Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Psalm 59:7:
Chichewa Contempary Chichewa translation, 2002/2016:
“Look at what they spit in their mouth;
they spit swords from their lips,
and they say that, ‘Who can hear us?’” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Newari:
“Listen to how they talk with their mouths
and keep on giving threats.
Their tongues are sharp like swords.
They keep on saying —
‘Who is there that will hear [us]?’” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon:
“Listen to what they say/are-saying;
this/it can-hurt like sword.
They continue saying, ‘No-one can-hear us (excl.).’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Laarim:
“Listen to their sound and their insult,
their tongues stay like swords in their mouths,
they think instead that, ‘Who is the person who will hear us?."” (Source: Laarim Back Translation)
Nyakyusa-Ngonde (back-translation into Swahili):
“Tazama, wanatapika matusi katika vinywa vyao,
midomo yao ni upanga mkali,
tena wanasema, ‘Nani anasikia?’” (Source: Nyakyusa Back Translation)
English:
“They loudly say terrible things;
they say many things that injure people like swords do,
but they think, ‘No one will hear us!’” (Source: Translation for Translators)
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 Adamawa Fulfulde uses the inclusive pronoun, including everyone.
Dogs were domesticated very early and were used for hunting and as watchdogs in the ancient world. In Egypt as early as 4000 B.C. people made pottery images that indicate that sleek fast hunting dogs were bred which looked like the modern greyhound. From Babylonian sculpture we know that around 2500 B.C. large hunting dogs that looked like the modern bull-mastiff were kept by people in the Mesopotamian civilizations.
Among the Jews however while dogs were kept mainly as watch-dogs they were held in contempt and left to feed themselves by scavenging. This habit of scavenging and the fact that dogs were possibly associated with some Egyptian gods meant that dogs were seen as very unclean animals by the Jews. The dog found in Jewish settlements in Bible times was probably the pariah dog Canis familiaris putiatini which looked something like a small light brown Alsatian or German shepherd. This type of dog in its wild and domesticated forms is found all over the Middle East and on the mainland coasts of South and Southeast Asia (where it is known as the crab-eating dog). The Australian dingo is also very similar.
Small pet dogs were kept in homes in the Greek and Roman civilizations by gentiles but not by Jews. This is probably the type of dog referred to by the Greek word kunarion in Matthew 15:26 and Mark 7:27.
[Sarah Ruden (2021, p. 27), who translates kunarion as “little doggy,” says the following: “In the entire Greek Bible, only [these two passages] use this diminutive (kunarion) of the word for ‘dog,’ a rare and largely comical word. This word choice weakens the usual sense of dogs as dirty and uncivilized and excluded from the home, much less from the table that symbolized God’s providential bounty.”]
As mentioned above dogs were held in contempt as unclean. To call someone a dog was therefore very derogatory and to refer to someone as a “dead dog” was even more so. Israelites viewed dogs as second only to pigs as unclean animals. Dogs as scavengers around the villages ate anything from household refuse to animal carcasses and human excreta. They even ate human corpses that lay unburied after battles. Furthermore the dog was possibly one of the symbols of the Egyptian god Anubis (although many modern scholars believe the symbol to be the jackal).
With all of the above in mind it is understandable that dying and then being eaten by unclean dogs was seen as the worst of all possible fates.
In the first century A.D. gentiles were considered to be unclean and were referred to by Jews in a derogatory way as “dogs.” There is therefore strong irony in the expression in Philippians 3:2 where Judaizing Christians are referred to as dogs.
One additional connotation associated with dogs in the Bible is sexual perversion and promiscuity a connotation probably arising from the fact that sexually aroused male dogs do not always differentiate between sexes as they seek to mate and the fact that dogs of both sexes mate repeatedly with different partners.
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 choice of a benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. Here, goran (ご覧) or “see/behold/look” (itself a combination of “behold/see” [ran] and the honorific prefix go- — see behold / look / see (Japanese honorifics)) is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).”
The psalmist compares his enemies to a pack of dogs that prowl around the city at dusk. The translation of they come back must in many languages have an explicit point of reference; for example, “they come back where they were” or “they return to the place where they had been.” Howling translates a verb that means simply “be noisy”; New Jerusalem Bible “growling”; Good News Translation, New English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New International Version “snarling.”
Prowling: Good News Translation is closer to the Hebrew with “they go about the city.” The verb can even be understood as “surround,” with the connotation of a siege. However, the translator should be free to use a verb that best fits the context in the receptor language.
The first line of verse 7 is literally “Look, they pour out with their mouths”; the verb “pour out” seems to be used in a figurative sense of unrestrained speech (for example, “they speak without restraint”). Good News Translation has abandoned the figure altogether: “Listen to their insults and threats.” Some, however, take the verb to apply to the dogs and translate “they slaver” (see Anderson, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible); this does not seem very probable. In verse 7 the psalmist has abandoned the figure of dogs and is talking about the enemies as such.
Verse 7b is literally “swords (are) in their lips”–an obvious metaphor for cruel and malicious speech; see similar expressions in 52.2; 55.21; 57.4. There is no need to emend the text as Revised Standard Version has done. For example, it can be rendered “their words are like swords.”
The last line in the Hebrew text is “Who will hear?” Most commentators and translations take this to be the thinking of the wicked (see similar statements in 10.11; 64.5); they think that no one, not even God, will know what they are doing. Instead of the rhetorical question, which expects a negative answer (see Revised Standard Version), Good News Translation has made a statement, which may be clearer to most readers.
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.