Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Isaiah 1:1:
Kupsabiny: “These are the words/matters that God showed to Isaiah son of Amoz about the land of Judah and Jerusalem. Isaiah saw these words/matters in the years that Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah were ruling.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “The visions that Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem while Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah were kings of Judah.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “This book is concerning/about what God had-revealed to Isaias the child of Amoz. This is concerning Juda and Jerusalem at the time when Uzia reigned-as-king in Juda, then Jotam, Ahaz, and Hezekia.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “I am Isaiah, the son of Amoz. Yahweh showed me visions about Jerusalem and all the other places in Judah. He showed me these visions during the years that Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah were kings of Judah.” (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.”
The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem: The Hebrew words rendered vision and saw come from the same root. Many languages will find it redundant to say The vision … which he saw, though in Hebrew it is a common way of expressing emphasis. This title suggests that the prophet’s message as a whole came to him as a vision, but the only part actually described as a vision is Revised Standard Version. Obadiah and Nahum are other examples of books that are called a “vision.” In other prophetic books the title simply says the prophet “saw,” which probably means “had insight into” (for example, Amos). It is best then to regard the noun vision and the verb saw as more general in meaning. Perhaps we can think of them as technical terms for how prophetic messages came to the prophet. This explains why Good News Translation translates “This book contains the messages about Judah and Jerusalem which God revealed to Isaiah son of Amoz.” In Good News Translation the content of what is seen is brought into focus, as well as the active role of God. We may render the sense well by saying “The vision of Isaiah … [which he had] concerning…,” “This is what Isaiah … saw…,” or “Isaiah son of Amoz’s insights into….” Some languages will prefer to link the name of the prophet more closely to the verb “see”; for example, the New International Version (New International Version) has “The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah … saw.” Another possibility is “This book has what God showed Isaiah….” This restructuring is acceptable even though it changes the impact of the first words of the book slightly. What the translator should not do is translate vision as “dream,” because these two are certainly very different.
The name Isaiah means “Yahweh [or, the LORD] saves.” Isaiah’s father was Amoz. He should not be confused with the prophet Amos. We know nothing further about Amoz, except that he is Isaiah’s father.
The names Judah and Jerusalem refer respectively to the southern kingdom of God’s people and to its capital, but more specifically they refer to the entire population of the kingdom and its main city. Although there are some issues in the text of Isaiah which probably also apply to the northern kingdom of Israel in the eighth century B.C., the phrase Judah and Jerusalem narrows Isaiah’s vision to the southern kingdom of Judah.
In the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah: This phrase indicates the time during which Isaiah received the messages. For the phrase in the days of, the translation should not give the impression that the events occurred in an imaginary or fairy tale-like past (compare “Once upon a time…” in English), but that they occurred in real life, long ago. Expressions such as “in the time of” and “when” are possibilities. Uzziah ruled Judah from 787 to 736 B.C. From 6.1 we know that Isaiah’s call to the prophetic ministry came in the year Uzziah died. Jotham was co-regent at the time of Uzziah from 756 to 741. Ahaz reigned from 741 to 736 as a co-regent, and then was the sole ruler from 736 to 715. Hezekiah was the ruler from 715 to 687. Despite problems with the precise dating of these kings, we can state that Isaiah’s ministry covered the last half of the eighth century B.C., roughly 750-700 B.C. Of course, translators should avoid giving the impression that all four kings ruled at the same time. If this were to be a problem, they might translate “when Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah succeeded each other as kings of Judah” or “when Uzziah, and Jotham, and Ahaz, and Hezekiah were kings of Judah, each at his own time.”
One issue that translators need to consider is the fact that some of the kings’ names differ slightly within the biblical records. For example, Uzziah was also known as Azariah (Revised Standard Version). Good News Translation chooses to avoid any possible confusion by adopting the more common form of names for persons and places throughout the Bible. If translators decide to follow this principle, Good News Translation would be a good model to follow. If footnotes are used in the translation, then the varying forms of names as they appear in the Hebrew text can be used. Where the Hebrew text happens to use the less common form of a name, then a footnote can indicate the more common form.
Translators probably have dealt with the term kings in earlier work. They should try to use a term that best conveys the idea of a male ruler of a nation, who normally belongs to the same dynasty or family as the previous ruler. If no precise term is available, a more general one such as “master” or “chief” may be the best option. Translators should try to avoid using the same name that is used for “Lord” or “LORD.”
A translation could reflect that this verse is a title to the book by leaving out a verb. A translation model that does this is:
• Isaiah son of Amoz’s vision concerning the people of Judah and Jerusalem during the reigns of its kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah.
Quoted with permission from Ogden, Graham S. and Sterk, Jan. A Handbook on Isaiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2011. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.