How do we reconcile the Bible’s claim that rabbits chew cud when they do not?

1. Scriptural References and the Question at Hand

Leviticus 11:6 states: “the rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.” Similarly, Deuteronomy 14:7 includes the rabbit among the animals described in a similar way. The question arises because modern zoology classifies rabbits as non-ruminants that do not chew the cud in the strict sense that cows or sheep do.

2. Ancient Near Eastern Classification vs. Modern Taxonomy

In the world of the Hebrew Scriptures, animal classification did not follow our contemporary definitions of species and digestive processes. The biblical text reflects an observational approach, cataloging animals by their locomotion, outward physical features, and visible eating habits.

Modern zoological categories rely on scientific definitions refined over centuries, including the concept of true rumination (bringing up partially digested food from a specialized stomach compartment). In contrast, the biblical framework groups creatures according to external signs and customary practices relevant to ancient communities.

3. Close Look at the Hebrew Terminology

The key Hebrew term in Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7 is often rendered “chews the cud.” The original Hebrew has the sense of “raising up what has been swallowed” (ḥewe–gērāh in some transliterations) or “continually chewing.” Ancient Hebrew lacked the specialized scientific vocabulary we use today.

Given this, the classification “chews the cud” can indicate an animal that appears to re-chew material—not necessarily in the same physiological manner as a ruminant like a cow.

4. Refection or Cecotrophy in Rabbits

Rabbits practice cecotrophy, also known as “refection” or “coprophagy,” in which they consume nutrient-rich cecotrophs (soft fecal pellets) directly from their body. Although this is not identical to rumination, the rabbit’s repeated chewing of partially processed matter might have been observed in such a way that ancient communities perceived it as a form of “chewing the cud.”

This behavior, while different from a ruminant’s multi-chambered stomach process, produces a re-chewing action that can appear externally similar to ongoing chewing or re-processing of food.

5. Context of Clean and Unclean Animals

Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 set out broad principles for dietary laws given to the Israelites. The purpose was not strictly scientific but also ceremonial and symbolic. These passages distinguished “clean” and “unclean” animals primarily for covenantal observance.

This perspective underscores that the Scriptural claim about rabbits “chewing cud” arises within an ancient context that sorted animals by external markers (split hooves, chewing behaviors, etc.) rather than purely biological or modern scientific criteria.

6. Historical Manuscript Consistency and Reliance

Various manuscripts, including the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls (for portions of the Pentateuch), and the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures), consistently use language indicating that hares or rabbits “chew.” This consistency across manuscript traditions illustrates that the original text has been accurately preserved.

This uniform transmission does not imply an error but points to how ancient vocabularies described observable traits. Scholars such as those surveyed in the field of textual criticism (cf. the works of James White and Daniel Wallace) note that while the terms may not match our modern scientific categories, the scribes faithfully passed down the Hebrew classification system.

7. Cultural Perspective and Observational Language

In biblical times, the focus was on how the creature appeared to function in daily life, especially as it related to food laws. Rabbits were seen continuously moving their jaws, making it appear that they “chewed.” The text is not a zoological manual but rather addresses dietary instruction.

Moreover, extra-biblical sources from the ancient Near East often reflect similar listing methods, classifying animals by evident features rather than by any internal digestive process. This lends cultural context and supports the Bible’s consistency with the observational style of its day.

8. Bridging Apparent Contradictions

While modern readers note that actual cud-chewing requires a specialized digestive system, a careful reading of the original Hebrew, an understanding of ancient classifications, and knowledge of rabbit refection clarifies the matter.

No contradiction stands when we appreciate that biblical authors recorded what was observable rather than providing a treatise on complex physiology. The text communicates truthful observations within that historical and linguistic framework, highlighting that outwardly, rabbits exhibit re-chewing or nibbling behaviors that might look to ancient eyes like chewing cud.

9. Harmonization with Scientific and Archaeological Insights

Archaeologists and researchers who study the dietary laws of ancient Israel corroborate that ancient classifications were practical and symbolic. The classification hinges on how animals were typically used or viewed—especially important for a pastoral people observing ceremonial regulations.

Additionally, biology confirms that rabbits do re-ingest some of their partially digested matter (cecotrophy) to extract additional nutrients. When read with cultural and linguistic nuance, this aligns sufficiently with the biblical description in an ancient observational context.

10. Conclusion

Reconciliation of the Bible’s claim about rabbits chewing cud with modern zoology lies in recognizing different classification systems, linguistic nuances, and the phenomenon of cecotrophy. The Scriptures remain consistent in their historical and cultural setting, and the apparent discrepancy dissolves once we see the verses in context and appreciate how ancient observers identified animal behaviors.

The Word, as preserved, conveys truth within its intended framework. No contradiction needs to stand when we account for ancient linguistic expression, the nature of cecotrophy, and the ceremonial import behind these dietary laws. The unity of Scripture remains intact, and these observations remind us of the importance of reading the text sensitively with both reverence for its authority and appreciation for its historical worldview.