The Hebrew, Latin and Greek that is translated into English as “chariot” is translated into Anuak as “canoe pulled by horse.” “Canoe” is the general term for “vehicle” (source: Loren Bliese). Similarly it is translated in Lokạạ as ukwaa wạ nyanyang ntuuli or “canoe that is driven by horses.” (Source: J.A. Naudé, C.L. Miller Naudé, J.O. Obono in Acta Theologica 43/2, 2023, p. 129ff. )
Other translations include:
Chichicapan Zapotec: “ox cart” (in Acts 8) (ox carts are common vehicles for travel) (source: Loren Bliese)
Chichimeca-Jonaz, it is translated as “little house with two feet pulled by two horses” (source: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
HausaCommon Language Bible as keken-doki or “cart of donkey” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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.”
When the captains of the chariots saw that it was not the king of Israel: The text does not indicate how the Syrian captains knew that the person they went to attack was not King Ahab. The Hebrew verb translated saw may mean that they saw Jehoshaphat with their own eyes and knew that he was not Ahab; but this verb is also frequently used in the sense of “to perceive” or “to realize,” with no suggestion of seeing with the eyes. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “when the chariot officers became aware that he was not the king of Israel.” It may well be that the chariot captains recognized the voice of Jehoshaphat since he is said to have “cried out” at the end of the previous verse (so Good News Translation, New Living Translation).
The writer of this story was not concerned with providing answers to questions that modern readers may have about historical details. Rather, this incident is necessary for the development of the plot. So unless the receptor language demands that an answer be given to explain how the captains knew that it was not Ahab, the translation should not be more specific than the Hebrew text.
They turned back from pursuing him: Good News Translation seems to overstate the meaning of these words. This clause does not indicate that the battle was completely over, but rather that the captains stopped chasing Jehoshaphat. The following verse shows that the battle continued.
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.