lamb

The term that is translated as “lamb” in English is typically translated as “offspring of a sheep” in Ixcatlán Mazatec since there is no specific word for “lamb.” Since this could distract readers with thoughts of God being the sheep when the “lamb” refers to Jesus the translation into Ixcatlán Mazatec chose “little (individual) sheep” for those cases. (Source: Robert Bascom)

In Dëne Súline the native term for “lamb” directly translated as “the young one of an evil little caribou.” To avoid the negative connotation, a loan word from the neighboring South Slavey was used. (Source: NCAM, p. 70)

For the Kasua translation, it took a long process to find the right term. Rachel Greco (in The PNG Experience) tells this story:

“To the Kasua people of Western Province, every four-legged animal is a pig. They call a horse a pig-horse, a cow, a pig-cow, and a sheep, a pig-sheep, because all of these animals have four legs, which is kopolo, or pig, in their language.

“When the translation team would translate the word, ‘sheep’ in the New Testament, they would translate it as ‘pig-sheep’. So when Jesus is referred to as the ‘Lamb,’ (John 1:29; Rev. 12:11; Rev. 17:14), they translated as ‘pig-sheep’ so that in John 1:29 it would read: ‘Behold, the pig-sheep of God.’

“When some members of the translation team attended the Translators Training Course, they had the opportunity to observe and study sheep for the first time. As they watched and learned more about the animals’ behavior, their understanding of these creatures—and God’s Word—rotated on its axis.

“Once during the course, Logan and Konni — the translation team’s helpers — were driving with the team to a Bible dedication when Amos, one of the team members, said passionately, ‘We can’t use the word kopolo in front of the word, ‘sheep’! Pigs know when they’re about to die and squeal and scream.’ The team had often watched villagers tie up pigs so they wouldn’t escape.

“’But,’ Amos said, ‘Jesus didn’t do that.’ The team had learned that sheep are quiet and still when death walks toward them. They had observed, as they translated the New Testament, the words of Isaiah 53 fulfilled: ‘Like a lamb led to the slaughter, he did not open his mouth.’ And now they understood what it meant. For this reason, the team decided not to put pig-sheep in the New Testament for the word ‘sheep,’ but used sheep-animal or, in their language, a:pele sipi.

“The Kasua translation team also chose to discard the word ‘pig’ before sheep because pigs are unclean animals to the Jews. The team knew that Jesus was called the ‘Lamb of God’ in the New Testament to show that he is unblemished and clean. Hopefully the Lord will open up the Kasua villagers’ eyes to these same truths about Jesus as they read of Him in their own language.”

See also sheep.

burnt-offering

The Hebrew olah (עֹלָה) originally means “that which goes up (in smoke).” English Bibles often translates it as “burnt-offering” or “whole burnt-offering,” focusing on the aspect of the complete burning of the offering.

The Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate Bibles translate it as holokautōma / holocautōsis (ὁλοκαύτωμα / ὁλοκαύτωσις) and holocaustum, respectively, meaning “wholly burnt.” While a form of this term is widely used in many Romance languages (Spanish: holocaustos, French: holocaustes, Italian: olocausti, Portuguese: holocaustos) and originally also in the Catholic tradition of English Bible translations, it is largely not used in English anymore today (the preface of the revised edition of the Catholic New American Bible of 2011: “There have been changes in vocabulary; for example, the term ‘holocaust’ is now normally reserved for the sacrilegious attempt to destroy the Jewish people by the Third Reich.”)

Since translation into Georgian was traditionally done on the basis of the Greek Septuagint, a transliteration of holokautōma was used as well, which was changed to a translation with the meaning of “burnt offering” when the Old Testament was retranslated in the 1980’s on the basis of the Hebrew text.

In the Koongo (Ki-manianga) translation by the Alliance Biblique de la R.D. Congo (publ. in 2015) olah is translated as “kill and offer sacrifice.” (Source: Anicet Bassilua)

The English translation of Everett Fox uses offering-up (similarly, the German translation by Buber-Rosenzweig has Darhöhung and the French translation by Chouraqui montée).

See also offering (qorban).

Translation commentary on Numbers 7:78 - 7:83

On the twelfth day Ahira the son of Enan, the leader of the men of Naphtali …: Verses 78-83 are almost identical to verses 12-17 (see the comments there). For Ahira the son of Enan, the leader of the men of Naphtali, see 1.15.

It is clear that Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation have translated verses 12-83 very differently. Revised Standard Version follows closely the arrangement of the Hebrew text. The detailed repetition in the Hebrew may well have served to emphasize how amazingly rich and generous these gifts of the Israelites were for twelve consecutive days. (It is left implied whether or not the offerings were sacrificed immediately every day.) More importantly, this text falls in line with the theology of worship that is expressed in such ritual and commemorative texts in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. They underscore the fellowship that was to prevail between the LORD and his covenant people of Israel. This worship was a communal religious exercise that promoted the unity and harmony of the people among themselves and between this chosen nation and their ever-present God.

This text belongs to the ancient Near Eastern genre of temple accounts, or archives, which listed standard quantities and items in parallel columns. It has been suggested that verses 12-88 match in many respects the list layout of quantities and items as found in ancient Near Eastern cuneiform tablets and inscriptions (so Levine, pages 259-266). As we have noted, the Hebrew employs fewer verbs as the text progresses. This feature fits with such a list structure.

On the face of it, Good News Translation may seem to be an easier model to follow than Revised Standard Version. Good News Translation actually displays a list (of days, tribes and leaders) and this perhaps shows something of the background to the structure of chapter 7. However, the disadvantage is that Good News Translation separates the leaders’ names from the items that they offered. This does not correspond with the list structure in the ancient cuneiform tablets, in which items and persons who offered them are kept together: they are mentioned in one set of parallel columns. The Hebrew text and Revised Standard Version keep the items and leaders together as well. The repetitive sequence may have carried some liturgical significance too as this passage was later recalled in worshipful remembrance of the LORD’s establishment of a place of meeting and worship in the very midst of his chosen people.

In conclusion we recommend that translators follow the textual arrangement of the Hebrew text and Revised Standard Version. However, Revised Standard Version occasionally uses verbs where the Hebrew does not, thus changing the text from a list with enumerations into a more narrative-sounding text. We have already commented on this when it occurs in Revised Standard Version. Where the target language allows, translators should avoid this. Rather, a translation along the lines of Revised Standard Version should be displayed more in accordance with the style of an administrative list (see the model above for verses 24-29). This will also make the translation easier to read when it is printed out on the page. The stereotyped, repetitive nature of the original text should be preserved in translation because in this case, the form calls attention to its function as an official record or list.

Quoted with permission from de Regt, Lénart J. and Wendland, Ernst R. A Handbook on Numbers. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .