Featured Is "unicorns" better than "unicorn" at Deut. 33:17?

Considering the fact that the Hebrew noun for the animal at Deuteronomy 33:17 is singular in number, how did the makers of the KJV do a better job by changing the singular to a plural? Are you saying that it is not a problem to translate a singular as a plural?

The one animal translated "unicorn" or "unicorns" had horns [plural]--two horns. Do you see nothing wrong with translating the name of an animal with two horns as unicorn [one-horned]?

 

Concerning the word unicorn, the 1895 Sunday School Teachers' Bible maintained: "The LXX translation has passed into our A. V., but is erroneous, as the mention of two horns on one reem (Deut. 33:17) proves." The Illustrated Bible Treasury asserted: “That the translation [unicorn] is impossible, even if there ever had been such a creature, is shown by Deuteronomy 33:17, where the two horns of one reem are spoken of” (p. 283). McClintock and Strong also observed that this text "puts a one-horned animal entirely out of the question" and that one of its scriptural characteristics is "having two horns" (Cyclopaedia, X, p. 638). Worcester maintained that “the Bible says that the animal has ‘horns,‘ not one horn (Deut. 33:17)“ (Animals, p. 22). The unabridged Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary noted at its entry unicorn: "in the Bible, a two-horned, oxlike animal called reem in Hebrew: Deut. 33:17" (p. 1998). Since the Hebrew word reem is singular at Deuteronomy 33:17, Unger's Bible Dictionary and Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible also noted that "the reem had more than one horn" (p. 66; Hastings, IV, p. 834). The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible also confirmed that the Biblical animal "was 2-horned (Deut. 33:17), where the word is singular, and not plural, as in A. V.)" (p. 617). The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible also referred to the animal's "2 horns (Deut. 33:17)" as "its outstanding characteristic" (I, p. 114). Likewise, Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary asserted that the reem had “two horns” (p. 714). The People’s Dictionary of the Bible also noted that “the passages mentioning it, correctly understood, require an animal with two horns” (p. 210). Based on this same verse, Cansdale pointed out that "there is no possibility of it [the reem] referring to a one-horned animal" (All the Animals, p. 82). Concerning this verse, Tristram maintained that “nothing could prove more clearly than this passage that the ‘unicorn’ was a two-horned animal” (Natural History, p. 146). At Numbers 23:22, Ellicott’s Commentary has a note that affirms that Deuteronomy 33:17 indicates “that the reem had more than one horn” (I, p. 546). J. C. Granbery also described this animal as “having two horns” (Bible Dictionary, p. 396). Robert Tuck noted that “the fact that the reem was an animal with two horns is settled by the passage, Deuteronomy 33:17” (Handbook, p. 341). Henry Hart maintained that “a two-horned animal is referred to” at Deuteronomy 33:17 (Animals, p. 214). William Houghton asserted that “the Hebrew word (Reem) denotes a two-horned animal, beyond a shadow of a doubt” (Annals and Magazine of Natural History, X, p. 365).

 

You incorrectly assume that the animal was an unicorn with one horn, but that is not what God and Moses stated. God gave by inspiration to Moses the name of animal as singular in Hebrew; therefore, one animal. It is God who indicated that it was one animal with two horns.

The context of the verse in Deuteronomy clearly supports the view that this one animal had more than one horn. In the context, the “them” of this verse refers back to “horns.“ George Paxton wrote: “Moses, in his benediction of Joseph, states a most important fact, that it has two horns; the words are: His horns are like the horns of (a reem, in the singular number) an unicorn. Some interpreters, determined to support the claims of the unicorn to the honour of a place in the sacred volume, contend, that in this instance the singular, by an enallage or change of number, is put for the plural. But this is a gratuitous assertion; and besides, if admitted, would greatly diminish the force and propriety of the comparison. The two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manassah, had been adopted into the family of Jacob, and appointed the founders of two distinct tribes, whose descendants in the time of Moses were become numerous and respectable in the congregation. These were the two horns with which Joseph was to attack and subdue his enemies, and by consequence, propriety required an allusion to a creature, not with one, but with two horns” (Illustrations of the Holy Scriptures, II, pp. 191-192). With the two horns of a reem, he [singular] shall push. Does some try to avoid or ignore the "he" [singular] in the verse?

