Keywords: Dinosaur, dragon, tannin, tannim, tanninim, tan, jackal, serpent, sea monster, biblical languages, Hebrew, translation.

Introduction

Biblical creationists frequently encounter questions concerning why English Bibles do not include the word dinosaur. In response, many creationists have pointed to the Hebrew word tannin, which has been translated as “dragon” in some older Bible translations, and they make the case that this word might refer to dinosaurs. The goal of this article is to examine the meaning of tannin and a similar-looking Hebrew term that has been conflated with it to determine whether identifying these terms with dinosaurs is a sound approach. Along the way, the article will address a couple of common misconceptions about this subject and provide a better answer to the question about why the word dinosaur does not appear in our Bibles.

Dinosaurs in the Bible?

Biblical creationists have often pointed to the Behemoth described in Job 40:15–24 as being a strong candidate for a creature that we identify as a dinosaur today. The passage describes a large beast with bones as strong as iron and a tail that is compared to a cedar. While we cannot say with complete certainty that God is describing a dinosaur, the description seems to be consistent with that of a sauropod dinosaur, a group of creatures that includes the Apatosaurus and Brachiosaurus.

If we are correct that this chapter describes a dinosaur, it still would not mean that translators should have used this term. After all, this passage describes a particular creature, not a broad category that includes creatures as small as the Compsognathus, as large as an Argentinosaurus, or as strange as a Stegosaurus or Ankylosaurus. By comparison, in Job 39:19–25, God asks Job about the horse (“Do you give the horse his might?”) and describes many of its attributes, but God did not ask, “Do you give the mammal his might?” because he was describing a particular animal that belongs in the mammal category.

In the following chapter, we are told about the Leviathan. This creature may be more difficult to identify and has often been dismissed from the possibility of being a dinosaur since dinosaurs were land animals and the text places Leviathan in the water. For that reason, many creationists believe it was a type of marine reptile like a Mosasaurus or Kronosaurus. However, this creature apparently moved about on land as well. It could raise itself up (verse 25). The weapons mentioned that cannot harm it are generally used on land (verses 26–29), and it leaves marks in the mud (verse 30). The description of it breathing fire (Job 41:18–21) also seems to indicate that it could move on land since breathing fire in the water makes little sense. Even if Leviathan were a dinosaur, it would not be the best approach to translate the word as dinosaur for the same reason given above. Leviathan was a specific creature instead of a broad group of animals.

What Is a Tannin?

The meaning of the Hebrew noun tannin (תַּנִּין) has been at the forefront of a great deal of confusion regarding the possibility of the Bible mentioning dinosaurs. The term appears nine times in the Bible, and its masculine plural form, tanninim (תַּנִּינִם), appears five times. The King James Version translated the singular form as serpent (Exodus 7:9–10), dragon (Nehemiah 2:13; Psalm 91:13), and whale (Job 7:12). Similarly, the same Bible translates the plural form as serpents (Exodus 7:12), dragons (Deuteronomy 32:33), and whales (Genesis 1:21). Other English Bibles from that era, such as the Geneva, Tyndale, and Douay-Rheims translations,1 translate tannin in much the same way. If the same word has been translated to refer to such very different creatures, it is no wonder people are confused about its meaning.

Adding to the confusion is the supposition of some biblical creationists that the word is rightly translated as “dragon” and that we should understand this as possibly referring to a dinosaur. For example, in his study note on Nehemiah 2:13, Henry Morris (1995, 747) wrote, “Some modern versions, with no real justification, translate this as ‘jackal well.’ The Hebrew word, however, means ‘dragon,’ or at least some kind of monster. Most likely it refers to dinosaurs which survived into historic times and gave rise to the worldwide legends of dragons.”2 Morris is correct that some modern translations wrongly translate it as “jackal well.”3 However, with all due respect to Morris, this article will demonstrate that tannin is much more naturally understood as referring to a serpent or serpentine creature rather than a dragon or dinosaur.

