The Hebrew that is translated as “steadfast love,” “lovingkindness” (Goldingay 2018: “commitment”) or similar in English is translated in a number of ways:
Vidunda: “love of enduring” (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Bura-Pabir: “love which cannot be-changed” (hyirkur na a palidzi wa)
HausaCommon Language Bible “his love without changing” (kaunarsa marar canjawa) (source for this and above: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
Elhomwe: “love that does not finish” (echikondi yoohisintheya) (source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Nyamwezi: chelu, combining “love,” “faithfulness,” “loyalty,” and “kindness” (source: James Lundeen)
Newari: dayāmāyā (दयामाया), a compound word made from two Sanskrit-derived terms: dayā (दया) or “compassion, mercy, kindness” and māyā (माया) or “love, affection” (source: Newari Back Translation)
In Pijintinghevi long or “think heavy about” is used. “The Pijin expression ‘think heavy about’ is very much within the domain of committed relationships. The relationship between father and child, husband and wife, God and His people. There is a very strong element of ‘loyalty’ in this expression.” (Source: Bob Carter)
The Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin terms that are typically translated as “mercy” (or “compassion” or “kindness”) in English are translated in various ways. Bratcher / Nida classify them in (1) those based on the quality of heart, or other psychological center, (2) those which introduce the concept of weeping or extreme sorrow, (3) those which involve willingness to look upon and recognize the condition of others, or (4) those which involve a variety of intense feelings.
While the Englishmercy originates from the Latinmerces, originally “price paid,” Romance languages (Italian, Spanish, Corsican, Catalan, Friulian) and other Germanic languages (German, Swedish, Danish — Barmherzigkeit, barmhärtighet and barmhjertighed, respectively) tend to follow the Latin misericordia, lit. “misery-heart.”
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, the Jarai translation uses the exclusive pronoun. The Adamawa Fulfulde translation uses the inclusive pronoun.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Psalm 136:24:
Chichewa Contempary Chichewa translation, 2002/2016:
“Who unbound us from our enemies,
for his unchanging love is eternal.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Newari:
“He set us free from the hand of our enemies,
His love endures forever.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon:
“He saved us (incl.) from our (incl.) enemies.
His love (is) without end.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Laarim:
“and he released us from our enemies,
his love remains forever,” (Source: Laarim Back Translation)
Nyakyusa-Ngonde (back-translation into Swahili):
“Akatuokoa kwa maadui zetu,
neema yake ni ya milele na milele.” (Source: Nyakyusa Back Translation)
English:
“He rescued us from our enemies;
his faithful love for us endures forever.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
The Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin that is translated as “enemy” or “foe” in English is translated in the HausaCommon Language Bible as “friends of front,” i.e., the person standing opposite you in a battle. (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
In North Alaskan Inupiatun it is translated with a term that implies that it’s not just someone who hates you, but one who wants to do you harm (Source: Robert Bascom), in Tarok as ukpa ìkum or “companion in war/fighting,” and in Ikwere as nye irno m or “person who hates me” (source for this and one above: Chuck and Karen Tessaro in this newsletter ).
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 are (され) 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, tokihanat-are-ru (解き放たれる) or “release/unloose” is used.
Verses 23-25 refer to Yahweh’s constant care for his people. It is not certain if in our low estate (Bible en français courant “in our misfortune,” New English Bible “when we were cast down,” New Jerusalem Bible “when we were humbled”) refers to a particular event; if so, it is probably the exile in Babylonia (see Taylor, Anderson). The Hebrew word means “low place, humiliation”; it occurs elsewhere only in Ecclesiastes 10.6. If the translator follows the Good News Translation model, it may be necessary to avoid the passive and say, for example, “… when our enemies defeated us.”
In verse 24 the verb translated rescued occurs elsewhere in Psalms only in 7.2b.
In verse 25 all flesh is taken by Good News Translation to mean “every living creature,” humans and animals alike (see 104.27-28); it can be taken to mean “all human beings.” All flesh or Good News Translation‘s “every living creature” may have to be recast in some languages as “people and animals,” “everything that eats,” or “all living creatures.”
The psalm concludes, as it begins, with a call to give thanks to Yahweh. Only here in Psalms is he called the God of heaven, by which is meant “the God who lives in heaven” or “the God who rules from heaven”; see its use in Ezra 1.2; Nehemiah 1.4; and Jonah 1.9.
Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Reyburn, William D. A Handbook on the Book of Psalms. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1991. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.