“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).
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 God).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
Following are a number of back-translations of Romans 8:36:
Uma: “It is written in the Holy Book long ago like this: ‘O Lord, there is no ceasing of people wanting to kill us (excl.) because of our (excl.) following of you (sing.). We(excl.) are considered domestic animals that are cared for inorder to be slaughtered.'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “These sufferings/difficulties of ours (dual) are written in the holy-book saying, ‘Because of our (excl.) following/obeying you, God, we (excl.) are always in danger of going to be killed. The people consider us (excl.) as if we (excl.) were sheep going to be slaughtered.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “For there is a written word of God that says, ‘Since we believed in you, we are always about to be killed by people. We are like a domestic animal sheep that’s about to be butchered, because we are expecting at any time, to be killed.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Hardships like these are exactly what that which God caused-to-be-written is talking about which says, ‘Because of you (sing.), Lord, we (excl.) face death continually. We (excl.) are considered like sheep who are close to being butchered.'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Written in the Holy Book is this word: ‘The people hate us because we believe in you, daily they want to kill us. They want to kill us like they kill sheep’ it says.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Translators of different languages have found different ways with what kind of formality God is addressed.
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight
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 Translator2002, 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.”
Before the time of Abraham at least five breeds of sheep had already been developed in Mesopotamia. From mummified remains (that is, preserved dead bodies) and ancient art it is also known that at least two different breeds had reached Egypt by about 2000 B.C. Thus it is likely that the sheep mentioned in the Bible were of more than one breed.
The Hebrew word kar seems to be used of imported foreign sheep and may refer to a special breed but some scholars think it refers to a wether (castrated ram), since this word is never used in the context of sacrifice. This word is also used for a battering ram, that is, a heavy pole suspended on a rope, used in war for breaking down walls. ’Ayil is the word for a ram or adult male sheep, rachel is a breeding ewe or female sheep, and taleh is a very young lamb, probably still unweaned. The remaining Hebrew words refer to sheep in general.
The Greek word probaton is the general word for sheep, or flocks that may include goats. Krios is the Greek word for a ram or male sheep. Pascha is a technical name for the Passover lamb exclusively, and the remaining Greek words all mean lamb. Ovis is the Latin word for sheep.
Click or tap here for the rest of this entry in United Bible Societies’ All Creatures Great and Small: Living things in the Bible.
The early Hebrews were nomadic shepherds to whom sheep were the most important domestic animal. While goats eat almost any vegetation, sheep are much more selective about the grasses and plants they eat. This meant that suitable grazing for them was not always easy to find, and shepherds had to keep moving their flocks from place to place. This led to a nomadic lifestyle, with movable tents rather than houses being the normal household shelter. It was not until the occupation of Canaan after the Exodus that the lifestyle of the Israelites changed, and they became settled village-dwelling farmers and fruit growers.
However, even then, most households owned sheep, and some family members would function as shepherds, often living away from home for fairly long periods.
Sheep in the Bible were a source of meat, milk, wool, hides, and horns, and it seems likely that various strains were bred selectively to enhance production of these commodities. Wool is mentioned in the Bible as early as the Mosaic Law, which forbade the weaving of cloth containing both wool and plant fibers. The shearing of sheep is mentioned even earlier, in Genesis 31:19. Wool was in fact the most common and available fiber known to the people of Israel.
There was a very extensive wool trade in biblical times, stretching from Egypt to China. In the Middle East wool was cheaper than cotton or linen, which were the other common fibers. (Silk was known by the time of Solomon, but it was extremely expensive as it was produced in China and handled by numerous traders on its way west.) It would be a mistake to think of all wool at that time as being white, as Genesis 30 indicates quite clearly that there were also dark colored sheep and sheep that had dark and light patches, probably varying combinations of black, white, and brown.
We can be fairly sure that one breed of sheep known to the Israelites was the Fat-tailed Sheep Ovis laticaudata and that its fatty tail is referred to in Exodus 29:22, Leviticus 3:9 et al.
Rams’ horns had a variety of uses. Whole ram horns were used as drinking vessels, jars, and trumpets. But pieces of horn were used as handles for knives and other household implements, and for jewelry such as bracelets and beads. Needles too, and probably also arrow heads, were made from horn, as well as from bone and later from bronze and iron.
Sheep were also very important in Israelite religion. They were a very important element in the sacrificial system and in the traditional religious feasts, especially the Feast of Passover.
Sheep and goats belong to the same general family. They differ in that sheep produce wool, which is a special type of soft hair, among the ordinary hairs on their bodies. A ram’s horns too differ in shape from a goat’s horns, those of a ram curling down in a tight spiral beside its face, with those of a goat curving more gently back towards its shoulders. The sheep of biblical times produced much shorter wool than is common with wool-bearing breeds of today.
The fat-tailed or broad-tailed sheep is a smallish breed usually brown and white with a very broad tail. Like most other breeds of sheep in the Middle East it has large floppy ears.
Sheep are generally fairly timid animals, lacking the self-confidence and adaptability of goats. While goats will spread out in their search for food and then regroup without much difficulty, sheep become very insecure when they are separated from other sheep and tend to stay bunched together. They thus require a lot of shepherding. In the Middle East the method of shepherding involves training the dominant ram to follow the shepherd. The remaining sheep then follow this dominant ram, which often wears a wooden clapper or a bell. As they feed, the sheep usually keep within earshot of this sound. It is likely that this method is centuries old.
In most modern breeds only male sheep have horns, but in most ancient breeds female sheep had short horns too. This made separating sheep from goats in a single flock more difficult than it is today.
Of all animals the sheep was the most important for the Israelite nation. It had great religious, social, and economic importance.
The metaphor of a lamb is used in the New Testament to refer to Christ, with an emphasis on his being a sacrifice for the sin of the world. This is especially the case in John’s gospel and Revelation. In the latter book the metaphor is introduced in a very striking way. In Revelation 5:5 as the writer is mourning the fact that no one can be found to open the scroll, he is comforted by one of the elders who tells him that “the Lion of the tribe of Judah” has triumphed and can thus open the scroll. Then the writer, expecting to see the Lion, sees instead a Lamb that looks as if it has been killed for sacrifice. The remainder of the book is then concerned with describing the triumph of this Lamb over the forces of evil.
In the gospels Jesus also refers to his disciples as “sheep” and “lambs” (Matthew 10:17; John 10:1 et al.).
The metaphor of the shepherd is extended to God himself who is the ultimate “Shepherd of Israel” (Psalms 23:1; 80:1). Then those who are responsible for the nurture, guidance, ruling, and protection of Israel, be it kings, prophets, or priests, are also likened to shepherds (Isaiah 56:11; Jeremiah 23:4; 49:19; Ezekiel 34:2; Zechariah 10:2).
The Messiah is also called a shepherd (Isaiah 40:11), and Jesus refers to himself as “the good shepherd” (John 10:11). In Hebrews 13:20 he is referred to as “the great shepherd of the sheep” and in 1 Peter 2:25 he is called “the Shepherd and Guardian of your lives”.
In languages that have a word for sheep, it is advisable to translate according to the meanings given above. If possible, the feminine forms should be translated as “female lamb” or “female sheep”. In languages in which sheep are not known, a word has usually been coined or borrowed by the time Bible translation begins, and this word should be used. It is not advisable to substitute another locally well-known animal in this case, since doing so negates the ritual and symbolic importance that sheep had for the biblical cultures.
In translating Psalms 23:1 it is extremely important to make sure that the phrase “my shepherd” preserves the relationship intended by the writer and reflects the psalmist’s theme that Yahweh is his benefactor, protector, and guide. There are really two metaphors involved in the opening verse-the caring shepherd (God) and by clear implication, the dependent sheep (the psalmist). In many languages the literal phrase “my shepherd” depicts a wrong relationship, meaning something like “the one who looks after my sheep” or “the one I employ to watch my sheep.” In many African languages unwary translators have produced a rendering that means “The Chief is (nothing more than) my herdsman.” It is often necessary to restructure the whole verse as something like “I am a sheep, and the lord is my shepherd.”
