The Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin that is translated as “justice” in English is translated in American Sign Language with a sign that describes the quality or principle of fairness, righteousness, and impartiality in treating other people. A literal back-translation of the signs are “FOLLOW(God is implied) ACTIONS, DECISIONS JUST-RIGHT”. A more idiomatic back-translation would be: “actions and decisions are right/fitting/just in accordance to God’s will.” The movement in the signs itself helps to indicate that this is a noun, not a verb. (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)
“Justice” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor
Following are a number of back-translations of Acts 8:33:
Uma: “He is disparaged and punished, yet he had no guilt. There is no-one who tell-the-account that he has descendants, because he was killed.'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “He was put down/criticized and he was not judged with righteous/straight judgment. Who will be able to tell about his descendants? No one. For his life in this world has ended.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “They shamed him and their punishing him was not righteous. He has no descendants which can be related (in a geneology) because very short is his life here on earth.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “They shamed him and they didn’t try him fairly/properly. Neither will anyone relate concerning his descendants, because they cut-short (lit. did-intentionally) his life on this earth.'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “He was caused to experience great shame and sentenced with an unfair-sentence. No-one can tell how big was the evil of his contempories for they severed his life/breath.'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Lalana Chinantec; “‘They mistreated him shamefully. The people who judged did not do well. They are not supposed to do as they did. How is it possible that we will say that he has people followers? They killed him. He no longer lives in this earth.’ That is what the word of Isaiah is like which the Ethiopia person was looking at.” (Source: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
Huixtán Tzotzil: “… They mistakenly think that he does not have any children because when he was killed here in the world, once and for all he was eradicated they mistakenly think.” (Huixtán Tzotzil frequently uses the verb -cuy to express “to mistakenly think something” from the point of view of the speaker — source: Marion M. Cowan in Notes on Translation 20/1966, pp. 6ff.)
For the Old Testament quotes, see Isaiah 57:8 (from the Greek Septuagint).
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Isaiah 53:8:
Kupsabiny: “He was despised and refused justice. Never shall there be people descending from his bloodline, because his life was taken away from this world and he was killed for the sins of our people” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “Having oppressed and accused [him] they took him away. nobody cared about his fate. For he was separated from the land of the living, he was beaten for the transgressions of our people.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “He was-captured, judged, and killed. None at-all from his generation who took-noticed that he was-killed because of their sins, that he endured the punishment which would have been for them.” (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 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. ).
The interpretation and translation of this verse present a number of challenges.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away is literally “From oppression and from judgment he was taken away.” The Hebrew preposition for “from” (min) could imply that God’s servant was removed from oppression and judgment, but few commentators take that view. As in verse 5, this preposition most likely means “because of” or “by means of” here. Revised Standard Version expresses it correctly with By (also New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).
The Hebrew noun rendered oppression is found elsewhere only in Pro 30.16 (where it is rendered “barren”) and Psa 107.39, so its meaning is uncertain. Its verbal form can mean “to imprison.” This would indicate that the servant was arrested and then judged. Revised English Bible follows this sense by rendering this line as “He was arrested and sentenced and taken away” (similarly Good News Translation, Bible en français courant). Other versions prefer to treat oppression and judgment as a hendiadys; for example, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh renders them as “oppressive judgment,” which probably means the servant was judged unfairly. New Revised Standard Version is similar with “a perversion of justice,” and so is Contemporary English Version with “without a fair trial.” Since the meaning of the noun rendered oppression is uncertain, translators are free to choose one of the modern versions as a model. Other possible renderings can be placed in a footnote.
He was taken away is literally correct and would mean nothing more than that the servant was taken somewhere. However, in this context it implies an unpleasant destination for him. From the second half of the verse it might be implied he was led off to his death. Good News Translation draws this conclusion by saying “He was … led off to die.” Contemporary English Version is similar with “He was condemned to death.” But since it is not clear whether his death is in view later in this verse, it is better to say “he was led away” or “he was arrested.”
And as for his generation, who considered…?: The common Hebrew conjunction rendered and expresses contrast here, so it is better rendered “but.” It may be left implied. All the commentators consulted consider this line almost impossible to understand with any certainty, so the translations vary. However, there is general agreement that it probably means nobody cared about what happened to the servant. For Revised Standard Version the rhetorical question here goes to the end of the verse, but for New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New International Version and Bible en français courant it only covers this line. The length of this question partly depends on how the phrase as for his generations is understood. The meaning and grammar of this phrase is unclear, so there is a variety of renderings for it. Some versions treat his generations as the subject of the verb considered and understand it to mean “his [the servant’s] contemporaries”; for example, for this line New Jerusalem Bible has “Which of his contemporaries was concerned…?” and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch says “Who among the people of this generation is concerned about that?” Revised Standard Version seems to give this sense to the line also. However, most versions view his generations as the object of the verb considered. The versions that do this give a variety of meanings to his generations; for example, “his descendants” (New International Version), “his abode” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), “his future” (New Revised Standard Version), and “his fate/destiny” (Good News Translation, New American Bible, Bible en français courant). The sense of “his fate/destiny” seems to be the predominant interpretation. Contemporary English Version expresses it by rendering the question as “Who could have imagined what would happen to him?” For languages that prefer to render to this rhetorical question as a statement, see the examples below.
That he was cut off out of the land of the living is an idiom that may mean the servant died. Good News Translation expresses this sense nonfiguratively with “He was put to death.” However, this idiom may refer only to the danger the servant faced, as in some Psalms where “death” is a metaphor for life-threatening danger (see, for example, Psa 88.4-6). It could also refer to his removal from the rest of society by being put in prison.
Stricken for the transgression of my people is literally “from/because of the rebellion of my people a strike to/for/against him,” which means the servant suffered because of the sins of others, as in verses 5-6. The Hebrew noun for “strike” is usually rendered stricken, so that it does not imply that the servant himself struck someone. Stricken refers to him being beaten. The Hebrew text that is literally “a strike to/for/against him” is questionable, because Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint have “stricken to death” (Revised English Bible), which Hebrew Old Testament Text Project cautiously recommends. New Jerusalem Bible follows this alternative reading by saying “at his having been struck dead.” If translators adopt this reading, then the text openly speaks of the servant’s death at the hand of his tormentors. There is another textual problem with the phrase my people. Some commentators emend the Hebrew text to read “his people.” However, if the servant’s disciples are the speakers, my people is acceptable. Good News Translation says “our people” for naturalness in English. It is unlikely that the pronoun my refers to the LORD. For transgression see Isa 53.5.
For languages that require an active form for the passive verbs in this verse, we recommend that they do not identify a specific agent. See the third example below.
For the translation of this verse consider the following examples:
• He was led away after arrest and judgment;
nobody cared about his fate.
He was cut off from the land of the living,
stricken to death because of my [or, our] people’s sin.
• He was unjustly arrested and taken away;
none of his contemporaries cared
that he was removed from the land of the living,
struck down because of my people’s sin.
• They oppressed him and judged him unfairly;
he was taken away, but nobody cared about his fate.
They removed him, putting him to death
because of the sin of my people.
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.