¶ Which I made with thee. That is, either I have made him as well as you, have formed him to be a fellowcreature with thee,' or, 'I have made him near thee '-to wit, in Egypt. The latter Bochart supposes to be the true interpretation, though the former is the more natural. According to that, the meaning is, that God was the Creator of both, and he calls on Job to contemplate the power and greatness of a fellow-creature, though a brute, as illustrating his own power and majesty. He eateth grass as ¶ an ox. This is mentioned as a remarkable property of this animal. The reasons 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-Kataréμɛtai tór te ottov τόν τε zaì tóv xóotor. καὶ τόν χόρτον. The same thing is mentioned also by Sparrman, Travels through South Africa, p. 563, Germ Trans.

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

16. Lo now, his strength is in his loins. The inspection of the figure of the hippopotamus will show the accuracy of this. The strength of the elephant is in the neck; of the lion in the paw; of the horse and ox in the shoulders; but the principal power of the river-horse is in the loins. Comp. Nahum ii. 1. This passage is one that proves that the elephant cannot be referred to. πT And his force is in the navel of his belly. The word which is here rendered navel (7) means properly firm, hard, tough, and in the plural form, which occurs here, means the firm, or tough parts of the belly. It is not used to denote the navel in any place in the Bible, and should not have been so rendered here. The eference is to the muscles and tenons of this part of the body, and perhaps particularly to the fact that e hippopotamus, by crawling so ich on his belly among the stones the stream or on land, acquires a peculiar hardness or strength in those parts of the body. This clearly proves that the elephant is not intended. In that animal, this is the most tender part of the body. Pliny and Solinus both remark that the elephant has a thick, hard skin on the back, but that the skin of the belly is soft and tender. Pliny says (Hist. Nat. Lib. viii. c. 20), that the 20), that the rhinoceros, when about to attack an elephant, "seeks his belly, as if he knew that that was the most tender So Elian, Hist. Lib. xvii. See Bochart, as above. 17. He moveth his tail like a cedar. Marg. 'or, setteth up.' The Hebrew word (E) 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 curving its

part.

c. 44.

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 how this was a proof of its power, it is not quite easy to determine. Rosenmüller 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 he, it is thick, "equalling the extremities of the fingers ;" and the idea here, according to this, is, that this short, thick, and apparently firm tail, was bent over by the 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 over or curved at the pleasure of the animal Why this, however, should have been mentioned as remarkable, or how the power of the animal in this respect differs from others, is not very apparent. Some, who have supposed the elephant to be here referred to, have understood this of the 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 every part 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. The description of the movement of the tail here given, would agree much better with some of the extinct orders of animals whose remains have been recently discovered and arranged by

18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

Cuvier, than with that of the hippopotamus. Particularly, it would agree with the account of the ichthyosaurus (see Buckland's Geology, Bridgewater Treatise, vol. i. 133, seq.), though the other parts of the animal here described would not accord well with this. The sinews of ¶ his stones are wrapped together. Good renders this, haunches; Noyes, Prof. Lee, Rosenmüller, and Schultens, thighs; and the LXX simply, "his sinews." The Hebrew word here used (1) means properly fear, terror, Èx. xv. 16. Job xiii. 11; and, according to Gesenius, it then means, since fear is transferred to cowardice and shame, any thing which causes 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 why 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 here 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 his 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 the bones of

19 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 should be observed here, that the 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 period of the world as the time of Job. time of Job. The word here translated strong pieces' (PEN) is rendered by Schultens alvei-channels, or beds, as of a rivulet or stream; and by Rosenmüller, 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, mighty, 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 of 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 powerful and mighty of the nations. THe that made him can make his sword approach unto him. Accord ing 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 Rosenmüller, 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.

a Ps. 104. 14.

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, Hieroz. P. ii. Lib. v. c. xv. pp. 766, 762. The άo̟n-the harpe, i. e. the sickle or scythe, was ascribed to the hippopotamus by some of the Greek writers. Thus Nicander, Theriacon, ver. 566:

π

or sword.

20. Surely the mountains bring him forth food. That is, though he lies commonly among the 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 be 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 had nothing to fear from him, and could easily escape from him if he were disposed to attack them, and partly from the fact that he seems to have preferred 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 (3), is by Gesenius, Noyes, Prof. Lee, and Schultens, translated lotus, and wild lotus. The Vulgate, Syriac, Rosenmüller, Aben-Ezra, and It ocothers, render it shady trees. curs 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, tzâăl, to be thin, slender; and hence in Arabic it is applied to the wild lotus-a plant that grows abundantly on the 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. ¶ In the covert of the reed. It is well known that reeds abounded on the banks of the Nile. These would furnish a convenient and a natural retreat for the hippo

1 oppresseth.

potamus. And fens, marsh, ¶ marshy places. This passage proves that the elephant is not here referred to. He is never found in such pla

ces.

22. The shady trees. Probably the lote-trees. See on ver. 21. The

same word is here used. I The wil low-trees of the brook. Of the stream, or rivulet. The Hebrew word (2) means rather a wady; a gorge or gulley, which is swollen with torrents in the winter, but which is frequently dry in summer. See Notes on cli. vi. 15. Willows grew commonly on the banks of rivers. They could not be cultivated in the desert. Isa. xv. 7.

23. Behold, he drinketh up a river. Marg. oppresseth. The margin expresses the proper meaning of the Hebrew word, puş. 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 Rosenmüller. According to the interpretation given by them the meaning is, 'The stream overfloweth, and he feareth not; he is secure, even though Jordan rush forth even to his mouth.' The reference then would be, not to the fact 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

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

interpretation. It is impossible to make good sense of the phrase 'he oppresseth a river ;' nor does the word used properly admit of the translation 'he drinketh up.' The word river in this place, therefore (7), is to be regarded as in the meaning is, that when a swollen and nominative case to P, and the impetuous river rushes along and bears all before it, and, as it were, he is not alarmed; he makes no oppresses every thing in its course, 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 yévηtαi пhŋμúga, z.c.l.-" Should there come a flood, he would not regard it." Our common translation seems to have been adopted from the Vulgate-Ecce absorbebit fluvium. THe 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 though 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, he would not dread what would fill a land animal with alarm. There is no 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 by