The note from Morris raises a third reason for the confusion over the meaning of tannin: There is a Hebrew word that looks very similar to it and has mistakenly been conflated with it. The reason that some translations have “jackal well” is that they have confused tannin with tannim (תַּנִּים). Morris (1984, 352) incorrectly linked these terms when he wrote the following:

Unfortunately, because of the reluctance of modern translators to commit the Scriptures to teaching the existence of something they regard as purely mythical, modern versions commonly translate tannim by “jackals” or “serpents” or “sea monsters,” depending on the context in each passage. But how can the same Hebrew word carry such a wide, even contradictory, diversity of meanings? The very idea is a striking testimony to the rationalism of modern translators, who are so committed to the uniformitarian view of earth history that they miss the obvious fact that the tannim were simply extinct animals, known in earlier periods of human history but now preserved only (or mainly) in the fossil record.

As a matter of fact, if one will simply translate tannim by “dinosaurs,” every one of the more than twenty-five uses of the word becomes perfectly clear and appropriate.4

Even if modern translators are reluctant to consider dinosaurs as being in the mind of the biblical writers, that is not the reason for their translations here. As his claim that the word appears more than 25 times in Scripture demonstrates, Morris did not recognize the distinction between tannin and tannim. If he did, he would have realized that tannim only appears 14 times. Tannin shows up nine times and its plural appears five times. It seems that he added these together to come up with his total. The claim that tannim should always be translated as “dinosaurs” is also inaccurate. In fact, it would never be appropriate to translate it as “dinosaurs” because that group of creatures is not within the range of meaning for tannim. Echoing this common creationist claim about these terms referring to the same creature(s), Carl Wieland (1993, 24–37) made the following statement:

“Dinosaur” isn’t in the King James Bible—the word hadn’t been invented then. The Hebrew word—tannin or tannim—is translated 21 times as “dragon(s)” in the Authorized OT, mostly in reference to then-living animals. Three times it is rendered “serpent(s),” twice “whale(s)” and once as “sea-monsters.” The classification is probably much wider than the dinosauria [sic], and may include creatures living today. The Hebrew appears to have a “monster” connotation, making the AV rendering “whales” in Genesis 1:21 a legitimate one. Some versions occasionally translate it as “jackals.”5

As pointed out above, while it is true that the term dinosaur had not been invented prior to the translation of the King James Bible, that point is largely irrelevant since the Bible never uses a term that is equivalent to a group of animals known as dinosaurs today. Wieland seems to acknowledge this fact when stating that the classification for tannin probably goes beyond that of Dinosauria. However, as will be shown below, it is more likely that tannin is far narrower than Dinosauria.

Tannin and Tannim Are Different Creatures

The larger problem with this quotation is the conflation of tannin and tannim, two words that look similar but have very different meanings. In his entry on the singular form of tannim (תַּן, tan), Old Testament scholar Nobuyoshi Kiuchi (1997, NIDOTTE 4:311) stated, “The form תַּנִּים [tannim] is not to be confused with תַּנִּין [tannin].” A close look at the forms of these words and the respective contexts in which they are used strongly supports Kiuchi’s statement.

Tannim appears 14 times and has been translated in the King James Version as “dragons” (13 times, such as in Job 30:29) and “whale” (1 time, Ezekiel 32:2). Notice the inconsistency between plural and singular terms here. This is an important key to solving our dilemma. Tannin is a singular noun, and its masculine plural form, tanninim, is used with plural verbs. As we will see, this term refers to serpentine creatures. Meanwhile, tannim is a plural noun used with plural verbs, and it should not be translated as “dragons” because it refers to jackals or some other wild dogs that roam wilderness areas.

To demonstrate these points, we need to look at every instance of these three terms in Scripture. This process will spur a handful of objections that will be addressed near the end of the article. First, let’s look at every use of tannin and its masculine plural form, tanninim (table 1).

