The Art of Persuasion: A Sociocultural and Literary Comparison of Two Speeches of Reuben and Judah in Genesis,with Suggestions for Translating for Africans

Sociocultural considerations

Before we can focus on the speeches of Judah and Reuben, it is necessary to address the matter of other possible reasons for the success of Judah’s request and the apparent failure of Reuben’s. Since both requests were directed to their father Jacob, the standing of the two before their father must be considered.

Assigning priority of rank to the firstborn child is clearly attested in the Semitic cultural milieu to which Abraham “the Aramean” belonged. ² This priority of rank also applies in matters of inheritance. Abraham’s difficulty with God’s promise to establish his everlasting covenant through his second son, Isaac, instead of his firstborn son, Ishmael, appears to be driven by this tradition. ³ It could also be the rationale behind Laban’s insistence that he could not give his younger daughter (Rachel) to Jacob in marriage “before the firstborn,” Leah (Gen 29.26).

In this case, priority of rank according to birth among Jacob’s children would have gone to his first four sons, all born to him through Leah, according to this order: first, Reuben; second, Simeon; third, Levi; and fourth, Judah. Accordingly, Jacob appropriately said of Reuben בְּכֹרִי אַתָּה כֹּחִי וְרֵאשִׁית אוֹנִי יֶתֶר שְׂאֵת וְיֶתֶר עָז‎ “you are my firstborn, my might, and the firstfruits of my strength, preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power” (Gen 49.3 ESV). ⁴

In a particularly callous scheme, Simeon and Levi slaughtered Hamor, his son Shechem, and all the men of their city, while the latter were recovering from their circumcision wounds, in revenge for the defiling of their sister. Although the rest of the sons of Jacob participated in the looting and plunder of the city afterwards (Gen 34.27-29), Jacob laid the blame squarely upon the unrepentant duo (Gen 34.30-31). The narrator seems to allude to birth rank and order of responsibility even here, naming the elder first: וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל־שִׁמְעוֹן וְאֶל־לֵוִי‎ “And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi.” ⁵

That this action had consequences for their descendants and their fortunes is evident from Jacob’s pronouncement over them on the eve of his death: “Their swords” are characterised as כְּלֵי חָמָס‎ “weapons of violence,” their “anger is cursed because it is fierce” (אָרוּר אַפָּם כִּי עָז‎), and their “fury, because it is hard/stubborn” (וְעֶבְרָתָם כִּי קָשָׁתָה‎), and the fate of their descendants is to be “divided in Jacob and scattered in Israel” (אֲחַלְּקֵם בְּיַעֲקֹב וַאֲפִיצֵם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל‎), presumably by God (Gen 49.5-7).

Reuben’s fall from grace followed the death of Rachel, Jacob’s favourite wife. The narrative text is very terse: וַיֵּלֶךְ רְאוּבֵן וַיִּשְׁכַּב אֶת־בִּלְהָה פִּילֶגֶשׁ אָבִיו וַיִּשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל‎ “Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine. And Israel heard of it” (Gen 35.22 ESV). This brief record establishes the reason for a rather damning indictment of Reuben and his descendants. “Reckless like water, ⁶ you will not be pre-eminent, because you went up your father’s beds, ⁷ then you profaned it, (the man) went upon my couch” ⁸ (פַּחַז כַּמַּיִם אַל־ תּוֹתַר כִּי עָלִיתָ מִשְׁכְּבֵי אָבִיךָ אָז חִלַּלְתָּ יְצוּעִי עָלָה‎, Gen 49.4). The unusual syntax of אָז חִלַּלְתָּ יְצוּעִי עָלָה‎ and its possible interpretations is well documented (see Mathews 2005, 886-87).

