The now commonly-used English idiom “den of lions” (for a dangerous situation) was first coined in 1560 in the Geneva Bible. (Source: Crystal 2010, p. 275)
For other idioms in English that were coined by Bible translation, see here.
בֵּ֠אדַיִן קְרִ֨יבוּ וְאָמְרִ֥ין קֳדָם־מַלְכָּא֮ עַל־אֱסָ֣ר מַלְכָּא֒ הֲלָ֧א אֱסָ֣ר רְשַׁ֗מְתָּ דִּ֣י כָל־אֱנָ֡שׁ דִּֽי־יִבְעֵה֩ מִן־כָּל־אֱלָ֨הּ וֶֽאֱנָ֜שׁ עַד־יוֹמִ֣ין תְּלָתִ֗ין לָהֵן֙ מִנָּ֣ךְ מַלְכָּ֔א יִתְרְמֵ֕א לְג֖וֹב אַרְיָותָ֑א עָנֵ֨ה מַלְכָּ֜א וְאָמַ֗ר יַצִּיבָ֧א מִלְּתָ֛א כְּדָת־מָדַ֥י וּפָרַ֖ס דִּי־לָ֥א תֶעְדֵּֽא׃
12Then they approached the king and said concerning the interdict, “O king! Did you not sign an interdict, that anyone who prays to any god or human, within thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be thrown into the den of lions?” The king answered, “The thing stands fast, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be revoked.”
The name that is transliterated as “Mede” or “Medes” in English is translated in Libras (Brazilian Sign Language) after the region they came from with a sign that combines “middle” (likely the meaning of “Media”) and many lands around it (that the Medes conquered). (Source: Missão Kophós )
“Medes” in Libras (source )
More information under Medes .
The Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, and Greek that is translated as “pray” (or “prayer”) in English is often translated as “talking with God” (Central Pame, Tzeltal, Chol, Chimborazo Highland Quichua, Shipibo-Conibo, Kaqchikel, Tepeuxila Cuicatec, Copainalá Zoque, Central Tarahumara).
Other solutions include:
What do begging and praying have to do with each other? Do you beg when you pray? Do I?
“The Ik word for ‘visitor’ is waanam, which means ‘begging person.’ Do you beg when you go visiting? The Ik do. Maybe you don’t beg, but maybe when you visit someone, you are looking for something. Maybe it’s just a listening ear.
When the Ik hear that [my wife] Amber and I are planning trip to this or that place for a certain amount of time, the letters and lists start coming. As the days dwindle before our departure, the little stack of guests grows. ‘Please, sir, remember me for the allowing: shoes, jacket (rainproof), watch, box, trousers, pens, and money for the children. Thank you, sir, for your assistance.’
“A few people come by just to greet us or spend bit of time with us. Another precious few will occasionally confide in us about their problems without asking for anything more than a listening ear. I love that.
“The other day I was in our spare bedroom praying my list of requests to God — a nice list covering most areas of my life, certainly all the points of anxiety. Then it hit me: Does God want my list, or does he want my relationship?
“I decided to try something. Instead of reading off my list of requests to God, I just talk to him about my issues without any expectation of how he should respond. I make it more about our relationship than my list, because if our personhood is like God’s personhood, then maybe God prefers our confidence and time to our lists, letters, and enumerations.”
Source: Kathy Taber in Notes on Translation 1/1999, p. 9-16.
(Click or tap here to see details)
Faye Edgerton retells how the term in Navajo 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 usage of an honorific construction where the morpheme are (され) is affixed on the verb as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, shomeis-are-ru (署名される) or “sign” is used.
(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
Came near: the structure of Revised Standard Version may make it questionable on first reading as to whether they came near to Daniel or near to the king. But the meaning is clearly that they approached the king. So the structure should probably be changed in many languages. The Good News Translation rendering also makes it clearer that their purpose was to accuse Daniel.
Concerning the interdict: this indicates that those who came before the king spoke to him about the order that he had given, forbidding the worship of anything other than himself. Other versions have worded this as follows: “and reminded him of the royal prohibition” (Anchor Bible) or “they talked to him about the law he had made” (New Century Version).
O king: see 2.4. This formal address is repeated later in the verse, but the repetition is omitted by Good News Translation as being stylistically undesirable.
Did you not sign…?: the first part of the discourse of Daniel’s accusers before the king is in the form of a rather long and complicated question which is intended merely to remind the king of what he had done. But in some languages it will be more natural to follow the Good News Translation model and make this a simple declarative statement, but followed by a shorter question like “Is that not so?” or something similar. Another possibility is to begin by saying “We remember that you…” and then concluding with “Is this not true?”
The thing stands fast: the rather vague word translated thing in Revised Standard Version can also mean “word,” “affair,” or “utterance” and refers to the decree prohibiting prayers to any deity or human being other than the king. In most cases it will be desirable to state this in the translation. The verb may be rendered “is firm” or “is rigid” in this context. In addition to the above Good News Translation model, translators may also consider the following: “the decree is absolute” (Anchor Bible), “the decision stands” (New Jerusalem Bible), “the matter has been determined” (Revised English Bible), “the order stands firm” (New Jerusalem Bible). Moffatt says simply “It is true” in answer to the question.
The law of the Medes and Persians: see verse 8.
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 .
No comments yet.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.