33saying, “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the gentiles;
Following are a number of back-translations of Mark 10:33:
Uma: “He said: ‘Listen! We are now going toward Yerusalem. There I the Child of Mankind will be handed over to the leading priests and the religion teachers, and they will decide to kill me. After that I will be handed over to people who are not Yahudi.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “‘Listen,’ he said, ‘we (incl.) are going-up to Awrusalam. When we (incl.) are there, I, the Son of Mankind, will be handed over into the hands/holding of the leading priests and the teachers of the religious law. Then their judgment for me (will be) that I be killed. Then they will also hand me over into the hands/holding of the people not Yahudi.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “He said, ‘You know that we are going to Jerusalem and when we arrive in there, I, the older sibling of mankind, will be turned over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. And they will agree that I should be caused to be killed, and they will turn me over to the people who aren’t Jews.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Whereupon Jesus called his twelve disciples aside and he said to them, ‘Listen. Here we are climbing-uphill to Jerusalem. When we arrive there, I who am Child of a Person, I will be handed-over to the leaders of the priests and the teachers of the law. They will sentence me to die, then they will hand-me-over to the Gentiles” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “He said, ‘Today/now we (incl.) are going to Jerusalem. When we are there, I who am the One From Heaven Born of Man/human will be traded to the chiefs of the priests and the explainers of law. They will sentence me to death. And I will be handed over to the people who aren’t Judio.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
The Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin that is often translated as “gentiles” (or “nations”) in English is often translated as a “local equivalent of ‘foreigners,'” such as “the people of other lands” (Guerrero Amuzgo), “people of other towns” (Tzeltal), “people of other languages” (San Miguel El Grande Mixtec), “strange peoples” (Navajo (Dinė)) (this and above, see Bratcher / Nida), “outsiders” (Ekari), “people of foreign lands” (Kannada), “non-Jews” (North Alaskan Inupiatun), “people being-in-darkness” (a figurative expression for people lacking cultural or religious insight) (Toraja-Sa’dan) (source for this and three above Reiling / Swellengrebel), “from different places all people” (Martu Wangka) (source: Carl Gross).
Tzeltal translates it as “people in all different towns,” Chicahuaxtla Triqui as “the people who live all over the world,” Highland Totonac as “all the outsider people,” Sayula Popoluca as “(people) in every land” (source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.), Chichimeca-Jonaz as “foreign people who are not Jews,” Sierra de Juárez Zapotec as “people of other nations” (source of this and one above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.), Highland Totonac as “outsider people” (source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.), Uma as “people who are not the descendants of Israel” (source: Uma Back Translation), “other ethnic groups” (source: Newari Back Translation), and Yakan as “the other tribes” (source: Yakan Back Translation).
In Chichewa, it is translated with mitundu or “races.” (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, translators typically select the inclusive form (including the disciples).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
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 to do this is through the usage (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. When the referent is God or a person or persons to be greatly honored, the honorific prefix go- (御 or ご) can be used, as in go-ran (ご覧), a combination of “behold / see” (ran) and the honorific prefix go-.
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 first person singular and plural pronoun (“I” and “we” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. The most commonly used watashi/watakushi (私) is typically used when the speaker is humble and asking for help. In these verses, where God / Jesus is referring to himself, watashi is also used but instead of the kanji writing system (私) the syllabary hiragana (わたし) is used to distinguish God from others.
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. ).
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®).
This is the third prediction of the Passion (cf. 8.31; 9.31).
Most of the words of this verse have already been dealt with: for ho huios tou anthrōpou ‘the Son of man’ cf. 2.10; paradidōmi ‘deliver up’ cf. 1.14; hoi archiereis ‘the chief priests’ cf. 8.31, hoi grammateis ‘the scribes’ cf. 1.22.
katakrinousin (14.64; 16.16) ‘they will condemn.’
tois ethnesin (10.42; 11.17; 13.8, 10) ‘to the nations,’ i.e. ‘to the Gentiles.’ The modern equivalent of this word on the lips of the Jews would be “pagans,” “heathen.” All non-Jews were considered “pagan.” In this context the specific reference is to the Roman authorities.
Translation:
Saying may be translated as a coordinate or independent verb of speaking, e.g. ‘and he said….’
Behold is not a command to look, but to pay attention.
For the Son of man see 2.10, and not especially the problems of a third person referent applicable to the speaker, hence translated in some instances as ‘I the Son of man.’
Will be delivered, as a passive, would normally be shifted to the active form in many languages, but this is made difficult by the fact that the one who delivered up Jesus was Judas, and Jesus does not make this known at this time. An equivalent form of expression can, however, usually be found, e.g. ‘the Son of man will come under the control of,’ ‘will come into the hands of,’ or ‘the chief priests … will get the Son of man in their hands.’
For chief priests see 2.26 and 8.31, and for scribes see 1.22.
Condemn him to death is translatable in some instances as ‘declare, You must die’ (or ‘be killed’), depending upon the normal way of speaking about the execution of criminals.
Deliver is ‘hand him over,’ to ‘turn him over to,’ or ‘lead him to.’
Gentiles is often rendered by transliteration, but this is not very satisfactory, since it conveys no meaning. A better, but not entirely adequate, alternative is to use the local equivalent of ‘foreigners,’ e.g. ‘the people of other lands’ (Guerrero Amuzgo), ‘people of other towns’ (Tzeltal), ‘people of other languages’ (San Miguel El Grande Mixtec), and ‘strange peoples’ (Navajo).
Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1961. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.