The Hebrew, Latin and Greek that is translated as “blind” in English is translated as “(having) eyes dark/night” in Ekari or “having no eyes” in Zarma. (Source: Nida 1964, p. 200)
See also blind (Luke 4:18) and his eyes are darker than wine.
ἄλλοι ἔλεγον, Ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα οὐκ ἔστιν δαιμονιζομένου· μὴ δαιμόνιον δύναται τυφλῶν ὀφθαλμοὺς ἀνοῖξαι;
21Others were saying, “These are not the words of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”
The Hebrew, Latin and Greek that is translated as “blind” in English is translated as “(having) eyes dark/night” in Ekari or “having no eyes” in Zarma. (Source: Nida 1964, p. 200)
See also blind (Luke 4:18) and his eyes are darker than wine.
Following are a number of back-translations of John 10:21:
The Greek, Hebrew and Ge’ez that is typically translated/transliterated in English as “demon” is translated by other languages in the following ways:
In the still widely-used 1908 Tswana (also: Setswana) translation (by Robert Moffat, revised by Alfred Wookey), the term badino or “ancestor spirit” is used for “demon,” even though in the traditional understanding there is nothing inherently negative associated with that term. Musa Dube (in: Journal of Society of New Testament 73, 1999, p. 33ff. ) describes this as an example of “engaging in the colonization of the minds of natives and for advancing European imperial spaces. The death and burial of Setswana culture here was primarily championed through the colonization of their language such that it no longer served the interests of the original speakers. Instead the written form of language had equated their cultural beliefs with evil spirits, demons and wizardry. This colonization of Setswana was in itself the planting of a colonial cultural bomb, meant to clear the ground for the implantation of a worldwide Christian commonwealth and European consciousness. It was a minefield that marked Setswana cultural spaces as dangerous death zones, to be avoided by every intelligent Motswana reader or hearer of the translated text.”
In Kachin, the term Nat (or nat) us used for “demon” (as well as “devil” and “unclean/evil spirit“). Like in Tswana, the meaning of Nat is not inherently negative but can be positive in the traditional Nat worship as well. Naw Din Dumdaw (in The Bible Translator 2024, p. 94ff.) argues that “the demonization of Nat created a social conflict between Kachin Christians and Kachin non-Christians. Kachin converts began to perceive their fellow Kachins who were still worshipping Nats as demonic and they wanted to distance themselves from them. Likewise, the Nat-worshiping Kachin community perceived the Kachin converts as betrayers and enemies of their own cultural heritage. (…) The demonization of the word Nat was not only the demonization of the pre-Christian religion but also the demonization of the cultural heritage of the Kachin people. When the word Nat is perceived as demonic, it creates an existential dilemma for Kachin Christians. It distances them from their cultural traditions.”
Note that often the words for “demon” and “unclean spirit / evil spirit” are being used interchangeably.
See also devil and formal pronoun: demons or Satan addressing Jesus.
Could not talk like this must refer to content, not to manner of speech, for example, “could not say things like this” or “could not communicate a message such as he has communicated.”
How could a demon give sight to blind people? is more literally “Can a demon open the eyes of blind men?” In Greek the expected answer is “No.” This exclamatory question may be changed into a statement: “A demon could certainly not give sight to blind people” or “… cause blind people to see.”
Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
10:21a
But others replied: This phrase introduces the words of those Jewish people who were impressed by Jesus. They disagreed with the people who just said that Jesus had a demon. They argued against them, giving a reason why what they said could not be true.
These are not the words of a man possessed by a demon: This sentence disagrees with what the others said about Jesus. The speakers argued that Jesus could not be possessed by a demon because of what he said. In some languages it is more natural to translate the phrase the words with a verb. For example:
A man with a demon could not talk like this! (Good News Translation)
-or-
A man who is crazy with a demon does not say things like this. (New Century Version)
-or-
No one talks like this if he’s possessed by a demon. (God’s Word)
10:21b
Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?: This is a rhetorical question. The expected answer is “No.” The people used it to emphasize a negative statement. It indicates that a demon could not give sight to blind people. It is implied that only God could do this, or someone whom God had sent. There are two ways to translate this rhetorical question:
• Use a rhetorical question. For example:
Can a demon give sight to the blind? (God’s Word)
• Use a statement. For example:
No one like that could give sight to a blind person! (Contemporary English Version)
Translate this rhetorical question in a way that is natural in your language.
© 2020 by SIL International®
Made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA) creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.
All Scripture quotations in this publication, unless otherwise indicated, are from The Holy Bible, Berean Standard Bible.
BSB is produced in cooperation with Bible Hub, Discovery Bible, OpenBible.com, and the Berean Bible Translation Committee.
No comments yet.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.