6For the Lord had caused the Aramean army to hear the sound of chariots and of horses, the sound of a great army, so that they said to one another, “The king of Israel has hired the kings of the Hittites and the kings of Egypt to fight against us.”
The Hebrew, Latin and Greek that is translated into English as “chariot” is translated into Anuak as “canoe pulled by horse.” “Canoe” is the general term for “vehicle” (source: Loren Bliese). Similarly it is translated in Lokạạ as ukwaa wạ nyanyang ntuuli or “canoe that is driven by horses.” (Source: J.A. Naudé, C.L. Miller Naudé, J.O. Obono in Acta Theologica 43/2, 2023, p. 129ff. )
In Eastern Highland Otomi it’s translated as “cart pulled by horses” (source: Larson 1998, p. 98) and in Chichicapan Zapotec as “ox cart” (in Acts 8). Ox carts are common vehicles for travel. (Source: Loren Bliese)
In Chichimeca-Jonaz, it is translated as “little house with two feet pulled by two horses” (source: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.) and in the HausaCommon Language Ajami Bible as keken-doki or “cart of donkey” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
It is illustrated for use in Bible translations in East Africa by Pioneer Bible Translators like this:
Image owned by PBT and Jonathan McDaniel and licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
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, Omanson / Ellington recommend the exclusive form (only including the Aramean army). Both the Jarai translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation, however, use the inclusive pronoun.
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 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.”
The Hebrew adonai in the Old Testament typically refers to God. The shorter adon (and in two cases in the book of Daniel the Aramaic mare [מָרֵא]) is also used to refer to God but more often for concepts like “master,” “owner,” etc. In English Bible translations all of those are translated with “Lord” if they refer to God.
In English Old Testament translations, as in Old Testament translations in many other languages, the use of Lord (or an equivalent term in other languages) is not to be confused with Lord (or the equivalent term with a different typographical display for other languages). While the former translates adonai, adon and mare, the latter is a translation for the tetragrammaton (YHWH) or the Name of God. See tetragrammaton (YHWH) and the article by Andy Warren-Rothlin in Noss / Houser, p. 618ff. for more information.
In the New Testament, the Greek term kurios has at least four different kinds of use:
referring to “God,” especially in Old Testament quotations,
meaning “master” or “owner,” especially in parables, etc.,
as a form of address (see for instance John 4:11: “Sir, you have no bucket”),
or, most often, referring to Jesus
In the first and fourth case, it is also translated as “Lord” in English.
Most languages naturally don’t have one word that covers all these meanings. According to Bratcher / Nida, “the alternatives are usually (1) a term which is an honorific title of respect for a high-ranking person and (2) a word meaning ‘boss’, ‘master’, or ‘chief.’ (…) and on the whole it has generally seemed better to employ a word of the second category, in order to emphasize the immediate personal relationship, and then by context to build into the word the prestigeful character, since its very association with Jesus Christ will tend to accomplish this purpose.”
When looking at the following list of back-translations of the terms that translators in the different languages have used for both kurios and adonai to refer to God and Jesus respectively, it might be helpful for English readers to recall the etymology of the English “Lord.” While this term might have gained an exalted meaning in the understanding of many, it actually comes from hlaford or “loaf-ward,” referring to the lord of the castle who was the keeper of the bread (source: Rosin 1956, p. 121).
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight
Following are some of the solutions that don’t rely on a different typographical display (see above):
Iyansi: Mwol. Mwol is traditionally used for the “chief of a group of communities and villages” with legal, temporal, and spiritual authority (versus the “mfum [the term used in other Bantu languages] which is used for the chief of one community of people in one village”). Mwol is also used for twins who are “treated as special children, highly honored, and taken care of like kings and queens.” (Source: Kividi Kikama in Greed / Kruger, p. 396ff.)
Binumarien: Karaambaia: “fight-leader” (Source: Oates 1995, p. 255)
Warlpiri: Warlaljamarri (owner or possessor of something — for more information tap or click here)
We have come to rely on another term which emphasizes God’s essential nature as YHWH, namely jukurrarnu (see tetragrammaton (YHWH)). This word is built on the same root jukurr– as is jukurrpa, ‘dreaming.’ Its basic meaning is ‘timelessness’ and it is used to describe physical features of the land which are viewed as always being there. Some speakers view jukurrarnu in terms of ‘history.’ In all Genesis references to YHWH we have used Kaatu Jukurrarnu. In all Mark passages where kurios refers to God and not specifically to Christ we have also used Kaatu Jukurrarnu.
New Testament references to Christ as kurios are handled differently. At one stage we experimented with the term Watirirririrri which refers to a ceremonial boss of highest rank who has the authority to instigate ceremonies. While adequately conveying the sense of Christ’s authority, there remained potential negative connotations relating to Warlpiri ceremonial life of which we might be unaware.
Here it is that the Holy Spirit led us to make a chance discovery. Transcribing the personal testimony of the local Warlpiri pastor, I noticed that he described how ‘my Warlaljamarri called and embraced me (to the faith)’. Warlaljamarri is based on the root warlalja which means variously ‘family, possessions, belongingness’. A warlaljamarri is the ‘owner’ or ‘possessor’ of something. While previously being aware of the ‘ownership’ aspect of warlaljamarri, this was the first time I had heard it applied spontaneously and naturally in a fashion which did justice to the entire concept of ‘Lordship’. Thus references to Christ as kurios are now being handled by Warlaljamarri.” (Source: Stephen Swartz, The Bible Translator 1985, p. 415ff. )
Mairasi: Onggoao Nem (“Throated One” — “Leader,” “Elder”) or Enggavot Nan (“Above-One”) (source: Enggavoter 2004)
Obolo: Okaan̄-ene (“Owner of person(s)”) (source: Enene Enene)
Lotha Naga: Opvui (“owner of house / field / cattle”) — since both “Lord” and YHWH are translated as Opvui there is an understanding that “Opvui Jesus is the same as the Opvui of the Old Testament”
Seediq: Tholang, loan word from Min Nan Chinese (the majority language in Taiwan) thâu-lâng (頭儂): “Master” (source: Covell 1998, p. 248)
Thai: phra’ phu pen cao (พระผู้เป็นเจ้า) (divine person who is lord) or ong(kh) cao nay (องค์เจ้านาย) (<divine classifier>-lord-boss) (source: Stephen Pattemore)
Arabic often uses different terms for adonai or kurios referring to God (al-rabb الرب) and kurios referring to Jesus (al-sayyid الـسـيـد). Al-rabb is also the term traditionally used in Arabic Christian-idiom translations for YHWH, and al-sayyid is an honorary term, similar to English “lord” or “sir” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin).
Tamil also uses different terms for adonai/kurios when referring to God and kurios when referring to Jesus. The former is Karttar கர்த்தர், a Sanskrit-derived term with the original meaning of “creator,” and the latter in Āṇṭavar ஆண்டவர், a Tamil term originally meaning “govern” or “reign” (source: Natarajan Subramani).
Burunge: Looimoo: “owner who owns everything” (in the Burunge Bible translation, this term is only used as a reference to Jesus and was originally used to refer to the traditional highest deity — source: Michael Endl in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 48)
Aguacateco: Ajcaw ske’j: “the one to whom we belong and who is above us” (source: Rita Peterson in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 49)
Konkomba: Tidindaan: “He who is the owner of the land and reigns over the people” (source: Lidorio 2007, p. 66)
Law (2013, p. 97) writes about how the Ancient GreekSeptuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew adonai was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments: “Another case is the use of kurios referring to Jesus. For Yahweh (in English Bibles: ‘the Lord‘), the Septuagint uses kurios. Although the term kurios usually has to do with one’s authority over others, when the New Testament authors use this word from the Septuagint to refer to Jesus, they are making an extraordinary claim: Jesus of Nazareth is to be identified with Yahweh.”
For: Once again the Hebrew has only the common conjunction, but the context may dictate the use of something stronger in some languages since it introduces the explanation as to why the Syrians had left their camp so suddenly. Some languages may even begin this verse with the words “The Syrians had run away because….”
The Lord had made the army of the Syrians hear the sound …: It will be noted that the word Lord is not all capital letters in this case. This indicates that it is a translation of the Hebrew word ʾadonai and not YHWH. New Jerusalem Bible has “Yahweh” here, following many Hebrew manuscripts. But the traditional text has the word ʾadonai. In those languages where these two terms are distinguished, either by using capital letters or by using different terms, translators should ensure that the proper term for ʾadonai is used here. See the discussion on “Translating Lord and LORD” in “Translating 1–2 Kings,” pages 11-12.
The verb had made … hear renders a causative verb form in Hebrew. It shows that it was the Lord who had caused the Syrians to hear what they thought was the sound of enemy forces approaching. The verb form used here also indicates that what is described in verses 6-7 had already happened before the action described in the previous verse; that is, the outcast Israelites arrived at the edge of the Syrian camp to find that the enemy soldiers had already left. Because of this flashback, Contemporary English Version carries out a rather radical restructuring of verses 5-8, giving the information in more chronological order. In Contemporary English Version the fleeing of the Syrian army (verses 6-7) is described before the arrival of the four diseased men (verses 5b and 8). The part about their arrival at “the edge of the Syrian camp” is therefore stated only once, rather than twice as in Revised Standard Version and most other versions. Peregrino shows that verses 6-7 interrupt the flow of the narrative by placing them in parentheses.
The word army occurs twice in this verse in Revised Standard Version as the rendering of two different Hebrew nouns that are close in meaning. The first Hebrew noun in the phrase the army of the Syrians is more literally “camp” (so Nouvelle Bible Segond). See the comments on this noun at 2 Kgs 5.15, where Revised Standard Version has “company.” Here it may be rendered army or “camp.”
They said to one another is literally “they said a man to his brother.” The expression is very similar to the one used in verses 3 and 9. While there was surely speaking back and forth involved in the Syrian retreat, Good News Translation focuses on the fact that they first “thought”; that is, before talking about their fears, these enemies of Israel were led to believe in their minds that they were about to be attacked by a strong enemy force. Most modern versions, however, retain the idea of the Syrians speaking to each other about their fears.
Behold translates the Hebrew focusing particle. It is left untranslated here in many modern versions, but NET Bible renders it “Look.”
The king of Israel has hired against us … to come upon us: The Hebrew verb translated has hired involves the payment of money for performing a particular job. In some languages a verb like “paid” or “gave money” will have to be used. The employment of foreign mercenary troops was commonplace in biblical times. em>Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente translates “the king of Israel has hired as mercenaries….” The two occurrences of the pronoun us here should be rendered as inclusive pronouns in languages that have inclusive and exclusive pronouns.
The kings of the Hittites and the kings of Egypt, of course, refers to the armies under the direction of the Hittite and Egyptian leaders. Some translations make it explicit that it would not have been just the kings themselves who would have been hired but also “their armies” (Good News Translation, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Regarding the Hittites, see the comments on 1 Kgs 10.29. The use of the plural noun kings seems to fit well with what is known about the Hittites, but is puzzling when used with regard to the Egyptians, who had a single king. For this reason some commentators have suggested that Egypt (Mitsrayim in Hebrew) is not intended here. A number of commentators and translations maintain that “Musrites” should be understood here (so Osty-Trinquet, La Bible Pléiade, em>Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Gray). Musri was a territory north of Syria (see the comments on 1 Kgs 10.28). This interpretation is the basis for the rendering in New American Bible, which translates “borderlands” in place of Egypt. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh translates “Mizraim” here and in 1 Kgs 10.28, where it is suggested in a footnote that “Muru” is intended. Most versions, however, retain Egypt in translation; and since there are historical problems in accepting the reading “Musrites,” the name Egypt is recommended. Similar to Good News Translation, NET Bible avoids the difficulty of the plural noun kings with Egypt by translating this part of the verse as “the kings of the Hittites and Egypt.” Contemporary English Version says “Hittite and Egyptian troops.” If translators follow the Hebrew here, they should keep the plural expression the kings of Egypt despite the historical problems.
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 .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.