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 translation and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation, use the inclusive pronoun (“referring to the speakers and their fellow Judeans in exile”).
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.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Isaiah 53:3:
Kupsabiny: “People hated that person and refused (him). He was a person of hardships and he was suffering in pain. Some did not want to see that person. He was despised and even/also we looked at him as if he was worth nothing.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “People hated him, he was not loved. He was a person who fell into sorrow, he understood sorrow well. Seeing him, people turned their faces away. He was hated [and] we did not value him.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “He was-despised and rejected by the people. He has many sorrows and sufferings. We (incl.)-turned-(our)-backs on him, despised, and considered-nothing.” (Source: Hiligaynon 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 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 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. ).
Not only did the people fail to appreciate God’s servant, they also despised and rejected him.
He was despised and rejected by men is an emphatic statement about the way people responded to the servant. The Hebrew verb rendered despised here and in the last line does not refer to hatred (see the comments on 49.7) but to contempt. It is close in meaning to the Hebrew adjective translated rejected, which may also be rendered “forsaken” (RSV footnote). People did not want to have anything to do with him, so they abandoned him. Men refers to people in general, so New Revised Standard Version has “others.” Rejected by men may be rendered “he was insignificant” (compare Psa 39.4, where the Hebrew word for rejected is translated “fleeting”). In languages that prefer active verbs instead of passive ones, an alternative model for this whole line is “People despised and rejected him.” Good News Translation says “We despised him and rejected him,” because in the last line the speakers associate themselves with those who reject the servant.
A man of sorrows may be rendered “a man of pains” (RSV footnote). The Hebrew expression here can refer to someone who is in great mental anguish or physical pain. In this context it refers to the servant’s deep mental anguish due to being rejected (compare 65.14; Psa 38.17; Jer 30.15).
And acquainted with grief means the servant experienced physical pain. Grief renders the Hebrew term for pain or sickness. The Hebrew verb translated acquainted is a passive form of the verb meaning “to know.” Dead Sea Scrolls has an active form, which seems more appropriate here. For this whole clause New International Version and New Jerusalem Bible say “[and] familiar with suffering,” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “familiar with disease,” and Revised English Bible translates “afflicted by disease.” Good News Translation combines it with the previous one, saying “he endured suffering and pain.”
And as one from whom men hide their faces is literally “and like a hiding of faces from us/him.” The Hebrew preposition for “from” has a suffix that is ambiguous; it can mean either “from us” or “from him.” So this whole clause could mean the servant hid his face from the people, or the people hid their faces so that they did not have to look at him. The form of the Hebrew participle rendered hide in Masoretic Text (“one who hides [himself]”) suggests the first meaning. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh expresses this sense with “As one who hid his face from us.” However, scholars generally believe that the participle in Masoretic Text is a scribal error for an original causative form (“one who causes [others] to hide”) that supports the second meaning. Renderings that follow this reading are “like someone people don’t dare to look at” (Bible en français courant), “No one would even look at him” (Good News Translation), “an object from which people turn away their eyes” (Revised English Bible), and “No one wanted to look at him” (Contemporary English Version). Translators may follow either meaning here (so NRSV footnote|prj:NRSV.Isa 53.3).
He was despised and we esteemed him not: In Masoretic Text these two clauses form one line. As noted above, the speakers associate themselves with the men of the first line by using the pronoun we. The Hebrew verb rendered esteemed has the sense of giving value to something in this context. We esteemed him not means they viewed the servant as worthless. New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh say “we held him of no account,” and New Jerusalem Bible has “for whom we had no regard.” Contemporary English Version expresses the last line very clearly with “We despised him and said, ‘He is a nobody!’”
Revised English Bible reverses the last two lines of this verse, saying “we despised him, we held him of no account, an object from which people turn away their eyes” (similarly Bible en français courant).
For the translation of this verse consider the following examples:
• He was despised and shunned by people;
he experienced pain, he was familiar with suffering.
Like someone whom people refuse to look at, he was despised,
and we took no account of him.
• People despised and shunned him;
he knew what it was to suffer pain and sickness.
We despised him, and he refused to look at us,
and we held him to be of no worth.
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.