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 translation uses the exclusive pronoun.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Jeremiah 51:34:
Kupsabiny: “The people of Zion are saying, ‘Nebuchadnezzar smashed us completely! This man-eating monster devoured us and he took all our wealth plundering us completely to leave as with nothing. Then he chased us away. Babylon ought to meet with punishment for what (it) has done to us!’ Jerusalem is saying, ‘May those people of Babylon carry charcoals on the head (bear the consequences) for the blood of my people.’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “Those from-Jerusalem said, ‘Nebuchadnezzar king of Babilonia seems-like dragon who devoured us (incl.). He filled his belly with our wealth. He left our city leaving nothing just-like an empty jar. He drove- us -away and we did not know what we will/would-do. May be done also to Babilonia what they have-done to us and to our children. May the people of Babilonia be-(forced)-to-pay-back for their killing.’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “The army of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon, has attacked and crushed us Israeli people, and we have no strength left. It is as though they have swallowed us like a great monster that filled its belly with all our tasty parts, and then has spit out what it did not like.” (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.”
Nebuchadrezzar: Elsewhere Good News Translation uses the better known name “Nebuchadnezzar” (see 21.2). Here it omits the name, since it regards the title king of Babylonia quite sufficient to identify the person.
Has devoured me: Devoured is literally “ate.” It is often used to represent killing (see 8.16). Me is a reference to Jerusalem (verse 35), and so both Good News Translation and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch make this identification in the text. Bible en français courant, on the other hand, does not put “Jerusalem” in the text, but gives it in parentheses under the section heading. Although New International Version does not identify the people of Jerusalem as the persons who are speaking in verse 34, the translators have chosen to translate me as “us,” which would give at least a clue to the reader that more than a single individual is intended.
The precise meaning of the verb rendered crushed is a problem. Normally it means “confused” or “throwing to commotion.” The Septuagint has “divide,” which may possibly mean either “cut up” (Good News Translation) or “chewed up.” Both New Jerusalem Bible and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible have a verb that means “consumed,” while Bible en français courant has the equivalent of “crushed.” New American Bible renders “routed,” which seems to be an attempt to reflect the usual meaning of the Hebrew verb. Others have the sense of “sucked me dry,” and this certainly fits with the imagery of the rest of the sentence. In fact, one way to render the verse is:
• The king of Babylonia has swallowed me and sucked me dry. He emptied me like an empty jar; like a monster, he swallowed me, filled his belly with my tastiest parts, and spat out the rest.
Made me an empty vessel; that is, “he emptied me [the city] like someone empties out a jar.”
He has swallowed me like a monster: In place of monster, some translations prefer “dragon” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, New American Bible). Note that Revised Standard Version is somewhat ambiguous here: it is not me that is a monster, but he; that is, “like a monster he swallowed me up.”
My delicacies would be the most tasty parts. Good News Translation has “what he wanted,” while New Jerusalem Bible (“my titbits”) and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible (“my marrow”) are much more picturesque.
Rinsed me out fits with the picture of the empty jar. While making a slight change in the vowels of the Hebrew verb, we may render “threw me out” (New Jerusalem Bible) or “spewed me up” (Revised English Bible). If we accept that the verb is connected with the imagery of the empty vessel, then it would seem best in translation to restructure by placing these two lines together and then describe the activity of the devouring monster in a logical arrangement; that is, translators can say something like “He emptied me like a jar, and rinsed me out. Like a monster he swallowed me up, and filled his belly with my tastiest parts.” But see the other examples above, too.
Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on Jeremiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2003. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.