כִּ֤י נִמְכַּ֨רְנוּ֙ אֲנִ֣י וְעַמִּ֔י לְהַשְׁמִ֖יד לַהֲר֣וֹג וּלְאַבֵּ֑ד וְ֠אִלּוּ לַעֲבָדִ֨ים וְלִשְׁפָח֤וֹת נִמְכַּ֨רְנוּ֙ הֶחֱרַ֔שְׁתִּי כִּ֣י אֵ֥ין הַצָּ֛ר שֹׁוֶ֖ה בְּנֵ֥זֶק הַמֶּֽלֶךְ׃ ס
4For we have been sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be killed, and to be annihilated. If we had been sold merely as slaves, men and women, I would have held my peace, but no enemy can compensate for this damage to the king.”
The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “sell” in English is translated in Noongar as wort-bangal or “away-barter.” Note that “buy” is translated as bangal-barranga or “get-barter.” (Source: Bardip Ruth-Ang 2020)
See also buy and buying / selling.
The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).
For this verse, the Adamawa Fulfulde translation uses the exclusive pronoun, excluding the king.
The Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Ge’ez, and Latin that is translated as “enemy” or “foe” in English is translated in the Hausa Common Language Bible as “friends of front,” i.e., the person standing opposite you in a battle. (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
In North Alaskan Inupiatun it is translated with a term that implies that it’s not just someone who hates you, but one who wants to do you harm (Source: Robert Bascom), in Tarok as ukpa ìkum or “companion in war/fighting,” and in Ikwere as nye irno m or “person who hates me” (source for this and one above: Chuck and Karen Tessaro in this newsletter ).
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 to do this is through the usage (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.
The concept of “receiving (glory / instruction” (also: “accept” or “suffer” is translated in the Shinkaiyaku Bible as o-uke (お受け), combining “receive” (uke) with the respectful prefix o-. (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
See also receive (Japanese honorifics).
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Esther 7:4:
(Click or tap here to see details)
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).
Esther uses a form of the verb that is like a passive to describe the calamity that has fallen upon her people (For we are sold), to avoid directly naming the villain. Use of the passive voice also helps build suspense in the story, so that in verse 5 the king asks “Who is he?” Some languages have no passive voice and need to make the agent explicit, but Haman should not be named at this point. To do so would make the king’s question in verse 5 seem absurd. An indefinite “they have sold” or “somebody has sold” may be used.
For we are sold, I and my people: these words are probably an allusion to the ten thousand talents of silver that were offered by Haman (3.9), but the Hebrew word “to sell” is sometimes used to mean “hand over” or “give up,” with no thought of money being paid by one person to another (see Judges 4.9; 1 Sam 12.9; Ezek 30.12). This latter meaning is chosen in New Jerusalem Bible, “For we have been handed over,” and in New American Bible, “For my people and I have been delivered to destruction.” The original Hebrew syntax as reflected by Revised Standard Version is very dramatic. The statement of what has happened is made, then the victims are specified, and finally the end that is planned for them is spelled out in three separate verbs. Some languages may say “we and my people,” while others will restructure as Good News Translation and New American Bible have done.
On to be destroyed, to be slain, and to be annihilated, see 3.13.
Held my peace: literally “be silent [or, keep still].” The Revised Standard Version translation is an English idiom that is seldom used in modern speech. In some languages this may be expressed as “I would not have spoken” or “My mouth would not have allowed a word to come out.”
The clause translated in Revised Standard Version as for our affliction is not to be compared with the loss to the king is difficult to translate. The Hebrew text may be corrupted here and may be in need of correction. The meanings of three of the six words in this Hebrew clause are uncertain, leading at least one interpreter to claim that this is the most difficult clause to translate in all of Esther, in the sense that it is difficult to recover the meaning.
Moffatt states in the preface to his translation that at some points the Masoretic text (Masoretic Text) “is in such disrepair that no conjecture can heal it. Such passages I have been content to leave with three dots (…).” In his judgment this clause should be left untranslated: “If we had been merely sold into slavery, I would have said nothing….” Translators should, however, translate this clause, with perhaps a footnote indicating that the correct meaning is uncertain.
The Hebrew word translated as affliction in Revised Standard Version may also mean “the enemy.” The consonants will be the same with either word. New Jerusalem Bible reads “for the adversary is not worthy of the king’s trouble.” New Jerusalem Bible says “but in the present case, it will be beyond the persecutor’s means to make good the loss that the king is about to sustain” (so also New American Bible and New Revised Standard Version).
If affliction is chosen as the proper translation, then the text may refer to a situation in which the Jews had been threatened with slavery only and not with annihilation. In this case their affliction would not have been serious enough for them to cause the king to lose the money he would have been paid (so New English Bible, Revised Standard Version). FOX’s paraphrase is based on this interpretation: “Please understand that if we had merely been sold into slavery, I would not have asked for a cancellation of the sale, for the misery we would suffer thereby would not have been severe enough to justify causing the king to forfeit the money the sale was supposed to bring him.”
The Hebrew word translated as loss in Revised Standard Version occurs only here in the Old Testament, and its meaning is uncertain. (1) It may refer to damage in the sense of “damage to the empire’s revenue,” that is, financial loss. (2) It is understood by other interpreters to mean “trouble.” The meaning then is “for our problem would not have been worth bothering [troubling] the king [about]” (so Anchor Bible, Bible en français courant, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). The translation by Gordis may be a good model based on this second interpretation: “for our distress would not have justified troubling the king.”
The words affliction and “enemy” both make good sense in the context, as do the words loss and “trouble.” The evidence is inadequate for interpreters to be certain. Translators should choose the interpretation that seems best on the basis of principles they have adopted for their translation. They should be sure that the meaning is clearly expressed. An alternative translation may be placed in a footnote.
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Noss, Philip A. A Handbook on Esther (The Hebrew Text). (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
No comments yet.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.