וַיִּחַר֩ לְאַבְנֵ֨ר מְאֹ֜ד עַל־דִּבְרֵ֣י אִֽישׁ־בֹּ֗שֶׁת וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ הֲרֹ֨אשׁ כֶּ֥לֶב אָנֹ֘כִי֮ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לִֽיהוּדָה֒ הַיּ֨וֹם אֶֽעֱשֶׂה־חֶ֜סֶד עִם־בֵּ֣ית ׀ שָׁא֣וּל אָבִ֗יךָ אֶל־אֶחָיו֙ וְאֶל־מֵ֣רֵעֵ֔הוּ וְלֹ֥א הִמְצִיתִ֖ךָ בְּיַד־דָּוִ֑ד וַתִּפְקֹ֥ד עָלַ֛י עֲוֺ֥ן הָאִשָּׁ֖ה הַיּֽוֹם׃
8The words of Ishbaal made Abner very angry; he said, “Am I a dog’s head for Judah? Today I keep showing loyalty to the house of your father Saul, to his brothers, and to his friends and have not given you into the hand of David, yet you charge me now with a crime concerning this woman.
The Hebrew, Greek and Latin that is translated as “(was or became) angry” in English is translated in Kwere as “saw anger.” In Kwere, emotions are always paired with sensory verbs (seeing or smelling or hearing). (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
In Bariai it is “to have grumbling interiors” (source: Bariai Back Translation).
See also anger and feel (terror, pain, suffering, anxiety).
The Hebrew that is translated as “steadfast love,” “lovingkindness” (Goldingay 2018: “commitment”) or similar in English is translated in a number of ways:
In Pijin tinghevi long or “think heavy about” is used. “The Pijin expression ‘think heavy about’ is very much within the domain of committed relationships. The relationship between father and child, husband and wife, God and His people. There is a very strong element of ‘loyalty’ in this expression.” (Source: Bob Carter)
In Latvian the term žēlastība is used both for “steadfast love” and grace.
In a number of languages, the terms for for “steadfast love” and mercy are used interchangeably.
The Hebrew and Greek that is transliterated as “Saul” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with the sign that depicts “sword in chest” (referring to 1 Samuel 31:4 and 1 Chronicles 10:4) and also “self-centered.” (Source: Steve Parkhurst)
“Saul” in Spanish Sign Language, source: Sociedad Bíblica de España
For more information on translations of proper names with sign language see Sign Language Bible Translations Have Something to Say to Hearing Christians .
Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Saul .
The Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Ge’ez, and Latin terms that are typically translated as “mercy” (or “compassion” or “kindness”) in English are translated in various ways. Bratcher / Nida classify them in (1) those based on the quality of heart, or other psychological center, (2) those which introduce the concept of weeping or extreme sorrow, (3) those which involve willingness to look upon and recognize the condition of others, or (4) those which involve a variety of intense feelings.
While the English mercy originates from the Latin merces, originally “price paid,” Romance languages (Italian, Spanish, Corsican, Catalan, Friulian) and other Germanic languages (German, Swedish, Danish — Barmherzigkeit, barmhärtighet and barmhjertighed, respectively) tend to follow the Latin misericordia, lit. “misery-heart.”
Here are some other (back-) translations:
See also steadfast love and Seat of the Mind / Seat of Emotions.
The following is a stained glass window from the Three choir windows in the Marienkirche, Frankfurt (Oder), Germany, of the 14th century, depicting Abner’s defection to David:
Source: Der gläserne Schatz: Die Bilderbibel der St. Marienkirche in Frankfurt (Oder), Neuer Berlin Verlag, 2005, copyright for this image: Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologisches Landesmuseum
Stained glass is not just highly decorative, it’s a medium which has been used to express important religious messages for centuries. Literacy was not widespread in the medieval and Renaissance periods and the Church used stained glass and other artworks to teach the central beliefs of Christianity. In Gothic churches, the windows were filled with extensive narrative scenes in stained glass — like huge and colorful picture storybooks — in which worshipers could ‘read’ the stories of Christ and the saints and learn what was required for their religious salvation. (Source: Victoria and Albert Museum )
See also other stained glass windows from the Marienkirche in Frankfurt.
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.
Source: All Creatures Great and Small: Living things in the Bible (UBS Helps for Translators)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Samuel 3:8:
Very angry over the words: New International Version states that he was “very angry because of what Ish-Bosheth said.” Other languages may have to say something like “Abner heard those words and became greatly annoyed.”
Am I a dog’s head of Judah? The words so translated are very difficult and have resulted in a wide variety of renderings. Some scholars think that the reference to Judah was not a part of the original question. The words translated of Judah are not in the ancient Greek translation. And so they are omitted by Moffatt, An American Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, Osty-Trinquet, Anchor Bible, and Anderson. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, however, gives a {B} rating to the Masoretic Text and recommends that the words of Judah be translated. Because of the similarity between the Hebrew word for “dog” and the name “Caleb,” some interpreters have suggested that the meaning of the rest of the question is “am I a Calebite chief?” (The word for “head” may mean “chief” in some contexts.) Others have suggested that the reference is to a “dog-faced baboon” (see New English Bible). But both of these interpretations are unlikely.
The most probable meaning to be translated (although far from certain) involves disloyalty of a person who would stoop to deception and trickery to betray a trusting person, as a dog might turn on someone who feeds him. This seems to be supported by the words that follow this controversial question. In view of the context the most probable meaning of this expression is “Do you think I am a traitor?” If translators wish to retain something of the image of the original, they may be able to say something like “Do you think I am a dog in the service of the Judeans?” or “Am I like a dog following the Judeans around?” Translators may wish to refer to the discussion on the words Calebite and Caleb in 1 Sam 25.3 and 30.14.
Loyalty: see 2.5-6 as well as 1 Sam 15.6.
His brothers: in view of the fact that Abner is speaking to Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, it may be more natural in some languages here to say “your uncles.” However, the Hebrew term translated brothers is sometimes used in a broader sense to include one’s relatives. For this reason Anchor Bible and Anderson translate this as “his kinsmen” rather than “his brothers,” and this probably is the intended meaning.
Have not given you into the hand of David: Revised Standard Version understands the Hebrew verb to mean that Abner has not turned Ishbosheth over to David. Similar is Revised English Bible, “I have not betrayed you into David’s hands.” Good News Translation, on the other hand, understands the meaning to be that Abner has continued to protect Ishbosheth from military defeat by David. New American Bible is similar to Good News Translation: “by keeping you out of David’s clutches.” Either meaning is possible and translators must simply choose.
A fault concerning a woman: literally “an offense of the woman.” The presence of the definite article is not reflected in Revised Standard Version or Good News Translation, but it seems to be important because it is a reference to the particular woman already mentioned. New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, and Contemporary English Version speak of “this woman,” clearly referring back to Rizpah, who was introduced in verse 7.
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
No comments yet.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.