Notes on the Old and New Testaments

] t. JVkic/i Ic'ivrtli her eggs in the eur>,/i. That is, she does not build a nes, as most birds do, l)tit deposits her e^gs in the sand. Tiie ostricl), Ur. Sliaw remarks, lays usually from thirty to fifty eggs. The eggs are very large, some of them being aI)ove five inches in diameter, and weighing fifteen pounds. Goldsmith. " We are not to consider," says Dr. Shaw, " this large collection of eggs as if thev were all intended for a brood. They arc tlie greatest part of them reserved fcr food, which the dam

15 And forgetteth that the

breaks, and disposetli of according to the number and cravings of her young ones." The idea vvliich seems to be conveyed in our common version is, that the ostricJi deposits her eggs in the sand, and then leaves tliem, witli- (jut further care, to be liatclied by tlie Jieat of the sun. This idea is not, however, necessarily implied in tlie original, and is contrary to fact. The truth is, that the eggs are deposited with great care, and with so much attention to the manner in which they are placed, that a line drawn from those in the extremities would just touch the tops of the intermediate ones (see Damir, as quoted by TJochart, Ilicroz. P. ii. Lib. ii. c. xvii. p. 2-j3), and that they are hatched, as the eggs of other birds are, in a great measure by the heat imparted by the incubation of the parent bird. It is true that in the hot climates, where these birds live, there is less necessity for constant incubation than in colder latitudes, and that the parent bird is more frequently absent; but she is accustomed regularly to return at night, and carefully broods over her eggs. See Le Vaillant, Travels in the Interior of Africa, ii. 209, 305. It is true also that the parent bird wanders sometimes far from the place where the eggs are deposited, and forgets the place, and in this case if another nest of eggs is seen, she is not concerned whether they are her own or not, for she is not endowed with the power of distinguishing between her own eggs and those of another. This fact seems to have given rise to all the fables stated by the Arabic writers about the stupidity of the ostricli; about her leaving her eggs; and about her disposition to sit on the eggs of others. Bochart has collected many of these opinions from the Arabic writers, among which are the following: Alkazuinius says, " They say that no bird is more foolish than the ostrich, for while it forsakes its own eggs, it sits on the eggs of others;

foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them.

whence the proverb, Every animal loves its own young except the ostrich." Ottomanus says, " Every animal loves its own progeny except the ostrich. But that pertains only to the male. For although the common proverb imputes folly to the female, yet with her folly she loves her j-oung, and feeds them, and teaches them to fly, the same as other animals." Damir, an Arabic writer, says, " When the ostrich goes forth from her nest, that she may seek food, if she finds the egg of another ostrich, she sits on that, and forgets her own. And when driven away by hunters, she never returns; whence it is that she is described as foolish, and that the proverb in regard to her has originated." IT And icarmcth thcvi in dust. The idea which was evidently in the mind of the transla tors in this passage was, that the ostrich left her eggs in the dust to be hatched by the heat of the sun. This is not correct, and is not necessarily implied in the Hebrew, though undoubtedly the heat of the sand is made to contribute to the process of hatching the egg, and allows the parent bird to be absent longer from her nest than birds in colder climates. This seems to be all that is implied in the passage.

15. And forgetteth that thn foot via y crush them. She lays her eggs in the sand, and not as most birds do, in nests made on branches of trees, or on the crags of rocks, where they would be inaccessible, as if she was forgetful of the fact that the wild beast might pass along and crush them. She often wanders away from them, also, and does not stay near them to guard them, as most parent birds do, as if she were unmindful o{ the danger to which they might be exposed when she was absent. The object of all. this seems to be, to call the attention to the peculiarity in the natural history of this bird, and to observe that there were laws and

16 She is hardened " against lier young ones, as though therj were not hers: her labour is in vain without Tear:

17 Because God hath deprived

arrnngenienls in regard to it wliich seemed to show that slie was deprived of wisdom, and yet tliat everv thing was so ordered as to ])rove that she was under the care of tlie Almighty. Tlie great rariclij in the hiws pertaining to the animal kingdom, and especially their want of resemblance to what would have occurred to man, seems to give the peculiar force and point to the argument here used.

16. She is hardened against her young ones. The obvious meaning of this passage, which is a fair translation of the Hebrew, is, that the ostrich is destitute of natural affection for her young; or that she treats them as if she had not the usual natural affection manifested in the animal creation. This sentiment also occurs in Lam. iv. 3, "The daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness." Tliis opinion is controverted by Buffon, but seeius fully sustained by those who have most attentively observed the liabits of the ostrich. Dr. Shaw, as quoted by Paxton, and in Robinson's Calmet, says, "On the least noise or trivial occasion, she forsakes Jier eggs or her young ones, to which perhaps she never returns; or if she does, it may be too late either to restore life to the one, or to preserve the lives of the others." "Agreeable to this account," says Paxton, " the Arabs meet sometimes with whole nests of these eggs undisturbed, gome of which are sweet and good, and others addle and corrupted; others agaih have their young ones of tlifferent growths, according to the lime it may be presumed they have been forsaken by the dam. They oftener meet a few of the little ones, not bigger than well-grown pullets, Jialf-starved, straggling and moaning

her of wisdom, neither * hath he imparted to her understanding.

J 8 What time she lifteth up herself on high, she scorneth the horse and his rider.

about like so many distressed orplians for their mothers." Ii Her liihor is in vain irit/ioat fear. Herder renders this, " In vain is her travail, but she regards it not." The idea in tiie ])assage seems to be this: that tlie ostrich has not that apprehension, or provident care for her young which otiier birds have. It does not mean that she is an animal remarkably bold and courageous, for the contrary is the fact, and she is, according to tlif Arabian writers, timid to a proverb, but that she has nothing of the anxious solicitude for lier young wjiich others seem to have, — the dread that they may be in want, or in danger, which leads them, often at tJie peril of their own lives, to provide for and defend them.

17. Because God hath deprived he? of wisdom, &c. That is, lie has not imparted to her the wisdom whicli has been conferred on other animals. The meaning is, that all this remarkable arrangement, which distinguished the ostrich so much from other animals, was to be traced to God. It was not the result of chance; it could not be pretended that it was by a human arrangement, but it was the result of divine appointment. Even in tliis apparent destitution of wisdom, there were reasons wliich had led to this appointment, and the care and good providence of God could be seen in the preservation of the animal. Particularly, though apparently so weak, and timid, and unwise, the ostrich had a noble bearing (ver. 18), and when aroused, would scorn the fleetest horse in the pursuit, and show that slie was distinguished for properties that were expressive of the goodness of God towards her, and of his care over her.

on high. In the previous verses reference had been made to the fact that in some important respects the ostrich was inferior to other animals, or had peculiar laws in regard to its habits and preservation. Here the attention is called to the fact tliat, notwiihstanding its inferiority in some respects, it liad properties such as to command the highest admiration. Its lofty carriage, the rapidity of its llight, and the proud scorn with which it would elude the pursuit of the tleetest coursers, were all things that showed that God had so endowed it as to furnish proof of his wisdom. The phrase ' what time she lifteth up herself,' refers to the fact that she raises herself for her rapid flight. It does not mean that.she would mount on her wings, for this the ostrich cannot do; but to the fact that this timid and cowardly bird would, when danger was near, rouse herself, and assume a lofty courage and bearing. The word here translated ' lifteth up ' (J^'^'^'^r'!!) means properly to lash, to whip, as a horse, to increase its speed, and is here supposed by Gesenius to be used as denoting that the ostrich by flapping her wings lashes herself up as it were to her course. All the ancient interpretations, however, as well as the common English version, render it as if it were but another form of the word C^"i, rian, to raise one's self up, or to rise up, as if the ostrich aroused herself up for lier flight. Herder renders it, " At once she is up, and urges herself forward." Taylor (in Calmet) renders it,

'• Vet at the lime she linujiitily assumes courage; She scorncth the liorse and his rider."

The leading idea is, that she rouses herself to escape her pursuer; she lifts up her head and body, and spreads her wings, and then bids defiance to any thing to overtake her. IT She scorncth the horse and his rider. In the pursuit. That is, she runs faster than the fleetest horse, and easily escapes. The extraordinary rapidity of the ostrich has always been celebrated, and it is well known that sh« can easily outstrip the fleetest horse Its swiftness is mentioned by Xenophon, in liis Anabasis; for, speaking of the desert of Aral)ia, he says, that ostriches are freqi;ently seen there; that none could overtake them; and that horsemen who pursued them were obliged soon to give over, " for the-y escaped far awav, making use both of their feet to run, and of their wings, v\'hen expanded, as a sail, to waft them along." Marmelius, as quoted b}- Bochart (see above), speaking of a remarkable kind of horses, says, " that in Africa, Egypt, and Arabia, there is but one species of that kind which they call the Arabian, and that those are produced only in the deserts of Arabia. Their velocity is wonderful; nor is there any better evidence of their remarkable swiftness, than is flirnished when they pursue the camel-bird." It 's a common sentiment of tiie.\rabs, Bochart remarks, tluit there is no animal which can overcome the ostrich in its course. Ur. Shaw says, " Notwithstanding the stupidity of this animal, its Creator liath amply provided for its safety by endowing it with extraordinary swiftness, and a surprising apparatus for escaping from its enemy. ' Thev, when they raise themselves up for flight, laugh at the horse and his rider.' They aflbrd him an opportunity only of admiring at a distance the extraordinary agility, and the stateliness likewise of their motions, the richness of their plinnage, and the great propriety there was in ascribing to them an expmuied, quirering\ifing. Nothing, certainly, can be more entertaining than such a sight; the wings, by their rapid but unwearied vibrations, equally serving tliem for sails and for oars; while their feet, no less assisting in con\eying them out of sight, are *no less insensible of fatigue." Travels, Svo., vol. ii. p. 343, as quoted by Noyes. The same representation is confirmed by the writer of a voyage to Senegal, who says, " She sets oft' at a hard gallop; but after being excifed a little, she exp;uid.s lier wings as if to catcli tlie wind, and abandons herself to a speed so great, that she seeins not to touch the ground. I am persuaded she would leave flir behind

These unexceptionable testiu)onies completely vindicate the assertion of the iusj)ired writer. The proofs and illiisitratious here furnished at considerable leiigtii are designed to show that the stateuienis here made in the book of Job are such as are confirmed by all tile investigations in Natural History since the time the book was written. If tlie statements are to be regarded as an indication of the progress made in tlie science of Aatural History at the time wlien Job lived, they prove that the observations in regard to this animal had been extensive and were surprisingly accurate. They siiow that the tninds of sages at tJiat time had been turned with mucli interest to this branch of science, and tiiat they were al)le to descriiie the htdjits of animals with an accuracy which would do the highest credit to Pliny or to Button. If, liowever, the account here is to be regarded as the mere result of inspiration, or as the language of God speaking and describing what he had done, then the account furnishes us with an interesting proof of tlie inspiration of the book. Its minute accuracy is confirmed bv all the subsequent inquiries into the liabits of tlie animal referred to, and shows that the statement is based on simple truth. The general remark may here be made, that all the notices in tlie Bible of the subjects of science — wJiich are indeed mostly casual and incidental — are such as are confirmed by the investigations which science in the various departments makes. Of \vhat other ancient book but tht Bible can this remark be made.'

