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 (“Lord, it is good for us to be here” in English translations), Yagua translators selected the exclusive form (excluding Jesus), whereas Avaric, Tok Pisin, Jarai, Fijian, and Adamawa Fulfulde translators chose the inclusive form (which includes Jesus).
Source: Paul Powlison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 165ff. and Magomed-Kamil Gimbatov and Yakov Testelets in The Bible Translator, p. 434ff. 1996.
SIL International Translation Department (1999) documents that there are reasonable differences of opinions about the use of the inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun for this verse mentioned above.
In Mark and Luke the second plural pronoun (“let us put us a tent” in English) is always translated with an exclusive pronoun (excluding Jesus). Likewise, in Fijian, the exclusive trial keitou (I and two others but not you) is used, specifically including Peter, James and John, but not Jesus.
The Greek that is translated in many English versions as “this will be a sign to you” is translated with an existing figure of speech in Yagua, back-translated as “By it, you will know” (followed by a sign by which something will be known).
Source: Paul Powlison in Notes on Translation June 1979, p. 38-40.
The Greek that is translated in many English versions as “looking up into the sky” is translated with an existing figure of speech in Yagua, back-translated as “a skyward looking person.”
Source: Paul Powlison in Notes on Translation June 1979, p. 38-40.
The Greek that is translated in many English versions as “he was restored, and he saw everything clearly” is translated with an existing figure of speech in Yagua, back-translated as “His sight was whole, it was complete.” (Source: Paul Powlison in Notes on Translation June 1979, p. 38-40.
In Longuda the last part of that phrase (“saw everything clearly”) is emphasized with the ideophone püling püling. (An ideophone is a word or phrase that express what is perceived by the five senses.) (Source: Bonnie Newman in Notes on Translation 57/1975, p. 2ff.)
The Greek that is translated in many English versions as “not to tell anyone” is translated with an existing figure of speech in Yagua, back-translated as “this is a secret, don’t tell them.”
Source: Paul Powlison in Notes on Translation June 1979, p. 38-40.
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 the first part of this verse (“our father Jacob” in English translations), translators often select the inclusive form, whereas for the second part (“gave us this well” in English translations) the exclusive form.
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
The Yagua translators (who, along with the translations into Malay, Sundanese, and Balinese, chose the exclusive for both parts of the verse) justify this by saying “Our choice here is exclusive assuming that the Samaritan woman to maintain the independent and factious spirit which this account shows existed between Jews and Samaritans.”
Source: Paul Powlison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 165ff.
Another opinion on using the inclusive pronoun for this verse and the remainder of the story:
“The Samaritan woman, in my view, is trying to get the better of Jesus; she appeals to Jacob (v. 12) and to ‘our fathers’ (v. 20) as to authorities higher than Jesus. If this is true, then it was important for her to show that those authorities were acknowledged by Jesus also. Therefore, we can imagine her to have thought or said ‘Your and my ancestor’ (v. 12) or ‘ancestors’ (v. 20) — inclusive pronoun in both verses.
“As for the phrase ‘who gave us the well’, there is certainly much truth in the consideration: “Since the well was in Samaritan territory, presumably she would use the exclusive form.” Yet, the inclusive can be defended here also, I think. With the remark that Jacob and his sons drank from the well, she is pointing back to a time anterior to the present antithesis between Jew and Samaritan; the well was given to ancestors of both peoples. Moreover, she comes to fetch water from the well and Jesus hopes to quench his thirst with its water. “The well is of common interest for both you and me,” she may have meant. It seems possible to find a third appeal to higher authority in v. 25. The woman has acknowledged Jesus as a prophet, but to the Messiah even a prophet has to bow; he, the prophet, as well as she, will have to be shown all things by the Messiah. Accepting this interpretation, we again have to use the inclusive ‘we’, Yet there is a difference with the verses first mentioned. In v. 12 and v. 20 the pronominal first person plural was used in phrases connected with the past; v. 25 points to the future, to the time when the Messiah will come and teach. A consciousness among the Samaritans of a Messianic belief common to both Jews and themselves is a necessary presupposition of the interpretation of v. 25 given above. So we are led to the preliminary question whether such a consciousness existed in Jesus’ times.”
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 (“our fathers ” in English translations), translators often select the exclusive form.
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
The Yagua translators justify this by saying “Our choice here is exclusive assuming that the Samaritan woman to maintain the independent and factious spirit which this account shows existed between Jews and Samaritans.”
Source: Paul Powlison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 165ff.
In the Mezquital Otomi translation the inclusive form was chosen because “according to the Samaritans, Mt. Gerizim had been the scene of the sacrifice of Isaac and Abraham’s meeting with Melchizedek; and in their version of the Pentateuch it, and not Mt. Ebal, was the site of the first Hebrew sacrifice after the people had passed over Jordan into the Holy Land.”
Source: Nacy Lanier in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 167ff.
Another opinion on using the inclusive pronoun for this verse and the remainder of the story:
“The Samaritan woman, in my view, is trying to get the better of Jesus; she appeals to Jacob (v. 12) and to ‘our fathers’ (v. 20) as to authorities higher than Jesus. If this is true, then it was important for her to show that those authorities were acknowledged by Jesus also. Therefore, we can imagine her to have thought or said ‘Your and my ancestor’ (v. 12) or ‘ancestors’ (v. 20) — inclusive pronoun in both verses.
“As for the phrase ‘who gave us the well’, there is certainly much truth in the consideration: “Since the well was in Samaritan territory, presumably she would use the exclusive form.” Yet, the inclusive can be defended here also, I think. With the remark that Jacob and his sons drank from the well, she is pointing back to a time anterior to the present antithesis between Jew and Samaritan; the well was given to ancestors of both peoples. Moreover, she comes to fetch water from the well and Jesus hopes to quench his thirst with its water. “The well is of common interest for both you and me,” she may have meant. It seems possible to find a third appeal to higher authority in v. 25. The woman has acknowledged Jesus as a prophet, but to the Messiah even a prophet has to bow; he, the prophet, as well as she, will have to be shown all things by the Messiah. Accepting this interpretation, we again have to use the inclusive ‘we’, Yet there is a difference with the verses first mentioned. In v. 12 and v. 20 the pronominal first person plural was used in phrases connected with the past; v. 25 points to the future, to the time when the Messiah will come and teach. A consciousness among the Samaritans of a Messianic belief common to both Jews and themselves is a necessary presupposition of the interpretation of v. 25 given above. So we are led to the preliminary question whether such a consciousness existed in Jesus’ times.”
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”).
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.
