Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Chronicles 8:10:
Kupsabiny: “He appointed 250 leaders who were overseeing the people who were building.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “King Solomon chose 250 people as foremen to supervise the work.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “The 250 of them King Solomon made as officials that supervise the ones who-work his projects.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “They were also King Solomon’s chief officials. There were 250 of them, and they supervised the workers.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Ge’ez, 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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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.”
And these were the chief officers of King Solomon, two hundred and fifty: The demonstrative pronoun these may point backward to the officers in the previous verse, or it may point forward to another group of two hundred and fifty officers (see the comments below).
Chief officers is literally “officers of those in charge.” This phrase is usually understood in one of two different ways: (1) “chiefs in charge” or (2) “chiefs of [or, over] the ones in charge.” The first interpretation is followed by Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, and Contemporary English Version. The second interpretation is followed by Revised English Bible (“officers … in charge of the foremen”) and New Jerusalem Bible (“officials in charge of the foremen”). The question is whether these 250 officials were directly in charge of the people doing the work (so Revised Standard Version) or whether these 250 officials were in charge of the foremen who supervised the workers (so Revised English Bible). Either way of interpreting the Hebrew grammar is acceptable.
Instead of two hundred and fifty officers, the parallel passage in 1 Kgs 9.23 speaks of “five hundred and fifty.” But there is no justification for harmonizing the two accounts and no major version does so.
Who exercised authority over the people: The people were those who were forced to work on Solomon’s building projects. For this whole clause Good News Translation has “in charge of the forced labor working on the various building projects,” and Bible en français courant says “to oversee the crowd of workers in the service of King Solomon.”
It is not clear whether the chief officers refer to the officers mentioned in the previous verse or whether they are another group of officers of Solomon. If the first understanding is followed, then New American Bible provides a helpful model for this verse, saying “They were also King Solomon’s two hundred and fifty overseers who had charge of the people.” If this verse introduces additional officers, then it will be better to restructure this verse along the lines of Good News Translation.
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.