The Greek in John 19:39 that is translated as a “mixture of myrrh with aloes” refers a mixture of “a fragrant resin used for embalming the dead” (myrrh) and a “powdered aromatic sandalwood, spoken of as providing perfume for the bed or clothes” (aloes) (source: Newman / Nida),
Ojitlán Chinantec translates it as “fragrant powder, resin powder and wood powder mixed” and Chol as “a wood that gives a fragrant smell when it is rotten.” (Source: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125.)
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acceptable during that time frame, but weighed against today’s translation theory and procedures, they appear quite outdated and even questionable.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 that is translated in English as “Receive the Holy Spirit” is translated as “The Good Spirit, let it be yours” in Aguaruna, “Now receive from me the Holy Spirit” in Xicotepec De Juárez Totonac, “May the Holy Spirit come upon you” in Navajo (Dinė), “Now you are accompanied by the Holy Spirit” in Tenango Otomi or “May the Holy Spirit enter into your hearts” in Lalana Chinantec. (Source: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125.)
In the German New Testament translation by Berger / Nord (publ. 1999) it is Empfange Heiligen Geist or “Receive Holy Spirit,” i.e. without a definite article. (Only in John 20:22)
The Greek that is translated in English as “the light” is translated in John 1:8 in Alekano as “the father of light,” in Xicotepec De Juárez Totonac as “the true light,” and in Tenango Otomi as “that one who opens the hearts of the people.”
Matt Taylor (in The PNG Experience ) describes the process of finding the correct term for the presently prepared Nukna translation of John:
“We’ve been working on the Nukna translation of the book of John, and recently came to Jesus’ famous statement in John 8:12, ‘I am the light of the world.’ As we discussed how to best translate this metaphor, we realized that there was a problem. There is a Nukna word for light — yam — but it’s not possible to say just yam by itself. Light always has a source, and grammatically that source must be included, either by mentioning the actual source or by using a possessive pronoun — ‘its light,’ ‘their light,’ etc. It would be ungrammatical to just say ‘light.’ ( This grammatical feature is known as ‘inalienable possession.’) To literally translate ‘I am the light of the world’ into Nukna would lead to an unacceptable Nukna sentence.
“One idea we’ve had is to use a common source of light that the Nukna people are familiar with: the bamboo torch. The Nukna people live in a remote area without electricity. To see at night, they often light up a species of bamboo named kup. Kup burns with a blazing brightness, and a long piece can be held as a torch, enabling a person to walk at night around the otherwise pitch black village. So in Nukna, Jesus’ words would read, ‘I am like a bamboo torch [kup] that shines its light to the world.’
“Our translation team needs to do further testing to see if this figure of speech is communicating accurately and powerfully. Please pray for us, that God would guide us as we seek to communicate this concept, as well as many others, into the Nukna language in a dynamic and life-changing way. ‘It’s like the light of a bamboo torch shining in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.’ (John 1:5).”
Likewise, Mungaka also uses “torch” (source: Nama 1990).
The Greek that is translated as “crown of thorns” in English is translated in Navajo (Dinė) as “a hat of a plant that had sharp thorns,” in North Alaskan Inupiatun as “a head-gear of prickly branches,” in Aguaruna as “a thing to crown him with out of thorns,” and in Chol as “woven thorns.”
The Greek in John 1:16 that is translated as “grace upon grace” or similar in English is translated in Huichol as “He treats us with graciousness, and keeps increasing it.” (Source: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125.)
The English translation by Pakaluk (2021) has one gift in place of another (complete Verse: “Because we have all received of his fullness, and one gift in place of another.”) Compare Ruden (2021): “Out of what fills him to the full, we have all been given a share, joyful favor in exchange for joyful favor” and the German translation by Berger / Nord: “Because that was the only way — no matter before or after him — that we could draw from what was given to him in fullness, grace and yet more grace.”
Alekano: “if unworthy I should even carry his burden, it would not be right”
Tenango Otomi: “I don’t compare with him” (source for this and above: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125.)
Ayutla Mixtec: “I am too unworthy to perform even the lowliest of tasks for him” (“to avoid the wrong meaning of playing a trick by tying the sandals”)
Choapan Zapotec “I am not even important to carry his pack” (source for this and one above: B. Moore / G. Turner in Notes on Translation 1967, p. 1ff.)
Mairasi: “loosening the strap of His foot thing as His slave would do” (source: Enggavoter 2004)
Bariai: “untie the string of his shoe, because he surpasses me very much” (source: Bariai Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “He is greater than I. I don’t compare with him.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
German New Testament translation by Berger / Nord (publ. 1999): auf Knien die Riemen seiner Sandalen zu lösen or “to loosen the straps of his sandals on my knees.”
The Greek that is translated as “figures of speech” or similar in English is translated in Ojitlán Chinantec as “telling words a little bit covered,” in Tenango Otomi as “comparisons,” in Navajo (Dinė): “stories that teach,” and in Mezquital Otomi as “like a story” (source: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125.).
In the German New Testament translation by Berger / Nord (publ. 1999) it is translated as vieldeutige Worte or “ambiguous word (or: “words with many meanings”)” and in the translation by Fridolin Stier (1989) as “hidden (or: shrouded) speech” (Hüllrede).
