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 (members of the Council of Elders talking among themselves).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 22:71:
Noongar: And they said, ‘We don’t need witnesses! We ourselves hear his words!'” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Uma: “From there, they said: ‘There no longer need to be witnesses! We ourselves have heard from his lips his wrongs!'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Then they said, ‘Why shall we (incl.) look for more/other testimony? And-what’s-more we (incl.) have already heard what he said.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And then they said, ‘There’s no need that anybody else brings accusation against him, because we (incl.) have all heard his words which really transgress against God.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Then they said, ‘Is it indeed-the-case (RQ implying of course not) that we need anyone to testify? Here-now emphatically we have heard what he said.'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “And then they all said, ‘Well, why do we still need the testimony of others, since our ears are what heard those words of his coming from no other mouth than his?'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
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. ).
Barclay Newman, a translator on the teams for both the Good News Bible and the Contemporary English Version, translated passages of the New Testament into English and published them in 2014, “in a publication brief enough to be non-threatening, yet long enough to be taken seriously, and interesting enough to appeal to believers and un-believers alike.” The following is the translation of Luke 22:66-71:
At dawn the politicians, priests, and professors of religion
called a meeting and had Jesus brought in for questioning.
“Are you God’s Chosen One?” they demanded.
“If I told you, you wouldn’t believe me,” replied Jesus.
“And if I asked you a question, you wouldn’t answer.
Soon, however, you’ll see me
at the right side of God All-Powerful.”
“Are you the Son of God?” was their next question.
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®).
ti eti echomen marturias chreian ‘what do we still need testimony?.’ No witnesses are needed any more.
marturia ‘testimony,’ here with passive force, ‘things said by witnesses in court,’ ‘testimony given in court.’
apo tou stomatos autou ‘from his mouth,’ cf. on 19.22.
Translation:
Said is reciprocal: they are speaking to each other.
What further testimony do we need, or, describing the noun, ‘what do we still need words/declarations of witnesses,’ ‘why should we still need to hear things that witnesses can tell us (or, that other people know) about him.’
Heard it … from his own lips, or, ‘mouth’; or, “heard his very own words” (Good News Translation, similarly Tae’ 1933), ‘heard him say it himself’ (cf. Batak Toba).
Quoted with permission from Reiling, J. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1971. For this and other handbooks for translators see here . Make sure to also consult the Handbook on the Gospel of Mark for parallel or similar verses.
“Why do we need any more testimony?” they declared: The Greek words that the Berean Standard Bible translates as they declared are literally “but/and they said.” The Berean Standard Bible places these words in the middle of what the council of the elders said. This is good English style. However, in some languages, it may be necessary to put these words where they are in the Greek, at the beginning of 22:71a. For example:
Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony?” (New International Version)
Place them where it is natural in your language.
Why do we need any more testimony?: This is a rhetorical question. It implies that Jesus’ answer was enough to condemn him. So they did not need any other witnesses to give testimony against him. The council members said this to emphasize that they did not need anyone else to testify against Jesus.
Some ways to translate this emphasis are:
• As a rhetorical question. For example:
Why do we need other witnesses? (New Living Translation (2004)) -or-
What further evidence do we need? (Revised English Bible)
• As a statement. For example:
We do not need any more evidence ⌊against him⌋. -or-
That statement of his is all we need ⌊to execute him⌋!
Translate this emphasis in a way that is natural in your language.
22:71b
We have heard it for ourselves from His own lips: The Jewish leaders indicated here that what they just heard Jesus say proved that he was guilty. When he said that he was the Son of God, they thought that was all they needed to show that he deserved to be executed. Other ways to say this are:
We’ve heard him say it ourselves. (God’s Word) -or-
We have heard him condemn himself by his own words.
We: In this verse We is emphatic. They did not need any other witnesses to confirm what they themselves had heard. In some languages the statement itself expresses this emphasis. In other languages there may be another natural way to express it. Here is another way to translate this:
We ourselves have heard what he said! (Good News Translation)
from His own lips: This is an idiom. It refers emphatically to something that Jesus himself said. Some ways to translate this idiom are:
• Use a similar idiom in your language. For example, another English idiom is:
from his own mouth
• Translate the meaning directly. For example:
He said it himself! (Contemporary English Version)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.