24And Festus said, “King Agrippa and all here present with us, you see this man about whom the whole Jewish community petitioned me, both in Jerusalem and here, shouting that he ought not to live any longer.
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 King Agrippa and Festus).
Source: SIL International Translation Department (1999).
Following are a number of back-translations of Acts 25:24:
Uma: “From there, Festus began to talk, saying: ‘King Agripa and all the fathers gathered here! This man is accused by all the Yahudi people, both in Yerusalem and here. They repeatedly ask me that he be one-timed [i.e., be killed once and for all].” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “When Paul was already inside, Pestus said, ‘King Agarippa, and all of you who are here with us (excl.), you now can see the man accused by all the Yahudi, the Yahudi here in this place and the Yahudi in Awrusalam. They really requested that this man be killed.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Festus said, ‘King Agrippa, and all of you who are gathered here, see this man. All the Jews here in Caesarea and the Jews in Jerusalem begged me shouting that I should put him to death.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Then he said, ‘Honored King Agrippa and all of you who are here! This person whom you are looking at, this is the one whom the Jews in Jerusalem and here in Cesarea are-complaining-about to me shouting that he ought not to have-a-right to live.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “When Pablo arrived, Festo then spoke. He said, ‘Respected King, and all the people who are our companions here, here now is the person whose death is being demanded by all the Jews. They really persisted in asking for it in Jerusalem, and then even here in Cesarea, they again persisted in asking for it. They were shouting out that he no longer be allowed to live.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
The name that is transliterated as “Jerusalem” in English is signed in French Sign Language with a sign that depicts worshiping at the Western Wall in Jerusalem:
While a similar sign is also used in British Sign Language, another, more neutral sign that combines the sign “J” and the signs for “place” is used as well. (Source: Anna Smith)
“Jerusalem” in British Sign Language (source: Christian BSL, used with permission)
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 to do this is through the usage of appropriate suffix title referred to as keishō (敬称) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017 by either using -san or –sama with the latter being the more formal title.
In these verses, the Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “everyone” or similar in English is translated in the Shinkaiyaku Bible as mina-san (皆さん), combining the word for “everyone” (nī) and the suffix title –san. This creates a higher sense of familiarity and equality than for instance the same term with the more respectful title –sama at young people (Japanese honorifics). (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin that is translated as “king” in English. Here are some (back-) translations:
Ninia Yali: “big brother with the uplifted name” (source: Daud Soesilio in Noss 2007, p. 175)
Nyamwezi: mutemi: generic word for ruler, by specifying the city or nation it becomes clear what kind of ruler (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Ghomála’: Fo (“The word Fo refers to the paramount ruler in the kingdoms of West Cameroon. He holds administrative, political, and religious power over his own people, who are divided into two categories: princes (descendants of royalty) and servants (everyone else).” (Source: Michel Kenmogne in Theologizing in Context: An Example from the Study of a Ghomala’ Christian Hymn))
Faye Edgerton retells how the term in Navajo (Dinė) was determined:
“[This term was] easily expressed in the language of Biblical culture, which had kings and noblemen with their brilliant trappings and their position of honor and praise. But leadership among the Navajos is not accompanied by any such titles or distinctions of dress. Those most respected, especially in earlier days, were their headmen, who were the leaders in raids, and the shaman, who was able to serve the people by appealing for them to the gods, or by exorcising evil spirits. Neither of these made any outward show. Neither held his position by political intrigue or heredity. If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior. If the shaman failed many times in his healing ceremonies, it was considered that he was making mistakes in the chants, or had lost favor with the gods, and another was sought. The term Navajos use for headman is derived from a verb meaning ‘to move the head from side to side as in making an oration.’ The headman must be a good orator, able to move the people to go to war, or to follow him in any important decision. This word is naat’áanii which now means ‘one who rules or bosses.’ It is employed now for a foreman or boss of any kind of labor, as well as for the chairman of the tribal council. So in order to show that the king is not just a common boss but the highest ruler, the word ‘aláahgo, which expresses the superlative degree, was put before naat’áanii, and so ‘aláahgo naat’áanii ‘anyone-more-than-being around-he-moves-his-head-the-one-who’ means ‘the highest ruler.’ Naat’áanii was used for governor as the context usually shows that the person was a ruler of a country or associated with kings.”
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 benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. Here, goran (ご覧) or “see/behold/look” (itself a combination of “behold/see” [ran] and the honorific prefix go- — see behold / look / see (Japanese honorifics)) is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).”
Note that here Festus indicates that it is all the Jewish people, not merely the Jewish leaders (see vv. 2, 7, 15), who have brought accusations against Paul.
Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Acts of the Apostles. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1972. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
all who are present with us: This phrase refers to all of the guests of Festus, excluding Agrippa, since Festus already mentioned him by name here. So, all includes Bernice, the officers and the leading men and probably the court officials. It does not include Paul or any servants who might be there.
25:24b
you see this man: This clause acknowledges that the people in the room can see Paul standing in an open place in the room.
25:24c
25:24c in Greek begins with “about whom…” The words “about whom” introduce something more that Festus said about Paul. The Berean Standard Bible and some English versions begin a new sentence here and translate the words “about whom” as “about him.”
The whole Jewish community: This phrase refers to all Jews. Other ways to translate this phrase are:
all the Jewish people (Good News Translation) -or-
the whole Jewish nation -or-
the Jews
It does not include those Jews who have believed in Jesus as the Christ. If your readers will think that the Jewish Christians were also against Paul, explain in a footnote. An example footnote is:
The Jewish Christians were not against Paul. But most of the traditional Jews were ⌊against him⌋.
has petitioned me: Here the word petitioned refers to asking something from Festus. Other ways to translate this phrase are:
approached me with a request -or-
⌊urgently⌋ asked
both here and in Jerusalem: This phrase indicates the two places where Festus was petitioned.
25:24d
he ought not to live any longer: The Greek clause can be translated literally as “it is not fitting/proper that he live any longer.” This clause indicates that the Jews wanted Festus to kill Paul for crimes that deserve the death penalty. Other ways to translate this clause are:
he ought not to be allowed to remain alive (New Jerusalem Bible) -or-
it is not right that he continue to live -or-
him being killed is the only fitting/proper action -or-
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.