Biblical Beasts: A Behemoth Identity Crisis · 3:06am May 21st, 2018
A Behemoth Identity Crisis
Special thanks to Lance Omikron for proofing!
When people think mythological creatures they tend to think of monsters such as the Hydra from Greek mythology, Roc from Arabian tales, Sasquatch from First Nation lore, or perhaps Oni from Japanese legend. However, there is another mythology with a myriad of creatures that many people don’t seem to notice, given they very infrequently show up in fiction in the context of the tales they sprung from. The Abrahamic stories found in three of the most circulated books in the world and beyond. However, Abrahamic monsters a bit of the distinction in that many of them are simultaneously realistic and also very vague. Many lack hyperbolic and fantastic traits such as the Gorgon’s petrifying gaze or Yuki-Onna’s freezing breath. Many, in fact, seem like normal animals just going about their business with the Hebrews using them in their slang like we would use modern animals in statements like, “You purred like a kitten” or “You dog!” or perhaps “She’s a tiger in the bedroom.”
Though due to the vague nature of the descriptions at first glance, many of these creatures I feel have been misidentified by certain groups. So if it is a real animal, I’m going to try and find out what it is.
This is not about religion, despite a reference to a religious text followed by millions of people across the world in some of the largest organized faiths of said world. Neither is this a tirade against specific individuals aside from those I believe are misinformed at best or possibly being pre-conceptually bias at worst, thus leading to incorrect conclusions. Rather this is an exercise in identification. If you believe in the Abrahamic God, then I am only pointing out their creation. If you do not, then I am merely finding out what the ancients scholars were talking about if they were describing a flesh and blood creature.
Remember, this is just a foray into a much-beloved topic of mine, Zoology, and investigation. In specific, this first investigation is upon the identity of an unidentified animal listed in two of the most circulated books, the Torah and Old Testament, described in the Book and tale of Job from 40:15-24. If you got a Bible or Torah handy, feel free to follow along. My sources include both a Hebrew dictionary, consultation with a local Orthodox Rabbi, scholarly resources, and zoological journals.
In this story, Job’s God is showing him the power of its creation as a way of humbling him and showing just how small man is. Part of this is done by bringing Job before a creature called “Behemot”, a name which was Anglicized in modern English as “Behemoth”. Whilst extra texts from Hebrew stories and scripture does mention Behemoth again, I will be chiefly focusing on the Book of Job description as it seems to be describing a flesh and blood creature with little to no fantastic embellishment that may have been added in later.
I will note that amongst the Abrahamic faiths, there are two views of behemoth which are equally valid in the context that the Book of Job supplies. The first view is that behemoth was The Behemoth, a singular individual animal of possibly unique creation and status. Non-believers would classify it as a mythical beast, in the same vein as The Hydra from Greek mythology or Gbahali of Liberian mythology. The second train of thought is that behemoth is a behemoth, with the word being the name for a type of specific species of a normal animal, of which an individual the story of Job describes.
For the sake of the topic, I will go into detail with the second description hypothesis and assume behemoth is a name for a type of animal and not a distinct, singular entity. Here is the description. This is Taken from the King James version of the English translated Bible, so some words might differ across different versions, however, the core concept and idea will remain. I will also be referencing the original Hebrew translation from the Torah for context.
Job 40:15-24
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of copper; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
Now some of this might sound a bit vague, so I will go in line by line and clarify what exactly is being said here and listing behemoth’s traits.
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Behemoth is an animal from the same creator as man in the Abrahamic faith. It is a herbivorous animal that eats grass. It also very likely chews it as it is stated to eat grass in the type and way oxen do, as oxen and all bovines extensively chew their food.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
Behemoth has very powerful legs and abdomen (loins) and also has a navel. This is a key term we will come back to. A note is some translation just say "belly" instead of specifying navel, however the Hebrew word "beten" typically means more than a typical stomach. It often means a feature on it, such as a navel, or an organ in the stomach like a womb. Given this is an external view, navel is more probable.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his thighs are wrapped together.
His tail sways in a similar motion to a cedar tree, as inferred from the original Hebrew word, “khaw-fates”, which can have multiple meanings as a verb. Here it is an action verb, meaning ‘to bend or warp without breaking’. In context, the cedar familiar to the biblical archivers was the Lebanese cedar tree, a medium height tree with a very flexible trunk that bends with the wind to avoid breaking. Behemoth also has large amounts of sinew and again, powerful hind limbs. I will note one other translation is “stones” instead of thighs, implying genitalia, but the Hebrew word “p̄a-ḥă-ḏāw” means basically, muscles in the leg and thus “thighs” is a more accurate translation.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of copper; his bones are like bars of iron.
The bones of behemoth have two distinct properties that are akin to the distinguishing properties of copper and iron. Copper is not a very rigid metal, however, it can withstand a large amount of force due to its elasticity and resistance to breaking. Iron is a strong metal, valued for its ability to withstand great amounts of force. What it is saying is that behemoth has at least some bones in it skeleton that while very durable, also have shock absorption properties to withstand force without breaking. This is also the first indication behemoth is a large animal as such bones would be necessary to hold up a great weight. A note is some translation say brass instead of copper, however, the Hebrew word “nechushah” means copper or copper derivatives such as bronze.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword and approach unto him.
This can be a little bit odd to read, but what it is saying is more clear in the original Hebrew translation. “Chief in the ways of” was translated from “ray-sheeth”, which means ‘first in order’. This can be interpreted multiple ways, however, given it is a descriptor given to a flesh and blood land animal the most sensible one as agreed upon by many biblical scholars is that behemoth is the largest and most powerful of the land animals. Numbers 24:20 uses the same word in context to the nation of Amalek, which was the largest, greatest, and most powerful of the local nations. The latter part of the passage reinforces this notion that behemoth is very powerful as it uses behemoth as a measure to indicate its creator is far more powerful than it despite its great strength.
Additionally one other way of reading the part about a 'sword' is that Behemoth itself has something on its body resembling a sword; as it was "given it" by its creator. This implies a horn, spike, or tusk.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
Gonna group these two together as they are essentially saying the same thing. Behemoth is a wild animal (hence it lives in wildlands like near mountains and lives among wild beasts, not domesticated ones). It also frequently shaded itself under trees near rivers (reed and fens), of which it spends time in said water. More specifically the “shady trees” comes from the Hebrew word, “Seelim”, specifically means a Zizaphus (lotus) tree. In the context of the region, this would be the Ziziphus lotus and Jujube trees, both of which can have a wide canopy and produce a large amount of shade. They also frequently grow near rivers, backing up the river statement. More specifically, to be shaded by these trees, behemoth cannot be taller than 6 meters in height as otherwise, it would be too tall to fit under and thus be shaded by the trees.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
Behemoth drinks water (duh) and doesn’t fear entering rivers, implying it is a good swimmer or so tall it can wade through the rivers. The key word here is “draw up” or in Hebrew, “giyach”, which means to “throw out/into”, “bring up with effort”, or “come forth”. In the context of it coming into its mouth, it means it’s doing something to bring up the river and move the water into its mouth. Behemoth does not simply slurp up its drink. The fact behemoth ‘trusteth’ it can do this also implies such an action is not unusual to it and it is quite accommodated to doing so. It is not, as some suggest, behemoth being so big it can withstand a freak flash flood, rather this is normal animal behavior in everyday life and not a dramatic instance.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
Behemoth has eyes (duh again). It also can stick its nose through snares or other objects, meaning it has a big nose it prods and investigates things with. I will note “chief in the ways of” or “greatest in order” can also imply greatness beyond physical might, such as intelligence. If this is so, behemoth is investigating snares with its nose to figure out what it is. It also evidently has a big enough nose said snare is specifically stated to be around it and not its face.
According to some, this is behemoth on the right.
I’d like to note real quick this diagram has a few errors.
1. Brachiosaurus is not even close to the largest land animal ever known.
2. Seismosaurus is not a valid genus of dinosaur, just a big Diplodocus species.
But I digress. Let’s look at the description and see how well it matches. Since Ken Ham is a bit vague on which type of sauropod he believes behemoth was at times, I will use both the Brachiosaurus given it is often used in lectures and the Argentinosaurus, which is the largest known land animal and dinosaur of which we have good specimens of.
