Did a singular in Hebrew become a plural in English to hide a fact?

At Deuteronomy 33:17, did a Hebrew noun singular in number become a plural noun in English in the KJV perhaps to try to avoid the fact that the this animal [the reem] had horns [plural] --two horns and was not one-horned?

 

The KJV's renderings "unicorn" or "unicorns" are examples where the KJV may not give the most accurate or precise rendering of the Hebrew. These renderings are found in the KJV nine times: Numbers 23:22, 24:8, Deuteronomy 33:17, Job 39:9, 10, Psalm 22:21, 29:6, 92:10, and Isaiah 34:7.

In his book recommended by some KJV-only advocates, Gustavus Paine maintained that “the mythical unicorn is found in nine Bible verses” (Men, p. 61). John Worcester asserted that “the name ‘unicorn’ is a translator’s mistake” (Animals, p. 22). Ronald Bridges and Luther Weigle noted: "The mistaken rendering began with the Greek Septuagint, which used monokeros, and the Latin Vulgate, which used unicornis or rhinoceros" (KJB Word Book, p. 353). William Houghton asserted that “the ‘Unicorn’ of our English Bible owes its origin to the Septuagint and Vulgate versions” (Annals and Magazine of Natural History, X, p. 365).

At its entry reem, the 1897 American Encyclopaedic Dictionary noted: “In the A. V. the influence of the Septuagint has prevailed, and the word is translated unicorn, but erroneously, as the mention of two horns on one reem (Deut. 33:17) proves” (Vol. 8, p. 3391).

 

The Oxford English Dictionary noted that the unicorn is “usually depicted heraldically as having the head, neck, and body of a horse, the legs of a deer and tail of a lion, with a straight and spirally twisted horn growing out of the forehead” (XIX, p. 56). This source also mentioned that there was a Scottish coin used in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries “with the figure of the unicorn stamped on its obverse” (Ibid.). The title page of the 1616 edition of The Works of the most High and Mighty Prince, James included the typical head of a unicorn as pictured in English heraldry and in the Royal Coat of Arms. Dore pointed out that the 1616 folio edition of the KJV published by Barker has a picture of an unicorn (Old Bibles, p. 336). Herbert also confirmed that the 1616 KJV edition had a picture of an unicorn (Historical Catalogue, p. 196). Herbert also noted that the 1648 KJV edition has the "royal arms with lion and unicorn," and that before the book of Genesis it has a woodcut of Adam and Eve, with lion on one side and unicorn on the other (p. 196). The 1611 edition also has the royal coat of arms that included an unicorn. It was King James I of England who introduced the unicorn into the British royal coat of arms. Arnold Whittick maintained that James IV of Scotland first used the unicorn in his Royal Coat of Arms and that “when James VI of Scotland became I of England, he substituted the white unicorn of Scotland for the red dragon of Wales as the sinister supporter, and it has remained there ever since” (Symbols, p. 343). Whittick observed: “With the union of England and Scotland under James I, the lion remained on the dexter side, guardant with a gold crown, and on the sinister side the white unicorn of Scotland was introduced” (p. 25).

John Kitto claimed: “The sort of animal which our own and still older translators had in view, when they turned the Hebrew reem into a ‘unicorn,‘ is adequately represented by the heraldic animal of that name” (Daily Bible, p. 222).

Is there convincing evidence that proves that the KJV translators clearly used the word "unicorn" to mean something completely different than the animal pictured in the 1611 and 1616 edition of their translation, in English heraldry, or on a Scottish coin? While the KJV translators may have just kept the rendering from the earlier English Bibles [although making the singular at Deuteronomy 33:17 into a plural], the readers of the early KJV editions with the picture of an unicorn would have very likely associated those representations or pictures with the word in the text.

 

I think that there is scriptural evidence that would suggest that the reem was not a rhinoceros.

John Kitto asserted that “people were driven to the rhinoceros by the unfounded notion that it was necessary to find a one-horned animal” (Daily Bible, p. 224). J. G. Wood claimed that “the unicorn has been erroneously supposed to be identical with the rhinoceros of India” (Story, p. 159). That identification may be based on its Latin name [Rhinoceros unicornis].

One very serious problem with the identification of the reem with the rhinoceros is that a rhinoceros was not an animal that was used as a sacrifice by the Jews in the O. T. times. Houghton noted that the rhinoceros “would have been forbidden to be sacrificed by the Law of Moses, whereas the reem is mentioned by Isaiah as coming down with bullocks and rams to the Lord’s sacrifice” (Hackett, Smith's Dictionary, p. 3351). Wiley maintained that the reem "were counted among animals fit for sacrifice and associated with bovines" (Bible Animals, pp. 431-432). Henry Hart also asserted that “in Isaiah 34:7, the reem is spoken of as suitable for sacrifice” (Animals, p. 214). John Worcester also claimed that “it was fit for sacrifice” (Animals, p. 22). The scriptural association and connection of the reem with domesticated work animals at Job 39:9-12 and with domesticated cattle and animals used for sacrifice at Isaiah 34:6-7 would conflict with the claim that the reem could be the rhinoceros.

