Skeptics mockingly poke fun at the King James Bible’s mention of unicorns, accusing the Bible of being unscientific.^1,2 Such ridicule is readily refuted, however, by Hebrew vocabulary and zoological history.

The scoffer’s ridicule of unicorns relies upon this flawed reasoning:

Assumption A: If the Bible is perfectly true and credible, it would not report unicorns as real animals.

Assumption B: The Bible reports unicorns as real animals.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible can’t be perfectly true and credible.

Besides other sophistic sleights, this syllogism employs what is known as a straw-man fallacy,³ implying that the English term unicorn is the core of the controversy—rather than determining what the Hebrew noun re’e¯m actually means.⁴

Assumption A also contains the uniformitarian fallacy, assuming that re’e¯m must match some animal alive today—ignoring extinction scenarios.²

Assumption B additionally contains a bait-and-switch fallacy, assuming that imaginary unicorns of fairy tales and cartoons must match the Bible’s re’e¯m. Yet, relevant Bible passages show re’e¯m was more like a wild bovine or rhinoceros, never portraying some kind of spiral-horned horse.⁴

Could the unicorn of the King James Bible be a rhinoceros, perhaps a one-horned variety? Consider the primary definition of unicorn in the 1828 edition of Noah Webster’s dictionary:

Unicorn: 1. An animal with one horn; the monoceros. This name is often applied to the rhinoceros.⁵

Rhinoceros traits, it turns out, fit the traits of re’e¯m as reported in Scripture. However, unlike the English word unicorn, which is based on a Latin term meaning “having one horn,” the noun re’e¯m does not demand a one-horned beast. So, maybe re’e¯m was a two-horned rhino.^5,6

Could the scriptural unicorn be a wild, horned bovine? A plausible candidate is the now-extinct aurochs² or one of its wild progeny, such as bison.⁷ Both are horned (see Psalm 22:21; Deuteronomy 33:17), powerfully built (Numbers 23:22), and biologically comparable to domesticated bovines (Psalm 29:6; Isaiah 34:7). Harnessing such undomesticated bovines to plow field furrows would be a farmer’s futile folly (see Job 39:9-10).

Could the scriptural unicorn be a wild, horned bovine? A plausible candidate is the now-extinct aurochs or one of its wild progeny, such as bison.

So, what does this prove? First, the skeptic’s uniformitarian fallacy disqualifies anachronistic criticisms of Job 39:9 and other Scriptures that refer to re’e¯m.

Second, the skeptic’s attempt to equate the English term unicorn as used in 1611, when the King James Bible was translated, to a spiral-horned horse is a bait-and-switch-facilitated straw-man challenge because there are plausible candidates among real-world animals that fit the traits of the Bible’s re’e¯m. Consequently, the scoffer’s narrow caricature of biblical unicorns misses the point, pardon the pun.

References

1. The King James Bible uses the English word “unicorn” nine times in Scripture: Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psalms 22:21 (v. 22 in biblical Hebrew), 29:6 and 92:10; Isaiah 34:7.
2. Dr. Henry Morris concluded that the unicorn of Job 39:9 was a wild, ox-like bovine, the aurochs, that became extinct: “The unicorn is supposedly a mythological animal; actually the creature referred to here is the extinct aurochs, or wild ox, a fierce animal that once inhabited this region. Many of the animals mentioned [in Job 39], as well as other parts of the Old Testament, are of very uncertain identity, and various translators have tied them to a considerable diversity of modern animals. The probable reason for this uncertainty is that many of the animals, like the ‘unicorn,’ are now extinct.” Footnote to Job 39:9, Morris, H. 2012. The Henry Morris Study Bible. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 822. Zoologist George Cansdale concluded that re’e¯m was the now-extinct aurochs. Cansdale, G. S. 1976. All the Animals of the Bible Lands. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 82. Aurochs appear repeatedly on the Ishtar Gate of Babylon, now located in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin.
3. Johnson, J. J. S. 2012. Staying on Track Despite Deceptive Distractions. Acts & Facts. 41 (5): 9-11.
4. A related inquiry is why Bible scholars seeking to translate re’e¯m into Greek, Latin, and English used words like “unicorn” in their translations. The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament, translated re’e¯m as monokerôs. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translated re’e¯m as rinocerotis in Deuteronomy 33:17 and rinoceros in Job 39:9, and unicornes in Isaiah 34:7! This indicates that at least some translators thought that re’e¯m had one horn, perhaps the one-horned rhinoceros.
5. Webster, N. 1995. American Dictionary of the English Language. San Francisco, CA: Foundation for American Christian Education; facsimile of Noah Webster’s 1828 first edition, unpaginated. See also Dinerstein, E. 2003. The Return of the Unicorns: The Natural History and Conservation of the Greater One-Horned Rhinoceros. New York: Columbia University Press.
6. Although the English term “unicorn” implies a one-horned beast, the word used in Deuteronomy 33:17 does not, so re’e¯m may refer to two-horned rhinos.
7. Bison are powerful and inherently dangerous bovines. Another candidate is the one-horned Arabian oryx antelope, but its less-intimidating traits compared to those of rhinos, bison, and aurochs seem less likely to fit the Bible’s re’e¯m.

* Dr. Johnson is Associate Professor of Apologetics and Chief Academic Officer at the Institute for Creation Research.