28saying, “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you are determined to bring this man’s blood on us.”
The Greek in Acts 5:28 that is translated into English as “make us responsible for his death” or “bring his blood on us” is translated into Fuyug as “throw his blood on our backs.”
In the German New Testament translation by Berger / Nord (publ. 1999) it is translated a with und wenn es nach eurem Wunch ginge, müssten wir allesamt für Jesu angeblich unschuldig vergossenes Blut büßen or “and if it were up to you, we would all have to atone for Jesus’ supposedly innocently shed blood.”
The concept of “blood guilt” that is referred to in Matt 27:24-25 and Acts 5:28 is translated in Gbaya and other languages of Central Africa with familiar terms that denote concepts relating to Hebrew thought in a way that English, for instance, does not have.
“In the Musey language of western Chad it is called tògòrò, in Sara-Madjingai of southeastern Chad it is known as mōsēyō, in Gbaya as spoken in central Cameroon and in the Central African Republic it is called simbò. (…). Strangely, perhaps, standard English does not have an equivalent word, at least not in contemporary speech. The closest functional equivalent may be the English reference to ‘the stain of blood’ or the expression ‘to have blood on one’s hands.’ These various words and expressions all express the result of shedding blood.
“A person who is guilty of shedding blood becomes the victim of his/her deed. The consequence of the act of killing will inevitably fall upon the killer and potentially upon anyone who comes in contact with the killer, unless the killer is purified.
“In Gbaya a simbò thing is anything that causes someone to become a simbò person, including killing certain animals (incl. leopards, elands and bongos) and humans. (…) The spilling of human blood brought the curse of simbò upon the person who was responsible for the death of a fellow human being. From this curse there was no escape for the guilty person and his family and his village without purification by another person who himself had been purified from simbò.
“For the translator of the Bible the question that must be asked is whether the concept associated with the spilling of blood by these central African cultures is similar to the concepts reflected in the Old and New Testaments or whether it is too culture-specific to be applied within the context of Hebrew and Jewish religious thought and expression.
“When Pilate washes his hands before the people and says, ‘I am not responsible for this man’s death.’ and the mob responds. ‘Let the punishment for his death fall on us and on our children’ (Matt 27:24-25, Good News Bible), the Gbaya understand this to refer to simbò. Pilate attempts to cleanse himself from the consequence of his responsibility in the death of Jesus while the people call for that very consequence to fall upon themselves. In the Gbaya understanding of the shedding of blood, no amount of self-cleansing can remove the curse of spilled blood which will surely fall upon Pilate and the people and their descendants.
“In Acts 5:28 the Jews express an implied fear of simbò when the High Priest says to the apostles, “you want to make us responsible for this man’s death” (Good News Bible). The New International Version of the Bible renders this statement, ‘you are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.’ The Gbaya would say, ‘you want this man’s simbò to take us.’
“The Greek text of these verses reflects the Hebrew underlying thought, for in each of the three sentences quoted, explicit reference is made to blood. (…)
“Although there does not seem to be a specific word that expresses the concept of simbò in Hebrew, in Greek we do come very close to an explicit expression of the result of the shedding of blood. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible cites the Greek word miasma which it defines as the ‘slain, pollution” of homicide, “an automatic, objective state” for which purification was required. The early Greek verb miainō meant “to stain, to dye.’ A specialized meaning of this verb resulted from its use with blood where it came to mean ‘to defile, to sully.’ The stain or defilement was known as miasma, the person who was defiled was miaros. For the Gbaya this was simbò. for the Sar speaker it was möseyö which is literally, ‘the blood of death,’ that is, ‘the stain/defilement of the spilling of human blood.’ (…)
“In conclusion, the components that are central to the Old Testament concept of dam/damim and the New Testament miasma are widely recognized in the cultures of central Africa. The implications of this fact need to be considered by translator and theologian alike.”
The German New Testament translation by Berger / Nord (publ. 1999) adds this to Matthew 27:25: “That means that if he is innocent then we and our children are to suffer the same punishment as he.” The translators explain: “For the Gospel of Matthew, this ‘self-curse’ has already been fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem proclaimed in Matthew 23:35 and is thus completely fulfilled. This safeguard that the Gospel of Matthew builds in against the antisemitic interpretation of Matthew 27:25 was unfortunately overlooked in the Middle Ages.”
The Greek that is translated as a form of “teach” is translated with some figurative phrases such as “to engrave the mind” (Ngäbere) or “to cause others to imitate” (Huichol). (Source: Bratcher / Nida)
In Noongar it is translated as karni-waangki or “truth saying” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
Some of the Hebrew, Ge’ez, and Greek phrases that are translated in English in association with “name,” including “in the name of,” “in my name,” “in your name,” “on the account of my name,” “on the account of your name” (according to a classification by Robert Bratcher in The Bible Translator 1963, p. 72ff. , phrases that belong to the categories of “Agency or instrumentality” and “Representation”) present a number of challenges in other languages.
