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.
506 Arthur Walker-Jones
assume or say that the poet lacked modern scientific knowledge but,
in this case, modern folk ideas may have blinded them to the biological
knowledge of an ancient poet.
By saying in verse 17 the mother bird lacks wisdom, the ancient
poet may show a lack of appreciation of the physical and behavioural
adaptations of ground-nesting birds, but may not be saying in verse 16
that the mother is “cruelâ€. Instead, the poet may be referring to the
“hardy†or highly precocial chicks of sand grouse and other ground-
nesting birds.
IV
Removing the fog created by modern folk tales about ostriches
helps clarify the literary connections between the passage and the rest
of the animal discourse, the God speeches, and the book of Job.
Commentators often suggest that the running speed of the ostrich
forms a literary connection with the next animal in the discourse, the
horse. Reference is often made to Xenophon to support this connec-
tion. He says that while marching through Arabia, they sometimes
chased the wild animals, “but no ostrich was captured by anyone, and
any horseman who chased one speedily desisted; for it would distance
him at once†(50). The conclusion drawn is that the ostrich “laughs at
the horse and rider†because it can outrun them.
The ostrich’s laugh would be a limited one, however, as riders on
horseback hunted and successfully caught them in the ancient world.
Aelian says:
Now the capture of this bird is effected by means of horses, for it runs
in a circle keeping to the outer edge, but the horsemen intercept it by
keeping on the inner side of the circle, and by wheeling in a narrower
compass at length overtake it when it is exhausted with running (51).
In addition, ancient Near Eastern iconography shows people
hunting ostriches by chariot and even on foot, and keeping ostriches in
(50) Xenophon, Anabasis I–VII (Loeb Classical Library; Harvard – London
1968) I.5.2–3; Cited in J. POLLARD, “Birds in Greek Life and Mythâ€, Aspects of
Greek and Roman Life (ed. H.H. SCULLARD) (London 1977) 106.
(51) Aelian, On the Characteristics of Animals (Loeb Classical Library;
Cambridge – Harvard – London 1958) XIV.7; Cited in POLLARD, Birds in Greek
Life,106.