11But Amaziah would not listen. So King Jehoash of Israel went up; he and King Amaziah of Judah faced one another in battle at Beth-shemesh, which belongs to Judah.
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)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Kings 14:11:
Kupsabiny: “But Amaziah closed his mind so that he did not listen to the words that the other one was saying. So, king Joash of Israel mustered his soldiers and went to fight Amaziah, the king of Judah. Then they fought one another near the city of Beth-shemesh in the country of Judah.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “But Amaziah did not listen to his words. So Jehoash, King of Israel went to war against Amaziah, King of Judah. They fought at Beth-shemesh of Judah.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “But Amazia did- not -listen, so King Jehoash and his soldiers attacked him. They fought at Bet Shemesh which (is) under-the-jurisdiction of Juda.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “But Amaziah refused to heed Jehoash’s message. So he marched with his army to fight against the Israeli army at Beth-Shemesh city in Judah.” (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.”
Amaziah would not listen: In some languages it will be better to say “Amaziah did not do as he [Jehoash] had said”; that is, he continued to try to conquer other areas rather than remaining within his own territory.
So: While the text has only the common Hebrew conjunction here, the context seems to require a transition word showing that the action of King Jehoash came as a result of the fact that Amaziah refused to heed his advice.
Went up: Here it is unnecessary to focus on the idea of movement in an upward direction. This verb is adequately translated “marched out” (Good News Translation), “advanced” (New American Bible), or simply “went.”
Faced one another in battle is literally “saw each other’s faces.” This is the same expression as in verse 8. Here it may be rendered “met in battle” (New American Bible) or “clashed” (Revised English Bible).
For the town of Beth-shemesh, see the comments on 1 Kgs 4.9.
Which belongs to Judah; that is, which was in the territory of the southern kingdom and under its rule. This specification seems to have been necessary because Beth Shemesh was near the border between Israel and Judah.
The context makes it clear that Amaziah and Jehoash did not go alone to battle. Rather, they both went with their armies. This may be made explicit in translation, as New Living Translation has done by rendering the whole verse as follows:
• But Amaziah refused to listen, so King Jehoash of Israel mobilized his army against King Amaziah of Judah. The two armies drew up their battle lines at Beth-shemesh in Judah.
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.