Bible Animals

There are several references in the Scriptures to the hook used for this cruel purpose. See 2 Kings xix. 28: "Because thy rage against Me and thy tumult is come up into Mine ears, therefore I will put My hook in thy nose, and My bridle in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest."

The reader will perceive how much more forcible is this passage when understood rightly than when the word "hook" is taken as signifying a mere fish-hook, the sum of it being that the Assyrians should be made captives and slaves, and driven back to the country whence they came. The passage in Ezek. xxix. 4 must be taken in the same sense: "But I will put hooks in thy jaws."

That the spear was used in the old Scriptural times as it is at the present is shown from several passages of Holy Writ. See, for example, Job xli. 7: "Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish-spears? as also in the same chapter, "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.

"The arrow cannot make him flee: sling-stones are turned with him into stubble.

"Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear" (ver. 26-29).

Fishing with the spear is much used in the smaller tributary streams of the Jordan, and the weapon, instead of being many-pointed and barbed in trident fashion, has but one point, and is without barbs. With these spears the people contrive to catch a considerable variety of Fish.

We now come to the practice of catching Fish by the net, a custom to which the various Scriptural writers frequently refer, sometimes in course of historical narrative, and sometimes by way of allegory or metaphor. The reader will remember that the net was also used on land for the purpose of catching wild animals, and that many of the allusions to the net which occur in the Old Testament refer to the land and not to the water.

The commonest kind of net, which was used in the olden times as it is now, was the casting-net. This kind of net is circular, and is loaded all round its edge with weights, and suspended by the middle to a cord. When the fisherman throws this net, he gathers it up in folds in his arms, and, with a peculiar swing of the arms, only to be learned by long practice, flings it so that it spreads out and falls in its circular form upon the surface of the water. It rapidly sinks to the bottom, the loaded circumference causing it to assume a cup-like form, enclosing within its meshes all the Fish that happen to be under it as it falls. When it has reached the bottom, the fisherman cautiously hauls in the rope, so that the loaded edges gradually approach each other, and by their own weight cling together and prevent the Fish from escaping as the net is slowly drawn ashore.

This kind of net is found, with certain modifications, in nearly all parts of the world. The Chinese are perhaps supreme in their management of it. They have a net of extraordinary size, and cast it by flinging it over their backs, the huge circle spreading itself out in the most perfect manner as it falls on the water.

At the present day, when the fishermen use this net they wade into the sea as far as they can, and then cast it. In consequence of this custom, the fishermen are always naked while engaged in their work, wearing nothing but a thick cap in order to save themselves from sun-stroke. It is probable that on the memorable occasion mentioned by St. John, in chap. xxi., all the fishermen were absolutely, and not relatively naked—i.e. that they wore no clothes at all, not even the ordinary tunic.

That a great variety of nets was used by the ancient Jews is evident from the fact that there are no less than ten words to signify different kinds of net. At the present day we have very great difficulty in deciding upon the exact interpretation of these technical terms, especially as in very few cases are we assisted either by the context or by the etymology of the words. It is the same in all trades or pursuits, and we can easily understand how our own names of drag-net, seine, trawl, and keer-drag would perplex any commentator who happened to live some two thousand years after English had ceased to be a living language.

Four or five of the Hebrew words give no clue whatever, being simply derived from a root that signifies weaving, and that therefore merely indicates the fact that the articles in question are nets. Some of them are derived from a word which signifies lying in wait, and another from a word which signifies catching or seizing.

The translators who rendered the Hebrew into the familiar form of the Septuagint either were unable to distinguish between the various Hebrew terms, or did not think that any discrimination was needed, inasmuch as they sometimes render the same Hebrew word by several Greek equivalents, and sometimes use the same Greek word to express several Hebrew terms.

When we come to the New Testament, we find a certain feeling of relief, because the three words used to signify different kinds of nets are easily understood.

There is, for example, the amphiblêstron (αμφίβληστρον), which is undoubtedly a casting net, as is signified by the etymology of the word, which is derived from two Greek words signifying to cast around. This word is used by Herodotus in a sort of parable related by Cyrus to the Ionians and Æolians, who had refused to revolt from Crœsus when Cyrus asked them to do so; but, when they found he was sure to be their master, they sent an embassy to ask to be admitted among his subjects on the same terms which they had enjoyed when under the rule of Crœsus.

When the embassy came before Cyrus, he only answered them with a parable: "A piper, seeing some fishes in the sea, began to pipe, expecting that they would come ashore; but, finding his hopes disappointed, he took a casting-net, and enclosed a great number of fishes, and drew them out. When he saw them leaping about, he said to the fishes, 'Cease your dancing, since when I piped you would not come out and dance.'"

The reader will doubtless have noticed the singular analogy between this parable and the saying of our Lord, "I have piped to you, and ye have not danced."

This is the net that is mentioned in Matt. iv. 18: "And Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net (amphiblêstron) into the sea."

The second word, diktuon (δίκτυον), is derived from another word signifying to throw; so that if we use the expression "casting-net" for the word amphiblêstron, and "throwing-net" for the word diktuon, we shall be tolerably accurate. Practically both words are used for the same net, as we find by proceeding further with the sacred narration.

After mentioning that the future Apostles were casting a net (amphiblêstron), St. Matthew proceeds as follows: "And He said unto them, Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.

"And they straightway left their nets (diktua), and followed Him" (ver. 19, 20). In the following verse, where James and John are mentioned as being occupied in mending their nets after the wont of all practical fishermen, the word which is translated as "nets" is diktua.

If we turn to John xxi. we find the same word employed.

After the Resurrection, the fisher Apostles were pursuing their craft by night, as is still the custom, and had caught nothing—a very serious loss to them. Then at daybreak they saw their risen Lord standing on the seashore, and, as was several times the case after the Resurrection, did not recognise Him. He then told them to cast the net (diktuon) over the right hand of the boat, and as soon as that was done the net was filled with Fishes.

Now the knowledge of the real meaning of the word diktua gives to this passage a signification which it would not otherwise possess.

In ver. 11, St. John (who was one of the actors in the scene, and who therefore writes with the precision of an eye-witness) states that the number of large Fishes was a hundred and fifty-three, and yet the net was not broken. Knowing that the casting-net is comparatively small, we now see that a hundred and fifty-three large Fishes would completely fill a net which could be cast by one man, and that the miraculous element was twofold.

Firstly, the complete filling of the net with large Fishes, whereas six or seven small Fishes are the usual complement of a casting-net; and, secondly, the fact that the net which was held merely by a single rope in the middle, and which retained its contents simply by the weight of the leads round its margin, did not give way, and allow the enclosed Fish to escape.

Indeed, the very fact that a casting-net took such a multitude of Fishes at once opened the eyes of St. John, who exclaimed to his fellow Apostles, "It is the Lord." St. Peter, with the impetuous zeal of his nature, acknowledged the truth of the exclamation, and, too impatient to wait until the boats could land, girt his fisher's tunic upon him, leaped into the sea, and swam ashore.

The third Greek word which is translated as "net" is sagênê (σαγήνη), a word which still survives in our term "Seine."

The Sagene, or seine-net, was made in lengths, any number of which could be joined together, so as to enclose a large space of water. The upper edge was kept at the surface of the water by floats, and the lower edge sunk by weights.

This net was always taken to sea in vessels, and when "shot" the various lengths were joined together, and the net extended in a line, with a boat at each end. The boats then gradually approached each other, so as to bring the net into a semicircle, and finally met, enclosing thereby a vast number of Fishes in their meshen walls. The water was then beaten, so as to frighten the Fishes and drive them into the meshes, and the net was then either taken ashore, or lifted by degrees on board the boats, and the Fish removed from it.

As in a net of this kind Fishes of all sorts are enclosed, the contents are carefully examined, and those which are unfit for eating are thrown away. Even at the present day much care is taken in the selection, but in the ancient times the fishermen were still more cautious, every Fish having to be separately examined in order that the presence both of fins and scales might be assured before the captors could send it to the market.

It is to this custom that Christ alludes in the well-known parable of the net: "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind;

"Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away." Compare also Habakkuk i. 14-17.

The important part taken by Fish in the earlier scriptural days is shown by the fact that in Jerusalem there was not only a fish-market, but that the gate which opened upon that market was called the Fish-gate. See 2 Chron. xxxiii. 14: "Now after this he built a wall without the city of David, on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to the entering in at the fish-gate."

Afterwards, when Nehemiah obtained permission from Artaxerxes to rebuild the burnt and broken-down walls of Jerusalem, he restored the Fish-gate as it had been before: "But the fish-gate did the sons of Hassenaah build, who also laid the beams thereof, and set up the doors thereof, the locks thereof, and the bars thereof" (Neh. iii. 3).

About ten years afterwards, when the city had been rebuilt and repeopled, the fish-market was again established, the dealers being chiefly men of Tyre, who took advantage of the neglect of the law which had been the result of the captivity among idolaters, and sold their goods on the Sabbath day: "There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish, and all manner of ware, and sold on the Sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem" (Neh. xiii. 16).

It is evident that the Fish which these traders brought must have been dried and salted, or otherwise they would not have borne the journey to Jerusalem from Tyre. Dried Fish were, according to Herodotus, largely used in Egypt, and it is probable that the Jews learned the art of drying and salting Fish for future use during their captivity in that land.

There are one or two passages in the Scriptures which relate to Fish, though in a less direct manner than those which have been quoted. One of them refers to the times of drought which occasionally visit Palestine, and which always bring with them terrible privations, and sometimes cause actual famine. See, for example, Isa. 1. 2: "Behold, at My rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness: their fish stinketh, because there is no water, and dieth for thirst." These words exactly express the condition of the country after a long drought. The springs are gradually exhausted from the absence of rain, the large rivers sink lower and lower in their beds, and the little streams and tributaries dry up altogether, leaving their inhabitants to perish for want of water.

By way of contrast to this passage, we will take another, which speaks, not of death, but of life. It occurs in Ezek. xlvii. 10, and forms part of the vision in which the future of the Church was foretold:

"And it shall come to pass, that everything that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and everything shall live whither the river cometh.

"And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from En-gedi even unto En-eglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many."

Now this is one of the many passages which might be passed over lightly, because its general signification is so evident, and yet which requires to be understood before its full force can be comprehended. Both these places, En-gedi and En-eglaim, are on the shores of the Dead Sea, in which no creature can live. Thousands of small Fishes are daily carried into the Dead Sea from the Jordan, and as soon as the fresh water of the river mingles with the poisonous waves of the Dead Sea the Fishes die. Putting aside as foreign to the purpose of this work the metaphorical signification of the passage, we find that the prophet foretold a complete regeneration of the waters, so that, instead of destroying every creature that entered them, the Fishes should multiply so that fishermen should ply their trade from one part of the Dead Sea to another.

Again, in Hosea iv: 3, where the destruction of Fish is mentioned among the plagues that would follow the continual disobedience of the Israelites: "Because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land, ....

"Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven: yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away."

Lastly, we come to the religious, or rather superstitious, part played by Fish in the ancient times. That the Egyptians employed Fish as material symbols of Divine attributes we learn from secular writers, such as Herodotus and Strabo.

The Jews, who seem to have had an irrepressible tendency to idolatry, and to have adopted the idols of every people with whom they came in contact, resuscitated the Fish-worship of Egypt as soon as they found themselves among the Philistines. We might naturally imagine that as the Israelites were bitterly opposed to their persistent enemy, who trod them under foot and crushed every attempt at rebellion for more than three hundred years, they would repudiate the worship as well as the rule of their conquerors. But, on the contrary, they adopted the worship of Dagon, the Fish-god, who was the principal deity of the Philistines, and erected temples in his honour.

Their tendency to this Fish-worship is specially noticed in the commandment that they were not to worship "the likeness of anything that creepeth on the ground" (i.e. serpent-worship), "the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth" (Deut. iv. 18).

We learn from 1 Sam. v. 4 the form of this idol: "When they arose early on the morrow morning, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark of the Lord; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold; only the stump of Dagon was left to him."

If the reader will refer to this passage, he will see that the latter part is rendered in the marginal reading as "the fishy part was left to him." The Jewish Bible has nearly the same reading, "only a fish-stump had remained of him."

It is evident, therefore, that Dagon had the head, body, and arms of a man, and that the figure terminated in a Fish's tail. In fact, there is little doubt that to the various figures of this deity is owing the wide-spread belief in mermen. We find the same image among the Assyrians, who not only represented the god as half man and half fish, but who dressed his priest in a garment representing the skin of a Fish, with the head worn as a helmet, and the rest of the skin flowing down the back.

We find precisely the same worship at the present day in Siam, where Dagon has exactly the same form as among the Philistines of old. There is now before me a photograph of a great temple at Ayutia, the entrance to which is guarded by two huge images of the Fish-god. They are about sixty feet in height, and have both legs and feet like man, but in addition the lower part of the body is modified into the tail of a Fish, which, in common with the whole of the body, is covered with gilded scales.

It is conjectured that the Fish was chosen as an emblem of fecundity, on account of the wonderful fertility of the Fish tribes. That the Israelites were familiarly acquainted with this fact is shown by a passage in the benediction of Jacob. In speaking of Joseph, he uses these words: "The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude" ("as fishes do increase," marg. trans.) "in the midst of the earth" (Gen. xlviii. 16).

In order that the reader may see examples of the typical Fish which are to be found in Egypt and Palestine, I have added three more species, which are represented in the following illustration.

The uppermost figure represents the Nile Perch (Lates Niloticus). This Fish is plentiful in the Nile, and in the mouths of many Asiatic rivers. It is brown above, silvery white below, and may be distinguished by the armed gill-covers, and the three strong spines of the anal fin. The tongue is smooth.

Immediately below the Nile Perch is the Star-gazer (Uranoscopus scaber).

