The phrase that is translated as “with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” in English versions is rendered in Kahua with a term for belly/chest as the seat of the emotions.
The same phrase is translated into Kuy as “with all your heart-liver”to show the totality of one’s being. (Source: David Clark)
Similar to that, in Laka one must love with the liver, in Western Kanjobal with the “abdomen,” and in Marshallese with the throat.
What is translated as “soul” in English is translated as “life” in Yaka, Chuukese, and in Ixcatlán Mazatec, “that which stands inside of one” in Navajo (Dinė), and “spirit” in Kele.
The Greek that is translated in English as “strength” is translated in Yao as “animation” and in Chuukese as “ability.”
The Greek that is translated in English as “mind” is translated in Kele as “thinking,” in Chuukese as “thought(s),” and in Marathi as “intelligence.”
The whole phrase is translated in Tboli as “cause it to start from the very beginning of your stomach your loving God, for he is your place of holding.”
In Poqomchi’ (as in many other Mayan languages), the term “heart” covers both “heart” and “mind.”
(Sources: Bratcher / Nida, Reiling / Swellengrebel, and Bob Bascom [Ixcatlán Mazatec and Poqomchi’])
In English, the Greek term Pneûma tò Hagion is translated as “Holy Ghost” or “Holy Spirit.” The English terms referring to Pneûma are synonyms: “ghost” is derived from Old Englishgast (“breath” or “good or bad spirit”) and “spirit” from Latinspiritus (“breath” or “supernatural immaterial creature”). Until the late 19th century, English translators of all traditions used “Holy Ghost” (or “holy Ghost”) but generally switched to “Holy Spirit” (or “holy Spirit”) thereafter, likely because the meaning of “ghost” had transitioned to predominantly refer to the spirit of a dead person.
Other languages with a long tradition in Bible translation translate Pneûma (for “holy” see holy) as follows (click or tap here to see more):
While a few Germanic languages still use terms derived from gast (see above) including German and Dutch (Geist and Geest respectively), the majority use forms of Proto*-Germanic anadô (“breath,” “spirit,” “zeal” — used in Latin as anima), including Danish (Ånden), Swedish (Ande/ande — for more on the gender of the Swedish translation, see below), Icelandic (andi), and Norwegian (Ånd/ånd). (*”Proto” refers to the most recent common, often hypothetical language ancestor). Note that the earliest-known German translation was “holy breath” (wîh atum) (source: Renck 1990, p. 105)
The majority of Romance languages use a form of the LatinSpiritus (French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Catalan among others). (Note that in the French 1985 translation by Chouraqui, souffle sacré or “sacred breath” is used [source: Watson 2023, p. 52])
Slavic languages derive their translation from the Proto-Slavic dȗxъ (“breath,” “wind,” “spirit”), including Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Bulgarian (all: Дух)
Most Semitic languages (Hebrew, Arabic, Assyrian, Chaldean — with the exception of Maltese which uses the Latin-based l-Ispirtu s-Santu), Iranian languages (Urdu, Tajik, Dari, Persian, Pashto), Turkic languages (Uzbek, Turkish), Malayic languages (Indonesian, Balinese, Sangir, and Malay — for further information on Malay, see below) use a derivative of the Proto-Semitic rūḥ- (“to blow,” “breathe”). Compare the Hebrew term ruach (רוּחַ: “breath,” “wind,” “spirit”) in the Old Testament. (For the use of Roho in Swahili, see below)
Bratcher / Nida say this about the translation into languages that do not have an existing Bible translation (click or tap here to see more):
“Undoubtedly no word has given quite so much trouble to the Bible translator as spirit, for (1) it includes such a wide range of meaning, from ‘evil spirit’ to ‘poor in spirit’ to ‘Holy Spirit’ and (2) it touches so vitally the crucial comparison and contrast between Christianity and so-called ‘animism.’
“There are four principal dangers in the choice of a word for Holy Spirit: (1) the term may identify an essential malevolent spirit, and no mere addition of the word ‘holy’ or ‘good’ is likely to change the basic connotation of the word, (2) the word may mean primarily the spirit of a deceased person (hence God must have died — a not infrequent error in Bible translations), (3) the expression used to mean ‘spirit’ may denote only an impersonal life force, a sort of soul-stuff which may be conceived as indwelling all plant, animal, and human substances (therefore, to say that ‘God is spirit’ is to deny His essential personality), and (4) a borrowed term may signify next to nothing to the people, and can only be explained by another term or terms, which, if they are adequate to explain the borrowing, should have been used in the first place. It is true that in some instances a borrowed word has seemed to be the only alternative, but it should be chosen only as a last resort.
“There is no easy formula to be employed in finding an adequate equivalent for Holy Spirit, for what seems to work quite well in one area may not serve in another. One thing, however, is certain: one should not select a term before making a comprehensive study of all kinds of words for spirits and for parts or aspects of personality and thus having as complete a view as possible of all indigenous beliefs about supernatural beings.”
Following are ways that languages without a long tradition Bible translation have translated Pneûma (click or tap here to see more):
Western Highland Chatino: “God’s perfect heart” J. Hefley (1968, p. 210) tells this story (click or tap here to read more):
“Ninu [a Chatino translation assistant] told his translator that the word ‘holy’ could be used to modify an idol, a household god, the witch doctor, an altar, a lion, the sea which had caused a flood and disaster, a sacred mushroom, and several other things. The translator and his consultant deduced that holy had two main components of meanings for Chatinos. It referred to persons purported to hold supernatural powers, and to objects which, if not properly respected, would bring evil upon one. With this and other information, they agreed that they could not use the Chatino word for ‘holy’ and ‘spirit’ in defining the third person of the Trinity. Their approved translation for Holy Spirit became ‘God’s perfect heart’ (referring primarily to the life principles of one who is living).”
Malay (Today’s Malay Version, publ. 1987): Roh Allah: “Spirit of God.” Barclay Newman (in The Bible Translator 1974, p. 432ff. ) explains this as follows (click or tap here to see more):
“A third difficult phrase that had to be dealt with was ‘Holy Spirit,’ since in popular Islamic theology there are many ‘holy spirits.’ In order to overcome this problem it was decided that ‘the Holy Spirit’ would always be rendered ‘God’s Spirit,’ and that wherever ‘Spirit’ or ‘the Spirit’ was used as a reference to God’s Spirit this would be clearly marked.
“Other illustrations could be given of the clearing up of ambiguous and difficult phrases, but only one more will be selected, and it will serve as a transition to the next major section of this article. In John 6:63 the phrase ‘Spirit and life’ (in the expression ‘the words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’) is taken to refer to one thing not two. That is, even though the words are connected by the conjunction ‘and’ they are not in the relationship to one another that ‘and’ normally suggests. Moreover, ‘spirit’ in John’s Gospel, unless otherwise indicated, always refers to God’s Spirit. So then, the Common Malay has translated with the meaning, ‘the words which I speak come from God’s Spirit and bring life.’ This exegesis also has the advantage of tying in the meaning closely to the previous verse.
“As previously indicated, except in the passages where the context clearly indicates otherwise (John 11:33; John 13:21; John 19:30), it was assumed that ‘spirit’ or ‘the spirit’ refer to God’s Spirit, and so the translator always made this information explicit. For example, John the Baptist’s words in John 1:32 become ‘I saw God’s Spirit come down like a dove from heaven.’ The one exception to this rule is in 3:8a, where there is a play on words. In Greek, as in Hebrew, the same word may mean either ‘wind’ or ‘spirit.’ In this context most translations take ‘wind’ to be the basic comparison, and so have translated in this way; and some have even provided a footnote, indicating the play on words. Since the basic comparison here is seen to be ‘wind,’ the Malay New Testament translated the text in this way.”
Japanese uses the “divine” honorific prefix mi- (御 or み) when the referent is God, as in mi-tama (御霊) or “Spirit (of God)” (source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
“The Shipibo consider all spirits evil, with the exception of certain entities making up a human personality. It would be a manifest contradiction to say ‘Good Evil-Spirit’ for ‘Holy Spirit,’ and it would be completely misinterpreted if one should say that Jesus perceived in his evil-spirit that some of the scribes thus questioned within their hearts (Mark 2:8).
“For these reasons we have translated this word (…) when it unmistakably refers to a disembodied evil personality yoshin ‘demon.’ (‘Unclean spirit’ we have translated ‘harmful demon.’)
“When it refers to the ‘Holy Spirit,’ we have finally translated it ‘Spotless Spirit,’ using for ‘Spirit’ a word designating one of the larger entities of human personality, the one which includes most of the others and which is always used of a live person.”
Sranan Tongo: Santa Yeye (from previously Santa Winti). Marlon Winedt explains (click or tap here to see more):
“One of the translators in Sranan Tongo followed the historically and scientifically correct analysis that the word for Holy Spirit should be ‘Santa Winti.’ However, the churches had traditionally used ‘Santa Yeye.’ Although in the spiritual world-mapping of the afro-descendants of the country Santa Yeye refers to a more limited spirit, it was the most acceptable choice because ‘winti’ besides meaning ‘spirit, wind’ also refers to the afro-Caribbean religion /spiritual practice ‘winti’ which can be compared to voodoo or other forms in the Caribbean. The Catholic lectionary used this translation (Santa Winti) though there was a heated debate about the use. The then-bishop of Paramaribo advised the faithful to choose whether they wanted to say Santa Winti or Santa Yeye when reading the text. In the interior of Suriname, Catholic catechists actually burned the lectionary because they found the term Santa Winti to be blasphemous.
“When the Sranan Tongo New Testament translation project was underway an attempt to merge two teams did not succeed partially based on this issue. Ultimately the remaining SIL/Bible Society of Suriname team did not chose to use Santa Winti but the accepted Santa Yeye. [This version was published in 2002.]”
“In Anuak there is no term for ‘spirit’ in the sense of the Holy Spirit.
“There is a word (ywey) which may be used to translate human soul or spirit, but which is essentially the ‘life principle.’ One cannot speak of the ywey of God, for the Anuaks insist that God does not have a ywey and that He is not a ywey. It is God who has given ywey to all people, animals and plants, but He Himself is of a different order of existence.
“To speak of the ywey of God would be to equate him with earthly creation. There seems to be no easy solution to this problem, but for the time being ‘Spirit’ is to be translated as ‘that which comes from God’, in the sense of that which emanates from or has its origin in God.”
Kaingang: Topẽ kuprĩg (God’s Spirit — kuprĩg is often to the spirit of a dead person). Ursula Wiesemann (in Notes on Translation 1978, p. 32ff.) explains how the translation team reached that conclusion (click or tap here to see more):
“All human beings have a kãnhvég which has as an outward manifestation the shadow or the reflection of that person. It is closely linked to the body and cannot leave it. It is an indication of life in the body. According to one language helper, it lives in our chest (that is, heart), but this may be a carry-over from his Christian teaching.
“The kãnhvég at death becomes vẽnh kuprĩg. Vẽnh is a pronoun meaning ‘someone’s’. The vẽnh kuprĩg seem to live in groups and can be heard at night making a peculiar humming noise. They may do mischievous things like throwing dirt on the house which scares the inhabitants. A vẽnh kuprĩg may also appear to an individual, be recognized by him for whose spirit he is, speak kindly to him, and even touch him. The purpose is to take the living person along to the place where the dead live. It is reported that in this way the vẽnh kuprĩg cause death, or that they might even choke babies to death during the night. In describing an encounter with a vẽnh kuprĩg, the Indians say: ‘I saw a vẽnh kuprĩg. It was so-and-so.’ Whereas kãnhvég collocates with all pronouns and names (that is, can be directly identified as belonging to a specific person), kuprĩg collocates most naturally with vẽnh when it refers to the spirit of a dead person.
“Such conflicting reports on the meaning of the terms is difficult to choose the right terms for the Spirit of God. In Rio das Cobras and in Guarita, God is said to have a kuprĩg and a kãnhvég, but it is His kuprĩg who has a life of his own without being tied to God’s body. In both localities (and some others, where, however, the question was not looked into in detail as in the three areas identified), the definite and unquestioned choice of all people asked was to identify the ‘Holy Spirit’ as Topẽ kuprĩg ‘Spirit of God’. In Nonoai (same dialect area as Guarita but different dialect area from Rio das Cobras), however, the definite and unquestioned choice is Topẽ kãnhvég ‘because kuprĩg refers to the spirit of one who died.’ So it will be necessary to use both terms in a paraphrase to satisfy everyone. The objection to kãnhvég is its close tie to a body, and only in Nonoai this connection seems to be broken.
“Postscript: Since writing the above, several years have passed, and the New Testament has been completed, and the revision committee, composed of three Indians from as many dialect areas, unanimously chose Topẽ kuprĩg for ‘Spirit of God,’ rejecting the word kãnhvég as being ‘too weak and not meaningful’ — that is, the kãnhvég is not a spirit at all but just a sign of life, so it has been dropped in the last revision, as well as the reference to the ‘kãnhvég not dying’ as eternal life.”
