In Gbaya, the notion of the difference between what the kings imagined of the towers of Jerusalem and the reality of the tall towers of Jerusalem in Psalm 48:4 is emphasized with the ideophone ŋmɛk, which refers to something that is not tall when talking about is but tall when you encounter it.
Ideophones are a class of sound symbolic words expressing human sensation that are used as literary devices in many African languages. (Source: Philip Noss)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Psalm 48:4:
Chichewa Contempary Chichewa translation, 2002/2016:
“When they gathered together,
when they walked together to contend against us,” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Newari:
“Joining forces, kings came to assault Mt. Zion.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon:
“The kings gathered to-attack Jerusalem,” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Laarim:
“When the kings combined their armies
then they went ahead together,” (Source: Laarim Back Translation)
Nyakyusa-Ngonde (back-translation into Swahili):
“Wafalme wakati wamekusanyika,
wakaja kuupiga mji.” (Source: Nyakyusa Back Translation)
English:
“Many kings gathered with their armies to attack that city,” (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.”
These verses tell how Israel’s enemies were defeated and fled in terror. It is impossible to know whether a particular military campaign is in the psalmist’s mind (such as Sennacherib’s unsuccessful attack on Jerusalem in 701 B.C.; so Briggs); in any case, the matter is described as a historical event. Some commentators see this description as part of a ritual recitation whose purpose was to affirm that no enemy, however strong, was ever able to conquer Jerusalem. At the sight of the city’s mighty defenses (verse 5, As soon as they saw it), they were terrified and fled. Some see here a reference to a frightening manifestation of Yahweh’s power, a theophany, which caused the invaders to flee in terror. Such an interpretation can be expressed by “As soon as they saw God manifest (or, show) his power….”
In verse 4b Good News Translation has made explicit that the pagan kings launched an attack on Mount Zion (see Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “against the city”), and it would be well that translators do something similar. And it may be necessary in some languages to mention explicitly the kings’ armies, to avoid giving the impression that the kings alone gathered and marched off to attack Jerusalem.
Verse 4 may need to be adjusted to say, for example, “The kings and their armies gathered together; they came to attack Mount Zion.”
The reaction of the enemy forces is graphically described in verse 5. It in 5a refers to Mount Zion. It may be clearer to repeat “Mount Zion” in 5a or use another noun substitute such as “that holy place.”
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 .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.