The Greek in Matthew 9:23 that is translated in English as “flute players” (who were hired to express grief) is translated in Muna as “flute players” as well but has an explanatory note in brackets following the translation “[as-a-sign of grief].”
René van den Berg explains: “Music in Muna is always associated with joyous occasions, and to indicate that the presence of the flute players was perfectly normal then (such people were often hired musicians) the explanatory note in brackets was added.”
in Kankanaey it is translated as “nose-fluters” (source: Kankanaey Back Translation), in Tagbanwa as “players of stringed-instruments” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation), and in Tenango Otomi as “musicians” (source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation).
The Greek that is translated in English as “mustard seed” is translated in Muna as “wonolita seed.” René van den Berg explains: “The mustard plant rarely exceeds 50 cm in height. A wonolita is a big forest tree growing from a tiny seed.”
In the Bislama and Uripiv translations it is translated as “banyan.” “The banyan tree is one of the biggest in the islands, and it grows from a tiny seed. We (Uripiv) added a footnote to explain to more advanced readers what we had done: ‘Here Matthew compares the kingdom of God to a mustard seed, but since mustard doesn’t grow here, we put banyan, so that Matthew’s meaning will be clear.’” (Source: Ross McKerras)
In Elhomwe it is translated as “tree seed.” (Source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
In Gbaya is is translated with the ideophone kɛ̧́ɛ̧́ which “denotes a very tiny and barely visible object. (…) The Gbaya team applied it to faith instead of referring to a mustard seed which is unknown to Gbaya readers.” Ideophones are a class of sound symbolic words expressing human sensation that are used as literary devices in many Central African languages. (Source: Philip Noss)
The Greek that is translated as “for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” or similar in English is translated in Muna as “what comes-out at the lips, it comes from the fullness/overflowing of the heart.”
René van den Berg explains: “It is very impolite in Muna to mention someone’s mouth (wobha) or tongue (lela). The words themselves are not taboo or obscene, but in combination with a possessor they are frowned upon and should be avoided. In fact, if you want to abuse someone, you should refer to his or her mouth or tongue. The implications for translation are obvious (…). [Sometimes] ‘mouth’ was replaced by ‘lips’ (wiwi), a perfectly acceptable term, even when possessed.”
In the German Luther Bible it says: Denn wes das Herz voll ist, des geht der Mund über or “what the heart is full of, with that the mouth flows over” (source: Zetzsche), in Uab Meto it says “his mouth says only what the heart is more than full of,” and in Tzeltal it is “in our hearts arise all those things which come out of our mouths” (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel), and in Elhomwe it is translated literally since that exact idiom is used in that language as well (source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext).
The Greek in Luke 15:25 that is translated in English as “music” is translated in Muna as “the sound of the gong and the drum.” René van den Berg explains: “There is no abstract word for ‘music’ (the footnote has the loan musik).”
Mairasi: “the sound of songs” (source: Enggavoter 2004)
Hiligaynon: “sounds” (source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Burmese: “the sound of beating-blowing” (“‘Beating blowing’ is a general term for instrumental music and covers the sound of percussion instruments, wind and brass instruments which are blown, and some stringed instruments which are also ‘beaten.'” — source: Anonymous)
The Hebrew, Greek, and Latin that is translated in English as “wolf” is translated in Muna as da’u ngkahoku: “forest dog,” because there is no immediate lexical equivalent. (Source: René van den Berg)
In Asháninka, it is translated as “ferocious animal,” in Waffa and Kui as “wild dog,” and in Navajo (Dinė) as “Coyote” (source: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125), and in Odia as “tiger” (source for this and for Kui: Helen Evans in The Bible Translator 1954, p. 40ff. )
In Lingala it is translated as “leopard.” Sigurd F. Westberg (in The Bible Translator 1956, p. 117ff. ) explains: “The wolf, for example, does not exist here, but its relative the jackal does and we have a name for it. But the jackal does not prey on domestic animals as the wolf did in Palestine, nor is he as fierce. The equivalent from these points of view is the leopard. Hence in Genesis 49 Benjamin is likened to a ravenous leopard, and the basic meaning is approached more closely than if we had been governed by scientific classification.”
Mungaka also uses “leopard” (see also bear (animal)) (source: Nama 1990). Likewise in Klao and Dan (source: Don Slager).
In Elhomwe “fierce animal” is used. (Source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Michel Kenmogne comments on this and comparable translations (in Noss 2007, p. 378 ff.): “Some exegetical solutions adopted by missionary translations may have been acceptable during that time frame, but weighed against today’s translation theory and procedures, they appear quite outdated and even questionable. For example, Atangana Nama approvingly mentions the translation into Mungaka of terms like ‘deer’ as ‘leopard’, ‘camel’ as ‘elephant’, and ‘wheat’ as ‘maize,’ where the target language has no direct equivalent to the source text. These pre-Nida translation options, now known as adaptations, would be declared unacceptable in modern practice, since they misrepresent the historico-zoological and agricultural realities in the Bible. Nowadays it is considered better to give a generalized term, like ‘grain,’ and where necessary specify ‘a grain called wheat,’ than to give an incorrect equivalence. Unknown animals such as bears, can be called ‘fierce animals,’ especially if the reference is a non-historical context.”
Click or tap here for the rest of the entry about “wolf” in United Bible Societies’ All Creatures Great and Small: Living things in the Bible.
There is no problem in identifying the Hebrew word with the Wolf Canis lupus, which was a common wild animal all over the land of Israel in the biblical period. Today it is almost extinct in Israel, but small numbers still exist in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. The Greek and Latin words are general words for the wolf, including European species as well as the Syrian one.
The wolf is the ancestor of the German shepherd dog, and all similar breeds. The Syrian wolf, however, unlike the European and North American breeds, does not have long thick fur. It is a light brown color with a typical long face, and it is about the size of the German shepherd dog. It looks similar to the jackal, but is much bigger. This type of wolf lived singly, in pairs, or occasionally in a small family group of three or four animals; but sometimes, when prey was scarce, neighboring wolves would come together temporarily to hunt in cooperation with each other. The varieties in North America and Europe, on the other hand, come together in packs in the winter and stay together until well into the spring.
In biblical times the Syrian wolf took hares, small gazelle, and partridges as its main prey, but it was also a constant threat to sheep and goats. Only extremely rarely would it attack a human being. It was nowhere near as dangerous to humans as the lion or the bear. On the other hand, the Syrian wolf was not afraid of humans, and once it had killed a sheep, it would fiercely protect its kill. A group of men was required if it was to be chased away. It was extremely clever at avoiding traps that had been set for it. It hunted at night and located other wolves early in the evening by howling loudly.
These wolves did not stay in one area but roamed constantly. Shepherds could thus never be confident that there were no wolves nearby. They could appear unexpectedly at any time, even in the villages where they were often mistaken for dogs.
To the biblical writers the wolf was a symbol of roaming, opportunistic, dangerous, fierce, and clever banditry. To refer to a person as a wolf would in some contexts indicate that he was a roaming, clever bandit, and in other contexts that he was a clever, dangerous opportunist. This latter usage usually referred to someone using a position of leadership for his own benefit at the expense of other people.
In Africa there are no wolves, but the Spotted Hyena Crocula crocuta, the Brown Hyena Hyaena brunnea, or the African Painted Hunting Dog Lycaon pictus are the local equivalents used in many translations. A problem with using these terms for the Syrian wolf is that these African animals may have a symbolic significance for the local readers which is very different from that intended by the biblical writers. For instance, the spotted hyena is associated with witchcraft in some societies. In cases where the local significance is sufficiently different, a footnote should be used to provide a guide to the readers.
In Argentina and Brazil the beautiful Maned Wolf Chrysocyon jubatus is a good local equivalent, or the Portuguese or Spanish words for wolf can be used. The coyote is another possible equivalent.
In India and in Central and Southeast Asia, the Indian (or red) wild dog, also known as the Dhole Cuon alpinus, is likewise a good local equivalent for the wolf.
In areas where there are no animals equivalent to wolves, a phrase like “large wild dog” can be used, or a word may be borrowed from the dominant language of the area.
