Excursus: Identifying Behemoth

“Some translate as…hippopotamus but from the description in Job 40:15-24, this is patently absurd.”—Crosswalk.com lexicon^[1]

“There can be little or no doubt that by this word, Job 40:15-24, the hippopotamus is intended, since all the details descriptive of behemoth accord entirely with the ascertained habits of that animal.”—Bible Dictionary by William Smith, L.L.D.^[2]

            This excursus appraises three proposed identifications for Behemoth in Job chapter 40: the elephant, the hippopotamus, and the sauropod dinosaur (a giant herbivorous terrestrial reptile with four columnar legs, long neck and tail). The last identification is proposed by young-earth creationism which believes that dinosaurs coexisted with humankind.
            Based on the description in Job 40:15-24, a proper identification must meet the following requirements outlined in Table 1 below, and cannot have a notable feature that is not covered and most likely would have been if Behemoth had it:

            Thus, Behemoth was a very dangerous and powerful animal that also dwelled in watery places like swamps and rivers, yet was also concealed by reeds and also able to fit under a lotus tree (see Figure 2). All of its limbs, even its tail, are described as notably strong.
            First, Behemoth cannot be an elephant, despite its famous large size, as the elephant is not a swamp dweller, is not concealed by reeds, and would not naturally find shade under a lotus tree. (Job 40:21-2) Also, no mention or allusion is made to its noteworthy proboscis, large ears, or long curving tusks (accept perhaps verse 19). Similarly, Behemoth cannot be a sauropod dinosaur either, much less the specific identifications made in note 1, due to the fact that sauropods also were not swamp dwellers, not concealed by reeds, and would be physically incapable of finding shade under a lotus tree. Also, no mention or allusion is made to the noteworthy long neck sauropods are most famous for. Lastly, the hippopotamus actually provides the best fit as it matches all of the requirements nicely. The following will now compare and contrast the sauropod and hippopotamus identifications in detail.
            In response to the opening quote, it appears that some may have been a little hasty in rejecting the hippopotamus identification. Ones who reject it point to verse 17 (‘moving or bending its tail like a cedar’), call this identification “patently absurd,” and then offer a sauropod dinosaur as the more sensible interpretation. (See Figure 1.) However, this replacement comes with its own set of difficulties. This excursus offers that identifying Behemoth as a sauropod is 1) unscriptural and 2) unscientific.
            2) Unscientific in that sauropods are known to be gigantic terrestrial reptiles, yet Behemoth lies under a lotus tree and is concealed by reeds in swamps! (Job 40:21-2) The lotus tree (Ziziphus lotus) “is a thickly branched shrub or low tree, often growing to a height of only 1.5 m (5 ft).”^[3] A sauropod would not be able to find shade under this tree. Furthermore, while sauropods were capable of visiting rivers and even swamps, they would put themselves in great danger of getting trapped, and the fossil record of the Morrison Formation even indicates that this happened (see YEC and dinosaurs). Plus, how will reeds conceal such massive beasts, which include the largest terrestrial beasts known to science?^[4] The answer is that they would not. On the other hand, the hippopotamus can find shade under a lotus tree and is concealed by reeds in swamps.
            1) Scriptural difficulties in identifying Behemoth as a sauropod include the following: Behemoth is the plural (or intensive plural denoting greatness) of behemah. Vine’s Expository Dictionary under the entry “Beast” lists the occurrences of behemah and how it refers to a mammal, and even makes this distinction in identifying behemah: “In 1 Kings 4:33, this word seems to exclude birds, fish, and reptiles.” Thus, it is reasonable to say that the Scriptures apply a mammalian quality to behemah. Sauropod dinosaurs are reptiles. Behemoth appears to be a great behemah, a great mammal.
            Now let’s return to the question of 40:17a, with the tail moving or bending like a cedar.^[5] It is noteworthy that sauropod-proponents seem to emphasize the criterion in this verse to the exclusion of the other criteria in the rest of the chapter, as shown in Figure 1. In considering how Behemoth may be a mammal, it is significant that terrestrial and semiaquatic mammals are not known for having long tails like reptiles are. Notice though that the tail is not said to be like a cedar, but acts (moves or bends) like a cedar. Making this distinction clear is the NET Bible, which conveys it this way: “It makes its tail stiff like a cedar.” Since the hippopotamus rapidly swings its thick, rigid twenty-inch long tail (which it does while defecating to distribute its excrement over the greatest possible area to mark its territory) and may set its tail rigidly upright, this datum would not necessarily disqualify it.^[5a]
            Consider also the other illustrations in Behemoth’s description, as in the next verse (18), where its bones are called tubes of copper (or bronze) and iron rods.^[6] While sauropods have “hollow” or pneumatic vertebrae and ribs,^[7] the message of the tubular copper and iron-rod bones is of strength. Therefore, it is the quality of copper tubes that is being stressed, not that Behemoth has hollow bones. The same could be said for moving its tail like a cedar, the cedar-like quality of being stiff and strong with strong roots.^[8] If this referred to a sauropod, the long necks sauropods are most famous for would also be mentioned (perhaps as moving like a cedar also). This problem is inescapable since the tail counterbalances the neck. Thus, ironically, verse 17 actually disqualifies the sauropod identification by not mentioning the noteworthy neck. Actually, the omission of the neck would tend to disqualify most other herbivorous dinosaurs since most also had noteworthy necks. Additionally, this omission supports the hippopotamus identification as its neck is short and obscured by bulky muscle and fat.
