Some languages have distinctive terms for congenital and non-congenital blindness. The Greek that is translated in Luke 4:18 as “blind” in English is translated with the term for the non-congenital blindness in Yatzachi Zapotec. (Source: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
The Greek chrió that is translated as “anoint” in English is translated in Chol as “choose.” Wilbur Aulie (in The Bible Translator 1957, p. 109ff. ) explains: “Another illustration of translating a figure in a non-figurative manner is the treatment of chrió ‘anoint’. In Luke 4:18, Acts 4:27 and 10:38, and in 2 Corinthians 1:21 it is metaphorical of consecration to office by God. We translated the metaphor ‘choose’.”
Other translations include “place as Savior” in Highland Popoluca, “appoint to rule” in Coatlán Mixe, “give work to do” in Tepeuxila Cuicatec, or “give office to be our Savior” in Chuj (source of this and four above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.).
In Elhomwe it is translated as “anoint to choose and to appoint.” Note that anointing is a common practice in Malawi. (Source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
The Hebrew, Latin and Greek that is translated as “blind” in English is translated as “(having) eyes dark/night” in Ekari or “having no eyes” in Zarma. (Source: Nida 1964, p. 200)
In choosing a word for the Greek that is typically translated as “gospel” in English, a number of languages construct a phrase meaning “good news,” “joyful report” or “happiness-bringing words.” In some instances such a phrase may be slightly expanded in order to convey the proper meaning, e.g. “new good word” (Tzotzil), or it may involve some special local usage:
the Germandas Buch translation by Roland Werner (publ. 2009-2022) translates as “all-transformative good news” (alles verändernde gute Botschaft), also “good news”
Vitaly Voinov tells this story about the translation into Rutul (click or tap here to see the rest of this insight):
“In Rutul, it was only during the most recent consultant checking session that I realized that the Rutul word for Gospel – Incir (from Arabic إنجيل — Injil) — sounds and looks exactly like the word that means ‘fig’ in Rutul. This is a case of homonymy, in which two completely non-related words from differing historical sources have come to sound exactly alike. Most Rutul speakers know that incir means ‘fig’ because they grow this fruit in their yard or buy it at the market every week. However, because the religious sphere of discourse was heavily disparaged during the Soviet era, most people simply never encountered Incir with the meaning of ‘Gospel.’ This meaning of the word, which Rutuls of the pre-Soviet era knew from the Koran, simply fell into disuse and never had much reason for returning into contemporary Rutul since there is no Christian church established among the people. So if the translator continues to use the term Incir as the rendering for ‘Gospel,’ he runs the risk that most readers will, at best, read the word with a smile because they know that it also means ‘fig,’ and, at worst, will completely misunderstand the word. The seemingly ‘easy’ solution in this case is for the translator to use a Rutul neologism meaning ‘Joyful Message’ or ‘Good News,’ [see above] instead of Incir; but in fact it is not all that easy to make this change if the translator himself insists on using the historical word because at least some Rutuls still understand it as meaning ‘Gospel.’ This is a situation in which the translation team has to gradually grow into the understanding that a fully intelligible translation of Scripture is preferable to one that maintains old words at the cost of alienating much of the readership.”
“Only qualified, trained leaders know the dharma (truth) yet Jesus made claims that threatened the establishment. He is being chased out of the temple because his people thought him merely a carpenter. They intended to throw him down the cliff but he just passed by.”
Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 4:18:
Noongar: “‘God’s Spirit has come inside me because he has called me to bring Good News to poor people. He has sent me preaching freedom to captive people, and giving sight to blind people, and lifting people up who are held down,” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Uma: “‘The Spirit of the Lord God landed on Me, because he dedicated me to carry the Good News to people whose lives are pitiful. He sent me to say to the captives: ‘You are free!’ He sent me to say to the blind: ‘See!’ He commanded me to free those who are made-slaves.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “‘I am ruled by God’s Spirit, for I am chosen by him to proclaim the good news to the people who are to be pitied. I am commanded/told by God to come to tell the prisoners that they are now free, the blind that they can now see again and I cause the ones in difficulties to be free.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “‘I am controlled by the Holy Spirit which comes from God, and the Lord has chosen Me so that I might preach the good news to the poor. And He has sent me to the people so that I might tell them that the prisoners of Satan can be released, and the blind can be healed so that they can see, and those who are in difficulty can be helped.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “‘The Spirit of the Lord God is with/in me, because he has chosen me to go preach the good news to the poor. He sent me to go tell the prisoners that they will be freed and to heal (lit. medicine) the blind so-that they will-be-able-to-see and to help those who are being-hardshipped.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “‘The Espiritu Santo of God is indwelling me, for he chose and secured/dedicated me so that I would teach the Good News to the poor. He sent me so that I would make clear to those in captivity that they would be freed/saved, and as for those who are like blind for they are subjects/under-the-jurisdiction of darkness, they would also be enlightened. He sent me so that I would really help as many as are having a hard time,” (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. ).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.