The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “adder,” “asp,” “viper,” or “serpent” in English is translated in Lambya as chipili or “puff adder “, a highly poisonous local snake species. (Source: project-specific notes in Paratext)
There are a large number of snake species belonging to the viper family in Israel. From the contexts it is possible in one or two places to identify the particular species, and it is possible that the various Hebrew words actually refer to particular species. However, associating the various words with the corresponding species is largely conjecture, even though based on careful deduction.
The most common vipers in Israel are the Palestinian Viper Viper palaestina, the Carpet Viper Echis coloratus, the Sand Viper Cerastes vipera, and the Horned Viper Cerastes cerastes cerastes. The Palestinian viper is the largest of these vipers and is found in a variety of habitats, from the woods of the north to the desert’s edge. Since this is the most inhabited area, people are bitten by this snake more than any other. The other four vipers mentioned are found in desert areas, but in slightly different habitats. The sand viper and the horned viper live in the sand, while the carpet viper lives in gravelly areas and among rocks. It often camouflages itself among dried leaves.
The desert vipers, when moving in sand, cannot move in the normal way, so they adopt a movement known as “sidewinding”. They do this by moving a coil sideways to a position in front of the head, then the snake moves its head and the front part of its body in the air, arching over the sand as far as it can reach before falling back onto the sand. Then it repeats the movement again. This is done at some speed, and the snake moves diagonally across the sand surprisingly quickly, although not as quickly as another snake moving normally. The parallel elongated S-shaped marks it leaves in the sand look as though it has moved in a series of jumps, since they seem not to be connected. It is generally accepted that this motion caused the biblical writers to refer to these snakes as “flying” (see flying fiery serpent).
Vipers are different from other snakes mainly in that they give birth to live offspring. The females retain their eggs in a special sac in their bodies, and when the eggs hatch the small snakes emerge from the mother. The larger vipers produce as many as sixty young snakes at a time, while the smaller sand vipers have smaller broods of about twelve to fifteen. This is what John the Baptist refers to by his well-known phrase “brood of vipers”.
The vipers have long hinged fangs located in the front of their mouths. These fangs fold back as they close their mouths. When striking, vipers have to open their mouths very wide in order to get these fangs into the required position.
The carpet viper (also known as the saw-scaled viper) was very numerous in biblical Israel, and in most other areas of its range (it is found in a broad continuous band from West Africa to South and Central Asia). It is likely that this was the saraf, a name derived from a finite verb meaning “to burn something,” a reference to the burning effect of its poisonous bite.
Vipers have the same basic significance in the Bible as other snakes, with one additional feature. Since the young are carried alive inside the female viper, which then gives birth to large numbers of well-developed young, all at the same time, the viper was associated with fertility. This was also their significance in the Egyptian and Canaanite religious systems.
Although vipers are found widely all over the world, not all languages distinguish them from other types of snake. As mentioned above, the carpet viper is found across Central Africa, from the west to east coasts, and into Central and South Asia. In these areas the name for this snake can be used in all the verses that refer to vipers. In southern Africa the Puff Adder Bitis arietans is probably the best equivalent.
In order to retain the relationship of the word saraf with the verb “to burn something,” translators often try to use expressions such as “vipers that burn [people]” or “fiery serpents”. This is only possible where the word used for “burn” means “to cause a wound with something hot.” One should not convey the idea of “a viper that sets people on fire” or “a viper that is burning.” Often it is better to use a phrase meaning simply “poisonous vipers”.
Dogs were domesticated very early and were used for hunting and as watchdogs in the ancient world. In Egypt as early as 4000 B.C. people made pottery images that indicate that sleek fast hunting dogs were bred which looked like the modern greyhound. From Babylonian sculpture we know that around 2500 B.C. large hunting dogs that looked like the modern bull-mastiff were kept by people in the Mesopotamian civilizations.
Among the Jews however while dogs were kept mainly as watch-dogs they were held in contempt and left to feed themselves by scavenging. This habit of scavenging and the fact that dogs were possibly associated with some Egyptian gods meant that dogs were seen as very unclean animals by the Jews. The dog found in Jewish settlements in Bible times was probably the pariah dog Canis familiaris putiatini which looked something like a small light brown Alsatian or German shepherd. This type of dog in its wild and domesticated forms is found all over the Middle East and on the mainland coasts of South and Southeast Asia (where it is known as the crab-eating dog). The Australian dingo is also very similar.
Small pet dogs were kept in homes in the Greek and Roman civilizations by gentiles but not by Jews. This is probably the type of dog referred to by the Greek word kunarion in Matthew 15:26 and Mark 7:27.
[Sarah Ruden (2021, p. 27), who translates kunarion as “little doggy,” says the following: “In the entire Greek Bible, only [these two passages] use this diminutive (kunarion) of the word for ‘dog,’ a rare and largely comical word. This word choice weakens the usual sense of dogs as dirty and uncivilized and excluded from the home, much less from the table that symbolized God’s providential bounty.”]
As mentioned above dogs were held in contempt as unclean. To call someone a dog was therefore very derogatory and to refer to someone as a “dead dog” was even more so. Israelites viewed dogs as second only to pigs as unclean animals. Dogs as scavengers around the villages ate anything from household refuse to animal carcasses and human excreta. They even ate human corpses that lay unburied after battles. Furthermore the dog was possibly one of the symbols of the Egyptian god Anubis (although many modern scholars believe the symbol to be the jackal).
With all of the above in mind it is understandable that dying and then being eaten by unclean dogs was seen as the worst of all possible fates.
In the first century A.D. gentiles were considered to be unclean and were referred to by Jews in a derogatory way as “dogs.” There is therefore strong irony in the expression in Philippians 3:2 where Judaizing Christians are referred to as dogs.
One additional connotation associated with dogs in the Bible is sexual perversion and promiscuity a connotation probably arising from the fact that sexually aroused male dogs do not always differentiate between sexes as they seek to mate and the fact that dogs of both sexes mate repeatedly with different partners.
Although the first definite reference to elephants in the Bible is in the Greek deuterocanonical book of 1 Maccabees, ivory (literally “tooth”) is mentioned first in the time of Solomon. By this date there were already ivory trade routes from the Sudan down the Nile and by sea from where Djibouti is now on the African Red Sea coast to where Eilat is now on the Gulf of Aqaba. Some of the ivory may have been made from the teeth of the hippopotamus but two references, 1 Kings 10:22 and 2 Chronicles 9:21, specifically refer to elephant ivory (literally “elephant’s tooth”). Ivory was probably known even much earlier than this since ornaments dating from around 2300 B.C. have been found in Palestine.
The Indian Elephant Elephas maximus was domesticated and trained for use in war very early well before the second millennium B.C. When Alexander the Great extended his empire into India in the fourth century B.C. he obtained war elephants to incorporate into his army. The idea of using elephants in war then spread to the Middle East. There was a smaller variety of this elephant found in Syria and Mesopotamia. By the third century B.C. domestic Indian elephants had been introduced into Egypt. Ptolemy II is reported to have had ninety-six elephants, four to a chariot, and later that same century when Ptolemy IV defeated the Seleucid king of Syria, Antiochus III, he is reported to have captured Syrians’ elephants. However, the Seleucid kings continued to use war elephants, and the next king, Epiphanes, attacked Egypt with elephants. He and his son then used them in their campaign against the Jews. According to 1Maccabees each elephant with thirty-two soldiers mounted on it, besides the Indian handler went into battle ahead of one thousand Syrian soldiers and five hundred horsemen. One of Maccabeus’ brothers was able to kill the largest elephant by getting under it and stabbing it, but he was himself killed when the elephant fell on him. At a later time probably because the Indian elephants were difficult to obtain the African Elephant Loxodonta africana was tamed for use in war. Coins show that the elephants used by the Roman Emperor Hadrian to cross the Alps were African probably brought from North Africa.
Elephas is the word most commonly used in the deuterocanonical books although elephantarchēs which means commander of an elephant squadron is used in 2 Maccabees 14:12 and 3 Maccabees 5:4 and 3 Maccabees 5:45 and thērion which means “monster” is used in 2 Maccabees 15:20f.
Elephants are the largest land animals on earth, the males of the Indian species being about 3 meters (10 feet) in height and weighing almost 4,000 kilograms (8,800 pounds). The African species is about half a meter (20 inches) higher and weighs up to 6,000 kilograms (13,200 pounds). The elephant’s trunk is basically an elongated nose, but it has muscles that make it a very useful feature. With it the elephant can not only smell but can pull down branches to eat, pick berries off bushes, draw up water to squirt into its mouth or over its body, and can use it as a weapon. On either side of the trunk the males grow long tusks that are often over 2 meters (6 feet) in length. These are used for digging up roots, gouging bark off trees, and lifting logs. These tusks are made of ivory. Elephants have large ears, which they use to fan themselves.
They are a dark gray color and have no fur. Their body looks almost hairless but in fact they are covered with bristly hairs. They feed on vegetation such as leaves roots shoots bark and fruit.
There are local words for elephant in most African, Middle Eastern, and Asian languages, and many international languages use a word derived from the Greek name elephas. In some areas even though there are no elephants, the fossilized bones of mammoths, the ancient relative of the elephant, are known, and this local name is used for modern elephants too. In most other areas the word for elephant is a word that is borrowed from the dominant language of the area.
The Hebrew, Latin and Greek that is translated in English as “camel” is translated in Muna as “water buffalo.” René van den Berg explains: “Camels are unknown; the biggest known animal is the water buffalo (though now rare on Muna).”
In Bislama is is translated as buluk: “cow” / “bull” (source: Ross McKerras) and in Bahnar as aseh lăk-đa which is a combination of the Vietnamese loan word for “camel” (lăk-đa) and the Bahnar term for “horse” (aseh) to communicate that the camel is a beast of burden (source: Pham Xuan Tin in The Bible Translator 1952, p. 20ff. ).
In the 1900 Kalaallisut (Greenlandic) translation (a newer version was published in 2000) it was translated as ĸatigagtôĸ or “big-backed ones.” “Katigagtôĸ (modern qatigattooq), which has the literal meaning of ‘something with a big back.’ It comprises the noun ĸatigak (modern qatigak) ‘back’ combined with the suffix –tôĸ (modern –tooq) ‘something possessing a big X.’” (Source: Lily Kahn & Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi in The Bible Translator 2019, p. 125ff.)
In Luke 18:25, Mark 10:25, and Matthew 19:24 some versions of the Peshitta translation in Syriac Aramaic (Classical Syriac) show an ambiguity between the very similar words for “camel” and “rope.” Some translations of the Peshitta, therefore, use the “rope” interpretation, including the Classical Armenian Bible (մալխոյ for “rope”), the English translation by George Lamsa (publ. 1933) (It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle), or the Dutch translation by Egbert Nierop (publ. 2020) (het voor een kabel eenvoudiger is het oog van een naald binnen te gaan).
In the above-mentioned three verses, it is translated in Noongar as “kangaroo” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
There were two types of camel known in Bible times the most common being the Arabian Dromedary camelus dromedarius, which was indigenous to the area. The two-humped Bactrian Camel camelus bactrianus was also known and prized, but it was imported from Central Asia.
Camels belong to the same family as the South American llama, vicuna, alpaca, and guanaco, but camels are much larger and have a big fatty hump on their backs. Bactrian camels may reach a height of about two meters (6.5 feet), while dromedaries are even bigger. Dromedaries are a uniform light fawn color, while Bactrian camels are darker, especially in winter when they grow longer fur.
Camels do not have hooves but a large footpad with two broad toes ideally suited to walking on sand. In other ways too they are ideally suited to life in desert areas. They store excess food in their humps and this makes it possible for them to go a long time without eating. Special blood cells also enable them to go without water for long periods. They also have a very efficient digestive system and can extract the maximum amount of nutrition from apparently dry vegetation. This adaptation to harsh environments means that camels can make long journeys through dry areas which would be beyond the abilities of other types of pack animal such as donkeys. Camels were used for riding and for carrying heavy loads. They were also used to pull carts.
In winter the fur of camels thickens and grows longer and then when summer comes they shed their winter fur in large wads. These wads of camel hair are collected and twisted into cords and ropes or spun into thread which is then used for weaving coarse cloth. This cloth was usually used for making tents but it was sometimes used for making outer robes.
Camels’ milk was used as food and drink but their meat was considered unclean by the Israelites.
In spite of the fact that camels were considered to be unclean for food they were a symbol of wealth and commerce. People or nations with many camels were automatically viewed as commercially successful and wealthy as the possession of camels opened up the possibility of transporting goods long distances and engaging in trade.