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight
Eugene Nida (1947, p 178ff.) explains this way:
“The biblical attitudes toward human personality are of great theological importance. There is, however, only one word which produces any considerable difficulty in other languages. This is the word ‘name.’ The great difference attached to the significance of the name of a person in the Bible times in contrast with our own culture is very important. Note such phrases as ‘whatsoever ye shall ask in my name,’ John 14:13, ‘believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God,’ John 3:18, and ‘life through his name,’ John 20:31. These expressions are generally difficult for us to understand, for the word ‘name’ does not mean the same to us as it meant to those of Bible times. To them the name was the symbolization of the authority and personality of the individual who possessed the name. To us a name is far less important. It may be changed whenever one can convince a judge that another name might be more economically advantageous. The name is also a legal method of giving one’s written assent to certain business transactions, but to us it is not the symbol of the personality.”
The translation in Eastern Huasteca Nahuatl typically is “in someone’s authority” (for instance “I have come in my Father’s name” in John 5:43 becomes “I have come on my Father’s authority”) (source Nida 1947, p. 179), or in Highland Puebla Nahuatl with the more paraphrastic equivalent “as though on orders from you” or in Tzeltal as “by your authority, so he said” (both examples for Mark 9:38 and 39, see Bratcher / Nida).
In Guhu-Samane, Mark 11:9 (in English: “Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord”) is translated as “Blessed is the Lord’s namesake who comes.” “In the name of the Lord” caused “puzzlement [because] “has he just assumed the name of the Lord, valid or otherwise? [But] with ‘blessed is the Lord’s namesake who comes’ the strong bond between the namesake and the important ancestor for whom named entitles the namesake to the deference due the ancestor. Thought very proper in this context.” (Source: Ernest L. Richert in Notes on Translation December 1963: p. 4-7; reprinted in The Bible Translator 1965, p. 198ff. )
Barclay Newman (see The Bible Translator 1974, pp, 432ff. ) reports on different solutions for the translation of the Today’s Malay Version (Alkitab Berita Baik, 1987):
In Malay “the phrase ‘in my name’ is problematic (…) since it sounds like the use of magic. For this reason [the English] Today’s English Version (Good News Bible) was followed at such passages as John 5:43 and 10:25, where ‘in the name of my Father’ is translated as ‘with my Father’s authority’ and ‘by my Father’s authority’ [respectively]. In John 12:13 ‘in the name of the Lord’ has become ‘in his (the Lord’s) behalf,’ following the common language German translation Die Gute Nachricht. In John 14:13, ‘because you are my followers’ is used, in John in 15:16, 16:23 and 24 ‘as my followers,’ in John 17:11 ‘by your own power, the power you gave me,’ and in John 14:26 ‘in my place.'”
Other translations for “in the name of Jesus Christ” include “in the authority of Jesus Christ” (Isthmus Mixe), “calling on Jesus Christ” (Teutila Cuicatec), “calling the name of Jesus Christ over you” (Ayutla Mixtec), “because of Jesus” (Tepeuxila Cuicatec), “by the power of the name of Jesus Christ” (Chichimeca-Jonaz), “the word of Jesus Christ is strong” (Lalana Chinantec) (source for this and above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.), and “mentioning the name of Jesus” (Elhomwe — source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext).
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 Peter and the apostles).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
Following are a number of back-translations of Acts 5:28:
Uma: “‘We(excl.) forbade you the other day, don’t teach any more naming the name of Yesus. Look what you have done! The whole village of Yerusalem has heard that teaching of yours! Is it we (excl.) that you accuse of being guilty of that person’s murder.'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “‘We (excl.) instructed you strictly not to teach concerning that man you are following. But what did you do? This teaching of yours has spread throughout Awrusalam, and you are accusing us (excl.) yet of having caused that man’s death.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “he said, ‘We forbad you that you should teach faith in the name of Jesus. And what have you done? You have spread your teaching in all Jerusalem. And that’s not all you’ve done because you have also blamed us for killing Jesus.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “‘We absolutely forbid (past tense) you to teach concerning Jesus, and there you have-worsened-it by making-(him)-known in the entire Jerusalem while-simultaneously you are blaming us (excl.) saying that we (excl.) are responsible for his death.'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “‘Isn’t it certainly so,’ he said, ‘that we (excl.) emphatically forbade you to teach concerning that person? But you are doing it all the more. You have spread this teaching of yours all over Jerusalem, and you even want to cause us (excl.) to be unfairly blamed for his death.'” (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 Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. The most commonly used anata (あなた) is typically used when the speaker is humbly addressing another person.
In these verses, however, omae (おまえ) is used, a cruder second person pronoun, that Jesus for instance chooses when chiding his disciples. (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.