The Greek and Hebrew phrases that are often translated as “birds of the air” in English “refer to the undomesticated song birds or wild birds, to be distinguished in a number of languages from domesticated fowl. In Tzeltal these former are ‘field birds’.” (source: Bratcher / Nida)
Q’anjob’al also uses an established term for non-domesticated birds. Newberry and Kittie Cox (in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 91ff. ) explain: “Qʼanjobʼal has two distinct terms, one to identify domesticated birds and the other non-domesticated birds. The additional descriptive phrase ‘of the air’ seemed entirely misleading, for Qʼanjobʼal speakers had never heard of such creatures. Actually, of course, all that was necessary was the term for non-domesticated birds, for that is precisely the meaning of the Biblical expression.”
In Elhomwe they are just translated as “birds” or “birds of the bush” (i.e., wild birds) to “not give the impression that these are special type of birds.” (Source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
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.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 1 Kings 16:4:
Kupsabiny: “If a member of your family dies inside the city, dogs will eat (him/her), but that one who dies in the open field, vultures will eat (him/her).” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “If anyone of your household dies in the city, he will be eaten by dogs, and if anyone dies in the field, he will be eaten by the vultures."” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “The members of your household that will-die in the town will-be-eaten by dogs, and those who will-die in the field will-be-eaten by birds.’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “The bodies of those in your family who die in this city will not be buried; they will be eaten by dogs; and the corpses of those who die in the fields will be eaten by vultures.’” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Jehu’s prophecy here is the same as Ahijah’s prophecy against Jeroboam (see 1 Kgs 14.11). Baasha’s family members will not be given a proper burial.
Any one belonging to Baasha is literally “to Baasha”; that is, any members of the family of Baasha. Since Baasha is still being addressed directly, it will again be more natural to use the second person in many languages and say “anyone in your family” (see the comments on the previous verse).
Who dies in the city the dogs shall eat … who dies in the field the birds of the air shall eat: See the comments on 1 Kgs 14.11.
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.