24 He 'taketh it with his eyes. his nose pierceth through lor, Will any take him in his sight, or, bore his nose with a gin? c. 41. 1, 2. some one who resided in the vicinity. In speaking of this huge foreign animal, it was not unnatural to mention a river that was familiarly known, and to say that he would not be alarmed should such a river rush suddenly and impetuously upon him. Even though the hippopotamus is an inhabitant of the Nile, and was never seen in the Jordan, it was much more natural to mention this river in this connection than the Nile. It was better known, and the illustration would be better understood, and to an inhabitant of that country would be much more striking. I see no reason, therefore, for the supposition of Bochart and Rosenmüller, that the Jordan here is put for any large river. The illustration is just such as one would have used who was well acquainted with the Jordan-that the river-horse would not be alarmed even though such a river should pour impetuously upon him. 24. He taketh it with his eyes. Marg. Or, will any take him in his sight, or, bore his nose with a gin?' From this marginal reading it is evident that our translators were much perplexed with this passage. Exposi tors have been also much embarrassed in regard to its meaning, and have differed much in their exposition. Rosenmüller supposes that this is to be regarded as a question, and is to be rendered, "Will the hunter take him while he sees him?"—meaning snares. that he could not be taken without some snare or guile. The same view also is adopted by Bochart, who says that the hippopotamus could be taken only by some secret snare or pitfail. The common mode of taking him, he says, was to excavate a place near where the river-horse usually lay, and to cover it over with reeds and canes, so that he would fall into it unawares. The meaning then is, that the hunter could not approach him openly and secure him while he saw him, but that some secret plan must be adopted to take him. The meaning then is, Can he be taken when he sees the hunter?' His nose pierceth through snares. Or rather, 'When taken in snares, can any one pierce his nose?' That is. Can the hunter even then pierce his nose so as to put in a ring or cord and lead him wherever he pleases? This was the common method by which a wild animal was secured when taken (see Notes on Isa. xxxvii. 29), but it is here said that this could not be done to this huge animal. He could not be subdued in this manner. He was a wild, untamed, and fierce animal, that defied all the usual methods by which wild beasts were made captive. In regard to the difficulty of taking this animal, see the account of the method by which it is now done, in the Notes on ver. 15. That account shows that there is a striking accuracy in the description. CHAPTER XLI. ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER. FOR a general view of the design of this chapter, see the Analysis of ch. xl. The argument in this chapter is derived wholly from the leviathan, and relates to the following points :-He cannot be taken with a hook or with a cord, vs. 1, 2; he will not be tamed, or come and submit himself to man, vs. 3-5, he cannot be served up at a banquet, ver. 6; his head cannot be pierced with barbed irons, ver. 7; and the sight of him was enough to deter one from an attempt to take him, vs. 8-10. God then appeals to the particular parts of the animal, and goes into a minute description of him. He says he will not conceal his parts that are so fitted to excite terror and admiration, vs. 11, 12. He refers particularly to his mouth and teeth, vs. 13, 14; to his scales, vs. 15-17; to his eyes like the eyelids of the morning, ver. 18; to the smoke and fire that seemed to go out of his mouth and nostrils, vs. 19-21; to the strength of his neck and the compactness of his flesh, vs. 22-24; to his irresistible power, and to the fact that he disregarded all the usual weapons for taking wild beasts, vs. 25-30; and to his appearance when he moves through the deep, vs. 31, 32. It is then added (vs. 33, 34), that there is nothing on earth like him, and that among the most proud works of God he is a king. CANST thou draw out 'levia- tongue with a cord which thou than " with an hook? or his lettest down? 1 i. e. a whale, or, a whirlpool. 1. Canst thou draw out. As a fish is drawn out of the water. The usual method by which fish were taken was with a hook; and the meaning here is, that it was not possible to take the leviathan in this manner. The whole description here is of an animal that lived in the water. T Leviathan. Much has been written respecting this animal, and the opinions which have been entertained have been very various. Schultens enumerates the following classes of opinions in regard to the animal intended here. 1. The opinion that the word leviathan is to be retained, without attempting to explain it implying that there was uncertainty as to the meaning. Under this head he refers to the Chaldee and the Vulgate, to Aquila and Symmachus, where the word is retained, and to the Septuagint, where the word Дodzovta, dragon, is used, and also the Syriac and Arabic, where the same word is used. 2. The fable of the Jews, who mention a serpent so large that it encompassed the whole earth. A belief of the existence of such a marine serpent or monster still prevails among the Nes torians. 3. The opinion that the whale is intended. 4. The opinion that a large fish called Mular, or Musar, which is found in the Mediterranean, is denoted. This is the opinion of Grotius. 5. The opinion that the crocodile of the Nile is denoted. 6. The opinion of Hasaeus, that not the whale is intended, but the Orca, a sea-monster armed with teeth, and the enemy of the whale. 7. Others have understood the whole description as allegorical, as representing monsters of iniquity; and among these, some have regarded it as descriptive of the devil! See Schul Leviathan, which God of all his works. For a full investigation of the subject the crocodile of the Nile is denoted; and in this opinion critics have generally, since his time, acquiesced. The opinions which are entitled to most attention are those which regard the animal here described as either the whale or the crocodile. The objections to the supposition that the whale is intended are such as the following (1.) That the whale tribes do not inhabit the Mediterranean, much less the rivers which empty into it with which alone it is supposed Job could have been acquainted. (2.) That the animal here described differs from the whale in many essential particulars. "This family of marine monsters have neitheir proper snout nor nostrils, nor proper teeth. Instead of a snout, they have a mere spiracle, or blowinghole, with a double opening on the top of the head; and for teeth, a hard expanse of horny laminæ, which we call whalebone, in the upper jaw. The eyes of the common whale, moreover, instead of answering the description here given, are most dis proportionately small, and do not exceed in size those of the ox. Nor can this monster be regarded as of fierce habits or unconquerable courage; for instead of attacking the larger sea-animals for plunder, it feeds chiefly on crabs and medusas, and is often itself attacked by the ork or grampus, though less than half its size." Dr. Good. These considerations seem to be decisive in regard to the supposition that the animal here referred to is the whale. In fact, there is almost nothing in the description that corresponds with the whale, except the size. The whole account, on the contrary, agrees well with the crocodile, and there are several considerations which may be suggested, before we proceed with the exposition, which correspond with the supposition that this is the animal intended. They are such as these (1.) The crocodile is a natural inhabitant of the Nile and of other Asiatic and African rivers, and it is reasonable to suppose that an : animal is referred to that was well known to one who lived in the country of Job. Though the Almighty is the speaker, and could describe an animal wholly unknown to Job, yet it is not reasonable to suppose that such an unknown animal would be selected. The appeal was to what he knew of the works of God. (2.) The general description agrees with this animal. The leviathan is represented as wild, fierce, and ungovernable; as of vast extent, and as terrible in his aspect; as having a mouth of vast size, and armed with a formidable array of teeth; as covered with scales set near together like a coat of mail; as distinguished by the fierce ness of his eyes, and by the frightful aspect of his mouth; as endowed with great strength, and incapable of being taken in any of the ordinary methods of securing wild beasts. This general description agrees well with the crocodile. These animals are found in the rivers of Africa, and also in the southern rivers of America, and are usually called the alli gator. In the Amazon, the Niger, and the Nile, they occur in great numbers, and are usually from eighteen to twenty-seven feet long; and sometimes lying as close to each other as a raft of timber. Goldsmith. The crocodile grows to a great length, being sometimes found thirty feet long from the tip of the snout to the end of the tail; though its most usual length is about eighteen or twenty feet. "The armor, with which the upper part of the body is covered, may be numbered among the most elaborate pieces of Nature's mechanism. In the full-grown animal it is so strong and thick as easily to repel a musket-ball. The whole animal appears as if covered with the most regular and curious carved work. The mouth is of vast width, the gape having a somewhat flexuous outline, and both jaws being furnished with very numerous, sharp-pointed teeth. The number of teeth in each jaw is thirty or more, and they are so disposed as to alternate with each other when the mouth is closed. The legs | mals of Egypt and Ethiopia, the are short, but strong and muscular. river-horse and the crocodile ale