Papiamento: Spiritu. Since the term on its own means “bad spirit,” in any case that no modifier is used (such as “Holy” or “of truth”), the translators used Spiritu di Dios (“Spirit of God”) to differentiate it from the negative connotation (source: Marlon Winedt).
Ditammari: “Air of God.” Loewen (in The Bible Translator 1983, p. 213ff. ) explains that a search for the term “spirit” was conducted (especially as in “Holy Spirit”). Since faith healers often avoided using the name of unclean spirits by saying “impure air” a suggestion was made to call Holy Spirit “clean/pure air”. This was accepted but changed to “air of God” to avoid ambiguity with air that we breath.
Warlpiri: Pirlirrpa Kaatu-kurlangu: “God’s Eternal Spirit,” since “holy’ carries the meaning of taboo and cannot be used (source: Stephen Swartz in The Bible Translator 1985, p. 415ff. )
Eastern Highland Otomi: “God’s Good Spirit” (source: John Beekman in Notes on Translation November 1964, p. 1-22.)
Kahua: the term for “Spirit” is a generic term for a spirit which never had a body (i.e., not the spirit of a dead ancestor). (Source: David Clark)
Keapara: Vea’a Palaguna (“Holy Spirit” but can also be “Holy God” or “angels” — “there is not a strong contrast between the meaning of God and Holy Spirit” since “God” is translated with “Palagu”) (source: Norm Mundhenk in The Bible Translator 2004, p. 222f. )
Naro: Tc’ẽe: a word that refers to the “thinking/willing part” of one’s personality. (Source: van Steenbergen)
Tibetan: thugs nyid (ཐུགས་ཉིད།།), an honorific form for sems nyid (སེམས་ཉིད།) or “spirit” (source: gSungrab website )
Nias: Geheha (or: Eheha). “The word Eheha is known all over Nias, except for the Batu Islands. Eheha means charisma, strength and wisdom possessed only by some nobles. Eheha can be passed down to the eldest son when someone dies, by putting one’s mouth on his dying father’s mouth before he breathes his last breath. Eheha looks like foam or animal fat. If the son is not strong enough he may fall unconscious while receiving his father’s eheha. In the case that the son is still a young boy the eheha can be kept in a tokosa vessel made of gold. The Ono Niha [literally ‘child of human,’ the term by which the original inhabitants of Nias and the Batu Islands call themselves] believed that eheha gives wisdom, skills and charisma and is a very important element in leadership.” (Source: Hummel / Telaumbanua 2007, p. 253)
Many Bantu languages translate Pneûma with a word that originally means “soul,” including Luganda and Haya (both: mwoyo), Ndebele (uMoya), Sotho (Moya). Fang uses Nsísim: “shadow” or “separate soul” (anima separata) (source: Bühlmann 1950, p. 176)
The grammatical gender of the Greek Pneûma is neuter (and the Hebrew ruach has a feminine gender). While many languages either do not have a grammatical gender or have a word for Pneûma that grammatically is masculine, other languages found various ways of dealing with this. (Click or tap here to read more):
The earliest example is Classical Syriac which, like Hebrew, used a term — Ruhä — that was of feminine gender. According to Ashbrook (1993), in early documents the feminine gender was not only used in a grammatical sense but the Spirit was often described with feminine imagery as well. “Around the year 400 [though], a change emerges in our texts. Starting in the fifth century, and almost universally by the sixth, the Spirit is masculine in Syriac writers. Ruhä when referring to wind or spirit continues to follow rules of grammar and to be construed in the feminine; but when referring to the Holy Spirit, it is now construed as masculine, although this does violence to the fabric of the language.” (Source: Ashbrook 1993)
A similar process of ungrammatical usage was attempted in Asháninka. The “Good Spirit of God” required a feminine, inanimate pronoun which was artificially changed to masculine. After a while this was changed back to its true grammatical form with no perceptible difference in the understanding of the Trinity. Will Kindberg (in The Bible Translator 1964, 197f. ) tells that story (click or tap here to read more):
“For the past several years Mr Sylvester Dirks of the Mennonite Brethren Mission and I have been engaged in missionary work with the Asháninka sub-group of the Campa tribe in Peru, and have collaborated on Christian vocabulary items and translation as well as other phases of our missionary activities. For the ‘Holy Spirit’ we are using ‘the Good Spirit of God’. The normal pronominal reference for spirit, whether it be a human spirit or the spirit of a god, is third person feminine inanimate. Long ago, Sylvester and I agreed that we would force the use of the third person masculine animate pronoun to refer to the Holy Spirit, although we recognized it was contrary to the grammatical system of Asháninka. We did this because of a theological bias: the Holy Spirit is referred to in English as masculine, and we think of the Spirit as a masculine member of the Godhead. We ignored the fact that it has a neuter reference in Greek.
“In the Gospel of Mark and also in the book of Acts, my translation consistently uses the third person masculine pronoun to refer to the feminine inanimate spirit. There has been a reaction against this by the people as they hear or read these portions of Scripture, though some of the believers have accepted it when it was explained to them why it had been done.
“This past year while I was continuing working on other portions of Scripture, I was again troubled by the non-grammatical use of the pronominal referent.
“I checked again with some of my colleagues here in Peru and they agreed with me that it might be wise to switch back to the correct grammatical usage. So I checked with Mr Dirks and he did not object to the change.
“Because of the importance of the issue, I also wrote to Dr Eugene Nida and Dr John Beekman for their opinions. They both suggested the use of the grammatically correct forms. The following is a quote from Dr Beekman’s letter:
“‘There is a distinction between animate and inanimate reference in one of the Zapoteco dialects of Mexico. All spirits fall into the inanimate class. The weight of theological considerations led the translators to use the animate form contrary to usage. In consultation, however, it was agreed that it would be preferable not to violate the grammatical pattern especially since the informants felt that the use of the inanimate form did not necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit was not a person. The translators are now using the inanimate form to the satisfaction of all of the believers.’
“I have switched the pronominal reference throughout John and it has just been printed. The reaction of the few people with whom I have checked this has been good. The question has been asked: ‘How does having two masculine members and a feminine-inanimate member affect the Asháninka’s idea of a triune God?’
“One day I was talking to my informant (still a relatively untrained believer) about the different gods in which his fellow tribesmen believe. And I said, ‘What does the Bible teach about God? How many are there?’ (Note that I used the unmarked form that might be either singular or plural.) He answered, ‘There is one God’. Then after thinking a minute, he said, ‘There are two—there’s Jesus. Then afterwards he said, ‘There are three— there’s God’s Spirit’. It seems to me he has understood the doctrine of the Trinity about as well as most Christians. For the last few months we have been using a feminine inanimate referent for the Holy Spirit and this has not seemed to hinder his understanding of the Trinity. Time will tell the reaction of the rest of the people.”
In Swahili, the translation of Pneûma tò Hagion is Roho Mtakatifu. Roho, derived from the Semitic / Arabic Rūḥ, should be in the noun class for loan words but to prevent the misunderstanding of Roho as an inanimate object, it is (grammatically incorrectly) used in the first class of nouns which is specifically reserved for people (source: Bühlmann 1950, p. 176). While some Bantu languages use similar strategies, Lamba left Umupasi Uswetelele in the third noun class that is also used for trees and plants, making a grammatically a non-person. But, as C. M. Doke (in The Bible Translator 1958, p. 57ff. ) remarks, “it is [left] to numerous references in the Scriptures to establish that the Holy Spirit is a person, the third person of the Trinity.”
While Swedish used to have three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter), modern Swedish only uses two genders (common [utrum] and neuter). Until the Bibel 2000, “Holy Spirit” was translated as helige Ande which used a masculine adjective and paired it with ande (“Spirit”), which historically could be read as masculine. With the merging of the masculine gender into the common gender it is now translated as the common-gendered heliga ande, matching a more widely-used gender-equal language practice in Swedish. (Source: Mikael Winninge and Sara Rösare)
The following is a stained glass window from ca. 1660 by Gian Lorenzo Bernini. The “Dove of the Holy Spirit” is installed at Saint Peter’s Basilica, Vatican City:
Photo and accompanying text by Wilfredor, hosted by Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication license
Stained glass is not just highly decorative, it’s a medium which has been used to express important religious messages for centuries. Literacy was not widespread in the medieval and Renaissance periods and the Church used stained glass and other artworks to teach the central beliefs of Christianity. In Gothic churches, the windows were filled with extensive narrative scenes in stained glass — like huge and colorful picture storybooks — in which worshipers could ‘read’ the stories of Christ and the saints and learn what was required for their religious salvation. (Source: Victoria and Albert Museum )
Among the English versions there seems to be a great deal of confusion and inconsistency in the translation of the various Hebrew words. This is due in large part to the fact that the English translators and the commentators who have guided them have had many mistaken ideas about lions and their behavior. To take Amos 3:4 as an example, Smalley and de Waard (A Handbook on Amos. New York, 1979), commenting on this verse and echoing many others, claim: “The lion’s roar in the first picture is the ferocious roar with which the lion attacks an animal he is going to kill and eat. When someone hears this roar, he knows that the lion has found his victim. In the second picture, however, it is the lion’s contented growl when he has dragged the food to his den.” (see here)
However, lions do not roar as they attack their prey, (in fact they kill very silently as a rule), and lions do not normally live in dens. Moreover, they do not growl contentedly when eating. Instead they growl and snarl at the other lions in the pride who are trying to share the meal.