19. Hast thou given the horse, strength? The incidental allusion to the horse in comparison with the ostrich ill the previous verse, seems to have suggested this magnificent, description of this noble animal — a description which has never been surpassed or equalled. The horse is an animal so well known, that a particular description of it is here unnecessary. The only thing which is required is an explanation of the phrases here used, and a confirmation of the particular qualities here attributed to the war-horse, for the description here is evidently that of the horse as he appears in war, or as about to plunge into the midst of a battle. The description which conies the nearest to this before us, is that furnished in the well-known and exquisite passage of Virgil, Georg. iii. 84, se(j.:

— turn, si quasonum piocul ariiiii dedere, Stare loconescit, niicat auriljus. cttremit artus, Collectuinq; premeiis volvit sul> narilius ignem. Donsa juba, et (ioxtro juctata recuml)at in anno. At iiu|)lc.\ agitur, per lunilios spina; cavatque Tellureni, ct soliilo graviter sonat uiigula cornu.

"But at the clash of arms, liis earafai Drinlts the deep sound, and vihratus to the gleam; O'er his right shoulder, floating full and fair, Sweeps his thick mane, and spreads his

RTany of the circumstances liere enumerated have a remarkable resemblance to the description in Job. Other descriptions and correspondencies between this passage and the classic writers may be seen at length in Bochart, Ilirroz. P. i. L. i. c. viii.; in Scheutzer, Pliysi.ca Sdcrii, iji loc.; and in the Srrijitorum variorum Syllog". ^J^ennisrhtr. SfJiriflen, Goetting. 17d2), of Godofr. Lei's. A full account of the habits of the horse is also furnished by Michaelis in IijS "Dissertation on tiie most ancient history of horses and iiorse-breeding," «&.c., Appendix to Art. cixvi. of the Commentary of the Laws of Moses, vol. ii. According to the results of tlie investigations of Micliaelis, Arabia was not, as is commonly supposed, the native country of the horse, but its origin is rather to be sought in Egypt; and in the account which is given of the riches of Job, ch. i. 3, xlii. 12, it is remarkable that the horse is not mentioned. It is, tiierefore, in a higli degree prol)able that the horse was not known in his time as a domestic animal, and that, in liis country at least, it was emjiloyed chiefly in war. H Hayt thou clothed his neck with thundrr? There seems to be something incongruous in the idea of making thunder the clothivif of the neck of a horse, and there has been considerable diversity in the exposition of the passage. There is evidently some allusion to the matic, but exactly in what respect is not agreed. The LXX render it, " Hast thou clothed iiis neck with terror " — qtofiuvi Jerome refers it to the nrighina- of the horse — uut circumduliis collo ejus hinnituin. Prof Lee renders it, "Clothest thou his neck with scorn?" Herder, " And clothed its neck with its Hovving mane." Umbreit, " Hast thou clothed his neck with loftiness V Noyes, " Hast thou clothed his neck with its quivering mane V Schultens, convestis ccvricem ejus trr.morc tilacri — " with rapid quivering;" and Dr. Good, "with the thunder-flash." \n this variety of interpretation, it is easy to perceive that the common impression has been that the mane is in some way referred to, and that the allusion is not so much to a sound as of thunder, as to some motion of the mane that attracted attention. The mane adds much to the majesty and beauty of the horse, and perhaps it was in some way decorated by the ancients so as to set it off with increased beautv The word which is here used, and which is rendered thunder (H-O^n), is from the verb Wn, rddm, meaning to rage, to roar, as applied to the sea, Ps. xcvi. 11, xcviii. 8, and tiien to thunder. It Jias also the idea of trembling or quaking, Ezek. xxvii. 35, and also of provoking to anger, 1 Sam. i. 6. Tlie verb and the noun are more commonly referred to thunder than any thing else, Job xxxvii. 4, 5, xl.!». 2 Sam. xxii. 14. 1 Sam. ii. 10, vii. 10. Ps. xviii 13, xxix. 3, Ixxvii. 18, civ. 7. Isa xxix. 6. A full investigation of the meaning of the j)assage may be seen in Bochart, Hieroz. P. i. Lib. ii. c. viii. It seems to me to be very diliicult to determine its meaning, and none of the explanations given are quite satisfactory. The icord used requires us to understand the appear an(-e of the neck of the jiorse as having some resemblance to thunder, but in what respect is not quite so apparent. It may be this: the description of the war-horse is that of an animal fitted to inspire terror. He is caparisoned for liattle; in\patient of restraint; rushing forward into the tliickest of the fight; tearing up the earth; breatiiing file from iiis nostrils; and it was not iinnatural, there fore, to compare him with the tempest. The majestic neck, with the erect and shaking mane, is likened to the thunder of the tempest that shakes every thing, and that gives so much majesty and fearfulness to the gathering storm, and the description seems to be this — that his very neck: is fitted to produce awe and alarm, like the thunder of the tempest. We are required, therefore, it seems to me, to adhere to the proper meaning of tlie word, and thougii in the coolness of criticism there may ajipear to be something incongruous in the application of thundrr to the neck of the liorse, yet it might not appear to be so if we saw such a war-horse — and if the thought, not an unnatural one, should strike us, that in maje-^ty and fury he bore a strong resemblance to an approaching tempest

20 Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper? the glory of his nostrils ' is terrible.

20. Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper? Or, rather, us a lociiM — ri31X3. This is the word vvhicii is commonly applied to the locust considered as gretrarious, or as aj)poaring in ' great numbers (from '^31'i '" '"^ multiplied). On the variety of the species of locusts, see Bocjiart, Hieroz. P. ii. Lib. iv. c. 1, seq. The Hebrew word here rendered 'make afraid' ('■I^?'^) means properly to he moved, to be shaken, and hence to tremble, to be afraid. In Iliphil, the form used here, it means to cause to tremble, to shake; and then to cause to leap, as a horse; and the idea here is, Canst thou cause tlie horse, an animal so large and powerful, to leap with the agility of a locust? See Gesenius, Ler. Tlie allusion here is to the leaping or moving of the locusts as they advance in the appearance of squadrons or troops; but the comparison is not so much that of a single Iiorse to a single locust, as of cavalry or a company of war-horses to an army of locusts; and the point of comparison turns on tlie elasticity or agility of the motion of cavalry advancing to the field of battle. The sense is, that God could cause that rapid and beautiful movement in animals so large and powerful as the horse, but that it was wholly beyond the power of man to eti'ect it. It is quite common in the East to compare a horse with a locust, and travellers have spoken of the remarkable resemblance between the heads of the two. This comparison occurs also in the Bible. See Joel ii. 4, " The appearance of them is as tJie appearance of horses; and as liorse men so shall they run." Rev. ix. 7. Tlie Italians from this resemblance call the locust cavaletta, or little horse. Sir W. Ousely says, " Zakaria Cavini

21 He ^'paweth in the valley, and rejoiceth in his strengtli: he goeth " on to meet the ' armed men.

divides the locusts into two classes, like horsemen and footmen, ' mount ed and pedestrian.' " Niebuhr says that he iieard from a Bedouin near Bassorali, a particular comparison of tlie locust with other animals; but he thought it a mere fancy of the Arabs, till he heard it repeated at Bagdad. He compared the head of a locust to tliat of a horse, the breast to that of a lion, the feet to those of a camel, the belly with that of a serpent, the tail with that of a scorpion, and the feelers with the hair of a virgin. See Pict. Bib. on Joel. ii. 4. 11 The glory of his nostrils is terrible. Marg. as in Heb., terrors. That is, il is fitted to inspire terror or awe. The reference is to the wide-e.xtended and fiery-looking nostrils of the horse when animated, and impatient for action. So Lucretius, L. v.: Et fremitum patulis sub naribus edit ad anna. So Virgil, Georg. iii. 87:

2L He paioeth in the valley. RIarg. 'or, His feet dig.' The marginal reading is more in accordance with the Hebrew. The reference is to the well-known fact of the jortj^m^ of the horse with his feet, as if he would dig up the ground. The same idea occurs in Virgil, as quoted above:

" As a war-horse, impatient for the battle, Neighing beats the ground with his hoofs."

22 He mocketh at fear, and is not afFriglited; neither turn-

23 The quiver rattleth against him, the glittering spear and the shield.

24 He swalloweth the ground

H He goeth on to meet the armed men. JMarg. armour. The iiuirgin is in accordiince with the Hehrew, but still the idea is substantially the same. The horse rushes on furiously against the weapons of war.

22. He mochctk at fear. He laughs at that which is fitted to intiniidate; that is, lie is not afraid. IT JS'either

4urneth he back from the sword. He ushes on it without fear. Of the fact here stated, and the accuracy of the description, there can be no doubt.

23. The quiver rattleth against him. The quiver was a case made for containing arrows. It was usually slung over the shoulder, so that it could be easily reached to draw out an arrow. Warriors on horseback, as well as on foot, fought with bows and arrows, as well as witii swords and spears; and the idea here is, that the war-horse bore upon himself these instruments of vv'ar. The rattling of the quiver was caused by the fact that the arrows were tlirown somewhat loosely into the case or the (juiver, and that in the rapid motion of the warrior they were shaken against each other. Thus Virgil, ^n. ix. 660:

24. He sioalloiceth the ground. He seems as if ho would absorb the earth. That IS, he strikes his feet into it with fierceness and rage; neither believeth he that it is the sound of the trumpet.

25 He saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha; and he smelleth the battle afar off, the thunder of the captains and the shouting.

with such fierceness, and raises up the dust in his prancing, as if he would devour it. This figure is unusual with us, but it is common in the Arabic. iSee Schultens, in loc, and Bocliart, Hieroz, P. i. L. ii. c. viii. pp. 143-145. So Statius:

Stare loco nescit, pereunt vestigia mille Ante fugaiii, absentcmque ferit gravis ungula campum.

Til' impatient courser pants in every vein, And pawing seems to beat llie distant i)lain; Hills, vnlos, and Hoods, appear already cross'd, And ere he starts a thousand step.i are lost. Pope.