            What we have here in Job are hyperboles. Verse 18 is certainly hyperbolic, so why not the preceding verse? Notice too the hyperbole used in the preceding chapter for the horse: “With pounding and excitement it swallows up the earth [or ground].” (39:24) No one argues that the word sus, “horse,” cannot be a horse since horses cannot swallow up the ground. It is understood as an obvious hyperbole. Hyperboles continue in chapter 41 with Leviathan. There in verses 18-21 it is described as emitting fire and bright light from its mouth, and burning smoke and light rays from its nostrils! It simply goes without saying that no animal has ever been able to belch fire and bright light, much less shoot light beams from its nostrils. (Such a feature of exhaling flammable gas and having it burn inside its head, producing smoke and light, would obviously overheat its eyes and brain and consequently prove to be fatal!) Therefore these descriptions of mighty beasts include hyperboles—expressions not to be taken literally.
            These scriptural and scientific difficulties complement each other: while sauropods are not designed for dwelling in swamps and rivers, the hippopotamus, on the other hand, is. “If the river acts violently, it does not run in panic. It is confident, although the Jordan should burst forth against its mouth.” (40:23) This well describes the hippopotamus. “Their nostrils…are equipped with special flaps that close down when the animal goes underwater.” And it spends “most of the day with only its eyes, ears, and nostrils above the surface of a river, and it is capable of remaining underwater for as long as 25 minutes, though it usually does so only for 3-5 minutes at a time. During the day it feeds on aquatic vegetation and often swims more than 30 km (more than 19 mi) in search of food, emerging at night to feed on land plants.”^[9] As verse 15 says: “Green grass it eats just as a bull does.” In fact, “its diet consists mainly of terrestrial grasses and they may eat up to 68 Kg of grass a night. At dusk, Hippopotamuses leave the water and sometimes walk as far as 8km inland to graze on short grass, which is their main form of sustenance.”^[10] Harmonizing with the above description of Behemoth, the hippopotamus’ “preferred habitat” is “deep water with adjacent reed beds and grasslands.”^[11] And just as “the mountains themselves bear their produce for it,” (40:20) so “hippopotamuses have occasionally been seen in mountain rivers at heights of more than 1500 m (5000 ft) above sea level and at temperatures near freezing.”^[12] They also when fully grown have no natural predators, save man who hunt it at a distance or use pitfalls. This harmonizes with verse 19b: “Its Maker can bring near his sword,” or as the NET Bible has it: “the One who made it has furnished it with a sword.” The NET Bible has a footnote for “sword” that states: “The sword is apparently a reference to the teeth or tusks of the animal, which cut vegetation like a sword. But the idea of a weapon is easier to see ... The [Revised Standard Version] probably has the safest: ‘He that made him has furnished him with his sword’ (the sword being a reference to the sharp tusks with which he can attack).” Likewise, verse 24 states: “Before its eyes can anyone take it? With snares can anyone bore its nose?” This matches with the hippopotamus’ large canine teeth (or tusks) and jaws, which “can bite a medium-sized crocodile in half.”^[13] The crushing power of the hippopotamus’ jaws are legendary and feared. Yet, it is herbivorous, and when it feeds on land, “all the wild beasts of the field themselves play there” in the sense of have nothing to fear of predation. (Job 40:20) By way of comparison, it must be noted that sauropods do not have tusks, thus this criterion alone immediately disqualifies it as being Behemoth. (See Figure 4.)
            A possibility exists too that Job’s Behemoth is not the modern hippopotamus, Hippopotamus amphibius, but a larger extinct variety like Hippopotamus major. Remains of H. major “occur across southern Europe, the Levant, and North Africa,” along with remains of H. amphibius.^[14] Thus while it may be possible that these large hippopotamuses coexisted with people in Job’s time, the bones of such animals may have been known by people then even if they were extinct. In fact, the remains of such beasts were even given reverential attention in order to corroborate popular mythology, as the Greeks enshrined a “very large hippopotamus molar,” possibly of H. major, as a “hero’s relic” in a sixth-century BCE temple at Tell Sukas on the Orontes River south of Antioch.^[15] In any case, this larger type of hippopotamus would still be able to meet the criterion of finding shade under a lotus tree.
            Thus, identifying Behemoth within the genus Hippopotamus is both Scripturally and scientifically sound.^[16] How is it though, that 40:19a calls him “the beginning (reshit; LXX 40:14: arche) of the ways of God”? In that Behemoth is the beginning or first of God’s creative ways that Job should look to for insight and be humbled by its impressive design. The LXX here has arche plasmatos, which means “first formation,” as in the ‘first formation of God’ that Job should study. While both reshit and arche also mean “chief,” as reshit here is translated by the King James Version, Webster’s, Darby’s, American Standard Version, and Hebrew Names Version, the meaning of “beginning or first” fits better with the context and message. For instance, if arche meant “chief” here, it could have been written as archiplasmatos which would mean “chief formation” like architekton means “chief builder.” Interestingly, the NET Bible conveys it this way: “It ranks first among the works of God,” and the New Living Translation has: “It is a prime example of God’s amazing handiwork.” Along this line, one reference puts it: “The chief, or beginning (reshit), may imply that behemoth was the first land animal to be created, an inference perhaps from Gn 1:24, where ‘cattle’ is the translation of behemah. More probably it means that he is regarded as God’s masterpiece.”^[17] The later statement is closer to the mark. While it may be hard to figure how a swamp dweller, concealed by reeds, could be “God’s masterpiece” or ‘the beginning of God’s ways’ for consideration, it must be understood that the hippopotamus is a very powerful animal—and is certainly “a prime example of God’s amazing handiwork.” God’s animal creation is full of prime examples, both large and small, terrestrial and aquatic, living and extinct, of his amazing handiwork. And the hippopotamus is certainly one of them—and can be considered great indeed in its humble semiaquatic niche.

