BEHEMOTH, the designation of an animal, a description of which is given, Job. xl. 15-24. Opinions are divided between the hippopotamus and the elephant as the animal intended in this passage. We shall consider—I. The word itself: If =in (behemoth) is to be taken as a pure Hebrew word, it is the plural of riCin (behenzah) cattle, beasts of burden, wild beasts. This plural occurs as designating animals collectively, whether tame or wild (Gen. vii. 14 ; Lev. xxv. 7 ; Dent.
xxxii. 24; Hab. ii. 17) ; but here it is plainly used to denote some specific animal well known to the writer. Gesenius calls this an instance of the plural of majesty, and so it is often stated ; but it is rather an instance of the intensive plural, and this name is bestowed on the animal in question because in it the idea of the brute creation is most perfectly developed ; it stands to the mind of the writer as the concentration of animality (qu. bru tissimum brutomtm). The question has been raised, however, whether this is a pure Hebrew word ; and since Jablonski suggested that it is a Coptic word, pehe-mout, signifying water-ox, conformed to He brew analogy, many scholars have embraced this view (Jablonski Opusc. ed. to Water, i. 52 ; Ge senius Thes. and Lex. in voc. ; Furst, Hdzoorterb. in voc.) Before this is admitted, however, one would like to see it made out a little more satis factorily that such a word as P-eke-mout ever existed, or that it is good Coptic. Dr. Lee has adduced some serious objections to it (Lex. in voc. ; comp. Hengstenberg, Die A uth. des Pentateuch. i. 258); and, at any rate, it is no trite induction to apply for the solution of a problem what has not been first shewn to exist as a vera causa (Newton, Principa, p. 388, Land. 1726).-2. Reasons of those who hold behemoth to be the rhinoceros. One of these is the supposed Coptic origin of the name just mentioned; and, undoubtedly, if it could be made out that the rhinoceros was ever called in Egypt by the word P-eke-mout, signifying water-ox, as the Italians call it Bo-marino, a strong reason would be found in this for giving this signification to the behemoth of Job. As the case stands, how
ever, there is no real force in this reason. Other reasons have more weight. The context, it is said, requires us to recognise an amphibious animal here, both because the enumeration in ch. xxxviii. xxxix. is confined to land animals and birds, and because the description is essentially that of an amphibious animal (comp. ver. 15, 21, 22, with ver. 23, 24). Again, the conjunction of behemoth with leviathan (assumed to be the crocodile) favours this supposi tion, both being natives of Egypt, and both con stantly mentioned together by ancient authors erod. ii. 67-71; Diod. Sic i. 35 ; Plin. xxviii. 8). And, in fine, the mention of his tail (ver. 17) is more appropriate to the rhinoceros than to the elephant (Bochart, Hieroz. pt. ii. bk. 5, ch. 15 ; Ludolf, Hist. Meth. i. is ; Gesen. Thes. 1S3).-3. Reasons of those who hold behemoth to be the ele phant. 1. The great muscular strength and power of traction ascribed to this animal (16, 18); 2. The description of the habits of the animal (20, 21, 22), which agree with those of the elephant ; 3. The incompatibility of the statement in ver. 20 with the habits of the rhinoceros (Schultens, Comment. in loc. ; Grotius, in loc.) The advocates of these two opinions are strong against each other, but weak for their own side. The description of Job, taken as a whole, will apply to neither the hippo potamus nor the elephant. This has led some to think that the animal here described is now extinct (Mason Good, WemY ss Ad. Clarke) ; that it is fabulous (Renan, First also, apparently, Hdwb. p. 169 ; comp. 2 Esdr. vi. 49 ff.) ; that it is a general description of the brute creation (Lee, .7?b, p. 5t8), with the idea of the hippopotamus predominant. (C. H. S. in former edition.)—W. L. A.