37and took it and struck it with the edge of the sword, and its king and its towns and every person in it; he left no one remaining, just as he had done to Eglon, and utterly destroyed it with every person in it.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Joshua 10:37:
Kupsabiny: “When they had taken that city, they destroyed the people and the king. They tore down the small cities which were near and killed all the people of those cities as they had killed those of Eglon so no one escaped.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “They took that city by conquering it. They killed with the sword its king, all the people who were there and the people of the surrounding villages. Without keeping any survivors they completely destroyed it and all who were there, like they did in Eglon.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “They seized the city/took- the city -by-force, and they killed the king and all its residents, as-well-as the people around the towns. No- one at-all was-left alive. They destroyed the entire city just-like what they had-done to Eglon.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “and captured it. They killed the king and everyone else, just like they had done at Eglon. They did not allow anyone to remain alive.” (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.”
Joshua and his army may be translated by the pronoun “they,” since they are fully identified in verse 34.
Went … up into the kills to Hebron translates “went up to Hebron” of the Hebrew text. The verb “went up” is the normal one used of attacking cities, since cities were generally placed on the highest geographical point possible. Here, however, Good News Translation attempts to indicate that Hebron is in the highlands; it is some 36 kilometers from Eglon.
The same language is used; there is complete slaughter and destruction, as is indicated by the use once again of the verb meaning condemned … to total destruction. The king is killed; either he is the successor of the former king executed by (Joshua verses 23-25), or (as some scholars think is likely) there is an inconsistency in the two accounts.
The size and importance of Hebron are emphasized by the mention of the nearby towns. As well as in the nearby towns may be translated as a complete statement: “They also captured the nearby towns, and killed everyone in them as well.”
Joshua condemned the city to total destruction may be too abstract for many readers. It is possible to translate “Joshua told his men, ‘Completely destroy the city, just as you completely destroyed the city of Eglon. Kill everyone in it.’ ”
Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Newman, Barclay M. A Handbook on Joshua. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.