birds of the air

The Greek, Ge’ez, and Hebrew phrases that are often translated as “birds of the air” or similar in English “refer to the undomesticated song birds or wild birds, to be distinguished in a number of languages from domesticated fowl. In Tzeltal these former are ‘field birds’.” (source: Bratcher / Nida)

Q’anjob’al also uses an established term for non-domesticated birds. Newberry and Kittie Cox (in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 91ff. ) explain: “Qʼanjobʼal has two distinct terms, one to identify domesticated birds and the other non-domesticated birds. The additional descriptive phrase ‘of the air’ seemed entirely misleading, for Qʼanjobʼal speakers had never heard of such creatures. Actually, of course, all that was necessary was the term for non-domesticated birds, for that is precisely the meaning of the Biblical expression.”

In Elhomwe they are just translated as “birds” or “birds of the bush” (i.e., wild birds) to “not give the impression that these are special type of birds.” (Source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext)

See also birds of the air / fish of the sea and birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

wild animal / wild beast

The Hebrew, Latin, Ge’ez, and Greek that is translated in English as “wild animal” or “wild beast” is translated in Newari as “animal that lives in the jungle.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)

faithful

Click here to view graphically

The Greek, Hebrew, and Ge’ez that is rendered as “faithful” in English is (back-) translated in various ways:

See also faith / believe.

complete verse (Psalm 79:2)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Psalm 79:2:

  • Chichewa Contempary Chichewa translation, 2002/2016:
    “They gave the corpses of your servants
    to the birds of the sky as food,
    the bodies of your saints to the beasts of the earth.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
  • Newari:
    “They have left the bodies of your people for the vultures to eat.
    They have left the corpses of your servants for the wild animals to eat.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon:
    “They fed the dead-body/corpses of your (sing.) faithful servants to the birds and cruel animals.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • Laarim:
    “They left the bodies of your people,
    for the vultures to eat them,
    and wild animals ate your holy people.” (Source: Laarim Back Translation)
  • Nyakyusa-Ngonde (back-translation into Swahili):
    “Wamezitupa maiti za watumishi wako,
    ili wale ndege wa katika anga,
    miili ya watakatifu wako kuwa chakula cha fisi.” (Source: Nyakyusa Back Translation)
  • English:
    “Instead of burying the corpses of your people whom they killed,
    they allowed vultures and wild animals to eat the flesh of those corpses,” (Source: Translation for Translators)

servant / slave

While the Greek term doulos in the New Testament and ‘ebed in the Old Testament refer to slightly different concepts (unlike in New Testament Judea in Old Testament Israel and Judah, Hebrew servants/slaves were required to be released after six years of labor and, regardless of when they started their servitude, all Hebrew servants were to be automatically freed during the year of Jubilee), translation issues are somewhat similar.

Joel Baden (2025, p. 65ff.) says this about the Hebrew term used in the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible:

“The English words ‘servant’ and ‘slave’ have decidedly different connotations. ‘Servant’ has the sense of ‘employee.’ ‘Slave,’ by contrast, carries with it the ideas of an owned and controlled body, of violence and dishonor. The connotation of ‘servant’ can verge on the positive; ‘slave’ is predominantly negative. How a reader of the Bible understands the identity of a character or the relationship between one character and another or the world of ancient Israel depends significantly on whether the word ‘servant’ or ‘slave’ is used. In Hebrew, however, there is but one word underlying every occurrence of ‘servant’ and ‘slave’ in our modern translations. The distinction between the two exists only on the level of interpretation.

“It is not a matter of mere nomenclature. Take the story of Genesis 24, in which Abraham sends his servant off to find a wife for Isaac. The servant — though the main character of the passage — has no name and is identified only by his title, which he even uses to introduce himself: ‘I am Abraham’s servant,’ he says (Genesis 24:34, Jewish Publication Society). This is often read as a warm story about a devoted servant — usually imagined to be relatively old — who carries out the elderly patriarch’s final wishes. How does it change, how do we reimagine it, when we read all thirteen mentions of Abraham’s servant as, in fact, Abraham’s slave? We know Abraham has slaves: His ‘servant’ even says so in this very chapter in the very next verse: ‘The Lord has greatly blessed my master, and he has become rich: he has given him sheep and cattle, silver and gold, male and female slaves, camels and asses’ (24:35, JPS). Yet generations of translators, interpreters, and readers have failed to connect the slaves (the property with which God has blessed Abraham) and the servant — the slave who is the protagonist of this same story.

