While leading a Bible study on end times during the 2020 pandemic, I asked one of the attendees to read Isaiah 11:8. While most of us were reading out of the New King James Version or the New International Version, the lady assigned to read had a 1611 King James Version: “And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’s den.”
The first question that arose was, “What is a cockatrice?” because most our Bibles read, “viper’s den.” Imagine my pride when my daughters offered, “It was probably a kind of dinosaur.” Then, we were back to end times.
The incident got me thinking: we are aware of the behemoth and the leviathan, and the different interpretations of what they are, but what’s a cockatrice, Lord? How did it turn into a viper? Was it a real animal? With the understanding that it was probably an dinosaur of some sort, what species was it?
Were Post-Enlightenment translators and commentators on the Bible really more enlightened in their information on the subject of what they considered mythological creatures? Or did their so-called enlightenment result in new translations and new ideas about the Scriptures that assumed that the Bible was written by superstitious men who believed in mythological animals and, thus, cannot be relied on to give an accurate picture of the world? I believe this article will support the idea that the original writers actually saw and wrote about a variety of beasts that have since become rare enough to be considered extinct.
In the King James Version of the Bible, we find the words dragon, behemoth, leviathan and cockatrice. However, in the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Key Word Comparison, we find that in the Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New American Standard Bible and New International Version, the earliest of which, the Revised Standard Version, was published in 1952, the words “dragon” and “cockatrice” are never translated that way; “dragon” becomes “serpent,” “monster,” or “jackal.” “Cockatrice” becomes “viper” or “adder.” Having just finished reading through the Bible in German, I compared an 1836 Luther’s Translation to a New Luther’s Translation. “Dragon” is “drachen” in German and “cockatrice” is “basilisk.” However, in the New Luther’s translation, unlike English, “dragon” is still “drachen” but only if it is used metaphorically. If it is used in the context of living animals or future promises, the German “Schakale” or “jackal” is used, as in English. The German “basilisk” (for the English “cockatrice”) becomes “Natter” or “adder.” So English translators are not unique in changing the language because of the change in the worldview of western civilization.
The question is, are the animal names given in the original translations into the vernacular based on living creatures? If we accept that the evolutionary worldview that began in the 1700s has changed the understanding of dinosaurs as dragons into reptiles that went extinct millions of years ago, what kind of animal were they? Is there any evidence of it? Interestingly, evolutionary soft scientists (anthropologists, historians, etc.) are confounded by the different presentations of the dragon worldwide. Most mythological creatures are localized and limited. For example, the leprechaun is found only in Ireland, and will show you to his hidden pot of gold at the end of a rainbow and possibly grant you a wish if you catch him. On the other hand, dragons are found all over the world anecdotally, artistically, and in reference works in a wide variety of representations, from small to large, winged and not. It flies in the face of everything evolution teaches, but the vast amount of evidence is undeniable. The soft scientists admit that this indicates that they were real animals that people had observed. To make the issue of dragons living with man as clear as possible, we will be focusing on the “cockatrice,” a particular species, though we will start with a language study to see the patterns of how translation changed and how the Bible describes the various dragons.
How were “dragon,” “cockatrice,” “behemoth,” and “leviathan” translated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries? [Author’s Note: While the King James Version uses other presumably mythical creatures such as “unicorn” and “satyr,” they are mammals and this article does not address them.] When translating, the translator uses common usage and context to help him. In other words, the more frequently a word is used, the better idea he has of how to translate it.
“Behemoth” is only found in Job 40:15 in the Bible and is not translated out of the Hebrew into the vernacular either in older or newer translations. However, the creature is described in great detail. It lives in swampy, forested areas, eats plants and grass, is enormous and strong, with a long, heavy tail, and, while it is possible to leash it, it seems to follow you of its own accord, not because you could actually force it! According to the Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon included in the 1890 Strong’s Concordance, entries 929 and 930, a “behemoth” is “a dumb beast; especially any large quadruped. A water-ox, i.e., the hippopotamus or Nile-horse; – Behemoth.”
“Leviathan” is also not translated out of the Hebrew. It is described in great detail, as well, as a water-going animal with heavy scales and jaws, that breathes fire. On the other hand, unlike behemoth, it is not recommended that you try to domesticate it! In addition, “leviathan” is found in other places in the Bible besides Job 41. The Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon, entry 3882, defines “leviathan” as “a wreathed [coiling?] animal, i.e., a serpent/especially the crocodile or some other large sea-monster; figuratively, the constellation of the dragon, also as a symbol of Babylon: – leviathan, mourning. [?]” In the Companion Bible, published in 1969, the notes to the verses that contain the word “leviathan” in Psalms explain that it is probably a crocodile, while their interpretation of the word in Isaiah 27:1 goes to great lengths to explain the metaphorical nature of the various leviathans in the passage.
Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon, entry 8577 tells us that the Hebrew word we translate as “dragon” is “tanniyn” or “tanniym.” It is “a marine or land monster; i.e., sea-serpent or jackal: dragon, sea-monster, serpent, whale.” It comes from the Hebrew “tan,” (reference #8565) – “from an unused root probably meaning to elongate.” Given that, we can make an understandable connection to sea-serpents, sea-monsters, and serpents. But jackals? Jackals are neither elongated nor monstrous, neither in the sense of being enormous nor in the sense of being unfamiliar. And, yet, “tanniyn” is translated “jackals” in both English and German in all except four of the verses from the prophetic books. Psalm 148:7 is “Wallfische” [whale] in the Old Luther’s Translation, “Grosse Fische” in the New Luther’s Translation and “great sea creatures” in the New King James. In the New King James Version, every other reference is not “dragon” but some variety of monster or serpent. Interestingly enough, there is no reference in the 1890 Strong’s Concordance for “jackal.” It wasn’t anywhere in the King James Version and probably wasn’t in the original Hebrew. The modern word for “jackal” is “ee,” which doesn’t sound much like “tanniyn.”
“Cockatrice,” which is what got this whole project going and is the focus of this article, is found in only four verses. Isaiah 11:8: “And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’s den.” Isaiah 14:29: “Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina [Philistia], because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.” Isaiah 59:5: “They hatch cockatrice eggs, and weave the spider’s web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper.” Jeremiah 8:17: “For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices among you, which will not be chained, and they shall bite you, saith the Lord.”
Strong’s reference #6848 explains that the Hebrew word for “cockatrice” is “tsepha” or “tsiphoniy,” “from an unused root meaning to extrude; a viper (as thrusting out the tongue; i.e., hissing): – adder, cockatrice.” “Cockatrice” or “basilisk,” which the Online Topical Bible says “has been identified with the equally mythical cockatrice,” is translated as “viper” in all four verses in all of the modern translations of the Bible referenced in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. That might be acceptable except that there are other words that are used in the Bible for poisonous snakes. “Epheh”=“viper,” “pethen”- an Egyptian cobra, translated “asp” in the Bible and “aksub” = “horned viper” or “puff adder.” The editors of The Bible Almanac explain that “cockatrice” is referring to a highly poisonous snake, “although we cannot identify exactly what snake is meant by the Hebrew phrase behind it.” Bearing in mind that some creatures have several names, or that different species may have different names in a given language, it still seems unlikely that they would have yet another word for a viper. Granting that possibility, we are still confined by the description of the creature in the Bible. 1: It lives in holes (Isa. 11:8.) 2: It hatches from eggs (Isa. 59:5.) 3: It may be poisonous (eating the eggs kills people) (Isa. 59:5.) 4: It is fiery (may by color, venom or actual fire based on the Companion Bible’s notes on Moses’ “fiery serpent” in Numbers 21:6) (Isa. 14:29.) 5: It flies (Isa. 14:29.) 6: It is a reptile (Isa. 14:29.) While most of these may apply to snakes, so far as we know, snakes don’t fly!