This Fish is found in the Mediterranean, and derives its name from the singular mode in which the eyes are set in the head, so that it looks upwards instead of sideways. It is one of the mud-lovers, a fact which accounts for the peculiar position of the eyes. It is said to feed after the fashion of the fishing-frog—i.e. by burying itself in the mud and attracting other Fishes by a worm-like appendage of its mouth, and pouncing on them before they are aware of their danger.

FISH OF EGYPT AND PALESTINE.

1. Nile Perch.  2. Surmullet.  3. Star-gazer.

"We remember the fish which we did eat in Egypt freely."—Numb. xi. 5.

This is not a pretty Fish, and as it is very spiny, is not pleasant to the grasp, but its flesh is very good, and it is much valued by those who can obtain it.

The last Fish to be noticed is the Surmullet (Mullus Surmuletus), a Fish that is equally remarkable for the beauty of its colours and the excellence of its flesh.

INVERTEBRATES

MOLLUSCS

The purple of Scripture—Various Molluscs from which it is obtained—The common Dog-Whelk of England—The sac containing the purple dye—Curious change of colour—Mode of obtaining the dye—The Tyrian purple—The king of the Ethiopians and the purple robe—The professional purple dyers—Various words expressive of different shades of purple—Care taken to keep the preparation of the dye secret.

Leaving the higher forms of animal life, we now pass to the Invertebrated Animals which are mentioned in Scripture.

As may be inferred from the extreme looseness of nomenclature which prevails among the higher animals, the species which can be identified are comparatively few, and of them but a very few details are given in the Scriptures.

Taking them in their zoological order, we will begin with the Molluscs.

We are all familiar with the value which was set by the ancients upon the peculiar dye which may be called by the name of Imperial Purple. In the first place, it was exceedingly costly, not only for its richness of hue, but from the great difficulty with which a sufficient quantity could be procured for staining a dress. Purple was exclusively a royal colour, which might not be worn by a subject. Among the ancient Romans, during the times of the Cæsars, any one who ventured to appear in a dress of purple would do so at the peril of his life. In the consular days of Rome, the dress of the consuls was white, striped with purple; but the Cæsars advanced another step in luxury, and dyed the whole toga of this costly hue.

The colour of the dye is scarcely what we understand by the term "purple," i.e. a mixture of blue and red. It has but very little blue in it, and has been compared by the ancients to the colour of newly-clotted blood. It is obtained from several Molluscs belonging to the great Whelk family, the chief of which is the Murex brandaris. Another species is Murex trunculus, another is Purpura hæmastoma, and we have a fourth on our own coast, the common Dog-Whelk, or Dog-Periwinkle (Purpura lapillus).

The shell is shaped something like that of a whelk, but is very smooth and porcelain-like, and is generally white, ornamented with several coloured bands. It is, however, one of the most variable of shells, differing not only in colour but in form. It always inhabits the belt of the shore between tide-marks, and preys upon other Molluscs, such as the mussel and periwinkle, literally licking them to pieces with its long riband tongue.

This tongue is beset with rows of hooked teeth, exactly like the shark-tooth weapons of the Samoan and Mangaian Islanders, and with it the creature is enabled to bore through the shells of mussels and similar Molluscs, and to eat the enclosed animal. It is very destructive to periwinkles, thrusting its tongue through the mouth of the shell, piercing easily the operculum by which the entrance is closed, and gradually scooping out the unfortunate inmate.

Even the bivalves, which can shut themselves up between two shells, fare no better, the tongue of the Dog-Whelk rasping a hole in the hard shell in eight-and-forty hours.

Any of my readers who desire to obtain a very fair specimen of the old imperial purple can do so without difficulty.

Let him go down to the sea-shore, and collect a number of Dog-Whelks—a task of no difficulty, as a bushel may be obtained in a very short time. Let him provide himself with a piece of perfectly clean linen, or pure white woollen fabric, and a pair of fine scissors or a sharp knife.

In order to procure the animal, the shell must be broken with a sharp blow of a small hammer, and the receptacle of the colouring matter can then be seen behind the head, and recognised by its lighter hue.

When it is opened, a creamy sort of matter exudes. It is yellowish, and gives no promise of its future richness of hue. There is only one drop of this matter in each animal, and it is about sufficient in quantity to stain a piece of linen the size of a sixpence.

The best mode of seeing the full beauty of the purple is to take a number of the Molluscs, and to stain as large a surface as possible. The piece of linen should then be exposed to the rays of the sun, when it will go through a most curious series of colours. The yellow begins to turn green, and, after a while, the stained portions of the linen will be entirely green, the yellow having been vanquished by the blue. By degrees the blue predominates more and more over the yellow, until the linen is no more green, but blue. Then, just as the yellow yielded to the blue, the blue yields to red, and becomes first violet, then purple, and lastly assumes the blood-red hue of royalty.