view these beings as
mythological: “In the Ugaritic myth of the conflict between Baal and
Prince Sea, the terrible messengers of the Sea-god intimidate the entire
divine assembly, except Baal,
by their fiery appearance” (p. 285, emp. added). Supporters of the mythological view make all these comparisons, and many more.
A final reason why many scholars hold to the mythological view is
simply because they believe (correctly) that behemoth and leviathan
cannot be the hippopotamus and the crocodile. It is obvious that the
animals in Job 40-41 are represented as being beyond the power of men to
capture. Yet it is known that ancient Egyptians hunted and captured
both the crocodile and the hippopotamus (Driver and Gray, 1964, p. 353).
Also, if the animals really are the hippopotamus and the crocodile, one
wonders why there is a shift from the Palestinian animals of the
previous chapters to Egyptian animals in chapters 40-41? Mythologizers
suggest that the animals described in Job 40-41 are neither crocodiles,
hippopotamuses, nor any other known creature. Thus, they conclude the
animals described in these two chapters must be imaginary monsters.
Arguments for the Literal View
What evidence is there to suggest that the behemoth and leviathan of
Job 40-41 are, in fact, real, literal, historical creatures? First, of
course, it is evident that certain Old Testament passages speak clearly
of leviathan and behemoth in various contexts without any hint
whatsoever of mythological or symbolic implication. Even though
leviathan seemingly refers to a mythological creature in three passages
of Scripture (Job 3:8; Psalm 74:14; Isaiah 27:1), there is at least one
passage (other than Job 41) that speaks of it as a real animal. In
expressing his thoughts that the great sea monsters were created by
Yahweh, the Psalmist wrote: “There go the ships; there is leviathan,
whom thou hast formed to play therein” (Psalm 104:26). Furthermore,
every time behemoth is mentioned outside of Job 40, it refers to real
animals (Cansdale, 1996, p. 43). In differentiating between whether the
passage is speaking of an imaginary or a literal creature, one must be
guided by the thrust of the context, not by what similarities might be
found between pagan mythology and the Bible (Smick, 1978, 40[2]:214). In
the context of Job 38-41, God is in the midst of asking Job a lengthy
series of questions—the entire purpose of which was to show the
patriarch that he did not know nearly as much as he thought he did when
he charged God foolishly. If the creatures in Job 40-41 were, in fact,
mythological, Job then could (and likely would!) have turned to God and
asked, “Lord, what’s your point? These creatures are mythological!”
God’s argument would have collapsed of its own weight. The context
(which also refers to other real animals such as horses, hawks, and
ostriches) becomes critical, especially considering the purpose and
intent of God’s questions to Job. That the leviathan was referred to in
ancient mythological literature is beyond question. But this does not
prove that mythological creatures are under consideration in Job 40 and
41.
Second, behemoth is not described as horrifying and predatory, as is
the “ferocious bullock of El” in the Ugaritic texts. On the contrary, he
is portrayed as a herbivorous animal (40:20) that even allows other
animals to graze nearby without harm (20), lies peacefully in the shadow
of the rushes of the rivers (21-22), and leisurely laps up its waters
(26) [see Gordis, 1978, p. 571]. As John Hartley noted in his excellent
commentary on Job:
In contrast to mythological thought, Yahweh did not have to defeat
Behemoth to gain control over the forces of chaos. Rather Behemoth
obeyed him from the first moment of origin.... Unafraid, Yahweh can
approach Behemoth with his sword. Such an act symbolizes his complete
mastery of this beast (1988, p. 525).
Similarly, the leviathan of Job 41 poses no threat to God (contrary to
what ancient myths depict), regardless of how unmanageable and
terrifying he may appear to puny Job.
Third, neither description is close to being identical with that of
such monsters as depicted in any ancient Near Eastern mythology (see
Wharton, 1999, p. 175). No mythical creature called behemoth, nor
anything like it, is seen in pagan mythology (despite Marvin Pope’s
attempt to identify the behemoth with “the ferocious bullock of El”). In
fact, one of leviathan’s most impressive characteristics—the ability to
breathe fire—is not even mentioned in the Ugaritic texts. It also is
interesting to note that in Job 41, God does not mention leviathan
having multiple heads, as is stated in the mythopoetic language of Psalm
74:14: “Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces.” Mythology
speaks of leviathan as having seven heads, but in the description of Job
41 we read that he has only one head (v. 7), one tongue (v. 1), one
nose (v. 2), and one jaw (v. 2). There is absolutely no hint of Job’s
leviathan having multiple heads. Surely, if the leviathan of Job 41 were
a mythological creature, God would not have excluded such vital
characteristics as these.
Fourth, instead of attempting to
prove that these are
mythological creatures, some mythologizers try to reason in a somewhat
reverse fashion. They argue that since these creatures cannot be the
hippopotamus and the crocodile, then they must be mythological (Driver
and Gray, 1964, p. 351). This kind of logic is faulty, however, as it
closes its parameters to another very real possibility—extinct
creatures.
Fifth, although the poems in Job 40-41 are longer and are placed into
the context of a separate speech, essentially they are the same as the
earlier poems which deal with familiar birds and animals that the reader
would have been expected to know (Anderson, 1974, p. 289). From the
existence of these animals, God obviously intended Job to draw important
conclusions regarding the nature of the world and man’s place in it.
Robert Gordis commented: “The same consideration supports the idea that
Behemoth and Leviathan are also natural creatures, the existence of
which heightens the impact of God’s argument” (1978, p. 571).
Descriptions of these creatures are critical in regard to the intent of
God’s speeches to Job. “They are surely to be taken...as variations on
the theme that God is God and Job is not” (Wharton, p. 174). Job is
overwhelmed by the “sheer power and terror of these beings, but even
more so by the fact that they exist as signs of God’s overarching power”
(Wharton, p. 174). In contemplating taking up his case with God, Job
has been concerned with being overcome by terror (cf. 9:32-35;
13:20-21). Now Yahweh is showing Job that his apprehensions were not
misplaced. If he would have to retreat in terror before a literal animal
like leviathan, he certainly was unfit to contend in court with
Almighty God!
Sixth, poetic use of hyperbole, including the possible utilization of
traits from mythology, is characteristic of poetry in general and of the
book of Job in particular (Gordis, 1978, p. 571). Quite fanciful
imagery and hyperbole already had been used in earlier poems to describe
living animals. We no more are required to believe that behemoth’s
bones were made of metal (40:18) than that God has water-bottles in the
sky (38:37) or that a horse “swallows the ground” (39:24,
RSV).
Thus, embellishment is to be found in both of God’s speeches. To
conclude that leviathan and behemoth are mythological creatures based
upon the use of hyperbole (and possible mythopoetic language) is a very
poor methodology of interpretation. As Wayne Jackson commented in regard
to the poetry of Job 41:19-21: “It must not be assumed that this
language implies a mythological creature. It may simply be poetic
hyperbole...” (1983, p. 87). The other possibility, of course, is that
there was a real animal at one time that breathed fire. This certainly
is not impossible physiologically, as various scientists have pointed
out (see, for example: DeYoung, 2000, pp. 117-118; Morris, 1984, p.
359).
Seventh, allowing for the use of highly poetic language at times, the
book of Job remains realistic throughout (Anderson, 1974, p. 288). Job
was a
real person (cf. Ezekiel 14:14,20; James 5:11) who experienced
real pain. He challenged a
real God that was (and is) alive. Jehovah described
real creatures in Job 38 and 39. And so there is no legitimate reason for rejecting behemoth and leviathan as
real animals.
Eighth, unlike the mythology in the Babylonian and Ugaritic creation
epics (where the writers described alleged cosmic events of the distant
past), God was concerned in His discussion with Job with the appearance and habits of these creatures in the
present.
God “is not interested in imaginary creatures from the dim mythological
past—he is concerned with the actual present, with the vast universe as
it is governed by its Maker” (Gordis, 1965, p. 119).
Ninth, God’s purpose in glorifying His creation would not be served by
describing mythological creatures derived from a polytheistic
background. In his commentary on Job, Gordis elaborated on this point:
A passing mythological reference, such as we encounter in Isa. and Ps.,
is conceivable, but not an extended description of primordial beasts
the reality of which the exalted monotheism of the author of Job had
rejected. The point need not be labored that an uncompromising
monotheism is the indispensable religious background for the book of Job
and for the discussion of the issue of evil which it raises. It cannot
be too strongly emphasized that Job parts company with Sumerian,
Akkadian, and Egyptian Wisdom precisely here—the book is not a lament on
suffering, nor even a complaint to the gods, but a challenge to the one
God, whose hallmark is justice and who is being charged with having
violated His own standard (1978, p. 571).
Finally, that these creatures are real would seem to be quite
conclusive, for Job 40:15 states explicitly that behemoth and Job are
equally God’s creatures (Anderson, 1974, pp. 288-289). Speaking to Job,
God said, “Behold now,
behemoth, which I made as well as thee” (40:15, emp. added).
Scholars who take the mythological approach when interpreting Job 40-41 simply are making comparisons to
their
liking. They have been so captivated by “apparent” parallels in ancient
literature that they have lost sight of the basic exegetical test—the
relevance and appropriateness of the interpretation within the context
of the book of Job (Gordis, p. 569).
IDENTIFYING BEHEMOTH AND LEVIATHAN
What are these flesh-and-blood creatures that Jehovah employed to
impress upon Job his puniness when compared with God’s omnipotence?
Older expositors like Thomas Aquinas thought that perhaps behemoth was
the elephant, while leviathan was the whale (e.g., Gibson, 1905, p.
220). But since Samuel Bochart’s two-volume work
Hierozoicon, sive bipertitum opus de animalibus Sacrae Scripturae
was published in 1663, most modern critics have labeled the animals in
question as the hippopotamus and the crocodile (Wilson, 1975, 25:1).
Their basic claim is that the hippopotamus fits many of the
characteristics of behemoth, while the crocodile aligns itself very
closely with leviathan. This position has become so popular in modern
times that few commentators have bothered to challenge the proposed
identification of these beasts. In fact, even some versions of the Bible
identify these creatures in the marginal notes or chapter headings as
the hippopotamus and the crocodile.
When commenting on behemoth and leviathan, modern scholars who do not
hold to the mythological view choose to make a general statement like,
“Most identify these beasts as the hippo and the crocodile.” But then
they give little if any evidence to support such a claim. Another
disturbing trend is how “certain” many of the critics sound when
identifying these animals. For example, Gordis confidently stated:
“Behemot is to be identified as the hippopotamus and Leviathan as the
crocodile” (1978, p. 571). Edgar Gibson wrote: “...there can be little
doubt that” behemoth corresponds with the hippopotamus, and “there can
be no doubt here leviathan means the crocodile” (1905, p. 223). In his
practical book on Job, Theodore Epp confidently affirmed: “The first
animal mentioned is
the behemoth or the hippopotamus” and the
leviathan “was a large crocodile” (1967, p. 175). Again, however, after
making such definite statements, little evidence is offered, except for
making a few comparisons between the animals. Actually, in more than one
commentary the reader will find ample time spent answering objections,
but little to none laying out concrete evidence supporting the author’s
particular theory.
The Hippopotamus and the Crocodile?
While it is true that a few similarities do exist between the behemoth
and the hippo, and between the leviathan and the crocodile, many of the
descriptive details do not seem to fit either creature. These
differences are so numerous and significant that they cannot be
overlooked.
1. It has been suggested by some scholars that the word behemoth itself derives from a hypothetical Egyptian compound
p’-ih-mw
(pehemu), meaning “the ox of the water” (Mitchell, 1996, p. 127). But,
as Marvin Pope observed, “no such word has yet been found in Coptic or
Egyptian and no known Egyptian designation of the hippopotamus bears any
close resemblance to the word Behemoth” (1965, p. 268).
2. God described the behemoth as a creature that “moveth his tail like a
cedar” (40:17). The tail of a hippopotamus “would surely not have been
compared to a cedar by a truthful though poetic observer like the author
of chapters 38-39” (Cheyne, 1887, p. 56). The hippopotamus hardly could
be described—with its little 6-8 inch stubby appendage—as having a
stiff or large tail. The tail of the hippo is short and small like that
of a pig, and is a mere twig in comparison with a cedar tree. But that
fact has not prevented commentators from attempting to avoid the
obvious. Edgar Gibson wrote: “The comparison of the short, stiff,
muscular tail, to the strong and elastic cedar branch (which is probably
intended) seems really to be perfectly natural, and need cause no
difficulty” (1905, p. 221, parenthetical comment in orig.). Keil and
Delitzsch also concluded that the tail should not be compared to the
cedar
tree, but the cedar
branch (1996). Hartley has advocated the view that the tail (
zanab)
is being compared to a cedar tree, rather than to a branch, but that
God really was referring to the genitals of the hippopotamus (1988, p.
