THE TEXT BELOW WAS ORIGINALLY A MAIL SENT TO A FEW SELECT FRIENDS & ACQUAINTANCES IN DECEMBER 2019.
99.9% OF THE TEXT IS ORIGINAL.
I HAVE CORRECTED A FEW GRAMMATICAL ERRORS, ADDED A FEW
HIGHLIGHTS, SEPARATED A FEW LINES/PARAS, AND ADDED NOT MORE THAN 40 WORDS.
I WILL ADD FURTHER NOTES TO THIS POST, IN THE COMING
3-4 DAYS.
THE IDEA WAS TO PROVE THAT THE BEHEMOTH WAS BASED ON THE
INDIAN ELEPHANT.
THE
ELEPHANT IS ESSENTIALLY NON-EXISTENT IN ANCIENT EGYPTIAN CULTURE: ONE REASON
WHY I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE ORIGINS OF EGYPTIAN CIVILIZATION FROM
INNER AFRICA.
PLEASE LET ME CLARIFY THAT I AM NOT OPPOSED
TO THE IDEA – I DO NOT REJECT IT – I
AM VERY MUCH OPEN TO IT – BUT I’M NOT CONVINCED
ABOUT IT.
IF THE ISRAELITES CAME OUT OF EGYPT, THEY’D HAVE KNOWN
THE HIPPO, BUT THE BEHEMOTH IS NEVER EXPLICITLY CALLED
A HIPPO.
WHY?
EGYPT IS RIFE WITH HIPPOPOTAMUS SYMBOLISM.
HOWEVER, IF THE ISRAELITES CAME OUT OF INDIA, THEY’D KNOW
THE ELEPHANT, BUT IN THEIR DESIRE TO DETACH THEMSELVES FROM THEIR ORIGINS, THEY GLOSSED OVER THE IDENTITY OF THIS MAJESTIC, INTRIGUING CREATURE.
ANYWAY, I’LL TAKE UP THOSE VERY CONFUING ISSUES LATER, IF POSSIBLE.
CLEARLY, MY OBJECTIVE IS NOT TO PROVE THAT THE BEHEMOTH IS BASED ON THE
AFRICAN ELEPHANT 😊
THIS CONVICTION STEMS FROM THE UNIQUE SYMBOLISM & IDEAS
SURROUNDING THE INDIAN ELEPHANT IN ANCIENT INDIAN LITERATURE & ART, AND THE
BEHEMOTH.
THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT, AS FAR AS I KNOW, HAS NO IMPORTANCE, LITERAL OR SYMBOLIC, IN WELL-KNOWN ANCIENT ARICAN CULTURES, AND NONE, IN ANCIENT EGYPT (KEMET).
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ELEPHANT IN INDIA IS ALL OVER THE PLACE.
{11.4.2024:
As a matter of fact, does the Old Testament mention ANY animal peculiar to Africa or Ancient Egypt?
None, that I can think of.
Not even the Ostrich, which was found in Arabia as well as Eurasia.
It is possible that the Leviathan is based on the Crocodile – but Crocodiles & Alligators are found in Asia too – and the crocodile is NOT mentioned in the OT.
Similarly, the hippo is NOT mentioned explicitly.
Neither giraffe nor elephant, neither baboon nor ibis.
This topic needs more cautious investigation.
Strange, for a culture, which – according to an erudite scholar like Gerald Massey – derived everything from Egypt – not to mention a single animal peculiar to Egypt!
However, Solomon does import peacocks & apes – through ships—presumably from India.
And it is doubtful that the Behemoth was an ox – because then the OT wouldn’t say: “He eats grass like an ox”.
I’m sure there were Ancient Hebrews in Egypt – not as long back as they claim, but at least as far back as the 5th – 6th centuries BCE – but they did not originate from there.
They went into Egypt – from Asia.}EXCEPT THE FIRST PHOTOGRAPH, ALL PICS ARE TAKEN FROM ONLINE
SOURCES.
SINCE THEY’RE VERY OLD, I DON’T RECOLLECT WHERE ALL THEY’BE
BEEN COLLECTED FROM.
BUT THEY’RE NOT MINE.
I DO APOLOGIZE THAT I’M UNABLE TO GIVE DUE CREDIT TO THE SOURCES.
THEY’VE MOSTLY BEEN TAKEN YEARS AGO FROM WIKIMEDIA COMMONS & FLICKR.Ugh!
This forward almost sucked the life out of me.
The topic is too complicated, and if I may say so, unfathomable.
It pertains to a certain creature mentioned in Book of Job in the Old Testament in the Bible, known as the Behemoth.
Nobody knows what is the Behemoth.
As mentioned below, the two strongest contenders are the hippopotamus & the elephant.
A fanatic like Gerald Massey obviously sees the Behemoth as the hippopotamus, but his arguments are half-baked & focus on very selective points.
Generally, opinion tips in favor of the hippopotamus, but there are quite a few who think it might be the elephant.
In due course of writing this mail, I realized maybe we all, attempting to pin the identity of the mysterious creature on one or the other known beast, are missing the point completely.
Maybe the Behemoth’s identity is deliberately ambiguous?
Maybe it is meant to be elusive, mysterious, something unknown or half-known, half-guessed at?
Maybe those who thought it up simply took some broad characteristics from the animal world, and poeticized them (employing hyperboles) into a deliberately inscrutable whole, to endow it with an air of mystery?
Had the Book said it was a hippo, or a bull, or an elephant, who would have bothered about it, or paid any attention to it?
Could the author have given the attributes which he has, to the Behemoth, had he clarified that it is a bull, or hippo, or some formidable reptile?
Somewhere, I’m beginning to think the Behemoth is not meant to be identified precisely, but I cannot be sure, because there might be literature pertaining to it (Talmudic, for e.g.) which might help locate its identity, that I’m not aware of.
For instance, Massey does write: “the Rabbinical writers consider the (Behemoth to be the) “cattle upon a thousand hills””.
Not sure how does that factor in, into any discussion of the creature.
I was compelled to split up the forward into 2 parts (am yet to write the 2nd one).
