Following are a number of back-translations of 2 Thessalonians 3:10:
Uma: “While we were still there with you then [lit., yesterday], there was already a command that we laid down for you, we said: the person who does not want to work, don’t give him food.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Because even when we (excl.) were with you, that is what we (excl.) commanded you, that if there is someone who doesn’t want to work, you should not feed him.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “When we were still with you our teaching to you was: he who will not work, do not feed him.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Because while we (excl.) were still there (near addressee), we (excl.) commanded you that you not feed those who refuse/don’t-want to work.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “For isn’t it so that we (excl.) were always saying to you when we (excl.) were there with you that none of you should be given food to eat if he is being lazy about earning a living?” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Because when we lived where you live, this is the word we told you, we said that if anyone did not want to work, then he should not eat.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
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 exclusive form (excluding the addressee).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
In Fijian, the paucal exclusive forms neitou and keitou (“of me and a few [two or slight more]”) are used instead. This choice is understandable in view of the introduction found in both letters to the Thessalonians, where the writer Paul indicates clearly that the letters were co-authored by two other colleagues, Silas and Timothy, hence the use of a pronoun referring to three people (“Paul, Silas and Timothy”).
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 choice of a formal plural suffix to the second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, anata-gata (あなたがた) is used, combining the second person pronoun anata and the plural suffix -gata to create a formal plural pronoun (“you” [plural] in English).
Used to tell renders a Greek verb meaning “command,” “order,” or “tell” (in the sense of giving instruction). The same verb is used in verses 4 (tell), 6 (command), and 12 (command). Paul is not referring to a rule in force in all the churches, but to specific instructions given during his visit, which he now repeats as a reminder (cf. Jerusalem Bible “We gave you a rule when we were with you: not to let anyone have any food if he refused to do any work”). The form of the verb indicates that the instructions were not given only once, but that they were given continually or habitually, whenever the situation demanded that they be given.
Commentaries discuss whether is not allowed to eat means that fellow Christians would not supply food to those who did not work, or that they would be excluded from the common meals in which the Lord’s Supper was celebrated. The text itself does not make the situation clear, and the translation should not be narrower than the text.
The last part of this verse could be misunderstood as a general piece of worldly wisdom, “If you don’t work, you don’t eat.” This is not even a possible meaning of the text, which is literally “if anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat” (a third person imperative reflected in Good News Translation‘s is not allowed to eat).
Verse 10b, even understood as a command, sounds like a fixed formula, and Paul has mentioned in verse 6 the handing on of a tradition (see the notes on that verse). It is therefore not surprising that commentators have looked for parallels to this saying. No close parallels have been found from New Testament times, but see Proverbs 10.4.
“Will not work” (Revised Standard VersionNew English Bible) should not be misunderstood as a future tense. The Greek is clearly “does not want to work.” However, it is important to avoid giving the impression that this includes persons who actually do work but who do not like to do it. It may be necessary, therefore, in some languages to follow the Good News Translation rendering and translate whoever refuses to work. Also, it may be necessary to employ a conditional (as, in fact, the Greek does): “if anyone does not want to work,” or “if some persons refuse to work.” A literal rendering of “whoever does not want to work” might be taken to include persons who do not like to work but who nevertheless do work.
It may be difficult to render literally is not allowed to eat, for this type of expression suggests the imposition of authority, and in some languages this cannot be expressed without indicating whose authority. Furthermore, a literal rendering of is not allowed to eat could suggest “you must make him fast,” or “you must keep him from eating.” This would imply a kind of overt punishment or rigid control by the church, something rather out of harmony with the immediate context and the historical situation. The most satisfactory equivalent in some languages is “you should not give him anything to eat.”
Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Second Letter to the Thessalonians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1976. 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.