7The king of Egypt did not come again out of his land, for the king of Babylon had taken over all that belonged to the king of Egypt from the Wadi of Egypt to the River Euphrates.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Kings 24:7:
Kupsabiny: “And from that time onwards, the king of Egypt no longer went on a raid from his country because the king of Babylon had taken over and ruled the land from the Wadi of Egypt to the river of Euphrates.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “The king of Egypt never came out of Egypt again. For the king of Babylon had taken control of the king of Egypt’s whole area of influence from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates River.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “The king of Egipto did- not again -attack, for the king of Babilonia conquered all its territories, from the place-where- water -flows of Egipto until to the River of Eufrates.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “The army of the king of Babylon defeated the army of Egypt, and took control of all the area that the Egyptians formerly controlled, from the brook at the border of Egypt in the south to the Euphrates River in the north. So the army of the king of Egypt did not return to attack Judah again.” (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.”
In 605 B.C. the Babylonian army under Nebuchadnezzar decisively defeated the Egyptian army at the battle of Carchemish (Jer 46.1-12). See the introductory comments on this section.
The king of Egypt did not come again out of his land: What is implied in this statement is that the king of Egypt did not leave his territory for the purpose of military conquest.
The king of Babylon; that is, the king of Babylonia. See the comments at verse 1.
Had taken may be rendered “had taken control of” or “had taken over” (New Revised Standard Version).
All that belonged to the king of Egypt …: This seems to refer primarily to territory (mainly Syria and Palestine), but would have included everything that was on the land, including the people as well as the animals and crops.
The Brook of Egypt: As in 1 Kgs 8.65, this wadi formed the northern boundary marker of Egypt. This same expression is used in Num 34.5; Josh 15.4, 47; Isa 27.12; Ezek 47.19; 48.28.
The river Euphrates: See 1 Kgs 4.21 and 2 Kgs 23.29.
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.