1Now these are the people of the province who came from those captive exiles whom King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had carried captive to Babylon; they returned to Jerusalem and Judah, all to their own towns.
The term that is transliterated as “Nebuchadnezzar” in English is translated in American Sign Language with the signs for “king” and one signifying a wavy beard, referring to the common way of wearing a beard in Mesopotamia (see here ). (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)
“Nebuchadnezzar” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor
In Spanish Sign Language it is translated with a sign depicting “idol in my image,” referring to Daniel 3:1. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)
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 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.”
This first verse introduces a new section in the book of Ezra that is a register of the people living in Judah who had returned from Babylonia. The Hebrew connective conjunction translated here as Now does not refer to time, but functions as a transition from the preceding sentence to the listing of the people who returned to Jerusalem from Babylonia that follows.
The people of the province: The Hebrew word for people is literally “sons” or “children,” but it often has the wider meaning of descendants of a certain ancestor or inhabitants of a certain land. For instance, the expression “children of Israel” refers to all the people of Israel. Although some versions translate literally “the sons of the province” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible) or “the children of the province” (King James Version), most versions translate “the people of the province” as Revised Standard Version has done. In some languages a special word or prefix exists to identify the people who belong to a country or who are native to that area. Such a construction would be appropriate here.
The Hebrew word for province can mean “administrative district.” Revised Standard Version, like many other versions, does not identify this province. Good News Translation associates this word with Babylon from where the Jews were returning. Other versions (Contemporary English Version, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy) and most commentators, however, consider it to refer to Judah, even though at that time Judah was not yet a formally recognized province (see Ezra 4.10; 5.3, 6). It was rather a semi-autonomous administrative unit within the province called “Beyond the River.” A province in the Persian Empire was administered by a satrap or governor, directly appointed by the king and responsible to him. The administrator of a semi-autonomous administrative unit did not have the status and authority of a provincial governor. Nevertheless, most versions retain the word “province” here. The translator may express this as “division of the land” or “part of the kingdom” if no direct equivalent is available. Care should be taken not to identify this administrative unit with political divisions in modern nations. It may be necessary to make explicit that Judah is being referred to here; for example, Contemporary English Version says “the people of Judah.”
Who came up out of the captivity of those exiles whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried captive to Babylonia: The Hebrew text is very emphatic in its repetition and in its reminder of the captivity that the people had endured and of their delivery from being captives. The people who are being listed are those “coming up” from the “captivity” of the “exile” to which Nebuchadnezzar had “exiled” them in Babylonia (so Chouraqui). The reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s carrying them away captive must indicate clearly that this occurred before the events that are being described now in this verse took place.
Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon did not rule only over the city of Babylon. He ruled over the entire kingdom of Babylonia (see the comments on Ezra 1.7). Therefore this should not be translated as “chief of the city of Babylon” but rather “chief of the land of Babylon.” For a discussion of the title king of Babylon, see Ezra 5.13 and Neh 13.6.
They returned to Jerusalem and Judah: The list includes both those who actually went into captivity from Judah and those who were born in captivity in Babylonia. All these are considered to have returned to Jerusalem and Judah because Judah was their ancestral home. It would be more accurate to refer to “… Jerusalem and the rest of Judah,” since Jerusalem was in Judah.
Each to his own town: The people all returned to their ancestral towns. These were still known by the returnees two to three generations after the first group was taken into exile. All the towns mentioned in this chapter, except the three in verse 33, are within the borders of pre-exilic Judah and within ten miles of Jerusalem. The Hebrew word for town is very general and can refer to cities, villages or fortified places. Translators should use an equivalent term for a place where people live together in an organized community. With the exception of Jerusalem, most of these places were more like villages than modern cities, and in many languages the word for “village” will be the most appropriate term.
Most translators will need to restructure this verse to include all the information that is given in the original text and at the same time to introduce the list that follows. The following are possible models:
• Many people that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had taken away as war slaves to Babylon from the division of land called Judah returned home to their own places. They returned to Jerusalem and to Judah, each to his own village. Here are those people.
• The persons that follow are the descendants of the people from the province of Judah whom the king of Babylonia had taken to Babylonia as captives. His name was Nebuchadnezzar. They went back to the city of Jerusalem and the province of Judah. All of them returned to their own towns.
Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Ezra. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.