IT JVcither believeth he that it is the sound of the trumpet. This translation by no means conveys tlie mean ing of the original. The true sense is probably expressed by Umbreit " He standeth not still when the trumpet soundeth;" that is, he be comes impatient; he no longer con fides in the voii^e of the rider and remains submissive, but lie becomes excited by tiie martial clangor, and rushes into the midst of the battle. The Hebrew word which is employed ("r^^>.^) means properly to prop, stay, support; then to believe, to be firm, stable; and is that which is commonly used to denote an act of faith, or as meaning believing. But the original sense of the word is here to be retained, and then it refers to the fact that the impatient horse no longer stands still when the trumpet begins to sound for battle.

25. He saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha. That is, ' Wlien the trumpet sounds, his voice is heard as if he said, Aha — or said tliat he heard the sound calling him to the battle.' The reference is to the impatient neighing of the war-horse about to rusii into the conflict. IT.'Ind he smelleth the battle afar of. That is, lie snuffs, as it were, for tiio shnigliter. The referonce is to tlie effect of an approachin-f army upon a spirited war-iiorse, as if he perceived the approach hy the sense of sniellini,', and longed to i)e m the midst of the battle. II T/ir. thunder of the captains. Literally ' the >var-cry of the princes.' The reference is to the loud voices of the leaders of the army commanding the hosts under them. In regard to the whole of this magnificent description of the war-horse, the reader may consult Bochart, H'lcroz. P. i. L. ii.c. viii., where the phrases used are considered and illustrated at length. The leading idea here is, that the war- Iiorse evinced the wisdom and the power of God. His nnijesty, energy, strength, impatience for the battle, and spirit, were proofs of the greatness of him who had made him, and might he appealed to as illustrating his perfections. Much as men admire the noble horse, and much as they take pains to train him for the turf or for battle, yet how seldom do ihev refer to it as illustrating the power and greatness of the Creator; and, it may be added, how seldom do tliev use the horse as if he were one of the grand and noble works of God!

26. Doth the hawk flij hij thy mlsilom. The appeal here is to the hawk, because it is among the most rapid of the birds in its flight. The particular thing specified is hs flyings and it is supposed that there was something peculiar in that which distinguished it from other birds. ^V'hether it was in regard to its speed, to its manner of flying, or to its habits of flying at periodical seasons, may indeed be made a matter of inquirv, but it is clear that tlie particular thing in this bird which was adapted to draw the attention, and which evinced peculiarly the wisdom of God, was connected with its flight. The word here rendered haivk (^5,

wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south?

netz), is probably generic, and in eludes the various species of the falcon, or hawk tribe, as the jer-falcon, the goshawk, the sparrow-hawk, the lanner, the sacre, the hobby, the kestril, and the merlin. Not less than one hundred and lif^y species of the hawk, it is said, have been described, but of these many are little known, and many of them difler from others only by very slight distinctions. They are birds of prey, and, as many of them are endowed with remarkable docility, they are trained for the diversions of falconry — which has been quite a science among sportsmen. The falcon, or hawk, is often distinguished for fleetness. One belonging to a Duke of Cleves, flew out of W'estphalia into Prussia in one day; and in the county of Norfolk (England), one was known to make a flight of nearly thirty miles in an hour. A falcon which belonged to Henrv IV. of France, having escaped from Fontainebleau, was found twenty-four hours after in 3Ialta, tlie space traversed being not less than one thousand three hundred and fifty miles, being a velocity of about fiftyseven miles an hour, on the supposition that the bird was on the wing the whole time. It is this remarkable velocity which is here appealed to as a proof of the divine wisdom. God asks Job wliether he could have formed these birds for their rapid fl.ight. The wisdom and sliill which has done this is evidently flir above any that is possessed by man. IT And stretch her icings toward the south Referring to the fact that the bird is migratoiv at certain seasons of the year. It is not here merely the rapidity of its flight which is referred to, but that remarkable instinct which leads the feathered tribes to seek more congenial climates at the approach of winter. In no way is this to be;iccounted for, except by the fact that God has so appointed it. This great bw of the winged tribes

27 Doth the eagle mount up ' at thy command, and make her nest on " high 1

28 She dwelleth and abideth

27. Dotk the eagla mount up at thy coimnand. Murg. as in Ileb., by thy mouth. Tlie meaning is, tliat Job liad not power to direct or order tlie eagle in his lofty flight. The eagle lias always been celebrated for the height to which it ascends. When Ramond had reached the suminii of Mount Perdu, the highest of the Pyrenees, he jierceived no living creature but an eagle which passed above him. Hying with inconceivable rapidity in direct opposition to a furious wind. Edi.u.. EiLcy. " Of all animals, the eagle Hies highest; and from thence the ancients iiave given him the epitliet of the bird of heaven.'' Goldsmith. AVliat is particularly wortii remarking here is, the accuracy with which the descriptions in Job are made. If these are any indications of the progress of the knowledge of Natural History, that science could not have been then in it.s infancy. Just the things are adverted to here which all the investigations of subsequent ages have shown to characteri/>e the classes of the feathered creation referred to. If Jlnd make her nest on, hi<rh. " The nest of the eagle is usually built in the most inaccessible clili'of the rock, and often shielded from the weather by some jutting crag that hangs over;t." Goldsmith. It is usually placed norizontally, in the liollow or fissure of some high and abrupt rock, and is constructed of sticks of five or si.x feet in length, interlaced with pliant twigs, and covered with layers of rushes, heath, or moss. Unless destroyed by some accident, it is supjiosed to suflice, with occasional repairs, for the same couple during their lives." Ed in. Ency.

on the rock, upon the crag of the rock, and the strong place.

29 From thence she seeketh the prey, and her eyes behold afar off.

ains to descend into the plains. Eacli pair live in an insulated slate, establishing their quarters on some high and precipitous clifl', at a respectful distance (rom others of the.same species." Ediu. Ency. They seem to occupy the same clift', or place of abode, during their lives; and hence it is that they are represented as having a permanent abode on the lofly rock. In Dainir it is said that the blind poet Besar, son of Jazidi, being asked, if God would give him the choice to be an animal, what he would be, said that he would wish to be nothing else than an ulohab, a spe cies of the eagle, for they dwelt in places to which no wild animal could have access. Scheutzer, Phys. Hac. in lac. The word rendered ' abideth ' means commonly to pass the ni^ht, and here refers to the fact that the high rock was its constant abode or dwelling. By night as well as by day, the eagle had his home there. II Upon the crag of the rock. Heb., ' Upon the tooth of the rock ' — from the resemblance of the crag of a rock to a tooth.

2'^. From thence she seeketh the prey, and her eyes behold afar off. " When far aloft, and no longer discernible by the human eye, such is the wonderful acuteness of its sight, that from the same elevation it will mark a hare, or even a smaller animal, and dart down on it with unerring aim." Edin. Ency. " Of ail animals, the eagle has the quickest eye; but his sense of smelling is far inferior to that of the vulture. He never pursues, therefore, but in siglit." Goldsmith. This power of sight was early known, and is celebrated by the ancients. Thus Homer, II. o'. ver. 674

Tlie Arabic writers say that the eagle can sue "four hundred parasangs." Damir, as (luoted hy Scheutzer. It is now ascertained that hirds of Jirey seaicli out or discern their food rather by tlie sigiit than the smell. No sooner does a camel tall and die on the plains of Arabia, than there may be seen in the far-distant sky ajiparently a black speck, which is soon discovered to be a vulture hastening to its prey. From that vast distance the bird, invisible to human eye, has seen the prey stretched upon the sand, and imniedialely commences toward it its rapid Hight.

30. llei- young ones also suck up blood. The word here used Cl'^?"^) occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures. It is supposed to mean, to sup up greedily; referring to the fact that the young ones of the eagle devour blood voraciously. They are loo feeble to devour the flesh, and hence they are fed on the blood of the victim. The strength of the eagle consists in the beak, talons, and wings; and such is their power, that they are able to convey animals of considerable size, alive, to their places of abode. They often bear away, in this manner, lambs, kids, and the voung of the gazelle. Three instances, at least,;ire known, where they have carried ofl' children. In the year 1737, in JVorway, a boy upwards of two years of age was carried off by an eagle in the sight of his parents. Anderson, in his history of Iceland, asserts t.'iat in that island children of four and five years of age have experienced the same fate; and Ray mentions that in one of the Orkneys an infant oi' a \ ear old was seized in the talons of an eagle, and conveyed about four miles to its eyry. Ellin. Encij. The principal food of the Ifounir eagle is blood. The jrroof ot this fact may be seen in Scheutzer's Phijs. Hue, in loc. IT Jlnil wittre the. sluin are, there is she. Ileb., the slain; rei'erring perhaps primarily to a field of battle — where horses, camels, and men, lie in confusion. It is not improbable that the Suviour had this passage in view when lie said, speaking of the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, "For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together." Matth. xxiv. 28. Of the/acf that they thus assemble, there can be no doubt. The argument in proof of the wisdom and majesty of the Alniiglity in these references to the animal creation, i.s derived from their strength, their instincts, and their peculiar habits. We may make two remarks, in view of the argiuTient as here stated. (1.) One relates to the remarkable accurucij with whicli the}' are referred to. The statements are not vague and general, but are minute and characteristic, about the habits and the instincts of the animals referred to. The very things are selected which are now known to distinguish those animals, and which are not found to exist in the same degree, if at all, in others. Subsequent investigations have served to confirm the accuracy of these descriptions, and tliey may be taken now as a correct account even to the letter of the natural history of the dili'erent animals referred to. If, therefore,:is has alread}' been stated, this is to be regarded as an indication of the state of natural science in the time of Job, it 'shows quite an advanced state; if it is not an indication of the existing state of knowledge in his time, if there was no such acquaintance with the auin ai creation as the result of observatic n, then it shows that these were truly the words of God, and are to be re garded as direct inspiration. At all events, the statement was evidently made under the influence of inspiration, and is worthy of tiie origin wiiicli it claims. (2.) The second remark is, that the progress of discovery in the science of natural history has only served to confirm and expand the argument here adverted to. Every new fact in regard to the habits and instincts of animals is a new proof of the wisdom and greatness of

God; and we n)ay appeal now, with all the knowledge which we have ^n these subjects, with unanswerable force to the habits and instincts of the wild goats of the rock, the wild as.s, the rhinoceros, the ostricii, the liorse, the hawk, and tiie eagle, as each one furnishing some striking and peculiar proof of the wisdom, goodness, superintending providence and power of the Great Creator.

i. God rehukes Job for the spirit which he had inanifesteJj and especially for his presumption in contending with him, and for the impropriety of the language in which he had indulged, and which was the same as ' reproving' God. vs. 1,2.

II. Job confesses hi^ guilt. lie had on a former occasion e.xpressed his desire to carry his cause immediately before God (ch. xiii. 3, 20, 2!), and to argue it there. He was sure that he could be able to vindicate himself, and sliow that he did not deserve the peculiar calamities which had come upon him, and which were appealed to by his friends as full proof that he was a wicked man. iS^ow, however, overpowered by the maje.«ty of God, and by the argument which he had used, he is silent He does not adventure togoinio the argument. Heconfi'sses 1 hat he is vile, and says that he wouM lay his ha id L"">n hi.s mouth He Iiad spoken repeatedly, but he could proceed no farther, vs. 3-5.

