7You have also set up prophets to proclaim in Jerusalem concerning you, ‘There is a king in Judah!’ And now it will be reported to the king according to these words. So come, therefore, and let us confer together.”
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 inclusive pronoun, including everyone.
The name that is transliterated as “Judah” or “Judea” in English (referring to the son of Jacob, the tribe, and the territory) is translated in Spanish Sign Language as “lion” (referring to Genesis 49:9 and Revelation 5:5). This sign for lion is reserved for regions and kingdoms. (Source: John Elwode in The Bible Translator 2008, p. 78ff. and Steve Parkhurst)
The name that is transliterated as “Jerusalem” in English is signed in French Sign Language with a sign that depicts worshiping at the Western Wall in Jerusalem:
While a similar sign is also used in British Sign Language, another, more neutral sign that combines the sign “J” and the signs for “place” is used as well. (Source: Anna Smith)
“Jerusalem” in British Sign Language (source: Christian BSL, used with permission)
Eugene Nida wrote the following about the translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek terms that are typically translated with “prophet” in English:
“The tendency in many translations is to use ‘to foretell the future’ for ‘prophesy,’ and ‘one who foretells the future’ for ‘prophet.’ This is not always a recommended usage, particularly if such expressions denote certain special native practices of spirit contact and control. It is true, of course, that prophets of the Bible did foretell the future, but this was not always their principal function. One essential significance of the Greek word prophētēs is ‘one who speaks forth,’ principally, of course, as a forth-teller of the Divine will. A translation such as ‘spokesman for God’ may often be employed profitably.” (1947, p. 234f.)
Following is a list of (back-) translations from other languages (click or tap for details):
Ayutla Mixtec: “one who talks as God’s representative”
Isthmus Mixe: “speaker for God” (source for this and two above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
Mezquital Otomi / Paasaal: “God’s messenger” (source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff. and Fabian N. Dapila in The Bible Translator 2024, p. 415ff.)
Noongar: Warda Marridjiny or “News Traveling” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Kutu: mtula ndagu or “one who gives the prediction of the past and the future” (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
French 1985 translation by Chouraqui: inspiré or “inspired one” (“someone in whom God has breathed [Latin: in + spiro]) (source: Watson 2023, p. 45)
In Ixcatlán Mazatec a term is used that specifically includes women. (Source: Robert Bascom)
“In some instances these spiritual terms result from adaptations reflecting the native life and culture. Among the Northern Grebo people of Liberia, a missionary wanted some adequate term for ‘prophet,’ and she was fully aware that the native word for ‘soothsayer’ or ‘diviner’ was no equivalent for the Biblical prophet who spoke forth for God. Of course, much of what the prophets said referred to the future, and though this was an essential part of much of their ministry, it was by no means all. The right word for the Gbeapo people would have to include something which would not only mean the foretelling of important events but the proclamation of truth as God’s representative among the people. At last the right word came; it was ‘God’s town-crier.’ Every morning and evening the official representative of the chief goes through the village crying out the news, delivering the orders of the chief, and announcing important coming events. ‘God’s town-crier’ would be the official representative of God, announcing to the people God’s doings, His commands, and His pronouncements for their salvation and well-being. For the Northern Grebo people the prophet is no weird person from forgotten times; he is as real as the human, moving message of the plowman Amos, who became God’s town-crier to a calloused people.” (source: Nida 1952, p. 20)
In British Sign Language it is is translated with a sign that depicts a message coming from God to a person (the upright finger) and then being passed on to others. (Source: Anna Smith)
“Prophet” in British Sign Language (source: Christian BSL, used with permission)
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.”
You have also set up prophets to proclaim concerning you in Jerusalem: For prophets see Ezra 5.1. The proclamation of the prophets would give religious approval to claims of leadership over the Jews (see 1 Sam 10.17-24). Therefore Sanballat accuses Nehemiah of using prophets to proclaim him king. The Hebrew verb translated in Revised Standard Version as set up is a causative form of the verb “to stand,” but it does not indicate precisely what Nehemiah is accused of doing. It can be understood in two ways: either as set up in Revised Standard Version or as “arranged” in Good News Translation. The Revised Standard Version translation designates the appointment of prophets, while the one in Good News Translation emphasizes giving them a task to do. Like Revised Standard Version, New International Version says that Nehemiah “appointed prophets to make this proclamation … in Jerusalem,” while Traduction œcuménique de la Bible says that he “put prophets in place in Jerusalem.” Similarly to Good News Translation, Bible en français courant renders it that he “designated prophets to proclaim in Jerusalem,” and this is a good model to follow.
There is a king in Judah: The proclamation of the prophets would be very simple. It is literally “A king [is] in Judah!” The reference to Nehemiah would be made clear in the proclamation, according to Sanballat. This proclamation is the dramatic climax of Sanballat’s letter and of his accusation against Nehemiah. The claim that prophets were to proclaim Nehemiah as king may have been true. Haggai and Zechariah had had similar expectations for Zerubbabel. However, Nehemiah would not have initiated or encouraged this kind of activity. These words are translated most often as a proclamation in the form of direct quotation with an exclamation mark to indicate the emphasis of the announcement; for example, New Revised Standard Version has “There is a king in Judah!” Like Good News Translation, however, some versions restructure in the form of indirect quotation. The direct quotation is the more dramatic in this series of accusations and should preferably be used in translation.
It will be reported to the king according to these words: Sanballat does not say that he himself will report this rumor to the king. He only says that the rumor will reach the king (New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible) or that the king will surely hear about it (Good News Translation). For reported see verse 1 above. The Hebrew text does not specify who the king is that will hear of these reports, therefore, Good News Translation refers to “His Majesty.” Contemporary English Version is even more explicit in saying “the Persian king,” while Bible en français courant refers to “The emperor.” If it is necessary for the sake of clarity, translators may say explicitly “the king of Persia,” but it is preferable to simply refer to “the king” since this would have been the most natural form of a threat.
So now come: The message in the letter concludes with a dramatic invitation. By using the Hebrew connective conjunction translated So, followed by the adverb now and the second person singular imperative verb come, Sanballat makes an emphatic call to Nehemiah to cooperate with him. In languages where a formal or honorific form of address might be used, the message here calls for a sign of equality. Sanballat addresses Nehemiah with language that should convince him to meet with him (Contemporary English Version “so let’s get together”).
Let us take counsel together: This is a call for reciprocal action, that is, consulting with each other. Some languages will express this with a reciprocal verb suffix. New International Version says “let us confer together.” Some translations allow the reciprocal nature of the action to be more implicit as Good News Translation has done; for example, New English Bible has “let us talk the matter over” and New Jerusalem Bible has “discuss them [the rumors] with us.” This request appeared to be an expression of concern for Nehemiah’s welfare, but in fact it was part of the plot to compromise Nehemiah. Although it is not clear exactly what Sanballat’s plan was, Nehemiah recognized this proposal as a way to harm him and to stop the work on the wall.
The contents of the open letter are recorded in the form of direct quotation, but the information in the report that was circulating among the nations is recorded in indirect quotation with the exception of the proclamation of kingship which is in direct quotation. This represents three levels of quotation: the contents of the letter, the contents of the rumor, and the contents of the proclamation within the rumor. Revised Standard Version retains the direct and indirect quotation as in the Hebrew, using double quotation marks for the first level of direct speech and single quotation marks for the second level of direct speech. Good News Translation retains the direct speech form in quoting the contents of the letter and the indirect speech form for the contents of the rumor. However, it shifts the proclamation within the rumor to indirect quotation, thereby reducing some of the dramatic impact of the proclamation. Translators should use the style of quotation in their own language that most closely reflects the impact of the Hebrew form.
Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Nehemiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.