What evidence exists that "רְאֵם" ("re'em") is *not* a rhinoceros?

Question

Historic (pre-1800) translations of Scripture translate "רְאֵם" ("re'em") as "unicorn" (KJV), "unicornis" (Vulgate) or "μονόκερως" ("monókerōs"). Webster's first addition unambiguously equates "unicorn" and "monoceros" and notes "the name is often applied to the rhinoceros".

Many modern translations translate "רְאֵם" ("re'em") as "wild ox" and aurochs (bos primigenius) is often suggested or implied. However, all early translations seem unambiguous that, whatever animal is being referenced, it is an animal that (at least sometimes) has a single horn. (A rhinoceros can have one or two horns, so an argument can be made that "רְאֵם" could encompass both types and therefore need not be limited to single-horned specimens. Indeed, the Vulgate sometimes uses "bicornis".) Additionally, an aurochs is still a bos, and the Hebrew for bos is "פַר" ("par"). (Here is another source explicitly arguing against "wild ox" as a viable translation.)

It seems to me that "rhinoceros" is the obviously correct translation, especially as it is consistent with prior translations. Why, then, is "wild ox" (i.e. a bos) believed to be a better translation than "rhinoceros"? (In particular, I am interested in any reasons besides trying to distance Scripture from the mention of "clearly-mythical unicorns".)

See also What are David's "unicorns" that he mentions in the Psalms? and Was the biblical Re'em a unicorn?. (Also and especially see In Psalm 22:21 is the Bible speaking of "unicorns"?, though that does not focus on why "rhinoceros" is not a valid translation.)

Answer 1

One reason for the 'aurochs/wild ox' translation is a hypothesized etymological connection of the word to words in other languages that are supposed to refer to some bovid (rather than a rhinoceros). (Of course, that brings up the question of how we know what the words in other languages mean: I don't know the answer to that.) Wiktionary (ראם) gives this convenient list of proposed cognates: "Akkadian (/⁠rimu⁠/, “wild bull, wild ass”), Ugaritic (rủm, “auroch, wild buffalo”), and Arabic رِيم‎ (rīm) or رِئْم‎ (riʔm, “oryx, wild cattle”)." Cognates like these are mentioned by Was the biblical Re'em a unicorn? and (on Mi Yodeya) Animal R'aim of the midrash. mbloch's answer to the latter question includes a link to the following blog post: Zevachim 113b ~ On the Identity of the Re'em (by Jeremy Brown, Talmudology, August 3, 2018)

An argument can also be made based on the historical ranges of different animal species. Wild bovids certainly existed in the times and places where the Bible was written. In contrast, based on the map at Wikipedia's article on the rhinoceros, its historical habitat was restricted to Africa, India and further eastern parts of Asia: not the Middle East. Of course, it is possible to name and mention animals that are not native to an area, but that doesn't seem to be what's going on in passages talking about the רְאֵם. Brown writes "it is very unlikely that there were rhinoceri in Israel in the biblical period."

I can't find anything supporting the speculation in the previous question about Elasmotherium as a possible candidate: that species appears to have gone extinct far too early to be familiar to the authors of the Biblical passages, and it doesn't even seem entirely certain that it even had a horn like that of modern rhinos. The association of Elasmotherium with 'unicorn' myths seems to be a somewhat popular, but rather fanciful and unproven notion.

---

Regarding the idea that the animal had a single horn, I was able to find some (to my mind not very convincing) arguments that the two horns of an oryx might be confused for a single horn from some angles, or if one horn was lost. (Wikipedia, National Geographic)

---

As you noted, there is support for the 'rhinoceros' identification in the form of early translations.

Answer 2

The principle evidence to challenge this hypothesis is ambiguity.

The degree of specificity by which animals are identified in the modern world did not exist in the ancient world. Binomial nomenclature (a far more specified system for distinguishing between types of organisms than anything which preceded it), is generally credited to Linnaeus in the 18th century, though he built on work that had been done in the prior century. But the level of specificity that modern zoologists are accustomed to did not exist in the ancient world.

Two examples for consideration:

• There are far more words for animals in modern English than there were in ancient Hebrew (this principle is true generally as well - there are simply far more words in the modern English language than there were in ancient Hebrew), meaning some animals which today would be described using different words would have been described using the same word 3000 years ago.
• Jonah 1:17 is a helpful example of this phenomenon - the creature which swallows Jonah is a דָּג, a highly unspecified term which, at the time, could be used to refer to numerous different animals.

Given this, it is even possible that the different Biblical passages referring to רְאֵם may not all be speaking of exactly the same creature.

The term is sufficiently unspecified that it cannot be paired one-for-one with the species described by modern zoology.

Answer 3

Here's some additional information to add to the previous answers:

The ancient evidence that supports the idea that re’em was the aurochs and that its range once included the Middle East includes

• Pharaoh Ramses II (1197-1165 BCE) was pictured in reliefs hunting the aurochs in Egypt.

• The Assyrian king Senacherib (704-681 BCE) was pictured in reliefs hunting the aurochs in North Mesopotamia.

• The Greek historian Herodotus (around 485-425 BCE) mentioned the presence of cattle in Libya that grazed backwards due to their curved horns (Herodotus, Historiën, Book lV, chapter 183).

The Septuagint scholars chose what we now know as the single-horned Indian rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis) based on the wildly exaggerated description from the Greek physician and historian Ctesias around 400 BCE in his monograph, On India.

Pliny the Elder (23-79 CE) later wrote, “The unicorn is the fiercest animal, and it is said that it is impossible to capture one alive. It has the body of a horse, the head of a stag, the feet of an elephant, the tail of a boar, and a single, black horn three feet long in the middle of its forehead.”

The first part of the description above somewhat coincides with the description found in Job and might have served as justification for the LXX writers choosing the "unicorn" for re'em in writing to Greek-speaking Jews.

Answer 4

Many translations translate as רְאֵם wild ox or bull (ESV, HASB1995, NKJV, JPS1985, JPS1917, HCSB). The idea of רְאֵם having a single horn comes from the Septuagint's (LXX) translation of רְאֵם . In modern Greek μονόκερως means unicorn (Google Translate); horn is κέρατο, thus one horn. A possible connection is water buffalo can have horns that grow until they grow together as if they are one horn. Otherwise we don't know the basis for how LXX translates this word.

Figure 1. Word in the LXX translating רְאֵם

However,

The term for rhinoceros seems to have a common connection in the languages.

Latin rhinocerotis

Greek ρινόκερως

Hebrew קַרנַף combining the words for nose/mouth and horn.

קְרַן II, קֶרֶן, קַרְנָא I ch. same, 1) horn; trnsf. strength; beam, ray... -- Jastrow, M. (1903). In A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature and II (Vol. 1, p. 1422). Luzac & Co.; G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

Arabic وحيد القرن

Persian کرگدن

Akkadian sadēia

[Middle English Compendium], from Latin rhinoceros, from Greek rhinokerōs, literally "nose-horned," from rhinos "nose" (a word of unknown origin) + keras (genitive keratos, kerōs) "horn of an animal" (from PIE root *ker- (1) "horn; head").

*ker- (1) Proto-Indo-European root meaning "horn; head," with derivatives referring to horned animals, horn-shaped objects, and projecting parts. Ibid.