Talk:Behemoth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
BE NICE! Please remain civil to one another.
If you are attacked, or someone is rude, please just ignore them. Uncivil messages may be deleted.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Behemoth article.
Article policies

"The Hebrew behemoth is equated with the Persian Hadhayosh, as the leviathan is with the Kar and the ziz with the Simurgh." Equated, really? I'd bet not "equated" except in some interpreter's imagination. Where? When? By whom? Equivalents are so much less informative than distinctions. But this is babble as it stands, is it not? --Wetman 12:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. A naively strong statement as it is without explanation. "Parallels can be drawn between" perhaps but justification is still required. Note amusingly that the Kar link directs to Karaoke. --Air 13:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


According to some christian creationists, dinosaurs must logically have been among the animals Noah brought on his ark. I found it interesting that they noted that the description of the behemoth (huge, dangerous, with a tail like a tree) fits rather well with some species of dinosaurs. Quoting http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/2.asp: "In the Bible, in Job 40:15-24, God describes to Job (who lived after the Flood) a great beast with which Job was familiar. This great animal, called ‘behemoth,’ is described as ‘the chief of the ways of God,’ perhaps the biggest land animal God had created. Impressively, he moved his tail like a cedar tree! Although some Bible commentaries say this may have been an elephant or hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of a dinosaur like Brachiosaurus. Elephants and hippos certainly do not have tails like cedar trees!"

I found this an interesting (and, I have to admit, slightly humorous) piece of information; would it fit to be mentioned, in an appropriately neutral fashion? I'm too new a WPer to dare to do it myself.. ;) MMad 14:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


If you Google the phrase "Hadhayosh," you get an article on the free dictionary uncannily similar to the Wiki. --199.97.121.99 19:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Your Only Real Friend

Not unlike EVERY OTHER ARTICLE on the free dictionary.

So? Wikipedia's copiable--check the GDFL license. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Neutrality

Doesn't it seem that the section dealing with the theory that the Behemoth is a dinosaur biased against the dinosaur theory. For example, those two reasons that were listed are innacurate due to the fact that the Apatosaur isn't the only dinosaur that is a candidate for being the Behemoth. Saying that a Sauropod has been proposed would be more appropriate. I'm going to go ahead and change this in awhile. In the meantime if anyone has any suggestions feel free to say something --AirLiner 01:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I also found this to be rank speculation: "1) grasses were not yet found in the apatosurus's environment and" Using that sort of speculation as evidence is ridiculous.--Marhawkman 02:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh and as mentioned by Airliner pretty much any sauropod would fit the bill,--Marhawkman 02:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


I would add that the characteristics listed in the book of Job disprove the Sauropod theory.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
This sounds like the behemoth was a carnivore, since everyone knows Sauropod's are herbivores its kind of impossible by the books own standards. 71.177.64.119 07:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Also there is nothing in the Bible that realy says the earth is such and such thousands years old, even if you take a literal interpretation of it. That stems from a interpretation of a monk in the middle ages trying to figure out the age of the earth. It's a common misconception. It's just a common interpretation from people who claim to take the bible literally, a specific viewpoint. For instance you aren't going to get the same arguement from the Pope in Vatican.

Different viewpoints like there is no apple mentioned anywere in the garden of eden; it says that Adam and Eve weren't the first people created (the rest of humanity was created on the sixth day, were as Adam and Even weren't created until after God has his rest on the seventh); there is no rapture mentioned or referenced anywere (the concept wasn't created until the 1800's or so in the US); Easter is a obvious mistranslation(having entered into christainity at a much later date to attract pagans to convert), etc etc. All the people that beleive those things are operating on a purely matter faith and is not anyway based on a literal interpretation since none of them are realy in the bible. (not saying that it's invalid so much, just explaining that it's not there)

As you can see there is considurable conflict between viewpoints. Saying that people who take a literal interpretation believe this or that because they beleive that science is incorrect is VERY misleading and innaccurate to say the least. (and frankly quite offensive to some people) That section should be removed for accuracy.

Although it's good to mention that this viewpoint is very contriversal (for the reasons already stated in the article). Also saying that different people take different view points is perfectly accurate.


There are modern accounts of a sauropodlike animal called Mokele-mbembe living in Africa. As both creatures are rumored to be dinosaurs, some believe that Mokele-mbembe and Behemoth may be one and the same.

I think rumors would be the more appropriate word. Account seems to indicate a somewhat reliable source. I will change it. 70.21.216.114 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a scholarly source that suggests that they are the same beast? This sounds too much like some pet hypothesis.--Mr Fink 05:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
There are some major problems with the sauropod theory. Verse 15 states that the behemoth ate grass which would be an immense waste of energy for sauropods lowering theirheads to ground level, then lifting them again. They more likely ate from trees.

Verse 16 says ". . . His strength is in the navel of his belly." Navels are the scar-tissue of umbilical chords which only occur in animals that give birth to live young which sauropods did not.

Verse 22 speaks of trees towering over "him" most sauropods are too tall for that to describe.

Verse 24 shays ". . . His nose pierces through snares." this seems to describe a horned animal. (Cappuccino Joe 06:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC))


I'm not sure the "navel" issue is really that important. If there really were sauropods alive in Biblical times, then I doubt anyone would be able to get close enough to check if it had a navel or not. I would interpret that to just be a poetic way of describing the belly region. Similarly, (in my opinion) "eats grass like an ox" could just be a poetic way of saying "it eats grass", not "it chews the cud".

Anyway, my own personal opinion is that the description of the behemoth fits that of a sauropod far, far better than it does any of the other suggested animals. However, as I'm not a Creationist, I propose this explanation: a fossilised sauropod skeleton (or skeletons) was/were discovered in the Middle East in Biblical times. The people of that time named this creature "behemoth", and it/they were famous enough and impressive enough to earn a mention in the Bible as an example of the mightiest of God's creatures. Comments about its diet, ability to drain whole rivers, only being killable by God, etc were just assumptions people made based on its size and appearence. Wardog 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire subsection dealing with Young Earth Creationism seems way, way off topic to this article. The rest of the article is a pretty objective and sensible description of the being and the sections relating to the theories on what real animal it may have described seem fine, but two paragraphs to argue that it could have been a dinosaur seems excessive. I vote give this just a brief mention (like the elephant and hippo get) and leave the discussion on Creationism in the relevant article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.15.47 (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice article

Surprisingly good and balanced, with a lot of useful (and sourced!!) information. Kudos. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I'm not sure if I've read the article throughly, but I'm confused as to weather it is a demon, or on God's side.Therequiembellishere 10:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Bible, Behemoth is simply one of God's creatures. One of God's greatest creatures, but a creature, nonetheless. Demonologists later said that Behemoth was a demon, with one French demonologist saying that he was the "Wine Steward of Hell," and was the chief demon in charge of the sin of gluttony.--Mr Fink 16:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It does say in the Bible that he is "chief in the ways of God," though.--Maier 03 01:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


It is definitely just an animal. and thus "on God's side"(Cappuccino Joe 06:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Giraffe perhaps?

Would it be inappropriate to make a suggestion in the section that mentions the hippo and elephant? I would suggest the Giraffe because it seems to match many of the characteristics listed in Job.

16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.

The giraffe defends itself against threats by kicking with great force. A single well-placed kick of an adult giraffe can shatter a lion's skull or break its spine.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his thighs are wrapped together.

The giraffes tail can measure up to several feet long.

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

This sounds like the behemoth was a carnovour which eliminates every animal of this size, including any herbivor dinosaurs.

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

22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

Also sounds like a carnovour. But this could be simply a statement of fear.

Also from wiki The giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) is an African even-toed ungulate mammal, the tallest of all land-living animal species. Males can be 4.8 to 5.5 metres (16 to 18 feet) tall and weigh up to 1,360 kilograms (3,000 pounds). The record-sized bull was 5.87 m (19.2 feet) tall and weighed approximately 2,000 kg (4,400 lbs.).

Doesn't seem too far fetched that acient people would fear a creature of this size... hell I'd probably be too.

[edit] predates the advent of grass?

perhaps i am wrong but grass does not seem like something that would require an advent nor does it seem like something that hasn't been around that long its not liek its the wheel or fire, or the sword we're talking about, its grass something i am fairly sure was around 65 million years ago the statement is misleading and confuzing and i think it needs to be reworked--Manwithbrisk 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Would "evolution" or "origin" sound better then? The first sauropods appear during the late Triassic, while the first evidence of grass, in the form of dung with grass' characteristic silica bits, appear during the late Cretaceous, 60 million years ago.--Mr Fink 01:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
if grass is only 60 mil years old as you say then i would conceed to something along those lines--Manwithbrisk 03:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible vandalism

Moreover, some suggest that "tail" is a euphemism for male genitalia. Support for this is based on another meaning of the Hebrew word "move" which means "extend" and on the second part of verse 17 describing the sinew around its "stones" (the Vulgate uses the word "testiculorum"].

Maybe this is just me, but does this just seem like eloquently written vandalism?--Maier 03 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No. [1]--Mr Fink 03:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you back up your opinion, please? I'm just saying that there isn't even a footnote.--Maier 03 01:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
And what's wrong with the link I provided?--Mr Fink 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe it's a rhino.

