Why Does The Bible Mention Unicorns?

Christians take the Bible to be the word of God. A library that contains books written by men guided along by the Holy Spirit to record history, write poetry, wisdom literature, prophecy, and relay the will of God. If the Bible is a book whose information finds its source in God, surely it does not contain any genuine inaccuracies or inconsistencies. And this is where skeptics find their battleground; on this front. If the Bible is reliable. Among the plethora of attacks, from the problem of miracles to supposed contradictions, I want to shift the focus to a question many people, believer or not, have regarding scripture. Why do some translations of the Bible mention unicorns? I mean, if the Bible really is the word of God, why am I seeing a reference to a mythological beast?

Some translations do indeed render the English word unicorn, but it is not as such a fantastical mention as skeptics try to sell it. Because the Bible mentions unicorns, says the skeptic, and unicorns do not exist, it cannot be considered reliable. Some skeptics ridicule the Bible for mentioning unicorns and seemingly mythical beasts, but this is not the case whatsoever. We tend to forget to take literary context and tools, historical timeframe, etymology, customs and traditions of other cultures, and the like into account when reading scripture.

Language Changes Over Time

We also tend to forget the fact that language changes. Don't believe me? Just look up examples of Anglo-Saxon English, as it is unrecognizable compared to modern English. Take, for example, an excerpt from the Epic of Beowulf, an Anglo-Saxon folk tale from some time before 1000 AD,

"Hwæt! Wē Gār-Dena in geārdagum, þēodcyninga þrym gefrūnon, hū ðā æþelingas ellen fremedon.”¹

 Which translates to, “Listen! We have heard of the glory of the Spear-Danes in days of old, of the kings of the people, how those princes performed deeds of courage.”

Do you see how much English has changed over some 1300 or so years? Or, for a more recent example, an excerpt from Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Malory in the 1400s,

“Hit befel in the dayes of Uther Pendragon, when he was kynge of all Englond, and so regned, that there was a myghty duke in Cornewaile that helde warre ayenst hym long tyme.”

Which translates to, “It befell in the days of Uther Pendragon, when he was king of all England, that there was a mighty duke in Cornwall who held war against him for a long time.”

Even just 600 years ago, we had some notable differences. "Hit" instead of "It," "Englond" instead of "England," and "Ayenst" for "Against." There is even more difference if we jump back just a century with Geoffrey Chaucer,

“Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote The droghte of March hath perced to the roote, And bathed every veyne in swich licóur Of which vertú engendred is the flour;” 

Translated as, “When April with its sweet showers Has pierced the drought of March to the root, And bathed every vein in such liquid By which power the flower is created;”

The differences here matter. Or, more specifically, the fact that change happens is important. Taking into account the Bible's reference to unicorns, we get the first part of finding out what is really going on.

Language Change And The "Unicorn" Of the KJV

Applying this to the KJV (King James Version), we can see how language changing over time can also affect how we interpret older texts and translations. A key fact to keep in mind is that the KJV, the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishop's Bible (1568) are the only translations that render the word unicorn. These previous translations' wording carried over into the KJV rendering of unicorn, but are these renderings referring to the actual mythical beast?

If you were to open up a modern English dictionary and find the word unicorn, you may stumble upon a definition like "A mythical horse-like beast featuring a slender horn protruding from its head." Now, were you to open up a KJV Bible, you would stumble upon around 8 or 9 verses where the word unicorn is included (Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22, 24:8, Job 39:9, 10, and Psalm 22:21, 29:6, and 92:10). But if you open up an older dictionary, like the Webster's Dictionary, First Edition (1828), you may find a much different definition. "An animal with one horn: The Monoceros, a name often applied to the rhinoceros." Remember how language changes over time? So does English. There is no horse, no mythical beast, and no single magical horn. The same volume defines Rhinoceros as such: "A genus of quadrupeds of two species, one of which, the unicorn, has a single horn growing almost erect from the nose. When fully grown, they can be up to 12 feet in length. The other species with 2 horns is called the bicornis; they are native to Asia & Africa."

The KJV Bible was translated in 1611, over 400 years ago. Why should we apply a modern definition of unicorn to a text that was translated in 1611, before the thing the word refers to changed? Moreover, the Hebrew word rendered "unicorn" is Re'em (רְאֵם), which, in more recent scholarship, is probably referring to the wild ox or other related animals. Specifically, the Auroch, or Bos Primigenius, a species of cattle that roamed Europe, Asia, and North Africa, but is now extinct. The Auroch is believed to be the ancestor of most modern domesticated cattle breeds. The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, uses the word Monokeros (μόνοκερως), which literally means "one-horned." The exact reason why they did so is debated. In my opinion, the most likely reason is that Monokeros did not strictly mean the mythical unicorn.

The Exotic Name

Ancient writers used Monokeros to refer to a variety of exotic or poorly understood animals. For example, Ctesias reports a one-horned wild ass that he saw in India.² So Monokeros most likely referred to the Rhinoceros, which is native to India, the exact place where Ctesias claims to have seen Monokeros. The Hebrew text itself describes Re'em as powerful, wild, untamable beasts. So when the translators of the Septuagint came across Re'em, they had a word that referred to an animal that fits the mold, Monkeros. But the original Hebrew authors were probably referring to Aurochs, as Deuteronomy 33:17 uses Re'em to describe horns, not a single horn. This matches the Auroch perfectly. But when the Septuagint was being translated, they may have simply believed the word referred to a one-horned beast, therefore choosing Monokeros. Another hypothesis is that depictions of Aurochs from the side only show one horn, as the two horns line up when looking at one from that angle. Whatever the reason is, no scholar would say they are referring to mythical unicorns.

One last piece of evidence is that other Greek translations of passages render different words for Re'em.³ Suggesting that Greek translators were unsure of the exact identity of Re'em. The Greek rendering of Monokeros carried over into the Latin Vulgate as Unicornis (also meaning one-horned), and then into the KJV as unicorn. Throughout the Vulgate, you find different renderings like Rhinoceros, Rinocertis, Rinocerotis, Unicornium, and Unicornis, further supporting that later translators attributed Re'em to the Rhinoceros.

Conclusion

Here, we have examined and found that the argument of the mystical beast falls flat. In this modern age, we tend to hold ourselves to such an intellectual pedestal that it is very hard to admit when we are at fault, especially with regard to this. The most likely animal the authors were referring to is the now extinct Auroch, or a similar animal. Here, the skeptic leaves out the modern point of view and the concept of change over time. This failure in reasoning births the prideful claim that the Bible is not authoritative, contradicting known reality. Christianity is not an irrational worldview; rather, it comes from genuine historical investigation. This supposed contradiction is the result of imposing our modern and ignorant view onto the text.

¹ (Nowell Codex, 997-1016 AD)

² (Ctesias, Indica)

³ (Such as those from Aquila of Sinope and Symmachus the Ebionite)