David Cross has a bit in (the caustic and exquisite) Shut Up, You Fucking Baby! CD in which he is skewering — harshly — the Bible. He uses examples like “angels took blood and …”, ages of religious heroes in the Old Testament , and calls it “D&D bullshit” (that’s from memory — can’t find my CDs). To pillory this, he says “Where are the unicorns?!”
Um …
Um …
There. And by “there” I mean:
For real. Look it up. Those are hyperlinks. Click any — click all — of them. Or pick your favorite Bible from your bookshelf (if you got it from a motel, you officially didn’t steal it, so don’t feel guilty.) I’ll wait.
Back?
OK. Um … unicorns. From a Christian site — biblestudytools.com — here are the search results for ‘unicorn’. The word in Ancient Hebrew, phonetically, is reh-ame’.
But picking on the King James Version is like picking on conservatism by criticizing Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Coulter. I really do know that. KJV is unsophisticated scholars interpreting ancient texts to conform to the whims of royalty. My favorite version is the New International Version (NIV). Yes, I have a favorite. For me it’s the best balance of solemn formality, readability, collation of (wildly) varying texts, and accuracy (in my word-by-word Greek examination, at least.) Yes, some interpretations have more scholarship behind them — NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) is frequently lauded, but my fave is still NIV. It says “wild ox”. For the record, here’s a survey of the word in the translations I’ve found online:
Unicorn: 4
Wild ox (one is hyphenated): 12
Ox: 2
Wild bull: 3
Buffalo: 1
Bison: 1
Reem: 1
OK, so the clear winner is “wild ox”. But the second is “unicorn”. But keep in mind: there are at least four different species here. Wikipedia them.
So: biblical inerrancy? How is this possible? Well, the answer is in Brown, Driver, Briggs, and Gesenius: “The exact meaning is unknown.” So the answer is simple: the scriptures meant exactly one thing, and we’ve lost the referent. Happens. No fault there. I’m not unsophisticated or strident enough to not realize that.
What my point is, though, is that among the (staggering small) number of Christians who have read the whole Bible, some believe that the Bible is inerrant. Some of those will say that the Bible in the original languages is what is inerrant. I can swing with that. But the others (who’ve read the book — again, small) will stick by their favorite translation, and they can’t all be right. This is not dickishness, this is just logic.
I believe the best argument for “unicorn”, by the way, is that Psalm 92:10 says “But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn.” All translations I’ve found are singular. I must demur here: I don’t know nearly enough about Ancient Hebrew to judge fine issues of ordinality (if nothing else, Japanese convinces me of possible weirdness in the way things are counted.) Why not … “horns of a wild ox”? Dunno.
But who cares about what fucking animal a reh-ame’ is.
Few, I expect. Fine. The real problem I want to discuss is not there. The problem shows up in Isaiah 7:14, which portends a birth that was ret-conned (I think it’s fair to say the burden of proof is on the believer to disprove this) onto Mary. The word is `almah, which can mean either “young woman of marrying age” or “virgin”. That’s reasonable if it’s in a culture where all unmarried young women are (upon-penalty-of-death-assumed-to-be) virgins — it’s like a language in which “Republican” and “asshole” map to the same token. One brilliant translation I’ve read translates ‘almah to “maiden”, which is ambiguous in English.
The big ret-conning of the conception of Jesus, largely furthered by the proto-orthodox (see Bart Ehrman’s Lost Christainities), is and was super-hyped by the Roman Catholics who, in a baffling indulgence in syncretism, believe that Mary was a virgin after giving birth. By the way, he source of that — and I would expect fewer than 1 in 1,000 Catholics could cite this — is solely The Proto-Gospel of James, a book considered non-canonical by (I believe) every modern denomination (“proto-gospel” is a technical term that means “gospel describing the life of Jesus before he began his ministry”, and most are delightfully amusing, describing Mad Magazine-esque escapades of the miracle-working young Christ.)
So, faced with all that: what would be the likely translation of the Isaiah passage if we didn’t have the Greek Gospels? Without the later ret-conning, would we read that Jesus would be born to a “virgin”, or to “a young woman of marrying age”? If you will set aside for the moment the conceit of Biblical inerrancy — and the facts that the book is internally inconsistent and demonstrably wrong give ample reason to set inerrancy aside permanently — what would be your response to an ambiguous email forward or newsstand tabloid that claimed a virgin birth? Please be honest to yourself. Would you say “Hells Yeah!”, or would you check Snopes?
It’s. Just. An. Old. Book. Gah, can’t you see that? Except it’s not. It’s lots of contradictory old books sewn together with authorship attributed to a deity. The power of unicorns? Pregnant virgins? For real, Christians: if this were anywhere other than the Bible, WWYD? ‘Y’ is the most important critic: “You”.