34Ben-hadad said to him, “I will restore the towns that my father took from your father, and you may establish bazaars for yourself in Damascus, as my father did in Samaria.” The king of Israel responded, “I will let you go on those terms.” So he made a treaty with him and let him go.
Natügu: nzesz’tikr drtwr: “oneness of mind” (source: Brenda Boerger in Beerle-Moor / Voinov, p. 164)
Tagalog: tipan: mutual promising on the part of two persons agreeing to do something (also has a romantic touch and denotes something secretive) (source: G. Henry Waterman in The Bible Translator 1960, p. 24ff. )
Tagbanwa: “initiated-agreement” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Guhu-Samane: “The concept [in Mark 14:24 and Matthew 16:28] is not easy, but the ritual freeing of a fruit and nut preserve does afford some reference. Thus, ‘As they were drinking he said to them, ‘On behalf of many this poro provision [poro is the traditional religion] of my blood is released.’ (…) God is here seen as the great benefactor and man the grateful recipient.” (Source: Ernest Richert in The Bible Translator, 1965, p. 81ff. )
Law (2013, p. 95) writes about how the Ancient GreekSeptuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew berith was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments (click or tap here to read more):
“Right from the start we witness the influence of the Septuagint on the earliest expressions of the Christian faith. In the New Testament, Jesus speaks of his blood being a kaine diatheke, a ‘new covenant.’ The covenant is elucidated in Hebrews 8:8-12 and other texts, but it was preserved in the words of Jesus with this language in Luke 22:20 when at the Last Supper Jesus said, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Jesus’s blood was to provide the grounds for the ‘new covenant,’ in contrast to the old one his disciples knew from the Jewish scriptures (e.g., Jeremiah 31:31-34). Thus, the earliest Christians accepted the Jewish Scriptures as prophecies about Jesus and in time began to call the collection the ‘Old Testament’ and the writings about Jesus and early Christianity the ‘New Testament,’ since ‘testament’ was another word for ‘covenant.’ The covenant promises of God (berith in Hebrew) were translated in the Septuagint with the word diatheke. In classical Greek diatheke had meant ‘last will, testament,’ but in the Septuagint it is the chosen equivalent for God’s covenant with his people. The author of Hebrews plays on the double meaning, and when Luke records Jesus’ announcement at the Last Supper that his blood was instituting a ‘new covenant,’ or a ‘new testament,’ he is using the language in an explicit contrast with the old covenant, found in the Jewish scriptures. Soon, the writings that would eventually be chosen to make up the texts about the life and teachings of Jesus and the earliest expression of the Christian faith would be called the New Testament. This very distinction between the Old and New Testaments is based on the Septuagint’s language.”
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 these verses, the Greek and Hebrew that is translated as “restore” or “pay back” in English is translated in the Shinkaiyaku Bible as o-kaeshi (お返し), combining “restore” (kaeshi) with the respectful prefix o-. (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
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 important aspect of addressing someone else in one’s or someone else’s family is by selecting the correct word when referring to them. One way to do this is through the usage of an appropriate title within a conversation as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.
When the speaker humbly refers to his or her father in the presence of respected interlocutor(s), chichi (父) is often used as in the case of Jacob’s sons referring to their father before Joseph (in Genesis 43:28). This form is very appropriately chosen as they refer to their father as “your servant” and bowed down before Joseph the prime minister.
In some conversations, archaic honorific forms for “father” are chosen that also contain chichi (父) and typically indicate a greater level of respect. These are o-chichi-ue (お父上) (only in Genesis 48:1), and chichi-gimi (父君) in few occasions (2 Samuel 10:3, 2 Samuel 13:5, and 1 Chronicles 19:3).
Yet another, ore often-used term is chichi-ue (父上) (see addressing one’s or someone else’s father respectfully in Japanese (父上)). An interesting contrast can be found in the message sent from Asa the king of Judah to Ben-hadad the king of Aram (1 Kings 15:19). In this utterance, commonly translated as “my father and your father” in English, Asa humbly refers to his father as chichi (父) but respectfully refers to Ben-hadad’s father as chichi-ue (父上). Similar contrasts can be found in 1 Kings 20:34 and 2 Chronicles 16:3 as well.
While chichi can carry this humbling effect in reference to the speaker’s father, in some types of dialogues/utterances such as in poetry, including prayers (e.g. Jesus teaching how to pray in Matthew 6:9) and proverbial teachings (e.g. “honor your father and mother” in Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16 et al.), chichi is used without the humbling effect. (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
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 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.”
Ben-hadad said is literally “he said.” Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation have inserted the proper name Ben-hadad to avoid confusion since Ahab is the subject of the verb “said” in the previous verse. In fact, even King James Version supplies the name.
Your father refers to Omri.
The English verb restore sometimes means “to repair [or, fix up] something to its former condition,” but it may also mean “to give back [something to someone]” and this second usage is the meaning of the Hebrew verb here.
Bazaars is literally “streets” (so King James Version, American Standard Version). The sense here is streets with stalls and markets where commerce may be carried out. The term has also been rendered “trading quarter” (Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible), “market areas” (New International Version), and “shops” (Contemporary English Version).
For Damascus refer to 1 Kgs 11.24.
And Ahab said, “I will let you go on these terms” is literally “And I with the covenant will let you go.” For this reason New Jerusalem Bible translates “With a treaty … I shall set you free.” In some languages this will have to be translated “Ahab said, ‘If you will really do as you have promised, then I will let you go free.’ ” Others may prefer to say “Ahab said, ‘If you agree to this, I will allow you to go free’ ” (New Century Version).
Revised Standard Version has introduced the words And Ahab said in order to show that it is now Ahab who speaks and no longer Benhadad. In Hebrew the pronoun I is emphatic and may be rendered “I, for my part” (Anchor Bible; similarlyParola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). The use of the emphatic pronoun suggests that a different person is beginning to speak. It is not uncommon in Hebrew narrative for the writer to switch subjects without a clear indication that he has done so. Compare, for example, the frequent change in speaker in 2 Kgs 4.12-16, where only what is said shows that the speaker has changed. The translation in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation is widely accepted and is most likely the intended meaning since Ahab has twice defeated the armies of Benhadad; Benhadad was not in a position to set the terms of a treaty between the two rulers.
It should be noted, however, that not all interpreters think that it is Ahab who speaks at the end of this verse. De Vries, Chouraqui, and Peregrino, for example, include in the quoted words of Benhadad the words attributed to Ahab in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation and in virtually all other popular translations. De Vries translates the whole verse as follows:
And he said to him, “The cities which my father took from your father I shall return. And you shall establish bazaars for yourself in Damascus, just like my father established in Samaria. And I shall release you from the vassal-treaty.” So he made a treaty with him and sent him away.
According to Peregrino, Benhadad proposes a new covenant with Ahab:
and Benhadad said to him, “I will return the cities that my father took from yours. And in Damascus I will give you a section of town, as my father had in Samaria. With this covenant allow me to go free.”
Ahab signed the covenant with him and let him go free.
He made a covenant with him is literally “he cut with him a covenant” (see the comments on this Hebrew idiom in 1 Kgs 8.9).
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.