sheep

“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).

See also lamb and sheep / lamb.

shepherd

The Greek, Latin, Ge’ez, and Hebrew that is translated as “shepherd” in English is translated in Kouya as Bhlabhlɛɛ ‘yliyɔzʋnyɔ — ” tender of sheep.”

Philip Saunders (p. 231) explains:

“Then one day they tackled the thorny problem of ‘shepherd’. It was problematic because Kouyas don’t have herdsmen who stay with the sheep all the time. Sheep wander freely round the village and its outskirts, and often a young lad will be detailed to drive sheep to another feeding spot. So the usual Kouya expression meant a ‘driver of sheep’, which would miss the idea of a ‘nurturing’ shepherd. ‘A sheep nurturer’ was possible to say, but it was unnatural in most contexts. The group came up with Bhlabhlɛɛ ‘yliyɔzʋnyɔ which meant ‘a tender of sheep’, that is one who keeps an eye on the sheep to make sure they are all right. All, including the translators, agreed that this was a most satisfactory solution.”

Other translations include:

  • Chuj: “carer” (there was no single word for “shepherd”) (source: Ronald Ross)
  • Muna: “sheep guard” (dhagano dhumba) (there was no immediate lexical equivalent) (source: René van den Berg),
  • Mairasi: “people who took care of domesticated animals” (source: Enggavoter 2004)
  • Noongar: “sheep worker” (kookendjeriyang-yakina) (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
  • Kwakum: “those-who-monitor-the-livestock” (source: Stacey Hare in this post )

See also I am the good shepherd, complete verse (Psalm 23:1), and sheep / lamb.

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Shepherds in the Bible .

Judah, Judea

The name that is transliterated as “Judah” or “Judea” in English (referring to the son of Jacob, the tribe, and the territory) is translated in Spanish Sign Language as “lion” (referring to Genesis 49:9 and Revelation 5:5). This sign for lion is reserved for regions and kingdoms. (Source: John Elwode in The Bible Translator 2008, p. 78ff. and Steve Parkhurst)


“Judah” and “Judea” 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 .

See also Judah, Judah (son of Jacob) , and Tribe of Judah .

Jerusalem

The name that is transliterated as “Jerusalem” in English is signed in French Sign Language with a sign that depicts worshiping at the Western Wall in Jerusalem:


“Jerusalem” in French Sign Language (source: La Bible en langue des signes française )

While a similar sign is also used in British Sign Language, another, more neutral sign that combines the sign “J” and the signs for “place” is used as well. (Source: Anna Smith)


“Jerusalem” in British Sign Language (source: Christian BSL, used with permission)

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Jerusalem .

dog

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)

Translation commentary on Judith 11:19

I will lead you through the middle of Judea, till you come to Jerusalem: The interpretive question here is whether Judith is offering Holofernes her knowledge of Judean geography (“I will guide you through the central part of the land of Judea to Jerusalem”) or whether she means “I will lead you straight through Judah to Jerusalem.” Since Judith is offering Holofernes her services as a prophet rather than as a guide, the latter interpretation is probably better.

I will set your throne in the midst of it: Good News Translation‘s “I will crown you king” cannot be called wrong, but it is problematic in three ways:

(1) The Greek text does not really say that Holofernes is going to become king.
(2) It implies that Judith will play a formal and public role in the installation of the king.
(3) Nothing is said about a crown, which is an anachronism.

The Greek says “I will set up your chariot,” or more specifically, “I will set up the floorboard of your chariot.” The floorboard of a chariot could be used as a place to sit by facing the rear. It could be used as a seat of authority (New American Bible “your judgment seat”). Several manuscripts read “throne” (New English Bible; New Jerusalem Bible “I will enthrone you”). This is surely an interpretation rather than the original text, but it is probably a correct interpretation. Judith does seem to be offering Holofernes kingship, as Good News Translation says. Further, Judith may well be portraying herself as one who, like Elijah, could choose and install kings. Of course we know Judith is lying here—she has no intention of doing this even if she could—but the idea of having an Israelite prophet install him as king would appeal to the general’s vanity. The problem becomes how to express it; one should avoid “crown.” I will set your throne is not bad, if the reader will not imagine Judith moving furniture around. One may also render it “I will publicly make you king [or, high chief], right there in the middle of the city!” Notice that Judith never mentions Nebuchadnezzar. It is Holofernes that she will make king, not Nebuchadnezzar.

You will lead them like sheep that have no shepherd, and not a dog will so much as open its mouth to growl at you: In using the images of sheep without a shepherd and the dogs not growling, Judith is using pictures from the Scriptures. The significance of them would be caught by the audience, but not by Holofernes. It is as if this scene were being presented on the stage, and when Judith speaks these words to Holofernes, she turns and winks at the audience. The image of sheep without a shepherd is found in Num 27.17 and 1 Kgs 22.17. It refers to people without a leader. In the latter passage the people are leaderless because the king has been killed. Judith is implying by this image, “You will lead them, all right—like any other dead king leads.” She is hinting at Holofernes’ own death. Holofernes would not hear this, of course. He hears only the promise of victory. This means that New Revised Standard Version‘s translation “drive them” or Good News Translation‘s “scatter the people” is more fitting than lead them.

The image of the dog derives from Exo 11.7. This passage gives a description of the morning after the Passover, when all the Egyptians lay dead, but the Israelites are so safe that not even a dog would growl at them. An alternative translation model for these two images is “You will drive [or, scatter] the people of Jerusalem [along] as if they were sheep that have no leader, and not even a dog will growl at you.”

For this has been told me, by my foreknowledge …: The connector For is not needed here. The sentence is a statement claiming that she was told these things beforehand by God. Good News Translation says what has to be said effectively and economically: “God has revealed these things to me in advance and has sent me to report them to you.”

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Judith. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.