The Hebrew and Greek that is transliterated as “Saul” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with the sign that depicts “sword in chest” (referring to 1 Samuel 31:4 and 1 Chronicles 10:4) and also “self-centered.” (Source: Steve Parkhurst)
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.
The Hebrew and Greek that is transliterated as “Benjamin” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with the sign for “wolf,” referring to Genesis 49:27. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Samuel 21:5:
Kupsabiny: “Those people replied that, ‘We want to be given seven people belonging to (descendants of) that person who ate (troubled) us the one who planned to finish us. We want to go and kill those people at the hill of God at Gibeah.’ The king replied that, ‘I will hand over to you those people.’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “They responded to the king, "The person who destroyed us and plotted against us, so that we would be destroyed and would have no place in Israel,” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “They answered, ‘Saul tried to kill us (excl.) so-that no one will-be-left among us (excl.) in Israel.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “They replied, ‘Saul wanted to get rid of us. He wanted to annihilate/kill all of us, in order that none of us would live anywhere in Israel.” (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.”
As in the previous verse, translators should again consider other possibilities in translating the verb said in the context of conversation.
The man: this, of course, refers to Saul. In many languages it will be wise to make this clear in translation by using the name, as Good News Translation, New Century Version, Bible en français courant, and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch have done.
Consumed: the verb used here literally means “to cause to be finished,” “annihilated,” or “exterminated.” But this cannot be literally true, since there is a remnant. Some interpreters therefore think it means “massacred” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) or “nearly annihilated” (see Anderson). Anchor Bible, on the other hand, adopts the reading of one manuscript of the ancient Greek version and translates “set himself against us and persecuted us.” But few English versions follow this option. The simplest solution appears to be to take the verb in its literal sense as an exaggeration. The result of this is a translation like that of New Jerusalem Bible, which uses the verb “decimated.” But in many languages the way to say this will be “killed nearly all of us.”
Planned to destroy us …: the meaning of this part of the verse is also uncertain. Goldman gives a more or less literal rendering, “devised against us, so that we have been destroyed from remaining in any of the borders of Israel.” But this is very awkward English. The meaning is expressed well by New American Bible, “who intended to destroy us that we might have no place in all the territory of Israel.”
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.