הֲנָשׁוּב֙ לְהָפֵ֣ר מִצְוֺתֶ֔יךָ וּ֨לְהִתְחַתֵּ֔ן בְּעַמֵּ֥י הַתֹּעֵב֖וֹת הָאֵ֑לֶּה הֲל֤וֹא תֶֽאֱנַף־בָּ֨נוּ֙ עַד־כַּלֵּ֔ה לְאֵ֥ין שְׁאֵרִ֖ית וּפְלֵיטָֽה׃ פ
14shall we break your commandments again and intermarry with the peoples who practice these abominations? Would you not be angry with us until you destroy us without remnant or survivor?
The Hebrew, Greek and Latin that is translated as “(was or became) angry” in English is translated in Kwere as “saw anger.” In Kwere, emotions are always paired with sensory verbs (seeing or smelling or hearing). (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
In Bariai it is “to have grumbling interiors” (source: Bariai Back Translation).
See also anger and feel (terror, pain, suffering, anxiety).
The Hebrew that is translated as “abomination” or similar in English is translated in Vidunda as “hated thing” and in Kwere as zitibusa which means “evil” but also something that causes horror or disgust and revolts people. (Source for both: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
in Ngambay it is nékɔb or “taboo.” (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
See also detestable in the sight of God and holy.
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 Jarai and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation both use the exclusive pronoun, excluding the Lord.
The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “survive,” “escape,” “save,” or similar in English is translated in the Contemporary Chichewa translation (2002/2016) in these verses with pulumuka, describing someone whose life was in danger but who has freed himself or herself. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Ezra 9:14:
Translators of different languages have found different ways with what kind of formality God is addressed.
Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or modern English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.
As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator 2002, p. 210ff. ), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.
In these verses, in which humans address God, the informal, familiar pronoun is used that communicates closeness.
Voinov notes that “in the Tuvan Bible, God is only addressed with the informal pronoun. No exceptions. An interesting thing about this is that I’ve heard new Tuvan believers praying with the formal form to God until they are corrected by other Christians who tell them that God is close to us so we should address him with the informal pronoun. As a result, the informal pronoun is the only one that is used in praying to God among the Tuvan church.”
In Gbaya, “a superior, whether father, uncle, or older brother, mother, aunt, or older sister, president, governor, or chief, is never addressed in the singular unless the speaker intends a deliberate insult. When addressing the superior face to face, the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́ or ‘you (pl.)’ is used, similar to the French usage of vous.
Accordingly, the translators of the current version of the Gbaya Bible chose to use the plural ɛ́nɛ́ to address God. There are a few exceptions. In Psalms 86:8, 97:9, and 138:1, God is addressed alongside other “gods,” and here the third person pronoun o is used to avoid confusion about who is being addressed. In several New Testament passages (Matthew 21:23, 26:68, 27:40, Mark 11:28, Luke 20:2, 23:37, as well as in Jesus’ interaction with Pilate and Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well) the less courteous form for Jesus is used to indicate ignorance of his position or mocking.” (Source Philip Noss)
In the most recent Manchu translation of 1835 (a revision of an earlier edition from 1822), God is never addressed with a pronoun but with “father” (ama /ᠠᠮᠠ) instead. Chengcheng Liu (in this post on the Cambridge Centre for Chinese Theology blog ) explains: “In Manchu tradition, as in Chinese etiquette, second-person pronouns could be considered disrespectful when speaking to superiors or spiritual beings. Manchu Shamanist prayers avoided si [‘you’] and sini [‘your’] for this very reason. To use them for God would be, in Lipovzoff’s [one of the two translators] words, ‘the most uncouth and indecent way to speak to the Almighty — as if He were a servant or slave.’ There was also a grammatical problem. In Manchu, si and sini could refer to both singular and plural subjects. For a faith that insisted on the singularity of God, this was potentially confusing. By contrast, repeating ama removed any ambiguity.”
In Dutch, Afrikaans, Gronings, and Western Frisian translations, God is always addressed with the formal pronoun.
See also formal pronoun: disciples addressing Jesus, female second person singular pronoun in Psalms.
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 are (され) 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, s-are-ru (される) or “do/make” is used.
(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
Two rhetorical questions are indirectly addressed to the community with the hope that those who have married wives from peoples of the lands will repent of their disobedience to the commandments. It is expected that they will answer “no” to the first question: shall we break thy commandments again and intermarry with the peoples who practice these abominations? It is expected that they will answer “yes” to the second one: Wouldst thou not be angry with us…?
Shall we break thy commandments again is literally “shall we return to breaking your commandments?” The Hebrew construction expresses the notion of taking up the same action again or of repeating a habitual action. A different verb is used here for disobeying than in verse 10. There the meaning was leaving aside or abandoning the commandments, failing to follow them with obedience. Here the meaning is explicitly disobeying the commands that the people have received. Traduction œcuménique de la Bible translates “shall we begin again to violate your commandments?”
Intermarry: The Hebrew verb means simply “to marry” or “to enter into a marriage contract.” In the context of verse 12, Revised Standard Version translates it as intermarry (also Good News Translation, New International Version). Traduction œcuménique de la Bible translates more closely the form of the original text: “to unite ourselves in marriage with.”
Peoples who practice these abominations is literally “peoples of abominations these.” There are two possible interpretations of this Hebrew construction. Revised Standard Version interprets it to mean that peoples are being referred to who practice customs that are characterized as abominations (see the comments on verse 1 above). Good News Translation interprets it to mean that the peoples themselves are being characterized as “wicked” or “abominable” (so Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). Translators should refer to the practice rather than the character of the people since it is their practice that is being condemned.
Wouldst thou not be angry with us: The Hebrew verb for be angry here occurs only rarely in the Old Testament. It is used a total of 14 times and is always used in relation to God, usually in relation to some punishment given to the people. In some languages anger is expressed in terms of physical associations; for example, “he gets bad-liver,” “his liver hurts,” or “his heart becomes hot.” The preposition that relates God’s anger to the objects of his anger needs careful attention. In some languages it may be “with” as in English, but in others with us may be “toward us,” “against us,” “at us,” or “over us,” or it may be a longer expression, such as “on top of our heads,” “with regard to us,” or “with regard to our deeds.”
Till thou wouldst consume us: The basic meaning of the Hebrew verb for consume is “to cause to end” or “to finish,” therefore “to destroy” as in Good News Translation. The second question may be rendered “Would you not be angry with us to finish us…?”
So that there should be no remnant, nor any to escape: The result of God’s anger is stated in two nearly synonymous expressions. In the Hebrew text remnant and any to escape are two parallel nouns that are derived from the verbs “to remain” and “to escape.” The result of God’s total destruction will be that there will be no one remaining, no escapee (see verse 8 above). The Revised Standard Version translation is slightly misleading because any to escape translates the Hebrew word that is rendered “remnant” in verses 8, 13 and 15. Here, however, there is a second Hebrew word that means “remainder, rest, survivor” (see Ezra 1.4). According to context either of the two Hebrew words may be translated “remnant” (see Jer 23.3).
Good News Translation restructures to express the meaning of the first noun remnant with the preceding verb consume: “you will destroy us completely.” Then it introduces a verb to make the second expression any to escape become a parallel construction to the first one: “let no one survive.” Bible en français courant uses a similar restructuring: “exterminate us all without exception.”
In some languages it will be necessary to restructure these rhetorical questions in the form of exclamations, for example:
• We could surely not break your commandments again and intermarry with these people who do these horrible things! If we did that, you would become so angry with us that you would destroy us completely and leave none of us alive!
Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Ezra. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
No comments yet.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.