Proverbs 30:30 and actual lion behaviour.

[Taeniura]

Hi, I have spotted an apparent error in the following verse, which is annoying me. Proverbs 30:30 states, in multiple translations, that the lion does not turn away from other animals... but in fact lions do indeed turn away from other beasts. They usually retreat in the face of a herd of buffalo; they turn and get out of the way of aggressive elephant. Even hyaenas will run them off a kill if they outnumber them.

Can anyone find a way to resolve this apparent discrepancy?

Proverbs 30:30

New American Standard Bible (NASB):
30 The lion which is mighty among beasts
And does not retreat before any,

King James Version (KJV):
A lion which is strongest among beasts, and turneth not away for any;

 

[1 John 4:1]

Maybe it's a hyperbole like how they say loved less in Hebrew: Genesis 29:31 "And Jehovah seeth that Leah is the hated one, and He openeth her womb, and Rachel is barren;" (Young's literal translation) or maybe young lions are too inexperienced to fear anything, from the Septuagint: Proverbs 30:30 - Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek-English Interlinear also see these commentaries which say similar things about the Hebrew: Proverbs 30:30 Commentaries: The lion which is mighty among beasts And does not retreat before any,

 

[Strathos]

Like many verses, adhering to a 100% literal interpretation rarely works.

 

[Radagast]

Hi, I have spotted an apparent error in the following verse, which is annoying me. Proverbs 30:30 states, in multiple translations, that the lion does not turn away from other animals...

Error? That's a big call.

The historic distribution of lions (red in the picture) includes the Holy Land. But the distribution range of elephants and buffalo is further south. It's quite possible that lions in the Holy Land did not turn away from anything else.

It's also possible that you're reading too much into the verse; even further south, the lion is still the top predator, the fiercest animal. And the passage Proverbs 30:29-31 is not teaching us about lions anyway, it's making a poetic statement about kings: "Three things are stately in their stride; four are stately in their walk: a lion, which is mightiest among beasts and doesn’t retreat before anything; a strutting rooster; a goat; and a king at the head of his army." (NIV)

 

[Taeniura]

Error? That's a big call.

..which is why you will note that I said apparent error.

The historic distribution of lions (red in the picture) includes the Holy Land. But the distribution range of elephants and buffalo is further south.

I had considered that. But according to Pennsylvania museum, Climate and Fauna - Canaan & Ancient Israel @ University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology , Hippos and crocodiles were present in biblical times, as well as the now extinct wild ox or aurochs. Lions certainly back down when hippos are on the offensive, and they are very wary of crocodiles when in the water. Aurochs were described as fierce beasts much like buffalo: very likely a lone lion would back away from one in most situations.

Like many verses, adhering to a 100% literal interpretation rarely works.

I think its usually obvious when the intention is for us not to take it literally. Here it seems maybe less clear.

Maybe it's a hyperbole

Or maybe its intended to be generally true only (but not in every situation). Lions are in fact the least afraid of all predators.

This intrigues me and I will continue to pursue this question.

The potential resolutions are:

a) The original word used had an ambiguous or a variety of meanings
b) The verse is referring to pride males only (not lionesses), which do not do much hunting or tactical backing away from dangerous situations

 

[Radagast]

..which is why you will note that I said apparent error.

As I said, even further south, the lion is still the top predator, the fiercest animal. And the passage Proverbs 30:29-31 is not teaching us about lions anyway, it's making a poetic statement about kings: "Three things are stately in their stride; four are stately in their walk: a lion, which is mightiest among beasts and doesn’t retreat before anything; a strutting rooster; a goat; and a king at the head of his army." (NIV)

Quite frankly, you are utterly missing the point of the passage.

 

[Ophiolite]

This is all very interesting, but this is the Physical and Life Sciences sub-forum, not one dedicated to Biblical Interpretation. From a biology standpoint the answer is simple. The biblical statement is in error. End of story.

Aside: the lion may or may not be the fiercest animal in its range, but the award for fiercest of all arguably goes to the wolverine.

 

[1 John 4:1]

@Ophiolite no it's the honey badger because the honey badger don't care!

 

[Radagast]

This is all very interesting, but this is the Physical and Life Sciences sub-forum, not one dedicated to Biblical Interpretation.

It doesn't matter what the forum is. Proverbs 30:29-31 has a specific meaning, and that meaning is either true or false.

However, that specific meaning is not, in fact, a statement about lions.

 

[Ophiolite]

It doesn't matter what the forum is. Proverbs 30:29-31 has a specific meaning, and that meaning is either true or false.

However, that specific meaning is not, in fact, a statement about lions.

It matters if we wish to conduct ourselves in an organised and seemly manner, and respect the structure of the forum as delineated by the owners/admin team.

