camel

The Hebrew, Latin and Greek that is translated in English as “camel” is translated in Muna as “water buffalo.” René van den Berg explains: “Camels are unknown; the biggest known animal is the water buffalo (though now rare on Muna).”

In Bislama is is translated as buluk: “cow” / “bull” (source: Ross McKerras) and in Bahnar as aseh lăk-đa which is a combination of the Vietnamese loan word for “camel” (lăk-đa) and the Bahnar term for “horse” (aseh) to communicate that the camel is a beast of burden (source: Pham Xuan Tin in The Bible Translator 1952, p. 20ff. ).

In the 1900 Kalaallisut (Greenlandic) translation (a newer version was published in 2000) it was translated as ĸatigagtôĸ or “big-backed ones.” “Katigagtôĸ (modern qatigattooq), which has the literal meaning of ‘something with a big back.’ It comprises the noun ĸatigak (modern qatigak) ‘back’ combined with the suffix –tôĸ (modern –tooq) ‘something possessing a big X.’” (Source: Lily Kahn & Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi in The Bible Translator 2019, p. 125ff.)

In Luke 18:25, Mark 10:25, and Matthew 19:24 some versions of the Peshitta translation in Syriac Aramaic (Classical Syriac) show an ambiguity between the very similar words for “camel” and “rope.” Some translations of the Peshitta, therefore, use the “rope” interpretation, including the Classical Armenian Bible (մալխոյ for “rope”), the English translation by George Lamsa (publ. 1933) (It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle), or the Dutch translation by Egbert Nierop (publ. 2020) (het voor een kabel eenvoudiger is het oog van een naald binnen te gaan).

In the above-mentioned three verses, it is translated in Noongar as “kangaroo” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).

 

There were two types of camel known in Bible times the most common being the Arabian Dromedary camelus dromedarius, which was indigenous to the area. The two-humped Bactrian Camel camelus bactrianus was also known and prized, but it was imported from Central Asia.

Camels belong to the same family as the South American llama, vicuna, alpaca, and guanaco, but camels are much larger and have a big fatty hump on their backs. Bactrian camels may reach a height of about two meters (6.5 feet), while dromedaries are even bigger. Dromedaries are a uniform light fawn color, while Bactrian camels are darker, especially in winter when they grow longer fur.

Camels do not have hooves but a large footpad with two broad toes ideally suited to walking on sand. In other ways too they are ideally suited to life in desert areas. They store excess food in their humps and this makes it possible for them to go a long time without eating. Special blood cells also enable them to go without water for long periods. They also have a very efficient digestive system and can extract the maximum amount of nutrition from apparently dry vegetation. This adaptation to harsh environments means that camels can make long journeys through dry areas which would be beyond the abilities of other types of pack animal such as donkeys. Camels were used for riding and for carrying heavy loads. They were also used to pull carts.

In winter the fur of camels thickens and grows longer and then when summer comes they shed their winter fur in large wads. These wads of camel hair are collected and twisted into cords and ropes or spun into thread which is then used for weaving coarse cloth. This cloth was usually used for making tents but it was sometimes used for making outer robes.

Camels’ milk was used as food and drink but their meat was considered unclean by the Israelites.

In spite of the fact that camels were considered to be unclean for food they were a symbol of wealth and commerce. People or nations with many camels were automatically viewed as commercially successful and wealthy as the possession of camels opened up the possibility of transporting goods long distances and engaging in trade.

In areas where camels are not known, the word is often transliterated from Hebrew or the dominant language of the area. However, in some languages descriptive names have been invented. In some South American languages names meaning “hump-backed llama” or “big alpaca with a hump” have been used. Elsewhere expressions such as “hump-backed horse” have been used. A fuller description should usually be included in a glossary or word list.

Source: All Creatures Great and Small: Living things in the Bible (UBS Helps for Translators)

For information on the domestication of camels, see Early camel incidents in the Hebrew Bible .

Click or tap here to see a short video clip about camels (source: Bible Lands 2012)

complete verse (Leviticus 11:4)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Leviticus 11:4:

  • Kupsabiny: “But there are some that chew the cud but the hooves are not divided or one whose hooves are divided but it does not chew the cud. Do not eat a camel because (it) chews the cud but the hooves are not divided. (It) is not clean as far as you are concerned.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “It is, however, not OK to eat animals that only chew the cud or that [have] only split hoofs. For instance, the camel — Although it chews the cud it does not have split hoofs. And for you it is unclean.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “But you (plur.) may- not -eat the animals which chews again their cud/food/what-they-ate but their hooves do-not-have splitting, just-like a camel and a rabbit. You (plur.) also may- not -eat the pig, for even-if its hoof is-split, it does- not -chew again its cud/what- it -ate. You (plur.) are-to-consider these animals dirty/unclean. You (plur.) are- not -to-eat their meat or even touch their dead bodies.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “There are some animals that chew their cuds but do not have split hooves, and some animals that have split hooves but do not chew their cuds. You must not eat any of those animals. For example, camels chew their cuds but do not have split hooves, so they are unacceptable for you to eat.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

formal 2nd person plural pronoun (Japanese)

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.

One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a formal plural suffix to the second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, anata-gata (あなたがた) is used, combining the second person pronoun anata and the plural suffix -gata to create a formal plural pronoun (“you” [plural] in English).

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

Translation commentary on Leviticus 11:4 - 11:6

Nevertheless: the transition word is important here. It marks a sharp contrast between what may be eaten (verse 3) and what must not be eaten (verses 4-6). An American Translation and New Jerusalem Bible have “However,” while New American Bible and Good News Translation have “but.” New International Version attempts to mark the contrast by beginning a new paragraph at this point, but a good translation of the transition word will probably be better in most languages.

You shall not eat: used with the negation, this verb form takes the character of a strong prohibition (compare verse 2), which is made clearer in Good News Translation, “you must not eat.”

The camel: the use of the singular to represent the entire class of animals is common in Hebrew but unnatural and unacceptable in many other languages. It will give the wrong impression if used in translation.

Since camels are unknown in many parts of the world, a borrowed word may have to be used and explained in a footnote or glossary. It is also advisable to use illustrations in order to help the reader. Technically, the word used here refers to a “dromedary,” which has only one hump on its back and is somewhat smaller than a camel. But in ordinary English the term “camel” is used for both the dromedary and the camel. If the receptor language distinguishes between the two, then the word for dromedary should be used.

The animal referred to in English as rock badger is a small grass-eating animal found in the Near East and North Africa. It is about the size of a rabbit and normally lives in groups in rocky terrain. Neither the badger nor the hare actually chew the cud as cows do, but by the way their jaws move they give the appearance of doing so, and for this reason they are excluded from the edible animals. On the other hand, some writers have suggested that the word usually translated hare is really some other animal that actually does “chew the cud.” But this not taken seriously by Old Testament scholars.

There were several species of hare or “rabbits” in Palestine. They are members of the rodent family and have ears that are longer than those of other rodents.

The three animals mentioned here do not constitute a complete list but merely serve as examples. For this reason, in some languages it may be advisable to add “for example” at the most natural place in verses 4-6.

Is unclean to you: this expression is found in verses 5 and 6 in Revised Standard Version but is rendered only once in Good News Translation. The passive construction of Good News Translation leaves implicit the words to you. But this may be translated as in New English Bible, “you shall regard it as unclean.”

Verses 4-6 contain a great deal of repetition which may be eliminated in languages where such style is considered heavy or awkward. Good News Translation provides a good model for reducing the repetition.

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René and Ellington, John. A Handbook on Leviticus. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1990. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .