Following are a number of back-translations of 2 Corinthians 5:15:
Uma: “For the purpose of Kristus dying to take the place of all people [is/was] so that we who are still living in this world will no longer follow our own desires. We follow Kristus’s desires, for he is the one who died and lived again to take our place.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Almasi died in place/as exchange for all people so that we (incl.) the ones living, no longer follow our (incl.) own wishes but that is what we (incl.) follow the wishes of the one who died in our (incl.) stead and he lives again for our (incl.) good.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “He died as a substitute for all mankind, so that those people who are still alive, they might no longer do what they want to but rather, they might fulfill the desire of Christ who is the one who was killed and raised again, so that they might be freed from punishment.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “He died for all in order that we who are alive, it shouldn’t be what we desire that we follow but rather what Cristo desires who died and lived again for us.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Well, he died substituting for all people so that, we who are like his companions in being made alive again, hopefully we will now live no longer giving priority to our own will but rather to his will because he died because of us, and was made alive again too.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Christ died to save all of us and now we do not decide for ourselves how we will walk. Rather we now live to do the will of Christ, he who died and resurrected.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.
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 Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the usage of an honorific construction where the morpheme are (され) is affixed on the verb as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, shin-are-ru (死なれる) or “die” is used.
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 one 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 in the following way: “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 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. ).
As Revised Standard Version shows, verse 15 in Greek begins with the word And. This connecting word serves to introduce an elaboration of the final words of verse 14. In some languages one may have to introduce this verse with “that is to say…” or something similar. Note that Barclay begins the verse with “So….”
The words translated for in he died for all and who for their sake died later in this verse are the same as in the previous verse. See comments on 5.14.
In the expression those who live, the verb “to live” may refer to physical life only, but those refers to those who have the newness of spiritual life.
Live … for themselves … for him: the ideas of living for oneself and living for another person may present special problems in some languages. It may be necessary to say something “live to please themselves” and “live to please him.” Or another possible model says “that their lives may not belong to themselves, but to him.”
Who for their sake died: literally “who for them died.” See comments on 5.14.
Was raised: though the Greek has no agent for this passive verb, Paul elsewhere says that God raised Jesus (Rom 4.24; 8.11; 1 Cor 6.14; 15.15). In languages that do not naturally use the passive form in such a context, it will be possible to translate actively “who rose again,” without indicating the agent, or “whom God raised…,” making the agent explicit. In some cases it may be necessary to translate actively “he rose,” although this may represent a slight change in focus.
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellingworth, Paul. A Handbook on Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1993. 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.