In areas where camels are not known, the word is often transliterated from Hebrew or the dominant language of the area. However, in some languages descriptive names have been invented. In some South American languages names meaning “hump-backed llama” or “big alpaca with a hump” have been used. Elsewhere expressions such as “hump-backed horse” have been used. A fuller description should usually be included in a glossary or word list.
The Hebrew word refers to something that was used in the mixture of aromatic spices that made frankincense. This ingredient is believed to have been the nail-like covering on the foot of a mollusk (that is, a boneless sea creature) of the strombus type. However, a few scholars suggest that it is a type of flower.
The strombus mollusks are a type of sea creature something like snails, which live inside a single shell, usually spiral in structure. They have eyes set on the end of each of two stalks. Part of the mollusk extends from the shell and attaches itself to a rock or other flat surface. This is called the foot and is the means by which the mollusk moves. The foot has a nail or scale-like covering called the operculum, and when the mollusk withdraws into its shell this operculum acts as a lid, sealing the opening of the shell. It is this operculum that is thought to have been referred to by the Hebrew word shechelet.
The only languages that will have a good equivalent of this Hebrew word are those spoken by people who have an intimate knowledge of sea creatures. Elsewhere it is probably best to opt for the solution followed by the translators of New English Bible and use an expression such as “aromatic seashell” or “fragrant seashell”. Another alternative would be to use a transliteration of the Hebrew shechelet or the Greek onycha, with an entry in a word list indicating what the word refers to.
In biblical times and even today there are three species of fox found in Israel and one type of jackal. An additional type of fox was found in Egypt. In the Bible the Hebrew word shu‘al and its Greek equivalent alōpēx refer to any of these animals. These are members of the same animal family which includes the wolf and the dog. The word “jackal” was borrowed from the Arabic jakal which is from the same Semitic root as the Hebrew word shu‘al. In the days of the King James Version the word “jackal” had not yet been introduced into the English language and so in that version “fox” is used throughout for shu‘al.
Click or tap here for the rest of this entry in United Bible Societies’ All Creatures Great and Small: Living things in the Bible
Modern scholars are almost unanimous in agreeing that the word ’iyim (plural of ’iy) is derived from a root meaning “to howl” and that it refers to howling jackals in particular. The word usually occurs in conjunction with the word tsiyim (“hyenas”) which is derived from a root meaning “to wail”. The pair together could justifiably be interpreted as “wild animals wailing and howling.” This is usually taken to refer to hyenas and jackals.
The context will usually indicate which animal is being referred to in a particular passage. It is possible that the fox was known as the small shu‘al and the jackal as the large one.
In early Hebrew the plural form tanin from tan meant a type of snake. This usage is found in Exodus 7:9 et al. The same word was the name of a mythical monster or sea serpent. This usage occurs in Genesis 1:21 et al. However, it is well accepted now that, in later Hebrew, tan is a poetic name for the jackal. It derives from a stem meaning to recite, or lament. In the passages where snakes or the monster tanin is referred to the context usually indicates that it cannot refer to jackals.
Fox: All foxes look like small, long-haired dogs with pointed noses. The Red Fox Vulpes vulpes (also Vulpes flavescens) is now very common all over Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, China, Japan, North America, and Australasia, having been introduced into the latter two continents to be hunted on horseback with packs of dogs. The red fox is a smallish animal, about 1 meter (3 feet) from nose to tip of the tail. It is usually reddish with white underparts and a bushy tail. Red foxes feed mainly on mice and rats but also eat chickens, game birds, and fallen fruit. They may occasionally eat carrion (dead animals), but are not scavengers in the usual sense of the word.
The Desert Fox Vulpes ruppelli and the Egyptian Fox Vulpes nilotica are slightly smaller and yellowish brown, but they are otherwise very similar to the red fox. The Fennec Vulpes zerda is a very small fox with large ears. It is now found in the Middle East and Egypt and was probably found in Israel also in earlier times. It feeds on insects and mice.
Foxes live in pairs, singly or in small family groups when they have young. During the day they live in holes in the ground usually dug by some other animal and come out at night to feed. When chased by dogs they are very clever at escaping, often doubling back on their tracks and then jumping sideways and heading in a new direction, thus confusing the scent trail. They also run up streams and thus avoid laying a scent trail altogether.
