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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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.”
He built Elath and restored it to Judah: The pronoun He is emphatic in Hebrew. It is taken by most commentators as referring to King Uzziah (Azariah) and, if this is the case, in many languages it will be wise to substitute the proper name “Uzziah” as in Good News Translation and New Living Translation. But it is also possible to understand the emphatic Hebrew pronoun as referring to Amaziah (see the comments on the end of this verse).
The order of the verbs built and restored may have to be reversed in many languages since the city would have to be recaptured before it could be rebuilt (so Good News Translation). Because the city already existed, it will be more natural to translate the verb built as “rebuilt” (Good News Translation, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Contemporary English Version).
Elath was an important port city on the north end of the Gulf of Aqaba (the eastern finger of the Red Sea) which served as a trading center connecting Judah with the rest of the world. It is also mentioned in 2 Kgs 16.6 and Deut 2.8 as well as in 1 Kgs 9.26 (see the comments there); 2 Chr 8.17 and 26.2, where it is spelled “Eloth.” The same spelling should be used in all cases in order to avoid confusing the reader. It will be important in some cases to add the classifier term “city” or “town.”
After the king slept with his fathers: See the comments on 1 Kgs 2.10. The Hebrew reads literally “after [that] the king slept with his fathers.” All interpreters understand the reference to the king as Amaziah, and some translations make this explicit (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version). Biblia Dios Habla Hoy (similarly Good News Translation) says “after the death of his father.” According to the more common interpretation for this verse, Uzziah reconquered and rebuilt Elath after his father Amaziah had died. But it is also possible to understand this verse to mean that Amaziah (not Uzziah) reconquered and rebuilt Elath, and after that Amaziah died. The Nouvelle Bible Segond footnote here gives this possibility: “The text is not clear: neither the builder-king nor the one who slept with his fathers is named. From the connection with the account of Amaziah’s victory over Edom (verse 7), some scholars have deduced that the notice concerning Elath was an appendix to the description of the reign of Amaziah rather than to the account concerning his son….” The question for translators is whether the final part of the verse is translated “after the king slept with his fathers” or “after that, the king slept with his fathers.”
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.