your Father

The Greek that is translated as “your Father” in English (when Jesus refers to the God as the Father of his followers) is rendered as “our Father” in Tzotzil “so as to not exclude Jesus.”

Source: Marin Cowan in Notes on Translation with Drill, p. 169ff.

Sabbath

The Greek that is translated as “Sabbath” in English is rendered as “day we rest” in Tzotzil whereas in Mairasi it is the “Jew’s Rest Day.”

Shilluk translates it as “day of God” and Obolo as Usen Mbuban: “Holy Day.”

(Sources: Tzotzil: Marion Cowan in Notes on Translation with Drill, p. 169ff; Mairasi: Enggavoter 2004; Shilluk: Nida 1964, p. 237; Obolo: Enene Enene)

In the old Khmer version as well as in the first new translation this term was rendered as “day of rest” (Thngai Chhup Somrak). Considered inadequate to convey its religious meaning (not only about cessation of work, but also in honour of Yahweh as the Creator), the committee has decided to keep the Hebrew word and use its transliterated form Thgnai Sabath. The Buddhist word Thngai Seil “day of merits” used by some Catholics was once under consideration but was rejected because it did not receive unanimous support.” (Source: Joseph Hong in The Bible Translator 1996, p. 233ff.)

In Spanish, the translation is either día de reposo (“day of rest”) or sábado (usually: “Saturday,” derived from the Greek and Hebrew original. Nida (1947, p. 239f.) explains that problem for Spanish and other languages in its sphere of influence: “In translation “Sabbath” into various aboriginal languages of Latin America, a considerable number of translators have used the Spanish sábado, ‘Saturday,’ because it is derived from the Hebrew sabbath and seems to correspond to English usage as well. The difficulty is that sábado means only ‘Saturday’ for most people. There is no religious significance about this word as the is with ‘Sabbath’ in English. Accordingly the [readers] cannot understand the significance of the persecution of Jesus because he worked on ‘Saturday.’ It has been found quite advantageous to use the translation ‘day of rest,’ for this accurately translated the Hebrew meaning of the term and resolves the problem in connection with the prohibitions placed upon some types of activities.”

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (John 9:4)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). 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 must work” in English translations), translators select the exclusive form (excluding the disciples) (source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.) or the inclusive form, since “Jesus [was] referring primarily to himself….If his disciples were minded to be disciples
indeed, then these were the works which they also must do, in fellowship with their Master” (source: SIL International Translation Department (1999)).

The Yagua and the Tok Pisin translators chose the inclusive form. The Yagua translators justify this by saying “Is this an editorial ‘we’ or a ‘we’ representing the Godhead or does He include his disciples? We chose the inclusive interpretation.” (Source: Paul Powlison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 165ff.)

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (2Cor. 1:20)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). 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 either select the exclusive form referring only to Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, or the inclusive form, referring to Paul and the Corinthian Christians.

Source: SIL International (1999).

The Mal translators used an inclusive form.

Source: David Filbeck in The Bible Translator 1994, p. 401ff.

The Copainalá Zoque translators also chose an inclusive form, because “it seems to us that this refers back to 19a (we preach) and 20a (promises fulfilled). Therefore it could hardly be exclusive since the Apostles would not say ‘Amen’ to their own preaching. Neither would they exclusively say ‘Amen’ to the fulfillment of the promises. It seems reasonable to us therefore that it means ‘we and Corinthian Christians (inclusive) say Amen.'”

Source: Roy and Margaret Harrison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 173ff.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (2Cor. 5:5)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). 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 exclusive form (excluding the addressee).

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

The Mal, Karbi and Copainalá Zoque translators chose an inclusive form. D. Filbeck says: “We do not feel that Paul expected to be made an exception to believers in general. Informant insists on inclusive.”

Source: Roy and Margaret Harrison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 173ff. (Mal), David Filbeck in The Bible Translator 1994, p. 401ff. (Copainalá Zoque) and Source: W. R. Hutton in The Bible Translator April 1953, p. 86ff. (Karbi).

