Arthur Walker-Jones, «The So-called Ostrich in the God Speeches of the Book of Job (Job 39,13-18)», Vol. 86 (2005) 494-510
The so-called ostrich passage (39,13-18) has been much discussed by scholars
both because of the difficulties it presents and the importance of its position in the
book of Job. Discussions have focused on why an ostrich appears, rather than
whether the Mynnr is, in fact, an ostrich. Quite a number of Hebrew words and
expressions have to be emended or explained to make them fit an ostrich.
Moreover, H.-P. Müller has shown that Mynnr is not the name for ostrich in Hebrew
or any Semitic languages, is not translated "ostrich" in early Greek versions, the
Peshitta, or Targums, and the translation "ostrich" probably came from a false
identification in early Christian reflection on nature. This article uses contemporary
ornithological literature and the information the passage provides on the
nest, habitat, behaviours, and calls of the Mynnr to identify a more likely type of
bird. The identification of the Mynnr as a sand grouse helps resolve a number of
problems in the text and clarify the literary connections of the passage to the rest
of the animal discourse, God speeches, and book of Job.
496 Arthur Walker-Jones
17. For God has made her forget wisdom;
He has not given her a share of understanding.
18. When on high she soars (6),
she laughs at the horse and its rider.
Although many biblical scholars have written about the difficulties
of translating the so-called ostrich passage (Job 39,13-18), few have
questioned the identification of the hapax legomenon µynnr (v. 13) with
an ostrich. An exception is Hans-Peter Müller who has advanced some
persuasive arguments against an ostrich: µynnr was not translated as
ostrich by early Greek versions, the Peshitta, and the Targum; it is not
the name for ostrich elsewhere in Hebrew or the Semitic languages;
the description is zoologically incorrect; and the identification
probably came from early Christian devotional reflection on nature (7).
This section of the article briefly examines his arguments based on
the Semitic languages, the Versions, and early Christian literature, to
which it adds arguments from the context.
The form µynnr occurs only in Job 39,13. It appears to be from the
root ˆnr which means “cry†either in joy or in lamentation. Biblical
Hebrew uses another root for the ostrich, ˆ[y, which is used in Job
30,29 (8). Other Semitic languages have other names for the ostrich and
(6) The root of this word (ayrmt) appears only here. Some postulate metathesis
and emend to rymat “go aloft†(GORDIS, Job, 460-461) or µar “riseâ€. Others appeal
to an Arabic root mr÷ meaning “whipping or spurring horse†(G. HÖLSCHER, Das
Buch Hiob [Tübingen 1952] 92; S. R. DRIVER – G. B. GRAY, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job [ICC; Edinburgh 1921] 320; A.
GUILLAUME, Studies in the Book of Job. With a New Translation, [ed. J.
MACDONALD] [Leiden 1968] 17) though Pope finds this “unsatisfactory†(M.H.
POPE, Job. Introduction, Translation, and Notes [AB; Garden City, NY 1965] 262)
and Müller thinks it has no basis in the cognate languages (H.-P. MÜLLER, “Die
sog. Straußenperikope in den Gottesreden des Hiobbuchesâ€, ZAW 100 [1988]
102). Habel’s suggestion that the root is related to the root hrm “revolt†and means
“rise up, be roused†(N. HABEL, The Book of Job. A Commentary [OTL;
Philadelphia 1985] 525) seems plausible because in Hebrew roots with the same
two first letters sometimes have similar meanings and ÷aleph sometimes replaces
he÷. It requires no emendation or appeal to cognate languages.
(7) MÃœLLER, “Straußenperikope â€, 90-105; N.H. Tur-Sinai (Torczyner)
thought the passage referred to a fable about two birds who abandon their young
(The Book of Job. A New Commentary [Jerusalem 1967] 543-544).
(8) Other than the Qere in Lamentations 4,3 where it appears alone as a
masculine plural (µyn[y), it occurs as hn[yhAtb (Lev 11,16) or hn[yh twnb (Deut 14,15;
Job 30,29; Isa 13,21; 34,13; 43,20; Jer 50,39; Mic 1,8).
FOLLOW US