Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Kings 3:23:
Kupsabiny: “And when they saw that, they said, ‘But this is blood! Truly those rulers have fought one another alone and have killed one another. What else is there to do than let us the people of Moab go and plunder/take over the(ir) things!’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “They said, "This is blood. It might be that those kings have fought one another and killed each other. Let’s go and plunder their camp."” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “They said, ‘That is blood! Surely the three kings have-fought and killed-each-other. So we (excl.) will-take their properties!’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “They exclaimed, ‘It is blood! The three enemy armies must have fought and killed each other! So let’s go and take everything that they have left!’” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Ge’ez, 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 said: As in verse 10, the ordinary verb said may need to be replaced by a more vivid term in this context (Good News Translation “exclaimed”). This was not a casual comment but an exclamation.
The kings have surely fought together: One version of the ancient Greek translation supplies the implied information that there were “three” kings. This clause also implies that the Moabites thought that the armies of the kings had fought and not just the three kings themselves. Parole de Vie, for example, says “The kings and their armies….”
Have surely fought together is literally “to fight they have fought.” This expression uses two forms of the same Hebrew verb to show the (mistaken) certainty of the Moabites. This emphatic form may be translated “must have fought among themselves” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).
Now then, Moab, to the spoil!: This final statement in the direct quotation of the Moabite soldiers is a kind of mutual encouragement to move into the valley to take the weapons and other belongings of the enemy soldiers whom they mistakenly thought were dead. God’s Word translates “Now, Moabites, let’s take their goods!” But it may be unnatural in some languages for these soldiers to use the term “Moabites,” referring to themselves in a direct quotation.
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.