525). However, there is no credible evidence that
zanab was used
euphemistically in Hebrew (e.g., as in regard to the genitals), while
referring only to analogies in English or other languages (Pope, 1965,
p. 324). It appears that Hartley and others have rejected the logical
rendering of the passage in order to force a comparison between the
behemoth and the hippopotamus.
3. The behemoth is said to be “chief [i.e., largest] of the ways of
God” (40:19). Surely this would rule out the hippo, since at full size
it is but seven feet high (Thompson and Bromling, n.d., p. 5). An
elephant is twice the size of a hippopotamus, and yet even it was
dwarfed by certain extinct creatures. For example, the creature once
popularly referred to as
Brontosaurus (now known more accurately as
Apatosaurus) grew to weigh more than 30 tons, whereas the hippo weighs in at only around 4 tons (Jackson, 1983, p. 86).
4. The text indicates that no man could approach the behemoth with a
sword (40:19), nor was he able to capture him (40:24). Yet as mentioned
earlier, the hippopotamus was hunted frequently and captured
successfully by the Egyptians (Driver and Gray, 1964, p. 353). Hartley
observed:
Egyptian pharaohs took pride in slaying a hippopotamus. There are
numerous pictures in which the pharaoh, hunting a hippopotamus from a
papyrus boat, is poised to hurl his harpoon into the animal’s opened
mouth, thereby inflicting a fatal blow (1988, p. 524).
Egyptians even celebrated festivals known as “Harpooning the
Hippopotamus” (Hartley, 1988, p. 524). Additionally, Egyptian monuments
frequently picture single hunters attacking the hippo with a spear
(McClintock and Strong, 1968, 1:728). How could one accurately compare
the unapproachable and unseizable behemoth with the hippopotamus?
5. The leviathan also is represented as unapproachable and too mighty to be apprehended by men. The Lord said:
Canst thou draw out leviathan with a fishhook? Or press down his tongue
with a cord? Canst thou put a rope into his nose? Or pierce his jaw
through with a hook?... If one lay at him with the sword, it cannot
avail; Nor the spear, the dart, nor the pointed shaft (41:1-2,26).
It is clear that the leviathan is represented as “too powerful and
ferocious for mere man to dare to come to grips with it” (Pope, p. 268).
He is “beyond the power of men to capture” (Driver and Gray, 1964, p.
353). Leviathan is “peerless and fearless” (Strauss, 1976, p. 437).
Contrariwise, the crocodile—like the hippopotamus—was hunted and
captured by Egyptians. Herodotus discussed how they captured crocodiles
(Rowley, 1980, p. 259), and how that, after being seized, some even were
tamed (Jackson, 1983, p. 87). Such a scene hardly depicts the animal of
Job 40:15ff.
6. According to Jehovah, the leviathan’s “sneezings flash forth light,
and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go
burning torches, and sparks of fire leap forth. Out of his nostrils a
smoke goeth, as of a boiling pot and (burning) rushes. His breath
kindleth coals, and a flame goeth forth from his mouth” (Job 41:18-21).
Some, such as Driver and Gray, have suggested that perhaps God did not
intend to use
literal imagery in these verses (1964, p. 366). However, as Henry Morris observed:
It is presumptuous merely to write all this off as mythological and
impossible. To say that the leviathan could not have breathed fire is to
say much more than we know about leviathans (or water dragons or sea
serpents). Fire flies produce light, eels produce electricity, and
bombardier beetles produce explosive chemical reactions. All of these
involve complex chemical processes, and it does not seem at all
impossible that an animal might be given the ability to breathe out
certain gaseous fumes which, upon coming in contact with oxygen, would
briefly ignite (1984, p. 359).
7. When leviathan “raiseth himself up, the mighty are afraid: By reason
of consternation they are beside themselves.... He beholdeth everything
that is high: He is king over all the sons of pride” (Job 41:25,34).
True, crocodiles are frightening creatures. Yet they are no more
frightening standing up than when sitting, because their legs are so
short. How could it thus be said of the crocodile that “he beholdeth
everything that is high”—when he himself is so close to the ground?
8. God also described leviathan as an animal that cannot be availed by
swords, spears, or darts (41:26). In fact, leviathan “laugheth at the
rushing of the javelin” (41:29) and “his underparts are (like) sharp
potsherds” (41:30). In commenting on these verses, Thompson and Bromling
wrote:
Although the hide that covers the crocodile’s back is extremely thick
and difficult to penetrate, this is not true of his belly. The crocodile
is most vulnerable to spears and javelins on his underside; hence, it
could not be said of him that “his underparts are like sharp potsherds”
(n.d., p. 7).
The problem of identifying these two creatures was acknowledged by T.K.
Cheyne long ago. Even though his mythological interpretation of Job
40-41 is faulty, he and others have observed correctly that neither the
behemoth nor the leviathan corresponds well to the hippopotamus or the
crocodile. If Edwin Good was speaking of present-day animals, he was
correct when he wrote: “There is simply no plausible natural counterpart
to Leviathan” (1990, p. 361). Plus, “Eating grass like the cattle,
having a tail in any way comparable to a cedar, having any contact with
the mountains, and relating to the Jordan River, are all
incompatibilities between Behemoth and the hippopotamus” (Wolfers, 1995,
p. 191). Actually, the only support for identification of the behemoth
as the hippopotamus is the biblical description “not of the animal but
of its habitat” (Good, 1990, p. 358).
Concerning leviathan, Wolfers wrote: “Underside like sharpest
potsherds, swimming in sea rather than river, and breathing fire and
smoke, are incompatibilities between Leviathan and the crocodile” (p.
191). Job 41 is dominated by the idea of the beast’s utter
invincibility. As Driver and Gray admitted: “There is nothing, unless we
should so regard 41:7, that points necessarily or at all striking to
the crocodile, and one or two points seem inconsistent with it” (1964,
p. 353). In reality, there are more than just “one or two points” that
are inconsistent with the suggestion that the leviathan is little more
than a crocodile.
Behemoth as a Dinosaur; Leviathan
as a Water-Living Reptile?
The evidence documents overwhelmingly that the behemoth and leviathan
of Job 40-41 are flesh-and-blood animals, not imaginary creatures.
Furthermore, the description of these creatures does not fit that of any
known animal present in the world today, regardless of attempts to
equate them with the hippopotamus and the crocodile. Thus, they must be
some type of extinct creature. But what kind? God’s descriptions of
behemoth and leviathan are compatible in every way with the descriptions
we have of dinosaurs and dinosaur-like, water-living reptiles that
roamed the Earth, not millions of years ago as some have suggested, but
only a few thousand years ago. Moses wrote: “For in six days Jehovah
made heaven and earth, the sea, and
all that in them is (Exodus
20:11, emp. added). Man, according to Christ, existed “from the
beginning of the creation” (Mark 10.6; cf. Matthew 19:4). So did the
dinosaurs.
This conclusion is supported by the available scientific evidence as
well. In the early 1920s, distinguished archaeologist Samuel Hubbard
uncovered Indian petroglyphs in the Hava Supai area of the Grand Canyon.
Among them were representations of easily recognizable creatures,
including the ibex, the buffalo—and the dinosaur. In fact, a
reproduction of the dinosaur petroglyph graced the front cover of the
scientific monograph authored by Dr. Hubbard and published under the
auspices of the Oakland, California Museum of Natural History (where Dr.
Hubbard served as the honorary curatory of archaeology, and which had
sponsored the expedition as a result of funding by the highly respected
philanthropist E.L. Doheny; see Hubbard, 1925). Upon seeing the
petroglyph of the dinosaur, Dr. Hubbard remarked:
Taken all in all, the proportions are good. The huge reptile is
depicted in the attitude in which man would be most likely to see
it—reared on its hind legs, balancing with the long tail, either feeding
or in fighting position, possibly defending itself against a party of
men (as quoted in Verrill, 1954, pp. 155ff.).
In the book,
The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible, there is a
reproduction of the Hava Supai dinosaur petroglyph, side-by-side with a
representation from the evolutionists’ texts of the dinosaur known as
Edmontosaurus
(see Taylor, 1989, p. 39). The two are indistinguishable. And that, in
this context, raises an important question: How could Indians draw such
accurate pictures of a creature they never had seen? It is evident that
both biblical and scientific evidence support the coexistence of man and
dinosaurs at some point in the not-too-distant past.
CONCLUSION
There are three possible explanations as to the exact identity of the
biblical creatures known as behemoth and leviathan: (1) they are unreal,
mythological monsters; (2) they are real animals that exist somewhere
in the world today; or (3) they are some kind of real, yet extinct
creature. The biblical and scientific evidence makes it clear that the
third choice is the only correct option. Yet, sadly, as Henry Morris has
observed:
Modern Bible scholars, for the most part, have become so conditioned to
think in terms of the long ages of evolutionary geology that it never
occurs to them that mankind once lived in the same world with the great
animals that are now found only as fossils (1988, p. 115).
REFERENCES
Anderson, Francis I. (1974),
Job (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Brantley, Garry (1993), “Pagan Mythology and the Bible,”
Reason & Revelation, 13:49-53, July.
Cansdale, G. S. (1996), “Animals of the Bible,”
New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), third edition.
Cheyne, T.K. (1887),
Job and Solomon (New York: Thomas Whittaker).
Day, John N. (1998), “God and Leviathan in Isaiah 27:1,”
Bibliotheca Sacra, 155:423-436, October-December.
DeYoung, Donald B. (2000),
Dinosaurs and Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Driver, S.R. and G.B. Gray (1964),
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Epp, Theodore H. (1967),
Job, A Man Tried as Gold (Lincoln, NE: Back to the Bible Publications).
Gibson, Edgar C.S. (1905),
The Book of Job (London: Methuen).
Good, Edwin (1990),
In Turns of Tempest: A Reading of Job (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).
Gordis, Robert (1965),
The Book of God and Man (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Gordis, Robert (1978),
The Book of Job (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America).
Gray, J. (1961), “Texts from the Ras Shamra,”
Documents from Old Testament Times, ed. D. Winton Thomas (New York: Harper).
Hailey, Homer (1994),
A Commentary on Job (Louisville, KY: Religious Supply).
Harris, R. Laird (1992), “The Doctrine of God in the Book of Job,”
Sitting with Job, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Hartley, John E (1988),
The Book of Job (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Hubbard, Samuel (1925),
The Doheny Scientific Expedition to the Hava Supai Canyon, Northern Arizona (Oakland, CA: Oakland Museum of Natural History).
Jackson, Wayne (1983),
The Book of Job (Abilene, TX: Quality).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996),
Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament [Electronic Database] (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Lipinski (1995), “Liwyatan,”
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. Botterweck, Ringgren, and Fabry (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
McClintock, John and James Strong (1968),
Cyclopaedia of Biblical Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Mitchell, T.C. (1996), “Behemoth,”
New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), third edition.
Morris, Henry M. (1984),
Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Morris, Henry M. (1988),
The Remarkable Record of Job (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Payne, J. Barton (1980),
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Pfeiffer, Charles F. (1960), “Lotan and Leviathan,”
Evangelical Quarterly, 32:208-211.
Pope, Marvin H. (1965),
Job (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Rowley, Harold Henry (1980),
Job (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Smick, Elmer (1970), “Mythology and the Book of Job,”
Sitting with Job, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Smick, Elmer (1978), “Another Look at the Mythological Elements in the Book of Job,”
The Westminster Theological Journal, 40[2]:213-228, Spring.
Strauss, James D. (1976),
The Shattering of Silence (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Taylor, Paul S. (1989),
The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor).
Thompson, Bert and Brad Bromling, (no date),
Dinosaurs and the Bible [Research Article Series] (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Tur-Sinai, N.H. (1967),
The Book of Job (Jerusalem: Sivan Press).
Verrill, A.H. (1954),
Strange Prehistoric Animals and Their History (Boston, MA: L.C. Page).
Wharton, James A (1999),
Job (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox).
Williams, James G. (1992), “The Theophany of Job,”
Sitting with Job, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Wilson, J.V. Kinnier (1975), “A Return to the Problems of Behemoth and Leviathan,”
Vetus Testamentum, 25:1-14, January.
Wolfers, David (1995),
Deep Things Out of Darkness (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Zuck, Roy (1978),
Job (Chicago, IL: Moody).