So let’s review the characteristics list shall we?
Behemoth is
-A wild, herbivorous animal that eats grass, likely chewing it like an ox would.
-Has a strong abdomen and a noticeable navel.
-Flexible tail akin to a Lebanese cedar.
-Strong and flexible bones, likely to hold up weight.
-Is the largest animal Job would have ever seen.
-Probably has a 'sword' in the form of a tusk, spike, or horn of large size.
-Lays under Ziziphus trees for shade and spends time in rivers.
-Picks up the water and lets it burst into its mouth to drink.
-Has a large nose that it can stick through things.
Do Brachiosaurus and/or Argentinosaurus fit?
-A wild, herbivorous animal that eats grass likely chewing it like an ox would.
Both were herbivorous animals, however, neither of them ate grass. All known Sauropod dinosaur coprolite (fossilized poop in such a pile only a Sauropod could have made it) show they were browsing animals that ate ferns, twigs, and leaves. Many of them (including both examples above and Ken Ham’s usual choices) were never even found in sediments that contained grass fossils. Sauropods were also physically incapable of chewing, and their jaws did not have the proper mechanisms or dentition to do so. They lack molars and the heavy presence of gastroliths, as well as stomach contents all, corroborate the hypothesis sauropods did not chew, but swallowed their food whole and let the gastroliths do the grinding.
-Has a strong abdomen and a noticeable navel.
Here again, both candidates do have evidence of the first part of the passage, but they do not match up with the second part. Sauropods did indeed have very powerful hind limbs and abdomens. Some of them were even likely capable of rendering up on their hind legs to reach taller trees. However, no Sauropod, nor any other dinosaur, would have a navel. The navel is formed by the placenta, the umbilical cord when the baby is born and detached from the mother. This is unique to placental mammals is not found in any other group of terrestrial animals. Eggs also prove Sauropods reproduced by such a method and were not unusual amongst Archosaurs in reproduction.
-Flexible tail akin to a lebanese cedar.
This is true for both, but mostly the Argentinosaurus. Brachiosaurus’ tail flexibility is debatable as it was much shorter than in other Sauropods, but it still is possible for it to sway.
-Strong and flexible bones, likely to hold up weight.
Again, true for both. Sauropods weighed a lot for the large part in those they needed very durable bones to hold up their weight while standing and walking.
-Is the largest animal Job would have ever seen.
Again, true. Either genus would be far larger than any animal Job would have seen as the largest animal he would’ve been familiar with was likely bovines.
-Probably has a 'sword' in the form of a tusk, spike, or horn of large size.
Sauropods do not have tusks, horns, or spikes of significant size. Some species did have iguana-like spines across their backs or flanks, but that is about it. There were some South American forms such as Armagasaurus which had large spines growing out of their necks that could fit the description, but these Sauropods were actually pretty small at a mass less than a majority of larger mammals.
-Lays under Ziziphus trees for shade and spends time in rivers.
Here’s where we run into a problem again. Both genera are too big. Neither of the two species of shady Ziziphus trees get more than 9.5 meters in height for even tall specimens and average closer to 6-7 meters. Even lowering its head down, Brachiosaurus would stand at over 9 meters at the hips and be over 13 meters in a more neutral stance. Argentinosaurus is even bigger with a body length of over 30 meters and a height of just over 7 meters in a neutral stance. Even if the Sauropod was laying down, it would have a hard time fitting any of its body underneath it and most certainly would not be very shaded due to its length and height meaning large parts of it would be sticking out.
Sauropods, contrary to old depictions, also largely did not live in swamps or rivers. They did cross them from time to time, but there is no indication they spent much time in said zones.
-Picks up the water and lets it burst into its mouth.
Sauropods did not have the means to do anything remotely like what this description says. They would have lowered down and drank like most animals, hence Behemoth doing something noteworthy makes no sense for them here.
-Has a large nose that it can stick through things.
Pictured, an erroneous depiction of a Brachiosaurus
Contrary to some brief speculation, Sauropods didn’t have noteworthy noses and lacked trunks or proboscises to manipulate objects with. A trunk, such as what a tapir has, requires a modified upper lip in tandem with a protruding nose working with many distinct muscle groups, which leaves obvious indications on the skull in the form of places for muscle attachment. No Sauropod has this. As such there is nothing to suggest sauropods had noses especially different from modern Archosaurs such as crocodilians and avians. The fact Sauropod teeth and jaws are suited for stripping foliage and not chewing like modern trunked animals such as tapirs and elephants, as well as their long reach with their necks, leaves them no reason to have trunks in the first place.
So a Sauropod dinosaur only fits 4 of the 12 traits behemoth is described as having, and of the 4 they are hardly unique in those regards. Many animals alive and extinct are strong boned, large-bodied herbivores with strong limbs that would have been larger than any animal a bronze age layman would have ever seen.
However, behemoth’s description is largely free of embellishment. If one prescribes to the idea this is not a distinct specimen and is a species of animal, the descriptors are not fanciful like what one would see in the descriptions of more fantastic beasts like fire-breathing dragons or two headed horned giants. This can easily fit as a normal flesh and blood animal and there are animals beyond Sauropods that have been proposed for behemoth’s identity.
Option number B, as provided by the likes of Robert Surgenor and a other Christian and Jewish scholars who have left their comments and study in many printed edition of the Torah and Bible, the elephant. More specifically given the range, either the African Elephant or now extinct Syrian Elephant are the most probable candidates.
-A wild, herbivorous animal that eats grass, likely chewing it like an ox would.
Double check marks here. Elephants both browse and graze, eating any digestible plants they can find including grasses. Elephants can also chew quite well, having the biggest molars on the planet.
-Has a strong abdomen and a noticeable navel.
Double check-a-roo. Elephants have strong muscles across the body and a wide belly to digest large amounts of plants. They also, as with all placental mammals, bear a navel.
-Flexible tail akin to a lebanese cedar.
Checkmark here. Elephant tails are over two meters long and flexible, used to both hold onto by others of their herd as well as to swat flies. A special note here is this passage trips up a lot of folks in opting for the Sauropod route. The word of focus for the sentence is describing the motion of the tail, which in Hebrew is the word, “khaw-fates”, an action verb. It is saying the tail sways and then gives a comparison to the swaying of the local cedar trees. It is not saying the tail looks like a cedar tree. Even if it did for the sake of argument, an elephant tail is tube shaped with a wide end bearing spruces of hair, which looks exactly like splitting trunks of the lebanese cedar tree. And the biblical archivers would not be describing the tall, narrow American Cedar tree some mistakenly show in lectures on behemoth to identify it as a Sauropod. That tree is restricted to completely different continents.
-Strong and flexible bones, likely to hold up weight.
Elephants are unique amongst mammals in that their bones are especially rigid and yet have an elasticity. This feature is expressed to a unique degree in elephants and assists them in both holding up their great weight while also being able to move quite quickly despite their bulk. A large bull African elephant can sprint at up to 40 kilometers per hour at a good distance, a feat that would be impossible without its own multi-ton bearing legs breaking from the shock of hitting the ground at such a pace if it didn’t have such bones.
-Is the largest animal Job would have ever seen.
Both the African Bush and Syrian elephants could regularly breach 3.25 meters at the shoulder and the largest could weigh up to or even over 10 tons. This makes them undoubtedly the largest land animal currently on the planet, and they’ve held this position ever since the loss of the Columbian Mammoth.
-Lays under Ziziphus trees for shade and spends time in rivers.
Elephants often spend time under this exact family of trees and other similarly shady trees, which grow near rivers. It often also will spend time swimming, wading, grazing, or even playing in said rivers. Either means are a great way to cool off on a hot day.
-Picks up the water and lets it burst into its mouth.
Aside from some primates, the elephant is the only animal to physically pick up its water to drink. This very unique method of drinking would not have been lost on the archivers of Job and makes perfect sense to note down, as no other animal does this and it would be a very surreal sight to the uninitiated.
-Has a large nose that it can stick through things.
