3David came to his house at Jerusalem, and the king took the ten concubines whom he had left to look after the house and put them in a house under guard and provided for them but did not go in to them. So they were shut up until the day of their death, living as if in widowhood.
The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “concubine” in English is translated in Kutu as “slave made to be his woman” or “female slave he married” and similarly in Makonde, “a slave who is/was a wife.”
In Kwere it is translated as “small wife.” This is the term for subsequent wives when polygamy is practiced among the Kwere. While they enjoy most of the same rights and privileges as the first wife, their status is not necessarily the same. In Kalanga it is likewise translated with balongwana or “small wife.” (Source for all: project-specific notes in Paratext)
In Newari it is translated as “illegitimate wife” (source: Newari Back Translation).
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)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Samuel 20:3:
Kupsabiny: “When David reached the home he ruled from in Jerusalem, he got his ten concubines whom he had left to keep/guard the home to go and stay in a house where they could be kept/taken care of and fed. But he did not meet with any of those women. Those women stayed like widows until they died.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “When David arrived at his palace in Jerusalem he had taken the ten concubines to another house, he kept soldiers to watch them. He gave them to eat and to drink, but did not sleep with them. In this way they were confined until they died [lit. as long as they did not die.] They had to be treated like widows [lit.: women who had no husbands].” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “When David had-returned to his palace in Jerusalem, he sent-for to bring into a house his ten wives whom he left to take-care the palace, and he had- them -guarded. He provided them their needs, but he did- not -lie-down-beside/(did- not -have-sexual-relations-with) them anymore. They stayed there as-if widows until they died.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “When David arrived at the palace in Jerusalem, he took the ten slave wives whom he had left there to take care of the palace and put them in another house. He put a guard at that house, and he provided for them what they needed, but he never had sexual relations with them again. So they remained shut up in their house until they died. It was as though they were widows.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
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.”
His house: that is, the royal palace. When the writer speaks of a house later in the verse, this was very likely a separate building and should therefore be rendered “another house” (Contemporary English Version) or “a different building.”
David and the king refer to the same person. It may be better in certain languages to say, for example, “King David” in the first case and then use the pronoun “he” afterward.
Concubines: see 15.16, where it is said that these women were left to take care of the palace as David fled Jerusalem. And note also that they were involved in sexual activity with Absalom as a result of Ahithophel’s advice (16.21-22). The text at that point does not say that they were raped, and it is presumed that they did not attempt to reject Absalom’s advances, thinking that David would never return. By having had sexual relations with Absalom, these concubines had humiliated David and were defiled. It was for this reason that David refused any further relationships with them and that they were shut up until the day of their death. This was apparently a kind of house arrest, but David provided for their needs and did not punish them further.
Provided for them: this is a very general statement, but it is usually interpreted as referring to the provision of food and clothing. A similar use of the verb, though in a slightly different form, in 1 Kgs 20.27 is translated “were provisioned” by Revised Standard Version. Some contemporary renderings in this case are “he provided for their upkeep” (New Jerusalem Bible), “he gave them food” (New Century Version), “giving them their allowance of food still” (Knox).
Did not go in to them: some translations indicate a rather general abandoning of the women. New Jerusalem Bible, for example, says that David “never went near them again.” But more specifically, this is a euphemism meaning that he did not have sexual relationships with them again. A clearer model may be “he did not have sexual relations with them” (New Century Version).
As if in widowhood: the words so translated are not entirely clear in the traditional Hebrew text. The Targum speaks of “widows whose husband was alive,” and the ancient Greek version says “living widows.” Since their most recent “husband” had been Absalom, they would have been true widows. Anderson takes the expression to mean “being in a permanent widowhood.” Most likely the sense is that they were “living as if they were widows” (Revised English Bible), that is, they never again had sexual relations with any man.
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.