The Greek and Hebrew that is translated as “son of” in English is translated in all Icelandic Bible versions of the Icelandic Bible Society (latest edition 2007) in parallel with the Icelandic naming system . This means that for instance in Matthew 16:17 the name that is transliterated and translated in English as “Simon son of Jonah” becomes “Simon Jónasson” or in Isaiah 8:2 “Zechariah son of Jeberechiah” becomes “Sakaría Jeberekíason” where in both cases the “-son” means “son of.”
In cases where “son of” does not refer to a literal father or perhaps stepfather but to lineage, however, this system is not used. So in Matthew 1:1 “Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham” is translated as “Jesú Krists, sonar Davíðs, sonar Abrahams.”
The referenced verses all have at least one instance where the Icelandic patronymic or matronymic naming system is used. (Source: Halldór Elías Guðmundsson)
While the Greek word strouthion is certainly the name for the sparrow, the Hebrew tsippor is actually an inclusive word that refers to sparrow-sized birds in general. These small birds, especially sparrows, were caught in nets and traps and were an important part of the diet of poor people.
There are three types of sparrow that are common in Israel, the House Sparrow Passer domesticus, the Spanish Sparrow Passer hispaniolensis, and the Dead Sea Sparrow Passer moabiticus. All three are small speckled brown birds. Additional small birds that abound around towns and settlements are members of the bunting, finch, and tit families. Sparrows in particular are usually found in fairly large numbers roosting and nesting together. All are seed eaters and live mainly on grass seeds and grain.
Sparrows were considered clean birds and were associated with the poor.
Sparrows or sparrow-like small birds are found all over the world. Finding a local word is not usually difficult. The reference to “a lonely bird on the housetop” in Psalms 102:7 takes on additional meaning if the sparrow was intended, since it is a bird that is seldom seen alone. It would then indicate the psalmist’s sense of loneliness at being separated from those with whom he belongs.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Judges 11:25:
Kupsabiny: “And then, are you more important than Balak son of Zippor the king of Moab? Have you ever heard him quarrel with the people of Israel? Or have you heard him fight the people of Israel? Not at all!” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “Furthermore, What! are you better than Balak, son of king Zippor of Moab? What! did he ever attack Israel?” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “What, are you (sing.) better than King Balak of Moab, the child/(son) of Zipor? They did- not even -argue with Israel about the land or fight with them. Isn’t it?” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “You are no/Are you better than Zippor’s son Balak, who was the king of the Moab people-group? He never quarreled with the Israeli people, and he never started to fight against us !” (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.”
This is a highly marked verse, since it contains several rhetorical questions, as well as three sets of repeated verbs. The answer to all the rhetorical questions is “No!” so these questions may also be rendered as strong negative statements.
Now are you any better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab?: This rhetorical question clearly has a mocking tone. Now is literally “And now” (compare verse 11.13). Here this expression shows that the conversation is taking a new turn. Jephthah is once again building a new argument against the Ammonites. The Hebrew pronoun for you is emphatic. It refers to the Ammonite king. Are you any better renders an emphatic and repetitive expression in Hebrew, literally “are you good being good?” We could say “Now do you think you are better than…?” or “Now do you consider yourself better than…?” Balak the son of Zippor was the king of Moab around the time of Moses. When this king felt he could not defeat Israel, he summoned Balaam, hoping this prophet would put a curse on the Israelites so he could defeat them. But this ploy did not work (see Num 22–24). It is difficult to know in which way the Ammonite king might be better than Balak. This question might mean “Do you think you have a better claim on the land than Balak?” However, in this context it is more likely that Jephthah’s point is: “Balak, king of Moab, could not defeat us. Do you think you are more powerful than him?” But since there is no way to know exactly what is meant, translators can simply render the text as it stands, without additional explanations.
Did he ever strive against Israel…? is literally “Did he strive striving against Israel…?” The Hebrew verb here is repeated for emphasis, as in the previous question. For the verb strive, see verse 6.31, where it is translated “contend.” Some versions render strive against as “challenge” (Good News Translation) or “quarrel with” (Contemporary English Version, New International Version). In fact, Balak never did challenge or attack the Israelites because he was afraid of them. Jephthah is trying to reason with the Ammonite king by showing him that Balak, a great king of the past, did not challenge or fight against the Israelites. So, then why should the Ammonite king? Good News Translation renders this rhetorical question as “He never challenged Israel, did he?” It may also be translated as a statement as in Contemporary English Version: “he didn’t quarrel with Israel.”
Or did he ever go to war with them? is literally “or waging war, did he wage war against them?” Once again the verb is repeated for emphasis, which Revised Standard Version expresses well with ever go to war. For the Hebrew verb rendered go to war (lacham), see verse 1.1, where it is translated “fight.” The pronoun them refers to the Israelites. This rhetorical question indicates that Balak never fought against the Israelites either. It may be combined with the previous one by saying “Did he ever threaten the Israelites or go to war against them?”
Translation models for this verse are:
• Now look, you certainly aren’t any stronger than Balak, son of Zippor, the Moabite king! He wasn’t able to challenge or attack Israel! Can you?
• Do you really think you’re any better than Zippor’s son Balak, the Moabite king? Did he even dare to challenge the Israelites? Did he even dare to wage war against them?
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 .
11:25a Are you now so much better than Balak son of Zippor, king of Moab?
You are not any better than Balak the king of Moab son of Zippor are you?
-or-
You are no better than King Balak the son of Zippor the king of Moab was.
11:25b Did he ever contend with Israel or fight against them?
Did he ever quarrel with Israel? Did he ever fight Israel?
-or-
He never argued or fought with Israel.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.