Following is a back-translation of Isaiah 53:1-6 in the Chichewa interconfessional translation (1999):
[1] “Who has believed these things that we have heard?
Who recognizes the power of Chauta [see tetragrammaton (YHWH)] in these things?
[2] As you know, that servant of his grew up as a young shoot before the eyes of God, and also like a root in hard, dry soil.
He had no real appearance or a handsome face, that we might be looking at him.
There was no beauty about him to attract us.
[3] That very one people despised and rejected.
He was a person of sufferings, accustomed to pain.
He was like a person whose friends cover their eyes on seeing him.
People despised him, and we regarded him as nothing.
[4] “Most surely, he endured sufferings which we ourselves should have felt,
and he received pains which we our-elves should have received.
But we thought that it was God who was punishing him, and striking him and causing him to suffer. [5] But they stabbed him because of our sins,
and they smashed him because of our evils.
The punishment that befell him has given us peace,
and his sores have healed us.
[6] We all had gone astray like sheep.
Each one of us was just walking along his own way.
So Chauta caused him to carry the guilt of all of us.
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 Jarai and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation both use the inclusive pronoun, including everyone.
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 <em>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 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, but most translations, especially those published in the 21st century, 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. ).
The speakers confess that they saw nothing attractive in God’s servant. Although this verse uses some of the terms found in 52.14, there is no direct mention of the physical abuse against him.
For he grew up before him like a young plant: The Hebrew particle ki rendered For is probably an emphatic marker, so it may be rendered “Indeed.” Good News Translation and several other versions leave it implied. The pronoun he refers to the servant, while the pronoun him points to the LORD. Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, Bible en français courant, and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch make both these pronouns explicit. He grew up before him means the servant grew up in a close relationship with the LORD. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “he has grown, by His favor,” and Contemporary English Version has “the servant grew up obeying the LORD.” Good News Translation says “It was the will of the LORD that his servant grow” (similarly Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch), but this rendering is too free to serve as a good model.
The Hebrew word rendered young plant refers to a shoot (technically called a “sucker”) that grows from the roots of an established tree. Such a growth is usually cut away to allow the main tree to grow stronger. By using the simile like a young plant, the speakers compare the servant to a very small and weak shoot. But in some cultures a young plant may hint at a vigorous, healthy plant. To make it clear that this simile symbolizes weakness, Bible en français courant has “as a simple shoot.”
And like a root out of dry ground: This simile is similar in meaning to the first one. Since water is necessary for a new plant to flourish, the dry ground implies that the new plant will have to struggle to survive. So both similes suggest some hardship as the servant grew up, despite having Yahweh’s favor. For this simile Bible en français courant has “as a poor plant that comes out of dry ground.” Good News Translation combines both similes, saying “like a plant taking root in dry ground.” Revised English Bible is similar with “like a young plant whose roots are in parched ground.”
He had no form or comeliness that we should look at him is literally “no form [belonged] to him and no splendor/majesty and we should look at him,” which means the servant was not attractive physically in any way. As in 52.14, form refers to his physical appearance. In this context Good News Translation, New International Version, and Revised English Bible say “beauty.” The Hebrew term rendered comeliness refers to something appealing to the sight, but can also point to “dignity” (Good News Translation) or “majesty” (New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, Revised English Bible; see 2.10, where it is translated “glory”). So there was nothing “majestic” about him to call attention to himself. New American Bible combines form and comeliness into “stately bearing.” Good News Translation renders that we should look at him as “to make us take notice of him,” and Revised English Bible says “to catch our eyes.” For this whole line Bible en français courant has “He didn’t have the appearance or the kind of beauty that make people look.”
And no beauty that we should desire him is parallel and synonymous with the previous line. Beauty is literally “appearance,” the term found in 52.14. There was nothing in the servant’s appearance that made him attractive. Most versions avoid the verb desire, because it may have some unwanted overtones. Translators should choose an expression that suggests a lack of attractiveness or charm. It should not imply any passionate attachment. For this line Revised English Bible has “no grace to attract us to him,” Good News Translation says “There was nothing attractive about him, nothing that would draw us to him,” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh uses “No charm, that we should find him pleasing,” and New Jerusalem Bible translates “no beauty to win our hearts.”
Some languages may need to combine the last two lines of this verse to avoid undue repetition or redundancy.
Translation examples for this verse are:
• He grew up in the LORD’s presence like a young weak plant,
like a root growing in arid ground.
He had no dignity or bearing such that we would want to look at him,
nothing attractive about him that was charming.
• He grew up in the LORD’s favor like a young sapling,
[he grew] like a root in parched ground.
Nothing about him was irresistibly attractive;
he had no charm that would make us want to befriend him.
Quoted with permission from Ogden, Graham S. and Sterk, Jan. A Handbook on Isaiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2011. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.