Sheep or Cattle?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Spoudazo, Feb 16, 2005.

  1. Spoudazo

    Spoudazo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Note:
    The verb in this verse is "poimaino"
    Meaning: to act as a shepherd (UBS Dictionary)

    There is no word for "sheep" (probaton)
    "Meaning: 1) any four footed, tame animal accustomed to graze, small cattle (opp. to large cattle, horses, etc.), most commonly a sheep or a goat 1a) a sheep, and so always in the NT" (UBS Dictionary)

    The eclectic text (UBS) and the TR (1894 edi.) both read the same, so why the difference? It's as if the KJV translators had another reason for putting cattle? Maybe an earlier English translation caused this? Just thinking out loud. Anyway have any ideas, facts, etc? [​IMG]

    God bless
    [​IMG]

    KJV Luke 17:7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?

    NAS Luke 17:7 "But which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, 'Come immediately and sit down to eat'?

    NIV Luke 17:7 "Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, 'Come along now and sit down to eat'?

    NKJ Luke 17:7 "And which of you, having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, 'Come at once and sit down to eat'?
     
  2. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV is a revision of the Bishops' Bible. The Bishops' has "cattle" in this verse, as does the Geneva, Coverdale's, Tyndale's, etc. So that's where it came from in the KJV. BTW, Wycliffe's has oxen. The word carries more of a connotation of feeding than any specific kind of animal.
     
  3. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just a note, cattle can include sheep. From the venerable 1828 ;)

    CATTLE, n.

    1. Beasts or quadrupeds in general, serving for tillage, or other labor, and for food to man. In its primary sense, the word includes camels, horses, asses, all the varieties of domesticated horned beasts or the bovine genus, sheep of all kinds and goats, and perhaps swine. In this general sense, it is constantly used in the scriptures. See Job 1. 3. Hence it would appear that the word properly signifies possessions, goods. But whether from a word originally signifying a beast, for in early ages beasts constituted the chief part of a mans property, or from a root signifying to get or possess. This word is restricted to domestic beasts; but in England it includes horses, which it ordinarily does not, in the United States, at least not in New-England.
     
  4. Spoudazo

    Spoudazo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, so my guess was right I suppose. Thanks for the help [​IMG]
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    This is kinda like the "unicorn" thingy involving the Hebrew 're'em'. Whike WE know the horse-like unicorn with one spiral horn on its forehead is mythical, the AV translators did NOT know this. AND...KJ's royal coat-of-arms he made after taking the British throne includes this unicorn from his Scottish COA, as well as the British lion. We really can't dispute the KJV's use of 'unicorn', but neither can the KJVOs dispute the later versions' use of 'wild ox', etc.
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Perhaps a couple other examples will show how the KJV uses the word "cattle" with this old and broader meaning.

    At Isaiah 7:25c, the same Hebrew word translated "sheep" in the KJV 18 times and "lamb" 16 times is translated "lesser cattle" in the KJV.
    The 1380's Wycliffe's Bible, the 1535 Coverdale's, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops' Bible all have "sheep."

    Again at Isaiah 43:23, the same Hebrew word is now translated "small cattle" in the KJV.
    The Geneva Bible again has "sheep," but Coverdale's and Great Bibles have "young beasts."
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I have no problem with this issue. "Cattle" had a much broader meaning in the 17th century than it does today. I think this is probably one of those non-issues in the debate. Today the word has been refined to only include livestock in the genus Bos where once it could refer to all livestock. The KJV translators chose a perfectly valid translation so wrote in Luke 17v7 - "But which of you hauing a seruant plowing, or feeding cattell, will say vnto him by & by when he is come from the field, Goe and sit downe to meate?
    ."

    As good a translation as "sheep." This is a case where both word are correct.
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    I believe "livestock" would cover it all. However, that word wasn't in extensive use 400 years ago and earlier. I agree w/C4K that both renderings are correct and it's really a non-issue for either side of the versions discussion.
     

Share This Page

Loading...