The Hebrew and Greek that is transliterated as “Saul” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with the sign that depicts “sword in chest” (referring to 1 Samuel 31:4 and 1 Chronicles 10:4) and also “self-centered.” (Source: Steve Parkhurst)
The Hebrew terms that are translated as “family” or “clan” or “house” or similar in English are all translated in Kwere as ng’holo or “clan.” (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
In the English translation by Goldingay (2018) it is translated as “kin-group.”
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 1 Samuel 18:18:
Kupsabiny: “David said that, ‘Who am I, and what is my family in Israel that I am fit to become a husband to the king’s daughter?’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “But David replied, "Who am I? And who is my family? Who are my relatives in Israel? What, am I able to become the son-in-law of the king?"” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “But David said to Saul, ‘Who really (am) I and my family that I would-become the child-in-law/(son-in-law) of the king?’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “But David said to Saul, ‘I am not a very important person, and my family is not very important, and my clan is not a very important Israeli clan. So I do not deserve to become your son-in-law.’” (Source: Translation for Translators)
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 important aspect of addressing someone else in one’s or someone else’s family is by selecting the correct word when referring to them. One way to do this is through the usage of an appropriate title within a conversation as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.
When the speaker humbly refers to his or her father in the presence of respected interlocutor(s), chichi (父) is often used as in the case of Jacob’s sons referring to their father before Joseph (in Genesis 43:28). This form is very appropriately chosen as they refer to their father as “your servant” and bowed down before Joseph the prime minister.
In some conversations, archaic honorific forms for “father” are chosen that also contain chichi (父) and typically indicate a greater level of respect. These are o-chichi-ue (お父上) (only in Genesis 48:1), and chichi-gimi (父君) in few occasions (2 Samuel 10:3, 2 Samuel 13:5, and 1 Chronicles 19:3).
Yet another, ore often-used term is chichi-ue (父上) (see addressing one’s or someone else’s father respectfully in Japanese (父上)). An interesting contrast can be found in the message sent from Asa the king of Judah to Ben-hadad the king of Aram (1 Kings 15:19). In this utterance, commonly translated as “my father and your father” in English, Asa humbly refers to his father as chichi (父) but respectfully refers to Ben-hadad’s father as chichi-ue (父上). Similar contrasts can be found in 1 Kings 20:34 and 2 Chronicles 16:3 as well.
While chichi can carry this humbling effect in reference to the speaker’s father, in some types of dialogues/utterances such as in poetry, including prayers (e.g. Jesus teaching how to pray in Matthew 6:9) and proverbial teachings (e.g. “honor your father and mother” in Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16 et al.), chichi is used without the humbling effect. (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
The first question, Who am I, is the first of a series of rhetorical questions, all of which have the meaning of emphatic statements such as “I am a very unimportant person, and my family also….”
Who are my kinsfolk, my father’s family: Good News Translation combines my kinsfolk and my father’s family into one, “my family.” Who are my kinsfolk in the Masoretic Text is literally “what is my life?” (so New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and La Bible Pléiade). Hebrew Old Testament Text Project stated that the Masoretic Text is surely corrupt; but since no alternative reading exists in the ancient versions, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gave it an {A} rating. For purposes of translation, however, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommended that translators accept the conjecture that changes the vowels of the Hebrew to read “who are my kin?” instead of “what is my life?” Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament goes beyond Hebrew Old Testament Text Project in recognizing that, with a change of vowels, the Hebrew word chyy may mean “my clan,” and that a scribe later added the words “my fathers’s family” to clarify the meaning when this Hebrew word chyy was no longer widely understood.
The words my father’s family are in apposition to my kinsfolk. The term family in Hebrew refers to the extended family, a group of families descended from the same ancestor, and may therefore be translated as “my father’s clan” (New American Bible, Fox, and Chouraqui). See the comments on 2.28 and 10.20-21.
Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente changes David’s rhetorical questions into a statement, “I am not worthy to become the son-in-law of the king, because my family is not important in Israel.” However, a more emphatic wording may be a better translation of the Hebrew.
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.