16Now the other Jews who were in the king’s provinces also gathered to defend their lives and gained relief from their enemies and killed seventy-five thousand of those who hated them, but they laid no hands on the plunder.
The Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin that is translated as “enemy” or “foe” in English is translated in the HausaCommon Language Bible as “friends of front,” i.e., the person standing opposite you in a battle. (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
In North Alaskan Inupiatun it is translated with a term that implies that it’s not just someone who hates you, but one who wants to do you harm (Source: Robert Bascom), in Tarok as ukpa ìkum or “companion in war/fighting,” and in Ikwere as nye irno m or “person who hates me” (source for this and one above: Chuck and Karen Tessaro in this newsletter ).
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Esther 9:16:
Kupsabiny: “While they were starting the war in Susa, there were also other Jews in the other provinces who were also eating/fighting their war/battle defending themselves. They also killed seventy five thousand enemies and did not take/plunder anything at all from those people. Then Jews got rest/relaxed.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “The Jews who still remained in the king’s province at this time had gathered together in one place to deliver themselves from their enemies. They killed 75,000 people. From there also they took no plunder.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “In the previous day, the Jews who were in the different parts of the kingdom gathered-together in-order to defend and save themselves from their enemies. They have-killed 75,000 men, but they did- not -take-away the properties of their enemies. The next day, on the 14th day, they rested and celebrated a feast with joy/gladness.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Eastern Bru: “But the Jews in other places, they gathered together to block and save their own group. They killed their enemies 75,000 people. But they did not confiscate the possessions of those people.” (Source: Bru Back Translation)
English: “That happened on March 8th. On the following day, the Jews in Susa rested and celebrated. In all the other provinces, the Jewish people gathered together to defend themselves, and they killed 75,000 people who hated them, but again they did not take the things that belonged to the people whom they killed.” (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.”
That this verse is important in the author’s story is made clear by the number of keywords and expressions that it contains, including the final clause, which has already occurred twice before (see verses 10 and 15 above).
The relationship of the action in this verse to the action in verse 15 needs to be made clear. Verse 16 does not continue the action in linear fashion from verse 15. Rather verse 16 returns to the time of action found in verses 2-5. In English a pluperfect verb form may be used to indicate that the action in verse 16 comes before the action in verse 15: “Now the rest of the Jews in the king’s provinces had gathered” (FOX). Other languages will have their own ways of indicating previous action or previous time.
Now does not specify time but serves as a transitional marker shifting the scene from Susa to the provinces.
The other Jews who were in the king’s provinces also gathered …: as verse 17 makes clear, this verse refers to the action of the Jews outside of Susa, who defended themselves on the thirteenth day of Adar. Translators may want to bring the information regarding the date into verse 16 from verse 17 in order to avoid giving the impression that the time in verse 16 (thirteenth Adar) is the same day as the time of verse 15 (fourteenth Adar). For caution in regard to Good News Translation‘s “organized” as the translation of gathered, see the comments on 8.11.
Following a slight change in the Hebrew text, New English Bible reads that the Jews “took vengeance on their enemies” rather than got relief from their enemies. Though this proposed change makes good sense of the verse, it has no support in the textual tradition and should be rejected, as Revised English Bible has done. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives the Hebrew text an “A” evaluation, indicating that the reading in the Hebrew should not be altered. It is not clear whether the translation “They disposed of their enemies” in New Jerusalem Bible is based on the proposed change in the consonants of the Hebrew verb, or whether the verb “got relief” is interpreted to mean “they disposed of their enemies and therefore had relief from them.”
There is an apparent problem of the order in which the events happened, if “they got relief from their enemies” precedes “they killed those who hated them.” Good News Translation and Bible en français courant resolve the contradiction by taking the second of the two statements as explaining how the first was accomplished. A number of other versions break the verse into two parts, the first giving the purpose of the Jews in assembling together, and the second stating what they did. New International Version, Segond, and Maredsous translate similarly: “The other Jews … gathered to defend themselves and to get relief from their enemies. They killed…, but they did not lay hands on plunder.”
Seventy-five thousand: for comment on writing numbers see 1.1-2.
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 .
and rid themselves of their enemies: The main difficulty in translating this verse is to decide how to relate this clause to the rest of the verse. All five clauses in this verse are connected by the simple Hebrew conjunction translated as “and.” There is no further indication how rid themselves of their enemies is related to the clauses which precede it and the one which follows it. So different versions have chosen different grammatical structures and punctuation to show the relationship between the clauses. There are two main interpretations:
(1) Killing their enemies was the way in which the Jews got relief from their enemies, as in the Good News Translation:
They rid themselves of their enemies by killing seventy-five thousand people who hated them
(2) The Jews gathered together to protect themselves and to kill their enemies, as in the New Century Version:
the Jewish people in the king’s empire also met to protect themselves and get rid of their enemies
Both structures are possible from the Hebrew. The Display follows Good News Translation and is the recommended interpretation.
rid themselves of: The Hebrew verb which the Berean Standard Bible translates as rid themselves of could be translated “get rid of” or “free themselves from.”
9:16c
but they did not lay a hand on the plunder: This is again the same phrase as in 9:10b. See the notes for that verse.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.