inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (2Kings 6:11)

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 and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation both use the inclusive pronoun, including everyone.

king

Click here to view graphically

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:

(Click or tap here to see details)

  • Piro: “a great one”
  • Highland Totonac: “the big boss”
  • Huichol: “the one who commanded” (source for this and above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Ekari: “the one who holds the country” (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
  • Una: weik sienyi: “big headman” (source: Kroneman 2004, p. 407)
  • Pass Valley Yali: “Big Man” (source: Daud Soesilo)
  • 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 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.”

(Source: Faye Edgerton in The Bible Translator 1962, p. 25ff. )

Translation commentary on 2 Kings 6:11

The mind of the king of Syria was greatly troubled because of this thing: Mind is literally “heart” (see the comments on 1 Kgs 3.9). The Hebrew verb rendered was greatly troubled means “to be moved,” “to be stirred up,” or “to be agitated.” Some take it to mean “enraged” (New International Version) or “infuriated” (American Bible), but more likely the king was “greatly disturbed” (so New American Bible) or “grew very much disturbed” (New Jerusalem Bible).

As in verse 8, his servants refers to the king’s military officers, not his domestic servants.

Will you not show me who of us is for the king of Israel?: The question of the Syrian king is awkwardly worded in Revised Standard Version, but the king was clearly concerned that there must have been a spy among his officers. Since the king of Israel always seemed to know his plans, he could not imagine any other way that this information would be known in advance. Some possible model translations are “Which one of you is telling my plans to the king of Israel?” and “Point out for me the person here who is spying for the king of Israel.”

Instead of the words who of us is for the king of Israel, the Septuagint reads “who betrayed me to the king of Israel.” Following the Greek text, some interpreters slightly alter the spelling of the Hebrew words translated who of us to read “who has delivered us” or “which of you is betraying us” (New Jerusalem Bible). But the Masoretic Text, which has a {B} rating in Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, makes sense and should be followed. However, the meaning is basically the same in the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. The Hebrew preposition translated for means “on the side of” (Good News Translation, New International Version, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible) in this context.

The use of the pronoun us almost makes it sound as if the king of Syria is including himself among those who might possibly be on the side of the king of Israel. Since this is certainly not his intent, it will be much better in many languages to change to the second person plural pronoun “you” as Good News Translation has done. New Jerusalem Bible has both pronouns, saying “Tell me which of you is betraying us to the king of Israel.” Compare also “Which of you is the traitor? Who has been informing the king of Israel of my plans?” (New Living Translation) and “Won’t you tell me who, among you, works for the king of Israel?” (Nouvelle Bible Segond).

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .