The term that is transliterated as “Nebuchadnezzar” in English is translated in American Sign Language with the signs for “king” and one signifying a wavy beard, referring to the common way of wearing a beard in Mesopotamia (see here ). (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)
“Nebuchadnezzar” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor
In Spanish Sign Language it is translated with a sign depicting “idol in my image,” referring to Daniel 3:1. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)
The name that is transliterated as “Judah” or “Judea” in English (referring to the son of Jacob, the tribe, and the territory) is translated in Spanish Sign Language as “lion” (referring to Genesis 49:9 and Revelation 5:5). This sign for lion is reserved for regions and kingdoms. (Source: John Elwode in The Bible Translator 2008, p. 78ff. and Steve Parkhurst)
The name that is transliterated as “Jerusalem” in English is signed in French Sign Language with a sign that depicts worshiping at the Western Wall in Jerusalem:
While a similar sign is also used in British Sign Language, another, more neutral sign that combines the sign “J” and the signs for “place” is used as well. (Source: Anna Smith)
“Jerusalem” in British Sign Language (source: Christian BSL, used with permission)
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.”
In the third year: there has been a great deal written about the apparent conflict between this statement and Jeremiah, where the text speaks of “the fourth year” (Jer 25.1; 46.2). This difference has been accounted for by some writers by the fact that the year when the king began to reign was counted differently in Babylonia and in Israel. In any case the text of Daniel says “in the third year,” and this is what must be translated.
Jehoiakim: on the reign of King Jehoiakim, see 2 Kgs 23.36–24.6 as well as 2 Chr 36.5-7. In those languages where there is no distinction between the /k/ and /ch/ sounds, special care must be taken in the transliteration of this proper name, so that there is a clear distinction between Jehoiakim and his son Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 24.6).
King: in certain languages there is no exact equivalent for the word “king,” since this kind of hierarchy, or classification of levels of people in society, does not exist in the culture of the receptor language. So it may be necessary to use the word for “chief” or resort to an expression meaning “big boss,” “the one who commands,” or something similar. One language in the Asia-Pacific Region has to say “older brother with uplifted name.” In some languages it will be more natural to place the title before the name, and in others it will sound better after the name. Translators should ask themselves which sounds better, “King Jehoiakim of Judah,” or “Jehoiakim, king of Judah,” or possibly “the king of Judah, Jehoiakim.” The same kind of order should probably also be used with King Nebuchadnezzar in the expressions that follow.
Nebuchadnezzar: this name appears thirty-two times in the Book of Daniel, all of them in the first five chapters. Some older Catholic versions of the Bible use a different spelling based on the ancient Greek and Latin versions of the Old Testament, but most modern English versions are agreed on the above spelling. This form therefore is the one that should be the basis of transliteration into other languages.
Babylon: In the Bible Babylon may mean “Babylon” or “Babylonia” in modern terms. That is, it may refer to the capital city or to the whole region. The king resided in the capital but was ruler over the entire country. For this reason Good News Translation uses the term “Babylonia.” Some languages may prefer to say “the country of Babylon.”
Came to Jerusalem and besieged it: the first of these two verbs is very common and is usually translated “come,” “come in,” or “go,” “go in.” In some languages the choice between “come” and “go” depends on the supposed position of the writer. Given the context, it may be better to select a more precise word or phrase as in Good News Translation. However, translators should be careful not to choose a verb that may contradict the next one (as the choice in Good News Translation seems to do). New Jerusalem Bible (New Jerusalem Bible) may be a good model, with “marched on Jerusalem.” The second verb, besieged, involves placing soldiers on all sides of a city in order to cut off all supplies of arms and food. In this way the inhabitants of the city would eventually be required to surrender to the surrounding forces.
Also, in some languages it will be much more natural to supply the information that King Nebuchadnezzar was accompanied by his army, since it may sound absurd to say that one person was able to surround or lay siege to an entire city. An additional model for this verse may be “During the third year that King Jehoiakim was ruling over Judah, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia marched with his army to the city of Jerusalem and surrounded it in order to make the inhabitants give up.”
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.