The Greek and Hebrew that are often translated as “miracles” or “miraculous powers” into English are translated as “thing which no one has ever seen before” (San Blas Kuna), “thing marveled at” (Tepeuxila Cuicatec), “breathtaking thing” (Ngäbere), “long-necked thing” (referring to the onlookers who stretch their necks to see) (Huautla Mazatec), “sign done by God’s power” (Mossi), “supernatural power” (Javanese), “thing that has heaven-strength” (Highland Totonac) (source for all above: Bratcher / Nida), “amazing thing” (Muna) (source: René van den Berg), “sign no one else could do” (Tenango Otomi) (source: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125), or “impossible thing” (Mairasi) (source: Enggavoter 2004).
The Greek in Ephesians 4:29 that is translated as “Let no evil talk come out of your mouths” or similar in English is translated in Muna as “In your speech, do not use rude/foul words.”
René van den Berg explains: “It is very impolite in Muna to mention someone’s mouth (wobha) or tongue (lela). The words themselves are not taboo or obscene, but in combination with a possessor they are frowned upon and should be avoided. In fact, if you want to abuse someone, you should refer to his or her mouth or tongue. The implications for translation are obvious (…). [Sometimes] ‘mouth’ was replaced by ‘lips’ (wiwi), a perfectly acceptable term, even when possessed.”
The Greek that is translated in English as “devil” (itself via late Latin from Greek diabolos: “accuser, slanderer”) is sometimes translated with indigenous specific names, such as “the avaricious one” in Tetelcingo Nahuatl, “the malicious deity” in Toraja-Sa’dan (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel), or in Yoruba as èṣù. “Èṣù is thought of as bringing evil, but also as giving protection. The birth of a child may be attributed to him, as the names given to some babies show, Èṣùbiyi (Èṣù brought this forth), and Èṣùtoyin (Èṣù is worthy of praise).” (Source: John Hargreaves in The Bible Translator 1965, p. 39ff. . See also this article by Tunde Adegbola: Èṣù is not Satan: A Christian apologist’s perspective .)
Other translations include:
Muna: Kafeompu’ando seetani or “Master of the evil-spirits” (source: René van den Berg)
Mairasi: owe er epar nan or “headman of malevolent spirits” (source: Enggavoter 2004)
Ojitlán Chinantec: as “head of the worldlings” (source for the last two: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125).
Mandarin Chinesemóguǐ (魔鬼), literally “magical ghost.” This is a term that was adopted from Buddhist sources into early Catholic writings and later also by Protestant translators. (Source: Zetzsche 1996, p. 32)
Uma: “King of Evil-ones” (source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “leader of demons” (source: Yakan Back Translation)
Bariai: “the bad man” (source: Bariai Back Translation)
Kupsabiny: “the Enemy” (source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
In Lak and Shughni it is translated with terms of feminine gender. Vitaly Voinov tells this story (click or tap here to see the rest of this insight):
“In the Lak language of Dagestan, the names ‘Iblis’ and ‘sheytan’ (referring to Satan and his minions, respectively) in this language were borrowed from the Arabic Islamic tradition, but they entered Lak as feminine nouns, not masculine nouns. This means that they grammatically function like nouns referring to females in Lak; in other words, Laks are likely to think of Iblis as a woman, not a man, because of the obligatory grammatical patterning of Lak noun classes. Thus, when the team explained (in Russian) what the Lak translation of Jesus’ wilderness temptation narrative at the beginning of Matthew 4 said, it sounded something like the following: ‘After this, the Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by Iblis… .The temptress came to Jesus, and she said to Him…’
“Since this information (that the devil is a female spirit) is part of the very name used for Satan in Lak, nothing can really be done about this in the translation. The Lak translator did not think that the feminine gender of Iblis should cause any serious misunderstandings among readers, so we agreed to leave it in the translation. Prior to this, I had never heard about languages in which the devil is pictured as a woman, but recently I was told by a speaker of the Shughni language that in their language Sheytan is also feminine. This puts an interesting spin on things. The devil is of course a spirit, neither male nor female in a biologically-meaningful sense. But Bible translators are by nature very risk-aversive and, where possible, want to avoid any translation that might feed misleading information to readers. So what can a translator do about this? In many cases, such as the present one, one has to just accept the existing language structure and go on.”
