The term that is transliterated as “Nebuchadnezzar” in English is translated in American Sign Language with the signs for “king” and one signifying a wavy beard, referring to the common way of wearing a beard in Mesopotamia (see here ). (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)
“Nebuchadnezzar” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor
In Spanish Sign Language it is translated with a sign depicting “idol in my image,” referring to Daniel 3:1. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)
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 and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation use the exclusive form (excluding the king).
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Daniel 3:16:
Kupsabiny: “Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to that king, ‘Honorable Nebuchadnezzar, there is nothing wrong we have done and we have nothing to say to you as far as this matter is concerned.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego said to the king, "O Great King Nebuchadnezzar, in this matter there is no need for us to give you an answer.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “They three answered, ‘Beloved King, we (excl.) do- not -have anything to say about that.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego replied, ‘Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend our actions to you in this matter.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
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 (Dinė) 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.”
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 to do this is through the usage (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.
In these verses, the Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “answer” in English is translated in the Shinkaiyaku Bible as o-kotae (お答え), combining “come” (kotae) with the respectful prefix o-. (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego: depending on the system for referring to participants in the language of translation, it may be possible to render these proper names by a simple pronoun, “They.”
O Nebuchadnezzar: English translations are almost equally divided between those that follow Revised Standard Version by including the proper name within the quotation, and those that have something like “answered King Nebuchadnezzar…” outside the quotation. The problem is essentially one of punctuation. The markings in the traditional Aramaic text yield a rendering like that of Revised Standard Version. But this is unlikely, since to address the king by his name without using the title would show disrespect by failing to observe proper court formalities, and there is no reason to believe that the young men would have forgotten their manners in this case. Nowhere else in the Book of Daniel is the king addressed only by his name; yet there are many cases where the usual convention of using the title is observed (see 2.4, 29, 31, 37). It is probably best not to follow Revised Standard Version on this point but to use the more respectful formulas found elsewhere in the Book of Daniel.
We have no need to answer you: this should not be understood as an impertinent remark on the part of the three young men. They were simply stating a fact. New Revised Standard Version translates “we have no need to present a defense to you in this matter.” Some other ways of saying this are “we don’t want to try to justify ourselves” (Bible en français courant), “There is no need for us to defend ourselves before you in this matter” (New American Bible), or “there is no need for further consideration of this matter.” For those languages distinguishing we-inclusive and we-exclusive pronouns, the exclusive forms should be used throughout this passage.
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.