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Luke 24:20)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). 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”).

According to Pickett / Cowan, this verse, the inclusive form (including Jesus) should be chosen because “undoubtedly they consider him (Jesus) to be a Jew or they would not have invited Him to eat with them (vv. 29-30).” (Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff. and Velma B. Pickett in The Bible Translator 1964, p. 88f.)

The Huautla Mazatec, Tok Pisin, or Yagua translators also chose the exclusive form. The Yagua translators justify this by saying “Would Cleopas and his companion in­clude the stranger who had joined them in this ‘we’? We think not in view of his previous estimate of the stranger. [‘Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know, etc.?’] This implies Cleopas would not consider Him as being sub­ject with himself and companion to the Jerusalem authorities. We would use the exclusive here” (source: Paul Powlison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 165ff.) SIL International Translation Department (1999) concurs.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (2Cor. 1:21)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). 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 exclusive form (excluding the addressee) for the first occurrence of the pronoun (“us and you”) and either the inclusive or exclusive form for the second (“anointed us”) to either include the Corinthians or not.

The Copainalá Zoque translators chose an inclusive form for the second occurrence (“anointed us”), because they take it “as referring to Paul, his associates, and those addressed, the Corinthians, and all true Christians, if need be.” The Tok Pisin Translation uses the exclusive form for the second occurrence.

Sources: Roy and Margaret Harrison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 173ff. and SIL International Translation Department (1999).

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (2Cor. 5:6)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). 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 exclusive form (excluding the addressee).

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

The Karbi and Copainalá Zoque translators chose an inclusive form. D. Filbeck says: “We do not feel that Paul expected to be made an exception to believers in general. Informant insists on inclusive.”

Source: David Filbeck in The Bible Translator 1994, p. 401ff. (Copainalá Zoque) and Source: W. R. Hutton in The Bible Translator April 1953, p. 86ff. (Karbi).

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Luke 7:5)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). 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 (“he loves our nation and it was he who built us our synagogue” in English translations), Yagua translators selected the exclusive forms. The translators justify this by saying “Jesus was also of the Jews’ nation and could have been included in this ‘our.’ However, the ‘us’ and ‘our’ of the second clause are doubtless exclusive and we guess since Jesus was not a native of Capernaum that these Jews probably would have used the exclusive in the first clause.”

Source: Paul Powlison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 165ff.

Pickett argues that “the first ‘our’ is inclusive, referring to the Jewish nation of which both the speakers and Jesus were a part, But the second ‘our’ is no doubt exclusive, i.e. the synagogue in their town, of which Jesus was not a part.”

Source: Velma B. Pickett in The Bible Translator 1964, p. 88f.

SIL International Translation Department (1999) notes that he second pronoun could be either inclusive or exclusive. The Tok Pisin translation uses the inclusive for the first occurrence and exclusive for the second.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (2Cor. 2:14)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). 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”).

The Copainalá Zoque translators chose an exclusive form, because “we take this to refer to Paul and his associates speaking of their ministry” (source: Roy and Margaret Harrison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 173ff.), whereas SIL International Translation Department) describes this as a case where either the inclusive or the exclusive pronoun could be used (and where, if inclusive, this could refer to only Paul or Paul and his associates).

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (2Cor. 5:7)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). 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 exclusive form (excluding the addressee).

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

The Karbi and Copainalá Zoque translators chose an inclusive form. D. Filbeck says: “We do not feel that Paul expected to be made an exception to believers in general. Informant insists on inclusive.”

Source: David Filbeck in The Bible Translator 1994, p. 401ff. (Copainalá Zoque) and Source: W. R. Hutton in The Bible Translator April 1953, p. 86ff. (Karbi).

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Mark 4:38 / Luke 8:24)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). 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 (as well as the Sierra Totonac and the Tok Pisin translators). 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.