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 Ecclesiastes 9:4:
Kupsabiny: “A person who is still alive has hope. A dog that is alive is better off than a lion that is dead.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “There is hope for those who are living. It’s better to be a live dog than a dead lion!” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “As a live dog is better than a dead lion, a live man is better than a dead man. For the living ones still have hope,” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “While we are alive, we confidently expect that good things will happen to us. We despise dogs, but it is better to be a dog that is alive than to be a majestic lion that is dead.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
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”.
The contrast between life and death continues in verse 4. This verse also provides the focus for verse 5. Linking these verses is the particle ki, occurring twice here and once in verse 5.
But he who is joined with all the living has hope: the opening But indicates that the saying contrasts with what has just been said. This is further supported by the contrasting phrases “to the dead” in verse 3 and “to all the living” in verse 4. He who is joined uses the interrogative pronoun “who?” with the sense “whoever” or “everyone.” The verb is joined creates a slight problem for the interpreter. The passive verb form (from the Hebrew root for “choose”) is not found in all manuscripts, and this has led to the suggestion that the verb be changed to “be associated with.” Whichever version of the text we adopt, there are some problems because joined with all the living (Revised Standard Version), “counted among the living” (New American Bible), and similar renderings are all very awkward expressions. The phrase simply means “those who are still living,” or “the living” (Good News Translation). The expression draws a contrast between “to the dead” (verse 3) and “to all the living” here in verse 4. On the living see comments in 4.15.
Hope translates a rare Hebrew form found only here and in 2 Kgs 18.19; Isa 36.4. It is drawn from the root meaning “trust, confidence.” Qoheleth associates it with the future fate that people face. His meaning here seems to be full of irony. He indicates that all living creatures have hope, that they can be confident about a future. But that future is the shared fate, death. What a hope that is!
We can translate this difficult clause as:
• But the living have hope.
• But those still alive have a future.
Two more radical translations, which bring out more clearly the element of irony here are:
• But the living can be confident about their future—their future is death!
• But there’s nothing for the living to look forward to except death!
In 4.2 Qoheleth suggested that the dead are more fortunate than the living because the dead have already left this pain-filled world. When he says here the living have hope, the irony is even more powerful because that “hope” turns out to be death itself, which is no hope at all.
The second clause beginning with ki “for” provides the basis for the argument just put forward. Qoheleth argues that a living dog is better than a dead lion. A conjunction like “for” or “since” may be appropriate here. A transition with more irony is “Yes, even….” Since this clause is a proverb that was probably well-known, we can add “Yes, as they say, ….”
The dog in Qoheleth’s culture was looked down on; the term could also be applied to an evil person (Deut 23.18-19). On the other hand the lion is a figure both for royalty and for a noble person (Hos 13.7). The adjectives that describe these animals, a living dog and a dead lion, seem on the surface to reverse those values. When we realize that Qoheleth is using this saying to support his argument about the human “hope,” death, we see how this saying is bound up with the irony of the previous statement: all living beings are like a contemptible dog—they are alive but they are all waiting to die.
Most languages will have words for dog and lion, so word choice will not be a problem. However, the translator should make sure that what these words mean when they are used figuratively is equivalent to the meanings in Hebrew culture. If they are not, the verse will have to be adapted in some way. Adjectives can be added to show the point: “A living dog—as contemptible as it is—is better off than a dead lion, however majestic.” In some cases it may be necessary to omit the imagery and give a nonfigurative rendering such as “It is better to be miserable and alive than noble and dead.” The irony in this saying may also be expressed as “How much more wonderful it is to be miserable but alive than to be noble but dead!”
Quoted with permission from Ogden, Graham S. and Zogbo, Lynell. A Handbook on the Book of Ecclesiates. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.