Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Isaiah 37:8:
Kupsabiny: “It was (the time) when the assistant left Jerusalem going to where king Sennacherib was. But he then discovered/found out that the king had already left Lachish and he was fighting against the city of Libnah.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “The captain heard that the Assyrian king had gone from Lachish and was waging war on Libnah, so the captain went there.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “Now, when the commander of the soldiers of Asiria heard that their king has already left Lakish and fought (against) Libna, he went there.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “The official from Assyria found out that the King of Assyria and his army had captured Lachish city and that they were attacking Libnah, which is a nearby city. So the official left Jerusalem and went to Libnah to report to the king what had happened in Jerusalem.” (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.”
Contemporary English Version and Revised English Bible begin this verse with the connector “Meanwhile” to render the common Hebrew conjunction. This fits well here, but translators may omit the connector at the beginning of this new section.
The Rabshakeh returned: The Assyrian ambassador returned to his king. For Rabshakeh see 36.2. For this clause New American Bible has “the commander returned to Lachish,” where he learned that his king was now attacking Libnah. This is a poor rendering since the Hebrew text says nothing about where the ambassador learned of the king’s move. For languages that need to say where he returned, an alternative model is “The Assyrian ambassador went back to his king.”
And found the king of Assyria fighting against Libnah: The ambassador met his king fighting against the city of Libnah. The verb found may be rendered “caught up with” or “met up with.” Of course, it is not the king himself that is doing the fighting, but his army. Translators may make this clear if there is a risk of misunderstanding (see the first example below). The exact location of Libnah is uncertain, but it probably was near Lachish, which Good News Translation specifies by saying “the nearby city of Libnah.”
For he had heard that the king had left Lachish: When the king sent his ambassador, he sent him from Lachish, where he was fighting at that time (see the comments on 36.2). The ambassador did not go back there since he learned that the king had already defeated Lachish and was now attacking Libnah.
Good News Translation restructures this verse according to the actual order of events. It places the king’s departure from Lachish before his move to Libnah. Then it mentions that his ambassador returned to him. Some translators will prefer to follow this sequential order.
Translation examples for this verse are:
• The Rabshakeh went back. He met up with the king of Assyria, who [or, whose army] was now fighting against Libnah. He had already heard that the king had departed from Lachish.
• The Assyrian ambassador headed back. He went to Libnah, having heard that his king had already left Lachish and was now fighting there.
Quoted with permission from Ogden, Graham S. and Sterk, Jan. A Handbook on Isaiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2011. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.