Paul sees in the Old Testament a witness, not only to Christ’s sufferings, but to the suffering of his people, and he quotes from Psalm 44.22 as proof of this. We are in danger of death is literally “we are being put to death” (An American Translation*). In 1 Corinthians 15.31 Paul says “I die every day,” but what he obviously means is I face death every day. The Good News Translation assumes that Paul uses the verb “to be put to death” with a similar meaning in the present passage. The first clause in the quotation may be translated in some languages as “every day people threaten to kill us because of you.”
Sheep that are going to be slaughtered is actually a genitive expression “sheep of slaughter,” but there is no doubt regarding the meaning and the Good News Translation has made the relation clear. An active equivalent of this passive expression may be “people treat us just like sheep which they are going to slaughter” or “people treat us badly, as they treat the sheep which they are going to kill.”
Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1973. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
As: Here this word indicates a comparison between experiencing any of tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, danger, or death by sword (8:35b–c) and “for Your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered” (8:36b–c). The Scripture supports Paul’s implied statement that believers experience tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, danger, and death by sword. In some languages it is more clear to make the implied statement explicit. For example:
⌊We experience those/such things,⌋ as
-or-
Hardships like these are exactly what that which God caused-to-be-written is talking about which says
-or-
We are like this written talk of God
it is written: This Psalm was written more than 500 years before Paul wrote the letter to the Romans. In some languages a literal translation would wrongly indicate the quote was written at the same time as Paul wrote here. If that is true in your language, indicate it was long before Paul wrote. For example:
it was written ⌊long ago⌋
This clause refers to what was written in the Old Testament. Some languages must explicitly say that to make that clear. For example:
as scripture says (Good News Translation)
-or-
it says in the Holy Book
See how you translated this phrase in 1:17 or 4:17.
In 8:36b, the word “Your” refers to God. In some languages it would be more clear to indicate to whom the writer is writing. For example:
someone wrote ⌊to God⌋ ⌊in Scripture⌋
8:36b
For Your sake we face death all day long: The phrase For Your sake is emphasized by being first in the clause. Some languages must have this phrase in its normal place. For example:
We are being killed all the day long for your sake
For Your sake: This is a quote from Psalm 44:22. The writer spoke on behalf of himself and his fellow Jews. They willingly faced danger in order to stand strong for God. Paul used it here to refer to himself and his fellow believers who did the same thing. Here are other ways to translate this phrase:
For you (Contemporary English Version)
-or-
because we believe in you
You should not refer explicitly to Jews or believers to explain “we” here.
we face death: The Greek verb here is more literally “we are killed.” This clause is passive. Some languages must use an active clause here. For example:
⌊others⌋ are killing us
The present tense indicates that the killing continues.
all day long: This phrase indicates that the killers kill at any time of day (or night). Here the words all day long are general and refer to any day. Here are other ways to translate this phrase:
at all times (Good News Translation)
-or-
all the day (New American Bible, Revised Edition)
8:36c
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered: There is no connecting word at the beginning of 8:36c to connect it to 8:36b, but the context implies a connection between the two. Both sentences refer to the same event: enemies of God killing his people. So languages need to make the connection explicit. For example:
⌊It is also like this:⌋ we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered
we are considered: This clause is passive. Some languages must use an active clause. For example:
⌊they/people⌋ consider us
sheep to be slaughtered: This clause is passive. Some languages must use an active clause. For example:
sheep for ⌊them⌋ to slaughter
sheep: The animals called sheep are tame. They usually stay in groups. They weigh 40 to 60 kilograms. They eat plants. Here the writer of this psalm referred to sheep because they are easy to kill. They do not run away or fight back.
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.