“Sheep are known throughout most of the world, even though, as in Central Africa, they are a far cry from the fleecy wool-producing animals of colder climates. Where such animals are known, even by seemingly strange names, e.g. ‘cotton deer’ (Yucateco) or ‘woolly goat’ (Inupiaq), such names should be used. In some instances, one may wish to borrow a name and use a classifier, e.g. ‘an animal called sheep’. In still other instances translators have used ‘animal which produces wool’, for though people are not acquainted with the animals they are familiar with wool.” (Source: Bratcher / Nida)
In Dëne Súline, it is usually translated as “an evil little caribou.” To avoid the negative connotation, a loan word from the neighboring South Slavey was used. (Source: NCEM, p. 70)
Note that the often-alleged Inuktitut translation of “sheep” with “seal” is an urban myth (source Nida 1947, p. 136).
The Hebrew that is transliterated as “Rachel” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with a sign that signifies the eyelashes, referring to “beautiful eyes” as the opposite of Leah (see Genesis 29:17). (Source: Steve Parkhurst)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Genesis 31:19:
Newari: “At that time Laban had been going to shear the sheep. When her father was not there, Rachel stole the idols that were in her father’s house.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “It-so-happened at-that-time that Laban walked to shear his sheep, and while he was-not-there Raquel took the little-gods/false-gods of her father.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “Before they left, while Laban was shearing his sheep, Rachel stole the small wooden idols that were in her father’s tent.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Verses 19 and 20 are a parenthesis or interruption to the main story line, which continues in verse 21. The narrator probably inserts the information that is given in these verses so as to anticipate the conflict that arises later in verses 30-35. For some translators, however, placing the information at this point of the narrative is difficult, because it describes actions that happened or should have happened before the actions that are referred to in verses 17 and 18. The sequence of actions is as follows:
Jacob made preparations to leave,
He could have told Laban, but he didn’t,
Laban went away to shear his sheep,
Rachel stole Laban’s household gods,
Jacob loaded the camels and put his wives and children on them,
He sent his animals on ahead,
He left Haran with his family,
They traveled to the Euphrates and crossed it,
They went on in the direction of Gilead.
If necessary verses 17-21 should be reordered to make the story follow the actual sequence of events.
Laban had gone to shear his sheep: sheep shearing refers to cutting the wool from the sheep’s skin. According to 1 Sam 25.2, 8, 11; 2 Sam 13.23, this was an occasion for celebrating and could last for several days if the flocks were large. The sheep shearing took place where the flocks were resting at the time. In areas where this practice is unknown, it may be necessary to say, for example, “Laban had gone away to cut the wool [fur, or hair] from the sheep.”
Rachel stole her father’s household gods: Laban’s absence from the home gave Rachel an opportunity to steal these objects. Stole translates a Hebrew verb with a wide range of meanings. No doubt Rachel felt justified in taking them, in the light of comments made in verses 14-16. Accordingly Speiser, New Jerusalem Bible, and Bible en français courant translate “appropriated.” There is no doubt that she took them without Laban’s knowledge, and in many languages a term equivalent to stole will be the only available word.
Household gods translates the Hebrew terafim. The term is found in 1 Sam 19.13, 16, where it is translated in the singular as “image” by Revised Standard Version and “household idol” by Good News Translation. In that context the objects had at least a head resembling a human being. According to Ezek 21.21 and Zech 10.2, these images were consulted in order to learn what a person should do in particular situations. According to Judges 17.5 and 18.14-20, they were held in high regard by the people. Driver, citing Ewald, says “Rachel, by taking her father’s teraphim, hoped, it may be supposed, to carry with her into Canaan the good fortune of her paternal home.” Others believe that they were related to inheritance in the family; Speiser comments, “According to the Nuzi documents, which have been found to reflect time and again the social customs of Haran, … possession of the house gods could signify legal title to a given estate, particularly in cases out of the ordinary, involving daughters, sons-in-law, or adopted sons.” Laban’s angry accusation of Jacob (verse 30) seems to confirm some such importance as this.
The terafim were apparently not representations of a supernatural being. However, they were believed to possess some limited supernatural power. In some languages these household gods may be referred to by a local term for “idol.” In languages in which idols are unknown, it may be necessary to use some kind of descriptive equivalent; for example, “wooden little people,” “images,” or “carved objects.”
Quoted with permission from Reyburn, William D. and Fry, Euan McG. A Handbook on Genesis. (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.