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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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.”
The pronoun he at the beginning of this verse refers to Mephibosheth, and this should probably be clarified in translation.
From Jerusalem: the Good News Translation footnote states that the preposition is literally “at” in the Hebrew text; but in fact the Hebrew says only “And when he came Jerusalem.” This seems to indicate that the meeting between Mephibosheth and David took place in Jerusalem rather than during David’s journey back to the capital, but this seems unlikely, since the following events of verses 32-40 are also located at the Jordan River. However, the preposition from is found in a few Greek manuscripts, and this reading is adopted by a wide range of English versions, including even New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, which normally sticks close to the traditional Hebrew text.
Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament argues that the words “to Jerusalem” were originally present in the Hebrew text of verse 24 but were accidentally omitted and then later reinserted in the wrong place. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament recommends the following text of 24b-25: “… until the day he came in peace to Jerusalem. And it came to pass that when he came to meet the king….” That Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives only a {D} rating to this corrected text indicates the considerable uncertainty about determining the original text. Translators should chose between the Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament recommendation and the text followed by Revised Standard Version.
The question Why did you not go with me…? implies that staying behind in Jerusalem in those circumstances was a sign of disloyalty. This will probably be understood in most languages, but if not, the implied information can be made explicit by saying something like “Mephibosheth, you did not go with me [when I left Jerusalem]. Were you taking your stand with my enemies?”
In some languages it is quite natural to put the name of the person addressed at the end of the question, as Revised Standard Version has done. This is a reflection of the original Hebrew word order. However, in other languages this may be quite unnatural, and the name will have to be placed at the beginning of the question. Translators should feel free to use whichever word order seems most natural in their language.
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.