In the glowing regions of Africa, associated in the same group, in the where it arrives at its full strength river Nile." The crocodile was forand power, it is justly regarded as the merly found in abundance in Lower most formidable inhabitant of the Egypt and the Delta, but it now limrivers.' Shaw's Zoology, vol. iii. p. its the extent of its visits northward 184. The crocodile seldom, except to the districts about Manfaloot, and pressed with hunger, or for the pur- the hippopotamus is no longer seen pose of depositing its eggs, leaves the in Lower Ethiopia. Neither the hip. water. Its usual method is to float popotamus nor the crocodile appear along the surface, and seize whatever to have been eaten by the ancient animals come within its reach; but Egyptians. Pliny mentions the mewhen this method fails, it then goes dicinal properties of both of them nearer the bank. There it waits, (xxviii. 8), and Plutarch affirms that among the sedges, for any animal the people of Apollinopolis used to that may come down to drink, and eat the crocodile (de Isid. s. 50); but seizes upon it, and drags it into the this does not appear to have been a water. The tiger is thus often seized usual custom. Herodotus says that by the crocodile, and dragged into "some of the Egyptians consider the the river and drowned. (3.) A third crocodile sacred, while others make | reason for supposing that the croco- war upon it, and those who live dile is here intended, arises from the about Thebes and the lake Moeris former conclusion concerning the (in the Arsinoïte nome), hold it in behemoth, ch. xl. 15, seq. The de- great veneration." ii. 69. In some scription of the leviathan immediately cases the crocodile was treated with follows that, and the presumption is the greatest respect, and kept up at that they were animals that were considerable expense; it was fed and usually found inhabiting the same attended with the most scrupulous district of country. If, therefore, the care; geese, fish, and various meats behemoth be the hippopotamus, there were dressed purposely for it; they is a presumption that the leviathan is ornamented its head with ear-rings the crocodile-an inhabitant of the and its feet with bracelets and necksame river, equally amphibious, and laces of gold and artificial stones; it even more terrible. "And this con- was rendered tame by kind treatment, sideration," says the Editor of the and after death the body was emPictorial Bible, "is strengthened, balmed in a sumptuous manner. when we consider that the two ani- other parts of Egypt, however, the mals were so associated by the ananimal was held in the greatest abcients. Some of the paintings at horrence, and they lost no opportuHerculaneum represent Egyptian nity of destroying it. See Wilkinlandscapes, in which we see the croc- son's Manners and Customs of the odile lying among the reeds, and Ancient Egyptians, vol. iii. p. 75, seq. the hippopotamus browsing upon the The following cut, from the Pictorial plants on an island. So also in the Bible, will furnish an idea of the famous Mosaic pavement at Prænes- form of the crocodile : te, representing the plants and ani In The word here rendered leviathan (171) occurs only in this place and in ch. iii. 8. Ps. lxxiv. 14, civ. 26. Isa. xxvii. 1. In all these place it is rendered leviathan, except in Job iii. 8, where it is rendered in the text, 'their mourning,' in the margin, leviathan. See Notes on that verse, and comp. Notes on Isa. xxvii. 1. The connection of the word with the root is not certainly known. Gesenius regards it as derived from, to join one's self to any one, and then to wreathe, to fold, to curve; and in Arabic to weave, to twist, as a wreath or garland; and that the word is applied to an animal that is wreathed, or that gathers itself in folds-a twisted animal. In ch. iii. 8 the word is used to denote some huge, untamable, and fierce monster, and will agree there with the supposition that the crocodile is intended. See Notes on that place. In Ps. lxxiv. 14 the allusion is to Pharaoh, compared with | the leviathan, and the passage would agree best with the supposition that the allusion was to the crocodile. The crocodile was an inhabitant of the Nile, and it was natural to allude to that in describing a fierce tyrant of Egypt. In Ps. civ. 26 the allusion is to some huge animal of the deep, particularly of the Mediterranean, and the language would apply to any sea-monster. In Isa. xxvii. 1 the allusion is to the king and tyrant that ruled in Babylon, as compared with a dragon or fierce animal. Comp. Notes on that passage, and Rev. xii. Any of these passages will accord well with the supposition that the that_the crocodile is denoted by the word, or that some fierce, strong, and violent animal that could involve itself, or that had the appearance of an extended serpent, is referred to. T'he resemblance between the animal here described and the crocodile, will be farther indicated by the Notes on the particular descriptions in the chapter |