Orthodox Icons are not drawings or creations of imagination. They are in fact writings of things not of this world. Icons can represent our Lord Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the Saints. They can also represent the Holy Trinity, Angels, the Heavenly hosts, and even events. Orthodox icons, unlike Western pictures, change the perspective and form of the image so that it is not naturalistic. This is done so that we can look beyond appearances of the world, and instead look to the spiritual truth of the holy person or event. (Source )
Following is a hand colored stencil print on momigami of Peter by Sadao Watanabe (1970):
Image taken with permission from the SadaoHanga Catalogue where you can find many more images and information about Sadao Watanabe. For other images of Sadao Watanabe art works in TIPs, see here.
The Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin that is often translated as “gentiles” (or “nations”) in English is often translated as a “local equivalent of ‘foreigners,'” such as “the people of other lands” (Guerrero Amuzgo), “people of other towns” (Tzeltal), “people of other languages” (San Miguel El Grande Mixtec), “strange peoples” (Navajo (Dinė)) (this and above, see Bratcher / Nida), “outsiders” (Ekari), “people of foreign lands” (Kannada), “non-Jews” (North Alaskan Inupiatun), “people being-in-darkness” (a figurative expression for people lacking cultural or religious insight) (Toraja-Sa’dan) (source for this and three above Reiling / Swellengrebel), “from different places all people” (Martu Wangka) (source: Carl Gross).
Tzeltal translates it as “people in all different towns,” Chicahuaxtla Triqui as “the people who live all over the world,” Highland Totonac as “all the outsider people,” Sayula Popoluca as “(people) in every land” (source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.), Chichimeca-Jonaz as “foreign people who are not Jews,” Sierra de Juárez Zapotec as “people of other nations” (source of this and one above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.), Highland Totonac as “outsider people” (source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.), Uma as “people who are not the descendants of Israel” (source: Uma Back Translation), “other ethnic groups” (source: Newari Back Translation), and Yakan as “the other tribes” (source: Yakan Back Translation).
In Chichewa, it is translated with mitundu or “races.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
The Hebrew and Greek terms that are translated as “circumcise” or “circumcision” in English (originally meaning of English term: “to cut around”) are (back-) translated in various ways:
Tetelcingo Nahuatl: “put the mark in the body showing that they belong to God” (or: “that they have a covenant with God”)
Indonesian: disunat — “undergo sunat” (sunat is derived from Arabic “sunnah (سنة)” — “(religious) way (of life)”)
Ekari: “cut the end of the member for which one fears shame” (in Gen. 17:10) (but typically: “the cutting custom”) (source for this and above: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
Hiri Motu: “cut the skin” (source: Deibler / Taylor 1977, p. 1079)
Garifuna: “cut off part of that which covers where one urinates”
Bribri: “cut the soft” (source for this and the one above: Ronald Ross)
Amele: deweg cagu qoc — “cut the body” (source: John Roberts)
Eastern Highland Otomi: “cut the flesh of the sons like Moses taught” (source: Ronald D. Olson in Notes on Translation January, 1968, p. 15ff.)
Newari: “put the sign in one’s body” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Following are a number of back-translations of Galatians 2:8:
Uma: “(For God gave strength to Petrus to be the apostle of the Lord Yesus to the Yahudi people. And it was also the same God who gave me strength to be his apostle to people who are not Yahudi people.)” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “God, Petros was commissioned by him commanded to proclaim to the Yahudi. Likewise also I was commissioned by him commanded to proclaim to the not Yahudi.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Because as for God, He inspired Peter so that he might become an apostle who is the one who would tell the news to the Jews and in the same way also He inspired me so that I might become the apostle whom He would send to the people who aren’t Jews.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “but rather they agreed it was correct. Because they came-to-know that because of God’s grace/mercy, he had entrusted to me my apostleship to preach the good news to the Gentiles just like his entrusting to Pedro his apostleship to preach to the Jews. Their means-of-knowing that, it was that they saw that God had been blessing my preaching to the Gentiles just like his blessing Pedro’s work to/with the Jews. Therefore those-aforementioned who were considered to have authority who were Santiago and Pedro and Juan, they shook-hands-with Barnabas and me to show that we (excl.) exactly understood-one-another. What we (excl.) agreed-on was that Barnabas and I would continue to preach to the Gentiles while they also would continue to preach to the Jews.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “And just as God had graced Pedro with ability in his job/responsibility, that also was what he graced me with in this job/responsibility of mine.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Because God himself appointed Peter to be the representative of Christ where the Jews are. He also appointed me to be the representative of Christ where the people who are not Jews are.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
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 ta (他) is written; where he is referred to as divine, especially after the ascension, the reverential ta (祂) is used.”
In that system one kind of pronoun is used for humans (male and female alike) and one 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 in the following way: “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 the closely related Indonesian and Malay. In both 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. ).
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, -toshite (として) or “make it/someone” 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).”
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 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/reckon” is used.
Verse 8 is a parenthetical statement and can be literally translated “for he who worked in Peter into apostleship to the circumcision worked also in me to the Gentiles.” The “he” may refer to Christ, but more likely it refers to God, for it is Paul’s practice to speak of God as the source of his apostleship and Christ as the agent or mediator. Accordingly, God is mentioned as the agent in Good News Translation (but see also New English Bible, which explicitly makes God the subject).
Instead of mentioning God as the agent in a phrase such as by God’s power, it is possible to introduce God as the causative subject, for example, “God made me an apostle to the Gentiles.” And the last clause of this verse may be rendered as “in the same way that he made Peter an apostle to the Jews.” In some languages, however, it may be difficult to speak of “making an apostle,” and therefore one may say “caused me to become an apostle,” or “sent me as a special messenger to the Gentiles.” The expression “worked in” could be understood in two ways: (1) It could refer to the inner experience by which Peter and Paul were commissioned for their work, that is, their experience of being called to be apostles, or (2) it could refer to the known results of their apostleship, that is, God’s working through both of them and making their mission successful. The first interpretation is followed by Good News Translation (Jerusalem Bible “the same person whose action had made Peter the apostle of the circumcised had given me a similar mission to the pagans”; New English Bible “For God whose action made Peter an apostle to the Jews, also made me an apostle to the Gentiles”). The second alternative is preferred by New American Bible (“for he who worked through Peter as his apostle among the Jews had been at work in me for the Gentiles”; compare Phillips “for the God who had done such great work in Peter’s ministry for the Jews was plainly doing the same in my ministry for the Gentiles”).
Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1976. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.