Poetic Parallelism

A well-attested principle in hermeneutics is that we should use clear passages to help us understand unclear passages. In the case of tannin and tanninim, there are a handful of clear passages that can guide our understanding of these terms in other verses. Two of these verses use a common practice of Hebrew poetry called synonymous parallelism. This involves “the repetition of the same thought in two different phrases using two different, yet closely related, sets of words” (Longman 1988). In Deuteronomy 32, the Lord admonishes rebellious Israelites and states the following:

For their vine comes from the vine of Sodom
  and from the fields of Gomorrah;
their grapes are grapes of poison;
  their clusters are bitter;
Their wine is the poison of serpents [tanninim]
  and the cruel venom of asps [pethanim]. (Deuteronomy 32:32–33)

Notice in the first couplet that “the vine of Sodom” means essentially the same as “the fields of Gomorrah.” In the second couplet, “grapes of poison” is nearly identical to “clusters are bitter.” And in the third couplet, the “poison of serpents” matches the “cruel venom of asps.” Since tanninim corresponds to asps (pethanim, פְּתָנִים), we can be confident that this use of tanninim refers to certain dangerous snakes. The leading Hebrew-English lexicons define pethen as a “venomous serpent . . . perhaps a viper or cobra” (Clines 1993–2011, 6:811) or a “horned viper” (Koehler et al. 1994–2000, 3:990). We see this same sort of synonymous parallelism with tannin in Psalm 91:13:

You will tread on the lion and the adder [pethen];
  the young lion and the serpent [tannin] you will trample underfoot. (Psalm 91:13)

The lion and adder (pethen) of the first line correspond to the young lion and serpent (tannin) in the second line. Once again, we see that tannin is equated with a type of snake. In this case, even though the ESV translates it as adder, the Hebrew term pethen is simply the singular form of the term translated as “asps” in Deuteronomy 32:33.

Comparing Scripture with Scripture

While not an example of synonymous parallelism, there is a passage that will clarify the three uses of tannin/tanninim in Exodus 7:9–12. These verses tell of the famous encounter between Moses and Pharaoh where God transformed Aaron’s rod into a tannin. We can have a high degree of confidence that this tannin was a serpent, as the ESV and most other Bibles translate it. Remember, this miracle mirrors the one that God performed for Moses on Mount Horeb. There the Lord told Moses to throw his staff on the ground, at which point we are told that “it became a serpent” (Exodus 4:3), so it makes sense that Aaron’s staff and the Egyptian magician’s staffs also became serpents. The word translated as “serpent” in reference to Moses’ staff in Exodus 4 is נָחָשׁ (nachash). There is little question that this word refers to a serpent. It appears 31 times in the Old Testament, including five instances in Genesis 3 in reference to the serpent who deceived Eve. In one place, nachash is used in parallel with pethen, the term defined in the previous paragraph.

They have venom like the venom of a serpent [nachash],
  like the deaf adder [pethen] that stops its ear. (Psalm 58:4)

We have seen that pethen, nachash, and tannin are used somewhat interchangeably, and all of these terms refer to some type of snake. These clear examples should guide our understanding of how to interpret the other uses of this term that may not be as clear. This would mean that the well in Nehemiah 2:13 should not be understood as “Jackal Well” or “Dragon Well.” Instead, “Serpent Well” is a much more natural rendering of the Hebrew name.

Could Tannin have been a Sea Creature?

The issue is not settled yet because we cannot simply conclude that tannin only refers to a species of land-dwelling snake when the chart above includes several verses where a tannin is described as being in the water, such as Genesis 1:21 and Job 7:12. In light of the description of these creatures on land as serpents, it would seem to follow that the tanninim in the water were also serpentine creatures (that is, sea serpents). Indeed, Paul (1997, 4:314) stated, “This generic term refers to great sea creatures in Genesis 1:21 and Psalm 148:7. In Exodus 7 and Psalm 91:13 it refers to a kind of serpent that must be much smaller and may be similar to an adder (cf. also Deuteronomy 32:33).” Since ancient Hebrew animal terminology did not necessarily correspond to modern zoological classifications, a term could potentially be applied to different kinds of creatures that shared a conspicuous characteristic. Thus, tannin may have been applied to a variety of creatures that were either elongated or moved in an undulating, serpent-like manner including much larger marine creatures, as demonstrated in Genesis 1:21 where the adjective גָּדוֹל (gadōl, “great”) is used to describe some tanninim.6 This adjective is not included in Psalm 148:7, so the Hebrew text itself does not describe the tanninim in that verse as “great.”

Two of the examples from the chart above seem to support the idea that tannin were serpentine creatures.

You divided the sea by your might;
  you broke the heads of the sea monsters [tanninim] on the waters.
You crushed the heads of Leviathan;
  you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness. (Psalm 74:13–14)

In verse 13, tanninim is clearly used for creatures in the sea, and it seems to parallel Leviathan in the following verse. Leviathan is also identified as a tannin in the water in Isaiah.

In that day the Lord with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent [nachash], Leviathan the twisting serpent [nachash], and he will slay the dragon [tannin] that is in the sea. (Isaiah 27:1)

Both of these passages describe Leviathan as a tannin in the water, and the ESV even identifies Leviathan as a dragon, but this translation may give the wrong impression. Again, this tannin is twice identified as a nachash, the general term for serpent. Furthermore, even if dragon is an appropriate translation, it would be in reference to a marine creature (or predominantly marine), so it would probably not be something that we identify as a dinosaur.

There are other details that should cause us to refrain from using these verses as evidence that Isaiah and the psalmist were referring to a dinosaur or dinosaur-like creature. A few clues in these verses may indicate these two instances of Leviathan are not necessarily meant to refer to an actual animal. Does Leviathan have multiple heads, as Psalm 74:14 implies? Did God already crush this sea creature and give its body as food for animals in the wilderness? Also, why would God need to kill Leviathan with a sword in the “day of the Lord,” a time that may still be future from our perspective but was certainly in the future in Isaiah’s time? Those of us who believe in biblical inerrancy would not view these two verses as being contradictory (God already killed the creature in Psalm 74 or he will do it in the future, at least from Isaiah’s perspective). The solution seems to be that these passages are using Leviathan in a symbolic manner to stand for something other than a literal sea creature. This notion is further supported by the Ugaritic texts dated approximately 400–500 years prior to Isaiah. In one passage that is part of the Baal Cycle, it mentions a creature named Litan (or Lotan), and the following words are spoken about Baal: “When you killed Litan, the Fleeing Serpent, finished off the Twisting Serpent, the seven-headed monster . . .” (quoted in Coogan and Smith 2012, 139–140). These exact words are repeated later in the same column. The name “Litan” is from the Ugaritic noun ltn. Closely related to Hebrew, as both are classified as Northwest Semitic languages, Ugaritic was also a consonantal language. The Hebrew term for Leviathan uses these same consonants but adds vav and yod. This might be passed off as coincidence if these two Ugaritic verses were not practically identical to the Hebrew text of Isaiah 27:1. Both Litan and Leviathan are described as the fleeing serpent and the twisting serpent destroyed by Baal and Yahweh in Ugaritic and Hebrew, respectively. Thus, it seems as though these biblical passages are used as a polemic against Baal worshippers—Baal is not the true God who subdues dark forces—YHWH is the almighty God of creation.7 If this brief comparison between Litan and Leviathan is accurate, it does not follow that Leviathan in Job 41 should be understood in a metaphorical way as some scholars suggest.

To summarize the various uses of tannin and tanninim, we have several passages that clearly identify these creatures as serpents. In fact, if you were to insert serpent for tannin and serpents for tanninim, the passages would make sense, apart from Lamentations 4:3, which will be addressed in the objections section below.

What Are Tannim?

It has already been stated that tannim is a plural noun that refers to jackals or some other wild dogs that roam the wilderness. Before defending that claim, we need to look at every use of tannim in Scripture.

The first thing to notice in table 2 is that every use of tannim, except for the two in Ezekiel, is translated in the plural form. The final verse in the list provides the clue that we need to make this determination. Notice that the Hebrew term there is תַּנּוֹת (tannōt). The -ōt ending of a Hebrew noun signifies that the word is a feminine plural. The -im ending of tannim signifies that it is a masculine plural. This means that the singular form of these tannōt and tannim is tan. According to leading lexicons, this word means “jackal” (Clines 1993–2011, 8:650).8

The contexts in many of these passages make perfect sense if jackals are in view. In Isaiah 13:22, the term is used in parallel with hyenas. While these are different types of animals, they are similar enough, particularly in their behavior, to use in parallel. However, serpents are far different than hyenas, so this passage would make little sense if we tried to force the meaning of tannin onto tannim.

Tannim are frequently mentioned as a picture of judgment on a city or nation, and since jackals have often been observed to roam abandoned places, this supports the definition of tannim as jackals. For example, in reference to Edom (possibly representing other surrounding nations as well), God said, “It shall become a habitation of jackals [tannim]” (Isaiah 34:13). The same phrase or similar wording depicting desolation is used in Isaiah 35:7; Jeremiah 9:11, 10:22, 49:33, and 51:37. With the exception of two verses in Ezekiel (discussed in the objections section below), each occurrence of tannim makes it clear that land animals are in view. For example, Jeremiah 14:6 describes tannim sniffing the wind. Many other passages place them in the same context as ostriches (for example, Job 30:29; Isaiah 34:13; Micah 1:8), thus identifying tannim as land animals.

In Jeremiah 51, both tannin and tannim are used in close proximity, and the difference between the two creatures being described is readily apparent. The prophet vividly described Babylon’s cruelty toward Jerusalem by writing, “Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon has devoured me; he has crushed me; he has made me an empty vessel; he has swallowed me like a monster [tannin]; he has filled his stomach with my delicacies; he has rinsed me out” (Jeremiah 51:34). Just a few verses later, he wrote, “And Babylon shall become a heap of ruins, the haunt of jackals [tannim], a horror and a hissing, without inhabitant” (Jeremiah 51:37). The tannin (verse 34) here seems to refer to a large animal capable of crushing and devouring, which is precisely what snakes do when they swallow their prey whole. It is also what constrictor snakes do when they envelop and crush their prey before devouring it. But this could hardly refer to a jackal. Three verses later, we find a picture of the judgment of desolation being decreed for Babylon, and the tannim (jackals) are used to signify such a verdict.

Answering Objections to Distinguishing Between Tannin and Tannim

Based on previous interactions with people on this topic, there will undoubtedly be some objections raised against the position put forth in this article. The remainder of this article will be used to address four anticipated objections.

Objection #1: These are simply the Aramaic and Hebrew plurals of the same word.

This objection highlights another confusing element in this discussion. Hebrew and Aramaic are closely related Northwest Semitic languages. In fact, certain portions of the Old Testament were written in Aramaic, and the languages are written with the same letters. One of the differences between the two involves how a plural is made from the singular form. For a masculine plural in Hebrew, an “-im” (ים) suffix is added, while in Aramaic an “-in” (ין) ending is added.

The objection proposes that since tannin and tannim appear to have these suffixes, then perhaps they are simply the Aramaic and Hebrew plurals of tan, respectively. The problem with this claim is that, in context, tannin matches the singular associated verb form, and its masculine plural (tanninim) is used five times in the Old Testament (Genesis 1:21; Exodus 7:12; Deuteronomy 32:33; Psalm 74:13 and 148:7). Even in English Bibles, this distinction is clear from the contexts in which tannin is used. So tannin is not an Aramaic plural of tan.9 It is a Hebrew singular noun that referred to a serpent.

Objection #2: Two verses clearly use tannim to refer to a water creature.

In Ezekiel 29:3 and 32:2, tannim has been translated as a water creature, perhaps a crocodile.10 This argument could show that there are two exceptions to the idea put forth in this article that tannin and tannim describe two completely different animals. However, there are strong reasons to think that the Hebrew word in both passages was originally tannin.

The top Hebrew lexicons place these two occurrences in Ezekiel under tannin rather than tannim, indicating that the scholars behind these works believed that the text originally referred to a tannin. In its entry for tannin, the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon states that it is erroneously used as tannim in Ezekiel 29:3 and 32:2 “by confusion with” the plural of tan, which would be tannim (Brown, Driver, and Briggs 1906, 1072). The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew lists the appearances of this word in these two verses under tannin (Clines 1993–2011, 8:654). The Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament places these two verses under its entry for tan, although it acknowledges that this is conjectural and cites Zimmerli to propose that in these two instances tannim is “a by-form” of tannin (Koehler et al. 1994–2000, 4:1759).

In his commentary on Ezekiel, Old Testament scholar Walther Zimmerli (1983, 106) stated that tannim in Ezekiel 29:3 “can on no account be the plural of תן [tan] ‘jackal,’” but it should instead “be equated with תנין [tannin].”11 Two of the reasons so many scholars are confident that this word should be tannin is that the verb in this sentence, רֹבֵץ (rōbets), is singular, so it does not match the plural noun tannim, and everywhere else, tannim is used in reference to a land animal, whereas the creature described in Ezekiel is in the water.

The NET Bible includes a translator’s note for Ezekiel 29:3 stating, “Heb[rew] ‘jackals,’ but many medieval Hebrew manuscripts read correctly ‘the serpent.’” (Biblical Studies Press 2005, Ezekiel 29:3 no. 4). In other words, several Hebrew manuscripts existed in the medieval period that used the word tannin rather than tannim. The note goes on to add, “Because of the Egyptian setting of this prophecy and the reference to the creature’s scales (verse 4), many understand a crocodile to be the referent here.”

Finally, the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek version of the Old Testament, uses the word δράκοντα (drakonta), which is the accusative form of δράκων (drakōn), in Ezekiel 29:3 and δράκων (drakōn) in Ezekiel 32:2. Those without a knowledge of Greek can probably guess that these are words for “dragon” in Greek. So the translators of the LXX may have had a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures that had tannin rather than tannim in these two verses.12

In light of these details, it is quite plausible that Ezekiel 29:3 and 32:2 originally read tannin, although tannim may instead represent a by-form of tannin in these passages. Even if the appearance of tannim in these verses was used as another form of tannin, as described by Zimmerli, these uses cannot be used to reinterpret the consistent use of tannin (serpent) and tannim (jackals) elsewhere.

Objection #3: Tannin is used in Lamentations 4:3 to refer to a mammal, not a serpent.

Lamentations 4:3 states, “Even jackals offer the breast; they nurse their young; but the daughter of my people has become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness.” This objection is like the previous one because it appears to provide a counterexample to the position proposed in this article. That is, since the English is rendered as “jackals,” then we should expect the Hebrew word to be tannim, but it is tannin. However, there are several reasons why this passage should be understood to be describing jackals rather than some type of serpent.

Tannin does not fit the grammar of the sentence for a couple of reasons. First, tannin is singular, but the pronoun (they) that refers to this word is plural. Thus, we should expect the noun to be plural, like tannim. Similarly, the verb in this sentence is plural, so a singular noun just does not work.

The context of this passage provides another clue that this word should be “jackals” (tannim). In nearly half of the uses of tannim in Scripture, it is used in connection with “ostriches,” just as in this verse.13 Yet tannin is not found elsewhere in connection with ostriches.

The Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Koehler et al. 1994–2000, 4:1759) suggests that the use of tannin in Lamentations 4:3 could be a use of tan with an Aramaic masculine plural ending (-in).14 If this is accurate, then the sentence would have agreement between subject, verb, and pronoun. Without access to the autograph of Lamentations, one can only speculate on this point, but it is not uncommon to find loan words from other languages in the biblical text.

While we do not possess the autograph or even the earliest copies, we do have some notes of the people who copied the Hebrew texts used for the translation of the Old Testament. The Masoretes were responsible for copying and preserving the Masoretic text, and they are also the scribes who inserted vowel marks into the text sometime between the sixth and tenth centuries AD. While copying the texts, the Masoretes took extreme care to faithfully copy the manuscripts. They refused to make any changes, but they wrote notes in the margins to explain difficulties they encountered. They also included what is tantamount to a pronunciation guide, called the Qere (from the Aramaic word meaning “to be read”). In Lamentations 4:3, the Qere states that it should be read as tannim (Koehler et al. 1994–2000, 4:1759). So the Masoretic scribes copying the Old Testament believed that tannim was the proper word here, but they refused to alter any letter of the text.

While we do not possess conclusive manuscript evidence to reach a decisive conclusion on this point, it is clear tannin understood as the ordinary Hebrew singular “serpent” does not fit the context or grammar of the sentence. Furthermore, the statement does not really make any sense with tannin, since to the best of our knowledge, serpents did not nurse their young. Technically, the text says that these creatures “offer the breast,” so even though this is an idiomatic way to describe breastfeeding, the creatures obviously had breasts they could bare to nourish their young. Therefore, we do not need to speculate on how serpents or dragons could suckle their offspring because the text refers to mammals, like jackals, that nurse their young.

Objection #4: The LXX uses a word for “dragon” to translate tannin, and this seems more like a dinosaur instead of a serpent.

The LXX indeed translates tannin as δράκων (dragon) in most instances, except Nehemiah 2:13, where it is translated as “figs,” and Isaiah 51:9, where it is left untranslated.15 The plural form (tanninim) is translated as δράκοντες (dragons) in four of five instances, the lone exception being Genesis 1:21, where it is translated as κήτη (whales).16 It also uses dragon to translate nachash (Job 26:13; Amos 9:3) and leviathan (Job 41:1; LXX reference is Job 40:20). It seems like the LXX translators were not quite sure what to do with tannim, rendering it variously as terms that can be translated as jackals (Isaiah 34:13), dragons (Jeremiah 9:11), or sparrows (Jeremiah 10:22), and in Jeremiah 14:6, the word is not even translated.17 At first glance, this appears to be a strong objection since our conception of dragons resembles certain dinosaurs more than snakes, but a careful look at history shows that this was not the case until long after the Bible was written. The notion of dragons having large bodies, legs, and wings comes from the medieval period. During the classical period, the words for serpent (ὄφις) and dragon (δράκον) were practically synonymous in Greek. For example, Homer’s Iliad (1898, 200–209) describes the following scene:

a soaring eagle that flew skirting the left wing of their host, with a monstrous blood-red snake (δράκοντα) in its talons still alive and struggling to escape. The snake was still bent on revenge, wriggling and twisting itself backwards till it struck the bird that held it, on the neck and breast; whereon the bird being in pain, let it fall, dropping it into the middle of the host, and then flew down the wind with a sharp cry. The Trojans were struck with terror when they saw the snake (ὄφιν), portent of aegis-bearing Zeus, writhing in the midst of them.

The two Greek words called out here, δράκοντα and ὄφιν, are the terms typically translated as dragon and snake, respectively. In this passage, the terms are used synonymously since both describe the snake that was picked up and dropped by the eagle. In his History of Animals, Aristotle (1991, 222) used the same two terms synonymously when he wrote, “At war are eagle and dragon-snake [δράκων]; for the eagle takes snakes [ὄφεις] for food.”18 Regarding classical Greek writing on this subject, Silva (2014, 1:774) stated, “Because serpents evoke fear and play a role in early myths, the word is often rendered ‘dragon’ in the sense of a monstrous serpent (but the ancients Greeks did not visualize it as a winged, fire-blowing creature with claws).”

The New Testament also uses these words to refer to the same creature. In Revelation 12:9, John described his vision where he saw Satan as the great “dragon” (δράκων), and he calls him the ancient “serpent” (ὄφις).

Early Latin texts also tended to treat these creatures as nearly synonymous. For example, in the Aeneid, written a couple of decades before Jesus was born, Virgil (Maro 1910, 1007–1011) described a scene of an eagle carrying a snake reminiscent of the passage from the Iliad above.

As when a golden eagle high in air
knits to a victim—snake [draconem] his clinging feet
and deeply-thrusting claws; but, coiling back,
the wounded serpent [serpens] roughens his stiff scales
and stretches high his hissing head . . .

The two Latin terms, draconem and serpens, are used interchangeably and are unmistakably the words that have been translated as “dragon” and “serpent.” In both the Iliad and the Aeneid, the creatures being picked up are clearly snakes instead of large dinosaur-like Medieval dragons. The Roman cavalry of the Late Roman period carried the draco standard, and it was designed to look like a snake.

Dragon was sometimes reserved for the largest and fiercest of serpents, and in some places, it was used for mythical symbols of evil. Over the centuries, the concept of a dragon changed, as new features and abilities were added to their descriptions. In the third century AD, descriptions of dragons with crests and beards began showing up. In the following century, dragons were described as having the ability to breathe fire and fly (Senter, Mattox, and Haddad 2016, 67–124).19 In the early ninth century, the Stuttgart Psalter illustrated dragons that look somewhat similar to modern concepts with four legs, wings, and a long tail.

Since the meaning of “dragon” has changed from large snake to monstrous, flying, fire-breathing creature over the centuries, the fact that the LXX used it to translate tannin is consistent with the premise of this paper because a dragon was another term for serpent during the time the LXX was translated.

Conclusion

The Hebrew terms tannin and tannim have caused no shortage of confusion over the years. This detailed study has sought to provide clarity by showing that these two terms should not be conflated since they refer to different types of animals. A tannin is a serpent or a creature that moves in a serpent-like way, while tanninim is the plural form of this term. They could be found on both land and in the sea. Tannim are wild dogs or jackals. Understanding the distinction between these terms will help us gain a better comprehension of Scripture.

Keeping these things in mind will also enable us to provide a better answer to those who ask why the word dinosaur is not found in the Bible. Even though Behemoth may have been a dinosaur and it is possible that some of the dragon legends from around the world may be based on encounters with dinosaurs, it does not follow that we should try to force dinosaurs into the range of meaning for tannin. No matter how well-intended our motives might be, we must allow the biblical text to be the authority and do our very best to interpret it carefully. When we do that, we see that it is highly unlikely that the term tannin could refer to a dinosaur, and we can be confident that tannim should not be identified as dinosaurs.

References

Aristotle. 1991. History of Animals Books. Vol. 3: VII–X. Loeb Classical Library 439. Translated and edited by D. M. Balme. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Biblical Studies Press. 2005. The NET Bible, First Edition. Richardson, Texas: Biblical Studies Press.

Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. 1906. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon Press.

Clines, David J. A. ed. 1993–2011. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Vols. 1–8. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press.

Coogan, Michael David, and Mark S. Smith. Trans. and eds. 2012. “Baal.” Tablet 5, column 1. In Stories from Ancient Canaan. 2nd ed. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press.

Cooper, Lamar Eugene. Sr. 1994. Ezekiel. Vol. 17 of The New American Commentary. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman.

Homer. 1898. The Iliad of Homer. Edited by Samuel Butler. Medford, Massachusetts: Longmans, Green and Co.

Johnson, Martin, and Philip Jenson. 2025. “The Curious History of the Translation of the Hebrew Word תַּנִּים tannîm: Dragons, Jackals, or Crocodiles?” The Bible Translator 76, no. 3 (December): 332–362.

Kiessling, Nicolas K. 1970. “Antecedents of the Medieval Dragon in Sacred History.” Journal of Biblical Literature 89, no. 2 (June): 167–177.

Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi. 1997. “תַּן.” In New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Willem VanGemeren. Vols. 1–5. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson, and J. J. Stamm. 1994–2000. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Vols. 1–5. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.

Lipiński, E. 1995. “לִוְיָתָן.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. Translated by David E. Green. Vols. 1–17. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Longman III, Tremper. 1988. How to Read the Psalms. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic.

Maro, P. Vergilius (Virgil). 1910. Aeneid. Edited by Theodore C. Williams. Medford, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Morris, Henry M. 1984. The Biblical Basis of Modern Science. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Morris, Henry M. 1995. The New Defender’s Study Bible. Nashville, Tennessee: World Publishing, Inc.

Paul, Maarten J. 1997. “תַּנִּין.” In New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Willem VanGemeren. Vols. 1–5. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Selbie, John A. 1912. “Sea-Monster.” In A Dictionary of the Bible: Dealing with Its Language, Literature, and Contents Including the Biblical Theology, Vol. 4. Edited by James Hastings, A. B. Davidson, S. R. Driver, and H. B. Swete. New York, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Senter, Phil, Uta Mattox, and Eid. E. Haddad. 2016. “Snake to Monster: Conrad Gessner’s Schlangenbuch and the Evolution of the Dragon in the Literature of Natural History.” Journal of Folklore Research 53, no. 1 (January/April): 67–124.

Silva, Moisés. 2014. “δράκων.” In New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, 2nd ed. Edited by Moisés Silva. Vols. 1–5. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Strong, James. 1995. Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Ontario, Canada: Woodside Bible Fellowship.

Wieland, Carl. 1993. “Dinosaurs—Were They Masters of the World?” Creation 16, no. 1 (December): 34–37.

Zimmerli, Walther. 1983. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48. Translated by James D. Martin. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fortress Press.