III. God then pursues and completes the argument which he had commenced, in proof of his own majesty and glory. The argument is c.intinuod throa^h this an. I the fillo-.ving chapter, and comprises the following sufijects, viz.:

(f.) An appeal to the power and majesty of God, vs. 7-1-4. That po«?er was displayed in his arm in executing judgmens; in hi-! thunder; in c.-ming down the proud; and in trampling the wicked in the dust. God says iliat if Job could put forth power hke tiiis then he would confess that his own hand could save him.

(9.) He appeals to the behemoth, and this chapter concludes with adt^tailed dcpcriplion ofiliis animal of immense strength, which might hi regarded as in some sort an illustration of the mighty power of the Most High, vs. 15-'2-l.

(3.) The whole argument is closed (ch. xli.) by an appeal to the leviathan, as the chief among thy works of God, and as showing his dominion over the aea. This immense sea-monster is described at lengih, and in tlie most sublime manner; and the argument is, that a Being >vho could form such an animal, and control him, must be a IJeing of infinite majesty and glory, b-fore whom man should bow down with profoun I rcver.nnco and t-ilence. This snblimo a.'glme-it is not so conducted as to remove or expliin the difficulties which pressed upon the minds of Job and his friends No statements are made rospec'ing the leason of afHiclions; the q -estion whether trials are evidence of the moral character of the suifeier is not decided, and no reference is made to the future state, and lo the fact that all these in^-qualities would be adjusted there. The object of th-> whole argument is to produce an overwhelming sense of the majs-sty and glory of God; to show the impropriety of complaining nid inurmuring against the government of one so exalted and so powerful; and to inculcuit-f the diUy of calm acquiescence id the expressions of liis will. The object was not to disclose all the light in regard to tlie ditncult questions about the govrnment of God which could be communicated, nor to anticipate the glorious truths which W' re reseived foi the Christim revelation, but to produce a state ot submission lo the will of God. It was to make men feel that God had a right to reign, and that they were to be submissive not because ihey saw the rciisoiis of his doings, but because such was HIS WILL. This is still a propoi giound of arg'jmen: with the afflicted, and is often in fact ibout all that can be referred to.

2 Shall he that contendeth " with the Almighty instruct him 1

1. Moreover^ the Lord answered Job. Tlie word answered i.s used iiere as it is often in the Scriptures, not to denote a reply to vviiat had been immediately said, but to take up or continue an argument. What God said liere was designed as a reply to the spirit wliich Job had so frequently manifested.

2. Shall he that contendeth icith the Almightij instruct him.'' Gesenius renders this, " Contending shall the reprover of God contend with tlie Almighty.'" Prof. Lee, "Shall one by contending with the Almighty correct this.'" On tlie grammatical construction, see Gesenius on the word "'15'?, and Rosenmilller and Lee, IK loc. The meaning seems to be this: ' Will he who would enter into a controversy with the Almighty now presume to instruct him.' He that was so desirous of arguing his cause with God, will he now answer.'"' All the language here used is taken from courts, and is such as I have had frequent occasion to explain in these Notes. The reference is to the fact that Job liad so often expressed a wish to carry his cause, as before a judicial tribunal, directly up to God. He had felt that if he could get it there, he could so argue it as to secure a verdict in his favor;, that he could set arguments before the Almighty which would secure a reversal of the fearful sentence which had gQne out against him, and which had caused him to be lield as a guilty man. God now asks whether he who had been so anxious to have a legal argument, and to carry his cause himself before God — a man disposed to litigation before God ("13) — was still of the same mind, and 'elt himself qualified to take upon himself the office of an instructor, a

3 Then Job answered the Lord, and said,

corrector, an admonislicr ("I'S"?) of God.' He had the opportunity now, and God here paused, after the snU lime exiiibition of his majesty and power in the previous chapters, to give him an opportunity, as he wished, to carry his cause directly before him. The result is stated in vs. 3, 4. Job had now nothing to say. IT Ha that reproveth God. Or rather, ' He that is disposed to carry his cause Ijefore God,' as Job had often expressed a wish to do. The word here used (n;^) is often employed, especially in Hiphil, in a forensic sense, and means to argue, to shoiv, to prove any thing; then to argue down, to confute, to convict. See Job vi. 2.5, xiii. 15, xix. 5, xxxii. 12. Prov. ix. 7, S, xv. 12, xix. 25. It is evidently used in that sense here — a Hiphil participle (n"'3i^) — and refers, not to any man in general who reproves God, but to Job in particular, as having expressed a wish to carry his cause before liim, and to argue it there. II Let him answer it. Or rather, ' Let him answer him.' That is, ' Is he now ready to answer.'' There is now an opportunity for him to carry his cause, as he wished, directly before God. Is he ready to embrace the opportuniiy, and to answer now what the Almighty has said.-" This does not mean, then, as the common version would seem to imply, that the man who reproves God must be held responsible for it, but that Job, who had expressed the wish to carry his cause before God, had now an opportunity to do so. That this is the meaning, is apparent from the next verses, where Job says that he was confounded, and had nothing to say. 4. Behold, I am vile: tohat shall 1 answer thee? ' Instead of being able to argue my cause, and to vindicato

shall I answer thee? I will lay ° mine hand upon my mouth.

myself as I had expected, I now see that I am guilty, and I have nothing to sav.' He had argued boldly with hi.s friends. He had before them maintained his innocence of the charges which they brought against iiim, and had supposed that he would be able to maintain the same argument before Cod. But when the opportunity was given, he felt that he was a poor, weak man; a guilty and miserable offender. It is a very different thing to maintain our cause before God from what il is to maintain it before men; and though we may attempt to vindicate our own righteousness when we argue with our fellow-creatures, yet when we come to maintain it before God we shall be dumb. On earth, men vindicate themselves; what will they do when they come to stand before God in the judgment.'' IT / will lay mine hand upon my mouth. An expression of silence. Catlin, in his account of the Mandan Indians, says that this is a common custom with them when any thing wonderful occurs. Some of them laid their hands on tiieir mouths, and remained in this posture by the hour, as an expression of astonishment at the wonders produced by the brush in the art of painting. Comp. Notes on ch. xxi. 5, xxix. 0.

5. Once hare I spoken. That is, in vindicating myself. He liad once spoken of God in an irreverent and improper manner, and he now saw it. IT Uut I will not answer. I will not now answer, as I had expressed the wish to do. Job now saw that he had spoken in an improper manner, and he says that he would not repeat what he had said. H Yea, twice. He had not only offended once, as if in a tiioughtless and hasty manner, but he had repeated it, showing deliberation, and thus aggravating his guilt. When a man is brought to a willingness to confess that lie has doile wrons oner.

5 Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further.

he will be very likely to see that he has been guilty of more than one offence One sin will draw on the remembrance of another, and the gate once open a flood of sins will rush to the recollection. It is not common that a man can so isolate a sin as to repent of that alone, or so look at one oftence against God as not to feel that he has been often guilty of the same crimes. IT But I tcill proceed no further. Job felt doubtless that if he should allow himself to speak again, or to attempt now to vindicate himself, he would be in danger of committing the same error again. He now saw that God was right; that he had himself repeatedly indulged in an improper spirit, and that all that became him was a penitent confession in the fewest words possible. We may learn here, (1.) That a view of God is fitted to produce in us a deep sense of our own sins. No one can feel himself to be in the presence of God, or regard the Almightv as speak ing to him, witliout saving, ' Lo, I am vile!' There is nothing so much fitted to produce a sense of sinfulness and nothingness as a view of God. (2.) The world will be dumb at the day of judgment. They who have been most loud and bold in vindicating themselves will then be silent, and will confess that they are vile, and the whole world ' will become guilty before God.' If the presence and the voice of God produced such an eflect on so good a man as Job, what will it not do on a wicked world.' (3.) A true penitent is disposed to use but few words. ' God be merciful to me a sinner,' or ' lo, 1 am vile,' is about all the language wiiich the penitent employs. He does not go into long arguments, into meta;)hvsical distinctions, into apologies and vindications, but uses the sim])lest language of confession, and then leaves the soul, and the cause, in the handsofGod. (4.) Repentance con

6 Then " answered the Lord unto Job out of the whirlwind, ai,d said,

sists ivi stopping where we are, and in resolviaj^ to add no more sin. ' I have et.id,' is its language. 'I will not add,o it, I '\vill do so no more,' is the it«nnediate response of llie soul. A readib<;ss to go into a vindication, or to exfw.se one's self to the danger of sinning L^ain in the same way, is an evidence,.hat there is no true repentance. J b, a true penitent, would not allow himself even to speak again on the sa 'ject lest he should be guilty of the sin ivhich he had already committed. (5.) In repentance we must be willing to retract our errors, and confess that we were wrong — no matter what favorite opinions we have had, or how tenaciously and zealously we have detended and held them. Job liad constructed many beautiful and eloquent arguments in defence of his opinions; he had brought to bear on the subject all the results of his observation; all his attainments in science; all the adages and maxim.s that he had derived from the ancients, and from a long intercourse with mankind, but he was now brought to a willingness to confess that his arguments were not solid, and that the opinions which he had cherished were erroneous. It is often more difficult t» abandon opinions than vires; and the proud philosopher when he e.';er&ises repentance has a more diflicult task than the victim of low and debasing sensuality. His opinions are his idols. They embody the results of his reading, his reflections, his.conversation, his observation, and they become a part of himself. Hence it is, that so many abandoned sinners are converted, and so few philosophers; that religion spreads often with so much success among the obscure and the openly wicked, while

8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment 1 wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous 1

6. Then ansicered the Lord unto Job out of the whirlwind.. See Notes on ch. xxxviii. 1. God here resumes the argument which had been interrupted in order to give Job an opportunity to speak atid to carry his cause before tlie Almighty, as lie had desired. See ver. 2. Since Job had notiiing to say, the argument, which had been suspended, is resumed and completed.

7. Gird up thy loins noio like a vian. An expression taken from the ancient mode of dress. That was a loose, flowing robe, which was secured by a girdle when travelling, or when one entered upon any thing requiring energy. See Notes on Matth. v. 38-41. The meaning here is, ' Prepare thyself for the highest effort that can be made. Put forth all your strength, and explain to me what will now be said.' Comp. Notes on Isa. xli. 21. IT / will demand of thee. Heb. " I will ask of thee." That is, I will submit some questions to you to be answered. IT «4/ifZ declare thou unto vie. Heb. " Cause me to know." That is, furnisli a satisfactorj- answer to these inquiries, so as to show that you understand the subject. The object is to appeal to the proofs of divine wisdom, and to show that the whole subject was fiir above human comprehension.

8. IVilt thou disannul my judgment? Wilt thou reverse tire judgment which I have formed, and show that it should have been different from what it is.' This was implied in what Job had undertaken. He had complained of the dealings of God, and this was the same as saying that he could show that those dealings

9 Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice " like him?

10 Deck thyself now ivith majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty.

should have been different from wli.at they were. When a man nnirmurs against God, it is always implied that lie supposes he could show why his dealings should be different from what they are, and that they should be reversed. If Wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest he righteous? Or, rather, probabl}-, ' Wilt thou siiow that I am wrong because thou art superior in justice V Job had allowed himself to use language which strongly implied that God was improperly severe. He had regarded himself as punished far beyond what he deserved, and as suffering in a manner which justice did not demand. All this implied that he was more righteous in the case than God, for when a man allows himself to vent such complaints, it indicates that he esteems himself to be more just than his Maker. God now calls upon Job to maintain this proposition, since he had advanced it, and to urge the arguments which would prove that he was more righteous in the case than God. It was proper to demand this. It was a charge of such a nature that it could not be passed over in silence, and God asks, therefore, with emphasis, whether Job now supposed that he could institute such an argument as to show that he was right and his Maker wrong.

9. Hast thou an arm like God? The arm is the symbol of strength. The question here is, whether Job would venture to compare his strength with the omnipotence of God.' If Or canst thou thunder with a voice like him? Thunder is a symbol of the majesty of the Most High, and is

thy wrath: and behold every one that is proud, and abase him.

12 Look on every one that is ' proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place.

13 Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret.

often spoken of as the voice of God. See Ps. xxix. The question here is, whether Job could presume to com pare iiimself with the Almighty, whose voice was the thunder.'

10. Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency. That is, such as God has. Put on every thing which you can, vv-hich would indicate rank, wealth, power, and see whether it could all be compared with the majesty of God. Comp. Ps. civ. 1, " O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honor and majesty."

11. Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath. That is, as God does. Show that the same effects can be produced by your indignation which there is in his. God appeals here to the effect of his displeasure in prostrating his foes as one of the evidences of his majesty and glory, and asks Job, if he would compare himself with him, to imitate him in this, and produce similar effects. II Jind behold every one that is proud, and abase him. That is, look upon such an one and bring him low, or humble him bv a look. It is implied here that God could do this, and he appeals to it as a proof of his power.

12. And tread dozen the icicked in their place. Even in the very place where they are, crush them to tho dust, as God can. It is implieJ that God was able to do this, and he appeals to it as a proof of his power.

13. Hide them in the dust together. Comp. Isa. ii. 10. The meaning seetns to be, that God had power to prostrate the wicked in the dust of the earth, and he calls upon Job to

14 Then will I also confess ] 15 Behold now ' behemoth, unto thee that thine own right which I made with thee; he show his power by doing the same thing. H And hhtd their faces in secret. The word faces here is prohi'.hly used (like the Greek 7Tori(;o)7ra) to denote persons. Tlie phrase "to hind them," is expressive of having tiiem under control or subjection; and the. phrase " in secret" may refer to some secret or safe place — as a dungeon or prison. The meaning ol' the whole is, that God had power to restrain and control the haughty and the wicked, and he appeals to Job to do the same.

14. Then will I also confess nnto thee, &c. If you can do all this, it will he full proof that vou can save yourself, and that you do not need the divine interposition. If Jie could do all this, then it might be admitted that he was qualified to pronounce a judgment on the divine counsels and dealings. He would then show that he had qualifications for conductingthe affairs of the universe.

15. Behold noip behemoth. Marg. ' or, the elephant, as some think.' In tlie close of the argument, God appeals to two animals as among the chief of his works, and as illustrating more than any others his power and majesty — the behemotii and the leviathan. A great variety of opinions lias been entertained in regard to the animal referred to here, though the main inquiry lias related to the question whether the elephant or the hippopotiimns is denoted. Since the time of Bochart, who has gone into an extended examination of the subject {Hieroz. P. ii. L. li. c. xv.), the common opinion has been that the latter is here referred to. As a specimen of the method of interpreting the Bible which has prevailed, and as a proof of the slow progress which has been made towards settling the meaning of a difficult passage, we may refer to some of the opinions which have been entertained in regard to this animal. They are chiefly taken from the collection of opinions made by Schultens, in loc. Among them are the following: (I.) That wild animals in general are denoted. Tlris appears to have been the opinion of the translators of the Septiuigint. (2.) Some of the Rabbins supposed that a huge monster was referred to, that ate every day ' the grass of a thousand mountains.' (3.) It has been held by some that the wild bull was referred to. This was the opinion particularly of Sanctius. (4.) The common opinion, until the time of Bochart, has been that the elephant was meant. See the particular authors who have held this opinion enumerated in Schultens. (5.) Bochart maintained, and since his time the opinion has been generally acqui esced in, that the river-horse of the Nile, or the hippopotamus, was referred to. This opinion he has defended at length in the Hieroz. P. ii. L. v. c. XV. (6.) Others have held that some ' hieroglyphic monster ' was referred to, or that the whole description was an emblematic representation, though without any living original. Among those who have held this sentiment, some have supposed that it is designed to be emblematic of the old serpent; others, of the corrupt and fallen nature of man; others, that tlie proud, the cruel, and the bloody are denoted; most of the 'Fathers' supposed that the Devil was here emblematically represented by the behemoth and the leviathan; and one writer has main tained tliat Christ was referred to! To these opinions may be added the supposition of Dr. Good, that the behemoth here described is at present a genus altogether extinct, like the mammoth, and other animals that have been discovered in fossil remains. This opinion is also intro- tained by the autlior (if the article on Mazologij, in the Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, chiefly for the reason that the description of the tail, of the behemoth (ver. 17) does not well accord with the hippopotamus. There must be admitted to be some plausil)ility in tills conjecture of Dr. Good, though perhaps I shall be able to show that there is no necessity of resorting to this supposition. The word bekeviolh (ni^n3), used here in the plural number, occuis often in the singular number, to denote a dumb beast, usually applied to the larger kind of quadrupeds. It occurs very often in tlie Scriptures, and is usually translated beast^ or collectively cattle. It usually denotes land aninals, in opposition to birds or reptiles. See the Lexicons, and Taylor's Hebrew Concordance. It is rendered by Dr. Nordheimer (Heh. Con.) in tliis place, hippopotamus. The plural form is often used (comp. Deut. xxxii. 24. Job xii. 7. Jer. xii. 4. Hab. ii. 17. Ps. I. 10), but in no other instance is it employed as a proper name. Gesenius supposes that under the form of the word here used, tiiere lies concealed some Egyptian name for the hippopotamus, " so modified as to put on the appearance of a Semitic word. Thus the Y.iWio'px^n pchcmout denotes water-ox, by which epithet (bomarino) the Italians al>o designate the hippopotamus." The translations do not afford much aid in determining the meaning of the word. The I^XX render it, d-rio(a, wild beasts; Jerome retains the word. Behemoth; the Chaldee, X^'n"'2J2, beast; the Syriao retains the Hebrew word; Coverdale renders it, " cruel beast; ' Prof Lee, " the beasts;" Unibreit, JYilpferd, "Nile-horse;" and Noyes, "riverhorse." The only method of ascertaining, therefore, what animal is here intended, is to compare carefully the characteristics here referred to with the animals now known, and to find in what one tliese characteristics exist. We may here safely presume on the entire accuracy of the description, since we have found the previous descriptions of animals to accord entirely with the habits of those existing at the present day. The illustration drawn from the passage before us, in regard to the nature of the animal, consists of two parts. (1.) The plucr, which the description occupies in the argument. That it is an aquatic animal, seems to follow from the plan and structure of the argument. In the two discourses of Jehovah (ch. xxxviii.-xli.), the appeal is made, first, to the phenomena of nature (ch xxxviii.); tiien to the beasts of the earth, among whom the ostrich is reckoned (ch. xxxix. 1-25); then to the fowls of the air (ch. xxxix. 26-30); and then follows the description ol the behemoth and the leviathan. It would seem that an argument of this kind would not be constructed wiihout some allusion to the principal wonders of the deep; and the fair presumption, therefore, is, that the reference here is to the principal animals of the aquatic race. The argument in regard to the nature of the animal from the place which tiie description occupies, seems to be confirmed by the fact that the account Oi the behemoth is immediately followed by that of the leviathan — beyond all question an aquatic monster. As they are here grouped together in the argument, it is probable that they belong to the same class; and if by the leviathan is meant the crocodile, then the presumption is that the riverhorse, or the hippopotamus, is here intended. These two animals, as being Egyptian wonders, are every where mentioned together by ancient writers. See Herodotus, ii. 69-71, Diod. Sic. i. 35, and Pliny, Hist.jYat. xxviii. 8. (2.) The character of the animal may be determined from the particular thinrrs specified. Those are the following: (a) It is an amphibious animal, or an animal whose usual resort is the river, tliough he is occasionally on land. This is evident, because he is mentioned as lying under the covert of the reed and the fens; as abiding in marsliy places, or anionfj the willows of the.:rooA. (vs. 21, 22), while at other iii!ies he is on the inouiitains, or among other animals, and feeds on grass like the ox, vs. ]5, 21). This account would not agree well with the elephant, wiiose residence is not among marshes and fens, but on solid ground, (h) He is not a carniveroiis animal. This is apparent, for it is expressly mentioned that he feeds on grass, and no allusion is made to his at any time eating flesh, vs. 15, 2>). This part of the description would agree with the elephant as well as with the hippopotamus, (c) His stretigth is in his loins, and in the navel of liis belly, ver. 16. This would agree with the hippopotamus, whose belly is eqiuillv guarded by his thick skin with the rest of his body, but is not true of the elephant. Tiie strengiii of the elephant is in his iiead and neck, and his weakest part, tlie part where he can be most successfully attacked, is his belly. There the skin is ihin and tender, and it is there thai the rhinoceros attacks him, and that he is even annoyed bv insects. Pliny, Lil). viii. c. 20..^Elian, ]/\\>. xvii. c. 44. Comp. Notes on ver. ll). (d) He is distinguished for some peculiar movement of his tail — some slow and stately motion, or a certain injiexibUitif of the.ail, like a cedar. This will agree with the accriunt of the liippopotauius. See Notes on ver. 17. (e) He is remarkable for the strength of his bones, ver. 18- (f) He is remarkable for the quantity of water wliich he drinks at a time, ver. 23; and ((() he has the power of forcing his way, chiefly by the strength of his nose, through snares by which it is attempted to take him, ver. 24. These characteristics agree better with the hippopotamus than with any other known animal, and at present critics, with few exceptions, agree in the opinion that this is the animal which is referred to. As additional reasons for supposing that the elephant is not referred to, we may add, (1) that there, is no allusion to the proboscis of the elephant, a part of the animal that could not have failed to be alluded to il' the description had pertained to him; and (2) t))at the elephant was wholly unknown in Arabia and Egypt. The hippopotamus ('I/ittdnoTauoq) or river-horse belongs t(» the mammalia, and is of the order of the pachijdrrmatti, or I hick-skinned animals. To this order belong also the elephant, the laj)irus, the rhiiu)- ceros, and the swine. Edin. Ency., art. Mazology. The hippopotamus is found principally on the banks of the Nile, though it is found also in the other large rivers of Africa, as the Niger, and the rivers which lie between that and the Cape of Good Hope. It is not found in any of the rivers which run north into the Mediterranean except the Nile, and there only at present in that^jortion which traverses Upper Egypt; and it \» found also in the lakes and fens of Ethiopia. It is distinguished by a broad head; its lips are very thick, and the muzzle much inflated; it has four very large projecting curved teeth in the under jaw, and four also in the upper; the skin is very thick, the legs short, four toes on each foot inverted with small hoofs, and the tail is very short. The appearance of the animal, when on lan», is represented as very uncouth, the body being very large, flat, and round, the head enormously large in proportion, the feet as disproportionably short, and the armament of teeth in its mouth truly formidable. The length of a male has been known to be seventeen feet, the height se\ en, and the circumference fifteen; the head three feet and a half, and the mouth about two feet in width. JMr. Bruce mentions some in the lake Tzana that were twenty feet in length. The whole animal is covered with short hair, which is more thickly set on the under than the upper parts The general color of the animal fs brownish. The skin is exceedingly tough and strong, and was used by the ancient Egyptians for the manufacture of shields. They are timid and sluggish on land, and when pursued tliey betake themselves to the water, plunge in, and walk on the bottom, though often compelled to rise to the surface to take in fresh air. In the day-time they are so much afraid of being discovered, that when they rise for the purpose of breathing, they only put their noses out of the water; but in rivers that are unfrequented by mankind they put out the whole head. In shallow rivers they make deep holes in the bottom to conceal their bulk. They are eaten with avidity by the inhabitants of Africa. The following account of the capture of a hippopotamus serves greatly to elucidate the description in the book of Job, and to sliow its correctness, even in those points which have formerly been regarded as poetical exaggerations. It is trana lated from the travels of IM. Kilppell, the German naturalist, who visited Upper Egypt, and the countries still farther up the Nile, and is the latest traveller in those regions. (Reiscn in JVubia, Kordofan, 4"C., Frankf. 182;>, p. 52, scq.) " In the province of Dongola, the fishermen and hippopotamus hunters form a distinct class or caste; and are called in the Berber language Hauauit (pronounced Hoieowit.) They make use of a small canoe, formed from a single tree, about ten feet long, and capable of carrying two, and at most three men. The harpoon which they use in hunting the hippopotamus, has a strong barb just back of the blade or sharp edge; above this a long and strong cord is fastened to the iron, and to the other end of this cord a block of light wood, to serve as a buoy, and aid in tracing out and following the animal when struck The iron is then slightly fastened upon a wooden handle, or lance, about eight feet long. The hunters of the hippopotamus harpoon their prey either by day or by night; but they prefer the former because they can then better parry the ferocious assaults of the enraged animal. The hunter takes in his right hand the handle of the harpoon, with a part of the cord; in his left the remainder of the cord, with the buoy. In tluH manner he cautiously approaches the creature as it sleeps by da}^ upon a small island, or he watches at night for those parts of the shore where he hopes the animal will come up out of the water, in order to feed in the fields of grain. When he has gained the desired distance (about seven pa ces), he throws the lance with his full strength; and the harpoon, in order to hold, must penetrate the thick hide and into the flesh. The wounded beast commonly makes for the water, and plunges beneath it in order to conceal himself; the liandle of the harpoon falls ofi", but the buoy swuns, and indicates the direction which tlie animal takes. The harpooning of the hippopotamus is attended with great danger when the hunter is perceived by the animal before he has thrown the harpoon. In such cases the beast sometimes rushes, enraged, upon his assailant, and crushes him at once between his wide and formidable jaws — an occurrence that once took place during our residence near Shendi. Sometimes the most harmless objects e.xcite the rage of this animal; thus, in the region of Amera, a hippopotamus once craunched, in the same way, several cattle that were fiistened to a water-wheel. So soon as the animal has been successfully struck, the hunters hasten in their canoe cautiously to approach the buoy, to which they fasten a long rope; with the other end of this they proceed to a large boat or bark, on board of which are their companions. The rope is now drawn in; the pain thus occasioned by the barb of the harpoon excites the rage of the animal, and he no sooner perceives the bark, than he rushes upon it; seizes it, if possible, with his teeth; and sometimes succeeds in shattering it, or oversetting it. The hunters, in the mean time, are not idle; they fasten five or six other harpoons in his flesh, and exert all their strength, by means of the cords of these, to keep him close alongside of the bark,

III Older thus lo dimiiiisli, in some measure, the effects of liis violence. They endeavor, with a. long, slsarp iron, to divide tlie ligumenium jugi, or to beat in the skull — the usual modes in which the native.s kill this animal. Since the carcase of a fullgrown hippopotamus is too large to be drawn out of the water without quite a n iniber of men, they commonly cut up the animal, when killed, in the water, and draw the pieces ashore. In the whole Turkish province of Dongola, there are only one or two hippopotami killed annually. In the years 1821-23, inclusive, there were nine killed, four of which were killed by us. The flesh of the young animal is very good eating; when full grown, they are usually very fat, and their carcase is commonly estimated as equal to four or five oxen. The hide is used only for making whips, which are excellent; and one liide furnishes from three hundred and fifty to five hundred of them. The teeth are not used. One of the hippopotami which we killed was a very old male, and seemed to have reached his utmost growth. He measured, from the snout to the end of the tail, about fifteen feet, and his tusks, from the root to the point, along the external curve, twenty-eight inches. In order to kill him, we had a battle with him of four hours long, and that too in the night. Indeed, he came very near destroying our large bark, and with it, periiaps, all our lives. The moment he saw the hunters in the small canoe, as they were about to fasten the long rope to the buoy, in order to draw him in, he threw himself with one rush upon it, dragged it with him under water, and shattered it to pieces. Tlie two hunters escaped the extreme danger with great difficulty. Out of twentyfive musket-balls which were fired into the monster's head, at the distance of five feet, only one penetrated the hide and the bones near the nose; so that every time he breathed he snorted streams of blood upon the bark. All the other balls remained sticking in the thickness of his hide. We had at last to employ a small cannon, the use of which at so short a distance liad not before entered our minds; but it was only after five of its balls, tired at the distance of a few feet, had mangled, most shockingly, the head and body of the monster, that he gave up the ghost. The darkness of the night augmented the horrors and dangers of tlie contest. This gigantic hippopotamus dragged our large bark at will in every direction of the stream; and it was in a fortunate moment for us that he yielded, just as he had drawn the bark among a labyrinth of rocks, which might have been so much tlie more dangerous, because, from the great confusion on board, no one had observed them. Hippopotami of the size of the one above described cannot be killed by the natives, for want of a cannon. These animals are a real plague to the land, in consequence of their voraciousness. The inhabitants have no permanent means of keeping them away from their fields and plantations; all tliat they do is to make a noise during the night with a drum, and to keep up fires in different places. In some parts the hippopotami are so bold that they will yield up their pastures, or places of ftieding, only when a large number of persons come rushing upon them with sticks and loud cries." The method of taking the hippopotamus by the Egyptians was the following: " It was entangled by a running noose, at the extremity ot a long line wound upon a reel, at the same time that it was struck by the spear of the chasseur. This weapon consisted of a broad, flat blade, furnished with a deep tooth or barb at the side, having a strong rope of considerable length attached to its upper end, and running ov.er the notched summit of a wooden shaft, which was inserted into the head or blade, like a common javelin. It Vvaa thrown in the same manner, but on striking, the shaft fell, and the iron head alone remained in the body of the anitna], which, on receiving the wound, plunged into deep water, the rope having been immediately let out. When fatigued by exertion, the hippopotamus was dragged to the boat, from which it again plunged, and the same was repeated until it became perfectly exhausted; frequently receiving additional wounds, and being entangled by other nooses, which tlie attendants held in readiness, as it was brought within their reach." Wilkinson's Manners and Customs of the Jlncient Egyptians, vol. iii. pp. 70, 71. The following sketch of the taking of a hippopotamus, from a drawing at Thebes, will illustrate this interesting subject ■

CHASE OF THE HIPPOPOTAMUS. Tho Chasseur is accompanied by his children — an attendant throws q noose over the wounded

The following cut will give a good illustration of the general appearance of the hippopotamus:

TI Which I viade with thee. That is, either ' I have made him as well as you, have formed him to he a fellowcreature with thee,' or, ' I liave made him near thee ' — to wit, in Egypt. Tlie latter Bochart supposes to be tlie true interpretation, though the former is the more natural. According to that, the meaning is, that God was the Creator of botli, and he calls on Job to contemplate the power and greatness of a fellow-creature, thougli a brute, as illustrating his own power and majesty. II He c.atcth grass as an ox. This is mentioned as a remarkable property of this animal. The leasons why it was regarded as so remarkable may have been, (1) that it might have been supposed that an animal so huge and fierce, and armed with such a set of teeth, would be carnivorous, like the lion or the tiger; and (2) it was remarkable that an animal that commonly lived in the water should be graminivorous, as if it were wholly a land animal. The common food of the hippopotamus is fish. In the water they pursue their prey with great swiftness and perseverance. They swim with much force, and are capable of remaining at the bottom of a river for thirty or forty minutes. On some occasions three or four of them are seen at the bottom of a river, near some cataract, forming a kind of line, and seizing upon such fish as are forced down by the violence of the stream. Goldsmith. But it often happens that this kind of food is not found in sufficient abundance, and the animal is then forced on land, where it commits great depredations among plantations of sugar-cane and grain. The fact here adverted to, that the food of the hippopotamus is grass or herbs, is also mentioned by Diodorus — Karavf/tirai to'v tc olror y.at r(>v x^QTOV. The same thing is mentioned also by Sparrman, Travels through South Africa, p. 563, Germ. Trans.

IG Lo now, his strength is in nis loins, and his force is in the navel of iiis belly.

16. Lo now, his sirength is in his loiiis. Tlie inspection of tlie figure of the liippop<nainus will show the accuracy of" tliis. Tlie strength of the eiepiiant is in the neck; of the lion in the paw; of the horse and ox in the shoulders; but the priiicipu! power of the river-horse is in the loins. Coinp. Nahuni ii. 1. This passage is one that proves tliat the elejiliant cannot be referred to. 1^ And Ids force is in the navel of his belly. Tiie word which is liere rendered navel p'^l'^) means properly firm^ hard, tough, and in the jdiiral form, which occurs iiere, means the jinn, or tough parts of the belly, it is not used to denote the naccl in any olace in the Bible, and should not have been so rendered here. The leference is to the muscles and tendons of this part of the body, and j: -jrliaps particularly to the fact that i' e hippopotamus, by craw ling so ir ich on his belly among t!ie stones r the stream or on land, acf|iiires a peculiar hardness oi strength in those parts of the body. Tins cleaily proves that the elephant \> not intended. in that animal, this is the most tender part of the boily. Pliny and Solinus both remark tliat the elephant has a thick, hard skin on the back, but that the skin of the belly is soft and tender. Pliny says {Hist. jXat. Lib. viii. c. 2^)), that the rhinoceros, when about to attack an elephant, "seeks his belly, as if he knew that that was the most tender jiart. So /Elian, Hist. Lib. xvii. c. 44. See Bochart, as above.

17. He viovcth his tail like a cedar. JMarg. '■ or, scltcth up.' The Hebrew word (^^i^) means to bend, to curve; and hence it commonly denotes to be inclined, favorably disposed, to desire or please. The obvious meaning here is, that this animal had some remarkable power of bending or rurcing its

17 He ' moveih his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

tail, and that there was some resemblance in this to the motion of the cedar-tree when moved by the wind. In what this resemblance consisted, or lioio this was a proof of its power, it is not quite easy to determine. RosenmUller says that the meaning is, that the tail of the hippopotamus was "smooth, round, thick, and firm," and in this respect resembled the cedar. The tail is short — being, according to Abdollatiph (see Ros.), about half a cubit in length. In the lower part, says lie, it is thick, "equalling! the extremities of the fingers;" and the idea here, according to this, is, that tliis short, thick, and apparently firm tail, was bent over by tlie will of the animal as the wind bends the branches of the cedar. The point of comparison is not the length, but the fact of its being easily bent on er or curved at the pleasure of the animal Why this, however, should have been mentioned as remarkable, or how the power of tlie animal in this resjject differs from others, is not very apparent. Some, who have supposed the eiepiiant to be here referred to, have understood this of tlie proboscis. But though this would be a remarkable proof of the power of the animal, the language of the original will not admit of it. The Hebrew word (-?') is used only to denote the tail. It is possible that there may be here an allusion to the unwieldy nature of everv jjart of the animal, and espe cially to the thickness and inflexibility of the skin; and what was remarkable was, that notwithstanding this, this member was entirely at its command. Still, the reason of the comparison is not very clear. Tiie description of the movement of the tail here giNen, would agree much better with some of the extinct orders of animals whose remains have been recently discovered and arranged by

Cuvier, than witH that of the hippopotamus. Particularly, it would agree with the account of the ichthyosaurus (see BucU land's Geologi/j Bridgcwatcr Treatise, vol. i. i;53, st:f/.), though the other parts of the aniniul here described would not accord well witii tliis. H Tlic sinews of his stones arc tnrupped together. (lood renders this, haunches; Noyes, I'rot". Lee, RosenniilUer, and fcicliultens, thiirhs; and the LXX simply, "his sinews." The Hebrew word here used ("^n?) means properly /cf/r, terror, Ex. XV. 16. Job xiii. 11; and, according to Gesenius, it then means, since fear is transferred to cowardice and shame, any thing which cuuscs shame, and hence the secret parts. So it is understood here by our translators; but there does not seem to be any good reason for this translation, but there is every reason wliy it should not be thus rendered. The object of the description is to inspire a sense of the power of the animal, or of his capacity to inspire terror or dread; and hence the allusion liere is to those parts which were fitted to convey this dread, or this sense of his power — to wit, his strength. The usual meaning of the word, therefore, should be retained, and the sense then would be, ' the sinews of his terror,' that is, of liis parts fitted to inspire terror, ' are wrapped together;' are firm, compact, solid. The allusion then is to his thighs or haunches, as being formidable in their aspect, and the seat of strength. The sinews or muscles of these parts seemed to be like a hard-twisted rope; compact, firm, solid, and such as to defy all attempts to overcome them.

18. His bones are as strong pieces of brass. The circumstance here adverted to was remarkable, because the common residence of the animal was the water, and the bones of

!9 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

aquatic animals are generally hollow, and much less firm than those of land animals. It siiould be observed here, that tiie word rendered brass in the Scriptures most probably denotes copper. Brass is a compound metal, composed of copper and zinc; and there is no reason to suppose that the art of compounding it was known at as early a jieriod of the world as the time of Job. The word here translated 'strong pieces' (p'^EX) is rendered by Schultens alvei — channels, or beds, as of a rivulet or stream; and by RosenmilUer, Gesenius, Noyes, and Umbreit, tubes — supposed to allude to the fact that they seemed to be hollow tubes of brass. But the more common meaning of the word is strong, wighttj, and there is no impropriety in retaining that sense here; and then the meaning would be, that his bones were so firm that they seemed to be made of solid metal.

19. He is the chief of the ways oj God. In size and strength. The word rendered 'chief is used in a similar sense in Num. xxxiv. 20, " Amalek was the first of the nations;" that is, one of the most poweiful and mighty of the nations. IT He that made him can make his sipord approach unto him. According to this translation, the sense is, that God had power over him, notwithstanding his great strength and size, and could take his life when he pleased. Yet this, though it would be a correct sentiment, does not seem to be that which the connection de mands. That would seem to require some allusion to the strength of the animal; and accordingly, the translation suggested by Bochart, and adopted substantially by RosenmOller, Umbreit, Noyes, Schultens, Prof. Lee, and others, is to be preferred — " He that made him furnished him

20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, " where all the beasts of the field play.

with a sword." The allusion then would be to his strong, sharp teeth, bearing a resemblance to a sword, and designed either for defence or for the purpose of cutting the long grass on which it fed when on the land. The propriety of this interpretation may be seen vindicated at length in Bochart, Hicroz. P. ii. Lib. v. c. xv. pp. 766, 762. The auTirj — the harpe, i. e. the sickle or scythe, was ascribed to the hippopotamus by some of the Greek writers. Thus Nicander, Tkeriacon, ver. 566:

On this passage the Scholiast remarks, "The cionr], Iiarpc, means a sickle, and the teeth of the hippopotamus are so called — teaching that this animal consumes (rgo'iyfi) the harvest." See Bochart also for other e.xamples. A slight inspection of the cut will show with what propriety it is said of the Creator of the hippopotamus, that he had armed him with a sickle, or sword.

20. Surely the mountains bring him forth food. That is, though he lies commonly among tlie reeds and fens, and is in the water a considerable portion of his time, yet he also wanders to the mountains, and finds his food there. But the point of the remark here does not seem to be, that the mountains brought forth food for him, but that he gathered it while all the wild beasts played around him, or sported in his very presence. It was remarkable that an animal so large and mighty, and armed with such a set of teeth, should not be carnivorous, and that the wild beasts on the mountains should continue their sports without danger or alarm in his very presence. This fact could te accounted for partly because the

21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

motions of the hippopotamus were so very slow and clumsy that the wild beasts liad nothing to fear from him, and could easily escape from him if he were disposed to attack them, and partly from tfie fact that he seems to have jireferrcd vegetable food. The hippopotamus is seldom carnivorous, except when driven by extreme hunger, and in no respect is he formed to be a beast of prey. In regard to the fact that the hippopotamus is sometimes found in mountainous or elevated places, see Bochart.

21. He lieth under the shady trees. Referring to his usually inactive and lazy life. He is disposed to lie down in the shade, and especially in the vegetable growth in marshy places on the banks of lakes and rivers, rather than to dwell in the open field or in the upland forest. This account agrees well with the habits of the hippopotamus. The word here and in ver. 22 rendered shady trees (D'^JXS), is by Gesenius, Noyes, Prof. Lee, and Schultens, translated lotus, and icild lotus. The Vulgate, Syriac, Rosenmdller, Aben-Ezra, and others, render it shady trees. It occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures and it is difficult, therefore, to determine its meaning. According to Schultens and Gesenius, it is derived from the obsolete word?N^, tzddl, to be thin, slender; and hence in Arabic it is applied to the wild lotus — a plant that grows abundantly on tlie banks of the Nile, and that often serves the wild beasts of the desert for a place of retreat. It is not very important whether it be rendered the lotus, or shades, though the probable derivation of the word seems to favor the former. IT In the covert of the reed. It is well known that reeds aboimded on the banks of the Nile. These would furnish a convenient and a natural retreat for the hippo-

22 The shady trees cover him ' 23 Behold, he ' drinkr^di uj) a with their shadow; the wiHows I river, and hasteth not: lie trustof the brook compass him about, eth that he can draw up Jordan

pot;inuis. 11 And fins, "^^3 — 7narsh, viarshij places. Tliis passage proves thai the elepliant is not here referred to. He is never found in sucli places.

22. The shady trees. Probably the lote-trees. See on ver. 21. Tiie same word is liere used. 11 The iv'dioiD-trccs of the brook. Of the stream, or rirnlet. The Hebrew word ('D?) means rather a ready; a gor£;e or gulley, wiiich is swollen with torrents in the winter, but wliicli is frequently dry in summer. See Notes on cii. vi. 15. Willows grew commonly on the banks of rivers. Tliey could not be cultivated in the desert. Isa. XV. 7.

