22For I was ashamed to ask the king for a band of soldiers and cavalry to protect us against the enemy on our way, since we had told the king that the hand of our God is gracious to all who seek him, but his power and his wrath are against all who forsake him.
The Hebrew and Greek that is translated “seek God” or “seek the Lord” is translated in most Polish Bible translations as szukaɫ Boga or szukaɫ Pana.
These phrases are also being used in modern Polish as metaphors meaning “‘to look for some manifestations of the existence and activity of God in the reality which surrounds us, to seek evidence for God’s existence in the world in which we live,’ less commonly: ‘to seek reliable, convincing information about God in philosophical doctrines.’ Therefore, this metaphor describes the intellectual efforts of man with religious needs man who was unfortunate enough to have been born in an age in which the belief in the existence of God diminishes, therefore in an attempt to solidify their own faith or to regain it, religious people seek, in the surrounding world, the signs that God exists and cares about the world and humankind. (…) [This] has a more profound, more subtle meaning, and what is more important — a meaning which corresponds more accurately to the spirit and the problems of our age than the original text or its semantically faithful translation. Our age faces a different problem than the one that was faced by people in Zephaniah’s times [see Zeph 1:6]. Today the problem is not that the faithful pray to other deities instead of the one God. Today the problem is that the people do not see the manifestations of the existence and the activity of God in the world that surrounds them and that they doubt in His existence. Therefore today a translation of the Bible which encourages looking for God in the present-day understanding of this metaphor is indeed of greater utility in terms of pastoral service than a translation which would encourage people to worship God or to pray to him instead of other deities. Obviously, the only translation which is philologically correct is a translation which renders the meaning of the metaphor which was ascribed to it by the authors of the original, i.e. in this case not ‘to look for God’ but ‘to offer penitential prayers to God.’ However, in a confessional translation, which reflects the religious needs and the theological gleanings of some religious community, there are numerous instances of departure from the principles of philology. In Catholic biblical exegesis theologians acknowledge that certain passages of the Old Testament announce the coming of Jesus Christ – therefore we admit that the Old Testament expresses certain senses which were not dreamed of by its authors at the time at which they wrote these fragments of the Old Testament.” (Source: Król / Piela 2021)
The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “soldier” in English didn’t have a direct equivalent in Enlhet so it was translated with “those that bind us” (source: Jacob Loewen in The Bible Translator 1969, p. 24ff. ) and in Noongar it is mammarapa-bakadjiny or “men of fighting” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
The Hebrew and Greek that is translated into English as “the wrath of God” or “God’s anger” has to be referred to in Bengali as judgment, punishment or whatever fits the context. In Bengali culture, anger is by definition bad and can never be predicated of God. (Source: David Clark)
Translations in other languages:
Quetzaltepec Mixe: “translated with a term that not only expresses anger, but also punishment” (source: Robert Bascom)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “the coming punishment of God on mankind” (source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “God’s fearful/terrible future punishing of people” (source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “the coming anger/hatred of God” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “the punishment which will come” (source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Bariai: “God’s action of anger comes forth in the open” (source: Bariai Back Translation)
Mairasi: “His anger keeps increasing (until it will definitely arrive)” (source: Enggavoter 2004)
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. When the referent is God, the “divine” honorific prefix mi- (御) is used as in mi-ikari (御怒り) or “wrath (of God)” in the referenced verses. (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
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 the first part of this verse (“protect us” in English translations), the Adamawa Fulfulde translation uses the exclusive form.
For the second part (“our God” in English translations) it also uses the exclusive form. Noss / Thomas recommend the inclusive form.
The Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Ge’ez, and Latin that is translated as “enemy” or “foe” in English is translated in the HausaCommon 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 ).
In Cherokee it is either translated as “the one(s) who reprimand(s) you” or “the one(s) feared.” (Source: Bender / Belt 2025, p. 47)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Ezra 8:22:
Kupsabiny: “I did not want to ask the king to give us the soldiers and those using/riding on horses in order to protect us from our enemies along our way because we had earlier told the king that, ‘God keeps/protects all those people who kneel to/worship him, but inflicts/punishes all those people who refuse him.’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “I have already said to the king, "Our God blesses all who put their trust in Him, and people who abandon Him will have His anger" [So] I would be ashamed now to request horsemen and soldiers from the king to protect us from our enemies on the way.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “For I was-ashamed to request the king of the soldiers and horse riders to watch us (excl.) against the enemies while we (excl.) are-journeying, because we (excl.) had- already -told the king that our (excl.) God helps everyone who trusts in him, but God is very angry to the ones-who-reject him.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “Previously we had told the king that our God takes care of all those who truly trust in him, but that he becomes very angry with those who refuse to obey him. So I would have been ashamed if I had asked the king to send soldiers and men riding on horses to protect us from our enemies while we were traveling along the road.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
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. When the referent is God, the “divine” honorific prefix mi- (御 or み) is used here in mi-te (御手) or “hand (of God).”
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.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.