The Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin that is translated as “justice” in English is translated in American Sign Language with a sign that describes the quality or principle of fairness, righteousness, and impartiality in treating other people. A literal back-translation of the signs are “FOLLOW(God is implied) ACTIONS, DECISIONS JUST-RIGHT”. A more idiomatic back-translation would be: “actions and decisions are right/fitting/just in accordance to God’s will.” The movement in the signs itself helps to indicate that this is a noun, not a verb. (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)
“Justice” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor
Following are a number of back-translations of Hebrews 11:33:
Uma: “Because of their faith, they made kings submit, they ruled with straightness/justice, they got what God promised, they closed the mouths of lions,” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “These people because of their trust in God they challenged big countries to fight and they defeated (them). Some of them ruled straight/righteous in their country and some of them received what God had promised. Some of them defeated lions and they were not bitten.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “For by means of their faith in God some of them overcome the soldiers of big towns and still others, they ruled righteously over their subjects, and others yet, they received what God promised them, and others, they defeated the ferocious lions and they were not bitten.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Faith was important to all of them, for because of their faith, some of them were-victorious in their fighting-with other countries, some ruled properly, and some received what God promised. Others, there were fierce lions that they caused-to-stop so they didn’t bite,” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “As for all of these people, because of the strength of their believing/obeying and trust in God, they really accomplished much. Many are the kingdoms they defeated. Wholly justice/straightness is what they set in motion over their subjects and they received what God promised them. As for others, they caused-to-be-shut-tight the mouths of even lions.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “These people all believed that it is true what God says. Therefore some made wars and conquered powerful rulers. Some ruled well and encountered the blessing which God promised. Some were placed where there were ferocious animals, yet the animals didn’t bite them.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
The Greek, Hebrew, Ge’ez, and Latin terms that are translated in English mostly as “righteous” or “righteousness” (see below for a discussion of the English translation) are most commonly expressed with concept of “straightness,” though this may be expressed in a number of ways. (Click or tap here to see the details)
Following is a list of (back-) translations of various languages:
Paasaal: “white heart” (source: Fabian N. Dapila in The Bible Translator 2024, p. 415ff.)
(San Mateo del Mar Huave: “completely good” (the translation does not imply sinless perfection)
Nuer: “way of right” (“there is a complex concept of “right” vs. ‘left’ in Nuer where ‘right’ indicates that which is masculine, strong, good, and moral, and ‘left’ denotes what is feminine, weak, and sinful (a strictly masculine viewpoint!) The ‘way of right’ is therefore righteousness, but of course women may also attain this way, for the opposition is more classificatory than descriptive.”) (This and all above from Bratcher / Nida except for Bilua: Carl Gross; Tiv: Rob Koops; Muna: René van den Berg)
Yatzachi Zapotec: “walk straight” (source for this and four previous: John Beekman in Notes on Translation November 1964, p. 1-22)
Makonde: “doing what God wants” (in a context of us doing) and “be good in God’s eyes” (in the context of being made righteous by God) (note that justify / justification is translated as “to be made good in the eyes of God.” (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext)
Aari: The Pauline word for “righteous” is generally rendered by “makes one without sin” in the Aari, sometimes “before God” is added for clarity. (Source: Loren Bliese)
Ekari: maakodo bokouto or “enormous truth” (the same word that is also used for “truth“; bokouto — “enormous” — is being used as an attribute for abstract nouns to denote that they are of God [see also here]; source: Marion Doble in The Bible Translator 1963, p. 37ff. ).
Guhu-Samane: pobi or “right” (also: “right (side),” “(legal) right,” “straightness,” “correction,” “south,” “possession,” “pertinence,” “kingdom,” “fame,” “information,” or “speech” — “According to [Guhu-Samane] thinking there is a common core of meaning among all these glosses. Even from an English point of view the first five can be seen to be closely related, simply because of their similarity in English. However, from that point the nuances of meaning are not so apparent. They relate in some such a fashion as this: As one faces the morning sun, south lies to the right hand (as north lies to the left); then at one’s right hand are his possessions and whatever pertains to him; thus, a rich man’s many possessions and scope of power and influence is his kingdom; so, the rich and other important people encounter fame; and all of this spreads as information and forms most of the framework of the people’s speech.”) (Source: Ernest Richert in Notes on Translation 1964, p. 11ff.)
