Bochart was a man of deep learning and most extensive reading; his Hierozoicon,' which was the labour of thirty years, is a complete storehouse of ancient zoology. Quotation follows quotation-velut unda supervenit undam'-from Greek, Latin, and Arabic sources, so that the reader is fairly overwhelmed with the list of authorities quoted, and astounded at the amazing diligence of which the result was the completion of so extraordinary a work. The 'Hierozoicon' is therefore quite indispensable to him who is investigating the zoology of the Bible; but there can be no doubt that Bochart's conclusions are often unwarranted; he depends too much on etymologies which are sometimes forced and fanciful, besides which, it must be remembered that Bochart was no naturalist. Physical science did not enter into the category of his studies; hence his great work contains much that is mere fable, and his conclusions are often erroneous. What Bochart has done for the zoology of the Bible, Celsius has done for its botany. Dr. Olaus Celsius was Professor of Divinity at Upsal, and is well known to scientific readers as the friend and patron of Linnæus at a time when that great naturalist stood in pressing need of assistance, and the clouds of adversity hung thickly over him. Celsius was at that time preparing his work on the plants of the Bible, in which he was assisted by his young friend. His 'Hierobotanicon,' which was published at Amsterdam in 1748, is by far the most valuable work that we possess on sacred botany. Celsius was a botanist, he had travelled in the East, and was an accomplished Oriental scholar—a combination of qualifications that could not but result in the production of a work of permanent value. The Hierobotanicon' is an extremely rare book, as there were only two hundred copies printed; and it is now one of those works which are oftener talked of than read,'* It would be unpardonable were we to pass over without mention the names of Michaelis, Maundrell, Shaw, Harmer, Charles Taylor, Harris, Mariti, Volney, Seetzen, Pococke, Burckhardt, Irby and Mangles, Hemprich and Ehrenberg, Elliott, Kitto, Rosenmüller, Robinson, Royle, Hamilton Smith, Hooker, &c., who have contributed to our knowledge of the Natural History of the Bible, either by suggesting investigations, or by personal observation, or by a careful condensation of existing trustworthy materials. It is, however, from the writings of men who have been long resident in Palestine that we should expect to derive the most information on these subjects. Travellers, as we have observed, have not the necessary time and opportunities at command; but we * Smith in Linnæan Transactions, vol. i. p. 34. naturally naturally anticipate very valuable contributions from residents in the country. We have not been altogether disappointed in the perusal of Dr. W. M. Thomson's work, which contains some useful helps to the understanding of certain passages in the Bible which allude to animals and plants. But there is a great fault to be found with Dr. Thomson; he has failed to employ to much advantage the opportunities which a twentyfive years' residence as a missionary in Syria and Palestine afforded him, of increasing our knowledge of these things. He is far too hasty in his conclusions; he often sets at nought the careful investigations of others in the matter of the identity of an animal or plant, and advances his own opinion, which is too frequently unsupported by any kind of evidence. He cares not to know, for instance (p. 256), the botanical name of a certain species of lily which he first saw in the plain of the Huleh; he seems satisfied it is the lily of the field' referred to by our Lord, and speaks in raptures of the beauty of the flower, but gives so vague a description as to defy any attempt to divine what is the plant he is talking about. The importance of Natural History in its bearing on the Bible has long been acknowledged. It is true that it is looked upon with suspicion and forebodings of evil consequences by many persons, but this fact should rather increase our desire for fuller investigation. We look with no degree of anxious suspicion upon attempts to discover the truth, provided those attempts be conducted with honest integrity of purpose, with fair argument, and sound deduction. It is not our intention upon the present occasion to enter into the controversies which are raging upon this subject; our immediate purpose is to bring before our readers a few of the most remarkable animals and plants which the Bible record has invested with more particular importance. The animals and plants of which mention is made in the Bible belong principally to the countries of Egypt and Palestine, though, of course, we have notices of some that occur in the peninsula of Sinai, as well as of various articles of merchandise consisting of animal and vegetable products from foreign countries. Of the animals of Egypt, the most remarkable are the crocodile and the hippopotamus; the former being occasionally mentioned under the Hebrew name liv'yâthan, the leviathan of the authorised version, while the latter-named animal is denoted by the "The Land and the Book,' by W. M. Thomson, D.D., twenty-five years a missionary in Syria and Palestine. London. T. Nelson and Sons. 1860. Hebrew Hebrew behemoth. The leviathan may denote almost any huge ' monster.' In the 41st chapter of Job it undoubtedly represents the crocodile of the Nile and no other animal, notwithstanding the assertion of Sir G. Wilkinson to the contrary.* It is perfectly true, as this eminent writer maintains, that Isaiah (xxvii. 1) calls "leviathan the piercing serpent," and "that crooked serpent where it is probable that it corresponds to the aphophis, or great serpent of Egypt; but this by no means invalidates the opinion that liv'yâthan is a generic term to signify any huge monster, whether terrestrial, amphibious, or marine. Thus, in Psalm civ. 26: O Lord, how manifold are Thy works! in wisdom hast Thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches. So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable. .. There go the ships, there is that leviathan whom Thou hast made to play therein,' there can be little doubt that some whale is intended. The word monster, therefore, is perhaps as good a translation as can be proposed of the Hebrew term; indeed, the Village Clerk's proposed rendering of that great live thing' was not very far from the mark. Great difference of opinion, however, has prevailed amongst the old commentators as to the animal denoted, which is very remarkable, considering the indications which the Bible affords of its identity. Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal." 'Who can open the doors of his face?' 'His teeth are terrible round about.' 'The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold; the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.' 'He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.' It is impossible to have a better clue to identification than is conveyed by these expressions. Some of them, indeed, would apply to a large serpent, yet not all equally; besides, it is clear the animal is, for the most part, aquatic in his habits, which python-snakes, as a rule, are not. Many of the oldest commentators were persuaded that a 'whale' is signified. Beza and Diodati appear to have been the first to suggest a crocodile, and Bochart, as Mason Good has well observed, 'has supported this rendering with a train of argument which has nearly overwhelmed all opposition,† and has brought almost every commentator over to his opinion.' Our own translators of the Bible seem to have believed that the leviathan of the book of Job was a whale, as is evident from the marginal reading whale or whirlpool, formerly synonymous terms. *Note in Rawlinson's 'Herodotus,' ii. p. 99. The Book of Job literally translated from the original Hebrew,' by John Mason Good, F.R.S. London, 1812. , Vol. 114.-No. 227. E Milton Milton ('Par. L.,' i. 200) represents leviathan as a whale, or some yet greater sea monster, with a scaly skin; for he speaks of That sea-beast Leviathan, which God of all his works Lee, in his 'Commentary on the Book of Job,' has laboured hard to show that leviathan is the common grampus (Delphinus orca, Linn.), an opinion which cannot for a moment be maintained, being utterly destitute of any argument to recommend it. Cartwright asserts that many of the ancients both by behemoth and by leviathan understand the devil.' Mercer says 'Nostri collegerunt, hanc descriptionem Leviathanis ad Satanam pertinere;' and again—' Multa in Leviathanis descriptione nulli alii quam Diabolo, aut saltem non adeo proprie congruunt' (!). What these descriptive details are, which are so especially applicable to the devil, it would be difficult to determine. There are, however, modern critics who seem to be of the same opinion; for, who does not remember the indignant remonstrances which were uttered some years ago by a certain Journal, when it was proposed to call the monster-ship by the dreadful name of 'Leviathan?' The argument against the name was groundless. There is not the slightest indication in Scripture that leviathan ever designated Satan. The leviathan, the piercing serpent, even that crooked serpent' clearly refers to some temporal enemy of the Jews; in all probability the Egyptian Kingdom, of which some huge rock-snake or python was an emblem. But even if the term were ever applied in the sense which has been attributed to it, it would be as reasonable to object to many other names given to ships-such as: 'The Lion,' 'The Serpent,' 'The Dragon,' &c. The crocodile was regarded by the Israelites as an emblem of the Egyptian King: Thou didst divide the sea by Thy strength. . . Thou brakest the head of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness-that is, Thou didst destroy the princes of Pharaoh, and didst give their dead bodies to the jackals of the desert of Sinai. The jackals, which are preeminently the wild beasts of the field,' are doubtless intended by the expression 'people inhabiting the wilderness;' just as in Prov. xxx. 25, 26, it is said that the ants are a people not strong; strong; the conies are but a feeble folk.' It was very natural that the oppressed Israelites should compare their great enemy with the terrible crocodile; and so in Ezekiel (xxix. 3) Pharaoh, King of Egypt, is called the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers.' The question as to the animal denoted by the behemoth of the Book of Job has been as much discussed as the former word. Some critics have suggested the elephant ; others, as Mason Good, have thought that the behemoth was some extinct mastodon or mammoth. (!) There can be no doubt, however, that the hippopotamus is the behemoth of Scripture. The expressions, he eateth grass as an ox'-'he lieth under the shady trees in the covert of the reeds and fens'-'he moveth his tail like a cedar' -clearly point to the hippopotamus. Though he passes much of his time in the water, yet he takes not his food from thence, like his associate the crocodile; he eats grass like cattle; the hill-sides bring him forth food. Again, according to the opinion of many Oriental scholars, as Bochart, Gesenius, Fürst, Jablonski, and others, the Hebrew behemoth is equivalent to the Coptic pehemou or pehemout, i. e. Bos marinus. But let the reader peruse the whole passage of Job xl. (15-24) and say whether every particular does not suit the hippopotamus? 6 'The Talmudists represent behemoth as a huge land-quadruped which each day devours the grass of a thousand hills; hence he is called the "bull of the high mountains." He is at some future period to have a battle with leviathan.' The Fathers for the most part,' as Carey observes, surrounded the subject with an awe equally dreadful; and in the behemoth and the leviathan saw nothing but mystical representations of the devil, . . . but these wild imaginations are surpassed by that of Bolducius, who in the behemoth actually beholds Christ.'* There is abundant evidence to show that the hippopotamus formerly existed in other regions than those to which it is now confined; it has entirely disappeared from Lower Egypt, but in 1600 it was found in the Delta of the Nile, for the traveller Zereughi killed two individuals near Damietta. Bones of the modern species (H. amphibius, Lin.) have been found in the river Chelif in Algeria. There can be no doubt that the hippopotami which were introduced into the Roman shows were derived from Lower Egypt and North Africa; and doubtless the behemoth of the Book of Job refers to an animal of the same locality. But if the behemoth and the leviathan have each of them * ' Dictionary of the Bible,' art. Behemoth, App. A. E 2 received |