The Harry Potter series of books has been wildly successful, due in part to the intrigue produced by the many creatures of mythology author J. K. Rowling included in her stories. None is more intriguing and fearsome than the legendary basilisk (pictured above) which appeared in the 2nd book and film, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Consistent with certain aspects of basilisk lore, Rowling made her basilisk a giant snake-like creature that could kill its victims with a single glance. Wikipedia.com describes the legendary basilisk as a huge multi-limbed lizard, a giant snake, or a large rooster with a snake’s tail and teeth.
Most people don’t know, however, that the basilisk was considered very real in the past, mentioned by Pliny the Elder in Naturalis Historia (about 79 AD) and Leonardo da Vinci in his Bestiary, an encyclopedia of living creatures. Their description of the basilisk is very different from Rowling’s; a small to medium sized snake-like creature equipped with deadly poison. Though Pliny the Elder’s depiction is hard to believe – that it was capable of killing with a breath or look, destroying vegetation as it passed by and splitting rocks in two with the mere potency of its poison – there is no mistaking that both he and da Vinci believed the basilisk to be a real creature. Both recounted the same tale of a man on horseback who speared a basilisk, only to die – along with his horse – of the intense poison released.
The Harry Potter series is not the only literary word to include the basilisk. It’s included, along with dragons and sea monsters, in a best-selling work of non-fiction – the Bible. Don’t grab your Bible dictionary or concordance. You won’t find the basilisk in English translations. But in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that dates back to before the time of Christ, the word basilisk is found (instead of the English “lion”) in Psalm 91:13 and (in the place of the English “viper”) in Isaiah 59:5.
Why the difference? Trying to find the answer sent me on a search of the Septuagint and Hebrew Old Testament that was more in depth than I expected. The creatures described by Hebrew words are hard to determine sometimes. The same word can be used to describe different creatures depending on the context, and when the word is rare, its exact meaning can be elusive.
Take for example the Hebrew word behemoth. The plural form of the word is used frequently in the Old Testament, often in reference to cattle. The singular word is used only once – the behemoth of Job 40:15, the description of which, with its tail that sways like a cedar tree, bears a strong resemblance to a dinosaur of some sort. It certainly doesn’t match any animal alive today.
That is the case with a number of Hebrew words. The Hebrew word ephgeh is translated to the Greek basilisk in Isaiah 59:5, but is translated into the Greek word for dragon in Job 20:16 and the Greek word for asp in Isaiah 30:6. The Hebrew word shahghal is translated to basilisk in Greek in Psalm 91:13 but was translated into the Greek word for lion in 4 other places, the Greek word for lioness in Job 4:10 and the Greek word for panther in Hosea 13:7.
Why this sometimes maddening inconsistency? It’s possible the scholars who worked on the Septuagint knew something about Hebrew that we don’t, being the Hebrew experts that they were. They not only read it as today’s scholars do, but used it in their everyday speech. They would have understood how subtle differences in context or word associations would affect a word’s meaning. For example, perhaps shahghal was a generic term for a fearsome beast making lion a good translation much of the time, but when put in the same phrase as the frightening cobra in Psalm 91:13, it made sense to think of another scary, snake-like creature and translate the word basilisk.
Some Hebrew words for living creatures are vague in meaning today. Sometimes there is simply not enough evidence to support a definite meaning. But it is also very possible that the creatures described by those words are no longer with us. The descriptions of Behemoth (Job 40:15 – 24) and leviathan (Job 41) don’t fit any contemporary creatures. Tanneem, the Hebrew word for dragon, makes 28 appearances in the Old Testament, but modern translators often don’t know what to do with the word because they assume real dragons never existed. The New International Version, for example, often translates it “jackal.” Even the word used for the serpent that tempted Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden – nahghahsh – is used at least once to describe something much larger – a sea serpent (see Isaiah 27:1).
The Bible’s creation account makes it clear that some fantastic creatures coexisted with people. Genesis 1:24-31 describes God’s work on the sixth day, when He created wild animals, livestock, and all creatures that move along the ground. Then, on that same day, He turned his attention to His opus magnum – human beings.
Dinosaurs fall into the category of “all creatures that move along the ground (Genesis 1:25).” The idea that these magnificent creatures could have existed with people as the creation account suggests is substantiated by ancient artwork depicting dinosaur-like creatures, bygone accounts of dragons reported at the time as factual, and dinosaur bones that remain unfossilized, sometimes with blood cells, blood vessels and DNA still intact inside them, suggesting those bones are younger than the alleged 65 million plus years. Other mysterious Biblical creatures – like leviathan, behemoth and even the basilisk – remind us that the ancient world was a different place, and some of those creatures we think of as mythological may well have been a part of God’s wonderful imagination when He created the world.
Author’s note – there is a genus of about four species of South American lizards with the name basilisk today, a reuse of the legendary name.
Click here to give feedback or ask a question. | 