An interesting rhetorical feature of this “prophetic” pronouncement is its use of the root יתר‎, which I have translated as “to be pre-eminent” in Gen 49.3-4 (see also RSV, ESV). It is used twice in its noun form in v. 3 in relation to the pre-eminence of “dignity” and “power” by virtue of being the firstborn, the “firstfruits” of Jacob’s “vigour.” In v. 4, the verb תּוֹתַר‎ is used with the negation אַל‎ to indicate a nullification of the pre-eminence arising from rank due to birth. The fate of Reuben’s descendants is not even mentioned. However, we see in the narratives of allotment of the promised land that Reuben’s descendants opted to inherit land in the Transjordan, north of the Wadi Arnon, including the Medeba plateau and bordering on the territory of Gad to the north, instead of the promised land itself (Num 32). According to the Chronicler, Reuben’s act cost him his birthright as firstborn (בְּכֹר‎), which was passed on to Joseph, although the role of leader (נָגִיד‎) went to Judah because Judah “became strong” (גָּבַר‎) among his brothers (1 Chr 5.1-2). If we understand גָּבַר‎ in more than physical, militaristic terms and include the idea of influence (cf. יִשְׁתַּחֲוּוּ לְךָ בְּנֵי אָבִיךָ‎, Gen 49.8), then we could be seeing in the person of Judah, in the Joseph narratives, the sort of influence that the tribe would have later on.

Judah has no recorded encounter with his father Jacob prior to the speeches under consideration here. The one narrative we find ends by portraying Judah as a person who is conscious of his failure and acted accordingly (Gen 38). ⁹

Introduction to the speeches

In order to establish the thesis that Judah was influential and that his speeches were persuasive and effective in their goals, it is necessary to compare at least one of his speeches with the speech made by Reuben. Reuben was the first to offer a speech intended to secure the release of Benjamin from their father Jacob. His speech went unheeded.

In the fast-moving narratives in Gen 42, Joseph had set the condition of Benjamin’s presence as proof that the brothers were not spies (v. 20). However, Jacob believed that his son Joseph had died, in keeping with the scheme of the brothers. He was not about to risk the life of Benjamin, the remaining son from the love of his life, Rachel (v. 4).

Joseph’s probing allegation that the brothers were spies had led to the unsolicited disclosure that his brother was with the father (v. 13), which then led him to make Benjamin’s coming a precondition to releasing them (v. 14).

While in the presence of Joseph, and unaware that he was understanding every word, the brothers reasoned that their indifference to the “distress” (צָרָה‎) of their brother Joseph, when he pleaded with them for favour before they sold him to the Ishmaelites, had caused “this distress” (הַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת‎) to visit them now (42.21). Their indifference to Joseph’s “distress” has brought “distress” to them. Earlier, Reuben dissuaded his brothers from “shedding blood” (אַל־תִּשְׁפְּכוּ־דָם‎, Gen. 37.22). Genesis 37.29-30 suggests that he was not privy to the scheme that unfolded in Gen 37.25-28 and did not know what had happened to the boy. In saying before Joseph, “See, his blood is required” (וְגַם־דָּמוֹ הִנֵּה נִדְרָשׁ‎, Gen 42.22), he probably shared his father’s conclusion that Joseph’s life had been lost. And they collectively thought that God (אֱלֹהִים‎) was responsible for the payback (42.28).

These details, including the disclosure that Reuben’s efforts to rescue him were thwarted, were new to Joseph and very touching. He had to move away to weep (בכה‎). Interestingly, it is Simeon, Leah’s second son, that he detains on behalf of the others until Benjamin is brought. This may suggest that Reuben had, even prior to Joseph being sold, already lost the “pre-eminence” and status of being the firstborn among his brothers and his father. If so, his infidelity with Bilhah had devastating and enduring consequences. And detaining him would not provide sufficient leverage to Joseph in his goal of bringing Benjamin to Egypt. ¹⁰

This development was apparently either lost on Reuben, or he was resisting it. He continued to speak on behalf of the brothers. Reuben speaks first to his brothers (42.22, where he discloses his earlier counsel to them and their reaction, all in the hearing of Joseph). He is also first to offer a solution to his father, following the realisation that everyone still had their money in their sacks (42.37). This will be the first speech for analysis.

In the first instance, the brothers did not listen to Reuben. Here, his father ignores his offer. Reuben lacked influence over his brothers in Dothan, and he lacks influence with his father here. His fall from “pre-eminence” in the eyes of both parties is complete.

Analysis of Reuben’s speech

First, we analyse the speech of Reuben to Jacob (42.37), intended to secure the release of Benjamin, with special regard to its rhetorical points and power to persuade. His speech follows Jacob’s reaction to finding the money in the sacks of his children. Since they have just arrived from Egypt with supplies, there is no immediately compelling reason to address Joseph’s request and condition for the release Simeon and further trading (Gen 42.18-24). By fronting the direct object אֶת־שְׁנֵי בָנַי תָּמִית‎, Reuben is making the offer of Jacob killing his two children should he fail to return Benjamin to him, his most important bargaining chip. On this curious offer, what Alter calls “meaning well but stumbling in execution” and a statement giving a “sense that Reuben’s claim to pre-eminence among the brothers as firstborn is dubious” (1996, 250), hangs the appeal תְּנָה אֹתוֹ עַל־יָדִי‎ “entrust him into my hands.” Waltke sees it as an unconvincing, poorly thought-out proposal (2001, 550). He uses three constructions indicating personal responsibility for the boy (אֲבִיאֶנּוּ‎ “I will bring him,” יָדִי‎ “my hand,” and אֲבִיאֶנּוּ‎ “I will return him”) to no avail.

While this has the ability to portray Reuben as magnanimous enough to be willing to sacrifice his two sons for the life of Benjamin, it also reveals the sad reality that Reuben’s own life was worth very little or nothing to his father. Further, it has the unfortunate effect of portraying Jacob as a callous person who would consider taking the lives of two of his grandchildren in exchange for that of his son, Benjamin. As Waltke also notes, “how would killing the patriarch’s grandsons console Jacob?” (2001, 550).

The response of Jacob (Gen 42.38) is categorical. לֹא־יֵרֵד בְּנִי עִמָּכֶם‎ “my son will not go down [to Egypt] with you [pl.].” The reasons are equally clear, spelled out by כִּי‎ and the three waw conjunctions: Because his brother is dead. And he is left alone. And harm may befall him along the way. And you will bring my hoary head down to Sheol in grief. In other words, I have had enough sorrow, as it is, with the loss of Joseph. The loss of Benjamin will finish me off and you will be responsible for it. Thus, the sentence כִּי־אָחִיו מֵת‎ “because his brother is dead” is “the reason for [the] state of affairs” represented by the categorical לֹא־יֵרֵד בְּנִי עִמָּכֶם‎ in v. 38 (Van de Merwe, Naudé, and Kroeze 2017, 434). The following three waws progressively spell out the rationale for the rejection, culminating in the presumed consequence, in Jacob’s mind, of Benjamin also dying, and its impact on Jacob: וְהוֹרַדְתֶּם אֶת־שֵׂיבָתִי בְּיָגוֹן שְׁאוֹלָה‎ “and you will bring down my grey hair to Sheol in sorrow.”

Analysis of Judah’s speech

Judah’s speech follows an escalation of the famine in the land, the running out of food supplies and a suggestion from Jacob for a fresh supply of food from Egypt (43.1-2). Unlike Reuben’s speech, therefore, it is a response to a direct request from their father. The fact that it is Judah answering on behalf of the brothers suggests that he understood himself as their ranking leader and representative, ahead of Reuben and Levi, his elder brothers. The response is a masterful speech in logical and pointed argumentation.

The preamble to the speech is the condition set by Joseph for any return to Egypt for further trading. Emphasis of this point is achieved by the infinitive absolute and verb construction הָעֵד הֵעִד בָּנוּ הָאִישׁ‎ “the man solemnly admonished us” (v. 3). He follows this with the consequences of this solemn charge in an inclusio that is framed by לֹא־תִרְאוּ פָנַי בִּלְתִּי אֲחִיכֶם אִתְּכֶם‎ “you will not see my face without your brother being with you” (vv. 3, 5). In so framing his preamble, Judah lays emphasis on the futility of the mission to Egypt if Benjamin is not with them. The material inside this inclusio spells out the ramifications for the brothers.