William Houghton observed: "The two horns of the reem are 'the ten thousands of Ephraim and the thousands of Manasseh'--the two tribes which sprang from one, i.e. Joseph, as two horns from one head" (Hacket, Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 3351). Likewise, H. B. Tristram commented: “For the two horns of the reem are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and the thousands of Manasseh, both growing out of one head, Joseph. This, then, entirely sets aside the fancy that the rhinoceros, which the Jews could scarcely have known, or any one-horned creature, is intended” (Natural History, p. 146). Wiley noted that "the emblem of Joseph was the re'em; and his two powerful sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, were typified by two horns" (Bible Animals, p. 429). M’Clintock and Strong observed: “The two horns of the reem are ‘the ten thousands of Ephraim and the thousands of Manasseh’--the two tribes which sprang from one--I.el., Joseph, as two horns from one head” (Cyclopaedia, X, p. 638). The two horns that picture or illustrate the two sons of Joseph are clearly indicated to be on one head [Joseph] (Deut. 33:16). John Gill noted that the horns “are figures of the power and strength of the tribes of Ephraim and Manesseh.“ T. E. Espin asserted that the “tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh are represented by the two mighty horns of the beast” (Cook, Bible Commentary, I, p. 743). Ellicott’s Commentary mentioned “the two-horned power of Joseph” (II, p. 94). The Companion Bible [KJV] suggested that the “horns” are “put by figure Metonymy” for Ephraim and Manasseh (p. 287). Robert Tuck wrote: “The two horns of the reem represent the two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim, which sprang from the one tribe Joseph” (Handbook, p. 341). These observations concerning the context are also in agreement with another verse (Num. 14:4) which stated: “For the children of Joseph were two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim“.

In contrast, KJV-only advocates seem to ignore this credible evidence from the context that indicates that this one animal had two horns. Should the context be considered a decisive factor in deciding whether the animal had more than one horn or not?

 

The intend of God and Moses is too clear for you to try to twist it into something that God did not say.

Do you seek to try to change what God said was singular into a plural in order to try to rationalize your non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning?

God in the Scriptures in the original languages given by inspiration referred to the strength of one reem [singular] (Num. 23:22) and to the horns of one reem [singular] (Deut. 33:17). That is presenting and affirming the truth in love.

 

You are misunderstanding or misinterpreting the verse perhaps in order to try to rationalize the KJV's misleading translation of a Hebrew noun singular in number as a plural. You are dodging and ignoring what God gave by inspiration in the Hebrew. The Hebrew noun reem is not plural in number to be the antecedent for the plural pronoun.

Joseph's glory is compared to one animal [the bullock], and Joseph's "horns" are compared to the two horns of one animal [the reem]. With them [the two horns which are picturing Joseph's two sons and their descendants], he [singular--Joseph (pictured as one reem) shall push. They=the horns. The Hebrew word reem [translated unicorns in the KJV] is not plural in number to be the antecedent for a plural pronoun.

 

This verse illustrates how a rendering in English in the KJV can lead to a misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

Would the plural pronouns "them" and "they" have a noun singular in number in Hebrew as their antecedent?

Plural pronouns would not have a Hebrew noun [reem] that is singular in number as their antecedent.

 

Are you demonstrating that you incorrectly attempt to make the English renderings in the KJV superior to the actual Hebrew words that were given by inspiration of God to Moses? Do you in effect suggest that the KJV corrects the Hebrew in this verse?

You have not demonstrated or proven that the Hebrew noun reem [singular in number] refers to any one-horned animal called an unicorn.

 

Disagreeing with your misunderstanding of Deuteronomy 33:17 does not at all put the Hebrew text in doubt. I have not at all questioned what God gave by inspiration to Moses. You jump to an incorrect, bogus conclusion.

Are you in effect putting in doubt what God gave by inspiration to Moses since you seem to reject the authority of God's word in Hebrew?

 

The Hebrew Masoretic text proves your understanding of the verse to be incorrect. The plural pronouns do not have a noun that is singular in Hebrew as their antecedent.

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).

 

So what? Someone does not have to be able to read Hebrew to learn about Hebrew words and whether they are singular or plural in number. I know a Biblical Hebrew scholar who can read Hebrew.

I have soundly checked multiple sources. Along with sources concerning Hebrew, evidence from the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, from early Spanish Bibles, and from standard editions of the KJV were provided that all affirm that the Hebrew noun is singular in number.

Do you seek to dodge the fact that a Hebrew noun singular in number would not be the antecedent for plural pronouns?

 

You may be describing your own repeated vain attempts to try to justify your apparent rejection of the plain truth that a Hebrew noun singular in number is not the antecedent of plural pronouns "them" and "they."

Is proudly sticking with your personal, private interpretation more important than acknowledging and accepting the truth?