27The king also said to the priest Zadok, “Look, go back to the city in peace, you and Abiathar, with your two sons, Ahimaaz your son and Jonathan son of Abiathar.
The name that is transliterated as “Abiathar” in English is translated in Libras (Brazilian Sign Language) with a sign that combines “priest” and “last.” Abiathar was a priest during the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon. He was also the last priest in the lineage of Eli (1 Kings 2:27). (Source: Missão Kophós )
The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that are typically translated as “priest” in English (itself deriving from Latin “presbyter” — “elder”) is often translated with a consideration of existing religious traditions. (Click or tap for details)
Bratcher / Nida (1961) say this:
“However, rather than borrow local names for priests, some of which have unwanted connotations, a number of translations have employed descriptive phrases based on certain functions: (1) those describing a ceremonial activity: Pamona uses tadu, the priestess who recites the litanies in which she describes her journey to the upper or under-world to fetch life-spirit for sick people, animals or plants; Batak Toba uses the Arabic malim, ‘Muslim religious teacher;’ ‘one who presents man’s sacrifice to God’ (Bambara, Eastern Maninkakan), ‘one who presents sacrifices’ (Baoulé, Navajo (Dinė)), ‘one who takes the name of the sacrifice’ (Kpelle, and ‘to make a sacrifice go out’ (Hausa); (2) those describing an intermediary function: ‘one who speaks to God’ (Shipibo-Conibo) and ‘spokesman of the people before God’ (Tabasco Chontal).”
In Obolo it is translated as ogwu ngwugwa or “the one who offers sacrifice” (source: Enene Enene), in Mairasi as agam aevar nevwerai: “religious leader” (source: Enggavoter 2004), in Ignaciano as “blesser, one who does ritual as a practice” (using a generic term rather than the otherwise common Spanish loan word sacerdote) (source: Willis Ott in Notes on Translation 88/1982, p. 18ff.), and in Noongar as yakin-kooranyi or “holy worker” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
For Guhu-Samane, Ernest Richert (in The Bible Translator, 1965, p. 81ff. ) reports this: “The [local] cult of Poro used to be an all-encompassing religious system that essentially governed all areas of life. (…) For ‘priest’ the term ‘poro father’ would at first seem to be a natural choice. However, several priests of the old cult are still living. Although they no longer function primarily as priests of the old system they still have a substantial influence on the community, and there would be more than a chance that the unqualified term would (in some contexts particularly) be equated with the priest of the poro cult. We learned, then, that the poro fathers would sometimes be called ‘knife men’ in relation to their sacrificial work. The panel was pleased to apply this term to the Jewish priest, and the Christian community has adopted it fully. [Mark 1:44, for instance, now] reads: ‘You must definitely not tell any man of this. But you go show your body to the knife man and do what Moses said about a sacrifice concerning your being healed, and the cause (base of this) will be apparent.'”
For a revision of the 1968 version of the Bible in Khmer Joseph Hong (in: The Bible Translator 1996, 233ff. ) talks about a change in wording for this term:
Bau cha r (បូជាចារ្យ) — The use of this new construction meaning “priest” is maintained to translate the Greek word hiereus. The term “mean sang (មាន សង្ឃ)” used in the old version actually means a “Buddhist monk,” and is felt to be theologically misleading. The Khmer considers the Buddhist monk as a “paddy field of merits,” a reserve of merits to be shared with other people. So a Khmer reader would find unthinkable that the mean sang in the Bible killed animals, the gravest sin for a Buddhist; and what a scandal it would be to say that a mean sang was married, had children, and drank wine.
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.”
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.
Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.
One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a formal plural suffix to the second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, anata-gata (あなたがた) is used, combining the second person pronoun anata and the plural suffix -gata to create a formal plural pronoun (“you” [plural] in English).
Also: once again, this reflects the common Hebrew conjunction, which at this point indicates the continuation of David’s conversation with Zadok. The translation of the verb that follows may easily contain the meaning of the conjunction here. For example, if it is rendered “he continued” or something similar, there is no need for further translation of the conjunction. And in some languages it may be more natural to omit entirely the words that interrupt the flow of what David is saying to Zadok (as in Contemporary English Version).
Look: this does not reflect the Hebrew focusing particle but is rather a form of the verb “to see.” The imperative form of Revised Standard Version follows the understanding of the ancient Greek version, but the Hebrew is actually a rhetorical question and means “Do you see?” (compare Goldman, “Seest thou?”) or “Are you not a seer?” (Revised English Bible). This has also been rendered “Do you understand?” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) and “you are a good judge of things” (Contemporary English Version). Taking this to mean that he is to act as a spy, Anderson translates “Are you not an observant person?” The understanding of the ancient Greek version is, however, preferable at this point, since the Hebrew rhetorical question affirms that Zadok does understand the situation. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives a {B} rating to the Hebrew text. But since the Hebrew is a rhetorical question, this may be translated “You [singular] understand the situation. Go back to the city….”
Go back to the city in peace: the expression “go in peace” was a common Hebrew way of saying goodbye. It was used, for example, by Eli to Hannah (1 Sam 1.17), by Jonathan to David (1 Sam 20.42), and, earlier in this chapter, by David to Absalom (15.9). But the wording is different here, and in this context it probably suggests that they are to slip quietly into the city without drawing attention to themselves, or that they should go back to Jerusalem where they would be safe. Contemporary English Version, for example, translates it “and don’t cause any trouble,” and New Jerusalem Bible “go back quietly into the city.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “you return to the safety of the city…” (Revised English Bible is similar).
In some languages the direct discourse in this verse will be more naturally rendered as an indirect quotation. A possible model like the following may be helpful: “… went on to tell Zadok that he should take his son Ahimaaz and Jonathan, the son of Abiathar, and return to Jerusalem quietly.”
Revised Standard Version follows those interpreters who change the Hebrew words go back [singular] to the city to “you and Abiathar return to the city” (so also New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible). Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives an {A} rating to the Hebrew text. But for reasons of translation Revised Standard Version may be followed in the receptor language. The last part of verse 27 in Hebrew says “Go back [singular] … and Ahimaaz your son and Jonathan the son of Abiathar, your [plural] two sons with you [plural].” And verse 29 clearly indicates that Abiathar also returned to Jerusalem.
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.