Figure 1: An appraisal of a cartoon.^[18]

In addition to the hippopotamus identification being called “patently absurd,” the sauropod identification is portrayed as being the most natural conclusion, so natural that even a child would make the sauropod identification and immediately reject other contenders for the title. While the elephant cannot be Behemoth, the tail is not the reason. In this cartoon, notice how sauropod-proponents have misread the verse they focus on for support, Job 40:17. While they present what the text says, they improperly isolate “tail like a cedar,” and then consequently misunderstand the simile. Therefore the sauropod identification becomes a piece of childish reasoning and not the most natural reasoning. For that reason this cartoon is correct, but not for the reason intended.

Figure 3: Hippopotamus on land during daytime.^[9]

Its “skin has glands that secrete a thick, reddish fluid impenetrable by the sun’s burning rays.” These sunscreen glands therefore provide it additional protection during daytime, where it could also have sought shade under a lotus tree.

Figure 4: Comparing Hippopotamus and Sauropod teeth.

(From left to right, the first two show the hippopotamus mouth open displaying its dangerous, sharp tusks. The third shows drawings of the skulls for Brachiosaurus, on top, and Diplodocus, on bottom.) Obviously, only the hippopotamus has tusks per verse 19, and the sauropod dinosaur does not. Therefore, ones seeking to identify Behemoth with these sauropods need to be more responsible and less sensational, more concerned with reading comprehension and zoological anatomy then with isolated identifications (focusing only on verse 17a and ignoring everything else for the sake of being sensational).

