Aari: “the day our Savior comes” (in Rom 13:11) (source: Loren Bliese)
in Mairasi its is translated as “life fruit” or “life fruit all mashed out.” Lloyd Peckham explains: “In secret stories, not knowable to women nor children, there was a magical fruit of life. If referred to vaguely, without specifying the specific ‘fruit,’ it can be an expression for eternity.” And for “all masked out” he explains: “Bark cloth required pounding. It got longer and wider as it got pounded. Similarly, life gets pounded or mashed to lengthen it into infinity. Tubers also get mashed into the standard way of serving the staple food, like the fufu of Uganda, or like poi of Hawaii. It spreads out into infinity.” (See also eternity / forever)
In Lisu a poetic construct is used for this term. Arrington (2020, p. 58f.) explains: “A four-word couplet uses Lisu poetic forms to bridge the abstract concrete divide, an essential divide to cross if Christian theology is to be understood by those with oral thought patterns. Each couplet uses three concrete nouns or verbs to express an abstract term. An example of this is the word for salvation, a quite abstract term essential to understanding Christian theology. To coin this new word, the missionary translators used a four-word couplet: ℲO., CYU. W: CYU (person … save … person … save). In this particular case, the word for person was not the ordinary word (ʁ) but rather the combination of ℲO., and W: used in oral poetry. The word for ‘save’ also had to be coined; in this case, it was borrowed from Chinese [from jiù / 救]. These aspects of Lisu poetry, originally based on animism, likely would have been lost as Lisu society encountered communism and modernization. Yet they are now codified in the Lisu Bible as well as the hymnbook.”
In the Contemporary Chichewa translation (2002/2016) it is translated with chipulumutso which is used to refer to an act of helping someone who is in problems but cannot help him/herself come out of the problems because of weakness. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
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, the Jarai and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation both use the inclusive pronoun, including everyone.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Isaiah 26:1:
Kupsabiny: “Days shall come when there will be singing/dancing in Judah saying, We have a strong city, It is God who saves us. he is our wall.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “That day is coming, when the people of Judah will sing this hymn. Our city is strong: God make salvation its wall ramparts.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “At that time, this song will-be-sung in Juda: ‘Our (incl.) city is now strong. The salvation of God is like a stone-wall which surrounds us (incl.).” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “Some day, people in Judah will sing this song: Our city of Jerusalem is strong! Yahweh protects our city; He is like a wall that surrounds it.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
God transcends gender, but most languages are limited to grammatical gender expressed in pronouns. In the case of English, this is traditionally confined to “he” (or in the forms “his,” “him,” and “himself”), “she” (and “her,” “hers,” and “herself”), and “it” (and “its” and “itself”).
Modern Mandarin Chinese, however, offers another possibility. Here, the third-person singular pronoun is always pronounced the same (tā), but it is written differently according to its gender (他 is “he,” 她 is “she,” and 它/牠 is “it” and their respective derivative forms). In each of these characters, the first (or upper) part defines the gender (man, woman, or thing/animal), while the second element gives the clue to its pronunciation.
In 1930, after a full century with dozens of Chinese translations, Bible translator Wang Yuande (王元德) coined a new “godly” pronoun: 祂. Chinese readers immediately knew how to pronounce it: tā. But they also recognized that the first part of that character, signifying something spiritual, clarified that each person of the Trinity has no gender aside from being God.
While the most important Protestant and Catholic Chinese versions respectively have opted not to use 祂, some Bible translations do and it is widely used in hymnals and other Christian materials. Among the translations that use 祂 to refer to “God” were early versions of Lü Zhenzhong’s (呂振中) version (New Testament: 1946, complete Bible: 1970). R.P. Kramers (in The Bible Translator 1956, p. 152ff. ) explains why later versions of Lü’s translation did not continue with this practice: “This new way of writing ‘He,’ however, has created a minor problem of its own: must this polite form be used whenever Jesus is referred to? Lü follows the rule that, wherever Jesus is referred to as a human being, the normal tā (他) is written; where he is referred to as divine, especially after the ascension, the reverential tā (祂) is used.”
In that system one kind of pronoun is used for humans (male and female alike) and one for natural elements, non-liquid masses, and some spiritual entities (one other is used for large animals and another one for miscellaneous items). While in these languages the pronoun for spiritual entities used to be employed when referring to God, this has changed into the use of the human pronoun.
Lynell Zogbo (in The Bible Translator 1989, p. 401ff. ) explains in the following way: “From informal discussions with young Christians especially, it would appear that, at least for some people, the experience and/or concepts of Christianity are affecting the choice of pronoun for God. Some people explain that God is no longer ‘far away,’ but is somehow tangible and personal. For these speakers God has shifted over into the human category.”
In Kouya, God (the Father) and Jesus are referred to with the human pronoun ɔ, whereas the Holy Spirit is referred to with a non-human pronoun. (Northern Grebo and Western Krahn make a similar distinction.)
Eddie Arthur, a former Kouya Bible translation consultant, says the following: “We tried to insist that this shouldn’t happen, but the Kouya team members were insistent that the human pronoun for the Spirit would not work.”
In Burmese, the pronoun ko taw (ကိုယ်တော်) is used either as 2nd person (you) or 3rd person (he, him, his) reference. “This term clearly has its root in the religious language in Burmese. No ordinary persons are addressed or known by this pronoun because it is reserved for Buddhist monks, famous religious teachers, and in the case of Christianity, the Trinity.” (Source: Gam Seng Shae in The Bible Translator 2002, p. 202ff. )
In Thai, the pronoun phra`ong (พระองค์) is used, a gender-neutral pronoun which must refer to a previously introduced royal or divine being. Similarly, in Northern Khmer, which is spoken in Thailand, “an honorific divine pronoun” is used for the pronoun referring to the persons of the Trinity (source: David Thomas in The Bible Translator 1993, p. 445 ). In Urak Lawoi’, another language spoken in Thailand, the translation often uses tuhat (ตูฮัด) — “God” — ”as a divine pronoun where Thai has phra’ong even though it’s actually a noun.” (Source for Thai and Urak Lawoi’: Stephen Pattemore)
The English “Contemporary Torah” addresses the question of God and gendered pronouns by mostly avoiding pronouns in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (unless God is referred to as “lord,” “father,” “king,” or “warrior”). It does that by either using passive constructs (“He gave us” vs. “we were given”), by using the adjective “divine” or by using “God” rather than a pronoun.
Some Protestant and Orthodox English Bibles use a referential capitalized spelling when referring to the persons of the Trinity with “He,” “His,” “Him,” or “Himself.” This includes for instance the New American Standard Bible or The Orthodox New Testament, but most translations do not. Two other languages where this is also done (in most Bible translations) are the closely related Indonesian and Malay. In both languages this follows the language usage according to the Qur’an, which in turn predicts that usage (see Soesilo in The Bible Translator 1991, p. 442ff. and The Bible Translator 1997, p. 433ff. ).
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 benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.
Here, sukutte (救って) or “save/deliver” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).” (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
As noted before, the phrase In that day is typical of prophetic writing, referring to a general time in the future (see the comments on 2.11). However, although it refers to a future event here, most versions take it as a specific reference to the time when Moab will be destroyed (25.10-12; see 25.9 for a similar example). When that moment arrives, the people of Judah will sing in celebration. Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version, however, take the expression to have its usual, undefined future reference.
This song will be sung in the land of Judah: This passive expression may be rendered as an active one by saying “people throughout Judah will sing this song” (similarly Good News Translation).
Many versions (Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch) place the words of the song, verses 1b-6, between quotation marks. Some languages may have other devices to indicate the actual words of the song.
We have a strong city: The Hebrew adjective translated strong has been used earlier, for example, in 19.4 (“fierce king”) and in 25.3 (“strong peoples”). Here it is used to describe Jerusalem as a well-defended city.
He sets up salvation as walls and bulwarks is literally “salvation he sets up walls and bulwarks.” God’s saving acts protect the city of Jerusalem. This contrasts with what he will do to the Moabite cities (see 25.12). Good News Translation and New International Version make explicit that the pronoun he refers to “God.” The specific meaning of the Hebrew word for salvation in the present context is difficult to determine. It is rendered “safety” in New Jerusalem Bible and Revised English Bible, and “victory” in New Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh. Bible en français courant and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch speak of “protection” (similarly Good News Translation). In the Old Testament salvation usually has the sense of “rescue” (see 25.9). So here it probably refers to God protecting his people in the same way as walls and bulwarks offer protection and security to a city. For city walls see 2.15. Bulwarks (also called ramparts) are fortifications of the walls. They are often steep banks that protect the lower part of the walls. For walls and bulwarks, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh suggests “inner and outer wall,” and Bible en français courant has “walls and pre-walls.” These are good models, but for translators who have difficulty finding terms to make such distinctions, they may simply say “walls,” as in Good News Translation. For this whole line Good News Translation has “God himself defends its walls.” Its rendering does not understand the walls and bulwarks as metaphors for God’s protection, but as the actual walls of Jerusalem. This is a valid option.
Translation examples for this verse are:
• At that time this song will be sung throughout Judah:
“Our city is strong,
Yahweh has set its inner and outer walls for our protection.
• At that time people will sing this song in Judah:
“We have a strong city;
God protects us like walls and ramparts.
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.