Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Judges 21:25:
Kupsabiny: “There was no king in the country of Israel in those days, So, each person was doing what his stomach wanted.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “At that time there was no one in Israel that we would call a king. Whatever anyone desired to do, he kept on doing exactly that.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “At that time, there was no king in Israel, so each-one does only what he/she wanted to-do.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “At that time, the Israeli people did not have a king. Everyone did what they themselves thought was right.” (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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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.”
In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes: All or part of this verse has occurred in earlier texts. See verse 17.6; verse 18.1a; verse 19.1a. The book of Judges ends on this very sad note. It is clear that these statements were placed at the end of the book on purpose to underline the fact that at the end of this particular time period, Israel was in a state of total chaos. There were no more heroes. Worse, a supposed religious leader, a Levite, led the whole country into a civil war.
The final part of Judges known as “the appendices” (chapters 17–21) describes the final degradation of the social structures in Israel. Idolatry reigns, civil war erupts, and Israelite women are raped, murdered, and carried off as spoils of war. These incidents are almost without parallel in the Old Testament and are recounted, with the exception of this verse, almost without comment or condemnation.
Many scholars believe that the author of this book had an agenda, that is, these accounts were written to show in hindsight that Israel was in great need of a king and more unified form of government. The system of kingship set in place following this period eventually did centralize and regularize worship, establish an ultimate authority for judgment, and retain some appearance of law and order in the land. Thus in our biblical canon the books of Samuel and Kings (once unified as one text) flow naturally from the book of Judges, which supplies the background and the reasons for the historical developments described there.
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 .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.