23Then Ornan said to David, “Take it, and let my lord the king do what seems good to him; see, I present the oxen for burnt offerings and the threshing sledges for the wood and the wheat for a grain offering. I give it all.”
The Hebrew that is translated as “offering” in English is translated in Venda as nduvho. J. A. van Rooy (in The Bible Translator 1974, p. 439ff. ) explains: “It is derived from the verb u luvha (‘to pay homage to; to acknowledge the superiority of; at the same time usually asking for a favour’). It is sometimes used as a synonym for ‘asking something from a chief. The noun nduvho means ‘a gift of allegiance,’ which corresponds closely with minchah (מִנְחָה) as ‘offering of allegiance.’ This term nduvho has in it the elements of subjugation, of reciprocity (asking for a favor), of being taken up into the same community as the chief in allegiance to him. Only the element of expiation is missing.”
In Northern Emberá, it is translated as “given to God freely.” (Source: Loewen 1980, p. 108)
The Hebrew that is translated as “threshing sledge” in English is translated in Bura-Pabir as sur dəga or “threshing thing.” “It is good to use this quite general term here, since it is a hyperonym (more general term) for both the Hebrew and Bura cultural variants (a sledge and a stick respectively).” (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
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 GreekSeptuagint and the LatinVulgate 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) and in Elhomwe as “fire offering.” (Source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
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).
Two kinds of wild wheat have grown in the open deciduous oak woodland in the northern part of the Fertile Crescent for several thousand years: Einkorn Wheat Triticum monococcum and Emmer Wheat Triticum dicoccum. Both came into cultivation together with barley. Just before the time of the Romans, the Naked Bread Wheat or Hard Wheat Triticum durum started replacing the hulled varieties. This then became the favorite type of wheat for bread and macaroni. Spelt is a sub-member of the Triticum aestivum species.
In New Revised Standard Version, updated edition and some other versions, the generic Hebrew word bar has been rendered “wheat” in Jeremiah 23:28 et al. This is legitimate, since the grain referred to by bar was probably wheat. However, it might be better to say “grain” in these passages.
The most important early wheat for the Israelites was emmer, probably the only wheat known in Egypt, and referred to in Hebrew as chittah. However, according to Hepper (Baker Encyclopedia of Bible Plants: Flowers and Trees, Fruits and Vegetables, Ecology. Baker Book House, 1992), the seven-headed wheat of the Egyptian king’s dream (Genesis 41:5ff.) suggests that there may also have been Triticum turgidum (rivet wheat) in the emmer group. The Hebrew word kusemeth probably refers to a type of emmer wheat that the Egyptians called swt.
Wheat is a type of grass like rice and barley, growing to around 75 centimeters (2.5 feet) in height and having a head with many small grains in rows.
Bread made from wheat was the staple food for the people of ancient Israel, so God punished them by breaking “the staff of bread” (see, for example, Ezekiel 4:16).
If wheat is unfamiliar, translators can transliterate from a major language in non-rhetorical contexts (for example, English witi, Portuguese trigo, French ble or froment, Swahili ngano, Arabic kama/alkama). The transliteration may add a generic tag such as “grain.” The New Testament passages are mostly rhetorical, opening the possibility for a metaphorical equivalent.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 1 Chronicles 21:23:
Kupsabiny: “Then Araunah said to David, ‘Lord, take this place for nothing and do as you want. Look, I have even given you the oxen for sacrifices that are burned completely and the things I beat with to become firewood. I am also giving you wheat for the sacrifices of food that are given as gifts (grain offering).’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “Araunah said to David, "Please take it, Great King! And do what you like [with] it. I will give you oxen for the burnt offering, the wood planks of this threshing floor for burning, and wheat for the grain offering. I will give you all of this."” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “Arauna said to David, ‘Okay, take-it, Beloved King. Do whatever is good for you (sing.). I will- also -give you (sing.) a cow in-order to-be-offered as a burnt offering, boards which are-being-used to thresh for firewood, and wheat in-order to-be-offered as a gift offering. Yes, I will-give all this to you (sing.) as free.’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “Araunah replied, ‘Take it! Your majesty, do whatever you want to. I will give you the oxen that thresh the grain for an offering to be completely burned on the altar. And I will give you the threshing boards to use as wood on the altar, and I will give you grain for a grain offering. I will give all those things to you.’” (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 to do this is through the usage of lexical honorific forms, i.e., completely different words, as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, nasaru (なさる), the respectful form of suru (する) or “do,” is used.
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 to do this is through the usage (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In this verse, o-kini mesu (お気に召す) is used, combining “please” or “do me a favor” (kini mesu) with the respectful prefix o-. Also, the honorific prefix go- (御 or ご) is used in go-ran (ご覧), a combination of “behold / see” (ran) and the honorific prefix go-.
Other uses of honorifics in this verse include:
Lexical honorific forms, i.e., completely different words, such in this verse sashiageru (差し上げる), a respectful form of ageru (あげる) or “give,” add another level of honorifics.
The choice of a benefactive construction. Here, nasatte (なさって) or “do” and goran (ご覧) or “see/behold/look” n combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).”
The imperative construction shows the honorific form kudasai (ください), reflecting that the action is called for as a favor for the sake of the beneficiary. This polite kudasai imperative form is often translated as “please” in English. While English employs pure imperatives in most imperative constructions (“Do this!”), Japanese chooses the polite kudasai (“Do this, please.”).
Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin that is translated as “king” in English. Here are some (back-) translations:
Ninia Yali: “big brother with the uplifted name” (source: Daud Soesilio in Noss 2007, p. 175)
Nyamwezi: mutemi: generic word for ruler, by specifying the city or nation it becomes clear what kind of ruler (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Ghomála’: Fo (“The word Fo refers to the paramount ruler in the kingdoms of West Cameroon. He holds administrative, political, and religious power over his own people, who are divided into two categories: princes (descendants of royalty) and servants (everyone else).” (Source: Michel Kenmogne in Theologizing in Context: An Example from the Study of a Ghomala’ Christian Hymn))
Faye Edgerton retells how the term in Navajo (Dinė) was determined:
“[This term was] easily expressed in the language of Biblical culture, which had kings and noblemen with their brilliant trappings and their position of honor and praise. But leadership among the Navajos is not accompanied by any such titles or distinctions of dress. Those most respected, especially in earlier days, were their headmen, who were the leaders in raids, and the shaman, who was able to serve the people by appealing for them to the gods, or by exorcising evil spirits. Neither of these made any outward show. Neither held his position by political intrigue or heredity. If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior. If the shaman failed many times in his healing ceremonies, it was considered that he was making mistakes in the chants, or had lost favor with the gods, and another was sought. The term Navajos use for headman is derived from a verb meaning ‘to move the head from side to side as in making an oration.’ The headman must be a good orator, able to move the people to go to war, or to follow him in any important decision. This word is naat’áanii which now means ‘one who rules or bosses.’ It is employed now for a foreman or boss of any kind of labor, as well as for the chairman of the tribal council. So in order to show that the king is not just a common boss but the highest ruler, the word ‘aláahgo, which expresses the superlative degree, was put before naat’áanii, and so ‘aláahgo naat’áanii ‘anyone-more-than-being around-he-moves-his-head-the-one-who’ means ‘the highest ruler.’ Naat’áanii was used for governor as the context usually shows that the person was a ruler of a country or associated with kings.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.