cattle, livestock

The Hebrew that is translated in English as “livestock” (or “cattle”) is translated in Newari as “living beings brought up in a house” or “living beings cared for in a house” (source: Newari Back Translation). Specifically “cattle” is “cows and oxen.”

In Kwere it is “animals that are being kept.” (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)

complete verse (Joshua 8:2)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Joshua 8:2:

  • Kupsabiny: “You shall destroy that city and its king like how you destroyed Jericho and its king/ruler. But you can take for yourselves the things you plunder from that city and the animals. Encircle that city and take (them) by surprise attacking them from behind.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “Whatever you did to Jericho and its king, you just like that are also to do to Ai and its king. However, the wealth, property that is there and the cattle that are there you can take for yourselves. Be in hiding for the purpose of attacking from behind the city."” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “[You (plur.)] are-to-do to Ai and to its king what you (plur.) have-done to Jerico and to its king; but this time, you (plur.) will-take-away their properties and animals/livestock for yourselves/[lit. your own selves]. [You (plur.)] prepare and [you (plur.)] ambush them at the back of the city.’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “Your army will do to the people of Ai and their king like what you did to the people of Jericho and their king. But this time I will permit you to take all their possessions and keep them for yourselves. But first, tell some of your soldiers to hide behind the city and prepare to suddenly attack it.’” (Source: Translation for Translators)

king

Click here to view graphically

Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin that is translated as “king” in English. Here are some (back-) translations:

(Click or tap here to see details)

  • Piro: “a great one”
  • Highland Totonac: “the big boss”
  • Huichol: “the one who commanded” (source for this and above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Ekari: “the one who holds the country” (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
  • Una: weik sienyi: “big headman” (source: Kroneman 2004, p. 407)
  • Pass Valley Yali: “Big Man” (source: Daud Soesilo)
  • Ninia Yali: “big brother with the uplifted name” (source: Daud Soesilio in Noss 2007, p. 175)
  • Nyamwezi: mutemi: generic word for ruler, by specifying the city or nation it becomes clear what kind of ruler (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
  • Ghomála’: Fo (“The word Fo refers to the paramount ruler in the kingdoms of West Cameroon. He holds administrative, political, and religious power over his own people, who are divided into two categories: princes (descendants of royalty) and servants (everyone else).” (Source: Michel Kenmogne in Theologizing in Context: An Example from the Study of a Ghomala’ Christian Hymn))

Faye Edgerton retells how the term in Navajo (Dinė) was determined:

“[This term was] easily expressed in the language of Biblical culture, which had kings and noblemen with their brilliant trappings and their position of honor and praise. But leadership among the Navajos is not accompanied by any such titles or distinctions of dress. Those most respected, especially in earlier days, were their headmen, who were the leaders in raids, and the shaman, who was able to serve the people by appealing for them to the gods, or by exorcising evil spirits. Neither of these made any outward show. Neither held his position by political intrigue or heredity. If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior. If the shaman failed many times in his healing ceremonies, it was considered that he was making mistakes in the chants, or had lost favor with the gods, and another was sought. The term Navajos use for headman is derived from a verb meaning ‘to move the head from side to side as in making an oration.’ The headman must be a good orator, able to move the people to go to war, or to follow him in any important decision. This word is naat’áanii which now means ‘one who rules or bosses.’ It is employed now for a foreman or boss of any kind of labor, as well as for the chairman of the tribal council. So in order to show that the king is not just a common boss but the highest ruler, the word ‘aláahgo, which expresses the superlative degree, was put before naat’áanii, and so ‘aláahgo naat’áanii ‘anyone-more-than-being around-he-moves-his-head-the-one-who’ means ‘the highest ruler.’ Naat’áanii was used for governor as the context usually shows that the person was a ruler of a country or associated with kings.”

(Source: Faye Edgerton in The Bible Translator 1962, p. 25ff. )

See also king (Japanese honorifics).

formal 2nd person plural pronoun (Japanese)

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 formal plural suffix to the second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, anata-gata (あなたがた) is used, combining the second person pronoun anata and the plural suffix -gata to create a formal plural pronoun (“you” [plural] in English).

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

Translation commentary on Joshua 8:2

Ai and its king are to be completely destroyed, as were Jericho and its king. (It should be noticed that the story of the fall of Jericho [6.20-25] does not expressly state that its king was put to death, but it is implied in 6.21.) This time, however, the Israelites will be allowed to keep its goods and livestock. The Hebrew noun translated goods is literally “plunder” and may refer to any removable goods taken in battle, including prisoners (see 1 Sam 30.19). In the present context it would refer to any physical objects which may be hauled away, but not to prisoners, since all the people of the city are condemned to destruction. The word translated livestock refers basically to cattle, though sheep and other domesticated animals would also be included. However, one should be careful not to select a term which specifically indicates unclean animals such as pigs.

The Lord tells Joshua the strategy he is to follow: the Israelites are to lie in ambush behind the city, that is, to the west of it (see verses 9 and 12), so as to attack it by surprise. The translation should not imply that Joshua is commanded to line up all his men behind the city to attack it by surprise. As the unfolding of the account will indicate, only part of Joshua’s force was placed behind the city in ambush. In order to make this clear, one may translate “Secretly place some of your men behind the city, so that they can come out and attack it by surprise at the right time.”

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Newman, Barclay M. A Handbook on Joshua. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .