swear, vow

The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “swear (an oath)” or “vow” is translated as “God sees me, I tell the truth to you” (Tzeltal), “loading yourself down” (Huichol), “to speak-stay” (implying permanence of the utterance) (Sayula Popoluca), “to say what he could not take away” (San Blas Kuna), “because of the tight (i.e. “binding”) word which he had said to her face” (Guerrero Amuzgo), “strong promise” (North Alaskan Inupiatun) (source for all above: Bratcher / Nida), “eat an oath” (Nyamwezi — source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext), or sswa nak/”drink an oath” (Jju — source: McKinney 2018, p. 31).

In Bauzi “swear” can be translated in various ways. In Hebrews 6:13, for instance, it is translated with “bones break apart and decisively speak.” (“No bones are literally broken but by saying ‘break bones’ it is like people swear by someone else in this case it is in relation to a rotting corpse’ bones falling apart. If you ‘break bones’ so to speak when you make an utterance, it is a true utterance.”) In other passages, such as in Matthew 26:72, it’s translated with an expression that implies taking ashes (“if a person wants everyone to know that he is telling the truth about a matter, he reaches down into the fireplace, scoops up some ashes and throws them while saying ‘I was not the one who did that.'”). So in Matthew 26:72 the Bauzi text is: “. . . Peter took ashes and defended himself saying, ‘I don’t know that Nazareth person.'” (Source: David Briley)

See also swear (promise) and Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’, or ‘No, No’.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (2Sam 21:17)

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 translation uses the exclusive pronoun, excluding David.

Translation commentary on 2 Samuel 21:17

But: since the sentence that follows represents a turnaround in the story, the common conjunction is properly translated by a contrastive conjunction like But or “However” in this case.

Came to his aid: that is, Abishai came to help David, not the giant. There should be no doubt who is meant. If there is, the name “David” should appear in the translation.

Adjured him: the pronoun him refers to David and not to Abishai. Several English versions render this rather high-level verbal expression “swore to him” (New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, and New American Bible). Others show equally clearly that the idea of an oath is involved: “declared to him on oath” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh); “swore the following oath to him” (New Jerusalem Bible). The Good News Translation rendering seems somewhat off the mark, since it makes David, rather than his men, the subject of the verb. The Hebrew text says clearly enough that it is David’s men who take the oath.

Lest: this word may be better rendered by beginning a separate sentence with “If you don’t stay home…” or something similar.

Quench the lamp of Israel: the English verb quench means “extinguish” or “put out a fire.” The figurative language used here may not be properly understood if translated literally. The same metaphor of a lamp referring to the continuing rule of David’s family occurs in 1 Kgs 11.36; 15.4; 2 Kgs 8.19. Neither Revised Standard Version nor Good News Translation adequately expresses the meaning of this metaphor, although Good News Translation attempts to capture the meaning by use of the words “the hope of Israel.” In chapter 7 God promises David that his rule will endure for ever (verses 15-16). David’s soldiers are expressing more than a concern that David might be killed. They are expressing a concern that the dynasty that God has promised to David and to his descendants will come to an end if David is killed. For this reason Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente says “in order to avoid the danger that your dynasty might be extinguished in Israel.” Compare also Bible en français courant, “in order that the royalty might not be extinguished in Israel” (Bible en français courant).

A possible model is:

• You are like a light for the nation of Israel. If you die and leave none of your descendants to continue your rule, we will be living in darkness.

Or, dropping the image of light, translators may prefer to say:

• We have hope for our nation because God has promised that your descendants will rule for ever; but if you are killed in battle, that hope would come to an end.

A translation such as “If you were killed, Israel would lose its greatest leader” (New Century Version) misses the point completely and should not be taken as a model.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .