Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Isaiah 1:3:
Kupsabiny: “Even an ox knows its owner, a donkey knows where it is being fed. But Israel does not know me, my people have no understanding, please!’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “[Even] a bull recognizes his master, and a donkey recognizes his master’s feeding crib, but Israel does not recognize me. My own people do not understand anything.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “Even the oxen/cows know their master, the donkeys know-(their)-way-to the trough that their master feeds- them -from, but Israel my people does- not -know me.’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “Oxen know their owners, and donkeys know who provides food for them, but my Israeli people do not know me; they do not realize that I am the one who takes care of them.’” (Source: Translation for Translators)
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 first person singular and plural pronoun (“I” and “we” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. The most commonly used watashi/watakushi (私) is typically used when the speaker is humble and asking for help. In these verses, where God / Jesus is referring to himself, watashi is also used but instead of the kanji writing system (私) the syllabary hiragana (わたし) is used to distinguish God from others.
The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “donkey” in English was translated in the 1900 Kalaallisut (Greenlandic) translation (a newer version was published in 2000) as siutitôĸ or “‘something with big ears.” “[This] is based on the word siut ‘ear’ combined with the same suffix –tôĸ (-tooq).” (Source: Lily Kahn & Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi in The Bible Translator 2019, p. 125ff.)
These Hebrew and Greek words (with the exception of pōlos and hupozugion — see discussion below) all definitely refer to the Domestic Donkey equus asinus. However the different words do have slight semantic differences among them.
Chamor and onos are the generic words for donkey while ’athon (feminine gender) refers specifically to a saddle donkey or a donkey used for riding. A saddle donkey is usually a large strong female donkey the males are too difficult to control when they are near a female in heat. The Hebrew word is derived from a root that means “strong”.
‘Ayir refers to the young male or jack donkey (probably with an emphasis on its liveliness and the difficulty in controlling it since the Hebrew root means something like “frisky”).
Onarion means a young donkey of either sex. Some languages will have a special word for a young donkey. This will be appropriate for translating onarion.
The word hupozugion often translated “donkey,” actually indicates any beast of burden. Walter Bauer, the famous German New Testament scholar, has argued very convincingly that the animal referred to in Matthew 21:5 in the expression epi pōlon huion hupozugiou is the foal of a horse not a donkey (1953:220-229). In some languages it will be possible to express this in a way that does not designate a specific species of animal`, as in “beast of burden.”
Pōlos usually refers to a foal, that is a young horse, unless a word for donkey follows.
Donkeys are domestic animals belonging to the same family as the horse, but they are smaller and have longer ears. The donkey bred and used in the Middle East is the domesticated Nubian or Somali Wild Ass Equus Asinus africanus. In its original wild state this was a gray ass with pale, whitish belly and dark rings on the lower part of the legs. It was domesticated in Egypt as early as 2500 B.C. In its domesticated version, as a result of interbreeding with donkeys from Europe and Persia, the donkey came to be a variety of colors from dark brown, through light brown to the original gray and occasionally white. The Hebrew chamor comes from a root meaning “reddish brown.”
Donkeys are good pack animals being able to carry as much as the larger mule without the latter’s unpredictable moods. They also have great stamina and are easy to feed since they eat almost any available vegetation. Larger individual animals (usually females) are also often used for riding.
Donkeys were highly prized in biblical times especially females since they were suitable for packing and riding and had the potential for producing offspring. Donkeys were seen as man’s best friend in the animal kingdom. They were the common man’s means of transport and many ordinary families owned a donkey. They were used for plowing and for turning large millstones as well as a means of transport.
Today domestic donkeys are found all over savannah Africa the Middle East South and Central Asia Europe Latin America and Australia. They do not seem to be reared in rain forest or monsoon areas but they are nevertheless often known in these areas.
A donkey was considered to be a basic domestic requirement and thus the number of donkeys available was a means of measuring the relative prosperity of a society at any given time. While only powerful political or military people rode horses (which were usually owned by the state) the common people rode donkeys. This is the significance of the passage in Zechariah 9:9: the victorious king would return to the city riding a donkey thus identifying himself as a common Israelite rather than a victorious warlord.
In the majority of languages there is a local or a borrowed word for donkey. This is the obvious choice. In areas of Southeast Asia, Papua New Guinea, West Africa, and other places, where donkeys are rare or unknown, the word from the dominant major language or trade language (for example, English, Spanish, French, Chinese, or Arabic) is often transliterated.
In most contexts ’athon should be translated by the equivalent of “female” donkey, but in some contexts riding donkey is better.
‘Ayir should be translated according to the specific context. In Genesis 32:15 the translation should definitely be the equivalent of “male donkey”, and probably also in Judges 10:4 and Judges 12:14. The significance of these latter passages is that female donkeys were the more normal choice of mount.
In Job 11:12 the emphasis is probably on the friskiness of the donkey, and the translation should be the equivalent of “He ties his young donkey to a grapevine, his frisky young ass to the best of the vines” (indicating a certain amount of irresponsibility, and perhaps extravagance).
In Job 11:12 and Zechariah 9:9 the obvious emphasis is on the youth of the donkey, so the equivalent of “colt”, “foal”, “young donkey”, and so on should be used.
This verse opens with the quotation of a traditional saying, drawn from rural life, about two kinds of animals. These animals are contrasted in the second half of the verse with Israel. By means of this contrast, Yahweh makes it very clear how foolish and rebellious his people are. The ox and the donkey have a relationship with those who own and feed them, but this cannot be said of Israel. Besides the overall parallelism of the two parts of the verse, each half of the verse is in parallel form as well. In the first half of the verse the ox is parallel to the ass, and the owner is parallel to the master’s crib; the verb knows serves both lines (it is left implicit in the second line). In the second half of the verse there are also two pairs: Israel and my people, and not know and not understand. As for translation, we note that the conciseness of Revised Standard Version reflects the Hebrew text closely. Translators should examine if poetic effect can be achieved in the receptor language through being as concise as the Hebrew. Making an appropriate word choice is then the next issue. The demands for clarity and naturalness should never be forgotten, of course.
The ox knows its owner: The ox is not known for its intelligence, but even it is able to recognize its owner. Although the Hebrew text has The ox, its meaning is general and can be rendered “an ox” or “oxen.”
And the ass its master’s crib: The ass is supposedly less intelligent than the ox but even the ass knows where to find the food provided by its master. Ass in some English dialects has become an impolite term. That is why many versions use “donkey[s]” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, New Revised Standard Version). As in the previous line, the definite article the on the word ass does not refer to one specific donkey but to any donkey or all donkeys. Although the verb “know” is not specified here, it is implied from the first line. If translators have to use a verb in this line, they may as well use a slightly more specific word like “recognize.” This will provide variety and intensify the meaning, both of which are characteristics of Hebrew poetic parallelism.
If the ox and the ass are not known in the receptor language, translators probably should not use the names of other animals considered to be rather dumb by the receptor-language culture. The danger of introducing elements or concepts in the translation that do not match the culture of Old Testament times would be too great. Translators may use more general terms, such as “bull” (Good News Translation “Cattle”) in the first line, and “domestic animal” or “animal used to carry burdens” in the second line. However, long phrases should be avoided if possible.
Crib is an old English term for a “feeding trough” or “manger” (New International Version, New American Bible [New American Bible]). The expression its master’s crib does not simply mean that the master owns the feeding box, but that the food placed in it for the donkey is provided by the animal’s owner. Contemporary English Version keeps the focus on the owner rather than on the act of feeding by rendering the first two lines as “Oxen and donkeys know who owns and feeds them.” Another option for the second line is “and the donkey knows where his master feeds him” (compare Good News Translation).
But Israel does not know: The contrast between the ox and donkey and the Israelites is indicated both by the introductory contrastive particle but as well as by the negative verb phrase does not know. The fact that the proper noun Israel comes at the head of the sentence in Hebrew shows that it is being emphasized—it is Israel that does not know, not some other group. The verb know in Hebrew carries more meaning than just having knowledge; it refers to a relationship. What is it that Israel does not know? The text does not say. The examples in the first half of the verse refer to an owner and a master. Therefore we can assume that a similar idea is present in the application here: Israel does not know its master, the LORD. If translators have to provide an object for the verb know, they may add “its master” or “me.” Good News Translation provides this object in an indirect way with “But that is more than my people Israel know.”
Israel does not refer to the northern kingdom of Israel, which is called “Ephraim” later in the text (see 7.2), but it is used here to designate all of God’s covenant people. Although Isaiah’s main focus is Judah and Jerusalem (see 1.1), both the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah are included here. Generally, it is difficult if not impossible for translators to bring out either one or the other meaning of the word Israel. When it is important in certain contexts to be precise, it may be necessary to include a footnote. This is not necessary here since the context is sufficiently clear.
My people does not understand: My people is parallel to Israel and is often used in combination with it (see, for example, 1 Sam 2.29; Jer 7.12). The expression my people is rich in meaning, because it is a direct reference to the covenant relationship between Yahweh and Israel. The verb phrase does not understand is parallel to does not know, but it also carries the implied meaning of the people being rather foolish. These two phrases are parallel and synonymous; translators should realize that this is intended as a means of emphasis. In many languages the same kind of repetition may provide that emphasis. Good News Translation often reduces two parallel and synonymous phrases to a single one, but it does not do so here. If an object is needed for the verb understand, translators could be explicit by saying “my people do not understand me” or “… anything.”
Alternative models for this verse are:
• Even an ox knows its owner,
and a donkey knows its master’s feedbox.
Israel, on the other hand, doesn’t know me;
my people don’t understand anything!
• [Even] cattle know who their owner is, and donkeys know [where to find] their master’s feedbox, but Israel doesn’t know [its master]. My people don’t understand [anything]!
Quoted with permission from Ogden, Graham S. and Sterk, Jan. A Handbook on Isaiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2011. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.