Low German translation by Johannes Jessen, publ. 1933, republ. 2006: “steppe”
Yakan: “the lonely place” (source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “a land where no people lived” (source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “the place with no inhabitants” (source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Matumbi uses various term: lubele (desert, sandy place without water) — used in John 11:54, lupu’ngu’ti (a place where no people live, can be a scrub land, a forest, or a savanna) — used in Mark 1:3 et al.), and mwitu (a forest, a place where wild animals live) — used in Mark 1:13 et al.) (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext)
Chichewa Contemporary translation (2002/2016): chipululu: a place uninhabited by people with thick forest and bush (source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Note that in Luke 15:4, usually a term is used that denotes pastoral land, such as “eating/grazing-place” in Tagbanwa (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation).
The Hebrew that is translated as “jackal” in English was translated in the 1900 Kalaallisut (Greenlandic) translation (a newer version was published in 2000) as qimmit nujuartat or “wild dogs.” (Source: Lily Kahn & Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi in The Bible Translator 2019, p. 125ff.)
The name that is transliterated as “Jacob” in English is translated in Finnish Sign Language and American Sign Language with the signs signifying “hairy forearm” (referring to the story starting at Genesis 27:11). (Source: Tarja Sandholm, Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)
“Esau” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Malachi 1:3:
Kupsabiny: “and persecuted Esau. I made the land of Esau become a wilderness where wild dogs/jackals live.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “And I rejected Esau. I made his hill country an empty wasteland, And I gave over his inheritance to the desert jackals.’” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “but on-the-other-hand not Esau. I destroyed his mountains, therefore it only became the dwelling-place of the wild dogs.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “and I disliked/rejected Esau and his descendants. I destroyed the mountain-area that was his country and it became a staying-place of wild animals.’” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
English: “But you reply, ‘In what way have you loved us?’ Yahweh replies, ‘This is how I loved you: It is true that your ancestor Jacob was Esau’s younger brother, and I loved Jacob, but I rejected Esau. I caused his hilly region to become desolate/a place where crops did not grow. I caused the land which he possessed to become a desert where jackals/wolves live.’” (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.
In biblical times and even today there are three species of fox found in Israel and one type of jackal. An additional type of fox was found in Egypt. In the Bible the Hebrew word shu‘al and its Greek equivalent alōpēx refer to any of these animals. These are members of the same animal family which includes the wolf and the dog. The word “jackal” was borrowed from the Arabic jakal which is from the same Semitic root as the Hebrew word shu‘al. In the days of the King James Version the word “jackal” had not yet been introduced into the English language and so in that version “fox” is used throughout for shu‘al.
Click or tap here for the rest of this entry in United Bible Societies’ All Creatures Great and Small: Living things in the Bible
Modern scholars are almost unanimous in agreeing that the word ’iyim (plural of ’iy) is derived from a root meaning “to howl” and that it refers to howling jackals in particular. The word usually occurs in conjunction with the word tsiyim (“hyenas”) which is derived from a root meaning “to wail”. The pair together could justifiably be interpreted as “wild animals wailing and howling.” This is usually taken to refer to hyenas and jackals.
The context will usually indicate which animal is being referred to in a particular passage. It is possible that the fox was known as the small shu‘al and the jackal as the large one.
In early Hebrew the plural form tanin from tan meant a type of snake. This usage is found in Exodus 7:9 et al. The same word was the name of a mythical monster or sea serpent. This usage occurs in Genesis 1:21 et al. However, it is well accepted now that, in later Hebrew, tan is a poetic name for the jackal. It derives from a stem meaning to recite, or lament. In the passages where snakes or the monster tanin is referred to the context usually indicates that it cannot refer to jackals.
Fox: All foxes look like small, long-haired dogs with pointed noses. The Red Fox Vulpes vulpes (also Vulpes flavescens) is now very common all over Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, China, Japan, North America, and Australasia, having been introduced into the latter two continents to be hunted on horseback with packs of dogs. The red fox is a smallish animal, about 1 meter (3 feet) from nose to tip of the tail. It is usually reddish with white underparts and a bushy tail. Red foxes feed mainly on mice and rats but also eat chickens, game birds, and fallen fruit. They may occasionally eat carrion (dead animals), but are not scavengers in the usual sense of the word.