אִם־יֶשְׁךָ מְשַׁלֵּחַ‎ “if there is sending on your part” (v. 4) is stative (employing the stative particle יֵשׁ‎ with the present participle מְשַׁלֵּחַ‎) or “existential” (Noorlander 2021, citing Muraoka 2013), making אֶת־אָחִינוּ אִתָּנוּ‎ “our brother with us” a precondition for נֵרְדָה‎ “we will go down” (to Egypt, v. 4). One would expect the imperfect אִם תְּשַׁלֵּחַ‎ “if you will send” if the intention was to highlight the volition of Jacob in the matter. With this construction, it is not the volition of Jacob that is important. It is the occurrence of Jacob sending their brother with them. The net result is that this matter was taken out of the sphere of Jacob’s volition and put squarely in the sphere of whether Jacob wanted food (punctuated by לְךָ אֹכֶל‎ “[to buy] food for you,” v. 4) from Egypt or not. If he did, he must embrace its condition. Going back to Egypt is predicated on Benjamin coming along, and Jacob, reluctant as he was, needed to understand that the facts of the matter were non-negotiable (cf. Alter 1996, 252). Sarna describes Judah’s “approach” as “forthright, firm, sober, and severely to the point” (1989, 298).

Given this clear state of affairs, Jacob’s response was only to question the wisdom of disclosing to the official, in the first place, that they had another brother. The response in v. 7 is collective, therefore, we will not consider it as part of Judah’s masterpiece in argumentation. They, too, employ the infinitive absolute + verb of the roots שאל‎ “ask” and ידע‎ “know” to make the point that they did not volunteer that information, but it was dragged out of them, and that they were caught off-guard when the official made the remaining brother the absolute precondition for any further food purchases.

Now that this has been cleared up, Judah resumes making his case. שִׁלְחָה הַנַּעַר אִתִּי‎ “send the boy with me” (v. 8) reduces the responsibility for the boy to himself alone. Translations for Africans can make explicit what appear to be “competing appeals for sibling priority” between Judah and Reuben (תְּנָה אֹתוֹ עַל־יָדִי‎, 42.37, and שִׁלְחָה הַנַּעַר אִתִּי‎, 43.8, respectively) by inserting some explicit element to that effect. The Bemba translation Ishiwi Lyakwa Lesa (BPV, 2015) does precisely this by translating שִׁלְחָה הַנַּעַר אִתִּי‎ as Lekeni kanshi nine nsende umwaice “Let it be, then, me that takes the young man.”

By framing the consequences of going as וְנִחְיֶה וְלֹא נָמוּת‎ “and we will live and not die” (v. 8), Judah escalates the goal of a return trip from Jacob’s שִׁבְרוּ־לָנוּ מְעַט־אֹכֶל‎ “buy for us a little food” (v. 2), to saving גַּם־אֲנַחְנוּ גַם־אַתָּה גַּם־טַפֵּנוּ‎ “our lives, your life, and those of our little ones” (v. 8). Moreover, in that וְנִחְיֶה וְלֹא נָמוּת‎ was part of Jacob’s initial argument (42.2), it is possible that in using it here, Judah, as Alter notes, “throws it back in his [Jacob’s] face” (1996, 253). However, he does so by shining the spotlight on the constituents of the clan. Jacob’s general reference to the clan (“we” in 42.2) is weaponised by Judah through spelling out the categories of people in the extended family. Buku Loyera (BL, 1998) tries to capture this semantic intensification by adding tonsenfe (“all of us”) before “us, you and our little ones.” “All of us” can easily morph into more socially familiar expressions like banja lonse (the whole clan/family) in African vernacular translations. Such translations would be useful to Africans because their de facto conceptualisation of family, as is also true for Semitic peoples, is not of biologically related individuals, but of the collective unit of people living together.

Unlike Reuben, Judah demonstrates that he has the preservation of the entire clan as his motivation. This alone qualifies him as a responsible leader. In an African context, the translator could make explicit, as suggested, the expanded and comprehensive care for the clan exhibited by Judah, clearly demonstrating his leadership credentials. ¹¹ The translator could also find a way of translating here so that Jacob’s initial וְנִחְיֶה וְלֹא נָמוּת‎ is echoed verbatim in Judah’s mouth, perhaps by rendering this verbatim in quotation marks. He/she could also translate גַּם־אֲנַחְנוּ גַם־אַתָּה גַּם־טַפֵּנוּ‎ in v. 8 using clan-inclusive terms such as tabana binu, imwe bapapi nabana bithu bose ¹² “we your children, you our father/ancestor, and all our children/offspring.” After all, Africans still think of family in clan terms, although the authority and role of clans is diminishing.

Verse 9 is a comprehensive statement of personal responsibility, starting with a declaration: אָנֹכִי אֶעֶרְבֶנּוּ מִיָּדִי תְּבַקְשֶׁנּוּ‎ “I, myself, am the pledge for his safety. You will seek him from my hand.” The consequences of failure in his mission are also spelt out in detail: אִם־לֹא הֲבִיאֹתִיו אֵלֶיךָ וְהִצַּגְתִּיו לְפָנֶיךָ וְחָטָאתִי לְךָ כָּל־הַיָּמִים‎ “if I do not bring him to you and set him in your presence, I will sin to you all my days.”

Unlike Reuben, who pledged the death of his two sons, Judah pledges being “a sinner to his father” for the rest of his life. Both in responsibility for the boy and in the consequences of failure, he stands alone. This is another character trait that can be made explicit with a few added words. For example, the Chikunda Bible translates אָנֹכִי אֶעֶרְבֶנּוּ‎ “I will be his surety” (v. 9) as mulandu uzakhale pa ine “let the culpability/case be upon me.”

Verse 10 carries an implicit rebuke of his father and also signals that further discussion is closed. If Jacob’s misgivings had been resolved earlier, the food supplies would not have run out in the first place. In all the key areas, Judah has demonstrated through his arguments that the preservation of their collective lives was in the hands of their father and his irrational attachment to Benjamin. He has also demonstrated that he is qualified to lead his brothers responsibly in this matter.

Jacob relents. The rest of the conversation is classic Jacob: trying to use gifts to soften Joseph’s heart and, thereafter, appeal to the רַחֲמִים‎ “compassion” of אֵל שַׁדַּי‎ “El Shaddai.”

Discussion

Judah secured the release of Benjamin where Reuben had failed. However, if we are to identify the reasons for these outcomes, we quickly see that it is not reducible to a single factor.

First, we see that the narratives prior to the encounters in Egypt reveal an intricate tale of the changing fortunes of the two brothers. Reuben begins at the top of the pile by virtue of his status as the firstborn son. By the time the brothers are shepherding sheep in Dothan, the rest of the brothers appear to operate separately from Reuben (Gen 37.21-22, 25-28). He, as his father, believed that Joseph was dead (Gen 37.29-36). This clear loss of trust among his brothers may be a consequence of his previous sexual rendezvous with Bilhah, Rachel’s maid and concubine to his father.

A literary analysis of the speeches of Judah reveals a bounty of intelligent and pragmatic use of facts in argumentation, and remarkably lofty personal responsibility credentials. Without passing responsibility to anyone else, Judah alone offers personal responsibility for Benjamin and promises to take personal culpability for any failure.

In contrast, Reuben offers the death of his two sons in exchange for any harm to Benjamin. As pointed out in the analysis, this offer was uninspiring and lacked integrity at several levels, including suggesting that Jacob was capable of murdering his two grandchildren for the loss of Benjamin.

Judah’s speech to Jacob secured the release of Benjamin. Later, a speech by him with comparable power will overwhelm Joseph, leading to his self-disclosure to his brothers (Gen 44.18-34). In that speech, we also encounter his exceptional recounting of detail and arrangement of points into a factual, logical, and compelling argument. Finally, we see his willingness to put his life on the line for others, in this case, for the sake of the preservation of his father’s life. The sum of this analysis shows that Judah was a bigger man than his elder brother, Reuben. And his siblings and father were privy to this fact.

We started this paper by harvesting insights from preceding narratives, and subsequent narratives, to suggest that the stature of Reuben (and loss of it) before his father and brothers was shaped by his history. We also noted that hierarchy in terms of birth appears to have been at play in determining the successor to Reuben as leader among them. Levi was next as the third born, given that Simeon was held in Egypt. However, he, too, had not endeared himself to his father in the matter of Shechem, the son of Hamor. This left Judah, the fourth born, as the next in line. This would change once Joseph had been restored to the clan.

It is noteworthy that the brothers were already listening to Judah rather than Reuben from as far back as Dothan with respect to what to do with Joseph (Gen 37.26-27). This would suggest that Judah was already the decisive voice among the brothers back then.

Translation suggestions for African communities

The question that remains is, how would meaning-based translations for African communities make explicit the issues highlighted above? The suggestions below are in addition to those already made. First, the terse reaction by Jacob to Reuben’s sexual encounter with Rachel’s maid, Bilhah, will require elements that capture Jacob’s displeasure with Reuben, and demotion in standing among his sons. These elements need not be explicit, in keeping with Alter’s poignant observation that re-presenting meaning in translation does not necessarily require dismantling its implicit tools of communicating, especially elements that the Hebrew Bible communicates implicitly, pungently, and more powerfully in several instances (1996, ix–xiii). For instance, וַיִּשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל‎ “and Israel heard” (Gen 35.22) could be rephrased to read “and Israel became aware of this.” “Becoming aware” has the latent promise of consequences, even when they are not mentioned. This way, when Jacob (Israel) later dismissively ignores Reuben’s offer of personal responsibility for the boy by addressing his answer to all of them (second-person plural forms in Gen 42.38), the connection may be made that it is because Reuben had already been demoted from the status of firstborn and spokesperson for the rest.

To illustrate this matter, we will consider translations of the Bible into Chewa, a language originating in Malawi and spoken in modern-day Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and South Africa. For example, instead of Israele anamva “Israel heard,” the Buku Lopatulika (BK, 1966) could translate this as Israele anamva cimeneci “Israel heard this particular matter” or “became aware of this matter,” where cimeneci “this particular matter” suggests consequences that the immediate text does not supply.

BL’s Yakoboyo nkuzimva zimenezi “Jacob heard these things” approximates the inclusion of these elements. We note, however, that the version has the freedom to approximate because its translation theory is patterned after that of GNB; it is a dynamic-equivalence or meaning-based translation (Wendland 1998, 59–113). It thereby takes the liberty not only of inserting these elements, but also of translating יִשְׂרָאֵל‎ as Jacob (transliterated as Yakobo). Our argument here is that even translations of the Bible employing literal or formal-equivalence theory ought to translate וַיִּשְׁמַע‎ with a pregnant sense of foreboding, a natural feature in Bantu languages, as this is what the terseness in the Hebrew text implies.

Second, the narrative at Dothan requires a translation that reflects Reuben’s loss of trust with his brothers, although his words make them comply with his guidance (Gen 37.21-22). BK has Ndipo Rubeni anamva nampulumutsa iye m’manja mwao; nati, Tisamuphe iye “and Reuben heard and rescued him from their hands; he said, let us not kill him him,” for Hebrew וַיִּשְׁמַע רְאוּבֵן וַיַּצִּלֵהוּ מִיָּדָם וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא נַכֶּנּוּ נָפֶשׁ‎ (Gen 37.21). All texts that add the personal pronoun “his” to נֶפֶשׁ‎ are including an element, perhaps from dynamic meaning considerations, that is probably not the explicit argument of Reuben. לֹא נַכֶּנּוּ נָפֶשׁ‎ appears to communicate aversion to “striking him because he is a life.” This is the equivalent of אַל־תִּשְׁפְּכוּ־דָם‎ “you should not shed blood” in v. 22, for which BK’s musakhetse mwazi “you [pl.] should not shed blood” captures this aversion better than BL’s tisampweteke konse “let us not harm him at all.” However, dynamically explaining תִּשְׁפְּכוּ־דָם‎ robs the translator of the opportunity to echo this language later, in the presence of Joseph. Clearly, in the Hebrew text of v. 22, Reuben does not use the inclusive “we,” as BL has it. He uses the second-person plural form תִּשְׁפְּכוּ‎.

Our suggested translation would make aversion to “striking a life” or “shedding blood” (that is, killing) the main point of argument from Reuben to his brothers. If so, a translation conveying this argument and highlighting it would serve two purposes. First, it would capture Reuben’s desperation to find a plausible argument to stop the plan of his brothers: “Spilling blood” is not acceptable. Second, it would capture very well the fact that Reuben was operating secretively, presumably because he was aware that he had no real authority over his siblings. If he made his intentions clear to them, they would oppose his agenda.

Third, Jacob’s choice to respond to Reuben by addressing everyone (Gen 42.38) is asking for a translation that captures his disdain and lack of interest in engaging Reuben’s personal appeal. In focus is how to render לֹא־יֵרֵד בְּנִי עִמָּכֶם‎. BK has Mwana wanga sadzatsikira ndi inu “my son/child will not go down with you.” BL has Mwana wangayu sangapite nanu ai “this child of mine cannot go with you at all.”

We note that BK has captured the dismissive note of finality better. The brevity and finality of the answer capture the same note of disdain, as the Hebrew text suggests. The details that BL’s translation adds, trying to make the meaning “clear and natural from the point of view of the hearers for whom it is intended” (Wendland 1998, 59), have the adverse effect of introducing a stubborn and quarrelsome element in Jacob’s reply that does not do justice to his dismissive indifference to Reuben’s request. Mwana wangayu “this child of mine,” sangapite nanu “cannot go with you,” and the emphatic ai “at all” are not “making clear the meaning,” but misrepresenting Jacob’s demeanour and attitude towards Reuben. If this text was to be performed, the actors of the BL text would be under obligation to act out stubbornness and quarrelsomeness, and even petulance. The Hebrew text suggests none of those things. Something as brief, dismissive, and natural as mwana wanga sazapita nanu kulikonse “my son is not going with you anywhere” is advisable.

Judah’s speech yields more translation suggestions. הָעֵד הֵעִד בָּנוּ‎ (43.3) is translated as anatilimbitsira mau “he hardened words to us” (BK), and adatichenjeza kolimba “he warned us strongly” (BL). In both cases, it does not capture the factually based presentation by Judah that the trip was not possible without Benjamin. For this reason, a translation like “he clearly warned us not to appear before him without our brother” would be more appropriate. Anatilimbitsira mau is a wooden and confusing translation of the Hebrew.

Further, we noted that Judah used the inclusio לֹא־תִרְאוּ פָנַי בִּלְתִּי אֲחִיכֶם אִתְּכֶם‎ (vv. 3 and 5) to frame his factual presentation. Neither BK nor BL frames the same material in an inclusio. The latter even goes as far as transforming the second line into direct speech, thereby watering down the non-negotiability of Judah’s argument. This structural dilution affects the factual nature of אִם־יֶשְׁךָ מְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת־אָחִינוּ אִתָּנוּ נֵרְדָה‎ (v. 4) and וְאִם־אֵינְךָ מְשַׁלֵּחַ לֹא נֵרֵד‎ (v. 5). And since Judah’s argument rests on the facts of the case without consideration of any appeals, the power of his argument diminishes as well. Ngati mudzatuma mphwathu pamodzi ndi ife “if you will send our brother together with us” (BK) and Mukatilola kuti timtenge “if you allow us to take him” (BL) both fail to capture the genius of אִם־יֶשְׁךָ מְשַׁלֵּחַ אֶת־אָחִינוּ אִתָּנוּ‎. Judah was not appealing to his father for Benjamin. He was putting before him the cold facts of the case before their going or not going down to Egypt to buy grain. יֵשׁ‎ is what Waltke and O’Connor call a quasi-verbal indicator, a particle denoting existence (1990, 72, 182). The existence in this case is “you [Jacob] sending our brother with us.” BK’s “if you will send” translates the imperfect of the verb root שלח‎, while BL’s “if you will allow” translates several possible verbal roots, none of which is a particle of existence.

It is the stative force of Judah’s argument that leads into the appeal in v. 8: שִׁלְחָה הַנַּעַר אִתִּי וְנָקוּמָה וְנֵלֵכָה וְנִחְיֶה וְלֹא נָמוּת‎ “Send the boy with me, and we will arise and go, that we may live and not die.” The rest of the speech is riding on the power of the stative arguments above in vv. 4-5.

The brief analysis of select texts above has shown that, with a little more thought, it is possible to translate biblical texts in ways that convey with greater precision the meanings in the texts and their functional equivalence in target texts. The key is twofold. First, there must be a comprehensive listening to what is going on in the texts that goes beyond mere literary analysis. Relevance theory, frames of reference, and semiotics urge consideration of several other contributors to textual understanding. Second, there must be a deliberate effort made to engage target contexts at their conceptual levels. BK and its successor, BL, failed to a significant degree in both tasks in the texts as analysed above.