People seem to ignore verse 24 that says " . . . [his] nose pierceth through snares." when trying to determine what kind of animal the behemoth is. The rhinoceros seems to comply with this. Its nose tends to pierce through things, its herbivorous, large, and has a thick protective skin.

On the other hand, the rhino does not have a cedar-like tail. It's possible that the behemoth is some sort of cerapod or distant, extinct relative of the rhinoceros.(Cappuccino Joe 02:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

http://www.ldolphin.org/3550.html briefly mentions the rhinoceros theory. I haven't found any sources to support the cerapod one. (Cappuccino Joe 02:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

Verse 16 describes the behemoth's "navel" which, of course is a feature only found in animals that give birth to live young. Dinosaurs are thought to have laid eggs so the behemoth must have been some sort of mammal.

(pov) until I come across some solid evidence I'll have to say this behemoth is some sort of horned creature that has yet to be discovered.(Cappuccino Joe 06:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

Has anyone considered that in biblical times the aurochs was still in existence which was up to six feet at the shoulder? Also, even today animals like the gaur which is a bull that stands over seven feet at the shoulders exist. A gaur is bigger than most rhinos according to wikipedia. --Victorcoutin 09:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question or problem?

"There is a legend that the Leviathan and the Behemoth shall hold a battle at the end of the world. The two will finally kill each other, and the surviving men will feast on their meat." I am not Jewish but I am pretty sure that the flesh of these animals would not be Kosher, especially after they killed each other. Steve Dufour 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Food not in accord with Jewish law is termed treif, trafe (Yiddish: טרייף from טְרֵפָה ṭərēp̄āh) ("torn"); the Hebrew term refers to animals (from a kosher species such as cattle or sheep) which had been either incorrectly slaughtered or mortally wounded by wild beasts and therefore were not fit for human consumption. -From the WP article on Kosher Steve Dufour 20:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning

Behemoth means 'Hippopotamus' not only in Russian, but also in modern day Hebrew. See the Hebrew article for Hippo: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/בהמות XamiXiarus 09:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning Part 2

The recent edits by Kh123 don't sit too well with me. If you all will pardon the pun, but, I find it very hard to swallow that the description of Behemoth grazing grass like an ox is actually referring to a sauropod browsing in a tree. I know that the Ancient Hebrews liked flowery prose, but, I would think that if they were referring to a giant, column-legged lizard eating a tree, wouldn't they mention it eating the tree rather than eating grass?--Mr Fink 14:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Removed Unsourced Statements

I removed this unsourced paragraph, it shifts too much toward a creationist-friendly POV, and no one has ever bothered to attribute it to anyone:

"Since Job is not dated by the author (and is thought to be written before the Torah was compiled), it can denote any period of time where the common fauna (herding or domesticated) could be any classification; hence, "baqar" does not have to be restrictively bovine in the context of Job. Furthermore, the term for "grass" (chatsir) is used of leeks, hay, onions, or any other mature-sized herbage ("ripe greens"), and not restrictively modern "grass"[citation needed]. (Compare "deshe", translated as "grass"; Job 6:5, Gen 1:11; immature or tender grass.) Thus, cud is not required to consume or digest all that falls under the term "chatsir" (grass). Finally, the term used for "chew" is aval (Qal imperfect tense), meaning "to consume, devour". It does not specify chewing or mastication per se, but merely consuming material in any manner (i.e., fire, pestilence, etc, are also included in the use of avar as a verb). Hence, molars are not required for a behemoth to "eat", as is stated in Job.[citation needed]"

Furthermore, it sounds too much like your typical creationist's ad-hoc argument in my opinion.--Mr Fink 02:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I can get removing it if its unsourced, but your second comment doesn't make sense - while you and I might not be creationist, removing an "argument" because you don't agree with it is against WP:POV. (The "sounds too much like your typical creationist's ad-hoc argument" thing)
Frankly, this entire article, and most related ones, is mostly OR or POV - people who agree or disagree with creationism put stuff like the above, or the comments, trying to argue for it - why can't you just stick to verifiability and sourcing?KrytenKoro 04:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps if the 19 out of the every 20 creationists I encounter weren't vandals, I would be less inclined to assume their contributions were vandalism or some sort of other attempt to degrade the articles.--Mr Fink 13:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying you don't understand WP:POV? The articles should remain neutral, so even if one of the viewpoints (in your view) contributes a lot of vandals, ONLY the vandalism should be removed. (By the way, the other side has thrown in a good bit of vandalism, OR, and unencyclopedic content as well.)KrytenKoro 18:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you just stop with the snide commentaries and trying to put words into my mouth? I don't appreciate that.--Mr Fink 18:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
"I would be less inclined to assume their contributions were vandalism or some sort of other attempt to degrade the articles" - I don't see how that statement is anything but POV.KrytenKoro 19:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mkole-Mbembe

