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 (“we are perishing” in English translations), Yagua translators selected the inclusive form, including Jesus (the Sierra Totonac and the Tok Pisin translators did as well). The Yagua translators justify this by saying, “Did the disciples think of their Lord as about to perish with them, or were they selfishly only thinking of their own safety, or did they feel He at least would not perish? We translated this one with the inclusive, giving the disciples the benefit of the doubt, since they had waited so long to waken Him, they couldn’t have been too selfish in their thinking.” (Source: Paul Powlison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 165ff.)
Different versions of the Bible in Marathi have chosen different solutions for this. The versions by Pandita Ramabai (NT publ. 1912) chose the exclusive form and B. N. Athavle the inclusive form in his translation (publ. 1931). The Bible Society’s version (initially the British, later the Indian BS) in their revision of the 1950s also chose the exclusive form, despite strong protests of the revision committee’s chair H.G. Howard who interpreted Jesus’ strong rebuke of the disciples in succeeding verses due to the fact that the disciples had included him in their worries, which would necessitate the inclusive form. (Source: H.G. Howard in The Bible Translator 1925, p. 25ff. )
Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.
As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator2002, p. 210ff. ), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.
Here, individual or several disciples address Jesus with the formal pronoun, expressing respect. Compare this to how that address changes after the resurrection.
In most Dutch as well as in Western Frisian and Afrikaans translations, the disciples address Jesus before and after the resurrection with the formal pronoun.
Following are a number of back-translations of Mark 4:38:
Uma: “Yesus was asleep on a pillow in the end of the boat. His disciples went to wake him, they said to him: ‘Teacher! Why are you (sing.) letting us sink?'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Isa was there in the back of the boat sleeping. He was-using-a-cushion. His disciples woke him up. They said, ‘Sir, are you not concerned/worried even if we (incl.) die?'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And Jesus was sleeping in the rear part of the boat, comfortably cushioned. His disciples shook him and they said, ‘We are about to sink! Don’t you care that we are going to die?'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “But (new-development particle) Jesus was sleeping using-a-pillow at the back of the boat. His disciples woke him saying, ‘Sir teacher, don’t you (sing.) care if we die?'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “But as for Jesus, he was asleep in the stern, with his head on a pillow. He was woken up by his disciples. They said, ‘Master, why are you sleeping since we (incl.) are going to be sunk?'” (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. ).
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 usage of an honorific construction where the morpheme rare (られ) is affixed on the verb as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, nemutteo-rare-ru (眠っておられる) or “sleeping” is used.
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®).
Instead of en ‘in’ of all modern editions of the Greek text Textus Receptus has epi ‘upon.’
Exegesis:
kai autos ēn … katheudōn ‘and he was … sleeping’: a verbal phrase, in accordance with Marcan usage (cf. 1.6 ēn esthōn ‘he was eating’).
prumnē (only here in Mark) ‘stern.’
proskephalaion (only here in Mark) ‘pillow,’ ‘cushion’: probably the sailor’s cushion used in rowing. The phrase ‘on the cushion’ means, of course, that Jesus was sleeping with his head on the cushion.
egeirousin auton (cf. v. 27) ‘they rouse him (from sleep)’ (cf. 1.31).
didaskale (5.35; 9.17, 38; 10.17, 20, 35; 12.14, 19, 32; 13.1; 14.14) ‘Teacher,’ ‘Master’ – the equivalent to the Aramaic ‘Rabbi’ (which Mark uses only 4 times – see 9.5).
ou melei soi ‘is it no concern to you?,’ ‘do you not care?’: the implied rebuke is unmistakable.
melei (12.14) ‘it is a care,’ ‘it is a concern’: an impersonal verb.
apollumetha (cf. 1.24) ‘we are perishing,’ ‘we are dying’ (the middle voice of apollumi ‘kill,’ ‘destroy’). As the context makes clear, ‘do you not care that we are perishing?,’ the ‘we’ refers to the disciples. The present tense ‘we are perishing’ here means, probably, ‘we are about to perish.’
Translation:
He may be rendered as ‘Jesus’ if the pronominal reference is not clear.
In a number of rough-draft translations people have discovered that Jesus was described as being asleep in the water, out behind the boat. The trouble is that we too often describe boats in terms of our own ideas, e.g. the front, the back, etc. In Shilluk, for example, boats may be described as having ‘a throat’ (the prow), ‘a foot’ (the stern), and ‘a back’ (the bottom). Words for position within a boat must be carefully chosen, e.g. ‘he was sleeping in the boat’s tail’ (Copainalá Zoque).
On a cushion does not mean that he was curled up on a pillow (in the position of a dog – as discovered in one translation), but asleep in the stern of the boat, with his head on a pillow, literally, ‘rest for the head’ in Kekchi.
For teacher see 2.13.
Because of the specialized nature of this context do you not care may be rendered in a number of ways, e.g. ‘don’t you have a heart’ (Tzeltal), ‘aren’t you going to do anything’ (Piro), ‘we are drowning: do you think: What is that to me?’ (Navajo), ‘does it not burden you, that we are perishing?’ (Pamona).
For languages in which there is a contrast between inclusive and exclusive first person plural, i.e. between forms which include those spoken to and those which exclude them, this verse presents somewhat of a problem. Should one translate “we” by an exclusive form, implying that the disciples thought that they would drown, but that Jesus would not, or are they to be understood as using an inclusive form, with the implication that all would perish together? Of course, there is no hint in the Greek grammatical forms as to which rendering to employ, for Greek does not make such a distinction. On the other hand, in a language with such an inclusive-exclusive contrast (and this includes hundreds of languages throughout the world) there is no way to avoid a decision. One can decide such a problem, however, only on the basis of the context. Are the disciples so concerned about their own safety that they would use an exclusive form, quite without regard to a concern for Jesus’ own welfare, or are they more likely to think of Jesus as so preoccupied with his spiritual ministry as to be utterly unaware of material dangers to himself as well as to the disciples? If one chooses the exclusive form, it is possible to interpret this passage as meaning that the disciples thought that Jesus would in some way make a miraculous escape, leaving them to their doom, while if the inclusive form is employed, there is some lessening of the intense concern of the disciples for their own welfare. In general, translators have seemed to prefer the inclusive form, but many are equally sure that the exclusive is better. This is an instance in which the more precise limitations of meaning imposed by more subtle categories do not materially improve understanding or appreciation of a passage.
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 .
But Jesus was in the stern: The Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as stern is a technical term. It refers to the back end of a boat. For example, the Good News Bible says:
Jesus was in the back of the boat
Languages have different ways to refer to the stern of a boat. For example:
foot -or-
tail
Use a word that is natural in your language. Be careful not to use an expression that implies that Jesus was behind the boat.
But: The Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as But is a common conjunction that connects 4:38a to 4:37. It is often translated as “and.” In this context, there is some contrast (contra expectation) between what Jesus was doing (sleeping) and what we expected him to be doing (something other than sleeping such as helping the disciples). Because of this, the Berean Standard Bible and others versions such as the Revised Standard Version and New Jerusalem Bible translate this conjunction as But. However, other versions, such as the New International Version, do not translate this conjunction at all. Connect these verse parts in a way that is natural in your language.
sleeping on the cushion: The Greek phrase that the Berean Standard Bible translates as sleeping on the cushion means that Jesus was sleeping and his head was on a cushion/pillow. In some languages it may be natural to make that explicit. For example, the Good News Bible says:
sleeping with his head on a pillow
General Comment on 4:37–38a
Jesus began sleeping before the wind storm came. It may be more natural in your language to use “began sleeping” rather than “was sleeping” in this context. It that is true, you may want to mention this event before 4:37. For example:
38aJesus began to sleep with his head on a cushion in the back of the boat. 37aA furious squall came up, 37band the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped.
Jesus continued sleeping during the wind storm and waves. Your translation should clearly indicate that Jesus continued sleeping.
4:38b
So they woke Him and said: The Greek text does not specify how the disciples woke Jesus. They probably woke him by speaking to him. In this case the disciples were afraid, so they probably shouted the words in 4:38c. The New Living Translation says:
The disciples woke him up, shouting
Translate this clause in a way that naturally expresses the drama and emotion of the context.
4:38c
Teacher, don’t You care that we are perishing?: This is a rhetorical question. It is really a plea for Jesus to help them. It may also be a rebuke. Translate this sentence in a way which shows that the disciples wanted Jesus to help them and save them from potentially drowning. They were also possibly rebuking him because he had not already helped them.
Here are some other ways to translate this:
• As a rhetorical question. For example, the Contemporary English Version says:
Teacher, don’t you care that we’re about to drown?
• As a statement. For example:
Teacher, you act like you do not care that we are about to drown. Please do something! -or-
Teacher, we are about to drown and you do not seem to care! Help us!
Teacher: The Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as Teacher was a polite title for a Jewish religious leader. It was a title of respect for a Jewish man who had authority to teach the things about God. In some languages the appropriate way to address a religious teacher may be:
Sir Teacher -or-
Sir -or-
Master
Be careful not to use a term that can refer only to a school teacher.
we are perishing: If your language has exclusive and inclusive pronouns, you will need to decide which pronoun to use here. Each pronoun implies different things:
(1) The pronoun we(incl) implies that the disciples were afraid that both they and Jesus would drown. It also implies that Jesus did not care if he and they all drowned.
(2) The wordwe(excl) implies that the disciples were afraid that they, but not Jesus, would drown. It also implies that Jesus did not care if the disciples drowned but he would probably save himself from drowning.
It is recommended that you follow interpretation (1). The disciples probably thought that everyone in the boat was in equal danger of drowning. They would not have expected Jesus to save himself but let them (the disciples) drown. (The UBS Handbook (page 153) says that “we” refers to the disciples. The TRT (page 56) suggests that we(excl) is more likely in view of Mt. 8:25 (the same story). However, both the UBS Handbook for Luke (page 342) and Translator’s Guide for Luke (page 136) recommend we(incl). The disciples may have been concerned primarily for their own welfare, but it is unlikely that they would have expected Jesus to selfishly save only himself. Philippine language versions on TW use inclusive.)
perishing: The Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as perishing refers to dying because of not being able to breathe under water. The New International Version translates this word as “drown.” In some languages it may be natural to translate it simply as:
Made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA) creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
All Scripture quotations in this publication, unless otherwise indicated, are from The Holy Bible, Berean Standard Bible.
BSB is produced in cooperation with Bible Hub, Discovery Bible, OpenBible.com, and the Berean Bible Translation Committee.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.