3But the men said, “You shall not go out. For if we flee, they will not care about us. If half of us die, they will not care about us. But you are worth ten thousand of us; therefore it is better that you send us help from the city.”
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 king.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Samuel 18:3:
Kupsabiny: “But, those people told the king that, ‘No, oh, king, we shall not take you along because it is you who is wanted. When things become hard/pressed for us and we escape/flee, those people don’t worry about (that). If a part/portion of us die, they will not see that to be something (important). But, king, you are great so that you can be compared to ten thousand men. So, it is better for you to remain here in this town and you send us any assistance/back-up.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “But the men said, "No, you must not go. If something happens and we have to run away, no one will be concerned for us. Even if half of us die, they will not be concerned. But you are equal to ten thousand of us. So it would be good if you would help us by staying in the city."” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “But his men said, ‘You must not go with us (excl.). (It is) not a concern for the enemies if we (excl.) flee, or half of us (excl.) will-die. They prefer that you will-die than the 10,000 of us (excl.) will-die. Therefore (it is) better for you just to stay here in town and send us (excl.) help if we (excl.) need it.’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “But his soldiers said, ‘No, we will not allow you to go with us. If they force us all to run away, they will not be concerned about that happening. Or if they kill half of us, that will also not be what they want. To them, killing you is more important than killing 10,000 of us. So it will be better that you stay here in the city and send help to us.’” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Many languages use a “body part tally system” where body parts function as numerals (see body part tally systems with a description). One such language is Angguruk Yali which uses a system that ends at the number 27. To circumvent this limitation, the Angguruk Yali translators adopted a strategy where a large number is first indicated with an approximation via the traditional system, followed by the exact number according to Arabic numerals. For example, where in 2 Samuel 6:1 it says “thirty thousand” in the English translation, the Angguruk Yali says teng-teng angge 30.000 or “so many rounds [following the body part tally system] 30,000,” likewise, in Acts 27:37 where the number “two hundred seventy-six” is used, the Angguruk Yali translation says teng-teng angge 276 or “so many rounds 276,” or in John 6:10 teng-teng angge 5.000 for “five thousand.”
This strategy is used in all the verses referenced here.
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 to do this is through the usage of appropriate suffix title referred to as keishō (敬称) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017 by using –sama. Here, ō-sama (王様) “king” is a combination of the nominal title ō “king” and the suffix title –sama.
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 benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.
Here, tasukete (助けて) or “help” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).” (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
But: the common conjunction here marks a contrast between David’s firm resolution to go out into battle and his soldiers’ equally firm statement to the contrary. A conjunction of contrast will be called for in most languages.
You shall not go out: the troops respond to David’s expressed intention to go with them into battle by stating that this should not happen. Their advice was logical, since Absalom’s primary purpose was to get rid of his rival to the throne. While the advice is imperative, it will have to be couched in more polite form in some languages, since the men are speaking to their king. In some cases this will mean beginning with a word like “Pardon…” before making the imperative statement.
The soldiers then give two possible disastrous scenarios that, in spite of their seriousness, would not be so bad if David himself were spared being captured or killed. The first involves the running away of the entire army, and the second supposes the death of half of David’s loyal soldiers. In languages where there is no precise word for half, translators may say “one of every two of us” or possibly “very many of us.”
The insignificance of the serious hypothetical losses is highlighted by saying that David alone is worth ten thousand ordinary soldiers. In some languages this may have to be expressed “it is better for you to live than for ten thousand of us to live” or “your death would be more important than the deaths of ten thousand of us.”
The expression they will not care about us, which occurs twice in this verse, is more literally “they will not set [their] heart on us.” The implied subject of the verb is the enemy. Some other translations are “they will not even bother about us” (New Jerusalem Bible), “no one will pay attention to us” (Anchor Bible), and “it makes no great matter [to the enemy]” (Knox).
But you: nearly all manuscripts of the Masoretic Text plus most of the manuscripts in the Septuagint tradition read “but now….” But two Hebrew manuscripts and some manuscripts of the Septuagint have the same meaning as found in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation, and this is recommended by Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, which gives a {B} rating to the reading But you. In Hebrew manuscripts the words “you [singular]” and “now” are frequently mixed up with each other, since they are similar in spelling. The emphatic pronoun, you, also fits the context better than the adverb of time, “now.” Nearly all modern translations, including New International Version and even New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, agree with the text found in Revised Standard Version, but a few continue to follow the Masoretic Text. Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, for example, says “even if half of us die, they won’t care; but now there are ten thousand like us.”
An alternative to David’s going into battle himself is suggested by the troops. David should stay in the town of Mahanaim and be prepared to send out reinforcements and supplies as they are needed. This proposal is introduced by saying therefore it is better …. Such an expression may prove difficult for some translators. Some languages will have to express this idea in two separate sentences as follows: “So please stay here and send us help if we need it. That will be good surpassing your going into battle with us.”
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.