Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Kings 25:6:
Kupsabiny: “After that, the king was captured and was brought to the king of Babylon in Riblah. Then he was judged/accused.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “Then, taking the king, they brought him to the King of Babylon in Riblah. The king gave orders to punish him.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “and he was-captured. He was-taken to the king of Babilonia at Ribla and there (he) was-sentenced.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “The Babylonian soldiers took King Zedekiah to Riblah city in Babylon. There the king of Babylon decided what they would do to punish 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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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.”
They captured the king, and brought him up to the king of Babylon: Depending on how the verb “overtook” is translated in the previous verse, the verb captured here may be considered redundant. In any case, the Babylonian soldiers clearly took Zedekiah as a captive to their king. Since two kings are referred to in this context, one or possibly both of them should probably be referred to by using the proper name; for example, Good News Translation renders the king as “Zedekiah” and the king of Babylon as “King Nebuchadnezzar.”
It is unclear why the Hebrew text includes upward movement in the phrase brought him up, but in any case, this is not essential to the story. Most modern versions have simply “brought him” (New American Standard Bible), “took him” (New Century Version, New Jerusalem Bible), or the passive verbal construction “was taken” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, New International Version) without any indication of upward movement.
Riblah: This city in northern Syria is also mentioned in 2 Kgs 23.33 and in Num 34.11.
Who passed sentence upon him is literally “and they spoke with him judgment.” The wording of both Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation indicates that it was Nebuchadnezzar who judged Zedekiah. In the parallel passages in Jeremiah (39.5; 52.9), it is clearly the Babylonian king who pronounces the verdict against Zedekiah; but here in 2 Kings it is probably better to retain the plural pronoun subject (so Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), referring to the soldiers who captured him. The last part of this verse will then be translated “and they put him on trial” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). New International Version avoids the problem by using the passive expression “where sentence was pronounced on him.” But this is not a viable option in languages where passive verbs are problematic or nonexistent. Nouvelle Bible Segond uses an indefinite plural pronoun as the subject here.
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.