pig

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”.

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

complete verse (2 Peter 2:22)

Following are a number of back-translations of 2 Peter 2:22:

  • Uma: “There is a parable that says like this: ‘The dog eats its vomit again, the pig that is bathed goes and wallows again in the mud.’ That parable is so very appropriate for those people earlier, for they have returned [emphatic] to the evil that they had left behind the other day [lit., yesterday].” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “Their doing is like this saying says, ‘The dog eats what he has vomited,’ and ‘The pig that has been bathed goes back to wallow/immerse in the mud.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “By means of them is fulfilled the saying which says, ‘The dog ate what he vomited, and the washed pig wallowed again.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “What has happened to him, it confirms the truth of two proverbs (proverbio) which say, ‘A dog eats again what he vomited’ and ‘Even though you (sing.) bathe a sow, it goes again to roll-in-the-mud.'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “So surely if it’s like that, they are the ones to whom the saying applies (lit.hits) which says, ‘The dog is eating after all what he vomited already.’ And another, ‘A pig, even though it has just been bathed, will indeed go and wallow again.'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “Thus have done these peole according to the proverb which says, ‘The dog again eats the vomit he has vomited. The pig which was washed again gets into the smelly mud.'” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

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.

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 2 Peter 2:22

Peter ends his indictment of the false teachers by applying to them two proverbs that were obviously popular during that time. These proverbs appropriately explain what really happened to the false teachers. While there are two proverbs mentioned, Peter simply describes these as the true proverb; it may be better in translation to talk of two proverbs rather than one.

A proverb is a popular saying drawn from the world of nature, or of animals, or of ordinary human relationships, and which is used to express a certain truth demonstrated in the life of people, both individually and in their relation with others. In Hebrew the proverb is usually a doublet; that is, it consists of two lines, with the second line reinforcing the first, either as a parallel or in contrast to it. The important thing for translators at this point is to recognize the literary form of the proverb in their own language, together with its function, and then to translate these proverbs according to the demands of their language. For example, if a proverb is usually poetic in form in a language, then these two sayings should, as far as possible, be translated according to that poetic form. If a proverb usually has two lines, then these proverbs should also consist of two lines in the translation.

The first proverb deals with a dog and his vomit. The quotation here is from Prov 26.11, although there are some variations. The point of the saying is that a dog may get rid of its filth (represented by the vomit) but cannot resist going back to it, to sniff at it or even to eat it. The second proverb is about a pig and mud. The message seems to be that no matter how clean a pig becomes, it always goes back to dirty itself in the mud, because part of the pig’s nature is to wallow in mud to keep cool. This second proverb is not found in the Bible, but there are similar proverbs that are common both in Greek and Rabbinic literature. Both proverbs use animals that were considered by Jews as dirty and ritually unclean. This reminds the readers of Peter’s description of the false teachers as “irrational animals” in verse 12 (and see also verse 16), which is now made worse by their being compared to unclean dirty animals. The message of both proverbs is clear: the false teachers had once become clean through the forgiveness of their sins, but they have now gone back to wallow in the immorality and wickedness that characterized their pagan past. See the similar statement in 1.9.

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Second Letter from Peter. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

SIL Translator's Notes on 2 Peter 2:22

2:22

Peter ended his criticism of the false teachers by saying that what they had done was the same sort of stupid behavior as that of the dog and the pig in two proverbs which would have been well-known to the readers of Peter’s letter. It will be necessary for you to study the form of proverbs in your language, and then to translate these proverbs in the same style so that they sound like proverbs.

Paragraph 3:1–2

Peter said that he was writing this letter to remind them of what the prophets and the Lord Jesus, speaking through his apostles, had said.

3:1a

Beloved: You should try to find a term that you would use in your language to express affection for someone.

second letter: The first letter may have been the one we know as 1 Peter. But Peter probably wrote several letters while he was one of the church leaders, so we cannot be certain about this.

3:1b

reminders: Peter said here, as he had said in 1:12, that he wanted to remind the Christians to whom he was writing of what Christian teachers had taught them, so that they would not forget it.

to stir you to wholesome thinking: The Greek text says: “to rouse of-you…the pure mind.” There are two ways of understanding this part of the verse:

(1) He wanted to stimulate them to think pure and correct thoughts, rather than allowing the false teachers to contaminate their thoughts.

(Berean Standard Bible, New International Version (2011 Revision), Revised English Bible, Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version)

(2) The expression “the pure mind” means that their minds were already pure/sincere. “Rouse” means that Peter was wanting to strengthen their pure minds by reminding them of what the prophets and the Lord had said.

(King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New Century Version, Phillips’ New Testament in Modern English)

The difference between the two interpretations is slight. It is recommended that you follow the first interpretation, as Berean Standard Bible has done.

© 2000 by SIL International®

Made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA) creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0

All Scripture quotations in this publication, unless otherwise indicated, are from The Holy Bible, Berean Standard Bible. BSB is produced in cooperation with Bible Hub, Discovery Bible, OpenBible.com, and the Berean Bible Translation Committee.