Click or tap here for the rest of this entry in United Bible Societies’ All Creatures Great and Small: Living things in the Bible
In case there are readers who react by thinking that it is unlikely that unsophisticated ancient peoples would have known these details, it should be pointed out that unsophisticated people all over Africa, who live in areas where there are lions, are very familiar with lion behavior, and it is highly likely that the Jewish writers were too. The problem would seem to lie with the mistaken presuppositions of western biblical scholars, rather than those of the Jewish writers. Later in this section evidence will be given that the biblical writers were very familiar with lion behavior.
In a similar vein, it is likely that the many Hebrew words for lions each have a slightly different meaning from one another. A closer study of lions and their behavior may help to define these meanings.
In biblical times lions were found all over the Middle East, in Mesopotamia, in Egypt, and in the area of Sudan and Ethiopia called Cush.
The Greek word leōn and the Latin leo are general words for lion, while the Greek leontēdon means something like “fierce lion”.
In order to dispel many of the wrong presuppositions about lions that are current among biblical scholars, the description of this animal will be more detailed and extensive than for other animals in this book.
Lions Panthera leo are the largest of the great cats, often being about 2.8 meters (9 feet) from nose to tip of tail, standing as high as 1 meter (3 feet 3 inches) at the shoulder. However, the difference in size between lions and Bengal Tigers Panthera tigris is minimal. An adult lion is at least half a meter (20 inches) longer than a LeopardPanthera pardus and weighs twice as much, often reaching 250 kilograms (550 pounds) in weight; it is about 30 centimeters (1 foot) longer and 100 kilograms (220 pounds) heavier than a Jaguar Panthera onca or Mountain Lion (Puma) Puma concolor. Lions are a pale yellowish brown, but at birth they have spots that usually disappear gradually as they grow. Around the neck and shoulders of adult males grows a mane that is darker than the rest of their fur. Some even have black manes. Females and young males do not have manes and look very similar to each other.
Lions live in family groups called “prides”, which are made up of a dominant male lion (often called “the pride male”), plus a group of adult and sub adult females and young males. Males may leave the pride, and occasionally one or two females may go off with a wandering male, but normally the females continue in the pride and develop very close bonds with one another that last a lifetime. The dominant male will often make ritual attacks on the younger males of the pride, who roll over in submission rather than fight.
However, adult males from within and outside the pride challenge the dominant male and one another when a female is in season and will try to mate with her. This results in serious fights. If the dominant male is defeated from within the pride, he leaves the pride to wander alone, but the remainder of the pride remains intact. If a male from outside the pride takes over from the pride male, he usually chases away the other males, which then wander singly or in small groups of three or four. These wandering males will try to take over other prides or steal females from them. Ousted pride males, since they are alone and have no help in hunting, are often hungry, thin, undernourished, and dangerous.
About two or three days before a pregnant female is about to give birth to cubs, she digs a temporary den under a rock or fallen log and visits it with one or two of the other females. After she gives birth in the den, one of the other females will bring her meat from a kill. This enables the mother to remain with her newborn cubs continuously for the first week or two of their lives. The mother lioness moves the newborn cubs to a new den every three or four days. When the cubs are about two weeks old, the mother carries the cubs to where the other pride members are, and the pride makes their acquaintance by licking them. Thereafter the cubs belong to the pride and suckle on any lactating lioness that happens to be near.
Until they are old enough to hunt, cubs hide in thickets while the pride hunters do their work. At a later stage they accompany the hunting lions, but watch the killing from the sidelines. Finally the mother will help them kill small animals, until they are able to kill efficiently. Then they join the pride hunts.
A pride lives together in the same territory. Bushes and tree trunks are marked by spraying a liquid from a gland next to the anus. This marked territory is defended against intruding lions. The pride will come together at feeding time and remain together after a feed, but will scatter across the territory prior to hunting.