The elephant’s trunk is made of both its nose and upper lip, consisting of thousands of muscles of which to pick up and manipulate objects with as a very useful prehensile device. In the interest of not wanting to show harm towards such creatures, I will not show a picture of one harmed by a snare but instead, show one doing something with even more dexterity requirements than putting their nose through one.
Every single one of Behemoth’s descriptors perfectly matches an elephant with no need for embellishment. Regardless of what one believes in terms of when certain creatures lived and were contemporary to man, one cannot ignore the description of what is put forth. If a Sauropod dinosaur was being described in Job, the description would have made note of a Sauropod’s distinct behaviors and traits. Why would it be then, that the distinct traits of Sauropods such as their ridges of dorsal spines, large tails, enormous necks, large thumb claws, and scaly hides (to the point some types even had osteoderms) are completely missing from the description?
Instead, if taken as a known, flesh and blood animal, behemoth instead lines up with an elephant. If one wishes to follow the logic put forth by some scholars in stating “Chief in the ways of God” also means Behemoth’s greatness extends to more than just physical strength in ways such as wisdom, the labeling still fits. Elephants are without a doubt some of the most intelligent animals on the planet, able to figure out and enact both complex problem-solving intelligence, tool use, memory tests, and quite likely emotion. They are also one of the few animals to pass tests for self-recognition.
Unlike most animals, which always will think mirrors are other animals, elephants are able to quickly figure out a reflection is just an image of themselves after a moment or two of study, showing they are both smart enough to know what a reflection is and how to recognize themselves. They even enjoy using or playing with the mirror to both admire and investigate themselves, check spots on themselves that they can’t normally see otherwise, and even pass a mark test.
The biggest, the strongest, and one of the smartest. That is the elephant in the modern animal kingdom. Sauropods comparatively were quite small-brained and not noteworthy as far as dinosaurs go in terms of probable intelligence potential. Whilst behaviors of intelligence can’t be easily observed, there are no indications that Sauropods were particularly smart and were likely about average as far as Archosaurs go.
Additionally, extra Rabbinic legend gives some other additional descriptors to Behemoth, mentioning it goring its rival, the Leviathan, with horns. Sauropods were totally lacking in horns, large spines, or tusks of any sort to even fit a loose description of this action. By comparison, an elephant’s tusks are the two largest canine teeth on the planet and given old Hebrew frequently used category descriptors to get the point across rather than distinct words like in English, them using the same word for “horn” as they do for “tusk” fits.
So behemoth is an elephant, not a dinosaur. More sensible, more accurate, more logical-
And it sure is cute!
I always figured Behemoth to be a hippo, but yeah, I guess elephant makes sense.
this is wrong everyone know elephants are greek cyclopes
4865542
orig00.deviantart.net/b057/f/2017/181/6/a/the_cyclops_by_wsnyder-dbeln14.png
https://wsnyder.deviantart.com/art/The-Cyclops-689652184
But of course. Behemoth had a good acting gig in Greece in its down time.
Thank you, this was a fun read, but more improtantly thank you for treating this respectfully. I can find no fault with your logic and appreciate the way you treated the eyewitness. I can definitely go with Behemoth being an elephant. I am curious though, what Leviathan would be then? Some form of crocodile maybe? An elephant would definitely gore one of those with its horn in defense and it is Aquatic enough to kind of fit. But still, curious.
coincidently I recently watched a video about what if the Behemoth was real.
Although to be honest i'm more interested in another creature mentioned in the same book, the Leviathan, whose description is more vauge
4865553
My appreciations for the lovely comment amongst others. Regardless of belief, I try to treat all mythologies with respect. I myself do have my own beliefs, however I make an effort to stay impartial and respectful, looking in on the subject with the context of study in fields like zoology, history, anthropology, and society. So much more to understand when you can take what is stated and elaborate!
I restate form a very similar question, of which I hope you don't mind, as otherwise I'd just be repeating myself.
Note here, past Job Leviathan is also sometimes described as serpentine. Assuming this is not a case of using Leviathan in a fantastic context or metaphor, this might also be referring to the giant oarfish, which can reach great lengths and was mistaken for sea serpents on the rare occasions they came near the surface.
Leviathan also has many symbolic meanings such as representing a primordial force of chaos in the ocean, but when the passages talk of a flesh and blood creature it almost certainly is referring to a Crocodylus niloticus.
4865557
Nice video!
Might be getting to Leviathan/Livyatan later.
There are a few mythological creatures with little recognition to them right now. Take the kokopelli for example; I only came to know its name from visiting a Yosemite Valley gift shop. No info on him, save a name and image.
4865756
He actually has his own Wikipedia page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokopelli
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard recently (within scientific time they is) that it was discovered that Asian Elephants are actually the decendants of Syrian Elephants through DNA tests.
Well, you managed to explain the whole "cedar tree" issue to my satisfaction, and the rest lines up way too perfectly... I have to agree with your deduction here! Not that I've changed my mind on the whole "dinosaurs and humans existing at the same time" thing, but even I would be pretty shocked if they hadn't died out by then.
Very nice analysis.
Though question, given we are talking of a mythological creature here and elephants were referred to by name in the Bible in other places (though largely from other nations), is it possible the Behemoth could be some sort of extinct elephant species?
IE, such as the Songhua River Mammoth, which from what I've read was the largest elephant species to ever live and was native to China and Mongolia, so at least the same continent?
Or would the behaviors of that creature be too different?
4865839
Ah a keen observation, expected nothing less from you friend. There are four theories to explain this, as well as multiple canidates for Behemoth's exact species of elephant. Though it is reasonable to say most elephants, mammoths, and relation all behaved in similar manner. The Indian elephant is actually closer to mammoths than it is to the African elephant.
1. Since the Book of Job was the oldest book in the OT to be written down, in the interval between it and any mention relating to an elephant, a new word was adopted. In which case "Behemoth" was the old term used for an pachyderm and it was replaced, much like how the old English word for an adult female human was "Wif" instead of "Woman".
2. The word difference might be due to the fact the other references to elephants don't list the word elephant directly, but talk about parts from an elephant such as ivory ( 2nd Chronicles 9:21 & 1st Kings 10:22) of which the Hebrew word "shenhabim" was used; which means tusk or large tooth. In which case there is no contradiction and Behemoth is still the term for the species.
3. The elephant that likely inspired Behemoth was locally extinct in the time of later verses with only traveler's Indian Elephants for comparison, of which Hebrew observes could tell it was a different animal. It could also be Behemoth's species was exotic to begin with. If the story of the book of Job occurred in Africa like some scholar speculate, there are enough differences between the African elephant and the Asian elephant that a difference might be drawn up or only the former was referred to as behemoth. If it still took place in the near East, the now extinct Syrian elephant was both noticeably larger and might have behaved slightly differently then the modern Asian elephant of which it is a subspecies of. Given the Flora mentioned in the text it definitely appears that the story of Job is occurring only naturally in Western Asia or Northern Africa, this sadly makes the mammoth or the even larger Palaeoloxodon namadicus (largest land mammal ever, think an African elephant the size of a Brontosaurus) unlikely.
4. Behemoth was the name of an individual elephant Job was brought before, likely the largest and most impressive specimen of its time. The fact male elephants are larger and the passages typically refer to behemoth in a masculine sense might reinforce this. The largest bull African or Syrian elephant could weigh in at 12 tons, whereas by comparison the typical Indian elephant is 3-4 tons.
This is very logical. Very good.
4865799
My thanks for being reasonable good fellow. Regardless of what one thinks certain groups of animals went extinct, it is important to look at the entire context of the ancient writings when they are talking about normal animals to figure out what is truly being said. Saying Behemoth has a tail like a cedar might at first imply the tail is huge (though to be fair an elephant tail is probably longer than you are tall), but a fuller context and understanding of Hebrew makes it clearer that they are describing the tail in comparison to the motion of a tree, not its shape or length. Add in the authors wouldn't have ignored obvious and distinct traits of the animal such as it's large nose and unique way of drinking, and what is vague becomes clear.
If you want some hilarity, the word for "moveth" can also mean "to extend"... And tail can also mean any large, tube shaped extremity. And a male elephant's you know what is very noticeable when outside the sheath.
