Water or Mules in Genesis 36:24

Ellicott's Commentary and McClintock's Cyclopaedia cited Jerome as saying that the word in Punic, a language allied to Hebrew, means "hot springs" (I, p. 134; I, p. 212). William Whitaker noted that Augustine also says that the Punic language is a-kin to the Hebrew (Disputation, p. 223). Terry listed “the Punic or Phoenician” language as being a Semitic language along with Hebrew, Syriac and Chaldee (Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 74). C. T. R. Hayward wrote: “Some think that this word means ’hot waters,’ in accord with the near likeness of [a similar word in] the Carthaginian language which is closely related to Hebrew” (Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis, p. 74).

John Gill observed that the Hebrew "word for mules is different from this here used, nor is this word ever used of mules, nor does it appear that there were any creatures of this sort before the days of David; nor is the word translated found ever used of that which before was not in being, but of what already existed; nor is there any mention of horses or mares in this account also; had it referred to a mixture of these creatures with asses, it would not have been omitted" (Exposition, I, p. 236). Harris also maintained that “the word rendered found does not signify to invent or discover some new thing” (Natural History, p. 273). Likewise, J. H. Murray asserted that this Hebrew verb never signified “to find or discover, in the sense of inventing the producing of mules” but that “it always implies the finding a thing that already existed” (Help, p. 13).

Martin Luther also pointed out that “if he meant mules, than he should also made mention of mares, and this was not done by Moses” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 6, p. 302). In his commentary on Genesis, Peter Ruckman acknowledged: "The text is admittedly difficult for no word for 'mule' can be found which resembles 'yemim'" (p. 667). William Houghton wrote: “It may be stated that neither the Hebrew nor its cognates have any such a word to signify ‘mules’” (Smith’s Dictionary, III, p. 2035).

 

In his Companion Bible, E. W. Bullinger, who was secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society for 46 years, wrote: "His name was also Anah, but he had acquired the name 'Beeri' (or the spring-man) from his having discovered the hot springs" (Gen. 26:34 note, p. 38). In referring to this verse in his 1874 book, John Haley maintained that "Anah is also called 'Beeri' ("a man of the springs") from the fact that he found certain 'warm springs' in the wilderness" (Alleged Discrepancies, p. 337). O. Talmadge Spence commented: “As a result of his discovery, Anah changed his name to Beeri” (Pentateuch, p. 197). KJV-only author David Cloud seemed to quote favorably where A. McCaig wrote: “Beeri may be taken as another name for Anah, and, as has been suggested, it may have been given him because of the incident recorded in the twenty-fourth verse, of his finding the ‘hot springs’ in the wilderness” (Things Hard, p. 30). Unger's Bible Dictionary confirmed that Anah "discovered warm springs, from which circumstance he probably obtained the name Beeri" (p. 48). James Gray also pointed out that Anah was "called also Beeri" (Biblical Museum, I, p. 157). In his Exposition of Genesis, H. C. Leupold noted that Anah "discovered 'hot springs'; but be'er is the Hebrew word for spring. However, in the former list [Gen. 26:34] he is described as Beeri--'spring-man'" (Vol. 2, p. 934). Lange's Commentary also pointed out: "This is confirmed by the significance of the name Beeri, man of the wells, which would seem to refer to some such remarkable event in the desert. He would probably be known by this name, Beeri, among his associates, but in the genealogy he appears with his own proper name, Anah" (Vol. 1, p. 575). The Rice Reference Bible has this note for Beeri “man of the springs” (p. 1395).

H. C. Leupold pointed out that "Judith" (Gen. 26:34) must be identified with "Oholibamah" (Gen. 36:2) and that "since the Anah of v. 2 no doubt is a man (Gen. 36:25), the word bath ('daughter') following it cannot refer to him but must be used in the looser sense of 'granddaughter' and naturally refers to Oholibamah (Vol. 2, pp. 934-935). Peter Ruckman indicated that Zibeon was the grandfather of Aholibamah (Problem Texts, p. 23). Ruckman again wrote that the daughter of Zibeon (Gen. 36:2) "could be a reference to his granddaughter (Anah's daughter)" (p. 41). At Genesis 36:2, William Tyndale rendered it "which Ana [Anah] was the son of Zibeon an Hivite." Concerning Genesis 36:2 in his 1600's commentary, Matthew Poole maintained that "she who was properly called Judith, chapter 26, is here called Aholibamah" (p. 81). At this same verse in his commentary, Adam Clarke also noted that "Aholibamah is named Judith, chapter 26:34." Dake's Annotated Reference Bible has this note for Aholibamah: "Or Judith (26:34). Her father was Beeri (26:34)" (p. 35). The Rice Reference Bible has this note: “Judith is Aholibamah” (p. 1403). Fairbairn’s Imperial Bible Encyclopedia also asserted that “Judith has the additional name of Aholibamah” (I, p. 123). McClintock wrote: "Judith, daughter of Beeri, is the same person that is called in the genealogical table (Gen. 36:2) Aholibamah, daughter of Anah, and consequently Beeri and Anah must be the same person" (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 723). In his note at Genesis 26:34and 36:2, Kaplan maintained that Rashi identified Judith with Oholibamah (Living Torah, pp. 71, 95). Concerning Genesis 36:2, Rosenbaum and Silbermann translated Rashi's Commentary as follows: "Oholibamah is identical with Judith. He (Esau) changed her name to Judith (Jewess), suggesting that she had abandoned idol-worship, so that he might deceive his father" (p. 173). Puritan George Hughes (1603-1667) observed that the wives of Esau “had two names, as also had their fathers” and that “Esau had not six wives as some say, but only three who had their double names” (Analytical Exposition, p. 455). Bullinger maintained that “it is clear from a comparison of Genesis 26:34 and 28:9, that Esau’s wives were three in number” (Figures, p. 775). The content heading of Genesis 36 in the 1611 KJV was “Esau’s three wives.“ This evidence that supports the identification of Judith with Aholibamah would add strong support to the identification of Anah with Beeri.

 

At Genesis 36:24, the KJV translators seemed to follow the rendering of the Talmud, Martin Luther, and William Tyndale ("mules"). Most likely, William Tyndale was influenced by Luther’s Bible at this verse. Miles Coverdale may have kept the rendering of Tyndale or may have followed Luther’s German Bible or both.

Later in his lectures on the book of Genesis, Martin Luther admitted that he followed the rabbis in his German translation at this verse, but he also indicated that he had his doubts about the meaning of the Hebrew word and made no firm pronouncement concerning it (Luther’s Works, Vol. 6, p. 301). Perhaps Tyndale and Coverdale were not aware of Luther’s later uncertainty concerning the meaning of the Hebrew word that he had earlier translated “mules.”

The old Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate have a word meaning "waters" or "hot springs." Luther acknowledged the Hebrew “text itself is not at variance with it” [referring to Jerome’s view or understanding of this Hebrew word] (Vol. 6, p. 301).

 

That is interesting.

Does that edition of Luther's German Bible have a title page that shows that it was actually printed in 1545?
If like KJV editions, some editions could be identified as a certain year when they may be actually a later edition.

According to what I have read, some significant changes and revisions were made in editions of Luther's German Bible printed during Luther's lifetime up to 1546, and perhaps even more were introduced after his death [such as the adding of 1 John 5:7 around 1575]. Luther is said to have kept revising at least his New Testament up to his death. His helpers, who may have done much of the Old Testament translating, may have been doing the same in the Old Testament.

 

NET's note: The meaning of this Hebrew term is uncertain; Syriac reads "water" and Vulgate reads "hot water."

The NET uses "hot springs"

 

Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban) wrote: "In the opinion of some of our Rabbis in the Talmud, the yeimim are mules" (Ramban Commentary on the Torah: Genesis, p. 440).

In The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Nahum Sarna asserted that the old Jewish interpretation "mules" apparently "rests on nothing more than a similarity of ha-yemin to Greek hemionos" (p. 251).