Lions utter a variety of sounds, and this should be borne in mind when translating Scripture passages that refer to the noises lions make. The Hebrew words are usually not very specific, but the context will indicate the type of noise intended.
Roaring is the loudest of the lion sounds and is usually produced by the males. It is believed to be territory-marking behavior and a means of maintaining pride solidarity. It is usually done before hunting begins and also functions to help the pride locate the positions of scattered members. This is important for hunting. Roaring consists of a long, very loud moaning sound followed by shorter rhythmic panting moans, which are repeated as many as twenty times, while becoming softer and softer. No two lions roar in exactly the same way, and they can be identified from their roars. Roaring is also a means by which wandering male lions make known their availability as potential mates. Hungry lions roar more frequently than well-fed ones, and this is an indication of how hungry they are.
Growling is a warning sound. It is a very deep rumbling repeated with each breath. It is intended to chase away strange lions or other potential enemies, such as leopards, hyenas, or humans. When a lion or lioness growls, it usually advances towards its enemy. If growling does not have the desired effect, it is replaced with snarling, which is similar to growling but is more intense and is produced with exposed teeth, the body in a low crouch, and ears laid back flat. This behavior is usually the prelude to an attack. When the attack is actually made on an enemy, a deep trembling moan is uttered, and the ensuing fight takes place with a lot of loud snarling and growling.
When lions are feeding together on one carcass, there is usually a lot of growling, snarling, and snapping among the feeding lions.
Other types of sound made by lions are:
woofing sounds when pride members meet after two or three days’ absence from each other. This sound is also used to call cubs from their hiding places;
drawn out yawning moans by females in heat and by both lions and lionesses when mating;
grunting sounds when chasing prey toward other lions waiting in ambush;
contented loud purring, much as cats do.
Hunting and feeding behavior: After lions have fed well, they rest and relax together for two or three days. Towards the end of this time some of the pride members will begin to move away from the others in the direction of places where prey animals are likely to be grazing. Then, before they begin to hunt, they signal their locations by roaring on and off for an hour or two. They then fall silent and begin to hunt in earnest. Hunting usually takes one of two forms. If there is good cover near the prey, two or three lionesses and young males will stalk the prey using the cover. When they get close enough, one or two will break cover and charge at the prey, while the others maneuver to cut off any escape.
If the terrain is more open, the lionesses and young males will take up ambush positions downwind of the prey animals. Adult males then move fairly openly into upwind positions. They then run toward the prey uttering loud grunts with each breath. With either method, at the first charge the lions try to disable the animal by seizing a leg or by biting the spine. Once they have slowed down the prey, one lion will seize the animal by the throat and suffocate it. Thus death is usually fairly slow and drawn out. If the animal is large, the kill takes a considerable amount of energy, and the lions rest, usually standing, before they begin to feed.
Single wandering male lions are at a great disadvantage in hunting and often go hungry. They thus roar more frequently than pride lions. They often begin to kill domestic animals and sometimes humans.
Among the lions present at the time of the kill, there is a type of seniority, with age being important. The most senior lion or lioness present will begin to feed, and this will be a signal for the others to join in. If the kill is large, they feed in relative silence, but if the prey is small, there is a lot of snarling, growling, and snapping. Whenever a dominant pride male arrives, however, the feeding lions withdraw and leave him to feed alone. A dominant male will sometimes allow an immature cub to feed with him but no mature lions. The pride members will only resume feeding when the dominant male is satisfied. Dominant males are very seldom involved in the chase or the kill. At most they make the charge that drives the prey towards lionesses and young males in ambush.
In the Bible the lion is a symbol of danger and destruction, often being paired with the bear. The lion is also a symbol of great political power and regal majesty.
Before discussing specific passages in detail, it is useful first to try and identify the various Hebrew words with likely lion types. If we examine the verbs and adjectives with which the Hebrew nouns co-occur, we find the following:
’Ari: This, the most frequently used word for lion, is associated with a very wide range of verbs in the Bible, including crouching in ambush, leaping, growling, roaring, killing, destroying, tearing prey to pieces, breaking bones, attacking, breaking from cover, scattering sheep, trampling, and standing on prey. The adjectives used with this noun include strong, destructive, brave, and hungry. From this evidence we can see that ’ari or its feminine form ’aryeh is the general word for lion or lioness.
’ari’el in 2 Samuel 23:20 and 1 Chronicles 11:22 literally means “lion of God” or “mighty lion”, but it is an idiom denoting a human hero or mighty warrior, not a lion.
