inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Neh 2:19)

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 exclusive pronoun, excluding Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite official, and Geshem the Arab.

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 Nehemiah 2:19

Sanballat and Tobiah appeared as opponents to Nehemiah and the Jews in verse 10 above. Here Geshem the Arab is introduced as a third opponent. Geshem is a Hebrew variant spelling of Gashmu (see Neh 6.6). From sources outside the biblical writings, it is known that he was the king of Kedar, which was under nominal Persian control. Kedar was a region in the north of Arabia east of Transjordan (see Gen 25.13). Geshem had united the Arabian tribes into a vast confederation from the Syrian desert to the Nile delta in Egypt.

Heard of it: The Hebrew text does not specify what it refers to. In some languages it is possible to use an equally open-ended expression, such as “heard of that thing” or “heard that news.” Others will be more explicit like Good News Translation “what we were planning to do” and Contemporary English Version “heard about our plans.”

The opponents of Nehemiah derided us and despised us. Here derided and despised are used together to create a strong expression of scorn. Some versions do as Revised Standard Version does and retain two verbs in translation. Contemporary English Version combines the two Hebrew verbs into a single clause: “they started insulting us.” Translators are advised to use two expressions for a forceful statement rather than combining them.

The opponents asked two questions: What is this thing that you are doing? Are you rebelling against the king? The first question was the conventional way of making an accusation. Good News Translation interprets this question as belittling or making fun of the work that the Jews were planning to do. Their second question was an accusation about the Jews’ real intention. The opponents’ charge that the Jews were rebelling against the king was to remind them that this claim had previously caused Artaxerxes to stop the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Ezra 4.12).

Many languages will use a question like the first one to challenge or accuse someone. They may then change the second question into a statement with a question, such as “You are rebelling against the king, aren’t you?” Or they may change it into a statement that ends with an emphatic particle, such as “You are rebelling against the king, eh!”

Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Nehemiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .