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 translation uses the exclusive pronoun, excluding Jehu. The Adamawa Fulfulde translation uses the inclusive pronoun, including everyone.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Kings 10:4:
Kupsabiny: “But those people feared much and said, ‘When/If two kings were unable to fight him, what can we do?’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “But they were very much afraid. They said, "If two kings were not able to restrain Jehu, how can we restrain him!"” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “But they were- very -afraid and said, ‘If the two kings did- not -win against him, how can we (incl.)?’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “But when they got those letters from Jehu and read them, they became very afraid. They said, ‘King Joram and King Ahaziah could not resist him; how can we resist him?/we cannot possibly resist him!’” (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.”
But: Since the actions of these leaders in Samaria were contrary to the instructions received from Jehu, the common Hebrew conjunction at the beginning of this verse may be translated in this way to mark the contrast. Many English versions, however, omit the conjunction altogether (so Good News Translation).
Since the pronoun they may possibly be understood as referring to the potential candidates to the throne, some modern versions replace it with a noun phrase. Good News Translation has “The rulers of Samaria,” and International Children’s Bible translates “the officers and older leaders of Jezreel.” The choice here will depend on the textual decision made in verse 2. Contemporary English Version, however, avoids the problem by not being too specific; it translates the pronoun as “The officials and leaders” without anything further.
Were exceedingly afraid: The Hebrew construction used here is much stronger than saying simply “were frightened” (New Century Version). The adverb translated exceedingly appears twice in the Hebrew text. Some modern translation attempts at reflecting the strength of this statement are “were panic-stricken” (Revised English Bible), “were utterly terrified” (New Jerusalem Bible), and “were overcome by fear” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).
The Hebrew focusing particle rendered Behold is dropped by most modern versions, but if the receptor language has a comparable means of highlighting what is about to be said, it should be used here.
The two kings: This refers, of course, to King Joram of Israel and King Ahaziah of Judah (2 Kgs 9.22-28). In some cases translators may wish to follow the example of Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version in making this information explicit.
In this context the Hebrew expression translated could not stand before him means “could not withstand him” (New American Bible, New Revised Standard Version) or “could not resist him” (New International Version). Some modern versions attempt to retain something of the form of the original text by using the English idiom “stand up to” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Century Version). It may also be necessary in certain languages to use the proper name “Jehu” in place of the pronoun him for clarity (so Good News Translation).
How then can we stand?: This question is really a way of strongly affirming “there is no way we can stand against him” or “we cannot possibly oppose him.” If the question format does not convey this meaning, a more direct affirmation may be required. Contemporary English Version does this by stating emphatically “We have to do what he says.”
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.