German New Testament translation by Berger / Nord (publ. 1999): Gerechtheit, a neologism to differentiate it from the commonly-used Gerechtigkeit which can mean “justice” but is more often used in modern German as “fairness” (Berger / Nord especially use Gerechtheit in Letter to the Romans) or Gerechtestun, also a neologism, meaning “righteous deeds” (especially in Letter to the Ephesians)
“a clear man, good [man]” (Mairasi) (source: Enggavoter 2004)
Cherokee: “with heart” (source: Bender / Belt 2025, p. 29)
The English translation of righteousness, especially in the New Testament is questioned by Nicholas Wolterstorff (2008, p. 110ff.) (Click or tap here to see the details)
Those who approach the New Testament solely through English translations face a serious linguistic obstacle to apprehending what these writings say about justice. In most English translations, the word “justice” occurs relatively infrequently. It is no surprise, then, that most English-speaking people think the New Testament does not say much about justice; the Bibles they read do not say much about justice. English translations are in this way different from translations into Latin, French, Spanish, German, Dutch — and for all I know, most languages.
The basic issue is well known among translators and commentators. Plato’s Republic, as we all know, is about justice. The Greek noun in Plato’s text that is standardly translated as “justice” is dikaiosunē (δικαιοσύνη); the adjective standardly translated as “just” is dikaios (δίκαιος). This same dik-stem occurs around three hundred times in the New Testament, in a wide variety of grammatical variants.
To the person who comes to English translations of the New Testament fresh from reading and translating classical Greek, it comes as a surprise to discover that though some of those occurrences are translated with grammatical variants on our word “just,” the great bulk of dik-stem words are translated with grammatical variants on our word “right.” The noun, for example, is usually translated as “righteousness,” not as “justice.” In English we have the word “just” and its grammatical variants coming horn the Latin iustitia, and the word “right” and its grammatical variants coining from the Old English recht. Almost all our translators have decided to translate the great bulk of dik-stem words in the New Testament with grammatical variants on the latter — just the opposite of the decision made by most translators of classical Greek.
I will give just two examples of the point. The fourth of the beatitudes of Jesus, as recorded in the fifth chapter of Matthew, reads, in the New Revised Standard Version, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.” The word translated as “righteousness” is dikaiosunē. And the eighth beatitude, in the same translation, reads “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” The Greek word translated as “righteousness” is dikaiosunē. Apparently, the translators were not struck by the oddity of someone being persecuted because he is righteous. My own reading of human affairs is that righteous people are either admired or ignored, not persecuted; people who pursue justice are the ones who get in trouble.
It goes almost without saying that the meaning and connotations of “righteousness” are very different in present-day idiomatic English from those of “justice.” “Righteousness” names primarily if not exclusively a certain trait of personal character. (…) The word in present-day idiomatic English carries a negative connotation. In everyday speech one seldom any more describes someone as righteous; if one does, the suggestion is that he is self-righteous. “Justice,” by contrast, refers to an interpersonal situation; justice is present when persons are related to each other in a certain way. There is, indeed, a long tradition of philosophical and theological discussion on the virtue of justice. But that use of the term has almost dropped out of idiomatic English; we do not often speak any more of a person as just. And in any case, the concept of the virtue of justice presupposes the concept of those social relationships that are just.
So when the New Testament writers speak of dikaiosunē, are they speaking of righteousness or of justice? Is Jesus blessing those who hunger and thirst for righteousness or those who hunger and thirst for justice?
A thought that comes to mind is that the word changed meaning between Plato and the New Testament. Had Jesus’ words been uttered in Plato’s time and place, they would have been understood as blessing those who hunger and thirst for the social condition of justice. In Jesus’ time and place, they would have been understood as blessing (hose who hunger and thirst for righteousness — that is, for personal moral rectitude.
