Does the Bible mention unicorns?

Question

I was reading Psalm 22 (from this question) and I found this verse:

Psalms 22:21 (KJV)
Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

When I switched translations I found "wild oxen" instead:

Psalms 22:21 (NASB)
Save me from the lion’s mouth; From the horns of the wild oxen You answer me.

However, the idea of unicorns in the Bible really surprises me!

Was this a mistranslation in the original King James version? Or does "unicorn" seem to be a valid translation for this word?

Answer 1

David Boswell is absolutely correct - animal names are consistently difficult to translate.

The word under inspection is reim (Hebrew: ראם). The word also comes up in Numbers 23:22:

God brought them out of Egypt; they have the strength of a wild ox. (NIV)

Here are some commentaries.

...It is difficult to say what kind of beast is intended by the original word. The Septuagint translate the word μονοκερως, the unicorn, or one-horned animal; the Vulgate, sometimes, unicornus; and in the text rhinocerotis, by which the rhinoceros, a creature which has its name from the horn on its nose, is supposed to be meant...The creature referred to is either the rhinoceros, some varieties of which have two horns on the nose, or the wild bull, urus, or buffalo; though some think the beast intended is a species of goat; but the rhinoceros seems the most likely. There is literally a monoceros, or unicorn, with one large curled ivory horn growing horizontally out of his snout; but this is not a land animal, it is the modiodan or nurwal, a marine animal of the whale kind, a horn of which is now before me, measuring seven feet four inches; but I believe the rhinoceros is that intended by the sacred writers.

(Clarke's Commentary on the Bible)

This book deals extensively with the word reim (spelled as re'em), the question of unicorns and many other difficult to translate animals in the Bible (some relevant content is available to read as a free preview on google books).

Answer 2

See Natan Slifkin's book, Sacred Monsters: Mysterious and Mythical Creatures of Scripture, the Talmud and Midrash. He devotes the entire first chapter to Jewish versions of the unicorn myth. In that chapter he suggests that the tachash -- an animal described in the Bible whose skins were used to cover the Sanctuary -- may fit the myth.

Answer 3

07214 ראם rᵉ’em | 07213 ראם ra’am Prior to 500 AD these words were identical. ra'am means 'to rise'.

Likewise 07161 קרן qeren was identical to 07160 קרן qaran which means to "shine".

"Save me from judgement because you have heard me from the shining of the risen one".

Since they knew nothing of the cross, they didn't know how to translate it.

---

"gopher" - by way of the letters is "The rich man's good beginning"

The cross may be seen as the death of the poor man, or the beginning of the rich man. The same may be said of the ark, since Noah emerged owning the whole earth.

Answer 4

I am by no means a Greek scholar and I am not really giving an answer here, but rather a, possible, helpful clue that may help in finding the answer.

I looked at the LXX (that includes English translation) for Psalms 22:21 and have noticed that, it too, uses the term "unicorn".

The Greek word that is used in the LXX (Ps 22:21) is monokeros (μονόκερως). Using a Greek-English dictionary I found that monokeros translates to "unicorn".

Regarding "Was this a mis-translation in the original King James version? Or does "unicorn" seem to be a valid translation for this word?" - It appears as though the KJV translated from the LXX and, if so, then the translation would be valid. I think the question begs whether or not the LXX has used monokeros properly in its translation.

Just throwing it out there.

Answer 5

From my discussions with translators of ancient languages I have learned that Animal names and varieties of plants are the most difficult words to translate. For example - what does gopher wood refer to in the Genesis account of Noah's Ark. The lack of context and the small number of times they occur in literature make them the most complex. Hopefully a Hebrew scholar can step in to confirm this.