1And in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came with all his army against Jerusalem and laid siege to it; they built siegeworks against it all around.
The term that is transliterated as “Nebuchadnezzar” in English is translated in American Sign Language with the signs for “king” and one signifying a wavy beard, referring to the common way of wearing a beard in Mesopotamia (see here ). (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)
“Nebuchadnezzar” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor
In Spanish Sign Language it is translated with a sign depicting “idol in my image,” referring to Daniel 3:1. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)
The name that is transliterated as “Jerusalem” in English is signed in French Sign Language with a sign that depicts worshiping at the Western Wall in Jerusalem:
While a similar sign is also used in British Sign Language, another, more neutral sign that combines the sign “J” and the signs for “place” is used as well. (Source: Anna Smith)
“Jerusalem” in British Sign Language (source: Christian BSL, used with permission)
The Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin that is translated as “army” in English is translated in Chichewa as “group of warriors.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
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.”
And renders the Hebrew verbal transition marker that is sometimes translated “And it happened.” The beginning of a new paragraph is an adequate representation of this transition marker here.
The ninth year of his reign: Since this is the beginning of a new chapter and a new section, some implied information from the background may have to be supplied. When the text speaks of his reign, it is referring to the reign of Zedekiah and not of Nebuchadnezzar. So this may be made explicit in translation. New American Bible, like Good News Translation, has “the ninth year of Zedekiah’s reign.”
Good News Translation also includes from the end of 2 Kgs 24.20 in the Masoretic Text the statement that “Zedekiah rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia.” In many languages this information will also have to be provided in the translation of this verse. It was because of Zedekiah’s attempt to reject the authority of Babylonia that Nebuchadnezzar found it necessary to attack Jerusalem with his army.
For Babylon as Babylonia, see the comments at 2 Kgs 20.12 and 24.1.
In the tenth month: If translated literally into certain languages, the tenth month is likely to be misunderstood as meaning October (see the comments at 1 Kgs 6.1). Often translators are required to resort to a footnote or a special explanation in the glossary to explain the months of the year in the Bible. See Appendix A, “The Hebrew Calendar.” Here the reference is to January 588 B.C. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel prophesied regarding Zedekiah and Jerusalem on the day that Nebuchadnezzar attacked the city (Jer 21.1-10; 34.1-5; Ezek 24.2).
The two verb phrases, laid siege to it and built siegeworks against it round about, both concern the same activity on the part of the Babylonian army (compare the comments on “laying siege” at 1 Kgs 15.27, where a different Hebrew verb is used). The verb laid siege is third person singular in Hebrew, but the verb in the parallel passage in Jer 52.4 is plural, and the plural is followed in some modern translations (Moffatt, La Bible Pléiade). The focus here in 2 Kings, however, is on Nebuchadnezzar. Many modern versions include the idea of the enemy army camping in the area around the city under siege since this is clearly implied in the verb and preposition translated laid siege (so Good News Translation). So in view of the context (with all his army), in those languages where it is unnatural to translate the verb laid siege with a singular subject, it is perfectly acceptable to use the plural subject “they” here. Laying siege involved two stages: surrounding the city with semipermanent camps of soldiers and constructing ramps made of earth to enable these soldiers to go up over the city walls. In 1 Kgs 16.15 the same verb is translated “encamped against.”
Built siegeworks may be rendered “piled dirt against the city walls to attack it” (New Century Version), and this is the recommended translation. Some scholars understand the Hebrew noun translated siegeworks to refer to a mobile tower or platform on which archers stood in order to shoot over the walls of the city, and for this reason some versions state that material other than earth was used; for example, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “built towers against it all around” and Revised English Bible has “erected siege-towers against it on every side.”
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.