Between the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament there came the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. (…) One of the challenges facing the Septuagint translators was how to catch, in the Greek of their day, the combination of mishpat (מִשְׁפָּט) with tsedeq (צֶ֫דֶק). Tsedeq that we find so often in the Old Testament, standardly translated into English as justice and righteousness. The solution they settled on was to translate tsedeq as dikaiosunē, and to use a term whose home use was in legal situations, namely, krisis (κρίσις), to translate mishpat. Mishpat and tsedeq became krisis and dikaiosunē. For the most part, this is also how they translated the Hebrew words even when they were not explicitly paired with each other: mishpat (justice) becomes krisis, tsedeq (righteousness) becomes dikaiosunē. The pattern is not entirely consistent, however; every now and then, when mishpat is not paired off with tsedeq, it is translated with dikaiosunē or some other dik-stem word (e.g., 1 Kings 3:28, Proverbs 17:23, Isaiah 61:8).
I think the conclusion that those of us who are not specialists in Hellenistic Greek should draw from this somewhat bewildering array of data is that, in the linguistic circles of the New Testament writers, dikaiosunē did not refer definitively either to the character trait of righteousness (shorn of its negative connotations) or to the social condition of justice, but was ambiguous as between those two. If dikaiosunē had referred decisively in Hellenistic Greek to righteousness rather than to justice, why would the Septuagint translators sometimes use it to translate mishpat, why would Catholic translators [into the 1980s] usually translate it as “justice,” and why would all English translators sometimes translate it as “justice”? (All earlier Latin-based Catholic translations, the New American Bible and the Jerusalem Bible, both of which appeared in the early 1970s have most occurrences of dik-stem words translated with variants on “just.” In subsequent revisions of the New American Bible, and in the New Jerusalem Bible, these translations have been altered to translations along the lines of righteousness. Other translations that use a form of justice or “doing right / rightness” include the British New English Bible [1970] and Revised English Bible [1989] and some newer translations such as by Hart [2017], Ruden [2021] or McKnight [2023]).
Conversely, if it referred decisively to justice, why would the Septuagint translators usually not use it to translate mishpat, and why would almost all translators sometimes translate it as “righteousness”? Context will have to determine whether, in a given case, it is best translated as “justice” or as “righteousness” — or as something else instead; and if context does not determine, then it would be best, if possible, to preserve the ambiguity and use some such ambiguous expression as “what is right” or “the right thing.”
Let me make one final observation about translation. When one takes in hand a list of all the occurrences of dik-stem words in the Greek New Testament, and then opens up almost any English translation of the New Testament and reads in one sitting all the translations of these words, a certain pattern emerges: unless the notion of legal judgment is so prominent in the context as virtually to force a translation in terms of justice, the translators will prefer to speak of righteousness.
Translations of the Greek and Ge’ez that are typically translated as “faith” in English (itself deriving from Latin “fides,” meaning “trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence”) and “believe” (from Old English belyfan: “to have faith or confidence in a person”) cover a wide range of approaches.
Bratcher and Nida say this (1961, p. 38) (click or tap here to read more):
“Since belief or faith is so essentially an intimate psychological experience, it is not strange that so many terms denoting faith should be highly figurative and represent an almost unlimited range of emotional ‘centers’ and descriptions of relationships, e.g. ‘steadfast his heart’ (Chol), ‘to arrive on the inside’ (Chicahuaxtla Triqui), ‘to conform with the heart’ (Uab Meto), ‘to join the word to the body’ (Uduk), ‘to hear in the insides’ (or ‘to hear within one’s self and not let go’ — Nida 1952) (Laka), ‘to make the mind big for something’ (Sapo), ‘to make the heart straight about’ (Mitla Zapotec), ‘to cause a word to enter the insides’ (Lacandon), ‘to leave one’s heart with’ (Baniwa), ‘to catch in the mind’ (Ngäbere), ‘that which one leans on’ (Vai), ‘to be strong on’ (Shipibo-Conibo), ‘to have no doubts’ (San Blas Kuna), ‘to hear and take into the insides’ (Kare), ‘to accept’ (Pamona).”
Following is a list of (back-) translations from other languages (click or tap here to read more):
Limos Kalinga: manuttuwa. Wiens (2013) explains: “It goes back to the word for ‘truth’ which is ‘tuttuwa.’ When used as a verb this term is commonly used to mean ‘believe’ as well as ‘obey.'”
Ngiemboon: “turn one’s back on someone” (and trusting one won’t be taken advantage of) (source: Stephen Anderson in Holzhausen 1991, p. 42)
Mwera uses the same word for “hope” and “faith”: ngulupai (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Yala: ɔtū che or “place heart” (in John 5:24; 5:45; 6:35; 6:47; 12:36; 14:1); other translations include chɛ̄ or “to agree/accept” and chɛ̄ku or “to agree with/accept with/take side with” (source: Linus Otronyi)
Matumbi: niu’bi’lyali or “believe / trust / rely (on)” and imani or “religious faith” (from Arabic īmān [إيما]) (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext)
Ebira: “place one’s liver on something” (source: Scholz /Scholz 2015, p. 60)
Barí: a word related to standing in a hammock. Bruce Olson (1972, p. 159f.) tells this story — click or tap here to read more)
One evening, though, Bobby began to ask questions. We were sitting around a fire. The light flickered over him. His face was serious.
‘How can I walk on Jesus’ trail?’ he asked. ‘No Motilone [speakers of Barí] has ever done it. It’s a new thing. There is no other Motilone to tell how to do it.’
I remembered the problems I had had as a boy, how it sometimes appeared impossible to keep on believing in Jesus when my family and friends were so opposed to my commitment. That was what Bobby was going through.
‘Bobby,’ I said, ‘do you remember my first Festival of the Arrows, the first time I had seen all the Motilones gathered to sing their song?’ The festival was the most important ceremony in the Motilone culture.
He nodded. The fire flared up momentarily and I could see his eyes, staring intently at me.
‘Do you remember that I was afraid to climb in the high hammocks to sing, for fear that the rope would break? And I told you that I would sing only if I could have one foot in the hammock and one foot on the ground?’
‘Yes, Bruchko.’
‘And what did you say to me?’
He laughed. ‘I told you you had to have both feet in the hammock. ‘You have to be suspended,’ I said.’
‘Yes,’ I said. ‘You have to be suspended. That is how it is when you follow Jesus, Bobby. No man can tell you how to walk His trail. Only Jesus can. But to find out you have to tie your hammock strings into Him, and be suspended in God.’
Bobby said nothing. The fire danced in his eyes. Then he stood up and walked off into the darkness.
The next day he came to me. ‘Bruchko,’ he said, ‘I want to tie my hammock strings into Jesus Christ. But how can I? I can’t see Him or touch Him.’
‘You have talked to spirits, haven’t you?’
‘Oh,’ he said. ‘I see now.’
The next day he had a big grin on his face. ‘Bruchko, I’ve tied my hammock strings into Jesus. Now I speak a new language.’
I didn’t understand what he meant. ‘Have you learned some of the Spanish I speak?’
He laughed, a clean, sweet laugh. ‘No, Bruchko, I speak a new language.’
Then I understood. To a Motilone, language is life. If Bobby had a new life, he had a new way of speaking. His speech would be Christ-oriented.
Awabakal: ngurruliko: “to know, to perceive by the ear” (as distinct from knowing by sight or by touch — source: Lake, p. 70) (click or tap here to read more)
“[The missionary translator] Lancelot Threlkeld learned that Awabakal, like many Australian languages, made no distinction between knowing and believing. Of course the distinction only needs to be made where there are rival systems of knowing. The Awabakal language expressed a seamless world. But as the stress on ‘belief’ itself suggests, Christianity has always existed in pluralist settings. Conversion involves deep conviction, not just intellectual assent or understanding. (…) Translating such texts posed a great challenge in Australia. Threlkeld and [his indigenous colleague] Biraban debated the possibilities at length. In the end they opted not to introduce a new term for belief, but to use the Awabakal ngurruliko, meaning ‘to know, to perceive by the ear,’ as distinct from knowing by sight or by touch.”
Language in southern Nigeria: a word based on the idiom “lose feathers.” Randy Groff in Wycliffe Bible Translators 2016, p. 65 explains (click or tap here to read more):
What does losing feathers have to do with faith? [The translator] explained that there is a species of bird in his area that, upon hatching its eggs, loses its feathers. During this molting phase, the mother bird is no longer able to fly away from the nest and look for food for her hungry hatchlings. She has to remain in the nest where she and her babies are completely dependent upon the male bird to bring them food. Without the diligent, dependable work of the male bird, the mother and babies would all die. This scenario was the basis for the word for faith in his language.
Teribe: mär: “pick one thing and one thing only” (source: Andy Keener)
Tiv: na jighjigh: “give trust” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
Luba-Katanga: Twi tabilo: “echo” (click or tap here to read more)
“Luba-Katanga word for ‘Faith’ in its New Testament connotation is Twi tabilo. This word means ‘echo,’ and the way in which it came to be adapted to the New Testament meaning gives a very good idea of the way in which the translator goes to work. One day a missionary was on a journey through wild and mountainous country. At midday he called his African porters to halt, and as they lay resting in the shade from the merciless heat of the sun. an African picked up a stone and sent it ricocheting down the mountain-side into the ravine below. After some seconds the hollow silence was broken by a plunging, splashing sound from the depths of the dark river-bed. As the echo died away the African said in a wondering whisper ‘Twi tabilo, listen to it.’ So was a precious word captured for the service of the Gospel in its Luba Christian form. Twi tabilo — ‘faith which is the echo of God’s voice in the depths of human sinful hearts, awakened by God Himself, the answer to his own importunate call.’ The faith that is called into being by the divine initiative, God’s own gift to the responsive heart! (Source: Wilfred Bradnock in The Bible Translator 1953, p. 49ff. )
The Japanese term shin-kō (信仰) was a newly coined word for the purpose of Bible translation but is used widely today beyond its Christian origin. Junko Nakai (in: The Bible Translator 2006, p. 115ff. ) explains: “There are many words either newly created or adapted to introduce new Christian concepts distinct from the established religious ones. An example is the Sino-Japanese noun, shin-kō, as the equivalent of pistis “faith.” The existing term for “belief” or “trust” was mainly the Sino-Japanese noun, shin, often used as the stem of a verb, shin-zu ‘believe.’ The term shin-kō, formed by adding another verb aogu, to ‘look up’ with respect, or to ‘ask,’ in native Japanese, read as kō in Sino-Japanese, did exist, but not in wide use. (…) This word was used in Buddhist scriptures, but read as shin-gō in early days. During the process of translating the Bible, the Chinese compound written in the same Chinese characters (信仰) but read as shin-kō establishes itself as the term denoting Christian ‘faith.’ Later it comes to be recognized as the new term denoting ‘faith’ in general in a wider religious context. This fact attests to the impact of Bible translation on the development of modern Japanese language.”
J.A. van Roy (in The Bible Translator 1972, p. 418ff. ) discusses how a translation of “faith” in a an earlier translation into Venda created difficult perceptions of the concept of faith (click or tap here):
The Venda term u tenda, lutendo. This term corresponds to the terms ho dumela (Southern Sotho), and ku pfumela (Tsonga) that have been used in these translations of the Bible, and means “to assent,” “to agree to a suggestion.” It is important to understand this term in the context of the character of the people who use it.
The way in which the Venda use this term reveals much about the priority of interpersonal relationships among them. They place a much higher priority on responding in the way they think they are expected to respond than on telling the truth. Smooth interpersonal relationships, especially with a dominant individual or group, take precedence over everything else.
It is therefore regarded as bad form to refuse directly when asked for something one does not in fact intend to give. The correct way is to agree, u tenda, and then forget about it or find some excuse for not keeping to the agreement. Thus u tenda does not necessarily convey the information that one means what one says. One can tenda verbally while heartily disagreeing with the statement made or having no intention whatsoever to carry out what one has just promised to do. This is not regarded as dishonesty, but is a matter of politeness.
The term u sokou tenda, “to consent reluctantly,” is often used for expressing the fatalistic attitude of the Venda in the face of misfortune or force which he is unable to resist.
The form lutendo was introduced by missionaries to express “faith.”
According to the rules of derivations and their meanings in the lu-class, it should mean “the habit of readily consenting to everything.” But since it is a coined word which does not have a clearly defined set of meanings in everyday speech, it has acquired in church language a meaning of “steadfastness in the Christian life.” Una lutendo means something like “he is steadfast in the face of persecution.” It is quite clear that the term u tenda has no element of “trust” in it. (…)
In “The Christian Minister” of July 1969 we find the following statement about faith by Albert N. Martin: “We must never forget that one of the great issues which the Reformers brought into focus was that faith was something more than an ‘assensus,’ a mere nodding of the head to the body of truth presented by the church as ‘the faith.’ The Reformers set forth the biblical concept that faith was ‘fiducia.’ They made plain that saving faith involved trust, commitment, a trust and commitment involving the whole man with the truth which was believed and with the Christ who was the focus of that truth. The time has come when we need to spell this out clearly in categorical statements so that people will realize that a mere nodding of assent to the doctrines that they are exposed to is not the essence of saving faith. They need to be brought to the understanding that saving faith involves the commitment of the whole man to the whole Christ, as Prophet, Priest and King as he is set forth in the gospel.”
We quote at length from this article because what Martin says of the current concept of faith in the Church is even to a greater extent true of the Venda Church, and because the terms used for communicating that concept in the Venda Bible cannot be expected to communicate anything more than “a mere nodding of assent”. I have during many years of evangelistic work hardly ever come across a Venda who, when confronted with the gospel, would not say, Ndi khou tenda, “I admit the truth of what you say.” What they really mean when saying this amounts to, “I believe that God exists, and I have no objection to the fact that he exists. I suppose that the rest of what you are talking about is also true.” They would often add, Ndi sa tendi hani-hani? “Just imagine my not believing such an obvious fact!” To the experienced evangelist this is a clear indication that his message is rejected in so far as it has been understood at all! To get a negative answer, one would have to press on for a promise that the “convert” will attend the baptism class and come to church on Sundays, and even then he will most probably just tenda in order to get rid of the evangelist, whether he intends to come or not. Isn’t that what u tenda means? So when an inexperienced and gullible white man ventures out on an evangelistic campaign with great enthusiasm, and with great rejoicing returns with a list of hundreds of names of persons who “believed”, he should not afterwards blame the Venda when only one tenth of those who were supposed to be converts actually turn up for baptismal instruction.
Moreover, it is not surprising at all that one often comes across church members of many years’ standing who do not have any assurance of their salvation or even realise that it is possible to have that assurance. They are vhatendi, “consenters.” They have consented to a new way of life, to abandoning (some of) the old customs. Lutendo means to them at most some steadfastness in that new way of life.
The concept of faith in religion is strange to Africa. It is an essential part of a religion of revelation such as Christianity or Islam, but not of a naturalistic religion such as Venda religion, in which not faith and belief are important, but ritual, and not so much the content of the word as the power of it.
The terms employed in the Venda Bible for this vital Christian concept have done nothing to effect a change in the approach of the Venda to religion.
It is a pity that not only in the Venda translation has this been the case, but in all the other Southern Bantu languages. In the Nguni languages the term ukukholwa, “to believe a fact,” has been used for pisteuo, and ukholo, the deverbative of ukukholwa, for pistis. In some of the older Protestant translations in Zulu, but not in the new translation, the term ithemba, “trust”, has been used.
Some languages, including Santali, have two terms — like English (see above) — to differentiate a noun from a verb form. Biswạs is used for “faith,” whereas pạtiạu for “believe.” R.M. Macphail (in The Bible Translator 1961, p. 36ff. ) explains this choice: “While there is little difference between the meaning and use of the two in everyday Santali, in which any word may be used as a verb, we felt that in this way we enriched the translation while making a useful distinction, roughly corresponding to that between ‘faith’ and ‘to believe’ in English.”
Likewise, in Noongar, koort-karni or “heart truth” is used for the noun (“faith”) and djinang-karni or “see true” for the verb (“believe”) (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
In Hungarian Sign Language “faith” is translated with a sign that refers to the gesture of clinging to God, which expresses a certainty in things unseen (see Hebrews 11:1). (Source: Jenjelvi Biblia and HSL Bible Translation Group)
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”.
In translating verse 33 it is important to avoid the implication that all of the persons just mentioned in verse 32 did everything listed in verses 33 and 34. To avoid this, the first sentence may be translated as “Because men like this trusted God, they were able to fight against the armies of entire countries and to defeat them” or “… against the population of entire countries and conquer them.”
Verses 33-34 in Greek consist of nine short, rhythmic clauses, perhaps arranged in three groups of three.
They fought: the ones who fought are not only or primarily the prophets, but generally the people mentioned in verse 32. The translator does not need to know which phrases refer to which Old Testament characters, since this does not usually affect the meaning. They fought whole countries and won suggests that individuals won victories over entire armies. This is probably not the intention of the text, and Good News Translation‘s whole is not followed by other common language translations. If a literal translation such as Good News Translation is unclear or sounds stylistically weak, the words may be translated “they fought foreign nations and won.” In some languages fought can be made implicit, since the word for won, or “victorious over,” already implies the idea of fighting.
Received translates a word which implies some activity, not mere passive receiving. Many translations have “obtained,” but Jerusalem Bible‘s “earned” is too strong; Bible de Jérusalem has “obtained the fulfillment of the promises.”
They did what was right and received what God had promised (see comments on 11.13) may be a general statement, of which the rest of verses 33-34 gives examples. In this case, Bijbel in Gewone Taal is justified in putting it at the beginning of the verse. The two parts of the statement in any case fit well together. One might translate “they did what God required and received what God promised.” This seems on the whole to give better sense than to paraphrase following the order of the Greek, saying “they conquered kingdoms; having conquered them, they maintained justice in them; and (therefore) God gave them the blessings he had promised” (similarly Phillips “conquered kingdoms, ruled in justice and proved the truth of God’s promises”). What God had promised: the Greek suggests “promises” in general, not “the promises,” as in verse 13. Because they trusted God, his promises to help them were fulfilled.
They shut the mouths of lions may be rendered as “They caused lions to keep their mouths shut,” “They forced shut the mouths of lions,” or “They would not let lions open their mouths.”
Escaped being killed by the sword is literally “fled mouths of the sword,” the plural for “mouths” suggesting repeated escapes from death. This may be rendered as “they escaped from people who were trying to kill them with swords” or “… who kept on trying to kill them with swords.” In some languages, especially those where swords are not known, it may be better to translate “… who were trying to kill them violently” or “… kill them in war.”
They were weak, but became strong could suggest recovery from illness, but more probably it means that God turned weak people like Gideon and David into powerful men of war. If so, they were mighty in battle and defeated the armies of foreigners shows in greater detail in what way They were weak, but became strong.
They were weak, but became strong may be expressed by a concessive clause, followed by a result clause; for example, “Even though they were weak, they became strong.”
They were mighty in battle may be expressed as “they were great fighters” or “they were strong soldiers.”
The phrase translated defeated the armies usually means “caused fortified camps to fall,” but translations agree with Good News Translation in using the term armies. There is no the before armies in the Greek text. There is no suggestion that Israel fought only in self-defense, though Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente speaks of “invaders.”
Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Living Water is produced for the Bible translation movement in association with Lutheran Bible Translators. Lyrics derived from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.