23. Behold, he drinketh up a river. Marg. oppresscth. The margin expresses the proper meaning of the Hebrew word, P'^^J- It usually means to oppress, to treat with violence and injustice; and to defraud, or extort. But a very different sense is given to this verse by Bochart, Gesenius, Noyes, Schultens, Umbreit, Prof. Lee, and Rosenmilller. According to the interpretation given by them the meaning is, ' The stream overfloweth, and he ieareth not; he is secure, even though Jordan rush forth even to his mouth.' The reference then would be, not to the fict that he was greedy in his mode of drinking, but to the fact that this huge and fierce animal, that found its food often on the land, and that reposed under the shade of the lotus and the papyrus, could live in the water as well as on the land, and was unmoved even though the impetuous torrent of a swollen river should overwhelm him. The names by which this translation is recommended are a sufficient guarantee that it is not a departure from the proper meaning of the original. It is also the most natural and obvious interpretation. It is impossible to make good sense of the phrase ' he oppresscth a river;' nor does the word used properly admit of tlie translation 'lie drinketh up." The word river in this place, therefore (■"if^?)? is to be regarded as in the nominative case to P'l'?'.'], and tbe meaning is, that when a swollen and impetuous river rushes along ami bears all before it, and, as it were, oppresses every thing in its course, he is not alarmed; he makes no effort to flee; he lies perfectly calm and secure. What was remarkable in this appears to have been, that an animal that was so much on land, and that was not properly a fish, should be thus calm and composed when an impetuous torrent rolled over him. The LXX appear to have been aware that this was the true interpretation, for they render this part of the verse, 'Eav yevtjTai nkrjf.ifivoa, y..T.X. — "Should there cornea flood, he would not regard it." Our common translation seems to have been adopted from the Vulgate — Ecce absorbcbit fiuvium. IT He trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. Or rather, ' He is confident [i. e. unmoved] though Jordan should rush forth to his mouth.' The idea is, that theugh the whole river Jordan should seem to pour down upon him as if it were about to rush into his mouth, it would not disturb him. Even such an impetuous torrent would not alarm him. Being amphibious, h« would not dread what would fill a land animal with alarm. There is n» evidence that the hippopotamus was ever found in the river Jordan, nor is it necessary to suppose this in order to understand this passage. The mention of the Jordan shows indeed that this river was known to the writer of this book, and that it was probably written b-"

24 He ' taketh it with his I eyes. his nose pierceth through

some one who resided in the vicinity. In speaking of this huge foreign animal, it was not unnatural to mention a riTer that was familiarly known, and to say that he would not be alarmed should such a river rush suddenly and impetuously upon him. Even though the hippopotamus is an inhabitant of the Nile, and was never seen in the Jordan, it was much more natural to mention this river in this connection than the Nile. It was better known, and the illustration would be better understood, and to an inhabitant of that country would be much more striking. I see no reason, therefore, for the supposition of Bochart and RosenmQller, that the Jordan here is put for any large river. The illustration is just such as one would have used who was well acquainted with the Jordan — that the river-horse would not be alarmed even though such a river should pour impetuously upon him.

24. He taketh it icith his eyes. Marg. ' Or, xcill any take him in his sight, or, bore his nose icith a gin P' From tills marginal reading it is evident that our translators were much perple.xed with this passage. Exposi tors have been also much embarrassed in regard to its meaning, and have differed much in their exposition. Rosenmilller supposes that this is to be regarded as a question, and is to be rendered, " AVill the hunter take him while he sees him?" — meaning that he could not be taken without some snare or guile. The same view also is adopted by Bochart, who saj's that the hippopotamus could be taken only by some secret snare or pitfall. The common mode of taking him, he says, was to excavate a place near where the river-horse usually lay, and to cover it over with reeds and canes, so that he would fall into it unawares. The meaning then is, that the hunter could not approach him openly and secure him while he saw him, but that some secret plan must be adopted to take him. The meaning then is, ' Can he be taken when he sees the hunter.'' IT His nose pierceth through s?iares. Or rather, ' When taken in snares, can any one pierce his nose ''' That is. Can the hunter even then pierce hii nose so as to put in a ring or cord and lead him wherever he pleases.' This was the common method by which a wild animal was secured when taken (see Notes on Isa. xxxvii. 29), but it is here said that this could not be done to this huge animal. He could not be subdued in this manner. He was a wild, untamed, and fierce animal, that defied all the usual methods by which wild beasts were made captive. In regard to the difficulty of taking this animal, see the account of the method by which it is now done, in the Notes on ver. 15. That account shows that there is a striking accuracy in the description.

For a general view of the design of tlii-s chapter, see the Analysis of ch. xl. The arfjumcnl in this chiipter is derived wholly from the leviathiin, and relates to the fo'lowing points: — He cannot be taken with a hook or with a cord, vs. 1, 2; he will not bo tamed, or come and submit himself to man, vs. 3-5, be cannot be served up at a bancjuet, ver. 6; bis head cannot be piurccd with barbed irons, ver. 7; and the sight of him was enough to deter one from an attempt to take him, vs. i^-lO. God then appeals to ihe particular parts of the animal, and goes into a minute description of him. He says he will not conceal his parts that are so lilted to exci'e terror and admiration, vs. II, 12. He refers particularly to his mouth and teeth, vs. 13, 14; tu his scales, vs. 15-17; to his eyes like the eyelids of the morning, ver. 18; to the smoke and tire that seemed to go out of bis mouth and nostriU, vs 19-21; to the strength of bis neck and the compaclness of ills Hesh, vs. Q2-24; to his irresistible power, and to the fact that he disregarded all the usual weapons for taking wild beasts, vs. 25-30; and to his appearance when be moves through the deep, vs. 31, 32. It is then added (vs. 33, 34), that there is notliing on oartb like him, and that among the most proud works of God he is a king.

ANST thou draw out ' leviathan " with an hook? or his

1. Canst thou draw out. As a fisii is drawn out of the water. The usual method by wliich fish were taken was with a hook; and the meaning here is, that it was not possible to take the leviathan in this manner. The whole description here is of an animal that lived in the water. 11 Leviathan. Much has been written respecting this animal, and the opinions which have been entertained have been very various. Scliultens enumerates the following classes of opinions in regard to the animal intended here. 1. The opinion that the word leviathan is to be retained, without attempting to explain it — implying tJiat there was uncertainty as to the meaning. Under this head he refers to the Chaldee and the Vulgate, to Aquila and Symmacbus, where the word is retained, and to the Septuagint, where the word Jodxni'Tci. dragon, is used, and also the Syriac and Arabic, where the same word is used. 2. The fable of the Jews, who mention a serpent so large that it encompassed the whole earth. A belief of the existence of such a marine serpent or monster still prevails atnong the Nes- torians. 3. The opinion that tlie whale is intended. 4. The o])iuion that a large fisii called Malar, or Masar, which is found in the Mediterranean, is denoted. This is the opinion of Grotius. 5. Tfie opinion lii.it the crocodile of the Nile is denotetl. 6. The opinion of Hasaeiis, that not the whale is intended, but the Orca, a sea-monster armed with teeth, tmd the enemy of the whale. 7. Others have understood the whole description as allegoriciil, as representing monsters of iniquity; and among these, some have regarded it as descriptive of the devil I See Scliultens. To these may be added the description of Milton:

Leviathan, which God of all bis works Created hug'st that swim the ocean-stream, Him, Imply, slumb'ring on the Norway foam, Tiie pilot of some small night-foundered skiff Deeming some island, oft, as seamen toll, With fixed anchor in his scaly rind Moors by bis side under the lee, while night Invests the s-ja, and wished morn delays.

For a full investigation of the subjec* Bochart may be consulted, Hieroz P. ii. Lib. v. 0. xvi.-xviii. The con elusion to which he comes is, that the crocodile of the Nile is denoted; and in this opinion critics have generally, since his time, acquiesced. The opinions which are entitled to most attention are those which regard (he animal here described as either the wiiale or the crocodile. The objections to the supposition that the whale is intended are such as the following: (1.) That the whale tribes do not inhabit the jMediterranean, much less the rivers which empty into it — with which alone it is supposed Job could have been acquainted. (2.) That the animal here described differs from the whale in many essential particulars. "This family of marine monsters have neitheir proper snout nor nostrils, nor proper teeth. Instead of a snout, they have a mere spiracle, or blowinghole, with a double opening on the top of the liead; and for teeth, a liard expanse of horny laminns, which we call wlialebone, in the upper jaw. The eyes of the common whal^, moreover, instead of answering the description here given, are most dis proportionately small, and do not exceed in size those of the ox. Nor can this monster be regarded as of fierce habits or unconquerable courage; for instead of attacking the larger sea-animals for plunder, it feeds chiefly on crabs and medusas, and is often itself attacked by the ork or grampus, though less than half its size." Dr. Good. These considerations seem to be decisive in regard to the supposition that the animal here referred to is the whale. In fact, there is almost nothing in the description that corresponds with the whale, except the size. Tlie whole account, on the contrary, agrees well with the crocodile, and there are several considerations v^'hich may be suggested, before we proceed with the exposition, which correspond with the supposition that this is the animal intended. They are such as these: (I.) The crocodile is a natural inhai>itant of the Nile and of other Asiatic and African rivers, and it is reasonable to suppose that an animal is referred to that was well known to one vi'ho lived in the country of Job. Though the Almighty is the speaker, and could describe an animal wholly unknown to Job, yet it is not reasonable to suppose tliat such an unknown animal would be selected. The appeal was to what he knew of the works of Cod. (2.) The general description agrees willi this animal. The leviathan is represented as wild, fierce, and ungovernable; as of vast extent, and as terrible in his aspect; as having a mouth of vast size, and armed with a formidable array of teeth; as covered with scales set near togetiier like a coat of mail; as distinguished by the fierceness of his eyes, and by the frightfu\ aspect of his mouth; as endowed with great strength, and incapable ol being taken in any of the ordinary methods of securing wild be.ists. This general description agrees well with the crocodile. These animals are found in the rivers of Africa, and also in the southern rivers of America, and are usually called the alii gator. In the Amazon, the Niger, and the Nile, they occur in great numbers, and are usually from eighteen to twenty-seven feet long; and sometimes lying as close to each other as a raft of timber. Goldsmith. The crocodile grows to a great length, being sometimes found thirty feet long from the tip of the snout to the Old of the tail; though its most usual leugtli is about eighteen or twenty feet. "The armor, with which the upper part of the body is covered, may be numbered among the most elaborate pieces of Nature's mechanism. In the full-grown animal it is so strong and thick as easih' to repel a musket-ball. The whole animal appears as if covered with the most regular and curious carved work. The mouth is of vast width, the gajie Jiaving a somewhat flexiious outline, and both jaws being furnished v.ith very numerous, sliar])-pointed teeth. The nuuii)erof teeth in each jaw is thirty or more, and they are so disposed as to alternate witli eacli other when the mouth is closed. The legs are short, but strong and musctilar. In the glowing regions of Africa, where it arrives at its full strength and power, it is justly regarded as the most formidable inhabitant of the rivers." Shaw's Zoology, vol. iii. p. 384. The crocodile seldom, except pressed with hunger, or for the jmrpose of depositing its eggs, leaves the water. Its usual method is to float along the surface, and seize whatever animals come within its reach; but when this method fails, it then goes nearer the bank. There it waits, among the sedges, for a!iy animal that may come down to drink, and seizes uj)on it, and drags it into the water. The tiger is tlius often seized by the crocodile, and dragged into the river and drowned. (3.) A third reason for supposing that the crocodile is here intended, arises from the former conclusion concerning the behemoth, ch. xl. 15, seq. The description of the leviathan immediately follows that, and the presumption is that thev were animals that were usually found inhabiting tlie same district of countrv. If, therefore, the behemoth be the hippopotamus, there is a presumption that the leviathan is the crocodile — an inhabitant of the same river, equally amphibious, and even more terrible. " And this consideration," says the Editor of the Pictorial Bible, " is strengthened, when we consider that the two animals were so associated by the ancients. Some of the paintings at Herculaneum represent Egyptian landscapes, in which we see the crocodile lying among the reeds, and the hippopotamus browsing upon the plants on an island. So also in the famous Mosaic pavemerit at Praeneste, representing the plants and ani-