Was the Behemoth Mentioned in Job 40:15-24 a Dinosaur?

Introduction:

The Book of Job describes a powerful creature known as Behemoth, but its identity has been a subject of debate among scholars, young Earth creationists, and laypeople alike. The traditional view has long identified Behemoth as a hippopotamus, while more recent interpretations have suggested that it could be a dinosaur. In this article, we will examine the evidence provided by the text and contemporary linguistics to determine if Behemoth could plausibly be a dinosaur.

Traditional Interpretations and Challenges

Since antiquity, Behemoth has been associated with the hippopotamus, a mighty creature well known for its size and strength. However, with the advent of dinosaur fossils in recent centuries, some young Earth creationists have proposed that Behemoth is a sauropod, such as the brontosaurus, emphasizing the verse, “moves his tail like a cedar tree” (KJV, Job 40:17). This interpretation relies on a flawed translation and misinterpretation of the Hebrew text.

Revisiting the KJV Translation

The King James Version (KJV) translates the Hebrew word for “moves” in Job 40:17 as “moves,” but a careful examination reveals that this translation is inaccurate. The Hebrew word chaphats means “delights,” “takes pleasure,” “is proud,” or “is happy.” In this verse, Behemoth is delighting in his tail, not moving it like a cedar tree.

The Significance of the Cedar Tree

The Lebanon cedar is renowned for its nobility, strength, and beauty. It has been used for sacred and royal construction, often symbolizing the best of the tree world. By comparing Behemoth’s tail to a cedar tree, the text emphasizes the honor and worth of its least important body part. This is a subtle form of irony highlighting Behemoth’s overall immense power.

The Case for a Hippopotamus

The text also supports the idea that Behemoth is a hippopotamus when compared with other verses and descriptions. For instance, verses like Job 40:15, 21-22, and 23 provide a detailed description that aligns closely with the hippopotamus's physical characteristics. Moreover, the KJV translates “navel” and “stones” in Job 40:16 and 17 as anatomical features, but modern translations typically render them as “muscles” and “thighs.” This difference is significant as it removes the argument based on anatomical anomalies.

Evidence from the Text and Linguistics

The verse Job 40:15 states, “his force is in the navel of his belly” (KJV). However, considering the correct translation, it should read, “his strength is in the muscles of his belly.” The same applies to Job 40:17, where “the sinews of his stones” are better translated as “the sinews of his thighs.” This supports the view that Behemoth’s anatomy is that of a large, land mammal such as a hippopotamus, rather than a dinosaur.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the evidence from the text and linguistic analysis suggests that Behemoth is most likely an African or Asian hippopotamus, rather than a dinosaur. Young Earth creationist claims that Behemoth is a dinosaur are based on flawed translations and misinterpretations. The traditional view, supported by the correct translations and physical descriptions, remains the most plausible interpretation.

For further reading, consider exploring the works of Sir Ronald Syme, who argued against the dinosaur interpretation. Additionally, the hippopotamus, with its impressive size, strength, and noble appearance, fits the description given in the Book of Job perfectly.