26When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through opposite the king of Edom, but they could not.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Kings 3:26:
Kupsabiny: “And/But when the ruler of Moab saw that the battle was coming to an end for him, he took seven hundred of his soldiers of/with swords and tried to break through to where the ruler of Edom was, but (he/they) was/were not able to do it.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “Realizing that he was losing the battle, the King of Moab took 700 soldiers and tried to forcibly crossing the enemy line near the place where the King of Edom was. But he did not succeed.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “When the king of Moab saw that they were-defeated in the battle, he took the 700 men who have swords to break-through the soldiers of the king of Edom, but they were-disheartened/frustrated.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “When the king of Moab realized that his army was being defeated, he took with him 700 men who fought with swords, and they tried to force a way through the Israeli lines of soldiers to escape to get help from the king of Syria, but they were unable to escape.” (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.”
When the king of Moab saw: Since the king of Moab has not been mentioned by name since verse 4, some translators may wish to follow the model of Contemporary English Version, which adds the proper name at this point: “King Mesha of Moab saw.”
The battle was going against him is literally “the battle was strong against him.” There will be a wide variety of ways of communicating this meaning in other languages. Some possible models are “he was losing the battle” (Good News Translation, New American Bible), “he could not resist this attack” (Bible en français courant, La Bible du Semeur), and “his cause was lost” (Knox).
Seven hundred swordsmen: Some languages will have to say “seven hundred soldiers who fought using swords.”
To break through, opposite the king of Edom: Assuming that the word Edom is the correct reading here, the meaning of this expression is subject to two different interpretations: (a) that Edom had deserted Israel during the battle against Moab and that the Moabites wanted to join them as new allies; or (b) that the Moabites wanted to fight against the Edomites because they would presumably have been the weaker opponent in the confederation that had surrounded them. The second interpretation is found in Revised Standard Version, which renders the Hebrew preposition ʾel as opposite. Contemporary English Version follows this interpretation also with “tried to break through the front line where the Edomite troops were positioned” (similarly New Living Translation). If, however, this second interpretation is correct, we would expect the Hebrew preposition ʿal and not ʾel.
The problem is further complicated by the fact that the words for Edom and “Aram” (that is, Syria) are very similar in Hebrew and are often confused in Old Testament texts. Some scholars believe that the original text had the word for “Aram” here in the place where the traditional Hebrew text has Edom. This is why several versions have translated “Aram” (New Jerusalem Bible, Revised English Bible, New American Bible, Osty-Trinquet, Gray) or “Syria” (Good News Translation). This is also the recommendation of Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, which gives a {C} rating to the correction “Aram.” As Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament points out, there is some reason to think that the ancient Greek translation read “Aram.” Even though the textual evidence strongly favors the reading Edom, the context supports the correction to “Syria.” The meaning, then, is that the king of Moab wanted to get through to Syria and gain the help of the king of Syria.
They could not; that is, the king of Moab and his seven hundred swordsmen were unable to break through the lines of those surrounding their capital. This may be translated “they failed” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New International Version) or, more explicitly, “they could not break through” (New Century Version).
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 .
3:26a When the king of Moab saw that the battle was too fierce for him,
The king of Moab realized that the fighting was not going well for him.
-or-
The king of Moab saw that he was losing the battle.
3:26b he took with him seven hundred swordsmen
He ordered seven hundred soldiers armed with swords to go with him
-or-
So he called seven hundred men who fought with swords to go with him
3:26c to break through to the king of Edom,
and attack the soldiers surrounding/protecting the king of Edom.
-or-
⌊and he tried⌋ to break through ⌊the line of soldiers defending⌋ the king of Edom.
3:26d but they could not prevail.
But they did not succeed.
-or-
But they could not ⌊reach the king⌋ .
3:26a-d (reordered)
Seing that defeat was near, the king of Moab decided to attack the king of Edom. Accompanied by seven hundred of his swordsmen, he tried to cut through the defenses around the king. But he could not.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.