26All who will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be strictly executed on them, whether for death or for banishment or for confiscation of their goods or for imprisonment.”
The Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, and Greek that is translated in English typically as “obedience” or “obey” is translated in Tepeuxila Cuicatec as “thing hearing,” because “to hear is to obey.” (Source: Marjorie Davis in The Bible Translator 1952, p. 34ff. )
In Huba it is translated as hya nǝu nyacha: “follow (his) mouth.” (Source: David Frank in this blog post )
In Central Mazahua it is translated as “listen-obey” and in Huehuetla Tepehua as “believe-obey” (source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.), and in Noongar as dwangka-don, lit. “hear do” (source: Portions of the Holy Bible in the Nyunga language of Australia, 2018).
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Ezra 7:26:
Kupsabiny: “Let anyone who does not obey/fear the law of your God and the law of the king to be punished with death or chased to a far place or his things be forcefully removed or be arrested/jailed.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “If, on the other hand, there are any who do not observe the law of your God or the law of the king, they must be punished by being killed off or driven out of the country or by having [their] wealth and property confiscated, or by being imprisoned."” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “Anyone who does- not -obey the Law of your God or the law of the king will- surely -be-punished by death, or will-be-driven-away from his place, or his property will-be-taken-away, or be-imprisoned.’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “Everyone who does not obey God’s laws or the laws of my government must be punished severely. Some of them will be executed, some will be put in prison, some will be sent out of the country or have all their property taken away from them.’” (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.”
Whoever will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be strictly executed upon him: It is a question here whether Ezra had responsibility not only for the customary law of the Jews but also for the Persian laws of the state. Some commentators consider that Ezra had responsibility for both as it is stated Whoever will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king will be judged. But it is not stated who will make judgment. Let judgment be strictly executed upon him is in an impersonal form. Either way, the Persian king does not see a conflict between the Law of God and the law of the king. The Persian kings had respect for the religions and laws of the various peoples in their empire and were willing to have them followed as far as possible as a means to bring blessing to the king and the empire.
The same Persian loanword dat in the singular form is used here in reference to both the law of the God of the Jews and the law of the king (see the comments at verses 12 and 25 above). Revised Standard Version translates both in the singular, implying that God’s Law is the Torah and the king’s law is the law of the land. Good News Translation, however, interprets the meaning here to be the more general sense of the word, that is, “the laws” of God and “the laws” of the king. This is consistent with the plural form used in the preceding verse as translated by Revised Standard Version. Chouraqui translates similarly by saying “the order of your God and the order of the king.” The repetition of law and the contrast between the law of your God and the law of the king is a very effective literary device that should be reflected in translation.
Let judgment be strictly executed upon him is literally “with all diligence punishment let it be done upon him.” Chouraqui follows the same structure with “justice will be carried out against him,” while New International Version restructures to say “Whoever … must surely be punished.” Strictly has also been translated “rigorously” (Revised English Bible) or “swiftly” (New Jerusalem Bible). For “with all diligence,” see the comments on verse 17 above. In some languages this command will need to be changed from the passive verb form to the active; for example, “you must surely punish him.”
Whether for death or for banishment or for confiscation of his goods or for imprisonment: Four kinds of punishment are given here in descending order of severity. The punishment should be according to what the guilty persons deserve (so Bible en français courant, Parole de Vie). The citation of the word death means that the first and most severe punishment is “being put to death” or “being executed.” The second level of punishment is banishment. This term is from a Persian word that can mean “physical punishment,” and it is so translated in the Greek 1 Esdras (8.24). It is not indicated where the guilty persons will be banished or exiled to. The third level of punishment is confiscation of his goods, which is literally “punishment of wealth”; that is, the possessions of the guilty persons would be taken away from them. Finally, there is imprisonment, which is not mentioned in the Torah, but was a Persian form of punishment. The basic meaning of the Aramaic word is “fetters, bonds” and therefore “prison.”
The original text uses nouns to cite the four types of punishment that the king orders to be imposed upon those who are judged to be guilty. The translator may need to use passive verb constructions; for example, “they shall be executed, they shall be sent into exile, their possessions shall be taken from them, or they shall be put in prison.” Alternatively, in some languages it may be necessary for translators to restructure the sentence to use active verbs with explicit direct objects; for example, “you will execute them, you will exile them, you will seize their possessions, or you will put them in prison.”
The change from the singular him and his in Revised Standard Version to the plural forms in Good News Translation and New Revised Standard Version is a shift to inclusive language since this command applies to both men and women.
The king’s letter ends here, but there is no formal closing to the letter. Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation mark the end with closing quotation marks. Other versions like Revised English Bible that set off the letter by indented formatting bring that special formatting to an end here.
Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Ezra. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.