’Aryeh: Although this is a feminine form, in English versions it is invariably translated as “lion”, because this form usually occurs in the Hebrew phrase gur ’aryeh, which is literally “a cub of lioness”, but which is more naturally translated as “lion cub” in English.
Beney shachats: This expression, which literally means “sons of pride”, occurs only once, in a poetic passage (Job 28:8) as the parallel of “lion” (shachal). Probably, besides having similar sounds, the two expressions both refer to lions. Only KJV reflects this in the translation.
Kefir: The verbs associated with this noun include kill, prowl, hunt, snarl, attack, break cover, tear prey to pieces, roar, and growl. The only adjective associated with the noun is “angry”. Translators often render this as “young lion”. Ezekiel 19:1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 seems to support an identification of kefir with a young male lion that is an efficient killer.
Laviy’: The verbs associated with this noun are growling, devouring, lying down, crouching, and raising cubs. The only descriptive phrase that co-occurs is big teeth. The usual JB rendering of this word as “lioness” seems well founded.
Layish: This noun occurs only three times. The verb phrase that co-occurs is “ dying from lack of prey”. The adjectives that co-occur are “stately in its walk”, and “strong”. The evidence would fit an interpretation such as “lion in its prime time” or “mighty lion”. The reference would seem to be to a dominant male lion or “pride male”. Versions that render this word as “old lion” in some contexts, seem to be slightly misleading.
Shachal: The verbs that co-occur are roaring, hunting, and tearing prey to pieces. Some scholars, using evidence from Assyrian and classical Arabic, believe that this Hebrew word is derived from an older Semitic root meaning “to roar” or “to produce a call”. All available evidence would seem to allow for the interpretation of shachal as “male lion”. It may possibly be a word for a wandering male lion rather than a male that is a member of a pride.
In some English versions of Maccabees the Greek word skumnos is incorrectly translated as “cub” or “whelp”. The context refers to this creature roaring, which lion cubs do not do. The word seems rather to refer to a virile young adult lion. It is better translated as lion in its prime.
In areas where lions are completely unknown, it is better to borrow a word from a dominant language or from Hebrew or Greek, rather than to try and find a local equivalent. This is because the biblical references to the behavior of lions are fairly specific, and if a word for a local animal is used, it will not fit the behavior mentioned in the text. This is especially so because the lion is the only great cat (apart from the cheetah) that lives and hunts in large family groups.
Some attempt should be made to maintain the slight differences in meaning of the various Hebrew words for lions, when the context requires this. This can often be done by using short, natural-sounding descriptive phrases. Often, however, in contexts where only one of the Hebrew words for lion is used, there is no need to maintain a difference, and a simple word for lion or lioness will suffice.
The most common Hebrew phrases used for the sounds lions make are sha’ag, (natan) qol, naham. When sha’ag is used in contexts of human vocal behavior, it indicates cries of pain or distress. In contexts of animal vocal behavior, however, it can signal pain and distress but can also be an aggressive sound and can be translated “bellow, roar, moan, snarl, growl” or sometimes “bark”. A similar Arabic word usually refers to the lowing of cattle or the bleating of goats. For lions English translators have consistently chosen “roar”, because of their mistaken preconception that a lion’s “roar” is an aggressive sound. In most contexts it is best interpreted as “growl” or “snarl”.
(Natan) qol, on the other hand, is a more general expression and can mean any sort of vocalization, from calling, to groaning or singing. English translators of Amos 3:4 have chosen “growl” and “cry out”. In this text this word is the parallel of sha’ag, so the reason for these interpretations is plain. However, a neutral translation, such as “make a sound”, would be equally valid. Of all the Hebrew expressions for lion sounds, this is the one most likely to mean roar, especially in contexts where the noun shachal occurs for “lion”, as for example in Job 4:10.
Naham means to moan in sorrow or pain when used of humans and is usually translated as to growl when used of animals.
Lion habitats and the meaning of ma‘on in the context of lions: Generally the word ma‘on means dwelling place, hiding place, or refuge. In one or two places it refers to a military refuge or fortress. When used of animals, it can mean “lair” (as for jackals), “hiding place”, “territory”, or simply “place where the animals are found”. The choice in translating this Hebrew word has been either “lair” or “den” in all English translations. This choice again seems to be related to the misconceptions about the behavior of lions. Lions do not usually live in dens or lairs, and it is better to translate ma‘on as “territory” or “place where lions live”.
.jpg){kind=link}