8Then he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day, and Isaac did likewise to Jacob and Jacob to the twelve patriarchs.
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 rare (られ) 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, atae-rare-ru (与えられる) or “give” 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 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. Other languages where this is also done (in most Bible translations) are Twents as well as Indonesian and Malay. In the latter two 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. ).
This verse serves as a transition between the story of Abraham and that of Joseph (vv. 9-16). The literal phrase “covenant of circumcision” means the covenant which was agreed upon between God and Abraham and which had circumcision as its external sign. Therefore, the Good News Translation has translated the phrase as ceremony of circumcision as a sign of the covenant.
The Greek text of verse 8 is not clear; it could mean either “Isaac was the father of Jacob, and Jacob was the father of the twelve patriarchs” or “Isaac circumcised Jacob, and Jacob circumcised the twelve patriarchs.” Most translations follow the former alternative, while the Good News Translation takes the latter one. This seems also to be the understanding of the Jerusalem Bible, “So when his son Isaac was born he circumcised him on the eighth day. Isaac did the same for the Jacob, and Jacob for the twelve patriarchs.”
Though in many languages one can speak of “giving a covenant” or “making a covenant,” it is much more difficult to speak of “giving a ceremony.” It may, therefore, be necessary to modify somewhat the structure of this first sentence of verse 8, for example, “God made an agreement with Abraham, and he told Abraham that if the people were circumcised this would show that they accepted the agreement.” Such a rendering is, of course, rather extended, but it tries to indicate the relationship between the covenant and circumcision and to state precisely that the agreement was one proposed by God and accepted by the people.
The term for covenant is not easy in a number of languages. So often a term suggested for covenant implies a kind of bargaining session. This, of course, is not the biblical concept. Rather, it is an agreement reached on the basis of a proposal by God and acceptance by the people. It is thus closely equivalent to the relationship which exists between a chief and his people in many face-to-face societies. An equivalent in some languages may be “an alliance”; in still others, “a bond of friendship.” (See 3.25.)
Where the practice of circumcision is either carried out or known about, there is normally a quite adequate term. In some societies, however, circumcision is entirely unknown and a descriptive phrase would be regarded as very vulgar. Under such circumstances many translators have employed a more general expression such as “a mark by cutting” or “a sign by cutting the skin.” It is essential, however, that such a phrase be carefully identified by a glossary note so that people will comprehend the precise nature of the practice.
There are certain problems involved in the introduction of the twelve patriarchs. If one adopts the interpretation “was the father of the twelve patriarchs,” there is very little difficulty. In some languages, however, this has been rendered literally as “gave birth to the twelve old men”—something which is obviously ludicrous. The term patriarch must usually be translated as “important ancestor” or “famous grandfather” (if the term “grandfather” can be used in a general sense for male ancestor). In many societies, however, there is a special term to identify the person who has been regarded as the founder of a tribe or important clan. Such a technical term may here be employed for patriarch.
If, however, one follows the Good News Translation in translating circumcised the twelve patriarchs, there may still be problems involved since this might imply that the circumcision took place when the patriarchs were adults. Such an implication must be carefully avoided.
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 .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.