“When slaves are turned into servants, the Bible itself is changed. Our revulsion at the institution of slavery is kept at a distance from the biblical text that stands as our religious heritage. The Bible is protected, albeit from itself. Slavery is minimized, or worse: The King James Version, notably, does not translate ‘ebed as ‘slave’ a single time. The result? Some KJV readers have denied that there is any slavery in the Bible whatsoever. Yet the word ‘ebed appears around 800 times in the Bible. That’s 800 moments when a slave, and the existence of slavery in ancient Israel and the biblical text, has been erased.

“The social role that we associate with the term ‘servant’ didn’t exist in ancient Israel. Slaves, however, did. Israel knew what it was to be a slave, and Israel knew, too, what it was to own a slave. And thus Israel uses the language and metaphor of slavery again and again to express the basic notions of obedience, of power disparity, of bodily control and the absence of agency. Samuel says to Yahweh upon being called, ‘Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening’ (1 Samuel 3:9, JPS). ‘Let my lord go ahead of his servant,’ Jacob says to Esau in Genesis 33:14 (JPS). Rendered as ‘servant’ in every translation, this is a sort of formally obsequious, self-abnegating speech. While literal slavery is not at stake in these sorts of expressions, the metaphorical reference to the relative status of slave and master is lost when it is translated as ‘servant.’

“So, too, when those figures who are the ‘ebed to a king are referred to as ‘courtiers,’ ‘officials,’ ‘attendants,’ ‘soldiers,’ ‘subjects,’ ‘envoys,’ ‘ministers,’ or even sometimes simply ‘men,’ of the king. These are all translations of the same word, and the instinct to specify their distinctive roles in the royal court is understandable. Yet in doing so, translations obscure the actual language with the connotations that it presents: subordination, threat of violence to one’s person, absolute control over will and agency. And so, too, when it is not a human king but God to whom one is said to be ‘ebed. In the book of Joshua, God states, ‘My servant Moses is dead’ (1:2, JPS) — we are relatively comfortable with the idea of serving God but perhaps less so with the idea of being God’s slave. Yet the qualities of obedience, subservience, and loyalty — and the implicit threat of punishment for the lack thereof — are part of this picture as well. One might point to the way this language is picked up in the New Testament in the phrase ‘slave of Christ’ in 1 Corinthians 7:22.

“If ‘servants’ and ‘slaves’ are not understood to be equivalent — and in modern English it is safe to say that they are not — then every time that the word ‘ebed appears, a choice has to be made by the translator. The diminishment of the very word ‘slave’ in English translations of the Hebrew Bible results in the diminishment of the idea and reality of slavery in the Bible and in the world that produced it. Though there is no debate to be had about whether there was slavery in the Bible and in ancient Israel, a lay reader of the text in translation might well wonder.

“Our ears, and eyes, have become accustomed to seeing the word ‘servant’ in the Bible. ‘Slave’ often sounds wrong, inapt, almost harsh. Yet it is just this discomfort that signals how important the change is. Whenever we encounter the word ‘servant’ in our English translations, we should be obliged to ask why it says ‘servant’ and not ‘slave’ — and what difference it would make to our reading of the text as an individual, as a community, and as a culture if we were instead to read ‘slave.’”

Ruden (2021, p. lviii) says this about the Greek term in the New Testament:

“In Judea, servitude was sui generis and could be complicated, and accordingly the Greek vocabulary in scripture is varied. But there appears to be no basis for sugarcoating the word meaning a chattel slave in nearly all Greek literature, doulos. It is unlikely that the internationally oriented authors of the Gospels didn’t mean what their peers meant by the word — ‘slave.’ Also, the English word ‘servant’ is too vague for the array of servitors (including trusted house slaves and personal attendants), military and administrative subordinates, and ritual helpers the Greek of the Gospels distinguishes.”

Some English New Testament translations (Ruden 2021, Hart 2017, The Orthodox New Testament 2004) have consistently used slave for the Greek doulos but no Old Testament translation consistently translates ‘ebed with only one term.

In a number of leading German translations, including the Catholic Einheitsübersetzung (1980 / 2016) and the Protestant Elberfelder Bibel (1871 / 2006), BasisBibel (2021), as well as the translation by Luther (all editions) use the term Knecht throughout. Knecht is an old-fashioned term for a low-class, often agricultural servant with little or no social mobility, a position that is somewhat located between Diener (“servant”) and Sklave (“slave”). The only times these versions specifically don’t use Knecht is where slavery is specifically in the focus (such as Leviticus 25:44 or Philemon 1:16).

addressing God

Translators of different languages have found different ways with what kind of formality God is addressed.

Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or modern English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.

As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator 2002, p. 210ff. ), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.

In these verses, in which humans address God, the informal, familiar pronoun is used that communicates closeness.

Voinov notes that “in the Tuvan Bible, God is only addressed with the informal pronoun. No exceptions. An interesting thing about this is that I’ve heard new Tuvan believers praying with the formal form to God until they are corrected by other Christians who tell them that God is close to us so we should address him with the informal pronoun. As a result, the informal pronoun is the only one that is used in praying to God among the Tuvan church.”

In Gbaya, “a superior, whether father, uncle, or older brother, mother, aunt, or older sister, president, governor, or chief, is never addressed in the singular unless the speaker intends a deliberate insult. When addressing the superior face to face, the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́ or ‘you (pl.)’ is used, similar to the French usage of vous.

Accordingly, the translators of the current version of the Gbaya Bible chose to use the plural ɛ́nɛ́ to address God. There are a few exceptions. In Psalms 86:8, 97:9, and 138:1, God is addressed alongside other “gods,” and here the third person pronoun o is used to avoid confusion about who is being addressed. In several New Testament passages (Matthew 21:23, 26:68, 27:40, Mark 11:28, Luke 20:2, 23:37, as well as in Jesus’ interaction with Pilate and Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well) the less courteous form for Jesus is used to indicate ignorance of his position or mocking.” (Source Philip Noss)

In the most recent Manchu translation of 1835 (a revision of an earlier edition from 1822), God is never addressed with a pronoun but with “father” (ama /ᠠᠮᠠ) instead. Chengcheng Liu (in this post on the Cambridge Centre for Chinese Theology blog ) explains: “In Manchu tradition, as in Chinese etiquette, second-person pronouns could be considered disrespectful when speaking to superiors or spiritual beings. Manchu Shamanist prayers avoided si [‘you’] and sini [‘your’] for this very reason. To use them for God would be, in Lipovzoff’s [one of the two translators] words, ‘the most uncouth and indecent way to speak to the Almighty — as if He were a servant or slave.’ There was also a grammatical problem. In Manchu, si and sini could refer to both singular and plural subjects. For a faith that insisted on the singularity of God, this was potentially confusing. By contrast, repeating ama removed any ambiguity.”

In Dutch, Afrikaans, Gronings, and Western Frisian translations, God is always addressed with the formal pronoun.

See also formal pronoun: disciples addressing Jesus, female second person singular pronoun in Psalms.

Translation commentary on Psalm 79:1 - 79:2

The psalmist describes the destruction wrought by the invading enemy. For the heathen see comments on 2.1, where the same Hebrew word is rendered “the nations.” In this verse heathen refers to foreigners, invaders, and in some languages a term such as “foreign enemies,” “other tribes,” or “strangers” may be used. “Invaded your land” may sometimes have to be recast to say “have attacked us to take away your land” or “have come to take away the land you gave us.” For inheritance see 16.6; however, here it is the property of God, not of the people, and so Good News Translation has “your land.”

Line b of verse 1 has the same meaning as 74.7b; defiled translates a different verb, but the meaning is the same. We can only speculate about the specific things the enemy did to make the Temple unfit for worship to Yahweh. But if the whole city was in ruins, the Temple could hardly have escaped destruction. Defiled in the sense of making taboo or unfit for worship may be rendered “they have made your holy Temple unclean so that people cannot worship you.” If the sense of such a translation refers to physical uncleanliness, then it is better to say “they have destroyed your holy Temple.” For translation suggestions on “holy” related to the Temple, see comments on “holy sanctuary” in 28.2.

The corpses of the dead Israelites had been left unburied, which was a final indignity and disgrace (see Eccl 6.3; Jer 14.16; Tobit 1.17-18). In verse 2 thy servants and thy saints are synonymous; they refer to the people of Israel in general, not to any specific group. For thy saints see comments on the same term translated “the godly” in 4.3. Good News Translation has “your people” first, in order to help the reader understand that “your servants” in the next line means the same thing. If the translator finds it difficult to avoid servants and saints being understood as two different groups, it may be necessary to reduce them to one and say, for example, “They left the bodies of your people for the vultures and the wild animals to eat” (see Biblia Dios Habla Hoy).

The birds of the air in verse 2a are birds of carrion, such as “vultures.” Of the air and of the earth are set expressions used many times in the Old Testament. These qualifiers do not specify the kinds of birds or animals, but the context makes clear that they refer to “vultures” and “wild animals.”

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Reyburn, William D. A Handbook on the Book of Psalms. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1991. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .