inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Job 9:33)

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 exclusive pronoun, excluding Bildad.

complete verse (Job 9:33)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Job 9:33:

  • Kupsabiny: “If there would be a person who was able to mediate
    he would have been able to reconcile me with God.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “If there were anyone who, being between us, would enable [us] to talk,
    if there were someone who would put his hands on both of us,” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “Wish there is someone who can-mediate between us (excl.) to settle/reconcile us (excl.).” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “There is no one to mediate/hear us and decide who is right,
    no one who has authority over both of us.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Job 9:33

There is no umpire between us: as the Revised Standard Version footnote says, this expression can be read “Would that there were,” meaning “I wish there were.” This is the rendering of the Septuagint and the Syriac. Job seems to be seeking reconciliation at this point and wishes there were an umpire, arbiter, or mediator between him and God. Good News Translation avoids these noun forms and uses “no one to step between us.” Job cannot go to court with God because there is no judge to decide between him and God. Umpire may also be rendered, for example, “a person to decide who is right” or “someone to hear our arguments and decide who is right.” Who might lay his hand upon us both: the idea is that the judge lays his hands on (takes hold of) both parties in a dispute, and so exercises his authority over both. The same expression of God acting with authority is found in Psalm 139.5, “Thou dost beset me behind and before, and layest thy hand upon me.” The whole verse may be restructured to say, for example, “I wish there were someone to listen to both of us, someone who had authority over us.”

Quoted with permission from Reyburn, Wiliam. A Handbook on Job. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1992. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .