9Then they said to one another, “What we are doing is wrong. This is a day of good news; if we are silent and wait until the morning light, we will be found guilty; therefore let us go and tell the king’s household.”
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 inclusive pronoun, including everyone.
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.”
Then renders the common Hebrew conjunction. Here it marks a reversal in the thinking and activity of the four men, so certain languages will require that this contrast be marked. Good News Translation does so with “But then.” Revised English Bible also has “But.”
They said to one another: See the comments on verse 3.
We are not doing right: In some languages this may be stated as “The things we are doing are not good.” But in other cases it will be more natural to speak of doing wrong rather than not doing right; for example, New Revised Standard Version has “What we are doing is wrong” while New Jerusalem Bible says simply “We are doing wrong.”
The word rendered good news does not necessarily refer to news that is good in every context. However, in both biblical Hebrew and related Semitic languages, the sense of this noun and related verbs is nearly always “good news,” and there can be no doubt that this is the meaning that is intended here.
Punishment will overtake us: The motivation behind the lepers’ change in thinking seems to have been a fear of punishment. But it is also possible to translate “we shall incur guilt” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), “we will be found guilty” (New Revised Standard Version), “we shall be held to blame” (Revised English Bible), or simply “we shall certainly be punished” (New Jerusalem Bible).
Now therefore is literally “and now.” This represents a very strong logical connection that should be retained in translation wherever possible.
Come, let us go: It may seem strange to some translators to have both come and go here. While the basic meaning of the first verb is “go, move, walk,” it is sometimes used by a speaker to urge others to action. Since this seems to be its function here, it may be misleading to translate it literally. New Jerusalem Bible tries to capture the idea of exhortation while at the same time retaining something of the form of the original by saying “Come on, let us go.” On the other hand, New Revised Standard Version omits it altogether and Revised English Bible seeks to convey the imperative idea in the form of the second verb, saying “We must go.”
The king’s household: Good News Translation has translated “the king’s officers” here, but in verse 11 Good News Translation speaks of “the palace.” Since the reference is ultimately to human beings, it seems reasonable to translate “the people of the king’s house [palace]” in both cases.
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.