Main article

^[2] “Behemoth.” The John C. Winston Company. 1948

^[3] “Lotus Tree.” Insight on the Scriptures. 1988 ed. This work adds: “The only reference to it is at Job 40:21, 22, which speaks of Behemoth (the hippopotamus) as lying in the shade cast by the tree. While this tree is found in dry places in Palestine, A Dictionary of Life in Bible Times speaks of it as ‘flourishing in the hot and humid marshland’ of N Africa.—By W. Corswant, Suffolk, 1960, p. 177.” Thus the lotus tree was in the area where the hippopotamus lived. While the hippopotamus is known to usually leave its watery abode at dusk, it is also occasionally on land during the day. (“Hippopotamus.” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2000. Microsoft Corporation.) (See Figure 3.) (In the Greek Septuagint [hereafter LXX] at Job 40:16, the lotus tree is not specified, but Behemoth there is described as finding shade under “all kinds of trees” [pantodapa dendra].)

^[4] McIntosh, John. “Sauropoda (Anatomy).” Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. 1997 ed.

^[5] The LXX has “cypress” in its corresponding 40:12. Both cedars and cypress are conifers, and the cedar is in the cypress family, Cupressaceae.

^[5a] The NET Bible footnote on verse 17a informs us that the Hebrew word for the actions of the tail, translated as “make stiff” or “bend down,” “may have the meaning ‘to make stiff; to make taut’ (Arabic). The LXX and the Syriac versions support this with ‘erects.’ But there is another Arabic word that could be cognate, meaning ‘arch, bend.’ This would give the idea of the tail swaying. The other reading seems to make better sense here.” It closes its otherwise balanced footnote with this: “However, ‘stiff’ presents a serious problem with the view that the animal is the hippopotamus.” Based on the fact that the hippopotamus does make its tail stiff, the author(s) of this footnote displayed irresponsible ignorance.

^[6] In the LXX at Job 40:13, Behemoth’s sides are like brass and its spine like iron. This also matches the hippopotamus, for its “skin of the hide, especially that of the belly, is extremely tough, hence able to withstand bumping and scraping as the hippopotamus drags its low body over sticks and stones of riverbeds.” (“Behemoth.” Insight on the Scriptures. 1988 ed.)

^[7] Britt, Brooks. “Postcranial Pneumaticity (Nonavian Pneumaticity).” Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. 1997 ed.

^[8] One suggestion is that the association with cedar and tail refer to bristles resembling the cedar’s needle-like leaves which are present on the tails of elephants and hippopotamuses. (Bright, Michael. Beasts of the Field: The Revealing Natural History of Animals in the Bible. London: Anova Books, 2006: 27.) See above for why the elephant is disqualified from being Behemoth.

^[9] “Hippopotamus.” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2000. Microsoft Corporation.

^[10] “Hippopotamus.” Destination Kruger Park. <http://www.krugerpark.co.za/africa-hippopotamus.html> (15 April 2009)

^[11] Ibid.

^[12] “Hippopotamus.” supra note 9.

^[13] “Hippopotamus.” supra note 10.

^[14] Mayor, Adrienne. The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000: 101.

^[15] Ibid.: 182.

^[16] One commentary proposes that Behemoth is “an allegorical figure for the people of Judah” (Wolfers, David. Deep Things out of Darkness: The Book of Job, Essays and a New English Translation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995: 171). While God is certainly capable of including more than one meaning into his pronouncements, anachronously including “the people of Judah” would have gone unnoticed by Job and everyone else, and therefore would have been inappropriate for making his point.

^[17] Strahan, James. The Book of Job, 2d ed. Edingburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914: 339 (emphasis added)

^[18] “Behemoth.” CreationWise. October 16, 2000. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/image/cartoons/creationwise/behemoth> (15 April 2009)

^[19] Picture on left from <www.life-natura-sites.cy.net/Page13_3.html> (15 April 2009), picture on right from <www.arrakis.es/%7El.posadas/cabo.htm> (15 April 2009).

4/15/09, 4/20/09, 4/23/09, 5/4/09