blood, body, flesh

Fijian uses four noun classes:

(1) Possible items in general, taking normal or “neutral” pronoun forms
(2) Edible items, to which are linked “edible” pronoun forms
(3) Drinkable items, to which are linked “drinkable” pronoun forms
(4) Body parts and kinship, taking “familiar” pronoun suffixed forms.

The Greek terms that are translated as “body (or: flesh)” and “blood” used in John 6:52-56 “as symbols of Christ’s sacrifice are not treated by either version as edible and drinkable objects, even though they are said in the text to be eaten and drunk. The apparent reason is that the passage is taken to be about the institution of a memorial and not about the actions of eating and drinking themselves. Hence the translators use the familiar pronoun for the body part (lewequ ‘my body’) and the neutral pronoun for the blood part (noqu dra ‘my blood’).”

Source: Joseph Hong in The Bible Translator 1994, p. 419ff.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (John 6:52)

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 inclusive form (including everyone in the crowd).

Source: SIL International Translation Department (1999)

complete verse (John 6:52)

Following are a number of back-translations of John 6:52:

  • Uma: “When the Yahudi people heard those words of Yesus, they argued with one another, they said: ‘How can he give his body to us for us to eat?'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “So-then the Yahudi argued about what Isa had said. They said, ‘How can this person give us (dual) his flesh to eat?'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And then the Jewish people began to argue, they said, ‘How can this person give us his body so that we can eat it?'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “Whereupon the Jews argued-together saying, ‘How perhaps can that person give his body so that we will eat-it?'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “Because of that which Jesus had said the Judio were again arguing among themselves, for they were saying, ‘How can this person give his body for us to eat?'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “The Jews argued among themselves and said, ‘Can he give us his body for us to eat?'” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

Translation commentary on John 6:52

This started an angry argument among them may be more literally translated “So then the Jews were arguing angrily among themselves.” In this context the Greek particle (oun, “so then”) is intended to show a cause and effect relation between this verse and the preceding one. Good News Translation indicates this relation by translating this started, while New English Bible translates “this led to.” The verb rendered angry argument (New English Bible “fierce dispute”) literally means “to fight” and is a strong term, often used metaphorically. In rendering angry argument it is important to indicate that the people were angry not with one another but because of the statement Jesus had made. It may be translated in some languages “The people got angry at what Jesus had said and started an argument among themselves.”

This man is perhaps to be taken as an expression of contempt on the part of the Jews.

Some Greek manuscripts have “flesh” rather than his flesh, and the evidence for the inclusion or omission of his is about equal. However, the context makes it clear that Jesus’ own flesh is referred to. Even though the manuscript evidence may not absolutely support the inclusion of this word, it is obligatory on translational grounds.

No translation of this passage can completely eliminate the problems of readers or hearers in understanding it. In fact, in some societies people will almost inevitably understand “eating his flesh” as a reference to cannibalism. The total context makes it clear that this meaning is not intended. But in no way can one be faithful to the meaning John intends and at the same time avoid all problems of misunderstanding. If this discourse produced serious problems even for followers of Jesus, it is inevitable that it will produce difficulties for the present-day reader. However, the presence of serious difficulties does not give the translator a warrant to rewrite the passage.

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .