one

The Greek that is translated as “one” in English in these verses (John 10:30, 17:11, 17:21, 17:22, and 17:23) is translated in Kikuyu as ũmwe or “one singular entity.” This translation required a complex theological interpretation in relation to the nature of the trinity and the unity of Jesus and his disciples. The translators determined that both the unity of the Father and Jesus is that of “one person” or “the same” as well the unity between Jesus and his followers (and the followers to each other).

A.R. Barlow (in The Bible Translator 1952, p. 29ff. ) explains:

“‘One’ in Kikuyu is expressed by the stem -mwe combined with a prefix appropriate to the noun it qualifies (when used as an adjective) or represents (when used as a pronoun). As in all Bantu languages, nouns fall into groups or classes, each of which, generally speaking, has its distinctive prefix. Thus with the word for ‘shoe’ (kiratu) –mwe becomes kĩmwe (kĩratũ kĩmwe ‘one shoe’); with the word for ‘man,’ ‘person,’ ‘being’ (mũndũ) it becomes ũmwe (mũndũ ũmwe “one person”). Singular and plural are likewise distinguished by change of prefix, and a singular noun necessitates the use of a singular prefix with its associated adjective or pronoun, whereas a plural noun requires its adjective or pronoun to take a plural prefix.

“In common with other adjective-pronouns –mwe assumes plural as well as singular forms. When used with a plural noun it conveys one of three meanings: (a) ‘one lot (set. kind, family, fraternity, group, etc.),’ (b) ‘the same,’ or (c) ‘some.’ The form appropriate to persons, men, beings (andũ) is amwe.

“So in translating ‘one’ in any of the above passages in St. John’s Gospel we have to choose between ũmwe (sing.) and amwe (pl.).

“The choice involves questions as to the nature of the Trinity and the character of the unity which being ‘in Christ’ imparts to His followers, both in relation to Himself and to one another. This is a case in which the translator cannot avoid theological issues.

“In John 10:30 (‘I and my Father are one’) by using ũmwe we are stating ‘I and my Father are one (person, entity)’ or ‘the same.’ Grammatically the use of ũmwe (sing.) is wrong; ‘I and my Father’ should strictly be followed by the plural amwe. But the use of amwe (‘one lot’) would denote a mere family or sectional relationship.

In John 17:11 and 17:22 (‘so that they may be one, as we are one’) also, grammar demands amwe (in both occurrences of ‘one’). But this would again limit the desired degree of unity to that of membership in a family or other (more or less) close association: ‘that they may be united (associated, belong to the same fraternity), even as we are united (etc.).’ If a deeper, more mystical union is to be indicated we are thrown back on ũmwe: ‘that they may be one person (one entity), even as we are one person (one entity).’ Or are we to differentiate between the disciples and the Divine Persons and use amwe for the former and ũmwe for the latter?

“In all these passages the existing Kikuyu New Testament has ũmwe, whether the reference is to the disciples or to Christ and the Father. As far as I am aware this has never been criticized by our African Christians, although in 17:11, 21, and 22 its use in ‘that they (all) may be one’ might even convey the sense ‘that they (all) may be reduced to one,’ i.e. to a single individual!”

Note: All three currently (2022) available Kikuyu Bible translations (Ibuku Rĩrĩa Itheru Rĩa Ngai; Kiugo Gĩtheru Kĩa Ngai, Kĩrĩkanĩro Kĩrĩa Gĩkũrũ Na Kĩrĩa Kĩerũ; and Kĩrĩkanĩro Gĩa Gĩkũyũ) still only use ũmwe in all of the above instances.

See also this lectionary in The Christian Century .

In the Protestant Mandarin Chinese Union Version and the Catholic Sigao version the oneness is expressed with a historical Chinese idiom: hé ér wéi yī (合而為一 / 合而为一) or “united as one” is used. (Source: Toshikazu S. Foley in Hong Kong Journal of Catholic Studies, 2011, p. 45ff.)

Note that all versions also use their respective translations in Ephesians 2:14.

See also one in hand.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun during Transfiguration

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, Yakan, and Western Bukidnon Manobo translators selected the exclusive form (excluding Jesus), whereas Avaric, Tagbanwa, Jarai, Tok Pisin, 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) and in Tok Pisin tripela (three of us) is used, specifically including Peter, James and John, but not Jesus.

remove the roof

The Greek that is translated in English with “remove the roof” is translated into Avaric with an existing term: t’ox bichize. “Demolishing a roof in order to reach the interior of a house is an entirely familiar action, used, for example, in assaults on strongholds and fortified buildings in wartime; there is even a special phrase for this in Avaric (t’ox bichize).” (Source: Magomed-Kamil Gimbatov and Yakov Testelets in The Bible Translator 1996, p. 434ff. .

In the German New Testament translation by Berger / Nord (publ. 1999) it is translated with the professional term Dach abdecken or “unroof.” In Luke 5:19, the Greek text only implies the removing of the roof but Berger / Nord add deckten einige Ziegel ab or “remove some roof tiles” for clarification.

