The Greek that is translated in English as “fellowship” or “communion” is translated in Huba as daɓǝkǝr: “joining heads.” (Source: David Frank in this blog post )
Other translations include:
Lalana Chinantec: “they were very happy since they were with their brothers”
Eastern Highland Otomi: “their hearts were happy because they all thought alike” (source for this and above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
The concept that is expressed as “mind” in English is translated as “head-heart” in Yatzachi Zapotec. This concept is applied to terms that are translated in English as “fellowship” (“head-hearts are one”), the “inner-self” (“have no evil” is “have no evil in our head-hearts”), “eye” (in the sense of “understanding”), “heart” and “soul.”
Source: John Beekman in Notes on Translation November 1964, p. 1-22.
Following are a number of back-translations of 1 John 1:6:
Uma: “If we say we are in harmony with God, and we walk in the darkness, we are lying and we do not follow the true teaching.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Therefore if we (dual) say that we (dual) are one with God but we (dual) still live/stay in darkness, that means we (dual) still do bad, we (dual) lie. By our (dual) words and our (dual) deeds it can be seen that we (dual) lie.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “If we (incl.) say that we have a close relationship with God, but we (incl.) are still in the darkness, which is to say, our behavior is still bad, we are lying. We are lying by means of what we say and by means of what we do.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “So if we say that we are companioning-with him but however we remain in the darkness, we are lying, because what we are doing does not harmonize with what is true and correct which God wants.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “If we say, we are now having fellowship with him, but we are still living in darkness, for we are continuing to do sin, we are only lying. We are not living in harmony with the truth.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “If we say that we are friends with God and we do not do what is right, then it is apparent that it is not true what we say and it is not true that we know how to do the good.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Yatzachi Zapotec: “If we say that our head-hearts are just one with the head-heart of God but if we walk in darkness doing evil, we are just lying, we do not walk with (practice, speak) the truth.”
Eastern Highland Otomi: “If we try to say that we think the same-way (with) Jesus, but if we continue walking in darkness, we’re lying and we don’t really have the same mind, because we don’t do what the true word says.”
Tzotzil: “If we say, “God and I have become one (of one mind), if we are walking along in darkness, we are lying. We are just saying that we obey the truth.”(Source for this and two above: John Beekman in Notes on Translation 12, November 1964, p. 1ff.)
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, translators typically select the inclusive form (including the addressee).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
God transcends gender, but most languages are limited to grammatical gender expressed in pronouns. In the case of English, this is traditionally confined to “he” (or in the forms “his,” “him,” and “himself”), “she” (and “her,” “hers,” and “herself”), and “it” (and “its” and “itself”).
Modern Mandarin Chinese, however, offers another possibility. Here, the third-person singular pronoun is always pronounced the same (tā), but it is written differently according to its gender (他 is “he,” 她 is “she,” and 它/牠 is “it” and their respective derivative forms). In each of these characters, the first (or upper) part defines the gender (man, woman, or thing/animal), while the second element gives the clue to its pronunciation.
In 1930, after a full century with dozens of Chinese translations, Bible translator Wang Yuande (王元德) coined a new “godly” pronoun: 祂. Chinese readers immediately knew how to pronounce it: tā. But they also recognized that the first part of that character, signifying something spiritual, clarified that each person of the Trinity has no gender aside from being God.
While the most important Protestant and Catholic Chinese versions respectively have opted not to use 祂, some Bible translations do and it is widely used in hymnals and other Christian materials. Among the translations that use 祂 to refer to “God” were early versions of Lü Zhenzhong’s (呂振中) version (New Testament: 1946, complete Bible: 1970). R.P. Kramers (in The Bible Translator 1956, p. 152ff. ) explains why later versions of Lü’s translation did not continue with this practice: “This new way of writing ‘He,’ however, has created a minor problem of its own: must this polite form be used whenever Jesus is referred to? Lü follows the rule that, wherever Jesus is referred to as a human being, the normal tā (他) is written; where he is referred to as divine, especially after the ascension, the reverential tā (祂) is used.”
