Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)
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 Jarai and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation both use the exclusive pronoun, excluding King Artaxerxes.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Ezra 4:16:
Kupsabiny: “We are informing the king that when/if this city is built and its walls finished, then you will no longer rule/govern the other side across the river of Euphrates.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “If the city of Jerusalem is rebuilt, and if the work of building this wall is completed, know, [O] Great King, that you will have no power in the region west of the Euphrates."” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “We (excl.) are just informing you (sing.), Beloved King, that if this city will-be-built again and its stone-walls will-be-repaired, the province which is to the west of Eufrates will-be-lost to you (sing.).’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “We want you to know that if they rebuild this city and finish building its walls, you will no longer be able to control/rule the people in this province west of the Euphrates River.’” (Source: Translation for Translators)
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 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 “informing” (“may it be known,” “good tidings” etc.) is translated in the Shinkaiyaku Bible as o-shirase (お知らせ), combining “inform” (shirase) with the respectful prefix o-.
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 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, ushinatteshimaw-are-ru (失ってしまわれる) or “(adversatively) lose” is used.
The claim by the writers that the rebuilding of the city and its walls will lead to the loss of the province Beyond the River is a wild exaggeration but it is intended to get the attention of the king and impress him with the importance of their appeal. This statement is introduced as a fact, We make known to the king, even though this is only a ploy to maintain their own power and authority. Good News Translation interprets this statement to be their conviction, but it is preferable to leave it as their claim. In actual fact, according to Berquist, the fortification of Jerusalem was a strategy by the Persian king to protect the frontier of the empire against Greek threats.
You will then have no possession in the province Beyond the River: The conditions that were stated in verse 13 are repeated here, but here the conclusion is stronger. Not only will the king’s wealth be reduced, but his kingdom will be diminished. In very emphatic language they state “portion in Beyond-the-River there is not to you.” Similar structures occur in many languages. Translators should use what is equivalent and what is natural in their own languages (compare New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh “you will no longer have any portion in the province Beyond the River”). “Portion” is an important word in the Old Testament, where it often refers to the people of Israel who are God’s portion (see Deut 32.9; Jer 12.10; Zech 2.12). It may also mean “portion of food” (Est 2.9), but here it refers to political possession. They warn him that he will not rule over any part of the province that is west of the Euphrates. New King James Version says “you will have no dominion beyond the River” and New Jerusalem Bible has “you will soon have no territories left in Transeuphrates.” Some languages may require a statement of closure to indicate that the letter ends here.
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.