27But some worthless fellows said, “How can this man save us?” They despised him and brought him no present. But he held his peace.
Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead.
The Hebrew that is translated as “offering” in English is translated in Venda as nduvho. J. A. van Rooy (in The Bible Translator 1974, p. 439ff. ) explains: “It is derived from the verb u luvha (‘to pay homage to; to acknowledge the superiority of; at the same time usually asking for a favour’). It is sometimes used as a synonym for ‘asking something from a chief. The noun nduvho means ‘a gift of allegiance,’ which corresponds closely with minchah (מִנְחָה) as ‘offering of allegiance.’ This term nduvho has in it the elements of subjugation, of reciprocity (asking for a favor), of being taken up into the same community as the chief in allegiance to him. Only the element of expiation is missing.”
In Northern Emberá, it is translated as “given to God freely.” (Source: Loewen 1980, p. 108)
The Hebrew that is translated as “scoundrel” or “worthless person” or similar in English is translated in Vidunda as “troublemaker” and Kutu as “very evil person.” (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
The Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin that is translated as a form of “save” in English is translated in Shipibo-Conibo with a phrase that means literally “make to live,” which combines the meaning of “to rescue” and “to deliver from danger,” but also the concept of “to heal” or “restore to health.”
In San Blas Kuna it is rendered as “help the heart,” in Laka, it is “take by the hand” in the meaning of “rescue” or “deliver,” in Huautla Mazatec the back-translation of the employed term is “lift out on behalf of,” in Anuak, it is “have life because of,” in Central Mazahua “be healed in the heart,” in Baoulé “save one’s head” (meaning to rescue a person in the fullest sense), in Guerrero Amuzgo “come out well,” in Northwestern Dinka “be helped as to his breath” (or “life”) (source: Bratcher / Nida), in Matumbi as “rescue (from danger)” (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext), and in Noongarbarrang-ngandabat or “hold life” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
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, the Jarai and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation both use the inclusive pronoun, including everyone.
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 Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a third person singular and plural pronoun (e.g. he and they and their various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. While it’s not uncommon to avoid pronouns altogether in Japanese, there are is a range of third person pronouns that can be used.
In these verses a number of them are used that pay particularly much respect to the referred person (or, in fact, God, as in Exodus 15:2), including koitsu (こいつ), soitsu (そいつ), and aitsu (あいつ), meaning “this person/one,” “that person/one,” and “that person/one over there.” (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
Worthless fellows: literally “sons of Belial.” See the comments on 1.16 and on 2.12. In the context of 1 Samuel, the question that these men ask may be translated “How can this man save us from our enemies?” or “How can this man save us from other nations?” The answer comes in chapter 11 in Saul’s defeat of the Ammonites. See also 11.12.
In those languages where an indirect quotation is preferred over the direct quotation of the text, Knox provides an interesting model for the first part of this verse: “there were others, graceless folks, who asked contemptuously whether such a man as this could bring them victory.”
Brought him no present: presents were given to express reverence or respect. Compare 2 Kgs 8.8. In some contexts the Hebrew noun means “tribute” brought to a king by those people who are under the king’s rule (see 2 Sam 8.2, 6).
But he held his peace: that is, “But Saul kept silent.” In place of these words the Septuagint reads “and it came to pass about a month later.” Some interpreters have suggested that the Septuagint reading can be explained by making a slight change in the Masoretic Text. The Septuagint is the basis for the translations found in New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and Good News Translation (all at the beginning of chapter 11). Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, however, gives a {B} rating to the Masoretic Text and recommends that translators follow it (so Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, and New International Version).
At the end of this verse, an additional textual problem is encountered. A manuscript from Qumran contains a paragraph that provides background information on the reason for Nahash’s cruel requirement in 11.1-2. The first-century A.D. Jewish historian Josephus knew this account, but until the discovery of the manuscript at Qumran, it was not known that this story had ever been part of the biblical text.
New Revised Standard Version follows this text from Qumran and adds the following paragraph:
Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead.
After nearly four pages of discussion, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament recommends that translators follow the Masoretic Text and not include this longer addition. But in those translations where footnotes are used, readers may find it very helpful if this information is included at the bottom of the page, as Contemporary English Version has done.
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.