Behemoth

[cloud_strife]

Is anyone familiar with the bible verse in Job about the Behemoth??

Now, of course the fundies over at xtianity.com insist that behemoth is a representation of a dinosaur. Namely, an apatosaur, as mentioned by one poster (Corbin, if you read this, it's Tigger, big surprise, eh?).

Anyways, one of the verse mentions that it "swings it's tail like a cedar, and the sinews of it's stones are wrapped together."

I suggested that the passage refers to a hippopotamus, and suggested the the tail and stones refer to it's genitalia, not it's actual tail.


Any thoughts on this?

[Kopji]

Hi,
The Hippo is a better guess than dinosaur. I think though, the creature would need to be well known to the listeners and I'm not sure they would readily know about hippos.

The Behemoth in Job is generally thought to be the same creature as the 'Leviathan' mentioned elsewhere. Bible scholars seem to present the idea anyway...

This would link it from a popular story probably well known to the hearer’s of the parable of Job. (Around the 'ol campfire) There’s a good article on it in Harper’s, you might look up some of the terms like ‘Lothan’ and find more on the Internet.


…in Ugaritic mythology, Leviathan (appearing by the name ‘Lothan’) is one of the primeval sea monsters who battles against Baal on the side of Mot (the god of the underworld) and who is ultimately defeated. This mythological tradition was adopted and transformed in the Bible where God appears as the victor over the sea monsters…

The references to God ‘playing’ with the Leviathan (Ps 104:26 & Job 41:5) are explainable on the basis of God’s omnipotence which reduces this mighty and rebellious dragon to a plaything. This mythological pagan drama is ultimately transposed in Israel into a moral lesson. The future and final destruction of Leviathan becomes a symbol in Isaiah 27:1 for the death of the wicked, to be succeeded by the redemption of Israel.
- Harper’s Bible Dictionary, Harper & Row Publishers
ISBN 0-06-06-9863-2


They'll probably kick you off if you think too much...
Here's a more fundyfriendly version:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2001/r&r0101a.htm

(edited for ancient mythological spelling & ap press link)

[MLynn]

Both my Random House Dictionary and my NASB study Bible say, large land animal like a hippopotamus.

[Yahweh]

Just for fun, Job 40:15-20 as translated by Stephen Mitchell (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/bookstore/bible.html#job):
Look now: the Beast that I made: he eats grass like a bull. Look: the power in his thighs, the pulsing sinews of his belly. His penis stiffens like a pine; his testicles bulge with vigor

[cloud_strife]

That's pretty graphic Yahweh, are you sure it's proper for the kiddies??

Amazingly enough I found a link about this in AiG (oh god!!) and it was pretty funny. They were explaining how different versions explain that verse, and they kept talking about erecting his tail, or bending it, and whatnot. And they never even considered that it might be his penis. I mean seriousy...what animal do you know stiffens it's tail like a cedar??

I suggested that tail was a slang term for penis, and they were outraged! haha

[evildave]

Didn't dinosaurs lay eggs, like birds?

I don't think many males of egg laying species generally are equipped like mammalian ones.

[c4ts]

The passage before those two refers to strength in the loins. I'm sure they are just describing it in detail.

[Kopji]

I didn't really like Stephen Mitchell's version of the TTC, at least he's giving the Bible fair treatment now. :D

[neutrino_cannon]

@ evildave,

It depends. In many species, as you would suspect, the two partners just match up cloacas. That's how it works in most birds, and plenty of other animals. However, in a few, phallic, or phallic-ish structures have evolved, independantly, appearantly, many times.

I'd have to consult my sources for the equipment of the crocodiles, which are the only surviving archosaurs other than birds. In birds, my understanding is that paleognaths and basal neognathes have penises, whereas most others do not. this could suggest that therapods, at least, had some sort of penis.

It is unlikely, however, that they had external testicals. Many mammals, in fact, lack external testicals.

[scribble]

When you have a question like this, your best bet is to go to a bible concordance (assuming you don't speak greek yourself)

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=job+40:15&version=kjv&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1

The links to the concordances here vary in their interpretations, but the word suggests "water ox" which I, as well as Easton's, would translate more properly as "hippopotamus."

Here's the except from Smith's, which seems more definite than Easton's.


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 the behemoth accord entirely with the ascertained habits of that animal...



The Behemoth in Job is generally thought to be the same creature as the 'Leviathan' mentioned elsewhere. Bible scholars seem to present the idea anyway...


A similar search on Leviathan will show that it is not even likely to be the same creature, but as the answer to what it's likely to be is interesting, I'll leave it as an exercise for the curious.

[cloud_strife]

yea, I found a source talking about a water ox.

Careful analysis shows that it couldn't be a dinosaur anyways.

One of the largest dinosaurs was the apatosaur. And it's touted as the dinosaur described in Job by many people.

However, firstly, the apatosaur did not eat grass. It consumed ferns and tree leaves. Other such passages suggest that the behemoth lay under trees and lives in a fairly forested area near the jordan, and also spent many a time in the jordan.

This could not be an apatosaur, as apatosaurs did not live in forested areas, nor did they frolick in the water.

lastly, dinosaurs did not live when humans were around, and anybody who thinks so is an idiot, and should be prevented from having offspring.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Kopji
Hi,
The Hippo is a better guess than dinosaur. I think though, the creature would need to be well known to the listeners and I'm not sure they would readily know about hippos.

The Behemoth in Job is generally thought to be the same creature as the 'Leviathan' mentioned elsewhere. Bible scholars seem to present the idea anyway...


How so? I always thought that Leviathan was something aquatic, such as a large crocodile that kept getting larger with each retelling. Or maybe the fish that swallowed Jonah.

FWIW, in modern Hebrew a 'behemoth' is a buffalo. That doesn't necessarily jibe with Job.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
I always thought that Leviathan was something aquatic, such as a large crocodile that kept getting larger with each retelling. Or maybe the fish that swallowed Jonah.


Yes, the description of Leviathan fits perfectly to a crocodile apart from the significant absurdity that it has the ability to breathe fire. Though I can imagine the description probably was inspired by a crocodile to begin with, mixed with a good dose of fantasy and exageration.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by plindboe


Yes, the description of Leviathan fits perfectly to a crocodile apart from the significant absurdity that it has the ability to breathe fire. Though I can imagine the description probably was inspired by a crocodile to begin with, mixed with a good dose of fantasy and exageration.

Well the story had to start somewhere, and once the beast reaches a certain size further exaggeration along those lines loses its punch.

So how to exaggerate yet more? Breathing fire, that's the ticket. :p :D

There actually is folklore mixing up Leviathan with the Jonah story, but that's rather fanciful stuff from the late middle ages.

[Kopji]

Quite a lot of evidence that implies ancient Israel borrowed freely from the surrounding mythologies so I don't see why Job would be any different. Harper's strongly implies the two creatures have a mythological significance, but offers intertestamental books as sources. I doubt the raptureready gang would readily accept any of that.

The man/dinosaur thing is just Creationist stuff, and here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH712.html)
covers the topic well. Might have better luck convincing me it was some kind of alien spacecraft. :D

Anyhoo, how many mideastern desert nomads would have ever seen a hippo or croc? Much more likely they would be well familiar with neighboring mythology, and this would play more like 'my god can whoop your god'. Perfectly acceptable.

The apologetics site tries to target more conservative Christianity, but although the topics seem generally presented 'ok' - there is a definite bias. Arguing that this might actually be a literal fire breathing dragon unknown to us today is a pretty good example... My intent was to show that the debate extends from liberal to conservative Christianity.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by cloud_strife
[B]

Careful analysis shows that it couldn't be a dinosaur anyways.

One of the largest dinosaurs was the apatosaur. And it's touted as the dinosaur described in Job by many people.

However, firstly, the apatosaur did not eat grass. It consumed ferns and tree leaves.



It couldn't eat grass because grass wasn't around yet.

[Fendetestas]

I agree with the hippotpotamus. The author of the book of Job could have lived in Egypt, for example, the hippos were common along the Nile.

I read somewhere that the Behemoth might be a hang-over from a Mesopotamian myth of the great bull killed by Gilgamesh.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Fendetestas
I read somewhere that the Behemoth might be a hang-over from a Mesopotamian myth of the great bull killed by Gilgamesh.

That would fit in with the modern usage meaning 'buffalo'.