13Jehu met relatives of King Ahaziah of Judah and said, “Who are you?” They answered, “We are kin of Ahaziah; we have come down to visit the royal princes and the sons of the queen mother.”
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 exclusive pronoun, excluding Jehu.
The name that is transliterated as “Judah” or “Judea” in English (referring to the son of Jacob, the tribe, and the territory) is translated in Spanish Sign Language as “lion” (referring to Genesis 49:9 and Revelation 5:5). This sign for lion is reserved for regions and kingdoms. (Source: John Elwode in The Bible Translator 2008, p. 78ff. and Steve Parkhurst)
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 second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. The most commonly used anata (あなた) is typically used when the speaker is humbly addressing another person.
In these verses, however, omae (おまえ) is used, a cruder second person pronoun, that Jesus for instance chooses when chiding his disciples. (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
Jehu met the kinsmen of Ahaziah king of Judah: The expression the kinsmen of Ahaziah (literally “brothers of Ahaziah”) occurs twice in this verse. It refers to people who were related to King Ahaziah of Judah, who had died. The translation of New Jerusalem Bible, “the brothers of Ahaziah,” is probably too restricted in English, but may be acceptable in other languages where the word “brother” has a broader meaning. If the definite article is used in the phrase the kinsmen, this will incorrectly suggest in some languages that all of Ahaziah’s relatives are included here. The next chapter makes it clear that not all of Ahaziah’s relatives were killed by Jehu. Therefore it will be better in many languages to use an indefinite reference here, for example, “some relatives” (Good News Translation, New International Version, New Living Translation, Bible en français courant). Instead of saying king of Judah, many languages will have to say “the former king of Judah” or “the king of Judah who had been killed.”
The relationship between these relatives of Ahaziah (from the southern kingdom of Judah) and Jezebel (queen mother of the northern kingdom of Israel) may be explained by the fact that Athaliah, a daughter of King Ahab of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 8.26), married Jehoram, the king of Judah. There was, therefore, kinship between members of the two kingdoms.
He said: The verb said probably should be translated “asked” in many languages since a question follows it.
Who are you?: This question is addressed to the whole group of Ahaziah’s relatives since the pronoun you is plural.
We came down: While the movement toward Jezreel may have involved going toward a lower elevation, it will not be natural to translate the verb here literally in certain languages. It will be better to say simply “We are going” (Good News Translation) or “we are on our way” (New Jerusalem Bible).
The royal princes and the sons of the queen mother: This seems to refer to two different groups: “the families of the king and of the queen mother” (Revised English Bible). But Contemporary English Version summarizes all this by saying simply “his [Ahaziah’s] family.” The royal princes is literally “the sons of the king” and probably refers to the royal family in general. The sons of the queen mother refers to the children of Jezebel and Ahab. It may be desirable in other languages to state clearly that the queen mother is Jezebel. Good News Translation provides a good model for this part of the verse, saying “the children of Queen Jezebel and … the rest of the royal family.”
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.