14“But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to make this freewill offering? For all things come from you, and of your own have we given you.
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 and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation both use the exclusive pronoun, excluding the Lord.
The Hebrew that is typically translated in English as “power” or “might” or “force” is translated in the English translation by Goldingay (2018) as energy or energetic.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 1 Chronicles 29:14:
Kupsabiny: “David continue to pray, ‘God, we do not have anything to give to you, but all things come from you. We have simply given out your things to you.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “All these things have not come from me and my people. All these things are gifts that you have given. These things are yours. We have only given them back.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “But who really (am) I and my people that we (excl.) could-give generously like this? All things come from you (sing.), and we (excl.) give only what came from you (sing.).” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “But my people and I are not really able to give anything to you, because everything that we have comes from you, and what we have given to you are only the things that we have received from you.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Translators of different languages have found different ways with what kind of formality God is addressed.
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight
Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or modern 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.
In these verses, in which humans address God, the informal, familiar pronoun is used that communicates closeness.
Voinov notes that “in the Tuvan Bible, God is only addressed with the informal pronoun. No exceptions. An interesting thing about this is that I’ve heard new Tuvan believers praying with the formal form to God until they are corrected by other Christians who tell them that God is close to us so we should address him with the informal pronoun. As a result, the informal pronoun is the only one that is used in praying to God among the Tuvan church.”
In Gbaya, “a superior, whether father, uncle, or older brother, mother, aunt, or older sister, president, governor, or chief, is never addressed in the singular unless the speaker intends a deliberate insult. When addressing the superior face to face, the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́ or ‘you (pl.)’ is used, similar to the French usage of vous.
Accordingly, the translators of the current version of the Gbaya Bible chose to use the plural ɛ́nɛ́ to address God. There are a few exceptions. In Psalms 86:8, 97:9, and 138:1, God is addressed alongside other “gods,” and here the third person pronoun o is used to avoid confusion about who is being addressed. In several New Testament passages (Matthew 21:23, 26:68, 27:40, Mark 11:28, Luke 20:2, 23:37, as well as in Jesus’ interaction with Pilate and Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well) the less courteous form for Jesus is used to indicate ignorance of his position or mocking.” (Source Philip Noss)
In the most recent Manchu translation of 1835 (a revision of an earlier edition from 1822), God is never addressed with a pronoun but with “father” (ama /ᠠᠮᠠ) instead. Chengcheng Liu (in this post on the Cambridge Centre for Chinese Theology blog ) explains: “In Manchu tradition, as in Chinese etiquette, second-person pronouns could be considered disrespectful when speaking to superiors or spiritual beings. Manchu Shamanist prayers avoided si [‘you’] and sini [‘your’] for this very reason. To use them for God would be, in Lipovzoff’s [one of the two translators] words, ‘the most uncouth and indecent way to speak to the Almighty — as if He were a servant or slave.’ There was also a grammatical problem. In Manchu, si and sini could refer to both singular and plural subjects. For a faith that insisted on the singularity of God, this was potentially confusing. By contrast, repeating ama removed any ambiguity.”
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 to do this is through the usage (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. When the referent is God, the “divine” honorific prefix mi- (御 or み) is used here in mi-te (御手) or “hand (of God).”
But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able thus to offer willingly?: But renders the common Hebrew conjunction. Since there is a contrast between the greatness and power of Yahweh and the relative insignificance of David and his people, the verse should probably be introduced by a conjunction that marks contrast, such as But or “Yet” (Good News Translation). David’s question here is rhetorical. Good News Translation turns the question into a statement. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch also expresses it as a statement, saying “I am nothing LORD, and my people are also nothing; from our own wealth we would not be able at all to bring you such gifts” (similarly Bible en français courant, Peregrino. Similarly, Parole de Vie says “I am nothing, and my people are nothing. We are not capable of offering these gifts to you.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “Who am I and who are my people, that we should have the means to make such a freewill offering.”
For all things come from thee, and of thy own have we given thee: The reason David recognizes the insignificance of himself and his people is that everything they have comes from God. The Hebrew word rendered for is a logical connector here. Good News Translation translates it “because.” Of thy own is literally “from your hand.” Those who give to God are only giving what already belongs to him. For this reason Contemporary English Version finds it more natural to render of thy own have we given thee as “we have only given back what is already yours” (similarly Good News Translation, New Century Version).
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.