4865770
I'd have to double check, but it is possible. The Syrian elephant was a subspecies of Asian elephant and thus would have been cross fertile with, say, an Indian elephant. Thus it is quite possible some Asian elephants in the wild or captivity have Syrian ancestry.
finally, someone gets it
most people i've read who try to describe this also get tripped up by thinking that the "mountains bring him forth food" part somehow means "big enough that it has to use mountains to hide", and thinking that "drawing the Jordan into his mouth" means "big enough to drink a whole river"
I will admit, I have not been as exposed to the idea of the "behemoth" in terms of it's biblical origin that much in my life, as most of the Christian exposure I've had growing up mostly amounted to lessons taught by "Veggietales".
It was only in my teenage years that I "discovered" the legends of Behemoth and Leviathan, and THAT was due to Final Fantasy's interpretation:
vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/finalfantasy/images/3/3c/Behemoth.png/revision/latest?cb=20130928020125
And while THIS thing is a beast unto itself, it's definitely missing a lot of the criteria laid by Job, in that this thing is obviously a vicious carnivore and it obviously can't lift up water to it's mouth like a trunk, unless those hands of it are capable of grasping in a cupping fashion.
From a cultural standpoint, I think I can see why people would want to attach a more "exciting embellishment" to any of God's creations. While an elephant was obviously a sight to see over a thousand years ago for an isolated culture, because an elephant is pretty much cemented into modern culture with both zoo's and zoology books, elephants have become...."boring" to the eyes of the public, kind of like how in Jurassic World, dinosaurs (although started out exciting), people were getting bored of, which lead to the creation of the I-Rex.
Thus, with the more "recent" discoveries about dinosaurs, it's understandable why people would want to attach such a status of "behemoth" to an extinct animal that no one has ever seen alive, because it gives a more "mystical" and "unseen" nature to the power of God, in that such a creature existed, but is out of our reach, like God himself.
However, from a religious and even spiritual standpoint, this is a problem, because this thinking seems to disassociate us from the connection to God, in that everything surrounding God has to be "supernatural" instead of just "natural", since according to myth, he created EVERYTHING.
There's a quote from the movie "Oh, God!" (1977) by George Burns playing God that highlights this problem:
If anything, this blog provided by Tarb still highlights the majesty of God as well, with such a powerful, resourceful, and intelligent creature to evolve and live amongst us. The elephant has always been a source of strength in many cultures, so why shouldn't it's existence be a miracle unto itself?
Life itself is a miracle.
Thought about covering Jormungandr?
Very interesting. When I got to the part about the Behemoth's descriptions I initially thought hippo until the nose thing.
4865561
4865565
I figured you might try to identify the Leviathan next. But what about that third beast? Ziz? Some giant bird-monster? That might be fun to do.
Tarb, if you consider making this into a series and do one for Leviathan, I'd also like to draw your attention to the lesser known member of the biblical beast trio: Ziz. Anointed by God as the "Ruler of Birds," it was related that he was of similar size to his equals Behemoth and Leviathan (implying the three are siblings), and that his outstretched wings could block out the sun.
4866288
That could be any form of large, flying bird, including a giant eagle
Makes sense for the real world, but for fantasy worlds I prefer Behemoths as massive magical mammalians that are less specifically elephant and more 'vaguely prehistoric-looking pachyderms of indeterminate classification' like this burly fella: 78.media.tumblr.com/f37cd93011a46d415fac64210203a8f6/tumblr_nlqta9kvT81tv7h35o2_1280.png
Funny note: behemoths in this artist's fantasy-verse are members of the same group of weird ungulates as classical unicorns.
While I will still likely use 'Behemoth' as the name for the more fantastical critters designed thus far[like the Behemoth warmechs], it's good to know the legendary beast is bsed on a real animal, and which one it was. Especially because elephants are kyoot.
4865761
I've been to it. I meant that there is little acknowledgement of it.
It isn't a "household name" or a frequently used reference in various games.
4867585
Aside from his appearance on various southern US T-shirts... Yes, he is an obscure Hopi God.