The statement about lions is false. Contrary assertions require well cited evidence.
The specific meaning is matter of biblical interpretation as previously noted.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Even as an atheist who has no impetus to defend the Bible, I find this passage non-problematic. Lions are an emblem of all that is noble, strong, etc. Hence, even Northern Europeans might have them on their coats of arms.

In this passage, I just take the Lion to emblematic. I also don't consider verse 29 a problem when it says "There are 3 things ... no, wait, I mean 4" (my paraphrase). It's a figure of speech and not a contradiction.

 

[Tayla]

the lion does not turn away from other animals... but in fact lions do indeed turn away from other beasts.

When hunting and when having the advantage, the lion doesn't turn away. When my dogs hear something, they instantly stop what they are doing and energetically run and bark. I can't hold them back when they do this. Same with a lion when hunting; they don't turn away.

 

[Ophiolite]

It's a figure of speech and not a contradiction.

That's an interpretation. It's the one I favour, but it remains an interpretation. The statement, taken as a statement of fact, is false.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That's an interpretation. It's the one I favour, but it remains an interpretation. The statement, taken as a statement of fact, is false.

My statement about a "figure of speech" refers to "3, no I mean 4". Is this what you are responding to?

As to the lion, yeah, it is false. But, using a lion as an emblem ... well ... I'm generally in favor of understanding text in a mode in which the author wrote it ... as best I can discern it. In this case, it seems pretty poetic. As evidence that the Bible is false ... meh.

 

[Ophiolite]

My statement about a "figure of speech" refers to "3, no I mean 4". Is this what you are responding to?

As to the lion, yeah, it is false. But, using a lion as an emblem ... well ... I'm generally in favor of understanding text in a mode in which the author wrote it ... as best I can discern it. In this case, it seems pretty poetic. As evidence that the Bible is false ... meh.

No. Sorry I wasn't clear. I mean the statement that the lion is the fiercest of all beasts and never turns away; that is the false statement. As metaphor, with the lion symbolising power, majesty, strength etc. it is viable.

I think a substantial portion of the Bible is rich in metaphor and poetry, not just the usual suspects, such as the psalms. Therefore, seeing the statement of the lion's character also as metaphor seems reasonable. (As does a reading of Genesis 1 and 2).

 

[durangodawood]

Obviously we can't be taking things like this literally.

 

[Taeniura]

When hunting and when having the advantage, the lion doesn't turn away.

Go to 1.20

Maybe it can best be received as imagery: we are given a snapshot of a lion, a moment in time, in typical behavior. It does have a stately walk, it is indeed bold and fearless, that is its character.

The wording does symbolize the lions dominant position. It is atop the food chain. While lions will, in disadvantaged circumstances, tactically retreat ("turn away") from hippo, elephant, rhino, buffalo, hyaena and crocodile, if cornered or outnumbered, it also routinely preys upon and kills all of the above.

I mean the statement that the lion is the fiercest of all beasts

Actually the wording is "mighty among beasts". Which is spot on accurate.

 

[Ophiolite]

Actually the wording is "mighty among beasts". Which is spot on accurate.

Good catch. A plague on the rest of us for letting that slip by!
I would have no problem with that as a factual statement, as long as the mosquito gets equal billing.

 

[Radagast]

Even as an atheist who has no impetus to defend the Bible, I find this passage non-problematic. Lions are an emblem of all that is noble, strong, etc. Hence, even Northern Europeans might have them on their coats of arms.

In this passage, I just take the Lion to emblematic. I also don't consider verse 29 a problem when it says "There are 3 things ... no, wait, I mean 4" (my paraphrase). It's a figure of speech and not a contradiction.

Well put. The "3 ... no, 4" figure of speech occurs frequently in Proverbs 30, Amos 1, and Amos 2.

In much the same way as the passage under discussion, bringing up the biophysics of flight and navigation would totally miss the point of Proverbs 30:18-19:

There are three things that are too amazing for me,
four that I do not understand:
the way of an eagle in the sky,
the way of a snake on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas,
and the way of a man with a young woman.

 

[Radagast]

Actually the wording is "mighty among beasts".

Well, we're dealing with a passage originally in Hebrew here (gibbowr bĕhemah). Translations include "mighty among beasts" (NIV, NASB), "mightiest among wild animals" (NRSV), "king of the beasts" (MSG), and "warrior among beasts" (CEB).

The second part of the sentence is even less clear (shuwb paniym). Translations include "retreats before nothing" (NIV), "does not turn back before any" (NRSV), and "deferring to none" (MSG). The CEV translates the two parts together as "those fearless lions who rule the jungle" (using an English cliche that pretty much captures the sense of the original).

It really doesn't make sense to try to turn a somewhat cryptic poetic statement about kings into a detailed statement of natural history. You can't build a precise ecological theory on the two Hebrew words "shuwb paniym."