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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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.”
For the first time Qoheleth uses the personal pronoun I. This is a signal to us that we have finally reached Qoheleth’s own reflections based on his investigations. The information in this verse is the same as in verse 1, but it is in a different form.
Here I and the Preacher refer to the same person. Both are the subject of the verb have been or “was.” It looks as though Qoheleth was once king in Jerusalem but is so no longer. The phrase king over Israel in Jerusalem is difficult. Though it seems precise, it does not really identify who is being talked about. It states clearly that Qoheleth was a king over Israel, and that he resided in Jerusalem. Only two kings ruled over all Israel from this city, David and Solomon. After Solomon died the kingdom was divided into Israel in the north and Judah in the south. Jerusalem continued as the capital, but only of Judah. What is unclear about Qoheleth’s statement is which king he is alleging to be. We presume Solomon is intended, because he was a sage, that is, a person who was known for his wisdom. Later details in the book also point to a link between Qoheleth and Solomon: excessive wealth, extensive building projects, magnificent properties, and a great number of wives. Like Solomon, then, Qoheleth was also a great sage who was able to thoroughly test every possible aspect of human life and experience (see 2.9). However, as in the case of verse 1, specific reference to Solomon should not be made, since Qoheleth never speaks of him by name.
We can give the sense of this sentence as “I, Qoheleth, was Israel’s king…,” or we can use a verbal form and say “I, Qoheleth, ruled Israel from Jerusalem.”
Quoted with permission from Ogden, Graham S. and Zogbo, Lynell. A Handbook on the Book of Ecclesiates. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.