In that system, one kind of pronoun is used for humans (male and female alike) and others for natural elements, non-liquid masses, and some spiritual entities (one other is used for large animals and another one for miscellaneous items). While in these languages the pronoun for spiritual entities used to be employed when referring to God, this has changed into the use of the human pronoun.
Lynell Zogbo (in The Bible Translator 1989, p. 401ff. ) explains: “From informal discussions with young Christians especially, it would appear that, at least for some people, the experience and/or concepts of Christianity are affecting the choice of pronoun for God. Some people explain that God is no longer ‘far away,’ but is somehow tangible and personal. For these speakers God has shifted over into the human category.”
In Kouya, God (the Father) and Jesus are referred to with the human pronoun ɔ, whereas the Holy Spirit is referred to with a non-human pronoun. (Northern Grebo and Western Krahn make a similar distinction.)
Eddie Arthur, a former Kouya Bible translation consultant, says the following: “We tried to insist that this shouldn’t happen, but the Kouya team members were insistent that the human pronoun for the Spirit would not work.”
In Burmese, the pronoun ko taw (ကိုယ်တော်) is used either as 2nd person (you) or 3rd person (he, him, his) reference. “This term clearly has its root in the religious language in Burmese. No ordinary persons are addressed or known by this pronoun because it is reserved for Buddhist monks, famous religious teachers, and in the case of Christianity, the Trinity.” (Source: Gam Seng Shae in The Bible Translator 2002, p. 202ff. )
In Thai, the pronoun phra`ong (พระองค์) is used, a gender-neutral pronoun which must refer to a previously introduced royal or divine being. Similarly, in Northern Khmer, which is spoken in Thailand, “an honorific divine pronoun” is used for the pronoun referring to the persons of the Trinity (source: David Thomas in The Bible Translator 1993, p. 445 ). In Urak Lawoi’, another language spoken in Thailand, the translation often uses tuhat (ตูฮัด) — “God” — ”as a divine pronoun where Thai has phra’ong even though it’s actually a noun.” (Source for Thai and Urak Lawoi’: Stephen Pattemore)
The English “Contemporary Torah” addresses the question of God and gendered pronouns by mostly avoiding pronouns in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (unless God is referred to as “lord,” “father,” “king,” or “warrior”). It does that by either using passive constructs (“He gave us” vs. “we were given”), by using the adjective “divine” or by using “God” rather than a pronoun.
Some Protestant and Orthodox English Bibles use a referential capitalized spelling when referring to the persons of the Trinity with “He,” “His,” “Him,” or “Himself.” This includes for instance the New American Standard Bible or The Orthodox New Testament, but most translations do not. Two other languages where this is also done (in most Bible translations) are Twents as well as the closely related Indonesian and Malay. In both languages this follows the language usage according to the Qur’an, which in turn predicts that usage (see Soesilo in The Bible Translator 1991, p. 442ff. and The Bible Translator 1997, p. 433ff. ).
If we say: namely, to ourselves, or to each other.
If: In verses 6, 8, 10 the force of this conjrunction (in the Greek ean with the subjunctive of the aorist or the present tense) is “expectational” rather than conditional or hypothetical. It introduces something which under certain circumstances and from a given standpoint in the present is expected to occur. The rendering to be used should therefore have the meaning of ‘when,’ ‘whenever,’ ‘in the circumstances that.’
We: the opinion quoted is that of the false teachers (see Introduction pages 3 and following), who have found adherents among the persons whom the author is addressing. He might have said “if a man says,” “if you say,” or even “if some among you say,” but he prefers to use what one commentator has called “the preacher’s ‘we,’ ” the use of which is not only a matter of tact, particularly appropriate where error has to be corrected, but also belongs to the language of the Church as a fellowship. Accordingly we has inclusive force here. The same holds true of the other occurrences of the pronoun of the first person plural throughout 1.5–2.11.
We have fellowship with him, or, specifying the pronoun, ‘with God.’ For possible renderings of fellowship see comments on 1 John 1.3.
What the writer’s opponents are saying here is in stark contrast with what they are actually doing (see next clause). The words may again be rendered as indirect or as direct discourse. In the latter case a shift to a compound subject may be preferable; compare, for example, ‘God and I are of one mind,’ as one American Indian language has it.
While we walk in darkness is the second part of the sentence governed by the conjunction if, or ‘when.’ It is in strong contrast to the first part, we walk (referring to behavior, see below) contrasting to “we say,” and in darkness (which is emphatic by position) contrasting to “in fellowship with him.” Consequently the Greek connective kaiand has adversative force, expressed by such renderings as ‘and yet,’ ‘but,’ ‘but at the same time,’ ‘while,’ ‘whereas.’ To bring out the emphatic position of “in darkness,” one may say ‘and yet it is in darkness that we walk,’ ‘but our life has only darkness.’
† Walk is a semitic use of the verb in the sense of ‘to pursue a way of life,’ ‘to live,’ ‘to conduct oneself.’ In some languages other verbs are employed with the same metaphorical value; for example, ‘to be sitting,’ ‘to move about’ (in a language where ‘to walk’ would suggest a contrast to running). In this sense the verb occurs also in 1.7 and 2.6, 12. And compare “to follow” in 2 John 4 and 3 John 3-4, where the Greek literally has “to walk in,” and 2 John 6, where it has “to walk according to.”
The word darkness refers here mainly to the ethical aspects of the term. This has been made explicit in some versions; compare, for example, ‘in darkness doing evil,’ ‘doing dark deeds.’
Having mentioned in verse 6a the opinion and behavior of his opponents, John proceeds in verse 6b to unmask them in the light of the true gospel of the eyewitnesses. He shows that their deeds are a negation of what they pretend to be and should be.
The structure of the sentence corresponds to that of verse 8bc and verse 10bc, each of which has also two parts, the first positive, the second negative. This stylistic feature is important as indication of the discourse structure of this section. It should preferably be preserved in translation.
We lie: in the Johannine writings the verb lie refers to all that is not of God, not only words but also attitudes or actions that are not in keeping with God’s will. Accordingly it may have to be rendered ‘we do and say what is false/untrue.’ In the present context, however, the reference is primarily to words, because the verb parallels “we say,” and because the wider meaning would result in a tautology, the next clause also containing a reference to attitude and action; hence ‘we tell lies,’ ‘we say what is false/untrue.’
For lie in this meaning some languages build an expression on a term that has the basic meaning of ‘crooked.’ Others use an idiomatic phrase such as ‘to be able to spread rumors,’ ‘to chop water’ (as a fitting symbol for the telling of fabricated stories), ‘to speak much,’ ‘to let the mouth fall,’ ‘to rack loose one’s mouth.’
(We) do not live according to the truth is in Greek literally “we do not do the truth.” The phrase is formed in imitation of a Hebrew idiom. Similar constructions of the verb do followed by an abstract noun occur rather often in this Letter; compare “to do the will of God” (2.17), “to do righteousness” (2.29; 3.7, 10), “to do sin” (3.4, 8-9), “to do lawlessness” (3.4), “to do what is pleasing before him” (3.22), “to do his commandments” (5.2). The idiom serves to express regular action in accordance with the quality inherent in the noun (compare Translators’ Translation on 3.4).
A literal rendering of this construction is in many places impossible, including the present verse; hence the rendering found here in Revised Standard Version, or such renderings as ‘to keep to the truth,’ ‘to do (or follow) what is true,’ ‘to obey the truth.’ If further adjustment is required, one may say something like ‘to act according to God’s will,’ ‘to do what is pleasing to God.’
† Truth means what is in keeping with fact, then, what conforms to a standard, namely, the standard of God’s will. In the latter meaning it is used here and in 2.21a; 2 John 4; 3 John 3-4, 12. Several languages have a specific term for truth. In others the rendering is more or less descriptive; for example, ‘what is known,’ ‘what can be known,’ ‘what is belief-worthy.’ In some the rendering has the basic meaning ‘straight.’
Quoted with permission from Haas, C., de Jonge, M. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on The First Letter of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1972. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Living Water is produced for the Bible translation movement in association with Lutheran Bible Translators. Lyrics derived from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.