inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (2Kings 6:29)

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 the king.

complete verse (2 Kings 6:29)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Kings 6:29:

  • Kupsabiny: “So, we cooked my boy and ate (him). But the next day, I also said to her, ‘Give us your boy to eat,’ but she hid her boy.’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “So we prepared my son and ate him. The next day, when I said to her, ‘Bring your son to eat’ she hid him."” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “So we (excl.) cooked my child and ate (it). The next day, I told her that we (excl.) will-eat also her child, but she hid it.’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “So we killed my son and cut his body up and boiled his flesh and ate it. The next day, I said to her, ‘Now give your son to me, in order that we can kill him and cook his flesh and eat it.’ But she has hidden her son!’” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on 2 Kings 6:29

Moses had warned the Israelite people of the many awful consequences of disobeying God, including the disaster of women eating their own children (Deut 28.57). More than 200 years after this event in 2 Kings, women again ate their own children during the siege of Jerusalem (Lam 4.10).

So: The common Hebrew conjunction here is rightly translated as a kind of logical connector. This woman accepted the idea of giving up her son in order that they might survive.

We boiled my son: It is not essential to describe how the child was prepared for eating. Several modern versions use a more general term, such as “cooked” (Good News Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible). Some translators may need to know whether the child was killed before being prepared as food or cooked alive. While either possibility is gruesome to contemplate, if the choice must be made, it is probably more likely that the life of the child was taken before it was cooked.

Give your son, that we may eat him: Compare verse 28. This embedded quotation can be made into indirect discourse as follows: “The following day when I told her that it was time for us to eat her son, I learned that she had put him in a place where I could not find him!”

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 .