What has changed since Luther published his Bible in 1534 and the King James Version was published in 1611? The Bible Almanac, published in 1980, informs us that “We must remember that the King James Version was written in the 1600s. At that time, most people believed that unicorns, satyrs, and dragons, for instance, were real. Now we know that they were imaginary beasts that came into our language through Greek and Roman myths.” The 1828 Noah Webster’s Dictionary defines the cockatrice as “a serpent imagined to proceed from a cock’s egg.” Even by 1828, the cockatrice was considered to be imaginary. But hatched from a cock’s egg? Yes. That is the legend. But was the cockatrice ever described historically? The first place one would look is in mythological tales.
The Encyclopedia Britannica equates the cockatrice and the basilisk. Based on this, the author accepted definitions and anecdotes for either name when researching the subject. Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable defines a cockatrice as “a fabulous and heraldic monster with the wings of a fowl, the tail of a dragon and the head of a cock. It is otherwise known as a basilisk.” The Dictionary of English Folklore says: “This legendary creature, first described by classical authors, remained acceptable to the educated till the 17th century. It was supposed to have the head and legs of a cock but the body and tail of a small dragon; it was venomous and could kill people with its deadly glance. . . . said to come from an egg laid by a cock hatched by a toad.” Medieval authors were fond of writing bestiaries, a kind of literary zoo. The Medieval Bestiary said that the basilisk was a crested snake or cock with a snake’s tail. Fire from his mouth would kill birds, his glance would kill a man. His bite would cause hydrophobia. Isidore of Spain (7th century) said it was six inches long with white spots. It could kill a man with a look, birds nearby were burnt, and it hid in holes.
Interestingly, the only things that might kill a basilisk/cockatrice are a weasel (possibly even only its scent.) Bartholomeus Anglicus, in the thirteenth century, reported that the weasel can kill him, but he can kill the weasel, as well, much like the relationship between the king cobra and the mongoose. Other things that may kill a cockatrice are the sound of a rooster’s crow (which may refer to the superstition of the rooster’s crow at sunrise dispelling the powers of darkness) and the cockatrice seeing its own reflection, since his gaze was supposed to turn people to stone, much like Medusa, though other authors used the word “might” in reference to the cockatrice killing itself.
These are the more recent, Medieval to modern, definitions of the mythological creature, the cockatrice. However, when looking up “cockatrice” and “basilisk” online, once one wades through the sites on gaming, witchcraft, fantasy art, and computer components, most of the references are to historical books, documents, and sightings. Even the historians do not refer to the cockatrice as a mythological but as a physical animal. St. John of Damascus, in the 8th century A.D., even assured his readers that dragons were not magical – they were just reptiles! Konrad Gesner (1516-1565), in his Historia Animalium, describes dragons as “very rare but still living creatures.” Seventeenth century Bible scholar Samuel Bochart even gave his recommendation for what you should do if you are attacked by a flying dragon: duck! He will think he has won and fly away peacefully. He also said that some were venomous (implying that not all were.)
Among the oldest historians to refer to the “cockatrice” were Strabo, Alexander the Great, Herodotus, and Josephus. The most complete description of the cockatrice is found in Pliny the Elder’s Natural History from A.D. 79. He said it was a small snake, not more than twelve inches long. It leaves a trail of venom and its gaze is lethal. It had a snake’s head and body with a cockerel’s head, legs, wings, and crest. The skin is either black and yellow or khaki camouflage. “Anyone who sees the eyes of the basilisk serpent dies immediately. . . . It is no more than twelve inches long, and has white markings on its head that look like a diadem. Unlike other snakes, which flee its hiss, it moves forward with its middle raised high.” Its touch and breath destroy plants and even rock. He recounts a story in which a mounted man speared a basilisk, the poison moved up the spear, killing the man and then killed his horse, as well. Whether it was so poisonous that it could kill at a distance just by looking may be questioned, but the implications were clear: keep your distance! Another important feature is noted by Herodotus: In Arabia he “saw bones and spines in such quantities. . . . The form of the serpent is like that of the water snake; but he has wings without feathers, and as like as possible to the wings of a bat.” Strabo, four hundred years after Herodotus, reports (probably from a book by Megasthenes, who lived three hundred years before him and who actually visited India) that in India, the creatures had wings like bats and were nocturnal.
