28But then the king asked her, “What is your complaint?” She answered, “This woman said to me, ‘Give up your son; we will eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow.’
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 translation uses the inclusive pronoun, including everyone. The Adamawa Fulfulde translation uses the exclusive pronoun, excluding the king.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Kings 6:28:
Kupsabiny: “Then the king asked the woman, ‘But hey, what is it that is troubling you?’ The woman answered, ‘The famine was so bad that this woman said to me, ‘Give us your boy to eat today, and then tomorrow, we eat mine.’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “Then he asked her, ‘What has happened to you?" She replied, "This woman said, ‘Let’s eat your son today, tomorrow we will eat my son.’” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “Then the king asked, ‘What is your (sing.) problem?’ The woman replied, ‘This woman said to me that we (excl.) would-eat my child on one day and on the following day, her child also.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “What is your problem?’ She replied, ‘Several days ago, that woman over there said to me, ‘Because we have nothing left to eat, let’s kill your son today, in order that we can eat his flesh. Then tomorrow we can kill my son and eat his flesh.’” (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.”
In some languages it will be an unnatural interruption to insert the words And the king asked her at the beginning of this verse since they break up the discourse of the king. The introduction at the beginning of verse 27 may be considered perfectly adequate so that the question What is your trouble? is merely an extension of the remarks begun in the previous verse (so Good News Translation). A natural rendering of the meaning in modern English is “What is the matter?” (New Jerusalem Bible, American Bible) or “What is your complaint?” (New Revised Standard Version). This is the way the king chose to invite the woman to explain her case in greater detail. The same invitation was given to the woman of Tekoa in 2 Sam 14.5.
This woman said to me: The woman who was speaking must have been pointing toward the other woman as she spoke. Other languages will have different ways of making this clear in translation. The distressed woman then goes on to cite what that woman had said to her previously. The story makes it clear that what she describes took place some time before her encounter with the king. This will have to be made explicit in some languages. Good News Translation does so by beginning her statement with “The other day this woman here suggested.”
Give your son …: The embedded quotation of what the second woman had said may have to be made indirect in certain languages (so Good News Translation). Here is a another model: “Not long ago that woman over there convinced me to give up my son so that we might have something to eat, and then she said we would eat her son the next day.” The Good News Translation rendering with “my child” and “her child” is not as specific as the Hebrew, which refers to a male child each time.
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.