15He carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon; the king’s mother, the king’s wives, his officials, and the elite of the land, he took into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon.
The name that is transliterated as “Jerusalem” in English is signed in French Sign Language with a sign that depicts worshiping at the Western Wall in Jerusalem:
While a similar sign is also used in British Sign Language, another, more neutral sign that combines the sign “J” and the signs for “place” is used as well. (Source: Anna Smith)
“Jerusalem” in British Sign Language (source: Christian BSL, used with permission)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Kings 24:15:
Kupsabiny: “So, Jehoiakin together with his mother, his wives, his important people and the leaders of the country of Judah were taken to Babylon.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “Having captured Jehoiachin, Nebuchadnezzar deported him to Babylon. He also deported from Jerusalem to Babylon king’s mother, his wives, his officials, and the famous people of Jerusalem.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “Nebuchadnezzar took- Jehoyakin -captive to Babilonia, including his mother, wives, officers and the noble men in Juda.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “Nebuchadnezzar’s soldiers also took to Babylon Jehoiachin’s wives and officials, his mother, and all the important people.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin that is translated as “king” in English. Here are some (back-) translations:
Ninia Yali: “big brother with the uplifted name” (source: Daud Soesilio in Noss 2007, p. 175)
Nyamwezi: mutemi: generic word for ruler, by specifying the city or nation it becomes clear what kind of ruler (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Ghomála’: Fo (“The word Fo refers to the paramount ruler in the kingdoms of West Cameroon. He holds administrative, political, and religious power over his own people, who are divided into two categories: princes (descendants of royalty) and servants (everyone else).” (Source: Michel Kenmogne in Theologizing in Context: An Example from the Study of a Ghomala’ Christian Hymn))
Faye Edgerton retells how the term in Navajo (Dinė) was determined:
“[This term was] easily expressed in the language of Biblical culture, which had kings and noblemen with their brilliant trappings and their position of honor and praise. But leadership among the Navajos is not accompanied by any such titles or distinctions of dress. Those most respected, especially in earlier days, were their headmen, who were the leaders in raids, and the shaman, who was able to serve the people by appealing for them to the gods, or by exorcising evil spirits. Neither of these made any outward show. Neither held his position by political intrigue or heredity. If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior. If the shaman failed many times in his healing ceremonies, it was considered that he was making mistakes in the chants, or had lost favor with the gods, and another was sought. The term Navajos use for headman is derived from a verb meaning ‘to move the head from side to side as in making an oration.’ The headman must be a good orator, able to move the people to go to war, or to follow him in any important decision. This word is naat’áanii which now means ‘one who rules or bosses.’ It is employed now for a foreman or boss of any kind of labor, as well as for the chairman of the tribal council. So in order to show that the king is not just a common boss but the highest ruler, the word ‘aláahgo, which expresses the superlative degree, was put before naat’áanii, and so ‘aláahgo naat’áanii ‘anyone-more-than-being around-he-moves-his-head-the-one-who’ means ‘the highest ruler.’ Naat’áanii was used for governor as the context usually shows that the person was a ruler of a country or associated with kings.”
Before the time of Abraham at least five breeds of sheep had already been developed in Mesopotamia. From mummified remains (that is, preserved dead bodies) and ancient art it is also known that at least two different breeds had reached Egypt by about 2000 B.C. Thus it is likely that the sheep mentioned in the Bible were of more than one breed.
The Hebrew word kar seems to be used of imported foreign sheep and may refer to a special breed but some scholars think it refers to a wether (castrated ram), since this word is never used in the context of sacrifice. This word is also used for a battering ram, that is, a heavy pole suspended on a rope, used in war for breaking down walls. ’Ayil is the word for a ram or adult male sheep, rachel is a breeding ewe or female sheep, and taleh is a very young lamb, probably still unweaned. The remaining Hebrew words refer to sheep in general.
The Greek word probaton is the general word for sheep, or flocks that may include goats. Krios is the Greek word for a ram or male sheep. Pascha is a technical name for the Passover lamb exclusively, and the remaining Greek words all mean lamb. Ovis is the Latin word for sheep.
Click or tap here for the rest of this entry in United Bible Societies’ All Creatures Great and Small: Living things in the Bible.
The early Hebrews were nomadic shepherds to whom sheep were the most important domestic animal. While goats eat almost any vegetation, sheep are much more selective about the grasses and plants they eat. This meant that suitable grazing for them was not always easy to find, and shepherds had to keep moving their flocks from place to place. This led to a nomadic lifestyle, with movable tents rather than houses being the normal household shelter. It was not until the occupation of Canaan after the Exodus that the lifestyle of the Israelites changed, and they became settled village-dwelling farmers and fruit growers.
However, even then, most households owned sheep, and some family members would function as shepherds, often living away from home for fairly long periods.
Sheep in the Bible were a source of meat, milk, wool, hides, and horns, and it seems likely that various strains were bred selectively to enhance production of these commodities. Wool is mentioned in the Bible as early as the Mosaic Law, which forbade the weaving of cloth containing both wool and plant fibers. The shearing of sheep is mentioned even earlier, in Genesis 31:19. Wool was in fact the most common and available fiber known to the people of Israel.
There was a very extensive wool trade in biblical times, stretching from Egypt to China. In the Middle East wool was cheaper than cotton or linen, which were the other common fibers. (Silk was known by the time of Solomon, but it was extremely expensive as it was produced in China and handled by numerous traders on its way west.) It would be a mistake to think of all wool at that time as being white, as Genesis 30 indicates quite clearly that there were also dark colored sheep and sheep that had dark and light patches, probably varying combinations of black, white, and brown.
We can be fairly sure that one breed of sheep known to the Israelites was the Fat-tailed Sheep Ovis laticaudata and that its fatty tail is referred to in Exodus 29:22, Leviticus 3:9 et al.
Rams’ horns had a variety of uses. Whole ram horns were used as drinking vessels, jars, and trumpets. But pieces of horn were used as handles for knives and other household implements, and for jewelry such as bracelets and beads. Needles too, and probably also arrow heads, were made from horn, as well as from bone and later from bronze and iron.
Sheep were also very important in Israelite religion. They were a very important element in the sacrificial system and in the traditional religious feasts, especially the Feast of Passover.
Sheep and goats belong to the same general family. They differ in that sheep produce wool, which is a special type of soft hair, among the ordinary hairs on their bodies. A ram’s horns too differ in shape from a goat’s horns, those of a ram curling down in a tight spiral beside its face, with those of a goat curving more gently back towards its shoulders. The sheep of biblical times produced much shorter wool than is common with wool-bearing breeds of today.
The fat-tailed or broad-tailed sheep is a smallish breed usually brown and white with a very broad tail. Like most other breeds of sheep in the Middle East it has large floppy ears.
Sheep are generally fairly timid animals, lacking the self-confidence and adaptability of goats. While goats will spread out in their search for food and then regroup without much difficulty, sheep become very insecure when they are separated from other sheep and tend to stay bunched together. They thus require a lot of shepherding. In the Middle East the method of shepherding involves training the dominant ram to follow the shepherd. The remaining sheep then follow this dominant ram, which often wears a wooden clapper or a bell. As they feed, the sheep usually keep within earshot of this sound. It is likely that this method is centuries old.
In most modern breeds only male sheep have horns, but in most ancient breeds female sheep had short horns too. This made separating sheep from goats in a single flock more difficult than it is today.
Of all animals the sheep was the most important for the Israelite nation. It had great religious, social, and economic importance.
The metaphor of a lamb is used in the New Testament to refer to Christ, with an emphasis on his being a sacrifice for the sin of the world. This is especially the case in John’s gospel and Revelation. In the latter book the metaphor is introduced in a very striking way. In Revelation 5:5 as the writer is mourning the fact that no one can be found to open the scroll, he is comforted by one of the elders who tells him that “the Lion of the tribe of Judah” has triumphed and can thus open the scroll. Then the writer, expecting to see the Lion, sees instead a Lamb that looks as if it has been killed for sacrifice. The remainder of the book is then concerned with describing the triumph of this Lamb over the forces of evil.
In the gospels Jesus also refers to his disciples as “sheep” and “lambs” (Matthew 10:17; John 10:1 et al.).
The metaphor of the shepherd is extended to God himself who is the ultimate “Shepherd of Israel” (Psalms 23:1; 80:1). Then those who are responsible for the nurture, guidance, ruling, and protection of Israel, be it kings, prophets, or priests, are also likened to shepherds (Isaiah 56:11; Jeremiah 23:4; 49:19; Ezekiel 34:2; Zechariah 10:2).
The Messiah is also called a shepherd (Isaiah 40:11), and Jesus refers to himself as “the good shepherd” (John 10:11). In Hebrews 13:20 he is referred to as “the great shepherd of the sheep” and in 1 Peter 2:25 he is called “the Shepherd and Guardian of your lives”.
In languages that have a word for sheep, it is advisable to translate according to the meanings given above. If possible, the feminine forms should be translated as “female lamb” or “female sheep”. In languages in which sheep are not known, a word has usually been coined or borrowed by the time Bible translation begins, and this word should be used. It is not advisable to substitute another locally well-known animal in this case, since doing so negates the ritual and symbolic importance that sheep had for the biblical cultures.
In translating Psalms 23:1 it is extremely important to make sure that the phrase “my shepherd” preserves the relationship intended by the writer and reflects the psalmist’s theme that Yahweh is his benefactor, protector, and guide. There are really two metaphors involved in the opening verse-the caring shepherd (God) and by clear implication, the dependent sheep (the psalmist). In many languages the literal phrase “my shepherd” depicts a wrong relationship, meaning something like “the one who looks after my sheep” or “the one I employ to watch my sheep.” In many African languages unwary translators have produced a rendering that means “The Chief is (nothing more than) my herdsman.” It is often necessary to restructure the whole verse as something like “I am a sheep, and the lord is my shepherd.”
The prophet Ezekiel refers to this event in his explanation of his parable of the eagles and the vine (Ezek 17.12).
The Hebrew verb translated carried away is the same one as in the previous verse. And the implied subject continues to be Nebuchadnezzar.
The king’s mother: Some languages may have a special word to refer to the mother of a chief or a king. It would be appropriate to use such a term here.
The king’s wives: In some languages it will be necessary to choose between a plural form for wives that indicates a few wives or a plural form that indicates many wives. There is, however, no statement in the biblical text or other ancient documents which indicates the number of Jehoiachin’s wives.
The Hebrew word translated officials is the same as the one rendered “palace officials” in verse 12. As in verse 12, some modern versions therefore translate it “eunuchs” (Revised English Bible, La Bible Pléiade, em>Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). But the more general meaning given in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation is probably more appropriate in this context.
The chief men of the land: This expression refers to the leading citizens of Judah. Its meaning is virtually the opposite of “the poorest people of the land” in verse 14. These two groups represent the opposite ends of the social scale in Judah. New Revised Standard Version says “the elite of the land.” The Hebrew word for chief men is ʾewil. This word is sometimes translated “foolish” or “fool” in other contexts, but such a meaning has no clear sense here. Probably the Hebrew word here is a loanword from Akkadian which means “man” or “citizen.” The reading in the margin of the Masoretic Text has the Hebrew word ʾayil (meaning “male sheep”). This word occurs in Exo 15.15 and Ezek 17.13 in a metaphorical sense to refer to rulers or powerful men. Whichever reading is followed, the meaning will be the same.
The repetitious information in this verse may be reduced if it is considered unnatural. The two verbal expressions, he carried away … to Babylon at the beginning of the verse and he took into captivity … to Babylon at the end, may be reduced to a single verb phrase if necessary.
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 2. (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.