Chaldean

The name that is transliterated as “Chaldean” in English is translated in Libras (Brazilian Sign Language) with the sign that combines “Mesopotamia” (see here) and “spreading out,” since the Chaldeans originated in southern Mesopotamia and spread out from there. (Source: Missão Kophós )


“Chaldean” in Libras (source )

More information about Chaldea .

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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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 Daniel 2:10

Chaldeans: see verses 2, 4, and 5.

Not a man on earth: the experts in the occult were convinced that there was no person in the world that could do what the king was asking. The use of the word man is not intended to refer only to males. For this reason many versions say “no one” or “no person.” This response, however, does seem to suggest that there may be celestial beings that would be able to do so (compare verse 11 below), and so the sense may be “no human being.”

Meet the king’s demand: literally “tell the king’s matter.” The English idiom of Revised Standard Version may be more naturally rendered “do what the king asks” (New International Version and the New Century Version [New Century Version]). Again the king is referred to indirectly in keeping with proper court behavior. But in most languages this will come out differently: “what you are asking, sir” or “what your majesty commands.” The most natural equivalent should be sought in the receptor language rather than simply repeating the form of either Revised Standard Version or Good News Translation.

No great and powerful king has asked such a thing: the idea here is that no king, regardless of how powerful and great he may be, has ever made such an impossible request. Compare the Good News Translation rendering above. Apparently, in the minds of these “wise men,” only a very powerful king could make such a request.

Magician or enchanter or Chaldean: here the text has only three of the four terms found in verse 2. The word for “sorcerer” should therefore be omitted here. Of course, if they were combined in verse 2, there will be no way to make this distinction here.

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 .