See also Mark 2:1-12 in Russian Sign Language.

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Is there precedent for coming in through the roof in Mark 2:1-12 .

house falls (in the parable of two house builders)

Gbaya uses a lot of ideophones (words that express what is perceived by the five senses) which naturally also has an impact on translation. In the case of the two different versions of Jesus’ parable of two house builders in Matthew and Luke, two different ideophones are used to capture the fall of the house and differences in the Greek text.

Philip Noss (in The Bible Translator 1985, p. 423ff. ) explains: “The story is short and dramatic, building up from the wisdom of the first man to the foolishness of the second. In addition to using literary and dramatic narrative style to recount the plot line, the Gbaya translators used ideophones to depict the final drama of both versions of the account.

  • Matt. 7:27: ɓɛɛ tua’i gbin a nù gɛ́tɛ́-gɛ́tɛ́ (‘… and it fell — and great was its fall!’ [New Revised Standard Version, updated edition])
  • Luke 6:49: ɓɛɛ tua’i gbin a nù nɛ oi-aa lɛŋ mútú-mútú (‘… and it quickly collapsed, and great was the ruin of that house.’ [New Revised Standard Version, updated edition])

“In both accounts [many English versions] use the verb ‘fall.’ Gbaya also has a verb ‘to fall,’ but it cannot be used here because the houses did not fall from anywhere. They were on the ground and they broke apart or collapsed. This is expressed in Gbaya by a serial verb construction ‘break-put ground.’ To express Luke’s stronger form of the Greek verb, the Gbaya team added ‘completely.’

“Following the Greek text, [most] English versions add a final emphatic clause which Gbaya expresses by an ideophone. To translate Matthew’s version, the Gbaya team said gɛ́tɛ́-gɛ́tɛ́ which depicts the action of breaking apart, of scattering in small pieces. To emphasize Luke’s portrayal of collapse and total ruin, the Gbaya team said mútú-mútú which describes total destruction, something being crushed and ground to pieces. The Gbaya use of the ideophone is more economical and direct than the Greek original and the English translation which both require an additional term and, in the latter, even an exclamation mark.”

See also rock / sand.

word play in Isaiah 5:7

The Hebrew of Isaiah 5:7 employs a word play with “justice” and “bloodshed” (mišpāṭ — miśpāḥ) and “righteousness” and “cry” (liṣḏāqāh — ṣə‘āqāh) that the German common language version (Die Gute Nachricht, 1982) is able to replicate:

Er hoffte auf Rechtsspruch
— und erntete Rechtsbruch,
statt Liebe und Treue
nur Hilfeschreie.

Source: John Ellington in The Bible Translator 1991, p. 301ff.

See also poetry in Isaiah 5:1-6.

colt that has never been ridden

The phrase that is translated into English as “a colt that has never been ridden” can be translated in Kalmyk much more succinctly than even the original Greek text since Kalmyk as arkhlata (архлата) a specific word for an unbroken colt. (source: David Clark)

In the Arhuaco translation of Luke 19:35 (in the English translation: “after throwing their cloaks on the colt, they set Jesus on it.”) the co-translator knew how unruly unbroken colts are so they translated “they held the donkey steady so that Jesus could get on it.” (source: Paul Lundquist in The Bible Translator 1992, p. 246 .)

See also this devotion on YouVersion and donkey.

love (honorifics)

New Testament Greek is by Balinese standards an extremely impolite language. Consider, for example, the second person pronoun. When speaking to God, to a nobleman, to a friend, to a pupil, or to a slave, the same word is used. In Balinese this is completely different. In the above examples one would differentiate various social ranks and use terms which, more or less freely translated, mean “adored one” or “he who is borne on the head”, “feet of Your Highness”, “older (or younger) brother”, “little one”, and “you”. (…) In Balinese one has to cope with three vocabularies within the language, each of which, at a moderate estimate, includes some hundreds of words. One employs the ordinary common language (“Low Balinese”) when speaking with intimates, equals, or inferiors; polite terms must, however, be used as soon as one begins to speak to one’s superiors or to strangers; and “deferential” terms are obligatory in all cases when one is so bold as to speak of parts of the body, or the acts, possessions, and qualities of important people. The Balinese sums up the two last named vocabularies under the term alus (“fine”, or “noble”): we say “High Balinese”. (…)

[The Greek that is translated with] “love” [in English] of a superior for an inferior must be indicated by one term and that of an inferior for a superior by another. Thus we must translate twice the word “love”: “You shall give respectful love to God, …further, you must love your neighbor as yourself”.

Source: J.L. Swellengrebel in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 124ff.

the wicked are snared in the work of their own hands

The Hebrew in Psalm 9:16 that is translated as something like “the wicked are snared in the work of their own hands” in English is rendered in Medumba as “the works of the hands of the wicked man throw him into the pit” (“‘To throw into the pit’ is a figure of speech for ‘betraying’, ‘condemning’, and the pit symbolizes a difficult situation from which there appears to be no way out.”)

Source: Jan de Waard in The Bible Translator 1969, p. 143ff.