The Desert Fox Vulpes ruppelli and the Egyptian Fox Vulpes nilotica are slightly smaller and yellowish brown, but they are otherwise very similar to the red fox. The Fennec Vulpes zerda is a very small fox with large ears. It is now found in the Middle East and Egypt and was probably found in Israel also in earlier times. It feeds on insects and mice.
Foxes live in pairs, singly or in small family groups when they have young. During the day they live in holes in the ground usually dug by some other animal and come out at night to feed. When chased by dogs they are very clever at escaping, often doubling back on their tracks and then jumping sideways and heading in a new direction, thus confusing the scent trail. They also run up streams and thus avoid laying a scent trail altogether.
Jackal: The jackal found in Israel is the Golden or Oriental Jackal Canis aureus. It is also sometimes referred to as the Indian jackal. This animal is larger than the fox. It is yellowish brown with black tips to the long fur on its back.
Jackals eat almost anything and are great opportunists moving very fast with clever tactics when they have to. They have been known to steal bread from people’s houses and baby animals even from dangerous wild pigs. They are scavengers, eating household rubbish as well as carrion, especially the remains of carcasses killed by lions, but they also eat beetles and birds’ eggs and kill small mammals game birds and domestic chickens and ducks.
In some of the literature there is reference to the fact that jackals live in packs. This is not strictly correct. They live in pairs or small family groups but they may associate temporarily in larger groups when many pairs are attracted to the same burrows, carrion, refuse dumps, or potential prey. In these larger temporary groups they may cooperate and act together like a pack.
Jackals live in burrows made by other animals or in abandoned human houses or shelters and emerge to feed at night. They yap, howl, and wail at great length at the entrance to their burrow, especially on moonlit nights, with one pair triggering a response from neighboring pairs.
Both foxes and jackals are extremely intelligent animals, and their quick-witted, crafty opportunism is legendary in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. The fables of Aesop, a North African philosopher and storyteller, which feature the crafty fox, date from about the time of Daniel. The fox also figures in Greek and Roman fables. Similar fables about opportunistic jackals have been widespread in Africa and the Middle East for centuries.
In ancient Arabic literature and in the Talmud and Midrash the word “lion” stands for a truly great and powerful person. In contrast “jackal” is used to designate an insignificant but self-important person. Since this figurative usage of “lion” (or “lioness”) is also common in the Bible there is a strong probability that the term “jackal” or “fox” used as a metaphor in the Bible for a person carries the connotation of self-important insignificance.
However the main symbolism associated with the jackal in the Bible is related to its habit of living among ruins and feeding on carcasses. To say that a certain place would become the dwelling place of jackals meant that the place would become deserted and lie in ruins, as the result of war. The jackal was thus a symbol of death and desolation as well as insignificance and opportunistic craftiness.
In areas where jackals are known, but not foxes, the word for jackal can be used for both. Similarly, if foxes are known but not jackals, the one word will suffice. In areas where neither foxes nor jackals are found, there may be related animals such as the Coyote Canis latrans or various types of wild dog or small wolf. In those few areas where even these are not found, one may use an expression such as “wild dog” or a transliteration.
Isaiah 13:21f.: In this verse there are four words for howling wild animals that inhabit deserted buildings: tsiyim, ’ochim, ’iyim, tanim . All except tsiyim probably mean “jackal”; however, to maintain the parallelism of the Hebrew poem, it is better to translate both tsiyim and ’iyim as “hyenas”. These verses will then be translated as:
Wailing hyenas will settle there,
Howling jackals will fill their houses.
Hyenas will wail in their fortresses,
And jackals howl in their luxurious palaces.
The word ’ochim occurs only here in the Bible. It is derived from a Hebrew word meaning “to howl”. “Owls” is a possibility, but “jackals” fits the context better, as it then preserves the parallelism of “jackals” and “hyenas”.
Judges 15:4: Since jackals are easier to trap because they are more easily attracted to baits of meat, most modern translations interpret shu‘al as jackal in this passage.
Nehemiah 4:3: Since the fox is smaller and lighter than the jackal, fox is the preferred interpretation here. The meaning is thus something like “Even if a little fox were to climb on these walls they would collapse.” Where foxes or jackals are not known, an expression for a small dog could be used in this context.
Psalms 63:10: Since the reference is to the enemy soldiers dying in battle and becoming carrion (that is, lying unburied), the interpretation of shu‘al should be “jackals”.
Song of Songs 2:15: This verse is very difficult to interpret. While foxes may occasionally eat fallen grapes, or grapes low down on a vine, they cannot accurately be described as “ruiners of vineyards”. It seems more likely that what is in focus is the fact that for Israelites jackals symbolize ruin.
Jeremiah 51:34 : Although many English versions translate tan in this verse as “dragon” or “serpent”, it seems likely that “jackal” is better; jackals often swallow their food in a great hurry without chewing properly, and then vomit it later when they are under cover and eat it a second time more slowly.
“I have loved you,” says the LORD: Here as in 1.6; 3.7 and 3.13, the Assertion element of the dispute is introduced by a quotation formula. In 1.6 and 3.7, it is the longer formula “says the LORD of hosts,” but here and in 3.13 it is only the shorter form says the LORD. Translators should be careful to maintain the distinction. In some languages it will be necessary to put the verb of speaking before the direct quotation, especially at the beginning of the section. Good News Translation makes it clear who the LORD is addressing by adding “[says] to his people.” Contemporary English Version uses direct speech without an introductory formula: “Israel, I, the LORD, have loved you.” Other languages may have a preference for indirect rather than direct speech, but in a book like Malachi which uses dialogue extensively, direct speech should be preserved if at all possible. In languages in which indirect speech is unavoidable, translators could say, for example, “The LORD says that he has loved you.”
The word translated loved is a broad general term appropriate to a covenant relationship. Translators should avoid words that have strong sexual overtones. You is plural and refers to the whole nation. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 1. Edition makes this clear by saying “I love you Israelites,” while Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 2. Edition says “I love you, you people of Israel.”
This sentence constitutes the prophet’s opening Assertion in his dispute with the people. Good News Translation expresses it very emphatically by saying “I have always loved you.” In some languages it may be more natural to express this with a present tense “I love you.” Translators should avoid giving readers the impression that the LORD used to love the people but does not love them anymore.
But you say, “How hast thou loved us?”: There is a strong contrast between the LORD’s Assertion and the people’s Objection, so if translators have a choice of terms for But, they should choose one that conveys the contrast forcefully; one such example is “On the contrary.” You is of course again plural.
The formula you say is used to introduce the Objection element in each dispute. See also 1.6, 7; 2.14 (Revised Standard Version “you ask”), 17; 3.7, 8, 13. In all these places, what follows is a question and translators may prefer to render it as “you ask.” The form How hast thou…? gives an old-fashioned feeling to the Revised Standard Version. This is not in the Hebrew, where the second person singular is normal use when one person is addressed. New Revised Standard Version uses the current English form “How have you…?” as do Good News Translation and most other modern English versions. In languages that make a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person plural, us should be translated as exclusive.
Good News Translation and many other versions expand the question as befits the context to “How have you shown your love for us?” (similarly Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible/Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Contemporary English Version). The people’s doubt arises from their lack of prosperity and political power.
“Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” says the LORD: This sentence begins the Response. It has the form of a negative rhetorical question, and is framed in such a way as to show that the expected answer is “yes.” Thus it has the force of a statement, “You know that Esau was Jacob’s brother,” and so it will be translated that way in a number of languages. The prophet was aware that he could rely on his audience’s knowledge of the history of their ancestors (Gen 25.19-26). Esau and Jacob were in fact twin brothers, and some languages may require this to be stated. Good News Translation restructures the question as a statement: “Esau and Jacob were brothers” (compare New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation), and in cultures where readers are not so familiar with the Old Testament, translators may choose to follow this example. In Hebrew there is no verb in the clause, and Good News Translation has used a past tense “were” rather than the present tense is. A similar change may be necessary in other languages to avoid giving the impression that Esau and Jacob were still alive in Malachi’s own day. The words translated says the LORD are not the same in Hebrew as the words translated in the same way earlier in the verse. The expression that occurs here is not found anywhere else in the book of Malachi. Its discourse function is probably to help mark the beginning of the Response element of the dispute. It is helpful to begin a new paragraph at this point, as do Good News Translation, New International Version, Beck, New Living Translation, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente.
Yet I have loved Jacob but I have hated Esau: Although the names Jacob and Esau are the same as in the previous sentence, they now stand both for the individuals and for the nations descended from them, as is made clear in verse 4. Good News Translation shows this by saying, “Jacob and his descendants … Esau and his descendants.” The descendants of Esau are the Edomites, that is, the people of Edom.
The main problem in translating this sentence lies in the verbs loved and hated. Most English versions use these words, and run the risk of representing the LORD as acting in an arbitrary and unpredictable way. Although the words are used in other contexts of ordinary human emotions, the important feature here is that they are used together to give a sharp contrast, and carry the meaning “I have loved Jacob [and his descendants] more than Esau [and his descendants].” Compare the description of Leah as “hated” in Gen 29.31, when the previous verse has made it clear that she was simply less loved than Rachel. (Compare also the parallel passages in Luke 14.26 and Matt 10.37, the first of which says “hate” and the second “loves … more than.”) This sentence is expressed in New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh as “I have accepted Jacob and have rejected Esau,” and in Contemporary English Version as “I chose Jacob instead of Esau.” Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente expresses this meaning more blandly as “I chose Jacob and not Esau.” In languages where the use of hated is likely to be misunderstood by readers, we recommend that translators should express the meaning in some way similar to New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Contemporary English Version, or Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente. Paul quotes this sentence in Rom 9.13.
Translators should note that in Hebrew there is a stylistic feature called a chiasmus, in which the order of elements within the two clauses is reversed to give an A-B-B-A pattern. The Hebrew order is “I-have-loved (A) Jacob (B), but Esau (B) I-have-hated (A).”
In many languages such a change of order would simply be confusing, but in others it may be retained and may produce a strong rhetorical effect. Translators must consider the stylistic patterns of their own language in deciding whether or not to retain the chiasmus.
I have laid waste his hill country: Laid waste is an old-fashioned expression, which is replaced in New Revised Standard Version by “I have made his hill country a desolation.” Other terms used for “desolation” are “wilderness” (Jerusalem Bible), “desert” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Living Translation), and “wasteland” (New International Version, Beck). Translation models for this clause are “I have devastated the mountainous region occupied by the descendants of Esau, the Edomites” (Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) and “I have caused the … to become a barren wasteland.”
And left his heritage to jackals of the desert: The phrase his heritage refers to the land occupied by the Edomites, and Good News Translation translates it simply as “the land.” Translators should avoid any term for heritage that means that the Edomites literally inherited that land. They could say, for instance, “ancestral land.” Jackals are animals similar to foxes, wolves, or wild dogs. The phrase jackals of the desert shows that these animals live in inhospitable places. The fact that these creatures have taken over the Edomite land indicates the extent to which the land has been ruined (compare Jer 9.11; 10.22; 49.33; 51.37). The phrase is similar in structure to the expressions “the birds of the air and the fish of the sea” in Zeph 1.3. Just as there the descriptive phrases “of the air” and “of the sea” may be redundant in some languages, so here the phrase of the desert may be left out if necessary (as in Good News Translation, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Contemporary English Version has a restructuring of the last two clauses that may be a helpful model to some translators: “I turned Esau’s hill country into a barren desert where jackals roam.” In languages where it is necessary to state the sex of the jackals, translators should note that the Hebrew form is feminine. In cultures where jackals or even wolves are unknown, translators may use a general term; for example, “wild animals.” New English Bible and Revised English Bible do not mention jackals at all. Their renderings are based on the ancient Greek translation, but there is no need to follow this, as the Hebrew makes perfectly good sense.
In point of historical fact, the people of Edom were pushed out of their traditional homeland by invading Nabataean Arabs, probably between 500 B.C. and 450 B.C. It is striking that the prophet does not rely solely on events from the distant past to prove the reality of the LORD’s love for his people. Rather he chooses an event from his own days to show that the LORD’s love is still valid in his hearers’ lifetimes.
Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. & Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Malachi. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2002. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.