Job 41:1

Canst thou draw out leviathan with a hook? It is a great question among learned men, what creature is meant by לויתן, leviathan. Our translators were evidently uncertain respecting it, and therefore have given us here and elsewhere, where the word occurs, the original term itself, untranslated. The LXX., however, (who are followed in two instances by the author of the Vulgate,) have not done so, but have everywhere rendered it δρακων, the dragon. But it is far from being certain that in so doing they have given us the true meaning of the word. It is much more probable that either the whale or the crocodile is intended. It is evident the leviathan, mentioned Psalms 104:26, is an inhabitant of the sea, and the description given of him is generally thought best to suit the whale. There (in the great and wide sea) go the ships: there is that leviathan which thou hast made to play therein. The same may be said concerning the leviathan, mentioned Psalms 74:14. It also appears to be an inhabitant of the sea. Now the dragon and crocodile, it is argued, have nothing to do with the sea, but only with rivers, and therefore cannot be intended by leviathan here. Divers other reasons are also advanced to prove that the whale is the creature meant. “That which inclines me,” says Henry, “rather to understand it of the whale, is not only because it is much larger and a nobler animal, but, because, in the history of the creation there is such an express notice taken of it as is not of any other species of animals whatsoever; God created great whales, Genesis 1:21. By which it appears, not only that whales were well known in those parts in Moses's time, who lived a little after Job; but that the creation of whales was generally looked upon as a most illustrious proof of the eternal power and godhead of the Creator. And we may conjecture that this was the reason (for otherwise it seems unaccountable) why Moses there so particularly mentions the creation of the whales; because God had so lately, in this discourse with Job, more largely insisted upon the bulk and strength of that creature than of any other, as the proof of his power.”

At the same time, however, that Mr. Henry thus delivers his opinion on the subject, he acknowledges that many learned men were of a different mind; and, in particular, observes of Sir Richard Blackmore, that though he admitted the more received opinion concerning the behemoth being the elephant, yet he agreed with the learned Bochart's notion of the leviathan, that it is the crocodile, so well known in the river of Egypt. Poole also seems to have been of the same judgment. “It is evident,” says he, “that the Hebrew תנין, thannin, which is parallel to this word, leviathan, is used of the crocodile, Ezekiel 29:3; Ezekiel 32:3. But I shall not positively determine this controversy,” adds he, “but only show how far the text may be understood of both of them, and then submit it to the reader's judgment, this being a matter wherein Christians may vary without any hazard. Only this I will say, that whatever becomes of the behemoth of the former chapter, whether that be the elephant or the hippopotamus, that doth not at all determine the sense of this leviathan, but leaves it indifferent to the whale or the crocodile, as the context shall determine, which, I confess, seems to me to favour the latter more than the former. To which may be added, that it seems more probable that God should speak of such creatures as were very well known to Job and his friends, as the crocodile was, than of such as it was very uncertain whether they were known in those parts, and in Job's time.” The reader will observe, that the word leviathan is supposed to be derived from לוי, levi, joined, or coupled, and תן, than, or תנין, thannin, a dragon, that is, a large serpent, or fish, the word thannin being used both for a land-serpent and a kind of fish. And, “after comparing what Bochart and others have written on the subject, it appears to me,” says Parkhurst, “that the compound word לויתן, leviathan, the coupled dragon, denotes some animal partaking of the nature both of land-serpents and fishes, and, in this place, signifies the crocodile, which lives as well under water as on the shore.”

Dr. Dodd also agrees with Parkhurst, and the other learned men just mentioned, that Bochart “has proved by arguments, strictly conclusive, that the crocodile must be meant in this chapter.” It may be observed further here, that, although it might have been expected, that the Creator should have singled out and have dwelt upon two of the greatest of his works in the animal creation, the elephant and the whale, the former the largest and most eminent of quadrupeds, and the latter of fishes, for the display of his power and glory; yet, that naturalists have found great, if not insuperable difficulties in their endeavours to apply the particulars of this description to the whale. And all that can be said to solve these difficulties is, that there are many different species of whales, several that are known, and probably many more that are not known; and that although this description, in all its parts, may not exactly suit any species of them which we know, there may be others in the immense ocean with which we are not acquainted that it may suit; creatures which, though comprehended under the general name of whales, may, in many respects, be very different from, and much larger than, any that have been taken. But still it is very improbable, either that Job should know any thing of such whales, or that Jehovah, when reasoning with him and producing proofs of his power and providence, should make his appeal to creatures with which Job had no acquaintance. It seems, therefore, most probable that the crocodile is intended, and, we think, would be certain, were it not that the leviathan is represented in some of the passages where it is mentioned in Scripture, as we have observed, as an inhabitant of the sea, whereas the crocodile is only found in rivers. But perhaps the term leviathan does not always signify the same creature, but is put for different animals in different places, especially for such as are of extraordinary bulk, or of singular qualities. This verse, which speaks either of the impossibility, or rather of the great and terrible difficulty of taking the leviathan with the hook, or line, or such like instruments, may agree either to the whale or to the crocodile. As to the whale, there can be no doubt, nor much doubt as to the crocodile; the taking of which was generally esteemed by the ancients to be very difficult and perilous. Thus Diodorus Siculus says, they cannot be secured but in iron nets. When Augustus conquered Egypt, he struck a medal, the impress of which was a crocodile chained to a palm-tree, with this inscription, “None ever bound him before.” “In order to take these animals,” says Thevenot, “they make a number of holes, or ditches, on the banks of the river, which they cover with sticks, and things of the like kind; afterward, when the crocodiles pass over these cavities, especially when the waters rise in the river, which is the season of catching them, on account of their going further off from the river at that time, they fall into the holes and cannot get out again; in this confinement they are suffered to continue without food for several days; after which they let down certain nooses with running knots, wherewith they fasten their jaws, and then draw them out.” These nooses are the חבלי, cheblee, the cords, here mentioned, and this shows that the word לשׁון, leshon, is not to be understood of the tongue only, but of the whole fauces, or jaws. Or his tongue with a cord This clause should be rendered, Canst thou bind his jaws with a cord? Some have objected, that this last clause cannot agree to the crocodile, because Aristotle, Pliny, and some other ancient authors have affirmed that it has no tongue. But, 1st, The notion that they have no tongues is a mistake, which has arisen from their tongues being but small in proportion to their vast bodies, and withal fastened to their under jaws. But that the crocodile hath a tongue is positively affirmed by several ancient authors, and by the Hebrew writers, and the Arabians, to whom this creature was best known, as also by later authors. But, 2d, It is not only of the tongue this clause speaks, but of the whole jaws of the leviathan. Maillet also bears testimony that the manner of taking these animals is very difficult, and sometimes very remarkable; the most common method, he says, is to dig great trenches, or ditches, along the Nile, which are covered with straw, and into which the creatures fall unawares. They are sometimes taken with hooks, baited with a quarter of a pig, or bacon, which they are very fond of. Heath and Dr. Young. Hasselquist, speaking of the difficulty of taking this animal, says, “He frequently breaks the nets of fishermen, if they come in his way, and they are often exposed to great danger. I found a fishing-hook in the palate of the crocodile, which I dissected.” Hasselquist's Voyages, p. 216.