Some of the various scriptural contexts where the Hebrew word reem is found provide the evidence that affirms that the reem was not a rhinoceros. The horns of the reem were indicated to be like the horns of a bullock or ox (Deut. 33:17). The horn of a rhinoceros is different. Although the reem was signified as being too strong (Job 39:11) to be used as a work animal, it was still clearly associated with this type of animal in the Bible. Concerning Job 39 in his 1816 Commentary, John Hewlett noted that the reem “is represented in our author’s description as qualified by its make and strength for the business of agriculture, like the tame ox” (Vol. 2, p. 397). Is there any evidence that shows that those who lived in the time of Job would have considered a rhinoceros as the type animal to be possibly put in a yoke and used to plow and that could eat from a crib? A Biblical Cyclopaedia edited by John Eadie noted that the reem “seems to have been reckoned as belonging to the bovine species, with the tame and domesticated members of which it is sometimes contrasted” (p. 654). Houghton concluded: "Considering, therefore, that the reem is spoken of as a two-horned animal of great strength and ferocity, that it was evidently well known and often seen by the Jews, that it is mentioned as an animal fit for sacrificial purposes, and that it is frequently associated with bulls and oxen, we think there can be no doubt that some species of wild ox is intended" (Hackett, Smith's Dictionary, p. 3352).

The Encyclopedia of Mammals asserted that “the fearsome appearance of the rhino masks a gentle, largely passive creature” (Vol. 13, p. 1934).

While there are some varieties or species of the rhinoceros which have two horns, all the evidence considered together does not make a compelling case for the view that the reem was or could be a rhinoceros. All the description and character of the reem that is given in the Scriptures do not apply to the rhinoceros.

 

If the makers of the KJV had intended their rendering unicorn to refer to the kind of rhinoceros which had two horns, there would have been no need for them to change the number of their rendering from a singular to a plural at Deuteronomy 33:17.

Concerning Deuteronomy 33:17 in his 1848 Bible (KJV) and Commentary, Adam Clarke wrote: "Reem is in the singular number, and because the horns of a unicorn, a one-horned animal, would have appeared absurd, our [KJV] translators, with an unfaithfulness not common to them, put the word in the plural number" (I, p. 834). John Kitto maintained: “The name is singular, not plural, although our translators make it here ‘unicorns,‘ because it would have been absurd to say ‘the horns of the unicorn,‘--that is, the horns of the one-horned beast” (Daily Bible, p. 221). Concerning Deuteronomy 33:17, Robert Brown claimed that “our [KJV] translators render the singular by the plural” (Unicorn, p. 8). Michael Bright asserted: “The Hebrew word is in fact singular, yet in the verse from Deuteronomy--’horns of unicorns’--the [KJV] translators have opted for the plural” (Beasts, p. 5). Bright affirmed that the Hebrew indicates “that the reem had more than one horn” (Ibid.). William Houghton declared: “Our translators, seeing the contradiction involved in the expression ‘horns of the Unicorn,‘ have rendered the Hebrew singular noun as if it were a plural form in the text” (Annals and Magazine of Natural History, X, p. 365). Jack Lewis wrote: “They did encounter trouble in Deuteronomy 33:17 where the unicorn has horns, but the translators solved the problem by reading ’unicorns’” (English Bible, p. 63).

 

Likely following the Greek Septuagint or Latin Vulgate or both, the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles (Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Taverner's, Geneva, and Bishops') all had unicorn [singular] at Deuteronomy 33:17. At this verse, Lancelot Brenton’s 1851 English translation of the Septuagint has “unicorn” [singular] as does Henry Howard‘s 1857 English translation of the Pentateuch of the LXX. The 1569 Spanish Bible and 1602 Spanish Valera has unicornio [singular] at this verse.

The 1611 KJV changed this noun that was singular in number in the Hebrew Masoretic text and in all the earlier English Bibles to a plural. The 1762 Cambridge standard KJV edition and the 1769 Oxford standard KJV edition have the following marginal note for the word unicorns: “Hebrew an unicorn.” The marginal note can be seen in an edition of the KJV printed in London in 1711 so it was added before 1762. Other KJV editions that had marginal notes such as the 1810, 1821, 1835, 1857, 1865, and 1885 Oxford editions, the 1853 American Bible Society standard edition, the 1769, 1844, 1872, 1887, and the 2005 Cambridge editions, and the 2002 Zondervan KJV Study Bible have this same marginal note at this verse. This marginal note in standard editions of the KJV affirms with the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles, the 1602 Spanish Valera, and the 1657 English translation of the Dutch that the Hebrew word was singular in number. Tristram affirmed that this marginal reading “is here undoubtedly correct so far as regards the singular number” (Natural History, p. 146). There is a plural form for this Hebrew word, which was not used at this verse (Deut. 33:17). The number of the Hebrew word at this verse is the same as its number at Numbers 23:22 [singular].

In his 1828 Dictionary, Noah Webster defined an as “one; noting an individual, either definitely known, certain, specified, or understood; or indefinitely, not certain, known, or specified.” Webster noted that “an, a and one, are the same word, and always have the same sense.” Webster’s New Twentieth-Century Dictionary noted that a is “an abbreviation of Anglo-Saxon an or ane” with the meaning “one.” Therefore, “an” unicorn has the same meaning or sense as “one” unicorn, affirming that the Hebrew word is singular in number. In an edition of his Exposition that was printed in 1790, Matthew Henry cited the text of Deuteronomy 33:17 as follows “His horns are like the horns of an unicorn” (Vol. I, p. 742). The Bible in the original language referred to the strength of one reem (Num. 23:22) and to the horns of one reem (Deut. 33:17).

 

The KJV has not and cannot wear out the anvil of the standard and greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

That anvil was responsible for the corrections of actual errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV since later editors/printers used the standard of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages to make corrections and revisions to the 1611 edition.

 

George, do you subjectively reject the literality of the Hebrew word [reem--singular in number] of God at Deuteronomy 33:17 which you claim is a polite way of denying it?

Does your human reasoning deny the authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages which was the authority appealed to for the making of hundreds and thousands of changes and revisions to the pre-1611 English Bible?

Does your human reasoning demonstrate use of double standards or unjust divers measures as it allows the Church of England makers of the KJV to do what you condemn other Bible translators for doing?