13He said to him, “Say to her: Since you have taken all this trouble for us, what may be done for you? Would you have a word spoken on your behalf to the king or to the commander of the army?” She answered, “I live among my own people.”
Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)
The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).
For this verse, the Jarai and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation both use the exclusive pronoun, excluding the Shunammite woman.
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 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 languages where the masculine and feminine pronouns are not distinguished, it will almost certainly be necessary to use the proper names in place of one or more of the pronouns in this verse. It should be made clear that Elisha is speaking to his servant Gehazi at the beginning of this verse and later it is the woman who responds.
And he said to him, “Say now to her…”: Since Elisha tells Gehazi what to say to the woman of Shunem, this verse contains a quotation within another quotation. In languages where this kind of structure is considered awkward, a different construction must be used. One possible way to do this would be to begin the verse by saying “Elisha then told Gehazi to give the woman the following message….” The word now renders the Hebrew particle of entreaty. Most translations omit it, but compare Nouvelle Bible Segond for the beginning of the quotation here: “Tell her, I beg you….” Other languages may prefer “Please tell her….”
See, you have taken all this trouble for us is literally “Behold, you have worried [or, trembled] for us all this worrying [or, trembling].” In Hebrew this clause begins with the focusing particle hinneh, which is rendered See. The trouble referred to is apparently the effort required to build and furnish the guest room and the provision for the other needs of her visitors. The plural pronoun us refers to Elisha and his servant Gehazi.
What is to be done for you?: This question is very similar to the one asked of the poor widow earlier in this chapter (verse 2). But here the passive form of Revised Standard Version will have to be transformed into an active expression in many languages; for example, “What can I do for you?” (Revised English Bible) or “what can we do for you?” (New Jerusalem Bible). New Jerusalem Bible uses “we” instead of “I” because of the pronoun us just before this question.
Would you have a word spoken on your behalf to the king or to the commander of the army?: One possible meaning lying behind these words is that Elisha may have been suggesting that he could ask the king and his military commander to lower the taxes of the woman’s family. Other commentators think that the prophet might have been asking whether the woman had any unfinished business in the courts that could be settled by his influence with the king. But the translation should not be more precise than the original.
I dwell among my own people: The woman’s answer may not at first seem logical to some readers, but in many areas of the world this response will be readily understood. The woman spoke this way to indicate that she had need of nothing. All her needs were taken care of by the relatives that surrounded her. Contemporary English Version translates this meaning quite clearly: “With my relatives nearby, I have everything I need.” Compare also “No, thank you. I live among my people and I have everything I need” (Parole de Vie).
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 .