Jackal: The jackal found in Israel is the Golden or Oriental Jackal Canis aureus. It is also sometimes referred to as the Indian jackal. This animal is larger than the fox. It is yellowish brown with black tips to the long fur on its back.
Jackals eat almost anything and are great opportunists moving very fast with clever tactics when they have to. They have been known to steal bread from people’s houses and baby animals even from dangerous wild pigs. They are scavengers, eating household rubbish as well as carrion, especially the remains of carcasses killed by lions, but they also eat beetles and birds’ eggs and kill small mammals game birds and domestic chickens and ducks.
In some of the literature there is reference to the fact that jackals live in packs. This is not strictly correct. They live in pairs or small family groups but they may associate temporarily in larger groups when many pairs are attracted to the same burrows, carrion, refuse dumps, or potential prey. In these larger temporary groups they may cooperate and act together like a pack.
Jackals live in burrows made by other animals or in abandoned human houses or shelters and emerge to feed at night. They yap, howl, and wail at great length at the entrance to their burrow, especially on moonlit nights, with one pair triggering a response from neighboring pairs.
Both foxes and jackals are extremely intelligent animals, and their quick-witted, crafty opportunism is legendary in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. The fables of Aesop, a North African philosopher and storyteller, which feature the crafty fox, date from about the time of Daniel. The fox also figures in Greek and Roman fables. Similar fables about opportunistic jackals have been widespread in Africa and the Middle East for centuries.
In ancient Arabic literature and in the Talmud and Midrash the word “lion” stands for a truly great and powerful person. In contrast “jackal” is used to designate an insignificant but self-important person. Since this figurative usage of “lion” (or “lioness”) is also common in the Bible there is a strong probability that the term “jackal” or “fox” used as a metaphor in the Bible for a person carries the connotation of self-important insignificance.
However the main symbolism associated with the jackal in the Bible is related to its habit of living among ruins and feeding on carcasses. To say that a certain place would become the dwelling place of jackals meant that the place would become deserted and lie in ruins, as the result of war. The jackal was thus a symbol of death and desolation as well as insignificance and opportunistic craftiness.
In areas where jackals are known, but not foxes, the word for jackal can be used for both. Similarly, if foxes are known but not jackals, the one word will suffice. In areas where neither foxes nor jackals are found, there may be related animals such as the Coyote Canis latrans or various types of wild dog or small wolf. In those few areas where even these are not found, one may use an expression such as “wild dog” or a transliteration.
Isaiah 13:21f.: In this verse there are four words for howling wild animals that inhabit deserted buildings: tsiyim, ’ochim, ’iyim, tanim . All except tsiyim probably mean “jackal”; however, to maintain the parallelism of the Hebrew poem, it is better to translate both tsiyim and ’iyim as “hyenas”. These verses will then be translated as:
Wailing hyenas will settle there,
Howling jackals will fill their houses.
Hyenas will wail in their fortresses,
And jackals howl in their luxurious palaces.
The word ’ochim occurs only here in the Bible. It is derived from a Hebrew word meaning “to howl”. “Owls” is a possibility, but “jackals” fits the context better, as it then preserves the parallelism of “jackals” and “hyenas”.
Judges 15:4: Since jackals are easier to trap because they are more easily attracted to baits of meat, most modern translations interpret shu‘al as jackal in this passage.
Nehemiah 4:3: Since the fox is smaller and lighter than the jackal, fox is the preferred interpretation here. The meaning is thus something like “Even if a little fox were to climb on these walls they would collapse.” Where foxes or jackals are not known, an expression for a small dog could be used in this context.
Psalms 63:10: Since the reference is to the enemy soldiers dying in battle and becoming carrion (that is, lying unburied), the interpretation of shu‘al should be “jackals”.
Song of Songs 2:15: This verse is very difficult to interpret. While foxes may occasionally eat fallen grapes, or grapes low down on a vine, they cannot accurately be described as “ruiners of vineyards”. It seems more likely that what is in focus is the fact that for Israelites jackals symbolize ruin.
Jeremiah 51:34 : Although many English versions translate tan in this verse as “dragon” or “serpent”, it seems likely that “jackal” is better; jackals often swallow their food in a great hurry without chewing properly, and then vomit it later when they are under cover and eat it a second time more slowly.
The Hebrew, Ge’ez, and Greek that is translated as “donkey” in English was translated in the 1900 Kalaallisut (Greenlandic) translation (a newer version was published in 2000) as siutitôĸ or “‘something with big ears.” “[This] is based on the word siut ‘ear’ combined with the same suffix –tôĸ (-tooq).” (Source: Lily Kahn & Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi in The Bible Translator 2019, p. 125ff.)
These Hebrew and Greek words (with the exception of pōlos and hupozugion — see discussion below) all definitely refer to the Domestic Donkey equus asinus. However the different words do have slight semantic differences among them.
Chamor and onos are the generic words for donkey while ’athon (feminine gender) refers specifically to a saddle donkey or a donkey used for riding. A saddle donkey is usually a large strong female donkey the males are too difficult to control when they are near a female in heat. The Hebrew word is derived from a root that means “strong”.
‘Ayir refers to the young male or jack donkey (probably with an emphasis on its liveliness and the difficulty in controlling it since the Hebrew root means something like “frisky”).
Onarion means a young donkey of either sex. Some languages will have a special word for a young donkey. This will be appropriate for translating onarion.
The word hupozugion often translated “donkey,” actually indicates any beast of burden. Walter Bauer, the famous German New Testament scholar, has argued very convincingly that the animal referred to in Matthew 21:5 in the expression epi pōlon huion hupozugiou is the foal of a horse not a donkey (1953:220-229). In some languages it will be possible to express this in a way that does not designate a specific species of animal`, as in “beast of burden.”
Pōlos usually refers to a foal, that is a young horse, unless a word for donkey follows.
Donkeys are domestic animals belonging to the same family as the horse, but they are smaller and have longer ears. The donkey bred and used in the Middle East is the domesticated Nubian or Somali Wild Ass Equus Asinus africanus. In its original wild state this was a gray ass with pale, whitish belly and dark rings on the lower part of the legs. It was domesticated in Egypt as early as 2500 B.C. In its domesticated version, as a result of interbreeding with donkeys from Europe and Persia, the donkey came to be a variety of colors from dark brown, through light brown to the original gray and occasionally white. The Hebrew chamor comes from a root meaning “reddish brown.”
Donkeys are good pack animals being able to carry as much as the larger mule without the latter’s unpredictable moods. They also have great stamina and are easy to feed since they eat almost any available vegetation. Larger individual animals (usually females) are also often used for riding.
Donkeys were highly prized in biblical times especially females since they were suitable for packing and riding and had the potential for producing offspring. Donkeys were seen as man’s best friend in the animal kingdom. They were the common man’s means of transport and many ordinary families owned a donkey. They were used for plowing and for turning large millstones as well as a means of transport.
Today domestic donkeys are found all over savannah Africa the Middle East South and Central Asia Europe Latin America and Australia. They do not seem to be reared in rain forest or monsoon areas but they are nevertheless often known in these areas.
A donkey was considered to be a basic domestic requirement and thus the number of donkeys available was a means of measuring the relative prosperity of a society at any given time. While only powerful political or military people rode horses (which were usually owned by the state) the common people rode donkeys. This is the significance of the passage in Zechariah 9:9: the victorious king would return to the city riding a donkey thus identifying himself as a common Israelite rather than a victorious warlord.
In the majority of languages there is a local or a borrowed word for donkey. This is the obvious choice. In areas of Southeast Asia, Papua New Guinea, West Africa, and other places, where donkeys are rare or unknown, the word from the dominant major language or trade language (for example, English, Spanish, French, Chinese, or Arabic) is often transliterated.
In most contexts ’athon should be translated by the equivalent of “female” donkey, but in some contexts riding donkey is better.
‘Ayir should be translated according to the specific context. In Genesis 32:15 the translation should definitely be the equivalent of “male donkey”, and probably also in Judges 10:4 and Judges 12:14. The significance of these latter passages is that female donkeys were the more normal choice of mount.
In Job 11:12 the emphasis is probably on the friskiness of the donkey, and the translation should be the equivalent of “He ties his young donkey to a grapevine, his frisky young ass to the best of the vines” (indicating a certain amount of irresponsibility, and perhaps extravagance).
In Job 11:12 and Zechariah 9:9 the obvious emphasis is on the youth of the donkey, so the equivalent of “colt”, “foal”, “young donkey”, and so on should be used.
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”.
