3The king of Israel said to his servants, “Do you know that Ramoth-gilead belongs to us, yet we are doing nothing to take it out of the hand of the king of Aram?”
Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)
The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).
For this verse, both the Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the inclusive pronoun, “since King Ahab is speaking to his own officials.”
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 1 Kings 22:3:
Kupsabiny: “When Jehoshaphat was there, Ahab said to his people, ‘Don’t you know that the city of Ramoth-gilead is ours? Why have you waited for us to stay like this without us taking it from the king of Syria?’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “At that time Ahab asked his officials, "Why have we not done anything to take Ramoth-gilead from the hand of the King of Aram? That place is still ours!"” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “Ahab said to his officers, ‘You (plur.) know that Ramot Gilead is ours (incl.). But why are we (incl.) not making a way to take- it -back from the king of Aram?’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “While they were talking, Ahab said to his officials, ‘Do you realize that the Syrians are still occupying our city of Ramoth in the Gilead region? And we are doing nothing to retake that city!’” (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 Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. The most commonly used anata (あなた) is typically used when the speaker is humbly addressing another person.
In these verses, however, omae (おまえ) is used, a cruder second person pronoun, that Jesus for instance chooses when chiding his disciples. (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 (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.”
The king of Israel said to his servants: Instead of repeating the king of Israel, Good News Translation refers to him by name. Servants in this context refers to the king’s “officials” (Good News Translation). See the comments on 1 Kgs 1.2.
Do you know that Ramoth-gilead belongs to us…?: Ahab’s question is rhetorical and may be translated as a statement (so Good News Translation for the first part of the question). Ramoth-gilead (see the comments on 1 Kgs 4.13) had belonged to the Israelites, but this verse makes it clear that the Syrians had at some time captured the city of Ramoth. Perhaps the Syrians had captured Ramoth during the wars mentioned in chapter 20.
The sense of the Hebrew clause translated we keep quiet is better expressed in English as “we are doing nothing” (New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, New American Bible) or “we do nothing” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Revised English Bible). That is, it is not a matter of simply not making noise, but of remaining inactive or refraining from trying to recover the city.
The first person plural pronouns us and we are to be understood as inclusive since King Ahab is speaking to his own officials.
Do not take it out of the hand of the king of Syria: Out of the hand of may be translated “out of the control of.” The idea is that Ahab wanted “to retake it from the king of Aram” (New International Version) or “to wrest it away from the king of Aram” (New Jerusalem Bible). The Hebrew does not mention the king of Syria by name. The reference is probably to Benhadad II, but see the discussion on 1 Kgs 20.1. For the translation of “Aram” as Syria, see the comments at 1 Kgs 10.29.
Care must be taken in translating Ahab’s words. At the time he was speaking to his officials, Ramoth did not, in fact, belong to the Israelites. The sense is that Ramoth used to belong to Israel, and Ahab thought that it still should belong to them. Compare International Children’s Bible: “Remember that the king of Aram took Ramoth in Gilead from us? Why have we done nothing to get it back?”
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 .
The king of Israel had said to his ministers, -or-
King Ahab had told his servants/officers, -or-
Ahab had been talking to his officers
22:3b “Do you not know that Ramoth-gilead is ours,
Verse parts 22:3b-c are a rhetorical question that indicates emphasis. You should indicate this emphasis in the way that is most natural in your language.
“You (plur) do know/realize that Ramoth Gilead is ours(incl.) ! -or-
“As you are well aware, ⌊the city of⌋ Ramoth Gilead should belong to us/Israel. -or-
about Ramoth in Gilead. Ramoth had ⌊earlier/formerly⌋ been ⌊a city⌋ of/in Israel,
22:3c but we have failed to take it from the hand of the king of Aram?”
Why are we(incl.) doing nothing to recapture/reclaim it from the king of Aram?” -or-
But we(incl.) are not even trying to take it back from the king of Aram.” -or-
but the king of Aram/Syria ⌊had conquered/taken it⌋. Ahab wanted to try to get it back ⌊for Israel⌋.
22:3b-c (combined)
“Do you remember that the king of Aram took Ramoth in Gilead from us? Why have we done nothing to get it back?” (New Century Version)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.