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, the crowd and Pilate address each other with the formal, respectful pronoun.
Following are a number of back-translations of John 18:30:
Uma: “They said: ‘If he were not an evil person, we (excl.) would not have brought him before Father Governor.'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “They answered, they said, ‘We (excl.) would not bring this person here to you if he didn’t have a sin.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And the leaders answered, ‘If he were not a criminal, we would not bring him before you.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “‘If this-one were not a consistent-sinner, we (excl.) wouldn’t have brought-him to you (sing.),’ they answered.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “The Judio answered, saying, ‘Of course if what this person was doing wasn’t bad, we (excl.) wouldn’t hand him over to you.'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “The leaders of the Jews said, ‘If he wasn’t a sinner, we wouldn’t have given him to you.'” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
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 Pilate).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
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. ).
Living Water is produced for the Bible translation movement in association with Lutheran Bible Translators. Lyrics derived from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®).
Their answer was is literally “they answered and said to him,” a Semitic way of introducing direct discourse.
Good News Translation inverts the order of the Jews’ reply from the way it appears in the Greek text, which reads, “If this man were not an evil doer, we would not have handed him over” (Revised Standard Version). But in most languages, the order of the Greek text must be preserved. Note, furthermore, that the condition is contrary to fact, for example, “If he had not done something that was a crime, we would not have brought him to you.” In some languages, an equivalent may be “Only if he had done something that is a crime would we bring him to you.”
The verb translated brought is more literally “handed … over” (Revised Standard Version). This same verb also means “to betray,” and it has already been used in this Gospel eight times in relation to Judas (6.64,71; 12.4; 13.2,11,21; 18.2,5).
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 .
“If He were not a criminal,” they replied, “we would not have handed Him over to you.”: In this sentence, Jesus’ accusers did not answer Pilate’s question directly. Instead, they implied that that they had handed Jesus over to the Roman authorities because he was a criminal. See the General Comment on 18:30a–b for ways to rearrange the information in their answer.
The form of this answer uses a condition that the Jews believed was false. They believed that Jesus was a criminal, even though he was not, and that is why they brought him to Pilate. In some languages it is more natural to express this idea with direct positive statements. For example:
They answered, “He is a criminal! That’s why we brought him to you.” (Contemporary English Version) -or-
They answered, “⌊You can be sure that⌋ he is a criminal because we brought him to you.”
18:30a
If He were not a criminal: This is a condition that the speakers implied was not true. They implied that Jesus was actually a criminal, even though he was not.
If: This connector introduces a condition that the speakers believed was not true.
He: This phrase refers to Jesus.
a criminal: The Greek phrase that the Berean Standard Bible translates as a criminal is more literally “one doing evil” or “he who commits a crime.” Translate this phrase in a way that is natural in your language in a court setting, For example:
If he had not committed a crime -or-
If this man were not doing evil (English Standard Version) -or-
If this Man were not an evildoer (New American Standard Bible)
they replied: The pronoun they refers to the high priest and the council members who were accusing Jesus. They spoke to the Roman governor
18:30b
we would not have handed Him over to you: This clause tells what would have happened if the Jews believed that the condition in 18:30a was fulfilled. But because the accusers believed that Jesus was a criminal, they did hand him over to Pilate.
we: This pronoun is exclusive and refers to the Jewish religious leaders who were accusing Jesus but not to Pilate.
have handed Him over to you: The Greek phrase that the Berean Standard Bible has translated as handed…over to you means “have put/given into your power/control.” It was used in a legal sense of giving a prisoner to the authorities for them to guard. See how you translated this expression in Matthew 10:19, 27:18 and Mark 13:11. In this context it indicates that Jesus’ accusers had brought Jesus to the Roman governor to be judged and condemned. Here is another way to translate this phrase:
brought him to you (New Century Version)
you: This pronoun is singular and refers to Pilate.
General Comment on 18:30a–b
In some languages it is more natural to place 18:30b before 18:30a. For example:
30b We brought him to you ⌊to judge⌋ 30a because he has done evil things. -or-
We would not have brought him to you if he had not committed a crime. (Good News Translation) -or-
We only turned/handed him over to you because he is a criminal. -or-
The only reason we brought him to you is because he committed a crime.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.