It got too long and complicated, as I kept discovering things along the way (like elephants & hippos do not have a scrotum; the Behemoth is said to have “stones of engendering”, depending on the translation; of course elephants & hippos do have testicles! but whether the Behemoth does or not have a scrotum, is, obviously not clear), especially the difficulties of translation of any ancient text from anywhere.
It might take me some time, to finish & send off the 2nd part.
The verses quoted from the Rāmāyaṇa are mostly taken from a couple of translations, both available online, and touched up by me a little bit, here & there.
I am sure they can be improved.
Please forgive me the typo errors, the grammatical mistakes, and the repetitions.
The text is a little muddled, but not so muddled that one won’t get my point.
I have approached the issue from 2-3 points of view, and to sum up, primarily in relation to the infamous passage about the tail of the Behemoth:
1. This may be viewed as poetic license, literary hyperbole.
In this context, I have made comparisons with the tail of the monkey-hero Hanumāna, from the Indian epic Rāmāyaṇa.
There is no need to see the tail as descriptive of a dinosaur.
The ridiculous dinosaur theory is right down there with all the gibberish about extraterrestrials & alien takeover of the world.
2. The tail may not be a tail, but the phallus.
3. The tail may not be a tail, but ... Oh well, maybe you should read the mail until the end, for that :)
I have basically covered these three points.
I attempt to make the discussion more interesting & wholesome with interesting nuggets of information from here & there, and some images.
Hope this doesn’t turn out to be too tedious or demanding.
It was, for me, what with the multiple interpretations, translations, all the ambiguity & confusion!
Not to speak of all the research on mammalian & dinosaur testicles! Yikes!
Well, what needs to be done needs to be done!
Somewhere, I think I’m glad I’ve written it, and now I’m sending it over.
------------------------------
I had made up my mind to write a little piece attempting to “prove” – or at least render highly probable – that the animal called “Behemoth” in the Book of Job (in the Old Testament), is an elephant, not a hippopotamus.
I have more or less abandoned my intention :)
The issue is one of those million issues of life, of history, culture & myth, which are forever unanswerable & mysterious.
Sometimes I wonder if the so-called “experts” know anything.
Everything they say is just a matter of opinion, “educated guesswork”, & probability.
Nobody really knows what the Behemoth, or the Leviathan, is.
The vehemence of revisionists is as annoying as the smug complacence of the mainstream establishment experts – as is those of the religious reactionaries trying to counteract revisionists.
There is no “truth” out there: only perception & power.
Power being the determinative factor on how many people accept which view.
The single most confounding phrase in the description of the Behemoth is the statement: “He moveth his tail like a cedar” (Job 40.17).
This most peculiar statement has lately been construed as being some sort of evidence that the animal being referred to, is the dinosaur (!)
The strongest contenders for the Behemoth so far, have been the hippopotamus & the elephant.
Based on this one statement, both have been rejected by revisionists as neither the elephant nor the hippopotamus have impressive tails that are – according to this view – supposed to look like a cedar.
There is only one grand, powerful creature which can be said to possess a tail like a cedar, and that is the dinosaur, and so the Behemoth must be a dinosaur.
The 1st problem I note here is that the words – in the English translation – say he moves his tail like a cedar.
The statement does not say that the tail looks like a cedar.
The 2nd problem is the assumption is that the cedar tree is meant.
However, the Hebrew word is erez, which can mean cedar tree, as well as cedar wood or timber (used in building), or cedar wood (used in purifications).
The passage in itself doesn’t necessitate the notion that the tail looks like a gigantic cedar tree.
The 3rd problem is: what can possibly be meant by moving a tail like a cedar?
Hitherto most people think reference is to the size (& basic shape) of the tail – but I see no absolute reason to think so.
It seems more probable the general idea is: the animal swings its tail majestically, vigorously, with a sort of flourish, probably like a mace or club – or some such weapon/object.
I will return to this point later.
The 4th problem is that the rest of the passages don’t seem to fit the image of a dinosaur at all, though I daresay I don’t know much about dinosaur types or behavior.
“He lieth under the shady trees (tesel), in the covert (cether) of the reed (qaneh), and fens (bitstsah)” (KJV Job 40.21).
Examined below the surface, none of this makes sense in relation to the dinosaur, but makes very good sense, when it comes to the elephant, and probably even the hippopotamus.
The 5th problem is that while the elephant’s tail may not look like a cedar tree – one may just about make a case for it, though – the elephant’s tail is certainly quite a large object.
It makes good sense to think that there might have been much larger specimen of elephants (whether Asian or African) in those days, and the tail of such a specimen may well be 6 feet long.
Which is more than the height of the average man.
We mostly see elephants in photos & videos, or from a safe distance, and think: Oh, its tail certainly doesn’t look impressive – it’s a rather measly thing, in relation to its body.
And yet, the tail length of an average Asian elephant (height 9 feet) can reach 5 feet, which is pretty large.
How many animals can claim such a long tail?
According to the Wikipedia, “The largest bull elephant ever recorded was shot by the Maharajah of Susang in the Garo Hills of Assam, India in 1924, it weighed 7 t (7.7 short tons), stood 3.43 m (11.3 ft) tall at the shoulder and was 8.06 m (26.4 ft) long from head to tail. There are reports of larger individuals as tall as 3.7 m (12 ft)”.
If a 9 feet tall elephant averages at about 5 feet tail length, what would be that of, say, a 14 feet tall specimen?
In the days of Job, there were no cameras & no filming – people did not consult Wikipedia or the the Encyclopedia – people learnt of animals by being in their proximity, by observing them first-hand in real life, by being with them & amongst them (though one may say intellectuals, scholars etc. did read of accounts written by others).
Yet, for people who actually saw the elephant in real life, its tail is no meager little thread with a miserable clump of hair at its end.
{Above: Lions dominating elephants, a very common motif, in Orissan temples.
This pic was taken by me at the Parashurameshvar Temple in Bhubaneshwar.
