Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)
The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).
For this verse, translators typically select the exclusive form referring to only Paul.
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
Mal uses 4 forms of the first-person plural pronoun: inclusive dual “we” (includes the person that the speaker addresses), exclusive dual “we” (includes the speaker plus another person but excludes the person that the speaker addresses), inclusive plural “we” (includes all persons that the speaker addresses), exclusive plural “we” (includes the speaker plus at least two other persons but excludes the other persons person that the speaker addresses).
In this verse the Mal translation is using the exclusive dual form, which includes Timothy (see verse 1:1) but excludes all addressees.
Source: David Filbeck in The Bible Translator 1994, p. 401ff.
“Hope is sometimes one of the most difficult terms to translate in the entire Bible. It is not because people do not hope for things, but so often they speak of hoping as simply ‘waiting.’ In fact, even in Spanish, the word esperar means both ‘to wait’ and ‘to hope.’ However, in many instances the purely neutral term meaning ‘to wait’ may be modified in such a way that people will understand something more of its significance. For example, in Tepeuxila Cuicatec hope is called ‘wait-desire.’ Hope is thus a blend of two activities: waiting and desiring. This is substantially the type of expectancy of which hope consists.
In Yucateco the dependence of hope is described by the phrase ‘on what it hangs.’ ‘Our hope in God’ means that ‘we hang onto God.’ The object of hope is the support of one’s expectant waiting. In Ngäbere the phrase “resting the mind” is used. This “implies waiting and confidence, and what is a better definition of hope than ‘confident waiting’.” (Source for this and above: Nida 1952, p. 20, 133)
Enlhet: “waitings of (our) innermost” (“innermost” or valhoc is a term that is frequently used in Enlhet to describe a large variety of emotions or states of mind — for other examples see here) (source: Jacob Loewen in The Bible Translator 1969, p. 24ff. )
Kwang: “one’s future is restored to one’s soul like a fresh, cool breeze on a hot day.” (Source: Mark Vanderkooi right here )
Noongar: koort-kwidiny or “heart waiting” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Anjam: “looking through the horizon” (source: Albert Hoffmann in his memoirs from 1948, quoted in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 7)
Ron: kintiɓwi or “put lip” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
Alekano: “wait not hearing two ears” (meaning to “wait without being double-minded” — source: Ellis Deibler in Notes on Translation June 1986, p. 36ff.)
Marathiaasha (आशा) with a stronger emphasis on desire
In Mwera “hope” and “faith” are translated with the same word: ngulupai. (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
C.M. Doke looks at a number of Bantu languages and their respective translations of “hope” with slightly varying connotations (in The Bible Translator 1954, p. 9ff. ):
Xhosa and Zulu: themba “hope, expect,” also “have faith in, rely upon”
Tswana: tsholofelo “hope, expect, look for confidently”
Southern Sotho: tshepo “trust, rely on, believe in, have confidence in”
“Unlike English, which uses the word hope broadly, the French language uses two words that derive from the word espérer (to hope): espoir and espérance. Both can first refer to something hoped for. In this sense, the word espoir usually refers to an uncertain object; that is, someone who hopes for something in this way does not have the certainty that it will happen (“I hope the weather will be nice tomorrow”). On the other hand, espérance describes what, rightly or wrongly, is hoped for or expected with certainty. It often refers to a philosophical or eschatological object (‘I hope in the goodness of human beings’; ‘I hope for the return of Jesus Christ’).
“When we speak of espoir or espérance, we then have in mind different types of objects hoped for. This difference matters, because both terms also commonly refer to the state of mind that characterizes the hopeful. And this state of mind will be different precisely according to the object hoped for.
“Having espoir for an uncertain yet better future in these difficult times may be a good thing, but it is not enough. Such hope can be disappointed and easily fade away when our wishes and expectations (our hopes) do not materialize.
“The opposite is true with espérance, which is deeper than our desire and wish for an end to a crisis or a future without pain and suffering. To face the trials of life, we need peace and joy in our hearts that come from expecting certain happiness. This is what espérance is: a profound and stable disposition resulting from faith in the coming of what we expect. In this sense, it is similar in meaning to the English word hopefulness.
“If we have believed in the Son of the living God, we have such a hope. It rests on the infallible promises of our God, who knows the plans he has for us, his children — plans of peace and not misfortune, to give us a hope and a future (Jeremiah 29:11). By using the two meanings of the word, we can say that the espérance that the fulfillment of his promises represents (the object hoped for) fills us with espérance (the state of mind).”
Following are a number of back-translations of 2 Corinthians 1:13:
Uma: “What we (excl.) write/wrote to you, it is only what you [can] clearly read, know and understand. There are some of you who already do understand our (excl.) purpose, but there are also still some who do not-yet understand. So I hope/trust that you all will understand our (excl.) purpose, so that when our (incl.) Lord Yesus arrives, your hearts will be big [proud] because of us (excl.), like our (excl.) hearts are big because of you.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “All we (excl.) wrote to you, you were able to read and to understand. Now you do not yet understand everything about our (excl.) work/doings, but I expect/hope that you will really understand it all, so that you can boast about us (excl.) like/in the same way as we (excl.) will also boast about you when the day of our (incl.) Leader, Isa Almasi’s return comes.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “The only thing that we write when we send you a letter is what you can read and understand; and I want you to thoroughly understand” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Moreover what we (excl.) have written to you, its meaning is not hidden-from-view but rather is easy to read and understand. I know that you don’t yet properly understand our (excl.) thoughts and behavior, but may-it-be that what you understand will keep-being-added-to in order that your happiness with us (excl.) will equal our (excl.) happiness with you on the day that Jesu Cristo comes again.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “In our (excl.) letters that we sent to you there was no like hidden meaning, but rather just exactly what anyone who reads can understand. Right now your recognising/acknowledging of our (excl.) ways/nature is lacking, but we (excl.) are hoping that the day will come when you will fully recognise/acknowledge it so that, when the day of the return of our Lord Jesus arrives, you can praise us (excl.), just like you also, we (excl.) can praise you.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Concerning the words I write here on the letter I am writing, there isn’t some other word mixed in it, all is just as it says. The word you understand here in the paper is the very word I want to tell you. I do not deceive you. Very much do I want that your hearts understand well that all I do is proper.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
The Greek Christos (Χρηστός) is typically transliterated when it appears together with Iésous (Ἰησοῦς) (Jesus). In English the transliteration is the Anglicized “Christ,” whereas in many other languages it is based on the Greek or Latin as “Kristus,” “Cristo,” or similar.
When used as a descriptive term in the New Testament — as it’s typically done in the gospels (with the possible exceptions of for instance John 1:17 and 17:3) — Christos is seen as the Greek translation of the Hebrew mashiaḥ (המשיח) (“anointed”). Accordingly, a transliteration of mashiaḥ is used, either as “Messiah” or based on the Greek or Latin as a form of “Messias.”
This transliteration is also used in the two instances where the Greek term Μεσσίας (Messias) is used in John 1:41 and 4:25.
In some languages and some translations, the term “Messiah” is supplemented with an explanation. Such as in the GermanGute Nachricht with “the Messiah, the promised savior” (Wir haben den Messias gefunden, den versprochenen Retter) or in Muna with “Messiah, the Saving King” (Mesias, Omputo Fosalamatino) (source: René van den Berg).
In predominantly Muslim areas or for Bible translations for a Muslim target group, Christos is usually transliterated from the Arabic al-Masih (ٱلْمَسِيحِ) — “Messiah.” In most cases, this practice corresponds with languages that also use a form of the Arabic Isa (عيسى) for Jesus (see Jesus). There are some exceptions, though, including modern translations in Arabic which use Yasua (يَسُوعَ) (coming from the Aramaic Yēšūa’) alongside a transliteration of al-Masih, Hausa which uses Yesu but Almahisu, and some Fula languages (Adamawa Fulfulde, Nigerian Fulfulde, and Central-Eastern Niger Fulfulde) which also use a form of Iésous (Yeesu) but Almasiihu (or Almasiifu) for Christos.
In Indonesian, while most Bible translations had already used Yesus Kristus rather than Isa al Masih, three public holidays used to be described using the term Isa Al Masih. From 2024 on, the government is using Yesus Kristus in those holiday names instead (see this article in Christianity Today ).
Other solutions that are used by a number of languages include these:
Dobel: “The important one that God had appointed to come” (source: Jock Hughes)
Noongar: Keny Mammarap or “The One Man” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Mairasi: “King of not dying for life all mashed out infinitely” (for “mashed out,” see salvation; source: Lloyd Peckham)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “One chosen by God to rule mankind” (source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Bacama: Ma Pwa a Ngɨltən: “The one God has chosen” (source: David Frank in this blog post )
Binumarien: Anutuna: originally a term that was used for a man that was blessed by elders for a task by the laying on of hands (source: Desmond Oatridges, Holzhausen 1991, p. 49f.)
Noongar: Keny Boolanga-Yira Waangki-Koorliny: “One God is Sending” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Uab Meto: Neno Anan: “Son of heaven” P. Middelkoop explains: “The idea of heavenly power bestowed on a Timorese king is rendered in the title Neno Anan. It is based on the historical fact that chiefs in general came from overseas and they who come thence are believed to have come down from heaven, from the land beyond the sea, that means the sphere of God and the ghosts of the dead. The symbolical act of anointing has been made subservient to the revelation of an eternal truth and when the term Neno Anan is used as a translation thereof, it also is made subservient to a new revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The very fact that Jesus came from heaven makes this translation hit the mark.” (Source: P. Middelkoop in The Bible Translator 1953, p. 183ff. )
In Finnish Sign Language both “Christ” and “Messiah” are translated with a sign signifying “king.” (Source: Tarja Sandholm)
“Christ / Messiah” in Finnish Sign Language (source )
Law (2013, p. 97) writes about how the Ancient GreekSeptuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew mashiah was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments (click or tap here to read more):
“Another important word in the New Testament that comes from the Septuagint is christos, ‘Christ.’ Christ is not part of the name of the man from Nazareth, as if ‘the Christs’ were written above the door of his family home. Rather, ‘Christ’ is an explicitly messianic title used by the writers of the New Testament who have learned this word from the Septuagint’s translation of the Hebrew mashiach, ‘anointed,’ which itself is often rendered in English as ‘Messiah.’ To be sure, one detects a messianic intent on the part of the Septuagint translator in some places. Amos 4:13 may have been one of these. In the Hebrew Bible, God ‘reveals his thoughts to mortals,’ but the Septuagint has ‘announcing his anointed to humans.’ A fine distinction must be made, however, between theology that was intended by the Septuagint translators and that developed by later Christian writers. In Amos 4:13 it is merely possible we have a messianic reading, but it is unquestionably the case that the New Testament writers exploit the Septuagint’s use of christos, in Amos and elsewhere, to messianic ends.”
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.
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 Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a formal plural suffix to the second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, anata-gata (あなたがた) is used, combining the second person pronoun anata and the plural suffix -gata to create a formal plural pronoun (“you” [plural] in English).
Revised Standard Version follows the order of the Greek in verses 13-14, while Good News Translation restructures the order (so also Revised English Bible).
For is explanatory. In the previous verse Paul stated that his behavior was “with holiness and godly sincerity.” Verse 13 explains that his letters have been written in the same way and are not intended to deceive or fool the reader.
We write: the pronoun we at the beginning of this verse is taken by some as an epistolary plural. Moffatt, for example, restructures the phrase but talks about “my letters.” And An American Translation has “what I am writing.” While the verbal expression we write may refer to what he is now writing, it probably refers to what he habitually writes in his letters to the Corinthians. Revised English Bible makes this second interpretation explicit: “There is nothing in our letters to you…” (so also Phillips, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). Translators working in languages that have habitual verb forms may wish to use such a form here.
Nothing but what you can read and understand: Phillips captures well the sense of Paul’s words here: “Our letters to you have no double meaning—they mean just what you understand them to mean when you read them.” Barclay adds the words “—no hidden meaning.” Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente says “Our letters are not ambiguous: there is nothing more in them than what you can read and understand.” And Moffatt uses a well-known English idiom that also conveys the sense of the text: “You don’t have to read between the lines of my letters.” Another English idiom is “we did not beat around the bush.” But some languages may say something like “we talked straight to you,” “our words were not crossed [complicated],” or “our arrows were not crooked when we wrote to you.”
I hope: the shift from the plural pronoun to I may be taken as support for those who see the above plural as epistolary. And in a number of languages the verb hope will have to be translated idiomatically, as in verse 10 above.
Understand fully: the words thus translated in Revised Standard Version may also be taken as meaning “understand to the end.” If taken with the words in part, the sense is that they now understand in part, but Paul hopes that they will understand fully. If taken with the words on the day of the Lord Jesus, the sense is that Paul hopes that they will go on understanding “to the end,” that is, until Jesus returns (so Barrett). Though both translations fit the context, most interpreters prefer the first of the two possible meanings, as in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation.
As you have understood in part: the Greek verb you have understood may be taken as referring to the present time or to a time in the past. Good News Translation understands these words to refer to the present situation: “even though you now understand…” (so also Revised English Bible “you do understand us in some measure”). Following this interpretation Good News Translation has inserted the word “now,” which is not written in the Greek. Paul may, however, be referring to a time in the recent past. In Greek the pronoun “us” follows the verb have understood. Revised Standard Version has left this pronoun untranslated, but translators may wish to translate it, as Good News Bible does.
That you can be proud …: the Greek word translated by that in Revised Standard Version introduces the content of Paul’s hope: that you can be proud of us as we can be of you.
You can be proud of us as we can be of you is literally “we are your boast just as you are ours.” In some languages the clause containing the expression “to be proud of” may have to be translated something like “you will be honored because of us, just as we will be honored because of you” or “we will receive recognition because of you, but you will also receive recognition because of us.”
On the day of the Lord Jesus occurs also in 1 Cor 5.5, and without the name “Jesus” in 1 Thes 5.2; 2 Thes 2.2. New Jerusalem Bible indicates that the day of the Lord Jesus is in the future (“when the Day of our Lord Jesus comes”) but does not make clear that this day is the day when Jesus himself will come (so God’s New Covenant “on the day when the Lord Jesus comes”; see also Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). To avoid suggesting that this is Jesus’ first coming, Contemporary English Version says “when our Lord Jesus returns.”
The Lord Jesus: some Greek manuscripts read the Lord Jesus (followed by Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New International Version) in verse 14, and others have the possessive pronoun “our Lord Jesus” (followed by Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, and Revised English Bible). The evidence for both readings is about equal, and New American Bible reflects the uncertainty by placing the word “our” within brackets in the translation, as do the editors of the UBS Greek New Testament. Some languages must use a possessive pronoun with the noun “Lord” regardless of the correct Greek text. “Our” here seems to include the readers.
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellingworth, Paul. A Handbook on Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1993. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Living Water is produced for the Bible translation movement in association with Lutheran Bible Translators. Lyrics derived from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.