Unicorns, Satyrs, and Cockatrices…in the Bible?

Dewayne Bryant, Ph.D.

Inspiration of the BibleArchaeology

Christians reading through some versions of the Bible may be puzzled when they discover references to unicorns, satyrs, and cockatrices. Critics claim that such references are evidence that the Bible is a product of a mythological worldview.1 What’s the truth of the matter?

Satyrs

Ancient Greek art depicted these nature spirits in various forms, but most people think of them as half-man, half-goat creatures. They were known for their love of women, wine, and music. Early English versions such as the KJV and the Geneva Bible include the term, but later versions wisely remove it because the Hebrew word sa`ir means “male goat.”2 The KJV contains two misleading translations for this term: “satyr” (Isaiah 13:21; 34:14) and “devil” (Leviticus 17:7; 2 Chronicles 11:15). In the latter two instances, these occurrences may be referring to goat-shaped idols.3

The term sa`ir appears more than 50 times in the Hebrew Bible, usually referring to a male goat. All but a handful of occurrences appear in the Pentateuch, three-fourths of which describe the animal as a sin offering (e.g., Leviticus 16; Numbers 7; 29).4 After four centuries of advancements in biblical scholarship, we can see that the word describes a goat, not a creature from Greek mythology.

Unicorns

Legends about these animals appear in the writings of ancient authors such as Strabo (Geography 15.1), Pliny the Elder (Natural History 8.31), and Aelian (On Animals 3.41; 4.52). Their descriptions vary in specific details, but sources typically describe this animal as a creature resembling a horse with a single horn protruding from its forehead. English translations as early as the 1300s mistakenly include this creature in the biblical text. However, some people try to defend its inclusion in the King James Version by saying it refers to the rhinoceros (rhinoceros unicornis) or real animals with rare deformities.5 Based on the uses of the term in various Semitic languages, as well as in the Hebrew Bible, this connection simply is not possible.

The Hebrew word translated as “unicorn” is re’em, which is related to the Assyrian word rīmu and the Ugaritic word r’m,6 all of which mean “wild ox.” It appears in several places in the Bible, the first of which describes the strength of Israel (Numbers 23:22; 24:8). Other texts make it clear that the re’em is an ox when it uses the term in parallel statements referring to calves (Psalm 29:6) and bulls (Isaiah 34:7), which also makes it unlikely to be referring to a rhinoceros—a species which existed in India and Africa but does not appear to have been native to the ancient Near East in biblical times.

Several problems occur with other references, however, as the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 33:17 makes it clear that the re’em (singular) has more than one horn. The KJV translators incorrectly rendered the singular term “ox” as the plural “unicorns,” perhaps in an attempt to harmonize the elements of the passage. The book of Job depicts the re’em as a draft animal used for harrowing or plowing (Hebrew sadad; Job 39:10; cf. Hosea 10:11), which is fitting for oxen but not whimsical, magical creatures.7

Cockatrices

According to various sources, the mythical cockatrice is born from a chicken egg incubated by a toad or serpent. This creature is depicted with both avian and reptilian features, with the ability to kill other animals with a single glance (what Shakespeare called “the death-darting eye of Cockatrice”8). The Hebrew term translated as “cockatrice” by both the KJV and the Geneva Bible is tsip`oni, meaning “poisonous serpent.” The term appears in parallel with other Hebrew words referring to serpents (Proverbs 23:32; Isaiah 11:8; 59:5; Jeremiah 8:17), making it clear that the term does not refer to a mythological creature.

The history of the cockatrice creates an additional problem for those who target older English translations in their criticism of the Bible: it appears that the creature’s origins only go back as far as the medieval period. The word first appeared in the English language in the Late Middle Ages when John Wyclif included it in his translation (1382), which heavily influenced the King James Version. It seems that the creature first emerged in European mythology as early as the twelfth century,9 making it an extremely anachronistic translation of the original Hebrew term.

Conclusion

Although English translations in the past have included the names of mythical creatures, this appears to have been because of human tradition rather than actual scholarship. Satyrs and unicorns may appear in Greco-Roman and early English literature, but their origins do not appear to extend back into the ancient Near East. The same can be said of the cockatrice, which does not seem to predate the medieval period. We cannot fault the biblical authors if their work was not translated accurately by scholars many centuries later.

While critics frequently condemn the biblical authors for mentioning mythical creatures, they do not appear to recognize that these references are often erroneous renderings on the part of fallible translators who could not benefit from the advancements in Hebrew scholarship that modern experts have at their disposal today. Now that scholars have a better grasp of ancient languages and the relevant literature, we can see that anyone looking for fantastic beasts in the Bible will have to go elsewhere to find them.

Endnotes

1 The prophet Isaiah sometimes uses mythical language in a nonliteral manner—this is clear when he says that Egypt is like Leviathan (or Lotan, the “twisting serpent”), a monster from Ugaritic literature (Isaiah 27:1; although it has the same name, this is different from the animal mentioned in Job 41). A modern-day equivalent might be like calling a complaining woman a “harpy,” a brutish or abusive man an “ogre,” or the CEO of a large corporation a “titan” in the business world. We often use mythological references in colloquial language, such as saying that a person with a notable weakness has an Achilles’ heel, that a perennially successful entrepreneur has the Midas touch, or that someone can expect trouble because he has opened Pandora’s box. Similarly, the biblical writers occasionally used such figures of speech without validating the pagan ideas behind them.

2 R. Laird Harris (1999), “śāʿîr” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, R. Laird Harris, ed. Gleason L. Archer, Jr., & Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago, IL: Moody Press), p. 881.

3 Mark F. Rooker (2000), Leviticus (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman), p. 234.

4 See references in John R. Kohlenberger III and James A. Swanson (1998), The Hebrew English Concordance to the Old Testament with the New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 1514.

5 Jason Bittel, “Real-Life ‘Unicorn’ Found; Deer Has Extremely Rare Deformity,” https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141112-unicorn-deer-slovenia-antlers-science-animals/.

6 J. Tropper and H. P. Müller (2004), “re’em,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 13:244.

7 See a fuller discussion in Douglas Mangum (2011), “Chasing Unicorns in the Bible,” Bible Study Magazine, pp. 32-33, Jan-Feb.

8 Romeo and Juliet, 3.2.47.

9 See discussion in Laurence A. Breiner (1979), “The Career of the Cockatrice,” Isis, 70[1]:30-47, March.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.