Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 1 Kings 20:20:
Kupsabiny: “those men destroyed their enemy. Then the people of Syria fled and the people of Israel chased after them. Ben-hadad fled on a horse together with his people who went on horses.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “Each of them killed the enemy that was before him. Then the Arameans started to flee. The Israelites went to pursue them. But, by riding a horse, Ben-hadad, King of Aram along with some soldiers who rode horses, escaped and were spared.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “and each of them killed their enemies. So the other soldiers of Aram fled, and the Israelinhon pursued them. But Ben Hadad and his other companions were-able-to-escape/flee riding on the horse.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “Each Israeli soldier killed a Syrian soldier. The rest of the Syrian army then ran away, and the Israeli soldiers pursued them. But King Ben-Hadad escaped riding his horse, along with some other men riding horses.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Ge’ez, 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.”
Each killed his man is literally “they struck down a man his man.” This does not mean that every Israelite soldier had a particular enemy soldier that he had to find and kill. Rather, it indicates that “each of them attacked and killed an enemy soldier” (Contemporary English Version).
The Syrians fled and Israel pursued them: Syrians is literally “Aram” (see the comments on 1 Kgs 10.29). This noun is singular but it is used in a collective sense and is therefore translated as plural in English. The reference is not to a single soldier but to the Syrian soldiers, as the following plural pronoun them makes clear. The word Israel is also singular, but refers to the army of Israel.
Ben-hadad … escaped on a horse with horsemen: This describes both the means of Benhadad’s escape and the fact that he was not alone. There were several other Syrian soldiers, also on horseback, who escaped with him. The Hebrew may also be translated “Ben-Hadad … escaped on a horse, with chariots” (Nouvelle Bible Segond). The Hebrew term translated horsemen sometimes refers to the team of horses used to pull a chariot, and sometimes it refers to the horseman or rider (see the comments on 1 Kgs 4.26). In this context either meaning makes sense, so translators must simply chose one.
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 .
Every one of them struck/killed the man he fought. -or-
Each one of the young guards/soldiers killed one of the enemy soldiers.
20:20b So the Arameans fled, with the Israelites in pursuit.
So the men of Aram ran away and the men of Israel pursued/chased them. -or-
Then the Aramean/Syrian ⌊army/soldiers⌋ turned and ran. The ⌊army/soldiers⌋ of Israel chased them.
20:20c But Ben-hadad king of Aram escaped on horseback with the cavalry.
Ben-Hadad, the king of Aram, escaped on a horse with other/some horsemen. -or-
But King Ben-Hadad himself and some of his men succeeded in getting/riding away on horses.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.