As I have mentioned before, the conflict between the elephant & the lion is an ubiquitous theme in Indian literature & architecture, the lion (almost always) being held to be the superior.}
{7.4.2024: Correction: This image is not from the Paraśurameśvara Temple, but from the Mukteśvara Temple in Bhubaneshwar.}
Though I do not know what to make of the passages in the Book of Job itself, I’m inclined to think:-
1. There is no reason to think that the Behemoth’s tail looks like a cedar tree.
2. We are told it moves its tail like a cedar.
3. Cedar might well mean, not a literal cedar tree, but cedar wood or timber – perchance a log – or something made of cedar wood – like a pole or staff.
4. This probably means the tail is moved vigorously, joyously, lustily, like a club or mace – or even a chowrie, a fly-whisk – with great energy.
5. There is no animal which can be said to move its tail like a cedar tree – that notion, the very statement, doesn’t make any sense – but there may be animals which swish & move their tails robustly & proudly – like a warrior brandishing a weapon.
However shaky & unconvincing his accounts, Pliny does say:
“Africa produces elephants, beyond the deserts of the Syrtes, and in Mauritania; they are found also in the countries of the Æthiopians and the Troglodytæ ...
But it is India that produces the largest, as well as the dragon, which is perpetually at war with the elephant, and is itself of so enormous a size, as easily to envelope the elephants with its folds, and encircle them in its coils.”
Go figure.
Elephants were being hunted out of existence even in those days, so it shouldn’t be surprising if much larger specimen, than those we find today, existed then.
I cannot determine what type of animal the Behemoth may be, but a 14-feet tall Indian elephant, with a tail about 8-9 feet long, would be terribly formidable.
The Behemoth may well be a mythical, composite or imaginary creature.
There is no reason to think it should be absolutely real.
The same Book of Job mentions the unicorn, which is not a real, known animal, and it mentions characteristics of the ostrich, which are not quite true (i.e. ostrich-hens do not care much for their brood).
On the other hand, the Behemoth may be a hyperbolic or “exaggerated” or poetically grandiose depiction of any known, “real” animal.
When it comes to the tail, there is certainly one animal which uses it with tremendous dexterity & energy, whose tail stands out with abundant conspicuity: the monkey.
The tail of the Behemoth brought to my mind the tail of the monkey-character Hanumāna, in the Indian epic Rāmāyaṇa.
The tail of Hanumāna is no minor thing: he uses it to set fire to an entire magnificent city (that of Laṅkā), in one of the most memorable & astonishing of all episodes in Indian literature.
Not that this episode depends much on the size & length of Hanumāna’s tail, but the tail is undoubtedly glorified in poetic terms, intriguingly reminiscent of the Behemoth.
I have absolutely no intention of demonstrating that the Behemoth could be the monkey ... No.
Rather, my idea is that the words or terms used to describe the tail cannot be taken literally, and the account seems to be a eulogistic-poetic literary hyperbole.
{A sculpture of what I take to be Rāma and Hanumān, from the Shri-Vaikuṇṭha Temple somewhere in South India.
He puts his arm around Hanumān’s shoulders, like a friend, not like a “boss”.
Picture taken from Wikimedia Commons.}
Now, I read the Rāmāyaṇa, cover to cover, sometime in 2016, I think.
I mean the original epic, traditionally authored by Vālmīki.
I cannot quote from it directly, left & right, but I do recollect most episodes, and many of the important ideas enunciated.
There might be many references to Hanumāna’s tail, which maybe interesting, but as of now, I’ll give some passages which’ll establish my point.
The first two passages are from the episode in which Hanumāna is jumping across the southern ocean to reach the city of Laṅkā, the magnificent bastion of Rāvaṇa, king of the beings known as rākṣasas.
Hanumāna is a magical being, much like the rākṣasas, gandharvas, yakṣas etc., and has the ability to shape-shift, or augment the size of his body to terrifying proportions.
His objective in this part of the story is to find Sītā – the heroine of the epic & wife of the hero Rāma – who has been abducted by Rāvaṇa, and kept captive in Laṅkā.
Having discovered that Laṅkā is situated 100 yojanas (anywhere between 800 to 2,000 kms) beyond the sea, Hanumān decides to fly across the ocean, and reach Laṅkā.
He climbs a mountain, augments his size to a gigantic stature, and makes the celebrated leap.
This episode has been described in loving detail and lavish poetry.
It is at this point we meet mention of Hanumān’s tail (5.1):
“Vidyādharas ... looked at the incomparable (aprameya) Hanumān, best among Vānaras, standing on the mountain.
He, like unto a mountain {or like fire, says another tr.}, shook his hair, quivered (his body) and let out a great roar like unto a vast cloud.
Springing up, Hanumān lashed his tail, which was rolled into a circle from top to bottom (आनुपूर्व्येण वृत्तं, ānupūrvyeṇa vṭttaṃ), which was covered with hair, just as the king of birds {pakṣi-rājā = Garuḍa} would (jolt) a snake (uraga).
Receiving his vigor (vega), the tail curled (āviddha) at his back was seen like a great serpent {mahoraga = mahā + uraga} carried off by Garuḍa.
The monkey (kapi) firmly planted (saṃstambh) his arms (on the mountain surface) which resembled huge iron clubs (parigha), his waist became slender, and he contracted his feet.
Bending {saṃhṛta, bringing together?} shoulders and neck, that mighty (vīryavān) and glorious (śrīmān) one increased his energy (tejas), strength (sattva) and courage (vīrya) (physical & mental).”
Good Lord.
It took me more than 20 minutes simply to write that one paragraph!
BTW, the Sanskrit kapi, for monkey, is almost identical to the Egyptian kaf – for monkey (obviously).
vānara also means monkey.
Almost all the words can be interpreted & translated differently, in many different ways.
And this is an issue constant, in almost every passage, throughout the length of this epic.
“which was rolled into a circle from top to bottom” is basically the sense of the term ānupūrvyeṇa vṭttaṃ, given by one generous translator.
I have no clue what the original is supposed to mean.
The word vega can be translated as impetus, speed, velocity, dash, momentum, impetuosity, vehemence, etc.
I think vigor is quite appropriate.
Basically, we see a rather fine literary treatment of the gargantuan monkey’s tail.
Once he leaps up from the mountain and starts his flight across the ocean, the similes start piling up (5.1.54-57):
“The vānara, with flowers of myriad hues sticking to his body, shone like a cloud (megha) in the firmament (ākāśa) adorned with lightning.
That (sea) water, strewn with blossoms scattered (samādhūta) by his impetuous motion (vega), looked like the welkin with delightful stars rising up.
That sky-borne one’s arms which were spread out {or, his arms, stretched out in the sky}, looked like five-headed serpents coming out of a mountain peak.
That great monkey (mahā-kapi) shone like one drinking the great ocean (mahā-arṇava) together with its garland of waves (urmi-māla), or like one who desires to drink up the whole sky (ākāśa).”
The last two lines do bring in mind the Behemoth, of whom it is said (KJV 40.23-24):
“Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not:
He trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.”
Few points, straightaway:-
1. I am merely comparing the Sanskrit conceptions with the King James Bible translation, no more: one is reminiscent of the other.
2. There is no animal which has any such notion, or misconception (that it can drink up the water of a river), or which can be said to drink up a river, or draw up a river into his mouth (or the ocean, or the sky).
3. The words can be interpreted & translated differently, more prosaically, and they have been.
I’ll come to that.
4. Evidently, taken as they are, the words are poetic “exaggerations” – they cannot be taken literally.
Taken as poetic license, or literary hyperbole, both accounts are just fine.
One can say that Hanumāna has explicitly increased his dimensions so as to be a gigantic, mountainous being, and his tail would ordinarily be nothing much, but I’ll come to that later.
The Behemoth might also have been imagined to be an unusually gigantic elephant (with a 30-foot long tail which could smack the Bejesus out of anybody).
Pliny mentions “dragons” in India which suffocate elephants to death, and also:
“Megasthenes informs us, that in India, serpents grow to such an immense size, as to swallow stags & bulls; while Metrodorus says, that about the river Rhyndacus, in Pontus, they seize and swallow the birds that are flying above them, however high and however rapid their flight.
It is a well-known fact, that during the Punic war, at the river Bagrada, a serpent 120 feet in length was taken by the Roman army under Regulus, being besieged, like a fortress, by means of balistæ and other engines of war.
Its skin & jaws were preserved in a temple at Rome, down to the time of the Numantine war.”
Maybe gigantic animals, of a size unimaginable today, did roam the Earth even 2,000 years ago, but have been hunted out of existence – perhaps deliberately, to ensure the spread of human civilization?
Maybe these legends are not legends at all – but very close to the truth, if not the literal truth.
Some of these accounts seem to be veiled allegorical-symbolic statements.
{A depiction of Hanumān, most probably from the Chennakeshava Temple, in Belur.
Image taken from Internet (Flickr).
Hanumān’s tail forms something of a circle, or loop, or halo, around his torso, and is furnished with a bell at the end.}
To continue with the Rāmāyaṇa, we further read (5.1.61-62):
“The tail of the son of Vāyu {i.e. Hanumān}, swimming in the welkin, uplifted, {? samāviddha} appeared beautiful like a pillar {or pole, dhvaja} erected in honour of Indra.
The Wind-god’s son of immense wisdom (mahā-prājña), with his great body {? mahān}, and with white teeth, shone like the Sun, being surrounded by his circular tail.”
Or, as another translator says: “...with his tail coiled up, looked handsome like the Sun with his disc”.
Not sure what does that mean.
It seems as if the tail is being lashed about like a whip, winding & unwinding.
When it straightens, it looks like a pole raised in honor of Indra – when it curls & winds around Hanumān’s body, it appears like a circle, and looks like the orb of the Sun, or, maybe, makes him look like the deity of the Sun stationed within the solar orb.
Do note that the word used for tail, lāṅgūla, also means phallus.
Similarly, the word translated pole, or pillar, which can also mean banner, flag, flagstaff, dhvaja, also means the organ of generation.
This is far from being the tail (i.e. end) of the tale of the tail.
Having reached Laṅkā, searched the city, discovered Sītā, and after taking leave of her, Hanumān decides to find out the strength of Rāvaṇa, his city, and his army, so that he can form some estimate of the plausibility of victory in case of war between Rāma & Rāvaṇa.
He decides the only way to find this out is to provoke the rākṣasas into an open confrontation, and for this, he begins to wreck the very garden in which Sītā is held captive.
Once he wrecks the grove, and provokes hostilities, we are told (5.42.27, 31):
“Approaching Hanumān who was standing near the arched doorway, they rushed towards him with a great speed, like locusts rushing towards a fire...
... That Hanumān, endowed with splendor/radiant energy (tejasvī) and effulgent/graceful (śrīmān), like unto a mountain, hurled his tail on the ground, making an enormous noise (mahā-svāna).”
The alternative translation says that he set up a tremendous roar, but, from what follows, it seems that the noise is made by the lashing of the tail.
At any rate, the noise is made by both him, and his tail.
(5.42.32):
“And attaining mighty proportions, Hanumāna, son unto the Wind-god, brandished his tail, filling Laṅkā with sounds.
And at the sound of his lashing, as well as those resounding ones set up by himself, birds began to drop down from the sky.”
Now here indeed is a being that moves his tail like a cedar!
There are other references to Hanumāna’s tail, but I think these passages should’ve conveyed the message.
The Behemoth’s moving of his tail like a cedar – if interpreted in this specific sense – is a figurative, poetic allusion.
It is akin to the gigantic Hanumāna’s tail being compared to a pole or pillar raised to Indra, or a massive serpent carried & whirled around by Garuḍa, or as something which makes such a tremendous, frightening sound that birds collapse from the sky.
I indicated before that the poetic license taken with Hanumāna’s tail maybe justified by his assuming gigantic proportions.
That is, since he has expanded his dimensions to a superhuman, mountainous size, the similes pertaining to his tail are perfectly normal.
There is, however, another episode, this time from the Mahābhārata, in which Hanumāna and his tail are mentioned, but whether he has expanded himself into a gigantic being is highly questionable.
This episode, quite famous, occurs during the exile of the Pāṇḍavas, when the 2nd brother, the irascible, mighty, violent & highly emotional Bhīma, sets out to look for a certain flower, for his wife, Draupadī.
Being somewhat destructive in nature, Bhīma creates havoc in the forests & woods he traverses, in his quest for the tree whence came the flower ardently desired by Draupadī.
He approaches the famous Gandhamādana mountain, where he perceives a beautiful banana-grove.
It is here that Hanumāna, listening to the enormous roars of Bhīma, & the noise made by him, decides to obstruct his path (as the epic says intriguingly, “to heaven” ).
Then, we read:
“With the object that Bhīma might not come by curse or defeat, by entering into the plantain wood, the ape Hanumāna of huge body lay down amidst the plantain trees, being overcome with drowsiness.
And he began to yawn, lashing his long tail, raised like unto the pole consecrated to Indra, & sounding like thunder.
And on all sides round, the mountains by the mouths of caves emitted those sounds in echo, like a cow lowing.
And as it was being shaken by the reports produced by the lashing of the tail, the mountain with its summits tottering, began to crumble all around.
And overcoming that roaring of mad elephants, the sounds of his tail spread over the varied slopes of the mountain.”
Is there mere poetic hyperbolism, or is there some sort of occult significance to all this?
I am more than certain that the ancients knew that the mere lashing of a monkey’s tail cannot topple mountain peaks, even if Indian literature is full of hyperboles (mostly very beautiful, imaginative & charming).
The roars of Bhīma are not less impressive, btw.
Both Bhīma & Hanumāna are sons of the Wind-God, but from different eras & different mothers.
Immense physical strength is an attribute of both characters, deriving their origin from the Wind-God.
Having obstructed his path, Hanumāna pretends to be old & infirm, and tells Bhīma (who cannot recognize him) that if he has to move on, he should simply lift his tail, and go ahead.
Bhīma, however, though endowed with the strength of 10,000 elephants, is unable to do as much, and is consequently humbled in his self-conceit & overweening pride.
My point is: I see no specific reason to think that Hanumāna has expanded his size to gigantic proportions here, like before the leap over the ocean, even though we are told he is huge, like a mountain.
His tail, even in its normal, original state & size, is meant to be something powerful.
To sum up:
The tail of the Behemoth which swings “like a cedar”, could just be poetic license, literary hyperbole.
For all we know, it might contain some esoteric or hidden significance.
We can see the same so-called “exaggeration”, the same literary treatment, in case of the Indian monkey-hero Hanumāna’s tail.
To say Hanumāna’s tail looks like a pole erected in the honor of Indra, and the Behemoth sways his tail like a cedar, are kindred similes, kindred ideas.
Hanumāna’s tail is compared to a pole raised to the honor of Indra, even in the Mahābhārata episode, which makes one suspect that “like a cedar” may refer not to the tree itself, but a piece of cedar wood/timber, or something made of cedar, like a pole, or pillar, or mace, or bludgeon etc.
Indeed, one may say that certain monkey-species do swing their tail “like a cedar”.
The Tufted-Gray-Langur, found in Southern India or Sri Lanka, or the Golden Langur, found in India & Bhutan, have massive, thick, long tails (especially in proportion to their bodies, probably exceeding that of their body length).
{Below: the Tufted Grey Langur: it holds its tail aloft quite smugly & proudly :}
To carry on.
I said that the word used for tail – lāṅgūla – is also the word used for phallus.
The passage, in full, is:
“He moveth his tail like a cedar:
The sinews of his stones are wrapped together.”
The word translated stones, in the original Hebrew, is pachad, which actually means testicle, or (derived therefrom), thigh.
Interestingly, there’s an alternative interpretation of the passage.
The New International Version says:
“Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.”
Which translation is correct?
Both seem correct enough, though the term stones is a pretty logical euphemism for testicles.
And yet, the word stones might be incorrect – or maybe taken only euphemistically or eulogistically – because neither the elephant nor the hippopotamus nor the rhinoceros have visible testicles, or a scrotum.
Be that as it may, the word translated tail may refer to the phallus.
(In that case, pachad may just mean testicle.)
Accordingly, in a book called The Book of Job in English Verse by some Thomas Scott, the author says:
“Mr. Heath translates, He erecteth his tail like a cedar.
In the literal sense, the tail both of the Elephant and the River-horse {i.e. the hippopotamus} is too contemptible to be compared to a cedar, or even at all taken notice of in this description.
It is therefore to be understood figuratively for the principal Organ of generation; like the latin cauda; according to the remark of Mr. Mudge quoted by Mr. Heath.”
I really don’t see the tail of the elephant as “contemptible”, though one cannot deny it looks unimpressive in relation to the rest of its body.
A tail even 5 feet long isn’t exactly “contemptible”, but the elephant doesn’t use it to great effect, say, like a monkey, or a crocodile, or a komodo dragon.
“erecteth” may be correct, since the Hebrew original is “chaphets” which also means to move, to bend, to bend down.
The previous passage, in the Bible (40.16), is:
“Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and
his force [is] in the navel of his belly.”
which Scott renders as:
“What strength is seated in each brawny loin!
What muscles brace his amplitude of groin!”
and gives the comment:
“I apprehend, these verses are descriptive of the great powers and mighty apparatus with which the Behemoth is furnished for propagating his kind.
In the Elephant the organs of generation doubtless bear proportion, in their magnitude & strength of texture, to the huge bulk of that animal, and therefore far exceed those of the River-horse, & consequently better correspond to the description.”
He has a point.
The Wikipedia article says, of the hippo:
“The testes of the males descend only partially and a scrotum is not present.
In addition, the penis retracts into the body when not erect.”
Though the elephant also doesn’t have a scrotum, the elephant bull’s penis can reach 40 inches in length.
Thus, the word zanab, used of the Behemoth, may not refer to the tail at all, but the phallus of the beast, or may cryptically refer to both.
Scott himself goes along with the tail, despite his comment about the possibility of zanab being the phallus.
In relation to “strength ... in his loins” & “force ... in the navel of his belly”, he says: “...that is, as Mr. Heath explains these terms, his generative vigour”.
He also notes that Mr. Heath uses the word ligament, instead of navel, and this is correct.
Thus, when the King James Version says: “his force [is] in the navel of his belly”, the word navel is rather misplaced, & should be translated as “in the ligaments of his belly”.
This is convincing: the Hebrew word is shariyr, which means sinew, muscle.
Here, Scott correctly notes:
“The strong muscular fibres of his belly are not mentioned as rendering the creature impenetrable in those parts, but as qualifying him with extraordinary vigour for propagation.”
This is all very convincing.
The objective is to extol the physical strength, the might & majesty, the virility & masculine force, of the Behemoth.
The Complete Jewish Version of the Bible says:
“What strength he has in his loins!
What power in his stomach muscles!
He can make his tail as stiff as a cedar,
the muscles in his thighs are like cables,
his bones are like bronze pipes,
his limbs like iron bars.”
Neither the elephant nor the hippo can make their tails stiff like cedars, so far as I know, but the covert allusion may be to the phallus, which has been glossed over, here.
The Wycliffe Bible also says:
“He constraineth his tail as a cedar (His tail standeth up like a cedar);
The sinews of his stones of engendering be folded together.”
As far as I know, only monkeys & cats can hold up their tails stiff & erect, and if neither creature is meant here (the Behemoth being a grass-eating herbivore), the allusion is either poetic license, or, a cryptic reference to the phallus.
{Below: 2 images of the Gray Woolly Monkey, from South America, both from Internet.
Do note the thickness & length of the tail, it’s proportion to the rest of the body, and how it holds it upright & flexible}.
I could add that the verse may also be translated as: he takes delight/pleasure in his phallus.
We must remind ourselves that neither the elephant nor the hippopotamus has “stones” mentioned in the King James Bible – i.e. external, visible testicles or a scrotum.
Same applies to the rhinoceros, it seems.
Hence, Scott’s idea appears to be correct, that these words generally refer to the reproductive power, the fecundity & fertility & virility, of the Behemoth.
So far, I see no incontrovertible reason to see the Behemoth as a hippopotamus.
It is not the tallest or largest of terrestrial animals.
It doesn’t have a tail which either looks like, or could be swished like, a “cedar” (if the passage is interpreted thus).
It doesn’t have external, visible “stones of generation”.
There are reasons aplenty, to see the Behemoth as an elephant, whether or not the word zanab is translated tail, or phallus.
{It is interesting that the Behemoth is said to eat “grass like an ox” (40.15), because Pliny writes: “Elephants were seen in Italy, for the first time, in the war with King Pyrrhus ... they were called “Lucanian oxen,” because they were first seen in Lucania.”}
In Indian literature, the elephant is invariably depicted as a majestic, rutting, lusty, robust, powerful creature.
The awe-full dimensions & magnitude of elephants in the ancient world is well attested.
“Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron...”
(Job 40.18, New International Version) seems very much applicable to the elephant, which was reputed to carry upto 30 men on its back (quoted in Bible Animals, by Rev. J.G. Wood).
The strong bulls of such gigantic beings must’ve undoubtedly evoked the admiration of men.
The elephant in rut, ooozing streams of ichor, is a perennial simile, applied to all our (Indian) heroes, demigods, and gods.
Proud, aggressive, restless, untameable, overbearing in its virile strength, the fierce elephant bull in “mast” is repeatedly evoked as an object of intense adoration in Sanskrit literature.
It is also compared to a lordly, fecund male surrounded by his “harem”, so to speak, of “wives” or concubines or female lovers (i.e. she-elephants).
From a temple in South India.
Image from the Internet.
I’m not sure I want to publicly share my thoughts on seeing this image!!
Zoophilia is an established fact, of Indian temples.
Hindus might invent a hundred (very lame) fibs to explain these unsavory, shocking images, but the fact is there is no explanation.
Tantra?
Hardly.
Most erotic images on Indian temples have been palmed off as being “Tantric”, but I seriously doubt it.
There may be some truth to it, but I don’t think that suffices.
Does Tantra allow intercourse with animals?
There’s not much going for it, if it does.
Do images showing women fornicating with horses pertain to the Ashvamedha (Horse) Sacrifice?
Is there any absolute proof it is so?
While may suppose that such acts were not condoned, it is difficult to see how were they condemned, given that they are found in very close proximity to the divine images of our gods & goddesses, in their very midst.
The first thought which comes to mind on seeing this image is: Yikes!
The second: is she a giantess, or is this a particularly small elephant, like a baby elephant?
Third: how can something like this not end in injury, or be extremely dangerous – I mean, like literally, how can this woman not get hurt?
Very risky, at any rate.
Mr. Heath, He definitely erecteth his “tail” like a cedar!!!!
As for the “extraordinary vigour for propagation”, those of the lady seem much more impressive, than that of the poor clueless beastie!!}
In the context of poetic descriptiveness, however, we can see similarities in images employed to describe Hanumāna in the Rāmāyaṇa.
As he returns from Laṅkā, flying back across the ocean, we read, once again (Rām. 57.5-6):
“While moving in the sky, the illustrious Hanumāna, son of wind-god and the great monkey (mahān kapi), appeared as if
swallowing the sky (ākāśa),
touching the moon {lit. lord of the stars},
carrying off the welkin (gagana) with its stars & the disc of the sun (arka-maṇḍala), and
was going as though tearing asunder a mass of clouds.”
This again reminds us of the Behemoth who is said to “drinketh up the river”, or draws up the Jordan (supposedly, this refers to any river) into his mouth.
And yet, again, the passage can be interpreted differently, taking the hyperbolic-poetic element out of it.
One can only wonder why the King James Bible translators chose the words which they did choose.
It would be necessary to have a look again at the lines (KJV 40.23-24):
“Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not:
He trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
He taketh it with his eyes...”
As poetic license, this would pass off as easily as do the glowing eulogies showered on Hanumāna.
But there is a prosaic interpretation; I’ll give the New International Version version:
“A raging river does not alarm it;
it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
Can anyone capture it by the eyes,
or trap it and pierce its nose?”
Restricting myself to the first two lines: this seems to apply perfectly to the elephant, and would, to a gigantic hippopotamus too.
There are at least 3 basic, broad interpretations:-
1. His drinks up the river.
2. He agitates the river.
3. He is not afraid of a raging river.
The Wycliffe Bible gives the 1st, for instance:
“He shall swallow up the flood, and he shall not wonder
He hath trust, that (the) Jordan shall flow into his mouth.”
The 1599 Geneva Bible gives the 2nd interpretation, though the Behemoth can still drink up a river (i.e. draw it into his mouth):
“Behold, he spoileth the river, and hasteth not:
He trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.”
The Complete Jewish Bible, gives the 3rd interpretation:
“If the river overflows, it doesn’t worry him;
he is confident even if the Yarden rushes by his mouth.”
Which one do we go by?
What did the original author(s) mean?
What exactly was on his/their mind?
There is another point I would like to make here.
The Hebrew word zanab, translated tail, means tail, end, stump.
Is it possible that the word actually means extremity, i.e. something at the end or extremity or tip, of a body?
In that case, it might just refer to the trunk of the elephant, rather than the tail.
It is very obvious, that for some reason, the elephant is mentioned nowhere in the Bible.
Ivory is, and there are several references to ivory, which make it out to be a highly expensive, coveted objected, often associated with royalty.
The throne of Solomon is made of ivory (1 Kings 10.18).
Egyptians did use ivory quite extensively - another reason to wonder why they never integrated the elephant into their symbolic matrix.
The navy at Tarshish brings Solomon apes, peacocks & ivory, and from the words used it has been universally admitted these objects were imported from India.
There is mention of ivory palaces & ivory houses, in the Bible, though they are probably simply poetic license, and refer to chests & caskets, made of ivory.
The Hebrew authors undoubtedly knew of the elephant, if ivory was seen as something so valuable, but, for some reason, do not mention it explicitly anywhere in the Bible.
Curious, despite the fact that elephants were well-known creatures of that part of the world.
Here again, I suspect a mystery of sorts.
Apocryphal Hebrew literature mentions elephants explicitly.
Rev. J G Wood (my source of information in this subject), references the First Book of Maccabees which mentions elephants in the very beginning, and we read, in an account of war:
“And upon the beasts were there strong towers of wood, which covered every one of them, and were girt fast unto them with devices; there were also upon every one 32 strong men that fought upon them, beside the Indian that ruled him.”
Does this mean that the elephants were obtained from India?
It is possible that the Hebrews had bad memories of the elephant: Rev. J G Wood points out that Talmudic authors considered the dream of an elephant to be inauspicious.
They found the animal ugly & odd, which means that the Israelites really did not use the elephant directly, or, when they authored their books, did not live in the same environmental matrix as elephants, or have any direct contact with them.
They valued ivory, but saw the elephant only from far-away, only occasionally, and as something inimical.
It was used against them in wars of conquest.
There might be some sort of superstition, fear, and hatred of these animals which were already distant at the time the books of the Old Testament were codified & put in order.
Hence, there might have been an attempt to overwrite, gloss over, or hide, the presence of the elephant, in the Bible.
This is just a thought, not a theory.
The logical question is: why choose the elephant at all, & then distort its image, why not choose some other animal?
Well, I cannot answer that question: No animal has been chosen/described explicitly.
The whole thing is so vague, confusing, so ambiguous, so indeterminable, that the question can be turned around at one making it: why didn’t they simply clarify which animal?
It is possible that the Hebrews were trying to dissociate themselves from their Oriental-Indian associations.
The Old Testament is nothing if not a testament to the constant struggle of Israelites trying to overcome, detach themselves from, and reject, their own past, their own antecedents.
India is mentioned very vaguely & confusedly in the Bible: it is called Hodu (?!?) in the Book of Esther.
Other references may be inferred, indirectly, and I wonder what evidence can be given to prove that Cush or Put have anything to do with India.
Be that as it may, anyone who insists that the Behemoth is a hippopotamus (not found in India), should be reminded that the Israelites must have known the hippo, having spent centuries in Egypt, and they could have simply mentioned it so.
They imported apes & peacocks, they knew camels & ostriches, they loved & coveted & glorified ivory, but they didn’t know of the elephant?
They had been in Egypt for centuries, had known Egyptians for centuries, since the time of Abraham, but didn’t know the hippopotamus?
For some reason, the image Behemoth is never defined or clarified with any degree of precision.
The attempt maybe to create the image of something truly wonderful, inimitable, unconquerable.
There is no animal which man cannot hunt, or has not tamed or subjugated in some way or the other.
No great animal, which has not been defeated or rendered inferior, by human intelligence.
The Behemoth has been described the way it has been, probably because it is meant to be untameable, undefeatible.
To depict it explicitly as an elephant or hippo or any other known animal would eliminate that element of mystery, inconceivable power, and the aspect of something divine, which the text adduces to it.
The other point to be considered is that the Behemoth maybe purely a mythical, composite creature, but we are not told based on which, or integrating which all creatures (like the chimera).
It may also be a known creature, but with added imaginative features, probably containing some esoteric significance.
Such mysteries can be found in Indian literature too, for example, the radiant jewel on the crest of serpents, which, of course, do not exist.
The lion in India, imaged as an enemy of the elephant, and portrayed as such all over Indian temples, is not the real lion we see anywhere.
It is a strange, composite creature, with frightfully bulging, goggling eyes, and with two or three curvy horns.
I wonder how real or common is this conflict between elephants & lions, a constant theme in Indian literature.
{7.4.2024: Actually what I was referring to, was the vyāla or yāli.
As pointed out earlier, the ordinary lion (siṁha) has no horns – the vyāla does.
Both are shown “dominating” or straddling elephants in Indian architecture, but I’d like to look closer and see if there are any fundamental differences in iconography.
I think I’ve noticed something, but I’m not sure.}
As I said, the Ancients thought differently: they viewed the world through a lens all their own, they were not statistical or realistic: they blended reality with imagination, at every step.
The Behemoth maybe a composite, imaginative, poetic figure every bit as the triple-horned lion or makara (crocodile + elephant) or leonine ram of India, or the unicorn (horned horse, as is the horse of the Ashvamedha sacrifice).
But it must be based, primarily, on some animal, and this may just be the elephant.
{Image from Internet: a elephant-head topped columns at Petra, Jordan.}
{7.4.2024: It would be worth considering how often do such elephant images crop up, in the Middle East? Also: Are they common in Egypt? I doubt it.
In which case, it is unlikely the imagery came from Africa via Egypt.
I didn’t know there were elephants in Jordan – modern or ancient.
The imagery has probably come from India.}
The trunk of the elephant is something which sways majestically.
It is a delightful sight.
The Talmudic authors may not have liked the animal & its nose because it was used in war & conquest against the Hebrews.
But in India itself, the elephant-trunk was something deeply admired & poeticized: the arms & thighs of our heroes & heroines are invariably compared to the elephant-trunk, and it is also the type used in sculpture to depict the same (i.e. the arms & thighs are shaped like the elephant-trunk).
It is a powerful, extraordinary, unusual & versatile limb the like of which does not quite exist, anywhere else.
It must have certainly intrigued the Ancients, captured their imagination, & even excited their wonder.
So this is my thought; a likely, tentative guess: the tail which sways like a cedar, or the zanab which the Behemoth sways like a cedar, refers, not to the tail of the elephant, but to its trunk.
Wherever the word zanab comes from, it’s not necessary the official explanations are exhaustive: as extremity, or an end (of a body), it might have a lost origin that maybe used to indicate the elephant-trunk, which is at one end or extremity of the elephant’s body.
This trunk, which swings with a fluid, languid vigor – a veritable hand in a four-legged creature which it almost uses like a human hand – is a striking feature which can be said to sway or move like a powerful, large pole or staff or like the trunk of a tree.
Though I do not know it for a fact, it is possible that the Hebrews did not like the elephant, at least in a later stage of their existence, when their books reached the form that has come down to us.
Such omissions are not rare in literature.
As we can see, camels play no role in Egyptian symbolism & iconography, and the elephant only minimally & peripherally so, though Egyptians undoubtedly knew & saw both, at pretty close quarters.
{7.4.2024:
Take the Sanskrit word piccha, for instance.
It means:
« a tail
« a feather of a tail (esp. of a peacock)
« a wing, and interestingly
« a crest.
The original idea is that of an extremity, end, or tip ... one tip/extremity being the head or top of the head, the other tip/end being the tail or foot, and by extension, the private organs.
The concept of feather, or hair, is derived from that of the tail, which maybe feathery or hairy.
Similarly, take the Sanskrit śikhā which means:
« a tuft or lock of hair on the crown of the head, a crest, topknot, plume
« a peacock’s crest or comb
« a sharp end, point, spike, peak, summit, pinnacle, projection, end or point (in general)
« the end or point or border of a garment
« the point or tip of the foot
« the nipple
« a branch which takes root, any branch
« a fibrous root, any root.
In this one word, we see “pinnacle” & “any root” or “crown of the head” & “tip of the foot” clubbed under the same term.
This is not as bewildering as it may appear, at first sight.
The fundamental concept seems to be that which is at one end, or extremity.
Hence, it also means “the end of a garment”.
In Tamil, vālam (obviously, from the Sk. vāla) means both “tail” as well as “hair of the head”.
It is on similar lines, I posit that lost in the mists of time, the Hebrew zanab could have actually referred to the trunk of the elephant.}
There are thus, 2 possibilities:-
1. The Behemoth is either a composite-mythical, imaginary being based on an elephant (like a myriad composite creatures, e.g. chimera, gryffin, hippogriff, makara, etc.), or
2. For some reason, the elephant has been written over, glossed over, hidden from sight: the weird but fascinating, strong & dexterous & unusual trunk, which dangles & swings with lazy gracefulness – with a quiet, hidden, unassuming power – at one extremity or end of the body, is glossed over as a tail, which is said to sway like a cedar.
It is something that can be bent, or bent down, or even uplifted, or stiffened, as the various translations indicate (confusingly, if the tail is considered).
I don’t know which herbivore’s tail can be said to “standeth up as a cedar”, but an elephant’s trunk certainly can.
I’m not sure how much effort I should put into this topic.
There is a lot more that can be written.
One problem is that both these beasts are associated with water & rivers.
The case for the elephant on a whole, however, is stronger – whether you consider
its gigantism,
its immense physical strength,
its fierce masculinity (whereas the Egyptian hippo was basically a female-goddess figure related to childbirth etc.)
its tail – certainly bigger than that of the hippo! –
its generative organ –
its legendary association (in India) with rivers, waters, rain, etc. –
its typical, consistent mythical association with mountains & trees (mentioned in the Behemoth passages)
– and, as I will follow up subsequently –
its archetypal (Indian) association with lotuses.
On the one hand, the hippopotamus, an amphibious or semi-aquatic animal, was associated with the flooding of the Nile, – on the other, in India, the elephant was very significantly associated with water, and with the showering of water, of rain, of moisture, of dew.
As for drinking a river, or drawing it into its mouth, again, confusion is obvious since the hippopotamus has a massive, yawning, cavernous mouth – and the elephant has its trunk, with which it draws up water & splashes it all around.
Both can be said to “agitate” the waters of a river, or, be unfazed at its overflowing, though I reckon this also fits the elephant better than the hippo.
“...as a lotus-pool in a wood (araṇya-kamalinī) is troubled by elephants, so was she dimmed by her Mātanga birth
{mātaṃgakuladūśitām (= mātaṃga + kula + dūśita)}”,
says the brilliant Bāṇabhaṭṭa in Kādambarī {the pun being that mātanga means both elephant, and chaṇḍāla: this is part of a description of a Chaṇḍāla woman}.
But of all that, later :)
