Following are a number of back-translations of John 2:25:
Uma: “He did not need anyone to tell him what men were like, because he already knew what was in the hearts of men.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Even if he was not told, he certainly knew as to what was in the liver of men/mankind.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “Even though no one told him what was in the breath of people, he knew it already because he knew beforehand what the breath (attitude) of mankind is.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “because he knew the character/behavior of all people. He didn’t need someone to tell him what was in their mind/thoughts, because he emphatically of-course already-knew-it.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “It really wasn’t necessary for someone to tell him, because he really knows what is in the mind/inner-being of man.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “It wasn’t necessary for someone to tell him what people were thinking because he himself knows what the thoughts of a person are.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.
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 usage of an honorific construction where the morpheme rare (られ) is affixed on the verb as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, shitteo-rare-ru (知っておられる) or “knowing” is used.
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.
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 usage of an honorific construction where the morpheme are (され) is affixed on the verb as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, s-are-ru (される) or “do/reckon” is used.
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®).
In Greek verses 24 and 25 are one sentence. The verb rendered trust … to is the same verb translated believe in in the previous verse. Verse 24 serves as an excellent commentary on the meaning of the word. To believe in Jesus is not merely to agree with certain facts about him; it is rather a commitment or trust of one’s life to him and to his way of life.
Because he knew them all is literally “because he knew all (men).” In earlier editions of Good News Translation the text was “all men,” since in Greek “all” is masculine. However, in this context the meaning is generic, “all people,” and this explains the change in the fourth edition. New English Bible renders this clause “he knew men so well, all of them,” and Goodspeed “for he knew them all.”
Because he himself knew what was in their hearts (New American Bible “he was well aware of what was in man’s heart”) is rendered literally by New English Bible (“he himself could tell what was in a man”) and Revised Standard Version (“he himself knew what was in man”). These two expressions, because he knew them all and because he knew what was in their hearts, carry essentially the same meaning. They are different ways of expressing Jesus’ insight into the human heart. For similar instances of Jesus’ insight into men’s character see 1.48; 5.42; 6.61,64; 13,11. In 13.11 the Greek verb oida is used for “to know”; this is different from the verb used in the present verse and in 1.48 and 5.42 (ginōskō), but these verbs are essentially synonymous in John’s Gospel.
He knew them all may be rendered “He knew very well what all people were like.” In some languages this sentence may be more appropriately rendered “He knew just how all people thought” or “He knew exactly why people did what they did.”
There was no need for anyone to tell him about them may be better rendered in some instances “He did not need anyone to tell him about people” or “No one could add to what Jesus already knew about people.”
What was in their hearts may be better expressed in some languages as “what was in their minds” or “how people thought.” However, some other part of the human anatomy is used in some languages as the seat of mental activity and will. Accordingly, one may speak of “what was in people’s liver” or “how they think in their abdomen.”
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 .
He did not need any testimony about man: This phrase indicates that no one had to tell Jesus about people. Jesus did not need someone to explain to him what people were like.
Here are other ways to translate this phrase:
didn’t need anyone to tell him about human nature (God’s Word) -or-
No one had to tell him what people were like. (Contemporary English Version)
man: The Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates literally as man refers to people in general. In many languages it may be natural to translate it using a plural noun or pronoun. For example:
them (Good News Translation) -or-
people (New Century Version)
2:25b
for He knew what was in a man: This expression tells the reason why Jesus did not need anyone to tell him what people were like (2:25a). The reason was that he already knew their inner thoughts and motives.
Here are other ways to translate this expression:
he could tell what someone had within (New Jerusalem Bible) -or-
because he knew what was in people’s minds (New Century Version) -or-
because he himself knew what was in their hearts (Good News Translation)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.