3The vision I saw was like the vision that I had seen when he came to destroy the city and like the vision that I had seen by the River Chebar, and I fell upon my face.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Ezekiel 43:3:
Kupsabiny: “This vision was like the one I saw at the bank of the river Kebar and the one I saw when God came to destroy the city of Jerusalem. Then I quickly fell to the ground with head bowed.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “This vision which I saw was-like also that vision which I saw when God destroyed the city of Jerusalem, and was-like also the vision which I saw there beside the River Kebar. When- I -saw it, I then fell-facedown to the ground.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “What I saw in this vision was like what I saw in the visions that I had seen previously, first by the Kebar River and later when God came to destroy Jerusalem. I prostrated myself on the ground.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
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. Two other languages where this is also done (in most Bible translations) are Twents as well as the closely related 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. ).
And the vision I saw was like the vision which I had seen when he came to destroy the city …: Ezekiel compares this vision, that is, what he was seeing, with the earlier visions that he recorded in chapters 1–3 and 8–11. In all three visions Ezekiel saw the glory of God moving about, although in each case it was moving in a different place or in a different direction. The vision which I had seen when he came to destroy the city refers to the vision in chapters 8–11, where Ezekiel saw people practicing idolatry in the Temple (chapter 8) and God punishing Jerusalem and leaving the city (chapters 9–11). The city refers to “Jerusalem” (Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation). Ezekiel does not name it here; translators do not need to either unless doing so will help their readers. The pronoun he refers to God, which Good News Translation makes clear. However, instead of when he came to destroy the city, the Hebrew text actually reads “when I came to destroy the city” (King James Version / New King James Version, Complete Jewish Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh; similarly Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible). It is hard to see how Ezekiel destroyed the city, but he may have thought that, just by being there in the vision, he was part of the destruction. Although Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommends keeping the pronoun I, it is acceptable for translators to follow the majority of translations and change the reference to God.
And like the vision which I had seen by the river Chebar: This vision refers to the vision at the beginning of the book (chapters 1–3). The Hebrew here is literally “and the visions were like the vision that I had seen by the river Chebar” (similarly King James Version, New American Standard Bible, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project). This is a cumbersome expression, and the plural word “visions” probably is a strong form that means “great and wonderful vision,” as in 8.3 (see the comments there). For the river Chebar, see the comments on 1.1. A model for this clause is “and [it was] a great vision that was like the vision I saw by the canal called Chebar.”
And I fell upon my face: See the comments on 1.28.
Quoted with permission from Gross, Carl & Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on Ezekiel. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.