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, the Adamawa Fulfulde translation uses the exclusive pronoun, “since it excludes the king.”
The Hebrew and Greek that is typically translated as “sin” in English has a wide variety of translations.
The Greek ἁμαρτάνω (hamartanō) carries the original verbatim meaning of “miss the mark” and likewise, many translations contain the “connotation of moral responsibility.”
Loma: “leaving the road” (which “implies a definite standard, the transgression of which is sin”)
Navajo (Dinė): “that which is off to the side” (source for this and above: Bratcher / Nida)
Toraja-Sa’dan: kasalan, originally meaning “transgression of a religious or moral rule” and in the context of the Bible “transgression of God’s commandments” (source: H. van der Veen in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 21ff. )
Bariai: “bad behavior” (source: Bariai Back Translation)
Sandawe: “miss the mark” (like the original meaning of the Greek term) (source for this and above: Ursula Wiesemann in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 36ff., 43)
Nias: horö, originally a term primarily used for sexual sin. (Source: Hummel / Telaumbanua 2007, p. 256)
In Shipibo-Conibo the term is hocha. Nida (1952, p. 149) tells the story of its choosing: “In some instances a native expression for sin includes many connotations, and its full meaning must be completely understood before one ever attempts to use it. This was true, for example, of the term hocha first proposed by Shipibo-Conibo natives as an equivalent for ‘sin.’ The term seemed quite all right until one day the translator heard a girl say after having broken a little pottery jar that she was guilty of ‘hocha.’ Breaking such a little jar scarcely seemed to be sin. However, the Shipibos insisted that hocha was really sin, and they explained more fully the meaning of the word. It could be used of breaking a jar, but only if the jar belonged to someone else. Hocha was nothing more nor less than destroying the possessions of another, but the meaning did not stop with purely material possessions. In their belief God owns the world and all that is in it. Anyone who destroys the work and plan of God is guilty of hocha. Hence the murderer is of all men most guilty of hocha, for he has destroyed God’s most important possession in the world, namely, man. Any destructive and malevolent spirit is hocha, for it is antagonistic and harmful to God’s creation. Rather than being a feeble word for some accidental event, this word for sin turned out to be exceedingly rich in meaning and laid a foundation for the full presentation of the redemptive act of God.”
Martin Ehrensvärd, one of the translators for the DanishBibelen 2020, comments on the translation of this term: “We would explain terms, such that e.g. sin often became ‘doing what God does not want’ or ‘breaking God’s law’, ‘letting God down’, ‘disrespecting God’, ‘doing evil’, ‘acting stupidly’, ‘becoming guilty’. Now why couldn’t we just use the word sin? Well, sin in contemporary Danish, outside of the church, is mostly used about things such as delicious but unhealthy foods. Exquisite cakes and chocolates are what a sin is today.” (Source: Ehrensvärd in HIPHIL Novum 8/2023, p. 81ff. )
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Exodus 5:16:
Kupsabiny: “We are not given straws to use. All along we have been forced to make clay for building! Now we are beaten for nothing and the mistake/fault is by your people.’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “They don’t give straw to our people but ask us to make as many bricks as before. We, yourselves, are getting the beating but the fault is your people’s only.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “We (excl.) are-given no straw, but we (excl.) are-forced to-make the same number of bricks, and we (excl.) are- yet/still -beaten. This (is) really the fault of your (sing.) people!’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Bariai: “They didn’t give dry weeds to us, yet they [yell to] hurry us, your laborers, in the making of hard stones. Yo, they’re whipping us, but we don’t have any bad fault. The bad fault is you Isip people’s.’” (Source: Bariai Back Translation)
Opo: “They not we (excl.) grass give, but they rush us (excl.) in work, saying to us (excl.) ‹Make bricks!› Afterwards they beat us (excl.), but it is your people that sin!»” (Source: Opo Back Translation)
English: “Now they are not giving us any straw for making bricks, but they keep commanding us to make bricks. And now sometimes they beat us. But it is the fault of your own slave bosses that we cannot make as many bricks as before!’” (Source: Translation for Translators)
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, the more venerable anata-sama (あなた様) is used, which combines anata with the with a formal title -sama.
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 humbling plural suffix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, the Hebrew and Aramaic that is translated as “servants” in English is translated as shimobe-domo (しもべども) or shimobe-ra (しもべら), combining “servant” (shimobe with the humbling plural suffix -domo or ra.
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).”
No straw is given is literally “Straw there-is-none given,” with one word expressing “there-is-none.” But there had to be straw for making bricks, as shown in verses 11-12. Given really means “provided,” and the implied provider would have been people other than the Israelites. Another way of expressing this clause is “No one gives [or, brings] us any straw.”
Your servants appears twice in this verse. As explained in the previous verse, it may be a polite way for the foremen to refer to themselves, so Good News Translation has “We are given no straw.” But probably all the Israelites are included in the “we.” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch here interprets your servants as “our people” in the first instance, but as “us” in the second. As in the previous verse, if “us” is used for your servants, it will exclude the king.
Yet they say to us, ‘Make bricks!’ introduces a quote within a quote. In some languages it may more easily be handled with indirect speech. One may say, for example, “And still they are telling us to make the same number of bricks!” Good News Translation uses the passive voice, “but we are still ordered to make bricks!” However, in languages that do not have a passive voice, Revised Standard Version‘s model will be helpful. They seems to be indefinite (New English Bible has “you”), but this is probably referring to the Egyptian taskmasters. Us refers to the same group as your servants, probably both the foremen and the Israelite workers. (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch uses “they” in reference to “our people”; see above.) If ‘Make bricks!’ is retained as a direct quote, it should be addressed to the same group understood as us.
And behold calls attention to what follows. (See the comment at 1.9.) It may be translated in a number of ways: “And now,” “Thus” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), “Look” (New American Bible), “Here we are” (New English Bible). A natural expression should be chosen to show the emotional distress of the foremen. Your servants must here refer only to the foremen who are speaking (“we” in Good News Translation). Since they are referring to the beating in verse 14, an exclusive “we” should be employed, excluding the king and his officers. Are beaten is the same word as in verse 14.
But the fault is in your own people is not clear in the Hebrew. Literally it seems to say “and your people will be guilty.” But few translations have tried to follow this rather strange idea. Some even omit these words with a footnote explaining that the Hebrew is obscure (Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible). Good News Translation agrees basically with Revised Standard Version: “It is your people that are at fault.” Another way to express this is “It is your own people who are to blame.”
Quoted with permission from Osborn, Noel D. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Exodus. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1999. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.