enemy / foe

The Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Ge’ez, and Latin that is translated as “enemy” or “foe” in English is translated in the Hausa Common Language Bible as “friends of front,” i.e., the person standing opposite you in a battle. (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)

In North Alaskan Inupiatun it is translated with a term that implies that it’s not just someone who hates you, but one who wants to do you harm (Source: Robert Bascom), in Tarok as ukpa ìkum or “companion in war/fighting,” and in Ikwere as nye irno m or “person who hates me” (source for this and one above: Chuck and Karen Tessaro in this newsletter ).

king

Click here to view graphically

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:

(Click or tap here to see details)

  • Piro: “a great one”
  • Highland Totonac: “the big boss”
  • Huichol: “the one who commanded” (source for this and above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Ekari: “the one who holds the country” (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
  • Una: weik sienyi: “big headman” (source: Kroneman 2004, p. 407)
  • Pass Valley Yali: “Big Man” (source: Daud Soesilo)
  • 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.”

(Source: Faye Edgerton in The Bible Translator 1962, p. 25ff. )

See also king (Japanese honorifics).

Translation commentary on Greek Esther 6:6

When Haman entered, the king gave him no opportunity to say why he had come. Instead, he asked his own question. As in 1.15, he asked advice on what was right to do.

What shall be done to the man: in English to do something to someone usually has a negative connotation. Since the king wants to do something good here, Today’s English Version and New Revised Standard Version both say “for” the man. Speaking as king he refers to himself in the third person. Today’s English Version uses a very casual style in this verse, which may not be appropriate.

Although Revised Standard Version says delights, this may be translated as “wants very much” (compare Today’s English Version) or as “desires” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). A word appropriate to the wishes of a king should be used.

The translator may encounter at least three problems with Haman’s question. The first is that the author uses direct quotation to reveal what Haman said “in his heart.” The second is that Haman’s thoughts take the form of a rhetorical question. That is, they are not a real question because Haman thought he already knew the answer. The third problem is the comparative construction, more than me.

For the first, Today’s English Version also uses direct quotation, which it introduces by saying “thought to himself.” In the case of the second problem, Today’s English Version makes explicit the answer to Haman’s question, “Me, of course.” The third problem is restated to eliminate the comparison. Some languages may prefer a pattern that is closer to the original Hebrew, “The king would wish to do honor to whom besides me?” or “Whom would the king wish to honor if not me?” or perhaps “Whom would the king want to honor surpass me?” Sometimes a rhetorical question may be replaced by an emphatic statement; for example, “Surely the king would want to honor no one but me!”

Translators should not make explicit in this verse that it is Mordecai whom the king wants to honor, since Haman’s rhetorical question makes sense only if he does not know that the king is thinking of Mordecai. Haman’s plight is both humorous and tragic.

Septuagint 6.6

Since the Greek omits the words “So Haman came in,” it makes explicit to whom the king spoke: “Then the king said to Haman.” It is not clear whether Today’s English Version has followed a Greek manuscript that has the words “So Haman came in,” or whether it makes explicit in its translation of the Greek what is explicit in Hebrew. It is preferable for the translator to follow the Greek style and not introduce what is not in the text, if this is not confusing to the reader.

More than me: the Greek says “if not me” (see comments on Hebrew version above).

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Noss, Philip A. A Handbook on the Book of Esther — Deuterocanon: The Greek Text. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .