He said in the presence of his brethren and of the army of Samaria: Sanballat’s comments of ridicule and insult were spoken to the people around him in order to gain their support. His brethren refers not literally to his blood brothers but to the people who supported him and who agreed with him in their opposition to the Jews. They were his allies. Bible en français courant calls them “his compatriots,” New International Version says “his associates,” and Contemporary English Version says simply “his friends.”
The army of Samaria may refer to an official Persian garrison, although Samaria was not a military colony. Or this may have been a local militia. Sanballat as the governor of Samaria undoubtedly had some kind of troops under his command. It is therefore preferable to translate “the troops of Samaria” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), “the soldiers of Samaria” (Bible en français courant) or “the forces of Samaria” (Nouvelle Bible Segond), instead of implying that Samaria possessed an organized army that was able to wage war.
Sanballat asked five questions of ridicule, all implying negative answers and leading to the conclusion that the Jews could not accomplish what they had set out to do. These are not questions that he was asking to obtain information about the Jews and their capabilities. They are rhetorical questions that were filled with disdain for the Jews and irony regarding their undertaking. He was not reporting events as a messenger would do. In Hebrew the questions are short and direct and they are reported as direct quotation for dramatic effect.
What are these feeble Jew doing?: First, Sanballat asked what these feeble Jews were doing. The word feeble has pejorative connotations here. It translates a Hebrew word that may be used to describe plants that are drooping or fading. By ridiculing the Jews as being feeble or “pathetic” (New Jerusalem Bible), Sanballat was saying that they were powerless compared to the size of the task before them. Good News Translation restructures this question and adds the idea of “thinking” to make Sanballat’s meaning more explicit (also New English Bible).
Will they restore things?: Second, he asked if they would be able to restore things. This question in Hebrew includes a preposition plus a pronoun form that might be translated “for themselves.” This may be interpreted to emphasize the irony in Sanballet’s question; for example, “Will they restore [things] for themselves?” (similarly New American Standard Bible) or “Will they for their part restore [things]?” He implied that they would not be able to repair the wall or to rebuild the city by themselves since that would require professional help. Some commentators interpret the verb rendered restore to mean “abandon.” New Jerusalem Bible translates “Are they going to give up?” Traduction œcuménique de la Bible interprets “Will they be allowed to do it?” Other commentators interpret the question as “Are they going to leave it all to God?” (Blenkinsopp 1988 and Williamson 1985). The Handbook recommends that translators follow the interpretation in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation.
Will they sacrifice?: Third, he asked if they would sacrifice. This may refer to a sacrifice that was made at the laying of a foundation or to an offering of thanksgiving that was made at the dedication when a project is completed. He scoffed at their expectation that they could accomplish such a project. Whichever sacrifice Sanballat was referring to, this question ridicules their worship and their faith in God. Bible en français courant links this question with the preceding one by translating “Will they complete their project and offer sacrifices to God?”
Will they finish up in a day?: Fourth, he asked if they could finish up in a day. He implied that although they might begin the work quickly, it would be a long and difficult task that they would not be able to carry through to the end. Good News Translation links the third and fourth questions into a single sentence (so also New English Bible). The question regarding sacrifices may be linked either with the preceding question, or with this question, or it may stand alone. It is suggested that the last two questions be linked together.
Will they revive the stones out of the heaps of rubbish, and burned ones at that?: Finally, he asked a very practical question to show the impossibility of their task. Where would they find the stones to rebuild the wall? These are not just rocks from a hillside, but specially cut stones for constructing the wall again. Literally, Sanballat asked if they would revive the stones. Would they be able to make the stones from the original wall live again? Would they be able to “put new life into stones” (New Jerusalem Bible) that had become rubbish heaps? This final question ends dramatically as it draws attention to the previous fate of these stones: burned ones at that. The Jews would need to quarry new stones because the old ones had been burned and weakened by fire. In some cultures rock is considered to be unaffected by fire. The translator must then translate to render clearly the sense of Sanballat’s ridicule to the reader; for example, “stones that fire has made weak” or “stones that fire has charred to be useless.”
In some languages it will be necessary to rephrase these rhetorical questions in the following way: “These Jews are weak people, isn’t it so? They will never be able to do anything, will they? They will never be able to restore things for themselves, will they…?” In some languages exclamatory sentences with emphatic particles may be used as follows: “These feeble Jews think they will do something, oh! They think they will rebuild things for themselves, huh…!”
Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Nehemiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .