swear / vow

Click here to view graphically

The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “swear (an oath)” or “vow” in English is otherwise translated as:

  • “God sees me, I tell the truth to you” (Tzeltal)
  • “loading yourself down” (Huichol)
  • “speak-stay” (implying permanence of the utterance) (Sayula Popoluca)
  • “say what could not be taken away” (San Blas Kuna)
  • “because of the tight (i.e. ‘binding’) word said to a 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)
  • “drink an oath” (Jju) (source: McKinney 2018, p. 31).
  • “cut taboos” (Mairasi (source: Enggavoter 2004)

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.

complete verse (2 Samuel 21:17)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Samuel 21:17:

  • Kupsabiny: “Abishai son of Zeruiah came and killed that Philistine. Then the people of David swore telling him that, ‘We should never again go together with you to war because you might extinguish the lamp of Israel.’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “At that time Abishai, son of Zeruiah, came to help David. He struck that Philistine and killed him. Then David’s men, fearing that the light of Israel might get lost, swore an oath before him saying that David was never [again] to go to battle with them.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “But Abishai the child of Zeruya arrived to rescue David, and he killed this Philistine. After that the men of David said to him, ‘We (excl.) will- not -allow you to go-with us (excl.) to battle again. You are like a lamp in Israel, and we (excl.) do- not -want that you be-lost.’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “But Abishai came to help David, and attacked the giant and killed him. Then David’s soldiers forced him to promise that he would not go with them into a battle again. They said to him, ‘If you die, and none of your descendants become king, that would be like extinguishing the last light in Israel.’” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Japanese benefactives (-naide)

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.

One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. Here, -naide (ないで) or “do not (for their sake)” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).”

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

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 .