The word chazir is used for domestic and wild pigs. The domesticated pig was known in Egypt around 2500 B.C. and was probably domesticated in Canaan about that time too. Domestication of wild pigs seems to have coincided everywhere with the development of agriculture. Wild pigs were probably penned in large enclosures and fed scraps, thus keeping them away from planted fields. Later on, when full domestication had taken place, it was more usual for pigs to be herded rather than kept in pens. Pigs eat almost anything and herding did away with the necessity to feed them. It soon was noticed that the rooting activity of the pigs rid areas of tree roots and shrubs and promoted the growth of grass for grazing. So early swineherds herded the pigs into areas where future grazing was wanted, away from planted fields. Jews who kept pigs may not have done so with the idea of eating their meat, which was unclean, but to promote grazing grass and to sell the pigs to neighboring tribes.
Wild pigs, in the form of the European Boar Sus scrofus, were once abundant in Israel, especially in the Jordan Valley. Even now since neither Jews nor Moslems eat the meat of wild pigs, and thus do not hunt them, they can still be found in the Jordan Valley and in many other areas where there is both water and thick undergrowth.
The Greek words choiros and hueios mean “pig” or “pig meat”. The word hus means a female pig or sow.
The domesticated pigs of biblical times looked much more like wild pigs than the modern breeds of pig. They would have been brown or gray in color and fairly hairy. The young pigs probably had horizontal stripes.
Of all animals the pig was considered the most unclean.
In languages that differentiate between wild and domestic pigs, in Psalms 80:13 the word for a wild pig should be used. In 2 Peter 2:22, although the Greek specifies a female pig, the gender of the pig is not really important in the proverb. Many translations have simply “pig”.
Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)
The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).
For this verse, translators typically select the exclusive form (excluding Jesus).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
Following are a number of back-translations of Matthew 8:31:
Uma: “The demons that were possessing [lit., riding] those people asked Yesus, they said: ‘If you (sing.) must cause-us-to-go-away from here, order us to enter those pigs over there.'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “The demons begged Isa, they said, ‘If you command us to leave, cause us to go into the bodies of those pigs.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “The demons begged Jesus, they said, ‘If you drive us out, permit us to go into those pigs.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “so the evil-spirits pleaded with Jesus saying, ‘If you (sing.) cause-us (excl.) -to-leave, please send us (excl.) to those pigs so that we (excl.) will possess them.'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “The evil spirits begged-for-mercy from Jesus. They said, ‘If you are going to drive us out of these people, allow us to transfer to those pigs.'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “The evil spirits said to Jesus: ‘If you want that we leave these men here, then give us permission that we enter to the hearts of the pigs over there.'” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
German translation by Fridolin Stier (1989): “false (or: perverted) spirit (Abergeist).
Adioukrou: abŋ ŋuŋ, originally “evil spirit (‘the spiritual/invisible part of a person that leaves the body at death, not an independent spirit being’).” “Exactly what abŋ ŋuŋ evokes for Adioukrou is the question. One thing Adioukrou know is that when a person’s abŋ leaves his or her body after death, it can enter someone else and speak through them to reveal the cause of death, a practice forbidden by the church. It is clear to all that abŋ eŋuŋ in Scripture is not speaking of this, however, because contexts that involve evil spirits in Scripture do not involve the Adioukrou post-mortem interrogation of a corpse. (…) Although the expression abŋ ŋuŋ is made up of Adioukrou words, it does not refer to a category in the Adioukrou worldview.” (Source: Hill 2006)
Sissala: kaŋtɔŋ, which traditionally referred to “either a spirit of natural phenomena such as trees, rivers, stones, etc., or the spirit of a deceased person that has not been taken into the realm of the dead. Kaŋtɔŋ can be good or evil. Evil kaŋtɔŋ can bring much harm to people and are feared accordingly. A kaŋtɔŋ can also dwell in a person living on this earth. A person possessed by kaŋtɔŋ does not behave normally.” (Source: Regina Blass in Holzhausen 1991, p. 48f.)
Umiray Dumaget Agta: hayup or “creature, animal, general term for any non-human creature, whether natural or supernatural.” Thomas Headland (in: Notes on Translation, September 1971, p. 17ff.) explains some more: “There are several types of supernatural creatures, or spirit beings which are designated by the generic term hayup. Just as we have several terms in English for various spirit beings (elves, fairies, goblins, demons, imps, pixies) so have the Dumagats. And just as you will find vast disagreement and vagueness among English informants as to the differences between pixies and imps, etc., so you will find that no two Dumagats will agree as to the form and function of their different spirit beings.” This term can also be used in a verb form: hayupen: “creatured” or “to be killed, made sick, or crazy by a spirit.”
Yala: yapri̍ija ɔdwɔ̄bi̍ or “bad Yaprija.” Yaprijas are traditional spirits that have a range presumed activities including giving or withholding gifts, giving and protecting children, causing death and disease and rewarding good behavior. (Source: Eugene Bunkowske in Notes on Translation 78/1980, p. 36ff.)
Lamnso’: aànyùyi jívirì: “lesser gods who disturb, bother, pester, or confuse a person.” (Source: Fanwong 2013, p. 93)
Paasaal: gyɩŋbɔmɔ, “beings that are in the wild and can only be seen when they choose to reveal themselves to certain people. They can ‘capture’ humans and keep them in hiding while they train the person in herbalism and divination. After the training period, which can range from a week to many years, the ‘captured’ individual is released to go back into society as a healer and a diviner. The gyɩŋbɔmɔ can also be evil, striking humans with mental diseases and causing individuals to get lost in the wild. The Pasaale worldview about demons is like that of others of the language groups in the area, including the Northern Dagara [who use kɔ̃tɔmɛ with a similar meaning].” (Source: Fabian N. Dapila in The Bible Translator 2024, p. 415ff.)
In the still widely-used 1908 Tswana (also: Setswana) translation (by Robert Moffat, revised by Alfred Wookey), the term badino or “ancestor spirit” is used for “demon,” even though in the traditional understanding there is nothing inherently negative associated with that term. Musa Dube (in: Journal of Society of New Testament 73, 1999, p. 33ff. ) describes this as an example of “engaging in the colonization of the minds of natives and for advancing European imperial spaces. The death and burial of Setswana culture here was primarily championed through the colonization of their language such that it no longer served the interests of the original speakers. Instead the written form of language had equated their cultural beliefs with evil spirits, demons and wizardry. This colonization of Setswana was in itself the planting of a colonial cultural bomb, meant to clear the ground for the implantation of a worldwide Christian commonwealth and European consciousness. It was a minefield that marked Setswana cultural spaces as dangerous death zones, to be avoided by every intelligent Motswana reader or hearer of the translated text.”
In Kachin, the term Nat (or nat) us used for “demon” (as well as “devil” and “unclean/evil spirit“). Like in Tswana, the meaning of Nat is not inherently negative but can be positive in the traditional Nat worship as well. Naw Din Dumdaw (in The Bible Translator 2024, p. 94ff.) argues that “the demonization of Nat created a social conflict between Kachin Christians and Kachin non-Christians. Kachin converts began to perceive their fellow Kachins who were still worshipping Nats as demonic and they wanted to distance themselves from them. Likewise, the Nat-worshiping Kachin community perceived the Kachin converts as betrayers and enemies of their own cultural heritage. (…) The demonization of the word Nat was not only the demonization of the pre-Christian religion but also the demonization of the cultural heritage of the Kachin people. When the word Nat is perceived as demonic, it creates an existential dilemma for Kachin Christians. It distances them from their cultural traditions.”
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 benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.
Here, okutte (送って) or “send” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).” (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
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 usage of an honorific construction where the morpheme are (され) is affixed on the verb as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, s-are-ru (される) or “do/reckon” is used.
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®).
In verse 29 the demon-possessed people address Jesus; here the demons themselves speak to him. This is the only place in the New Testament where this particular word for demon is used. Earlier Matthew used the more common word for demon (7.22), and in the following chapter he does so again (9.33-34). Elsewhere in the Gospel demons are mentioned in 10.8; 11.18; 12.24, 27, 28; and 17.18. Despite this fact, translators will normally use the same word they did in verse 28.
Begged, if not readily translated, can be “plead with” or “asked him fervently.”
If you cast us out is stated in such a way in Greek as to indicate that the demons were certain that Jesus was going to drive them out. It may therefore be rendered “Since you are going to cast us out” or “We know you’re going to cast us out.” For cast … out, see comments on verse 16 and on 7.22.
No reason is given why the demons requested that Jesus allow them to enter the herd of pigs. It may be that they needed some physical bodies from which to carry out their activities. However, the request of the demons was self-destructive, because the pigs rushed down the cliff into the lake and were drowned. The implication is that the demons were destroyed at the same time.
Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1988. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.