BEASTS (bests). The term is sometimes used by the translators for Heb. be-hay-maw', dumb; at others for beh-ere', live, In general this word in the Bible, when used in contradistinction to man (Ps. xxxvi:6), de notes a brute creature generally ; when con tradistinction to creeping things (Lev. x1:2-7; xxvii:26), it has reference to four-footed ani mals; and when to wild mantnialia, as in Gen. i:25, it means domesticated cattle.
Thiyint (Is. xiii:20 denotes wild beasts of the upland wilderness. Ochinr, rendered 'doleful creatures' and 'marsh animals,' may, we think with more propriety, be considered as 'poisonous and offensive reptiles.' Seirim, shaggy ones, is a general term for apes —not satyrs, a Pagan poetical creation unfit for Scriptural language; it includes Saadim as a spe cies, and Tannin, monsters of the deep and of the wilderness—boas, serpents, crocodiles, dolphins, and sharks.
(1) Zo8logy of Scripture. The zoology of Scripture may, in a general sense, be said to embrace the whole range of animated nature; but after the first brief notice of the creation of animals recorded in Genesis, it is limited more particularly to the animals found in Egypt, Arabia, Palestine, Syria, and the countries east ward, in some cases, to beyond the Euphrates. It comprehends mammalia, birds, reptiles, fishes, and invertebrate animals; but in a work like the Bible, written for a far different purpose, we might naturally expect that only a small part of these would be found described, and that generical indications would more frequently oc cur than specific characteristics. As the intention of Scripture, in its allusions to animate or in animate objects, was not scientific description, hut the illustration of arguments and precepts by images drawn from objects familiar to those to whom it was addressed. it is not to be ex pected that zoology or botany should be treated systematically, or in terms such as modern science has adopted: yet, where we can now fully ascertain the true meaning of the text, the imagery drawn from natural history is always forcible. correct, and effective, even where it treats the subject under the conditions of the contemporary popular belief ; for, had the in spired writers entered into explanations on mat ters of science not then commonly understood, the poetical force of the imagery, and conse quently its intended effect, must necessarily have been greatly diminished; and. where system is appropriate, we find a classified general distribu tion of the creation, simple indeed, but sufficiently applicable to all the purposes for which it was introduced. It resembles other parts of the philosophy of the earliest nations, in which the physical distribution of matter, excepting so far as man is concerned, proceeds by triads. Botany
is treated under the heads of grass, shrubs, and trees: in animated nature, beginning with the lowest organized in the watery elements, we have first Sheretz, 'the moving creature that bath life, animalcula, crustacea, insecta, etc.; second, Tan ninini, fishes and amphibia, including the huge tenants of the waters, whether they also frequent the land or not, crocodiles, python serpents, and perhaps even those which are now considered as of a more ancient zoology than the present sys tern, the great Saurians of geology; and third, it appears, birds, 'opt!, 'flying creatures' (Gen. i:2o); and still advancing (cetaceans, pinnati peds, whales and seals being excluded), we have quadrupeds, forming three other divisions or orders: First, cattle, Behenrah, embracing the ruminant herbivora, generally gregarious and ca pable of domesticity; second, wild beasts, Chayah, carnivora, including all beasts of prey; and third, reptiles, Remes, minor quadrupeds, such as creep by means of many feet, or glide along the surface of the soil, serpents, annelides, etc.; finally, we have man, Adam, standing alone in intellectual supremacy.
(2) Mosaic Classification, The classification of Moses. as it may be drawn from Deuteronomy, appears to be confined to l'ertebrata alone, or animals having a spine and ribs, although the fourth class might include others. Taking man as one, it forms five classes-1st, Man; 2d, Beasts; 3d, Birds; 4th, Reptiles; 5th, Fishes. It is the same as that in Leviticus xi, where beasts are further distinguished into those with solid hoofs, and those with cloven feet. But the passage specially refers to animals that might be lawfully eaten because they were clean, and to others prohibited because they were declared un clean, although some of them, according to the common belief of the time, might ruminate; for it may be repeated that the Scriptures were not intended to embrace anatomical disquisitions aiming at the advancement of human science, but to convey moral and religious truth, without disturbing the received opinions of the time on questions having little or no relation to their main object. In like manner, fishes and birds are divided into clean and unclean; and, taken al together, the classification now described forms an excellent series of distinctions, which, even at the present day, and in countries far distant from the scene where it was ordained, still re mains applicable, with few exceptions; and from its intrinsic propriety will remain in force, not withstanding our present knowledge of the man ners and opinions of the East and of Egypt has rendered many of the earlier comments upon it in a great measure useless.