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 are 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 bashing religion or others, 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 to 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.

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.
-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 to 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 the family of 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.

-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.

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 where the muscles, tendons, and ligaments left visible scarring on the bones. No Sauropod has this. As such there is nothing to suggest sauropods had noses especially different from other reptiles such as crocodilians, and quite a bit to suggest they didn't have anything out of the ordinary. 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 11 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 thus most likely an elephant, not a dinosaur (or another proposed candidate, a hippopotamus). More sensible, more accurate, more logical-

6442052
Very well done. Leviathan is generally considered a whale

6442068
Thank you. Indeed it is, at least in later verses. Hebrew often uses general terms based more on what an animal does rather than what it general looks like. So whereas we might say "Snake" which can mean boa, python, adder, or cobra, hebrew used words like "Tannin" which means "things that slither (land or water)", in which case any snake, lizard, or crocodile might be "Tannin". Leviathan/Livyatan seems to be similar where past Job it is used for any large aquatic creature, such as a whale. But it can also mean as in a future post I will demonstrate in Job, Nile Crocodile.

What about Leviathan? Or the references to Unicorns? I have heard some people say that the unicorn refefenced to in the texts are rhinos. (Uni means 'one' or 'single' and horn is self explanatory) Your thoughts?

6442078
Or Giraffes, as a Chinese Emperor convinced everyone that they were the mythical Japanese Kirin, symbols of good fortune

6442075
Good point

6442083 I had not considered giraffes. Interesting. My parents are hard-core believers and they always said the exact same thing you did about behemoth. I came up with rhino because it could resemble a horse with a horn (same basic shape, though a person could argue a tapir, but it just doesn't seem to fit to me)

6442078
To abbreviate, unicorns are almost certainly rhinos, more specifically either the Indian Rhinoceros or a now extinct genus of rhinoceros called Elasmotherium.

The Indian Rhinoceros only has one horn, unlike most species such as the two African species. It is no coincidence it's scientific classification name is "Rhinoceros unicornis" for this very reason. While now largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent, it once had a much broader range and was quite possibly known to Mesopotamia.

Elasmotherium was a recently extinct, cold climate rhinoceros that once ranged across Asia and Europe. It was one of the largest rhinos to ever exist, with masses comparable to modern elephants. Even if it was extinct by the time the tale of Job was first recorded, folk memory might have preserved it in legends and tales, as well as travelers who might have see its Indian relative further east.

Either would fit the description of the unicorn in the Book of Job, which describes a very powerful, but untameable and likely dangerous animal.

As for Leviathan/Livyatan, a key is are you talking about Leviathan in Job or elsewhere? Hebrew often uses general terms based more on what an animal does rather than what it general looks like or may be kin to. So whereas we might say "Snake" which can mean boa, python, adder, or cobra, Hebrew used words like "Tannin" which means "things that slither (land or water)", in which case any snake, lizard, or crocodile might be "Tannin". If you are further curious, tannin was erroneously translated as "Dragon" in the King James bible and that's why the term shows up so much. Leviathan/Livyatan seems to be similar where past Job it is used for any large aquatic creature, such as a whale.

For Job in specific, I will go into detail in a later post, but the most likely candidate once you peel off the fantastic elements like the fire breath or it being prideful, is the nile crocodile. This exactly fits the behaviors and traits of having a mouth like two doors (meaning its flattened) with teeth ringing them, double layered armor with thick scales on the back, is aquatic and yet can still move about on land, and leaves a dragging slide mark when it goes into the water. And big male Nile Crocodiles can be over 6 meters long and have a mass of over 1,000 kilograms, whilst having a bite force that can crush a man's skeleton like a grape and a hide that can withstand bullets, much less spears and clubs. A fearsome beast to be sure.

6442075
Wait, is that why, like for instance Final Fantasy, Leviathan is represented by a serpentine creature?

6442109

Likely, as one description of "tannin" is serpentine. Tannin was also a stealth insult. A Canaanite deity of the same name was noted to have a serpentine body. By using a rival culture's god as a quasi-insulting term for animals that slithered about on the ground* and were often trodden upon, it's an example of Hebrew word play. Over time as the Canaanites became less relevant the term just stuck for the animals. That is why in modern Hebrew, Tannin means "Crocodile".

*Crocodiles and Alligators don't drag themselves about, but walk with their bodies off the ground and legs straight. The use of 'tannin' to describe crocodilians was likely a reference to their slithering-like motion while swimming.

6442129
Interesting. Also, on an odd side note, if an episode of Secrets of Oak Island is correct, the Templars, some of them anyway, ended up worshipping a goddess of sailors, travelers, and the like while in captivity.

6442129

Personally, I still like to believe that Leviathan was a dragon (not a whale) and I still stick to it because, as far we know, they could have existed, not the way we envision but in a more realistic way, just that, instead of actual fire, it would have to be something with the same capabilities to destroy stuff with "heat", like acid.

6442223
Anything's possible, however I believe there is a simpler explanation.

The word "tannin" can mean dragon, it was actually translated as such by the King James Scholars. The thing is, the dragon as we see it today is not a historical myth, but a modern invention. Nowhere in any mythology older than 1,000 years will you find a dragon that fits modern convention of what a dragon is. The closest one gets to the protoarchetypal dragon we often see today in European fantasy is from Beowulf's dragon (who was a direct inspiration for Smaug) and the Völsunga saga's Fafnir (ditto). Instead what consisted as a dragon to west Asian, European, and North African cultures was most often a big snake or big lizard. Even the word "Dragon", derived from the Greek drakon and Latin draconem, both of which simply mean "big snake" and were often used in a non-mythological context to describe known animals like large pythons. And it was not even a giant creatures being called dragons always. The first depictions of St. George and the dragon he slew all show an animal far smaller than a horse and the length of a man at best. In other words, a monitor lizard.

As for Leviathan, the description is actually ill suited for a sea monster in Job as it is described as coming onto land. Marine animals are limited by a balance of size and reproduction. Those whom are reptilian have to either lay eggs on the shore, in which they need to be strong enough in the limb and small enough to mass to move comfortably out of the water without their own weigh crushing them like a beached whale. If they are larger, they must have different traits such as live birth (like whales and Ichthyosaurs)and one crucial one is being streamline in the water. Thus cuts down on drag and reduces energy requirements to swim, let alone fast enough to capture prey. This is why whales, despite being mammals, have little hair and Mosasaurs, despite being lizards, had absolutely tiny scales. A 9 meter Mosasaur would have scales smaller than a lizard 1/70th its length.

This is ill fitting for leviathan, which is noted multiple times to have shield-like armor plates in doubled layered of scales upon its back. The only animal who fits the descriptor is a crocodilian, albeit a large one. The Nile Crocodile is the second largest reptile on the planet and the second largest terrestrial carnivore, exceeded only by its cousin the Saltwater Crocodile of the Pacific. Big male Nile crocs can be over 6.5 meters long, weigh over a ton, and are notorious man eaters.

Additionally, the fire, aside from possible embellishment, could be explained away by observing a crocodile and its attack. Crocodiles often spend large amounts of time under the water and when they surface, they might purge any water that got in their respiratory tract. This can appear to be steam, which can resemble smoke (thus, fire). Carnivores often have bacteria in their jaws from feeding and thus infection is common in bites. Some bacteria found in carnivore, particularly crocodilian, maws can give off a burning sensation or leave marks resembling burns.

In the earliest traditions of dragons, they never say they breath fire. They said they have 'spit fire' or more correctly 'spit of fire'. Bacterial infection and venom found in serpents and monitor lizards is an adept origin. Even more so when you consider both snakes and monitors have a forked tongue they flick out for sensory.

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/parody/images/c/c2/Nile-monitor-showing-forked-tongue.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170607170939

In depictions of such animals, the first ones made by a real life witness to the animal tend to be very true to life. However depictions based off the original woodcuts and paintings by people who never saw a monitor lizard before (nor know lizards in Africa could get over 2 meters long) would see the forked tongue sticking out and mistake it for fire. This, matched with the venom and bacterial infection I mentioned earlier results in dragons being associated with fire.

So if you either individual take or combine the depiction of a monitor lizard and snakes, with a word for big snakes being conflated to mean "big reptile in general", and add on the size of the second largest terrestrial predator on the planet; you got yourself a dragon!

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think this is fascinating. Please, continue!