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.
The So-called Ostrich in the God Speeches 503
rejoicing (v. 13). Sand grouse lay their eggs directly on the ground in
desert areas in Israel (v. 14). They rely on their camouflage and may
only take flight when a large animal is about to step on them (v. 15).
Sand grouse also have calls that sound like laughter and, when they
startle a horse and its rider by suddenly soaring up from the ground,
might seem to be mocking them (v 18). The calls and behaviours of
sand grouse, therefore, closely match the evidence of the passage.
III
Moreover, the identification of the µynnr as a sand grouse and an
understanding of sand grouse behaviour helps clarify several difficult
parts of the passage that have puzzled scholars. We have already seen
a number of these — the name of the bird, the description of its wing
rejoicing, the possibility that a wild animal might step on her (v. 15),
and the reference to the bird soaring on high and laughing at a horse
and its rider (v. 18). An understanding of the behaviours of sand grouse
also helps explain verses 16-17.
Although the commonplace statement that the passage is
zoologically incorrect for an ostrich and based on folk traditions would
support the thesis of this paper, I find it an oversimplification based on
a questionable translation of the Hebrew and analysis of folk
traditions. According to the customary translation, the hen lacks
wisdom (v. 17) and is “cruel†to her young (jyvqh; v. 16) because she
“leaves†(bz[t; v. 14 NRSV) or abandons them on the ground. This
they say is zoologically incorrect because ostriches may leave the nest
to draw away large predators but take turns incubating their eggs. Even
if ostriches have to leave them for short periods, many potential
predators would be unable to break the tough shells (37). For this reason
Dahood appeals to Ugaritic where the root ¿zb means “lay†(38).
Certainly, the statement that the bird has not been given understanding
(v. 17) shows a lack of appreciation for the physical and behavioural
adaptations of ground-nesting birds. However, bz[ has a range of
meanings that include “leave in safety†(39). The multiple meanings
(37) G. CANSDALE (All the Animals of the Bible Lands [Grand Rapids 1970]
193) says “the eggs have such thick shells that they are not easily broken by
accident. Only a few animals have mouths large enough to smash one of these
eggsâ€.
(38) See footnote 4.
(39) Isa 10,3; BROWN – DRIVER – C. A. BRIGGS, A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament, 737 1d.