The Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin that is translated as a form of “save” in English is translated in Shipibo-Conibo with a phrase that means literally “make to live,” which combines the meaning of “to rescue” and “to deliver from danger,” but also the concept of “to heal” or “restore to health.”
The Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Ge’ez, and Latin that is translated as “army” in English is translated in Chichewa as “group of warriors.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Psalm 33:16:
Chichewa Contempary Chichewa translation, 2002/2016:
“There is no king who is saved because of the size of his group of warriors;
there is no soldier who escapes with his great strength.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Newari:
“No king will win just by having strong soldiers.
and no soldier will be able to win just by his strength.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon:
“A king does-not win in a battle just because of his many soldiers.
A soldier (is) not saved/(safe) in a battle just because of his great strength.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Eastern Bru:
“There is no king who can avoid others conquering him though he has many soldiers. And there is no soldier who can avoid someone else harming him, even though he has great strength.” (Source: Bru Back Translation)
Laarim:
“Many soldiers do not help their king,
or the warrior is not helped by his power.” (Source: Laarim Back Translation)
Nyakyusa-Ngonde (back-translation into Swahili):
“Mfalme haokolewi kwa wingi wa wapigana vita wake,
au shujaa kushinda kwa wingi wa nguvu zake.” (Source: Nyakyusa Back Translation)
English:
“It is not because a king has a great army that he is able to win battles,
and it is not because a soldier is very strong that he is able to defeat his enemy.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
The Hebrew that is typically translated in English as “power” or “might” or “force” is translated in the English translation by Goldingay (2018) as energy or energetic.
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.
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 usage of an honorific construction where the morpheme are (され) is affixed on the verb as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, sukuw-are-ru (救われる) or “save” is used.
Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Ge’ez, 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 these verses the psalmist speaks of Yahweh’s control over nations at war, affirming that victory in battle is not won because of the size or the strength of armies and the might of war horses; it is God who gives the victory. This is not only a statement of fact; it is a warning to kings and nations (particularly to Israel, Yahweh’s people) not to depend on the number and strength of their armies and their war horses, but to depend on God.
In some languages the two lines of verse 16 will have to be recast slightly, otherwise there is likelihood that the reader will understand that the king’s powerful army is what causes him to lose, and the warrior’s strength likewise causes him to fail. The translation should not mean that they are at the same time the cause of his defeat. Therefore one may sometimes say, for example, “Even if a king has a powerful army, that does not make him win the battle” or “Even if a soldier has great strength, that does not mean he will defeat his enemy.”
In verse 17a a vain hope translates a word meaning lie, falsehood, delusion (see 7.14); New Jerusalem Bible “a horse is a false hope for deliverance.” In line b it may be necessary to supply an object for the verb save, such as “the rider” (Bible en français courant) or “the soldier,” or else make the line parallel with the preceding victory: “their great strength cannot win the battle.”
Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Reyburn, William D. A Handbook on the Book of Psalms. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1991. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
The following is a presentation by the Psalms: Layer by Layer project, run by Scriptura . The first is an overview and the second an introduction into the exegesis of Psalm 33.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.