13Then Daniel was brought in before the king. The king said to Daniel, “So you are Daniel, one of the exiles of Judah, whom my father the king brought from Judah?
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 term that is transliterated as “Daniel” in English is translated in American Sign Language with the sign for the letter D and for “lion,” referring to the story in Daniel 6. (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)
“Daniel” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor
In Swiss-German Sign Language it is translated with the sign for “prayer” that illustrates Daniel’s close relationship with God.
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.”
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.
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 second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. The most commonly used anata (あなた) is typically used when the speaker is humbly addressing another person.
In these verses, however, omae (おまえ) is used, a cruder second person pronoun, that Jesus for instance chooses when chiding his disciples. (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
Then: the transition word used here often introduces a new stage in a narrative and adds special emphasis. Good News Translation has attempted to get at this by using “at once.” In other versions a simple paragraph break without any other obvious marker is used to show the transition (New Jerusalem Bible, for example).
Was brought in: this passive formulation will have to be made active in many languages. Sometimes it is possible to say “someone brought Daniel in”; in other cases it will be more natural to use a third person plural indefinite pronoun “they brought Daniel in.”
The king said: literally “the king speaking said.” See 2.5. But in this context it is quite acceptable to use the verb “asked” as in Anchor Bible and New American Bible.
You are that Daniel: the punctuation of Revised Standard Version makes this a simple declaration of fact. But since Belshazzar had not known Daniel before the queen mother’s explanation that led to his being summoned, it is much more logical that this should be translated as a question. This is done in many versions. Others seem to assume that the king would have been told who Daniel was when he came into his presence. Thus the rendering “So you are Daniel” (New English Bible/Revised English Bible and New Revised Standard Version).
One of the exiles of Judah …: literally “one of the sons of the exile of Judah.” In order to avoid the Revised Standard Version repetition of the geographical reference Judah, Good News Translation and Revised English Bible use the adjective “Jewish” here. Compare 2.25.
If the translator follows the recommendation of rendering Belshazzar’s words as a question, the language may require a response that is not given in the text. If this is the case, it will be perfectly legitimate to insert the words “ ‘Yes,’ replied Daniel” at the end of this verse, and then “Then the king continued” or similar words at the beginning of the next verse. Another way of handling the problem may be to replace the straightforward interrogative form with one that may not require an answer: “You are Daniel…, aren’t you?” Making the translation sound natural should dictate the exact form 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 .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.