11Then Ziba said to the king, “According to all that my lord the king commands his servant, so your servant will do.” Mephibosheth ate at David’s table, like one of the king’s sons.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Samuel 9:11:
Kupsabiny: “Ziba replied, ‘Lord/master, I will do all )the) things that you have said.’ So, the king ate with Mephibosheth just like the way he eats with his sons.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “Then Ziba said to the king, "I, your servant will do all that my Lord the commands own servant to do." So Mephibosheth also sat at David’s table to eat, like the king’s sons.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “Ziba said to the king, ‘Beloved King, I will-fulfill whatever you will-command to me your servant.’ From that-time-on, Mefiboshet always eats with David seems-like one of his children.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “Ziba replied to the king, ‘Your majesty, I will do everything that you have commanded me to do.’ So after that, Mephibosheth always ate at the king’s table, as though he were one of the king’s sons.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
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 usage of an honorific construction where the morpheme rare (られ) is affixed on the verb as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, mōshitsuke-rare-ru (申しつけられる) or “command” is used.
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.”
Then: the Hebrew conjunction reflected here may be left untranslated in some languages. Note that Revised English Bible and New American Bible tie the introductory statement in this verse to the comment at the end of the previous one: “Ziba, who had fifteen sons and twenty slaves, answered….” But many versions make a new paragraph at this point, which is probably a good model to follow.
Said: as in verse 7 “answered” may be more natural in this context.
My lord the king: this is a respectful way used by Ziba to refer to the king to whom he is speaking. While in some languages the pronoun “you” by itself may sound too direct and lacking in respect, it will probably be possible to add something to it to indicate respect. For example, one may say “you who are my king.” Or a separate sentence may be used to introduce the statement: “Sir, you are the king. [I will do whatever you order….]”
His servant … your servant: both of these indirect references are modest ways in which Ziba talks about himself in the presence of the king. They will be better translated in the vast majority of languages by the pronouns for “me” and “I.” This part of the verse may be translated “Whatever you command me to do, my king, that is what I will do.”
So: this reflects the common Hebrew conjunction, but its translation will depend on whether the following sentence is taken as part of what Ziba was saying. And that depends on the textual problem discussed in the following paragraph.
Mephibosheth ate at David’s table: the Hebrew text actually has “my table” instead of David’s table. Because of this some versions have taken this whole sentence as a continuation of what Ziba said rather than as a summary statement by the writer of 2 Samuel. If these are Ziba’s words, this constitutes a contradiction of the order of the king, or at least a mild protest against it. The Hebrew text is so interpreted by Traduction œcuménique de la Bible and Bible en français courant, which both have notes regarding this “timid protest.” Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, for example, renders verse 11b as follows: “But Mephibosheth will eat at my table like one of the king’s sons.”
Other versions have made this a quotation of David, adding the words “said the king” (King James Version and New King James Version ). King James Version, for example, says “As for Mephibosheth, said the king, he shall eat at my table, as one of the king’s sons.” The Latin Vulgate keeps the words in the mouth of Ziba but has “at your table.” However, no version consulted follows the Vulgate. The vast majority of modern translations adopt the reading of the ancient Greek version, which has made this a summary statement and reads “Mephibosheth ate at David’s table” or “… at the king’s table,” and this is recommended to other translators. It is surprising that this problem is not treated in Hebrew Old Testament Text Project or Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament.
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.