26But the woman whose son was alive said to the king, because compassion for her son burned within her, “Please, my lord, give her the living boy; certainly do not kill him!” The other said, “It shall be neither mine nor yours; divide it.”
The Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin terms that are typically translated as “mercy” (or “compassion” or “kindness”) in English are translated in various ways. Bratcher / Nida classify them in (1) those based on the quality of heart, or other psychological center, (2) those which introduce the concept of weeping or extreme sorrow, (3) those which involve willingness to look upon and recognize the condition of others, or (4) those which involve a variety of intense feelings.
While the Englishmercy originates from the Latinmerces, originally “price paid,” Romance languages (Italian, Spanish, Corsican, Catalan) and other Germanic languages (German, Swedish, Danish — Barmherzigkeit, barmhärtighet and barmhjertighed, respectively) tend to follow the Latin misericordia, lit. “misery-heart.”
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 (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. The concept of “requesting” is translated in the Shinkaiyaku Bible as o-negai (お願い), combining “request” (negai) with the respectful prefix o (お).
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 benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. Here, -naide (ないで) or “do not (for their sake)” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).”
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 benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. Here, oatae (お与え) or “give” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).”
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 benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.
Here, tachikitte (断ち切って) or “cut off” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).” (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
The woman … said to the king: Said reflects the Hebrew text literally. According to the context, a verb such as “pleaded with” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) may be more appropriate.
Her heart yearned is literally “her compassion was made hot [or, agitated].” Nouvelle version Segond révisée states “she was burning with compassion.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “she was overcome with compassion.”
Oh, my lord: See the comments on this expression in verse 17.
Give her the living child, and by no means slay it: The verbs translated give and slay are plural in Hebrew since the woman is addressing the king and his servants, who are mentioned indirectly in verses 24-25. New Jerusalem Bible reflects this by saying “let them give her the live child; on no account let them kill him!”
Child, here and in verse 27, translates a Hebrew participle from the same root as the noun translated “child” in verse 25. But the participle gives a slightly different nuance, which may be expressed as “newborn baby.”
By no means slay it translates an emphatic Hebrew construction that is literally “to kill you [masculine plural] shall not kill him” (see the discussion on reinforcing verbs in “Translating 1–2 Kings,” page 15). Good News Translation “don’t kill the child” does not capture the nuance of the Hebrew. Better translations are “certainly do not kill him!” (New Revised Standard Version), “Whatever you do, do not kill it” (Revised English Bible), and “on no account let them kill him!” (New Jerusalem Bible). Notice that several translations use an exclamation mark to indicate the strong emotion that one would expect. The same expression occurs again in the next verse, except that a different word for no is used.
The other said: As in verse 22, the verb said renders a Hebrew participle, which suggests that this woman was speaking at the same time as the other woman. This may be expressed in English as “But the other woman was saying.”
Divide it: The verb rendered divide is the same one as in verse 25. It is plural in Hebrew like the verbs give and slay, so the NET Bible has “Let them cut him in two!”
The order of the various elements in this verse may have to be changed to make it more natural in the receptor language. The Hebrew text interrupts the clause having to do with the speaking of the first woman with a statement about her reason for speaking as she did. It was because of her love for the child that she spoke as she did. Some languages may require that this reason be placed before or after the woman’s statement itself. Here are two possible models for the first half of the verse:
• Then the mother of the child begged the king, “Please do not kill the baby! Give him to the other woman. But whatever you do, don’t kill him.” She said this because she felt strong love in her heart for the child.
• The mother of the child felt strong love in her heart for her child. For this reason she begged the king, “Please do not kill the baby. Give him to the other woman, but please don’t kill him!”
The second possible model places the statement about the woman’s love for her child at the very beginning of the verse, before any mention is made of her pleading to the king.
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.