Is the word “unicorn” an erroneous translation in the King James Bible? The English word unicorn occurs nine times in the KJB, and is found in Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7. It is translated from the Hebrew word reem, which comes from a verb used only once, and found in Zechariah 14:10 “Jerusalem, and ?it shall be lifted up’ and inhabited in her place.”
?This animal is characterized by something lifted up or high and in a prominent position. It is very strong – “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.” Num. 23:22. It is also used in a symbolic way in our Lord’s prophetic prayer as recorded in Psalms 22:21 “Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.” There was no literal lion present when Christ died, but Satan, as a roaring lion, was present, for it was his hour and the power of darkness. There were no literal unicorns present either, but they symbolically or spiritually were present and assisted our Lord Jesus in His greatest hour of need.
This animal was untamable, as can be seen in Job 39:9 – 12, where God asks Job “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?”
This passage shows that the unicorn, whatever it was, could not be tamed at all, nor used in farming to plow the fields like an ox can. This, as well as other verses soon to be discussed, shows that many modern versions, like the NKJV, NIV, and NASB, are incorrect in their rendering of this word as “wild ox”. The wild ox is nothing more than a “wild guess” and pure speculation on the part of the modern bible editors. A wild ox is like a wild horse. It can be tamed, by castration or placing a yoke on its neck, and bind him with his band in the furrow to bring home thy seed. God’s question to Job is intended to produce a definite NO, not a ?Yeah, I can do that.’
Those who criticize the KJB’s unicorns try to muster a group of “scholars” who give their opinion as to what this animal was. But listen carfully to their words. Henry Morris – “The Hebrew word translated unicorn is believed by most Hebrew scholars to refer to the huge and fierce aurochs, or wild ox now extinct.” W. L. Alexander (Pulpit Commentary) “the reem is supposed to be the aurochs, an animal of the bovine species, allied to the buffalo, now extinct.” Charles Spurgeon wrote “The unicorn may have been some gigantic ox or buffalo now unknown and perhaps extinct.” William Houghon “we think that there can be no doubt (how is that for certainty !) that some species of wild ox is intended.”
Eastons’ Bible dictionary says: “The exact reference of the word is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo, others the white antelope called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes Bos Primigenius, which is now extinct.”
All of this is pure speculation. The fact is the modern bible translators do not know what this animal was, and many of them say that whatever it might have been, it is now extinct. Wild oxen still exist, and they can be tamed and domesticated. In fact some bibles like Darby and the Spanish of 1960 translate this word as “buffalo”, while the Douay Rheims sometimes has “rhinoceros” and other times “unicorns”. Young’s ‘literal’ translation shows that he simply did not know what the animal in question referred to, so he merely transliterated the Hebrew word, and did not translate it at all. His version consistently reads “the rheem”.
I recently discovered something that I think is very interesting of quite enlightening about how modern scholars are changing the definitions that words once had. I have in my study two different printings of the well known Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon. One is from 1887 and the other one is from 1976, which was a reprint of the 9th edition of 1940. The more modern Liddell and Scott defines the word monokeros as “a wild ox”. However the 1887 edition gives only one definition of the word – A UNICORN!!!. Now, it should be obvious that Liddell and Scott themselves were not alive in 1976 so that they could suddenly change their minds about what this word meant. So who changed the definition of this word for future generations?
Unicorn means literally, “one – horned”; it was a one horned animal. Daniel Webster’s Dictionary of 1828 defined unicorn as “an animal with one horn; the monoceros. This name is often applied to the rhinoceros.” There have been fossils found, and are now in museums, of a giant one horned beast or dinosaur. There are also the unicorn bird, the unicorn fish, the unicorn moth, the unicorn shell, plant, root and the unicorn constellation. So several things, both plants and animals have the word unicorn attached to them to describe some physical characteristic.
There are even historical accounts of the unicorn. In 416 BC, the Greek physician Ctesias set out to attend to the Persian King Darius II, where he spent 18 years. He later wrote a book called Indica, in which he said: “There are in India certain wild asses which are a large as horses, and larger. They have a horn on the forehead which is about eighteen inches in length.”
