6and reported to him that the treasury in Jerusalem was full of untold sums of money, so that the amount of the funds could not be reckoned, and that they did not belong to the account of the sacrifices but that it was possible for them to fall under the control of the king.
The name that is transliterated as “Jerusalem” in English is signed in French Sign Language with a sign that depicts worshiping at the Western Wall in Jerusalem:
While a similar sign is also used in British Sign Language, another, more neutral sign that combines the sign “J” and the signs for “place” is used as well. (Source: Anna Smith)
“Jerusalem” in British Sign Language (source: Christian BSL, used with permission)
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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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.”
Good News Bible joins this verse to the previous one as one long sentence. We suggest following Revised Standard Version in keeping it as a separate sentence.
He reported to him that the treasury in Jerusalem was full of untold sums of money, so that the amount of the funds could not be reckoned: In this context the treasury in Jerusalem refers to “the Temple treasury” (Good News Bible). Full of untold sums of money and the amount of the funds could not be reckoned may be combined by rendering the first half of this verse as “He told him that the Temple treasury in Jerusalem contained so much money that it could not be counted.” Another possible model is “He told him that there were vast amounts of money in the Temple treasury in Jerusalem. It was so much that nobody knew how much was there.” For languages that prefer direct speech here, translators may say “He said, ‘There is more money in the Temple treasury [or, the place in the Temple where they store money] than we can count.’”
And that they did not belong to the account of the sacrifices, but that it was possible for them to fall under the control of the king: The legal situation described here is not clear, but probably at the root of it is the idea that once property had been given over to the Temple in place of sacrificial animals, that money, like the animals, became the property of the Temple and could not be returned. Here the assumption seems to be that the Syrian king must respect the sanctity of the Temple, and not take for his own use money that had been so dedicated. However, Simon reported that there was a lot of money in the Temple treasury that was not there for that reason, so the king could confiscate it without technically violating a holy site. An alternative model for the last half of this verse is “He claimed that a lot of this money had not been set aside for the sacrifices [or, to pay for the sacrifices], so the king could take it for himself [or, for the royal treasury].”
Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on 1-2 Maccabees. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2011. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.