13Go in at once to King David and say to him, ‘Did you not, my lord the king, swear to your servant, saying, “Your son Solomon shall succeed me as king, and he shall sit on my throne? Why then is Adonijah king?” ’
In Bauzi “swear” can be translated in various ways. In Hebrews 6:13, for instance, it is translated with “bones break apart and decisively speak.” (“No bones are literally broken but by saying ‘break bones’ it is like people swear by someone else in this case it is in relation to a rotting corpse’ bones falling apart. If you ‘break bones’ so to speak when you make an utterance, it is a true utterance.”) In other passages, such as in Matthew 26:72, it’s translated with an expression that implies taking ashes (“if a person wants everyone to know that he is telling the truth about a matter, he reaches down into the fireplace, scoops up some ashes and throws them while saying ‘I was not the one who did that.'”). So in Matthew 26:72 the Bauzi text is: “. . . Peter took ashes and defended himself saying, ‘I don’t know that Nazareth person.'” (Source: David Briley)
The Hebrew, Latin and Greek that is transliterated as “Solomon” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with the sign for “wise” referring to 1 Kings 3:12. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)
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.”
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 appropriate suffix title referred to as keishō (敬称) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017 by using –sama. Here, ō-sama (王様) “king” is a combination of the nominal title ō “king” and the suffix title –sama.
The biblical story of David does not record this promise that David made to Bathsheba (see also verse 30). It is not clear whether Nathan is making up this promise to fool a senile king or whether he is simply reminding Bathsheba of something that she already knew. Some scholars think that the name “Bathsheba” means “daughter of an oath,” in which case there may be an intentional play on words here with the Hebrew verb translated swear.
This verse contains several layers of direct quotation. Nathan began speaking in verse 11, so a quotation began there. Now in verse 13, Nathan tells Bathsheba what to say. Within the words that she is to say is another quotation of the words that David said to Bathsheba. Good News Translation restructures verse 13 so that it contains only one embedded quotation rather than two as in Revised Standard Version. In some cases, however, it will be necessary to translate in such a way as to avoid embedded quotations altogether (refer to the discussion on embedded quotations in “Translating 1–2 Kings,” pages 10-11). The following model may be helpful:
• Go immediately to King David and respectfully remind him that he definitely promised you that your son Solomon would replace him as king. Ask him how it is possible that Adonijah is calling himself king.
Go in at once to King David: Go in at once is literally “come, go to.” The imperative “come” is used here in the Hebrew as an introductory interjection. Anchor Bible translates this clause rather literally as “Go and come to the King David,” but such a translation is not recommended.
Did you not, my lord the king, swear to your maidservant: In the initial words that Bathsheba is to speak, she speaks of herself and the king in the third person as my lord the king and your maidservant. Good News Translation changes this to the second person but maintains the respectful attitude with the words “Your Majesty.” Some languages translate the latter phrase as “me, your maidservant.” The presence of the independent pronoun for you in the Masoretic Text may suggest that it is slightly emphatic. Anchor Bible, for example, uses italic font for the pronoun: “Did not you my lord…?”
The verb swear in this context should not be understood to mean “to curse” or “to use vulgar language,” as the English verb “to swear” sometimes means. The Hebrew verb here means “to take an oath.” The person who took an oath received a curse upon himself if he failed to keep his word or his promise. In Good News Translation the idea of this kind of swearing is contained in the expression “solemnly promise.”
Solomon your son …: The text has Bathsheba quoting David’s words in which he called Solomon your son, placing the emphasis on the fact that he is Bathsheba’s son (the pronoun your is feminine in Hebrew). But Good News Translation, changing to indirect discourse, has “my son.” In some languages, however, the most natural way of referring to the son of David and Bathsheba in a conversation between them may be to say “our son” if direct discourse is used.
The phrases shall reign after me and shall sit upon my throne in David’s words to Bathsheba are parallel in meaning. In some cases it may be wise to translate the words after me in such a way as to make it clear that this refers to the time after the death of David. Often in 1 Kings, the noun throne is used in the sense of “kingship.”
Contemporary English Version treats the first question in this verse as rhetorical by translating “You promised me that Solomon would be the next king.” In languages where rhetorical questions are problematic, this may be a good model to follow.
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.