messenger

The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “messenger” in English is translated in Noongar as moort yana-waangki or “person walk-talk” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Judg 11:17)

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, excluding the king of Edom.

king

Click here to view graphically

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:

(Click or tap here to see details)

  • Piro: “a great one”
  • Highland Totonac: “the big boss”
  • Huichol: “the one who commanded” (source for this and above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Ekari: “the one who holds the country” (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
  • Una: weik sienyi: “big headman” (source: Kroneman 2004, p. 407)
  • Pass Valley Yali: “Big Man” (source: Daud Soesilo)
  • 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.”

(Source: Faye Edgerton in The Bible Translator 1962, p. 25ff. )

See also king (Japanese honorifics).

Japanese benefactives (-sete)

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 Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. Here, -sete (せて) or “let/allow (for me)” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).”

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

Translation commentary on Judges 11:17

Israel then sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying: Here Jephthah continues to tell the story of the Israelites. There is probably quite a time gap between the events described in verse 11.16 and here. Therefore a conjunction such as “Later” might be more appropriate than then. There is a certain sense in which this “story within a story” reflects Jephthah’s present situation. As he sends his messengers to the Ammonite king, so the Israelites of that day sent messengers to the king of Edom (see verse 11.12). Edom was the territory to the southeast of the Dead Sea, with Moab on its northern border (see verse 5.4). The Edomites were related to the Israelites, but very early on they became their enemies.

Let us pass, we pray, through your land is the appeal of the Israelites to the king of Edom. Let us pass is literally “Let me pass,” since Israel as a nation is speaking here. However, like Revised Standard Version, many languages will prefer to use a plural expression here. For the Hebrew verb translated pass (ʿavar), which is found in many Old Testament books, see verse 3.26. We pray renders the Hebrew particle naʾ, which may be translated “Please” (Contemporary English Version). The phrase through your land shows that the Israelites recognized the Edomites’ claim to this territory. Land renders the Hebrew word ʾerets, which often refers to the Promised Land in Judges (see comments on verse 11.12). Good News Translation uses indirect discourse for this embedded quotation by beginning this verse with “Then they sent messengers to the king of Edom to ask permission to go through his land.” This may be a helpful model for other languages.

But the king of Edom would not listen: The Hebrew waw conjunction at the beginning of this clause introduces a contrast, so but is a good rendering. We may also say “Despite their pleas.” The king of Edom would not listen is a literal rendering of the Hebrew, which does not mean that he did not hear, but rather that he did not grant their request. We might say “But the king of Edom would not allow them to do so” or “But the king of Edom did not agree.”

And they sent also to the king of Moab: Sent renders the Hebrew verb shalach, which occurs frequently in this book (see, for example, verse 4.6; verse 6.35; verse 9.31). In some languages it will be necessary to supply an object for this verb, such as “messengers” or “a message.” This clause may be rendered “They also asked the king of Moab for permission to pass through his land.”

But he would not consent: The king of Moab was not willing either to let the Israelites pass through his land. Consent renders a Hebrew verb meaning “agree” or “be willing.” This clause may be translated “but he was not willing either” or “but he would not let them pass through his land either.”

So Israel remained at Kadesh: So renders well the Hebrew waw conjunction here, since this clause closes an incident. The verb remained is literally “settled” or “lived,” and appropriate equivalents may be used here.

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .