The Hebrew and Greek that is transliterated as “Esther” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with a sign depicting a star on a crown, referring to her being a queen and her name likely meaning “star” (see here ). (Source: Steve Parkhurst)
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 “come” or similar in English is translated in the Shinkaiyaku Bible as o-koshi (お越し), combining “come” (koshi) with the respectful prefix o-, and “together,” referring to the “king and Haman” is translated as go-issho (ご一緒), using a combination of “together” (issho) and the honorific prefix go-.
Also, an appropriate suffix title referred to as keishō (敬称) is employed by using –sama. Here, ō-sama (王様) “king” is a combination of the nominal title ō “king” and the suffix title –sama.
Furthermore, the honorific form kudasai (ください) reflects that the action is called for as a favor for the sake of the beneficiary. This polite kudasai imperative form is often translated as “please” in English. While English employs pure imperatives in most imperative constructions (“Do this!”), Japanese chooses the polite kudasai (“Do this, please.”).
The Hebrew and Greek that is transliterated as “Haman” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with a sign for “stuck up,” exemplified in Esther 5:11. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Esther 5:4:
Kupsabiny: “Then Esther replied, ‘If it seems fit/good to you, oh king, come today with Haman so that you both eat at a feast I have prepared for you (sing.).’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “Esther answered, "If it pleases Your Majesty, come with Haman to eat a feast I have prepared [for you] today."” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “Ester answered, ‘If you (sing.) like, Beloved King, you (plur.) and Haman come now to the dinner/supper that I had-prepared for you (plur.).’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Eastern Bru: “Then Esther answered the king: "O king! If you agree/feel happy, I ask to invite you and Haman to be guests at a feast I will prepare for you tonight.” (Source: Bru Back Translation)
English: “Esther replied, ‘Your majesty, if it pleases you, you and Haman come to the banquet that I have prepared for you!’” (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.”
If it please the king: both Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation reflect the language of the court. Esther cannot address the king in public with terms of familiarity. Revised Standard Version therefore continues the quotation in the third person, let the king and Haman come.
The Hebrew verb “let [the king] come” expresses Esther’s will. The Hebrew form may be used to express a command, a wish, a request, an invitation, permission, or advice, depending on the context. Here Esther is expressing an invitation, not a command. Revised English Bible says “If it please your majesty … will you come today, my lord, and Haman with you…?” Good News Translation has changed the invitation to a statement in the first person, “I would like,” which is more natural in present-day English. The translator will need to find the most natural and appropriate way to say this in the receptor language. Creating unnatural expressions in an attempt to find a direct equivalent of the Hebrew form should be avoided.
Dinner: the development of the plot of the Book of Esther revolves around banquets, those offered by the king and the queen, those offered by Esther, and that of Purim. Esther’s “banquet” (Good News Translation) is not the grandiose feast seen in chapter 1, but neither is it a simple “meal” or merely an invitation to “come and eat.” Although the Hebrew term is the same as in 1.3 and in 1.9, some versions (Bible en français courant, New Jerusalem Bible) call those “banquets” and this a “feast.” The word chosen to refer to this meal will no doubt determine what verb will be used to translate prepared (compare “organized,” Traduction œcuménique de la Bible).
This day renders a Hebrew word that may refer to the daylight hours or more generally to a calendar day of twenty-four hours. The Hebrew does not specify whether the banquet is to be held during the hours of sunlight or whether it is to be held in the evening. New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and many other translations say “today.” The Good News Translation translation “tonight” assumes that the banquet will be held after the sun has set. Since the Hebrew does not specify, perhaps it is better to use a general term that may include either the daylight hours or the nighttime, if such a term exists.
The expression “be my guests” used by Good News Translation is a special English usage conveying an invitation. It should be interpreted to imply neither a simple guest-host relationship in this context, nor a form of seduction on the part of Esther.
The end of verse 4 in the Hebrew is literally “that I have prepared for him.” Good News Translation interprets this to be in present time, “which I am preparing” (compare the Septuagint at ESG 5.18[4]), but most translations retain a past tense of a perfective verb form (so Revised Standard Version).
Since Esther speaks to the king in the third person, she says “for him” rather than “for you.” Revised Standard Version makes clear that the pronoun refers to the king: that I have prepared for the king. Though English translations such as Good News Translation are ambiguous, since the pronoun “you” can be singular or plural, in this verse the word “you” is singular (so Bible en français courant). If a second person singular pronoun is used in translation, it must not carry the connotation of disrespect.
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Noss, Philip A. A Handbook on Esther (The Hebrew Text). (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
If it pleases the king: See note on 1:19a. Here you need to decide if Esther as queen should address Xerxes differently than the male servants did.
5:4b
the banquet I have prepared for the king: Because Esther is referring to the king in the third person, “him” refers to the king, not Haman. It is unlikely that Esther cooked the food for the banquet herself, but rather that she ordered her servants to do so. You may need to state this explicitly in your translation.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.