Pliny the Elder, in the first century AD, describes “an exceedingly wild beast called the Monoceros (one – horned)…It makes a deep lowing noise, and one black horn two cubits long projects from the middle of its forehead. This animal, they say, cannot be taken alive.” Aristotle frequently mentioned the unicorn. He said in one passage: “I have found that wild asses as large as horses are to be found in India.
It has a horn on the brow, about one cubit and a half in length..” Julius Caesar said they could be found in the Hercynian Forest, and Alexander the Great is said to have seen one before attempting to invade a certain territory, and took it as a sign not to attack, because the land was protected. Are these reports true? I do not know, but I mention them only to show that there are many conflicting views as to what this animal was and in what form it existed.
Justin Martyr writes concerning the unicorn in Psalm 22. In his book “Dialogue with Trypho” this early church fathers says: “And what follows of the Psalm,–’But Thou, Lord, do not remove Thine assistance from me; give heed to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten from the hand of the dog; save me from the lion’s mouth, and my humility from THE HORNS OF THE UNICORNS,’–was also information and prediction of the events which should befall Him.
For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. Moreover, it is similarly foretold that He would die by crucifixion. For the passage, ‘Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten from the hand of the dog; save me from the lion’s mouth, and my humility from the horns of the UNICORNS,’ is indicative of the suffering by which He should die, i.e., by crucifixion. For the ‘horns of the, unicorns,’ I have already explained to you, are the figure of the cross only.”
In chapter 16 Justin Martyr continues his reference to the unicorn, saying: “And God by Moses shows in another way the force of the mystery of the cross, when He said in the blessing wherewith Joseph was blessed, ?From the blessing of the Lord is his land; for the seasons of heaven, and for the dews, and for the deep springs from beneath,… Let him be glorified among his brethren; his beauty is like the firstling of a bullock; his horns the horns of an UNICORN: with these shall he push the nations from one end of the earth to another.’ Now, no one could say or prove that the horns of an UNICORN represent any other fact or figure than the type which portrays the cross.
For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. And the part which is fixed in the centre, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn; and it also looks like a horn conjoined and fixed with the other horns.”
The King James Bible is not at all alone in translating this specific Hebrew word as unicorn. In fact the word unicorn is found in Wycliffs translation 1395, Tyndale 1525 (he translated part of the Old Testament before he was killed), Coverdale’s Bible 1535, Taverner’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the so called Greek Septuagint version, the Italian Diodati 1649, Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, as well as the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, all of which preceeded the King James Bible.
Today, other more modern versions that contain the word unicorn are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1999 edition “unicornio”, the French Martin 1744 “licornes”, Luther’s German 1545 and the updated Luther German Bible of 1912 “einhornshomer”, the Modern Greek translation of the Old Testament “monokeros”(not to be confused with the so called LXX), the Catholic Douay version of 1950, Darby’s translation of 1870, the 21st Century King James Version, the Third Millenium Bible, Daniel Webster’s translation of the Bible 1833, Lamsa’s 1933 Bible translation of the Syraic Peshitta, and in the 1936 edition of the Massoretic Scriptures put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York.
The Greek Septuagint (LXX). Regardless of when you think this Greek translation of the Old Testament was made or by whom, this version is chock-full of satyrs, devils, dragons, and unicorns. The word unicorns is found in Numberbs 23:22; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 78:69, and 92:10.
One other verse that puts the lie to the modern versions use of “wild ox”, besides the reference in Job, is Psalms 92:10. ?But my HORN shalt thou exalt like the HORN of AN UNICORN.” The NASB, NIV, NKJV read: “You have exalted my HORN like THAT OF A WILD OX.” Now, I ask you a simple question. How many horns does a wild ox have? Not one, but two.
Psalm 92:10 Wycliffe 1395 – And myn horn schal be reisid as an vnicorn; and myn eelde in plenteuouse merci.
Bishop’s Bible 1568 – But my horne shalbe exalted lyke the horne of an vnicorne: for I am annoynted with excellent oyle.
Coverdale 1535 – But my horne shalbe exalted like the horne of an Vnicorne, & shal be anoynted with fresh oyle.
Geneva Bible 1599 – But thou shalt exalt mine horne, like the vnicornes, and I shalbe anoynted with fresh oyle.
Third Millenium Bible 1998 – But my horn shalt Thou exalt like the horn of a unicorn; I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
Some would criticize the KJB in Deut. 33:17 where Moses is blessing Israel. He says: “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his HORNS are like the HORNS OF UNICORNS: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth.” The Oxford and Cambridge KJB editions say in the marginal note: Hebrew – unicorn. This is a masculine singular absolute noun. Yet it is rendered as a plural “unicorns” not only by the KJB but also by Websters Bible, the Third Millenium Bible and the 21st Century KJB. Those who criticze the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural are showing their selective use of the Hebrew language.
All Bible translations frequently translate a singular masculine absolute noun as a plural. In this same book of Deuteronomy, in just the first 10 chapters, the NKJV, NIV and NASB do this very thing. Deut. 8:15 “nachash” & “aqrab” (singular nouns) are translated by all as “serpents & scorpions”, in Deut. 1:19, 20 “har” is mountains in the NKJV, Deut 1:1, 2:37 “bahar” and “har” as hills or mountains in NKJV, KJB, and NIV. Deut. 1:23, 35 and in many many other places “ish” as “men”; Dt. 3:3 “sarid” as survivors in NIV, NKJV; Deut. 5:15 “ebed” slaves in NIV, Deut. 7:9 “dowr” generations in NIV & NKJV; Deut. 8:8 “rimmown” as pomegranates in NASB, NIV and NKJV; Deut. 9:ll, 18, 25 “layil” as “nights” in NASB, NIV and NKJV; and Deut. 10:19 “gare” as strangers or aliens in NIV, NKJV, and NASB.
So the person who tries to attack the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural, just doesn’t know what he is talking about. Because of the “horns” plural, the KJB has made the singular noun as plural in the context. There are many words like this in English which can be either singular or plural like: deer, sheep, moose, elk, fish and trout etc.
By the way, some have tried to blame the rendering of unicorn on the alleged KJB translator’s use of the so called Greek Septuagint. However, the translators marginal note in Deut. 33:17 clearly says: “Hebrew – unicorn”, not “LXX – unicorn”. The King James Bible translators clearly believed that the Hebrew word itself means unicorn. You can differ if you like from their beliefs, but don’t try to blame this reading on the supposed use of the Greek Septuagint.
The historic rabbinic commentary (Ibn Ezra, Radaq, Rashi, Saadi Gaon et. al.) views on Deuteronomy 33:17, and the re’em question in general support the King James reading in Deuteronomy. As an example Radaq (Kimchi) is considered, historically, as the single most important Hebrew linguist and grammatical expert.
http://britam.org/proof3.html
Rabbi David Kimchi (Safer HaShorashim, RAEM): His horns are like the horns of unicorns (Deuteronomy 33:17). “It is intended to mean that his horns are like the horns of (several) unicorns for the Raem has only one horn.”
The Unicorn was a one horned animal of some kind. I don’t think we know for sure what it was, but it was not a wild ox as the NKJV, NASB, NIV have it. It could not be tamed (Job 39: 9, 10) and Psalm 92:10 is speaking of a one horned animal, while the “wild ox” of the NKJV, NIV, NASB has two horns; not just one.
One definite possibility is the Indian rhinoceros, of which there are still about 2000 alive today. They used to cover large areas, but are now limited to India and Nepal. They weigh about 4,500 pounds, can run at over 20 miles an hour; they have one large horn on the snout and their scientific name is Rhinoceros UNICORNIS.
In the original 16ll edition of the KJB, the editors placed “or Rhinoceros” in the margin of Isaiah 34:7 where it reads: “And the unicorns shall come down with them.” It is still in the modern editions of the KJB. So the KJB editors were not ignorant of the possibility of the unicorn being a rhinoceros. I do not know, nor does any one else but God, what the unicorn was or is.
It was a one horned animal of great strength; it could not be tamed, and it is always used in a good and positive sense in Scripture. The KJB is not in error by translating this word as unicorn, but the modern versions are just taking a wild guess with their “wild oxen” and the other scriptures show their wild guess to be wrong.
By:?Will Kinney



.png)

Thanks for your detailed explanation of what the Hebrew word re’em means. As you say, there is plenty of historical evidence that a single-horned animal was meant.
