4for before the child knows how to call ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria.”
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 important aspect of addressing someone else in one’s or someone else’s family is by selecting the correct word when referring to them. One way to do this is through the usage of an appropriate title within a conversation as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.
In the prophecy in Isaiah 8:4, the boy cries out o-kā-san (お母さん) “mother” which is a casual form with the title –san that expresses the intimate mother-son relationship. In Genesis 37:10, a similar construction with kā-san (母さん) is used. (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
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 important aspect of addressing someone else in one’s or someone else’s family is by selecting the correct word when referring to them.
One way to do this is through the usage of an appropriate title within a conversation. In the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017, the father is addressed with o-tō-san (お父さん), a form that expresses the intimate father-son relationship in the verses referenced here. (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
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 word spoil (shalal in Hebrew) provides the link between the words on the tablet of verse 1 and the devastation of the kingdoms of Syria and Israel through war with Assyria, predicted in this verse.
For before the child knows how is identical with the beginning of 7.16; see the comments there. However, here the Hebrew particle ki rendered for is a logical connector. This verse explains the meaning of the name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. Contemporary English Version and Bible en français courant begin with the connector “Because.”
To cry ‘My father’ or ‘My mother’: Cry does not mean “weep” here, but simply “call out [to]” or even “be able to say.” Since father and mother are usually some of the first words spoken by a child, the sense of this verse is that the events hinted at in the child’s name will occur within a year or two of his birth; they will happen soon. This is also implied in his name with the Hebrew participle rendered “Maher,” which means “speeds.” Translators should probably use less formal expressions than My father and My mother since the context is that of a little child addressing his parents. Good News Translation has “Mamma” and “Daddy” (similarly Contemporary English Version), which is an acceptable model.
The wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria: The capital cities, Damascus and Samaria, refer to Syria and Israel respectively (see 7.8-9). Wealth is parallel to spoil, which suggests that the wealth of these two nations was obtained largely by plunder from other nations. Alternatively, it could mean that their wealth will be taken as spoil or war treasure by Assyria, so this clause may be rendered “the wealth of Damascus and Samaria will be taken as spoil by the king of Assyria.” This is what Contemporary English Version implies with “the king of Assyria will attack and take everything of value from Damascus and Samaria.” The phrase before the king of Assyria means the Assyrian king’s troops will carry off the spoil. It may be rendered “by the army of the king of Assyria.”
Translation examples for this verse are:
• Before the child can say ‘Daddy’ or ‘Mommy,’ the wealth of Damascus and Samaria will be carried away as spoil by the king of Assyria.”
• Before the child is able to speak to his father or mother, all the wealth of Damascus and Samaria will be plundered by the king of Assyria.”
• All the wealth of Damascus and Samaria will be plundered by the Assyrian king even before the child is able to say ‘Father’ or ‘Mother.’”
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.