30But as for me, this mystery has not been revealed to me because of any wisdom that I have more than any other living being, but in order that the interpretation may be known to the king and that you may understand the thoughts of your mind.
The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that is translated as “wisdom” in English is rendered in Amganad Ifugao and Tabasco Chontal as “(big) mind,” in Bulu and Yamba as “heart-thinking,” in Tae’ as “cleverness of heart” (source for this and all above: Reiling / Swellengrebel), in Palauan as “bright spirit (innermost)” (source: Bratcher / Hatton), in Ixcatlán Mazatec as “with your best/biggest thinking” (source: Robert Bascom), in Noongar as dwangka-boola, lit. “ear much” (source: Portions of the Holy Bible in the Nyunga language of Australia, 2018 — see also remember), and in Dobel, it is translated with the idiom “their ear holes are long-lasting” (in Acts 6:3) (source: Jock Hughes).
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 structure of this verse may have to be radically altered in some languages. The verse contains three main elements:
(1) the central affirmation of God’s revelation;
(2) a denial of any special powers in Daniel himself; and
(3) a statement of the purpose of the revelation.
In Revised Standard Version, as in Aramaic, the order is 2-1-3, but in many other versions sensitive to the language of translation, the order is 1-2-3 or 1-3-2. Translators should be careful to see to it that the most natural structure possible is adopted.
The conjunction translated as But: in Revised Standard Version may possibly be left untranslated; but it is very probable that there is a rather strong contrast intended between the king and Daniel, indicated by the structure of the Aramaic, which has the pronoun “you” standing in a prominent position in verse 29, and “I” in a prominent position in this verse. See comments on the previous verse.
As for me: this is an attempt to reflect the fact that the pronoun me is given a prominent position in the text. In some languages this may be handled by beginning the sentence “It was to me that God revealed…”; but in others this would be an artificially contrived structure. If this is the case, it will be better to put the object in its proper place after the verb.
That the interpretation may be made known: this passive formulation will have to be made active in many languages. It should also be noted that there is a subtle difference in meaning between this expression and the one that follows (that you may know the thoughts of your mind). Here the focus is on the more objective explanation of the dream while the following expression involves the king’s subjective reaction to it.
The king: “Your Majesty” in Good News Translation. Again the formula for respect used when speaking to royalty should probably be translated by the pronoun “you” in many languages.
The thoughts of your mind: literally “the thoughts of your heart.” In Semitic thought the heart is often seen as the seat of intelligence rather than of emotion (see comments on “resolved” in 1.8). This is why most English versions use the word “mind” rather than translating literally “heart.”
Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René & Ellington, John. A Handbook on Daniel. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1994. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.