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, Omanson / Ellington recommend the use of the exclusive form (excluding the king).
Both the Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation, however, use the inclusive pronoun.
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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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.”
The rebellion in view here was a continuation of tension between the tribes of the north and the south. Earlier, at Sheba’s urging, the northern tribes had rebelled against David, and the words of the people here are nearly the same as those of Sheba in 2 Sam 20.1.
And when all Israel saw that the king did not hearken to them: Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament says it is certain that the Masoretic Text did not contain the verb saw here and gives an {A} rating to the Masoretic Text. Like Revised Standard Version, many versions insert the verb saw in agreement with the parallel passage in 1 Kgs 12.16. Some translators think the Hebrew originally did include the verb saw (so Revised English Bible). But it is possible that the Hebrew contains an ellipsis of the verb and that the verb should be supplied in translation as the sense seems to require.
But there are other ways to understand the Masoretic Text without adding the verb saw. The Septuagint places the words all Israel with what precedes and reads “15 … that the Lord might fulfil his word, which he spoke by Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat 16 and [to] all Israel: that the king would not listen to them….” Or, if the punctuation in the Masoretic Text is followed, the beginning of this verse may be translated “And [as regards] all Israel, since the king did not listen to them, the people answered the king….” The preliminary report of Hebrew Old Testament Text Project favored the phrase division of the Septuagint, but the final report (Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament) leaves the question unresolved.
All Israel in this context clearly refers to the people of the northern kingdom. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch correctly says “the men of the northern tribes,” and Bible en français courant has “the Israelites of the North.” In a footnote to the parallel verse in 1 Kgs 12.16, La Bible du Semeur says “That is the Israelites of the North.” But readers often do not read such footnotes, and those who only hear the text read cannot see the footnote, so it will be better to follow the model of Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch or Bible en français courant. In some languages the verb saw will be inappropriate in this context. So it may be necessary to say “understood” or “realized” (Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation).
The people answered the king is literally “the people returned [a word] to the king saying.” But given the context, some languages may prefer to use a more forceful verb, such as “shouted” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation) or “declared” (Bible en français courant).
As noted above, the words of the people are nearly the same as those of Sheba in 2 Sam 20.1. This suggests that these words are traditional material. For this reason they are placed in poetic format in some modern translations (for example, Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Bible en français courant, Peregrino as well as some printed editions of the Masoretic Text.
What portion have we in David?: This is a rhetorical question, which may be better translated as an emphatic statement in some languages; for example, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “We have no portion in David,” and Knox has “David is none of ours.” New Living Translation uses more contemporary English, saying “Down with the dynasty of David!” But in some languages the meaning may be expressed by saying “The affairs of David do not concern us!” The pronoun we in this line and the next one should be rendered as exclusive in those languages that distinguish inclusive and exclusive pronouns.
We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse: The words in the son of Jesse are parallel to in David in Hebrew. A literal translation may give the false impression that two distinct persons are referred to here. Modern translations provide several different models that avoid this problem. Good News Translation replaces the words the son of Jesse with the pronoun “they.” But another solution is followed in Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, which says “we have nothing to do with that son of Jesse!” The words “that son of Jesse” obviously refer to David.
Each of you to your tents, O Israel!: This line may be taken as a call to the tribes of northern Israel to go back home or to go to war. The same kind of expression occurs again at the end of the verse where it describes what the people actually did (So all Israel departed to their tents). So it probably has the same meaning. Good News Translation takes the first expression as a call to return home and the second as a statement about rebellion. It is probable that the meaning in both cases has to do with going home rather than going to war. Possible models for this line are “People of Israel, we should all go home” and “Let’s get out of here, fellow Israelites.”
Look now to your own house, David: Several things need careful attention here. The Hebrew verb for Look and the pronoun for your are second person singular; and the people were, of course, not addressing David, but are rather speaking to Rehoboam and by implication, to his descendants. Good News Translation omits any reference to David by saying “Let Rehoboam look out for himself!” Contemporary English Version is similar with “Rehoboam can rule his own people.” However, the reference to David may be kept, while the meaning is made clear. Compare “And you, descendant of David, take care of your kingdom” (Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) and “Let David’s son rule his own people” (New Century Version). Another possible model is “Now, you son of David, rule over your own little tribe!”
So all Israel departed to their tents may be rendered “So all the Israelites went home” (New Century Version). Concerning the time relationship of verses 16b-17 with the context, see the comments on verse 15.
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.