35The Jews said to one another, “Where does this man intend to go that we will not find him? Does he intend to go to the dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?
The Greek that is translated as a form of “teach” is translated with some figurative phrases such as “to engrave the mind” (Ngäbere) or “to cause others to imitate” (Huichol). (Source: Bratcher / Nida)
In Noongar it is translated as karni-waangki or “truth saying” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
In the EnglishGood News Bible (2nd edition of 1992), this occurrence of the Greek hoi Ioudaioi, traditionally “the Jews” in English, is translated with “the authorities (in Jerusalem)” in contexts that imply that the referred groups are hostile to Jesus For an explanation of the differentiated translation in English as well as translation choices in a number of languages, see the Jews.
Following are a number of back-translations of John 7:35:
Uma: “The Yahudi rulers were confused to hear his words, and they asked one another, they said: ‘Where is he going, that he says we will not find him? Maybe he is going to go live with the Yahudi people who are living-as-aliens-in-the-land-of the Yunani people, and he will teach the Yunani people.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Then the leaders of the Yahudi talked together, they said, ‘Where is this person soon going to perhaps, that we (incl.) will not find him? Is he perhaps going to our (incl.) tribe, those who live in the different places there in the country Girik? And is he perhaps going to teach the Girik tribe?” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And then the Jews began asking each other, they said, ‘Where is he going that we cannot find him? Perhaps he is going to the villages of the people who aren’t Jews where some of our Jews have come to live because he will teach the people who aren’t Jews.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Upon which the leaders of the Jews asked-one-another, ‘Now just where might he go so that we won’t be able-to-find-him? Would it indeed-be-the-case (sarc. RQ) that he would go to the far countries where our fellow Jews are located to go teach the Gentiles (loan Gentil) that are there?” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “The Judio again discussed-among-themselves, ‘Well where will this fellow go to that we won’t be able to find him? Maybe where he will go to is to our companions who are Judio who are mixed in among the Griego in their land, because there where they are is where he will now teach.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “The Jews questioned among themselves, saying, ‘Where will he go in that he says that we will not find him there? Can he be going to other lands far away to teach the Jews he finds there? Or can it be the natives of those places he will teach?” (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 inclusive form (people of Jerusalem speaking among themselves).
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 ta (他) is written; where he is referred to as divine, especially after the ascension, the reverential ta (祂) is used.”
In that system one kind of pronoun is used for humans (male and female alike) and one 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 in the following way: “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 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, but most translations, especially those published in the 21st century, do not. Two other languages where this is also done (in most Bible translations) are the closely related Indonesian and Malay. In both 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. ).
See also this chapter in the World Atlas of Language Structures on different approaches to personal pronouns.
In the question Where is he about to go so that we shall not find him? the pronouns he and we are emphatic and contrasting, just as I and you in the preceding verse.
The Greek cities where our people live is more literally “the Dispersion among the Greeks.” In New Testament times “the Dispersion” was a technical term used in reference to the Jews who lived outside Palestine; accordingly, “of the Greeks” is taken in Good News Translation to mean “among the Greeks” (see Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible). The technical term “Dispersion” is avoided in this translation, since it is of zero meaning for most English readers. However, it is possible to understand this phrase in a somewhat different way. That is, “the Greeks” may be taken to refer to a group larger than those persons of Greek nationality; it may refer to all persons in the Roman world who were influenced by Greek culture and so could be loosely referred to as “Greeks.” If so, the Jewish authorities are considering the possibility that Jesus will become one of the Jews of the Dispersion, living among the Gentiles and teaching them. The entire question may be translated to read “Will he go to the cities outside our country where the Gentiles live and teach them?” The word “Greek” occurs in John’s Gospel only here and in 12.20. In each case it is better not to limit the term to mean only persons of Greek nationality. In 12.20 the meaning is more nearly “non-Jews” or “Gentiles.”
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 .