(from a medieval copy of Pliny’s Natural History,)
In addition, there are many depictions of winged, crested, long-tailed reptiles, many of which have tail vanes, necessary for a rudder in flight. This will be important later when we consider what fossil creature it might have been. These depictions, specifically with tail vanes, are found frequently in Egyptian and Babylonian art. However, winged dragons are seen in art on every continent and in every historical period up to the 1700s.
(Egyptian scarabstone, with drawing for clarity. Note the bulb at the end of the tail)
While these descriptions are helpful and show consistency among them, they have enough disparity to indicate that they are not reading off the same script. When they seem remarkably similar, it is very evident, such as Barthomeus Anglicus (13th century A.D.) apparently quoting from Pliny the Elder (A.D. 79) about the poison of a speared basilisk going up the weapon into the man and horse. But while Pliny and others talk about the cockatrice/basilisk having the wings of a cock, Herodotus is very specific that they are like the wings of a bat. Some authors say they are quite small, some that they grow to great size. The skin color varies among writers and some report that they are crested and some do not, in addition to a recent eyewitness in the early twentieth century who said specifically that some were crested and some were not, possibly indicating sexual dimorphism.
Concerning observation, are all the tales of dragons, specifically cockatrice/basilisks, of the fairy tale variety? No, actually, they are not. Pliny’s description of the cockatrice’s body not lying on the ground like a lizard or snake but being carried above the ground is very detailed and accords with the modern description of dinosaurs and ancient reptiles. The supposed legend of its eggs being laid by a cock and incubated by a toad, which are universal among the stories of cockatrices, actually show observation of the animal’s nesting habits. Of course, if the animal is described as having the head of a cock, it is a very short step to the understanding of its being laid by a cock. Being incubated by a toad may have arisen from the observation of a curled up creature guarding the eggs. We know that some crocodilians guard their nests. And while some tales are passed down as stories, others have been found in government records! The online Smithsonian Magazine, not known for calling fairy tales history, carries many of them. In 1202, people in a district of Vienna were fainting inexplicably; a basilisk was found the the city well and had apparently poisoned the water. The Dutch scholar Levinus Lemnius (1505-1568) found two basilisks, killed them, and crushed their eggs. The story of the Warsaw basilisk has been retold many times. Two little girls wandered off and the mother and nursemaid found them lying in a cellar. When the nursemaid went in to get them, she collapsed, as well. The mother ran to get help. The whole city seemed to show up and the bodies were removed with hooks; they appeared to have died of poisoning. A convicted criminal was pardoned with the caveat that he go into the cellar and kill the animal. He went in with a rake, which hardly seems sufficient, unless they either didn’t trust him with a weapon, or they were expecting it to be a small enough animal that a rake would be enough to snag him. Fortunately for everyone, he did. [Author’s Note: in an enclosed space, the fumes from the venom might have overpowered the smaller bodies of the nursemaid and children, while the man’s heavier body could take more poison before he collapsed, which there is no indication that he did.]
The Wherwell Cockatrice has no date attached to it, even on the Wherwell, Wales historical website but it took place at the Wherwell Priory sometime between the time the priory was established in 986 A.D. and the time this Catholic property was surrendered to the crown of England in 1539. According to the story, a duck egg was hatched in the basement of the priory. It hatched into a cockatrice and withered everything around it. A reward was given to destroy it. A servant named Green volunteered. He was lowered into the basement with a steel mirror, presumably because the cockatrice would see its own image and be turned to stone. He did not turn to stone, but he did attack his mirror image to the point of exhaustion, at which point he was speared. The Wherwell history website expands on this and says it “turned into a kind of dragon. It grew to an enormous size and had an insatiable appetite.” In this case, it was rampaging across the countryside, eating people. There is no mention of venom in this retelling and neither account specifically mentions wings. That being the case, though it is called “The Wherwell Cockatrice,” it was probably a different variety of dragon from an actual cockatrice. Most likely, the fact that it was observed being incubated and hatched accorded well with the legend of the cockatrice being hatched by a toad and that is why the Wherwell Cockatrice goes by that name, though, in other respects, it doesn’t seem to have much in common with other reports. It does, however, give us some insight into the idea that it could turn itself into stone by looking in a mirror.
Eight accounts in various documents from Britain, including the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, dating 793 to 1793 A.D., report flocks of small dragons all heading in the same direction. Within a very short time, windy weather hit. The assumption was that the fragile-winged creatures were trying to beat the weather.
A story found in a couple of places, significant because of how recent it is, was told by a man in the early twentieth century. He said that the woods around Penllin Castle, Glamorgan, Wales had winged serpents. They lived in colonies and looked as though they were covered with jewels. Some of them had crests. [Author’s Note: this might have been due to sexual dimorphism.] When disturbed, they glided to their hiding places and when angry, flew over people’s heads. (This reminds us of Bochart’s recommendation to duck!) The person who told this story said his father and uncle used to kill them because they were terrible about killing the barnfowl. Apparently, they weren’t concerned about venom.
Mormon journalist Jonathan David Whitcomb has written two books and several blogs about eyewitness reports of encounters with dragons, beginning in 1944. Often these encounters are received dubiously because there is no evidence and/or corroborating witness, despite the detail given. However, the Mysterious Universe website reports that a group of naturalists (providing expert, corroborating witnesses) watched a two and a half foot dragon flit about a quarry in Wales for four minutes before it went into a cave. Many ancient reports mention that they hide in holes, as does the Bible, including some that we have referred to that indicate that any hole would do, including cellars and a well.
If a cockatrice/basilisk was actually what we currently call a dinosaur, what kind might it be? First of all, what characteristics have we found in cockatrices? 1. Generally small bodies, about twelve inches long; 2. their bodies are reptilian, long, and slender; 3. upright bodies; 4. wings like a bat; 5. two legs; 6. head reminiscent of a chicken’s; 7. may or may not be crested; 8. may or may not be venomous; 9. long tail, possibly with tail vanes. (The observers thought it was part snake.)
What ancient reptile might this have been, and is there any fossil evidence of it?
One of their universal characteristics is that they have wings. That would indicate a pterosaur of some kind.
Dr. Carl Werner in Evolution: The Grand Experiment, tells us that there are almost one thousand pterosaur fossils that have been examined. He quotes Dr. Peter Wellnhofer, Curator of the State Collection in Munich in saying that they are well represented in the paleontological record. There are two varieties, pterodactyls, which are short-tailed, and rhamphorynchus, which are long-tailed. Generally speaking, the pterodactyl comes in two varieties, the gigantic pteranodons down to hawk-size pterodactyls, though the smaller ones may be juveniles. Rhamphorynchus, on the other hand, had a body about a foot in length (sounds like Pliny the Elder’s description) and a wingspan of three feet. However, some pterosaurs have been found that were as small as a sparrow, though they may have been babies.
(Rhamphorynchus fossil from Sollnhofn, Germany. Note the tail vane at the end of the tail for a rudder in flight)
Rhamphorynchus fossils are among the most detailed that we have found. Ironically, they have been found in the same area as the Archaeopteryx: Solnhofen, Germany. The clarity of fossils is, to a great degree, dependent on the fineness of the the sediments that the fossil formed in. The tile quarries in Solnhofen have stone whose grain so very fine that soft tissues and feathers can be seen on the fossils. It is important to note, however, that that doesn’t mean we can see everything. So what do we see in a rhamphorynchus fossil? 1: It has a twelve inch long body; 2: it has a long and slender reptilian body; 3: it has two legs; 4: it does not appear to have feathers on its wings, though its digits are gathered together at what we would call the elbow joint, rather than true bat-like wings, where the skin spreads out between long digits; 5: its head is reminiscent of a chicken; 6: it has a long tail; 7: it has vanes at the tip of its tail.
Aside from crests, which we have already established may or not have been on every cockatrice and are sometimes made of soft tissue which are not always visible in a fossil, and venom, which we can’t identify from a fossil, the Rhampnorynchus matches up exactly with the description of the cockatrice.
We appreciate the work and study that theologians, archaeologists, and linguists have put in to make the most updated and accurate translations possible. Unfortunately, the philosophical naturalism that began creeping into the western worldview during the 1700s has invaded our Bible translations. It appears that Bible translators and theologians have become too concerned with making their work line up with secular understanding rather than Biblical, historical, and scientific truth. If even evolutionists look at dragon legends and say that they don’t look mythical because of the multitude of descriptions, artistic representations, and reports and yet our Bible translators and lexicon editors insist on calling them mythological, we are missing what God’s original meaning in the Bible was. It also separates God’s Word from the understanding of history and science which supports the original 1611 King James Version rather than the updated translation. The translators and commentators are relying on the presuppositions of a secular worldview, which has decided that dragons are mythical and dinosaurs died out millions of years ago instead of believing the Bible and looking for historical witnesses and scientific evidence. Bible teachers, theologians, and translators should be encouraged to examine the history and science of their subject to find out what the writers of the Bible actually said and that it is completely reliable. When they find how many things history and science confirm about the Bible, they will be more likely to believe that “Thy Word is truth” (I Peter 1:25) when it says something that man’s knowledge simply has not caught up with. They will find that what the Bible says, it means, and it can be trusted on any subject.
References
Strong, James. 1890. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance; Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary. Abingdon Press. p. 19.
ibid; p. 59.
Companion Bible. 1969. Samuel Bagster and Sons, Limited. London. pp. 211, 717, 719, 963.
Strong, James. 1890. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance; Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary;.Abingdon Press. p. 125.
2020. https://biblehub.com/hebrew/338.htm. December 26, 2020.
Strong, James. 1890. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance; Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.; Abingdon Press. p. 101.
2020. https://biblehub.com/topical/b/basilisk.htm December 26, 2020.
Packer, James I., Merrill C. Tenney, William White, Jr. 1980. The Bible Almanac. Thomas Nelson, Pub. Nashville p. 240.
Ibid. p. 224.
Webster, Noah. 1828. American Dictionary of the English Language, Facsimile Edition. Foundation for American Christian Education. Chesapeake, Virginia.
n.d.https://www.britannica.com/topic/cockatrice. December 27, 2020.
n.d. 2020. https://www.oxfordreference.com/search?.btog=chap&isQuickSearch=true&pageSize=20&q=basilisk&sort=relevance; December 27, 2020.
n.d. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198607663.001.0001/acref-9780198607663-e-207?rskey=T6JSsE&result=207. December 28, 2020
n.d.https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Cockatrice_(folklore). December 28, 2020.
2011. http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beast265.htm. January 15, 2011.
n.d.https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Basilisk. December 12, 2016.
n.d.https://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragons/. 1999-2021.
Dash, Mike. 2020. Smithsonian Magazine. July 23, 2012. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/on-the-trail-of-the-warsaw-basilisk-5691840/.
Topham, Ian. 2018. The Wherwell Cockatrice. Mysterious Britain and Ireland. updated December 29, 2018. https://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/cryptozoology/the-wherwell-cockatrice/.
1974; The Legend of the Cockatrice; 1974 – An Anthology; https://wherwellhistory.com/28-wherwell-history/wherwell-anthology/89-anthology-1974-history.
Cooper, Bill. 1995. After the Flood. New Wine Press. p. 141-2.
ibid. p. 132.
Swancer, Brent. 2019. A Strange History of Real Dragons. Mysterious Universe. https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2019/02/a-strange-history-of-real-dragons/. February 14, 2019.
Werner, Carl. 2014. Evolution: The Grand Experiment, 3rd ed. New Leaf Press. p. 114
Castro, Joseph. 2016. Pterodactyl, Pteranodon & Other Flying ‘Dinosaurs.’ Live Science.
https://www.livescience.com/24071-pterodactyl-pteranodon-flying-dinosaurs.html. March 18, 2016.
Straus, Bob. 2019. Rhamphorynchus. ThoughtCo. July 3, 2019. https://www.thoughtco.com/rhamphorhynchus-1091599.
Werner, Carl. 2014. Evolution: The Grand Experiment, 3rd Edition. New Leaf Press. p. 152.
Leave a Reply