Sheep or Cattle?

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

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.