“something was-consuming in our-heart” in Tae’ (an idiom for “we were profoundly moved”) (source for this and above: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
“O, how sweet coolness did our hearts feel” in an early version of the Bible in Sranan Tongo. “The translator “did this to avoid misunderstanding. In Sranan Tongo, when one says ‘my heart is burning’ he means ‘I am angry.'” (Source: Janini 2015, p. 33)
“Wasn’t it as rain coming down on us?” in Afar. “Heat is bad, rain is good in the desert.” (Source: Loren Bliese)
“our interiors bubbled up” in Bariai (source: Bariai Back Translation)
In the 2008 MobaYendu Kadapaaonn translation it is translated as “were not our hearts encouraged (literally: made strong)?” While Moba has a rich metaphorical library using the concept of “heart” (pal) it follows very different paradigms compared to Greek, Hebrew and English concepts. (Source: Bedouma Joseph Kobaike in Le Sycomore 17/1, 2024, p. 3ff. .) (See also I hold you in my heart)
The Greek that is translated as “their eyes were prevented from recognizing” in English is translated with idioms in languages like Shona with “their eyes were clouded, or, shrouded/blindfolded,” Uab Meto with “their eyes were misty” or with a simile such as “their eyes were just as if they had been caused to be shut” in Marathi.
In the German New Testament translation by Berger / Nord (publ. 1999) it is translated idiomatically with wie mit Blindheit geschlagen or “as if struck with blindness.”
The Greek that is translated as “(you) foolish people” or “(you) foolish ones” is (back-) translated in a number of ways:
San Blas Kuna: “people having a dark liver” (“incapable of intelligent, thoughtful behavior”) (See Seat of the Mind for traditional views of “ways of knowing, thinking, and feeling.”)
Batak Toba: “those short-of-mind” (“mostly referring to stupidity or ignorance in general”)
Zarma: a word indicating a person who refuses to use the intelligence he has
Chichewa, Yao: expressions implying intractability and willful opposition to common interests or commonly accepted ideas (source for this and above: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
“much work overwhelmed Martha” (Sranan Tongo) (source for all above: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
“her face kept on getting turned with her work inside the house” (Mairasi) (source: Enggavoter 2004)
“she was alone in the kitchen because she was making food for them, and there were many problems that she had with what she was doing” (Western Bukidnon Manobo) (source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
“Marta’s eye was here and there with the doing of tasks” (Bariai) (source: Bariai Back Translation)
The phrase that is translated as “with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” in English versions is rendered in Kahua with a term for belly/chest as the seat of the emotions.
The same phrase is translated into Kuy as “with all your heart-liver”to show the totality of one’s being. (Source: David Clark)
Similar to that, in Laka one must love with the liver, in Western Kanjobal with the “abdomen,” and in Marshallese with the throat.
What is translated as “soul” in English is translated as “life” in Yaka, Chuukese, and in Ixcatlán Mazatec, “that which stands inside of one” in Navajo (Dinė), and “spirit” in Kele.
The Greek that is translated in English as “strength” is translated in Yao as “animation” and in Chuukese as “ability.”
The Greek that is translated in English as “mind” is translated in Kele as “thinking,” in Chuukese as “thought(s),” and in Marathi as “intelligence.”
The whole phrase is translated in Tboli as “cause it to start from the very beginning of your stomach your loving God, for he is your place of holding.”
In Poqomchi’ (as in many other Mayan languages), the term “heart” covers both “heart” and “mind.”
(Sources: Bratcher / Nida, Reiling / Swellengrebel, and Bob Bascom [Ixcatlán Mazatec and Poqomchi’])
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, the disciples are addressing Jesus with the informal pronoun, unless they are in his physical presence (see formal pronoun: disciples addressing Jesus). This is in contrast to how the disciples addresses Jesus before the resurrection with the formal pronoun. “The Tuvan translation team [wanted to] highlight the change in the disciples’ consciousness about Jesus, signalling a greater degree of intimacy due to their recognition of Jesus as God.”
Vitaly Voinov explains the process that the translation team went through in different editions of the translation (click here):
“In the Tuvan New Testament of 2001, we had Peter use the informal pronoun with Jesus in John 21. However, when we were revising the NT for inclusion in the full Bible ten years later, we decided to change Peter’s address to the formal form in this place for the reason that I had already noted in the article: ‘since the disciples address Jesus with the formal pronoun before his resurrection as a sign of respect, it may seem somewhat strange to readers that they start using the formal form after.’ We realized that Peter still sees the same Jesus in front of himself that he saw prior to the resurrection and he still has a personal relationship with Jesus as a respected rabbi/teacher. We decided that it’s too rash of a change for Peter to suddenly start addressing Jesus with an informal pronoun at this point, especially since in John 21:20 there is a reminiscence about how John has addressed Jesus during the Last Supper (with a formal pronoun). So we decided to let Peter continue to speak to Jesus here as he was used to speaking to Him prior to the crucifixion/resurrection, with a formal pronoun. As a result, we tweaked our pronominal system so that Jesus is addressed by the disciples with a formal pronoun when He is physically present with them in the Gospels (whether pre- or post-resurrection), and with an informal pronoun in Acts, the Epistles and Revelation, since Jesus is now acknowledged by the church as God and is at the right hand of the Father, not physically present with them as a rabbi/teacher.”
In Marathi, three pronouns for the second person are used: tu (तू) for addressing a child, an inferior and among very close friends, but also respectfully for God, in prayer, tumhi (तुम्ही), the plural form of tu but also used to address an individual courteously, and apana (आपण), an even more exalted form of address. In most of the gospels, Jesus is addressed with the second-person pronoun apana but — like in Tuvan — after his resurrection and realization of his divinity, the pronoun is changed to be the familiar tu which is used for God. (Source: F.W. Schelander in The Bible Translator 1963, p. 178ff.)
In some English translations, including the New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, or the Holman Christian Standard Bible capitalize “You” when Jesus or any other person of the trinity is addressed but don’t differentiate between pre- or post-resurrection.
The Greek that is transliterated as “paradise” in English is often transliterated in other languages as well. Translations include “Place of well-being” (Toraja-Sa’dan, Tzeltal), “abode of happiness (or: of happy people)” (Marathi), “garden of eternal life” (Uab Meto), or the name of a place where you don’t have to work and fruits drop ripe in your hand (Ekari).
