27Ahaz slept with his ancestors, and they buried him in the city, in Jerusalem, but they did not bring him into the tombs of the kings of Israel. His son Hezekiah succeeded him.
The name that is transliterated as “Jerusalem” in English is signed in French Sign Language with a sign that depicts worshiping at the Western Wall in Jerusalem:
While a similar sign is also used in British Sign Language, another, more neutral sign that combines the sign “J” and the signs for “place” is used as well. (Source: Anna Smith)
“Jerusalem” in British Sign Language (source: Christian BSL, used with permission)
The Hebrew, Greek, and Latin that is transliterated as “Hezekiah” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with the signs for “king” and “facing the wall” referring to Isaiah 38:2. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)
In Libras (Brazilian Sign Language) it is translated with a sign that signifies a model, a parameter for his life, referring to “he did what was right in the sight of the Lord, just as his ancestor David had done” of 2 Kings 18:3. (Source: Missão Kophós )
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 account of Ahaz’s reign is concluded by another common formula used to summarize the reign of most of the kings of Israel and Judah. It refers to his death, burial, and successor.
And Ahaz slept with his fathers: See the comments on 2 Chr 9.31. Isaiah’s prophecy against the Philistines is dated to the year that King Ahaz died (Isa 14.28).
And they buried him in the city, in Jerusalem, for they did not bring him into the tombs of the kings of Israel: Although 2 Kgs 16.20 states that Ahaz was buried in the royal tombs, the Chronicler characteristically denies that he was buried with the kings (compare 2 Chr 21.20). The Masoretic Text says the tombs of the kings of Israel. The ancient Syriac translation, followed by Revised English Bible, says “the tombs of the kings of Judah.” Some versions avoid the difficulty by saying “the royal tombs” (Good News Translation, Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). None of the kings of the northern kingdom were buried in Jerusalem. Perhaps the writer says Israel here to show that the southern kingdom is the legitimate Israel now (see the comments on verse 19). Or perhaps the royal tombs are called the tombs of the kings of Israel because the tombs were carved out before the division of the united kingdom. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament favors the Masoretic Text here with an {A} rating.
And Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead: Instead of Hezekiah, the MT reads “Jehizkiyahu,” but the context shows that Hezekiah is the intended name. For reigned in his stead, see the comments on 1 Chr 19.1 and 2 Chr 9.31.
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.