[Reply]
Hello,
I just thought to mention in case you are unfamiliar with it, but Barne’s commentary has a great entry on Job 39:9. He gives some great and seemingly very reliable information that gives great insight into what the unicorn actually was. Just as the “discovery” as it were of dinosaurs sheds great light on the Bible’s as well as various’ cultures reference to dragons, so too we need to, like you do, realize that we don’t have to pick a creature we are intamitely familiar with to be the unicorn.
After Barnes lists a wealth of information about what unicorns are, he gives 2 reasons why he doesn’t believe that the Bible is refering to the actual animal known as the unicorn. But, I don’t agree with him. He doesn’t have solid reasons for negating all the evidence he gives for the unicorn in my opinion. He lists his first reason as being that Job wouldn’t be familiar with unicorns… (he basis this, I bleieve, on the evidence showing that unicorns lived in deserts and if I recall correctly mountainous areas however, this reasoning makes no sense, and is similar to many many mistakes made today. We cannot say what Job was or was not familiar with, we can only go on what the Bible says. Based on God’s talking to Job about the unicorn, that is 100% evidence that Job was familiar with them in my mind, as it seems unlikely that God is talkign to Job about animals he isn’t familiar with, then Job couldn’t understand the point God was making.
Furthur proof of this is that God speaks to Job about a wide range of animals, including Leviathan, which appears to be at least partly if not completley a marine animal (which actually breathes fire as testified by God himself). So if Job could understand what God psoke of a water animal, why not a desert animal and so on. Besides the evidence and information of unicorns and dates Barnes gives appears to be hundreds and thousands of years after when the book of Job was likely written, so the habitats and population size of the unicorns could have greatly dwindled in that time.
His second reason seems to be that he doesn’t feel the described unicorns fit the Biblical description. That is he doesnt’s eem to think its big enough or strong enough. Yet in the evidence he lists for true unicorns it is commonly said that they are fierce, and that they weren’t often captured alive. In fact one witness said that the unicorn (based soley on its head) would be larger than a rhinoceros and that there was no known animal that would be a match for the unicorn. Its possible the other witnesses of the unicorns, which all come from seemingly reliabile sources, were of young unicorns not fully grown if they weren’t as big. It could make sense that younger uniocnrs woudl be more likely to be seen and to be near people. Watching Gorillas interacting with humans once it was the babies and some of the female gorillas that got close to the humans, but the huge greyback stayed off in the back.
From the evidence Barnes lists I see no reason to doubt that the unicorn is the creature his witnesses describe, which each witness from all over the world describing almost the exact characteristics of this creature, so it seems likely the unicorn is the creatuer they describe and actually covered a large area of space. Amazingly some of teh dates are only a few hundred years old, in fact there are seemingly reliable sources that suggest that natives around the congo (which I think might still be not fully mapped and explored) terrified of a creature that matches a certain kind of dinosaur, and also reporting a creature that looks like a triceratops, there have been various reports, different people groupls from different parts of teh congo, who aren’t connected and even have different names for this creature, but the same description. Perhaps even a few hundred years ago some dinosaurs and unicorns still existed. Barnes wrote his commentary around 1847 to the late 1800′s, and he says that the Giraffe itself was only recently discovered, adn taht the Gnu used to be thought to be a mythical creature, but was now discovered. We have learned that mythical dragons are based in reality based on dragons, and it appears that unicorns as well are real too, minus the magical fantasy land stuff, but based on a real creature, that while it doesn’t look exactly like the unicorns we see in fiction works today, it is interesting how close and realisitc the descriptions are, not just being a horse with a horn, but various details that make it sound reasonable.
And the soruces for all these things are actual historians, and high ranking military officials… not exactly information from the tabloids.
Like you say, we need to stop trying to make God fit our opinions and our minds. We don’t need to turn the unicorn into somehting we are familiar with, we need to not turn God into waht we understand, but open ourselves to God’s understanding. Learn what the Bible teaches, not make the Bible fit our opinions.
Thanks for the great article, Lord willing, I intend to use the information about various translations that translate the word as unicorn for Sunday School
Thank you – jason
[Reply]