9Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.
As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator2002, p. 210ff. ), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.
Here, Jesus is addressing his disciples, individuals and/or crowds with the formal pronoun, showing respect.
In Nepali translations, Jesus addresses his disciples and other people with the medium honorific pronoun timīlē (तिमीले) or timīlēharū (तिमीलेहरू). This disciples respond with a high honorific pronoun. (Source: Chitra Chhetri in The Bible Translator 2009, p. 73ff. )
In most Dutch translations, Jesus addresses his disciples and common people with the informal pronoun, whereas they address him with the formal form.
The Greek in John 14:9 that is translated in English as “the Father” is translated in Alekano and Nuer in the first instance as “my father” (when Jesus speaks) and “our father” (when the disciples speak),” since in that language “most kinship terms have an obligatory possessive pronoun suffix (or prefix and suffix). Hence it is impossible to say ‘a father’ or ‘the father’; one must say ‘my father” or ‘your father’ or ‘some person’s father.'” (Source: Larson 1998, p. 42 and Vandevort 1968, 97)
The Hebrew word that is transliterated in Greek and typically in English as “rabbi” is translated in Indonesian and Malay as guru — “teacher” — or bapak guru — “father teacher” in recent translations. (The only exception that is the Alkitab Versi Borneo of 2015 that transliterates as rabi.) (Source: Daud Soesilo in The Bible Translator 1996, p. 335ff. )
Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.
One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a first person singular and plural pronoun (“I” and “we” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. The most commonly used watashi/watakushi (私) is typically used when the speaker is humble and asking for help. In these verses, where God / Jesus is referring to himself, watashi is also used but instead of the kanji writing system (私) the syllabary hiragana (わたし) is used to distinguish God from others.
Other uses of honorifics in this verse include:
The choice of a formal plural suffix to the second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms). Here anata-gata (あなたがた) is used, combining the second person pronoun anata and the plural suffix -gata to create a formal plural pronoun (“you” [plural] in English).
The usage of an honorific prefix. When the referent is God, the “divine” honorific prefix mi- (御 or み) can be used, as here in mi-kao (御顔) or “face (of God)”.
The usage of an honorific construction where the morpheme are (され) affixed on the verb. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, iw-are-ru (言われる) or “say” is used.
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, translators typically select the exclusive form (excluding Jesus).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.
As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator2002, p. 210ff. ), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.
Here, individual or several disciples address Jesus with the formal pronoun, expressing respect. Compare this to how that address changes after the resurrection.
In most Dutch as well as in Western Frisian, Gronings, and Afrikaans translations, the disciples address Jesus before and after the resurrection with the formal pronoun.
Following are a number of back-translations of John 14:9:
Uma: “Yesus said: ‘You (sing.) still do not understand, Filipus! And I have been a long time with you (pl.)! Whoever see me, they also see my Father. So, why do you (sing.) ask that I show you my Father?” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Isa answered him, he said, ‘As long as I have been here with you (pl.) and you (sing.) still do not know as to who I am, Pilip? Whoever sees me it is really as if he has seen my Father. Therefore why do you (sing.) say that I should show you (sing.) my Father?” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And Jesus answered, ‘I have been a long time with you, Philip, and I’m surprised that you don’t know who I am. Because the one who has seen me has already seen my Father God. Why do you want me to show you my Father?” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Whereupon Jesus answered, ‘Felipe, I have been with you (pl.) a long-time, and you (sing.) still don’t know me? The one who has seen me, he has seen my Father. Why then do you (sing.) say that I am to show you (pl.) my Father?” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Jesus’ reply said, ‘I’ve been your (pl.) companion for a long time now. Well then, Felipe, don’t you (pl.) yet really recognize/know me? That one who has now seen me, he has now seen the Father also. Well why did you still say that I should show you the Father?” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “Jesus answered, ‘Philip. We have been together a long time and do you still not know me? He who has seen me has seen the Father. Why do you say that you want me to cause you to see the Father?” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin that is translated as “king” in English. Here are some (back-) translations:
Ninia Yali: “big brother with the uplifted name” (source: Daud Soesilio in Noss 2007, p. 175)
Nyamwezi: mutemi: generic word for ruler, by specifying the city or nation it becomes clear what kind of ruler (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Ghomála’: Fo (“The word Fo refers to the paramount ruler in the kingdoms of West Cameroon. He holds administrative, political, and religious power over his own people, who are divided into two categories: princes (descendants of royalty) and servants (everyone else).” (Source: Michel Kenmogne in Theologizing in Context: An Example from the Study of a Ghomala’ Christian Hymn))
Faye Edgerton retells how the term in Navajo (Dinė) was determined:
“[This term was] easily expressed in the language of Biblical culture, which had kings and noblemen with their brilliant trappings and their position of honor and praise. But leadership among the Navajos is not accompanied by any such titles or distinctions of dress. Those most respected, especially in earlier days, were their headmen, who were the leaders in raids, and the shaman, who was able to serve the people by appealing for them to the gods, or by exorcising evil spirits. Neither of these made any outward show. Neither held his position by political intrigue or heredity. If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior. If the shaman failed many times in his healing ceremonies, it was considered that he was making mistakes in the chants, or had lost favor with the gods, and another was sought. The term Navajos use for headman is derived from a verb meaning ‘to move the head from side to side as in making an oration.’ The headman must be a good orator, able to move the people to go to war, or to follow him in any important decision. This word is naat’áanii which now means ‘one who rules or bosses.’ It is employed now for a foreman or boss of any kind of labor, as well as for the chairman of the tribal council. So in order to show that the king is not just a common boss but the highest ruler, the word ‘aláahgo, which expresses the superlative degree, was put before naat’áanii, and so ‘aláahgo naat’áanii ‘anyone-more-than-being around-he-moves-his-head-the-one-who’ means ‘the highest ruler.’ Naat’áanii was used for governor as the context usually shows that the person was a ruler of a country or associated with kings.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.