עִבְר֤וּ כַֽלְנֵה֙ וּרְא֔וּ וּלְכ֥וּ מִשָּׁ֖ם חֲמַ֣ת רַבָּ֑ה וּרְד֣וּ גַת־פְּלִשְׁתּ֗ים הֲטוֹבִים֙ מִן־הַמַּמְלָכ֣וֹת הָאֵ֔לֶּה אִם־רַ֥ב גְּבוּלָ֖ם מִגְּבֻלְכֶֽם׃
2Cross over to Calneh and see;
from there go to Hamath the great;
then go down to Gath of the Philistines.
Are you better than these kingdoms?
Or is your territory greater than their territory,
The term that is transliterated as “Philistines” in English is translated in American Sign Language with a sign that signifies the helmet the Philistine warriors wore was decorated with feather-like objects. (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)
“Philistines” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor
(Click or tap here to see details)
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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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).
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 choice of a formal plural suffix to the second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, anata-gata (あなたがた) is used, combining the second person pronoun anata and the plural suffix -gata to create a formal plural pronoun (“you” [plural] in English).
(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
Pass over to Calneh, and see; and thence go to Hamath the great; then go down to Gath of the Philistines. Are they better than these kingdoms? Or is their territory greater than your territory?/Go and look at the city of Calneh. Then go on to the great city of Hamath and on down to the Philistine city of Gath. Were they any better than the kingdoms of Judah and Israel? Was their territory larger than yours? Two main interpretations have been given for this verse: (1) That these are Amos’ own words addressed to the leaders of Israel, as a warning to remember nations which were greater than theirs and yet had met their doom. This is probably not the correct meaning. (2) It is a quotation put by Amos in the mouths of the rulers to show their unlimited boasting. The leaders tell the people to compare how well off Israel is in comparison with other nations. The translator will have to make a choice between these meanings. In many languages he cannot simply reproduce the questions and so maintain a vague meaning. In fact, he often has to provide definite answers to the questions or express the meaning in statements.
Good News Translation is not a good model to follow here. The best solution is to make a statement like: “You say to your people: go and look at the city of Calneh; then go on to the great city of Hamath, and on down to the Philistine city of Gath. See how none of these countries is as strong and as large as the kingdoms of Judah and Israel!” Or, “You say: let our people go … and see how….”
It will be necessary to pay special attention to the choice between “come” and “go,” particularly in languages with a highly developed directional system (see Translating Amos, Section 3). Hamath was a city-state in upper Syria on the Orontes River. Unfortunately, the city of Calneh has not yet been found. All we know is that it was north of Hamath. With Bethel as the viewpoint place of the book of Amos, the movement is first to the north (Calneh), from there to the south (Hamath), then further to the south and even slightly to the southwest, since Gath is located southwest of Bethel.
The usual translation better may be misleading, because the Hebrew word does not have a moral meaning here. Something like “prosperous” or “strong” (The Translator’s Old Testament) is more suitable.
Quoted with permission from de Waard, Jan & Smalley, William A. A Handbook on Amos. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1979. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
No comments yet.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.