We should really have a link between these two pages, since the sauropod thing seems so connected. Also - is there nay notable group that believes that the Behemoth is a sauropod but NOT the young-earth thing? I mean, though I wouldn't fight for the "belief", I would be willing to accept that the Behemoth could be something like Mkole-Mbembe - the rarity implied by the latter "legend" would fit well with the former.KrytenKoro 07:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Mkole-Mbembe was mentioned in this article before, but, no sources were given, and googling Mkole-Mbembe + Behemoth turns up nothing beyond a blurb in a forum.--Mr Fink 13:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Because I had the wrong spelling. Here is the correct search: results
The majority of those sites googled are of Creationists saying how Behemoth and Mokole-Mbembe are dinosaurs, and that finding Mokole-Mbembe will be the death knell of Evolutionism. On the other hand, on second thought, it wouldn't hurt to mention Mokole-Mbembe as being another legendary herbivorous river monster.--Mr Fink 19:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, I don't see how the fact that they are creationist has anything to do with it - it does show that it is more than just one person's idea that the two are linked, at least to creationists (you can even say that creationists think it, and place all the blame you want on them - however, fully discounting anything they say, JUST BECAUSE they are Creationists, is very disappointing ad hominem-ism).KrytenKoro 20:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is it my fault that Creationists are notoriously poor scholars? Did you find out that it was really me who forced all of those poor hapless Creationists who work at Answers In Genesis and ICR to sign written oaths never to contradict the Bible? Perhaps if you actually took the time to read those sites rather than taking the time to lambast me for being so evil and contemptibly biased, you'd realize that they're all parroting each other, and that none of them produce any evidence of Mokole-Mbembe beyond Bibilical passages describing Behemoth and Roy Mackal's failed expedition to find Mokole-Mbembe.--Mr Fink 20:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If we really want to be fair to those poor persecuted Creationists, why don't we revise the articles to mention that Creationists have proof that Grendel and his mother were actually T. rexes, that the Tarrasque is actually a Triceratops, and that the dragon that Saint George slew was actually a Baryonyx? I mean, after all, the question of why the descendants of Cain would be T. rexes, or the facts that T. rexes, and Triceratops have never been found in Europe, nor have Baryonyx remains have ever been found in Libya where St George slew his dragon are not important.--Mr Fink 21:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Did I ever once say that they were right? No. I said that banning people from adding to articles, or reverting their edits, based on their stance, and not on the actual info itself, is very poor behavior for an editor. I agree with you that grendel is in no way a Tyrannosaurus Rex, or that the Tarrasque was NOT a Triceratops. I AM NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOUR STANCE. I am disagreeing with the way you are editing (or at least, the reasoning you gave, and continue to press, for your edits).
As I understand it, however - this page is almost nothing BUT what one side says versus what the other does - so if creationists say that the Mokole Mbembe and the Behemoth are related, then we can add that THEY SAID IT. No, we should not say that they ARE related - because we have no evidence that they are, except in the Creationists minds. I agree almost wholeheartedly - the Behemoth, if it based on anything at all, is almost certainly a Hippopotamus, Rhinoceros, or some such thing.
PS: If you really want to say something like "Why is it my fault that Creationists are notoriously poor scholars?", then you should really look more at some of the anti-Christian sites too - MANY of them do the exact same thing - parrot what the others have said, none of them with any proof, and the few that do take the time to try to back themselves up exhibit monstrously poor understanding of what the Bible actually said and what context it was in.
I would highly suggest actually sticking to what the guidelines of wikipedia say - verifiability, not truth, notability, and the others, especially no OR. However obvious the errors in others' edits, or in the article itself, please make sure you are following those guidelines before you revert.KrytenKoro 22:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}Maybe it's a dino?

Could we add the "reference to a navel" to the reasons why it isn't a dinosaur please.

I've disabled the editprotected request. This article is only semiprotected, so nearly any editor can make changes to the article. Cheers. --MZMcBride 14:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
You can add the navel thing if you find a non-primary source using that as a reason - we're not allowed OR.KrytenKoro 19:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Shoudn't we merge this with[[2]]? I want to hear your opinions on the matter.(but i certainly think there is no need for a whole new article...)

[edit] Comments

First of all, I'd like to say that it's hilarious that this is a page watched by WikiProject Cryptozoology. Secondly, there should be some mention of Behemoth in Mikhail Bulgakov's Master and Margarita in this article - the Master & Margarita character list links here, and this article even mentions the Russian meaning of the word. I'll add this information. Fuzzform (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)