16Then one in human form touched my lips, and I opened my mouth to speak and said to the one who stood before me, “My lord, because of the vision such pains have come upon me that I retain no strength.
Ayutla Mixtec: “see that which will happen” (source for this and seven above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
Tagbanwa: “being caused to dream by God” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Chichewa: azidzaona zinthu m’masomphenya: “they will see things as if face-to-face” (interconfessional translation, publ. 1999) (Source: Wendland 1998, p. 69)
The Greek in the books of Revelation and Acts is translated as obq-rmwible: “look-dream” in Natügu. Brenda Boerger (in Beerle-Moor / Voinov, p. 162ff.) tells the story of that translation: “In the book of Revelation, the author, John, talks about having visions. Mr. Simon [the native language translator] and I discussed what this meant and he invented the compound verb obq-rmwible ‘look-dream’ to express it. Interestingly, during village testing no one ever had to ask what this neologism meant.”
The Hebrew that is typically translated in English as “power” or “might” or “force” is translated in the English translation by Goldingay (2018) as energy or energetic.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Daniel 10:16:
Kupsabiny: “After that, the angel touched my mouth. Then/At that time I spoke to him, ‘Master, these dreams have weakened me to the extent that I just tremble.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “Then the one who looked like a man touched my lips, I able to speak again. and I said to him, "My Lord, because of the vision I have become very troubled, and I have no strength left.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “Then, this one/[lit. he] who seems-like a man, he touched my lips and I was-able-to-speak again. I said to him who was-standing before me, ‘Sir, my feeling is really bad and I fell-weak because of the vision that I saw.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “Suddenly the angel, who resembled a human, touched my lips. Then I was able to speak, and I said to him, ‘Sir, because I have seen this vision, I have become very weak, with the result that I cannot stop trembling.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
The Hebrew adonai in the Old Testament typically refers to God. The shorter adon (and in two cases in the book of Daniel the Aramaic mare [מָרֵא]) is also used to refer to God but more often for concepts like “master,” “owner,” etc. In English Bible translations all of those are translated with “Lord” if they refer to God.
In English Old Testament translations, as in Old Testament translations in many other languages, the use of Lord (or an equivalent term in other languages) is not to be confused with Lord (or the equivalent term with a different typographical display for other languages). While the former translates adonai, adon and mare, the latter is a translation for the tetragrammaton (YHWH) or the Name of God. See tetragrammaton (YHWH) and the article by Andy Warren-Rothlin in Noss / Houser, p. 618ff. for more information.
In the New Testament, the Greek term kurios has at least four different kinds of use:
referring to “God,” especially in Old Testament quotations,
meaning “master” or “owner,” especially in parables, etc.,
as a form of address (see for instance John 4:11: “Sir, you have no bucket”),
or, most often, referring to Jesus
In the first and fourth case, it is also translated as “Lord” in English.
Most languages naturally don’t have one word that covers all these meanings. According to Bratcher / Nida, “the alternatives are usually (1) a term which is an honorific title of respect for a high-ranking person and (2) a word meaning ‘boss’, ‘master’, or ‘chief.’ (…) and on the whole it has generally seemed better to employ a word of the second category, in order to emphasize the immediate personal relationship, and then by context to build into the word the prestigeful character, since its very association with Jesus Christ will tend to accomplish this purpose.”
When looking at the following list of back-translations of the terms that translators in the different languages have used for both kurios and adonai to refer to God and Jesus respectively, it might be helpful for English readers to recall the etymology of the English “Lord.” While this term might have gained an exalted meaning in the understanding of many, it actually comes from hlaford or “loaf-ward,” referring to the lord of the castle who was the keeper of the bread (source: Rosin 1956, p. 121).
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight
Following are some of the solutions that don’t rely on a different typographical display (see above):
Iyansi: Mwol. Mwol is traditionally used for the “chief of a group of communities and villages” with legal, temporal, and spiritual authority (versus the “mfum [the term used in other Bantu languages] which is used for the chief of one community of people in one village”). Mwol is also used for twins who are “treated as special children, highly honored, and taken care of like kings and queens.” (Source: Kividi Kikama in Greed / Kruger, p. 396ff.)
Binumarien: Karaambaia: “fight-leader” (Source: Oates 1995, p. 255)
Warlpiri: Warlaljamarri (owner or possessor of something — for more information tap or click here)
We have come to rely on another term which emphasizes God’s essential nature as YHWH, namely jukurrarnu (see tetragrammaton (YHWH)). This word is built on the same root jukurr– as is jukurrpa, ‘dreaming.’ Its basic meaning is ‘timelessness’ and it is used to describe physical features of the land which are viewed as always being there. Some speakers view jukurrarnu in terms of ‘history.’ In all Genesis references to YHWH we have used Kaatu Jukurrarnu. In all Mark passages where kurios refers to God and not specifically to Christ we have also used Kaatu Jukurrarnu.
New Testament references to Christ as kurios are handled differently. At one stage we experimented with the term Watirirririrri which refers to a ceremonial boss of highest rank who has the authority to instigate ceremonies. While adequately conveying the sense of Christ’s authority, there remained potential negative connotations relating to Warlpiri ceremonial life of which we might be unaware.
Here it is that the Holy Spirit led us to make a chance discovery. Transcribing the personal testimony of the local Warlpiri pastor, I noticed that he described how ‘my Warlaljamarri called and embraced me (to the faith)’. Warlaljamarri is based on the root warlalja which means variously ‘family, possessions, belongingness’. A warlaljamarri is the ‘owner’ or ‘possessor’ of something. While previously being aware of the ‘ownership’ aspect of warlaljamarri, this was the first time I had heard it applied spontaneously and naturally in a fashion which did justice to the entire concept of ‘Lordship’. Thus references to Christ as kurios are now being handled by Warlaljamarri.” (Source: Stephen Swartz, The Bible Translator 1985, p. 415ff. )
Mairasi: Onggoao Nem (“Throated One” — “Leader,” “Elder”) or Enggavot Nan (“Above-One”) (source: Enggavoter 2004)
Obolo: Okaan̄-ene (“Owner of person(s)”) (source: Enene Enene)
Lotha Naga: Opvui (“owner of house / field / cattle”) — since both “Lord” and YHWH are translated as Opvui there is an understanding that “Opvui Jesus is the same as the Opvui of the Old Testament”
Seediq: Tholang, loan word from Min Nan Chinese (the majority language in Taiwan) thâu-lâng (頭儂): “Master” (source: Covell 1998, p. 248)
Thai: phra’ phu pen cao (พระผู้เป็นเจ้า) (divine person who is lord) or ong(kh) cao nay (องค์เจ้านาย) (<divine classifier>-lord-boss) (source: Stephen Pattemore)
Arabic often uses different terms for adonai or kurios referring to God (al-rabb الرب) and kurios referring to Jesus (al-sayyid الـسـيـد). Al-rabb is also the term traditionally used in Arabic Christian-idiom translations for YHWH, and al-sayyid is an honorary term, similar to English “lord” or “sir” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin).
Tamil also uses different terms for adonai/kurios when referring to God and kurios when referring to Jesus. The former is Karttar கர்த்தர், a Sanskrit-derived term with the original meaning of “creator,” and the latter in Āṇṭavar ஆண்டவர், a Tamil term originally meaning “govern” or “reign” (source: Natarajan Subramani).
Burunge: Looimoo: “owner who owns everything” (in the Burunge Bible translation, this term is only used as a reference to Jesus and was originally used to refer to the traditional highest deity — source: Michael Endl in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 48)
Yagaria: Souve, originally “war lord” (source: Renck, p. 94)
Aguacateco: Ajcaw ske’j: “the one to whom we belong and who is above us” (source: Rita Peterson in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 49)
Konkomba: Tidindaan: “He who is the owner of the land and reigns over the people” (source: Lidorio 2007, p. 66)
Chichewa: AmbuyeAmbuye comes from the singular form Mbuye which is used to refer to: (1) someone who is a guardian or protector of someone or group of people — a grandparent who has founded a community or village; (2) someone who is a boss or master over a group of people or servants and has absolute control over them; (3) owner of something, be it a property, animals and people who are bound under his/her rule — for people this was mostly commonly used in the context of slaves and their owner. In short, Mbuye is someone who has some authorities over those who call him/her their “Mbuye.” Now, when the form Ambuye is used it will either be for honorific when used for singular or plural when referring to more than one person. When this term is used in reference to God, it is for respect to God as he is acknowledged as a guardian, protector, and ruler of everything. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation).
Hdi uses rveri (“lion”) as a title of respect and as such it regularly translates adon in the Old Testament. As an address, it’s most often with a possessive pronoun as in rvera ɗa (“my lion” = “my lord” or “sir”). So, for example, Genesis 15:2 (“O Lord God”) is Rvera ɗa Yawe (“My lion Yahweh”) or Ruth to Boaz in Ruth 2:13: “May I find your grace [lit. good-stomach] my lion.” This ties in nicely with the imagery of the Lord roaring like a lion (Hosea 11:10; Amos 3:8; Joel 3:16). Better still, this makes passages like Revelation 5:5 even richer when we read about rveri ma taba məndəra la Yuda, “the Lion of the tribe of Judah”. In Revelation 19:16, Jesus is rveri ta ghəŋa rveriha “the lion above lions” (“lord of lords”). (Source: Drew Maust)
Law (2013, p. 97) writes about how the Ancient GreekSeptuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew adonai was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments: “Another case is the use of kurios referring to Jesus. For Yahweh (in English Bibles: ‘the Lord‘), the Septuagint uses kurios. Although the term kurios usually has to do with one’s authority over others, when the New Testament authors use this word from the Septuagint to refer to Jesus, they are making an extraordinary claim: Jesus of Nazareth is to be identified with Yahweh.”
Behold: see verses 5 and 10 above. Revised English Bible translates here “Suddenly.” It may be more natural at this point in many languages to insert a transition word that indicates the continuation of a sequence of events. Translators may consider “Next…” or “Then…” (An American Translation, New American Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, as well as Good News Translation).
One in the likeness of the sons of men: this is similar in meaning to the Aramaic expression translated “one like a son of man” in 7.13, but it differs in form because the word for “son” is plural here. This may be taken to refer to the same being as the one mentioned in verse 15, in which case it is wise to translate “that person (or angel) was like a human being.” This is the solution followed by Good News Translation. Or the phrase may be understood as pointing to another (different) heavenly being. If this interpretation is adopted, translators should probably say “another being, who was like a person” (Bible en français courant) or “then someone (else) looking like a man” (New Jerusalem Bible). The majority of versions seem to prefer this second interpretation.
Touched my lips: this gesture confirms the fact that Daniel was incapable of speaking (verse 15). Compare Isa 6.7 and Jer 1.9. There is nothing in the text corresponding to the Good News Translation “reached out and,” although this expression is used in Jer 1.9, and this is probably what readers will assume here.
Opened my mouth and spoke: this typically Hebrew expression comes out very awkward in most languages if translated literally. The meaning is simply that he began to talk again (compare Matt 5.2). In some languages it will be better to say “I was able to speak again.” Revised English Bible renders this as follows: “then I broke my silence and addressed him.”
To him who stood before me: this may sound strange in some languages, even if the meaning is clearly understood, since readers know without being told that the person who is being addressed is standing there.
O my lord: the term translated my lord here is one of great honor and is in fact close in form to the one used for God in 1.2 and nine times in chapter 9. Translators should seek an equivalent in their languages that is appropriate for any person who is greatly respected. In some cases this may be a term appropriate only for humans, while in other cases it could refer to beings human or divine.
By reason of the vision: or “because of the vision.” In many languages this part of the verse should probably be restructured, making the vision the subject of the sentence: “this vision has caused me to have pains.”
Pains have come upon me: literally “my pangs (as those of a woman in childbirth) have overpowered me.” The corresponding Hebrew terms would make people think of both anxiety and suffering—as in the case of childbirth (1 Sam 4.19). In some languages it will be natural to speak of the stomach being upset or of the liver being disturbed.
And I retain no strength: the conjunction and does not really introduce a second separate fact. The idea is rather that the pains resulted in the lack of strength and the feeling of helplessness. The two things are very closely associated. For this reason New Revised Standard Version revises Revised Standard Version to say “such pains have come upon me that I retain no strength.”
Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René & Ellington, John. A Handbook on Daniel. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1994. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.