11In those days certain renegades came out from Israel and misled many, saying, “Let us go and make a covenant with the nations around us, for since we separated from them many disasters have come upon us.”
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. )
Chichewa: pangano. This word can also be translated as a contract, agreement, or a treaty between two parties. In Chewa culture, two people or groups enter into an agreement to help each other in times of need. When entering into an agreement, parties look at the mutual benefits which will be gained. The agreement terms are mostly kept as a secret between the parties and the witnesses involved. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
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.”
The Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin that is often translated as “gentiles” (or “nations”) in English is often translated as a “local equivalent of ‘foreigners,'” such as “the people of other lands” (Guerrero Amuzgo), “people of other towns” (Tzeltal), “people of other languages” (San Miguel El Grande Mixtec), “strange peoples” (Navajo (Dinė)) (this and above, see Bratcher / Nida), “outsiders” (Ekari), “people of foreign lands” (Kannada), “non-Jews” (North Alaskan Inupiatun), “people being-in-darkness” (a figurative expression for people lacking cultural or religious insight) (Toraja-Sa’dan) (source for this and three above Reiling / Swellengrebel), “from different places all people” (Martu Wangka) (source: Carl Gross).
Tzeltal translates it as “people in all different towns,” Chicahuaxtla Triqui as “the people who live all over the world,” Highland Totonac as “all the outsider people,” Sayula Popoluca as “(people) in every land” (source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.), Chichimeca-Jonaz as “foreign people who are not Jews,” Sierra de Juárez Zapotec as “people of other nations” (source of this and one above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.), Highland Totonac as “outsider people” (source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.), Uma as “people who are not the descendants of Israel” (source: Uma Back Translation), and Yakan as “the other tribes” (source: Yakan Back Translation).
In Chichewa, it is translated with mitundu or “races.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
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.”
In those days lawless men came forth from Israel: In those days refers to the time of the reign of Antiochus. This phrase may be rendered “When Antiochus was king,” “It was then that,” (New Jerusalem Bible), “At that time” (Good News Bible), or even “About this time” (Contemporary English Version). Lawless men does not refer to criminals, but to people who had no regard for the Jewish Law, the Law of Moses. Good News Bible says “a group of traitorous Jews who had no regard for the Law,” but there is no need for the word “traitorous.” Came forth from Israel means they were Jews who lived in Israel, not that they went from Israel to another place (compare “came from the land of Kittim” in verse 1 and “From them came forth” in verse 10). This whole clause may be rendered “At that time [or, When Antiochus Epiphanes was king] there was a group of Jews in the land of Israel who decided not to obey [or, follow] the Law of Moses.”
And misled many: Misled is better than “had a bad influence on” (Good News Bible), which is a weak rendering. An alternative model for this clause is “and persuaded many others to abandon it [or, the Law].”
Saying, “Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles round about us, for since we separated from them many evils have come upon us”: The words in quotations do not represent anything the Jewish renegades actually said on any particular occasion. It simply states their attitude and what they thought was a good idea. When the Jews who refuse to obey the Law of Moses think of entering into a covenant with the Gentiles, they are putting Gentile ways ahead of God’s ways, saying that doing things the Gentile way is better than doing them in the way laid down in God’s Law. In Exo 23.32; 34.12-15; and Deut 7.2 the Israelites are told not to make covenants with the surrounding peoples. Good News Bible renders saying as “They said,” which is valid. Another possible model is “by telling them.” A covenant is an agreement. This is the word used throughout the Old Testament to refer to the relationship between God and his people. Here it refers to an agreement between Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles may be rendered “non-Jews” or “people who aren’t Jews.” For Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles round about us, Good News Bible has “Let’s come to terms with the Gentiles,” which is a fairly effective translation in English; it implies that they are abandoning a previous position to adopt another one. However, Good News Bible ignores the phrase round about us, probably assuming that it adds nothing essential. But it does; it tells us that the speakers are aware of being surrounded by non-Jewish culture. So a better rendering is “Let’s go and make an agreement with these people around us who aren’t Jews.”
For since we separated from them many evils have come upon us gives the reason for making a covenant with the Gentiles. The Jewish renegades argue that separation from the Gentiles has caused a lot of trouble for the Jews (compare Ezra 10.11; Neh 9.2).
An alternative model for this verse is:
• At that time [or, When Antiochus Epiphanes was king] a group of Jews in Israel decided not to follow the Law [of Moses], and persuaded many others to do the same by telling them, “Let’s go and make an agreement with the Gentiles [or, non-Jews]. They are all around us, and refusing to associate with them has brought us nothing but trouble.”
Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on 1-2 Maccabees. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2011. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.