Matthew Poole and continuators on Job 39:13

13. Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the Peacoks ? or wings and feathers unto the Ostrich ?

The Stile of this Book is very concise and some Verb is manifestly wanting to supply the sense; and this seems to be fitly understood out of v. 19. where it is expressed.

Or, triumphant, that wherein it triumpheth or prideth it self.

Or, feathers. Heb. wing or feather. The Peacocks, beauty lies in its tail; which may well enough be comprehended under this Name, as it is confessed that the Latin word Ala, which properly signifies a wing, is used by Martial and Claudian to express the Peacoks tail.

Or, as some render it, to the Ostrich: whose wings are much more great and goodly than those of the Peacock. And for the other word in the next Clause which is rendred Ostrich, they translate it another way. For that the Hebrew word Hasidah doth not signifie an Ostrich, seems plain from the mention and description of that Bird, Psal 104. 17. Ier. 8. 7. Lament. 4. 3. Zech. 5. 9. which doth not at all agree to the Ostrich. And forasmuch as the following Verses do evidently speak of the Ostrich, and it is absurd to discourse of a Bird which had not been so much as named, and consequently the name of it must be found in this Verse, and there is no other word in this Verse which bids so fair for it, it may seem probable that this word is not to be rendred the Peacock (though it be so taken by most) but the Ostrich. Nor is it likely that both the Peacock and the Ostrich should be crouded together into one Verse: especially when all the following Characters belong onely to the latter of them. Add to this, that it is confessed even by the Hebrew Writers themselves that there is a great uncertainty in the signification of the Names of Birds and Beasts; and therefore it is not strange if many Interpreters were mistaken in the signification of this word.

Or, or the wings or feathers of the Stork (or, or) the Ostrich? Or, didst thou give (which may be repeated out of the former branch) the wings and feathers to the Stork? Or, verily (the Particle im being oft used as a note of confirmation, as Psal. 59. 16. & 63. 7, Prov. 3. 34. & 23. 18.) it hath wings and feathers like those of a Stork; for so indeed they are, black and white like them. And this may be noted as a great and a remarkable work of God, that it should really have wings and feathers as other Birds have, and particularly the Stork, who comes nearest to it in bulk and colour, although otherwise by its vast bulk it might seem to be a Beast rather than a Bird, as it is also called by Aristotle and Pliny, and others.

Marginal references: Or▪ the feathers of the Stork and Ostrich.