rejoice / celebrate

The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as some form of “rejoice” or “celebrate” in these verses in English is translated in the the widely-used Mandarin Chinese Union Version with a historical 4-character Chinese idiom: huānhuān xǐxǐ (歡歡喜喜 / 欢欢喜喜) or “happy.”

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Luke 10:17)

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.

joy

The Greek, Latin, Ge’ez, and Hebrew that is translated with “joy” or “gladness” in English is translated with various strategies:

  • Baoulé: “a song in the stomach” (see also peace (inner peace))
  • Bambara: “the spirit is made sweet”
  • Kpelle: “sweet heart”
  • Tzeltal: “the good taste of one’s heart”
  • Uduk: “good to the stomach”
  • Mískito: “the liver is wide open” (“happily letting the pleasures flooding in upon it”) (source for this and above: Nida 1952)
  • Mairasi: “good liver” (source: Enggavoter 2004)
  • Noongar: koort-kwabba-djil or “heart very good” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
  • Chicahuaxtla Triqui: “refreshed heart” (source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.).
  • Hausa Common Language Bible: farin ciki or “white stomach.” Other languages that use the same expression include Southern Birifor (pʋpɛl), Dera (popolok awo), Reshe (ɾipo ɾipuhã). (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)

See also Seat of the Mind for traditional views of “ways of knowing, thinking, and feeling,” happiness / joy, and exceeding joy.

formal pronoun: disciples addressing Jesus

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 Translator 2002, 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.

In Nepali translations, Jesus is addressed with the high honorific pronoun tapā’īṁ (तपाईं ). (Source: Chitra Chhetri in The Bible Translator 2009, p. 73ff. )

See also this devotion on YouVersion .

complete verse (Luke 10:17)

Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 10:17:

  • Noongar: “Those 72 men came back very happy. ‘Lord!’ they said. ‘We speak to evil spirits in your name and they do what we tell them.'” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
  • Uma: “Some time after that, those seventy followers returned. Their hearts were very glad, they said to Yesus: ‘Lord, even demons also submitted to us, and they fled, when we expelled/caused-to-go-out them with your (sing.) name.'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “Not long after the seventy two came back to Isa. They were very happy. They said to Isa, ‘Sir, even, surprise, the demons obeyed our command if we spoke/uttered your name.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “A few days later when the seventy that were sent returned home, they were very happy because they said to Jesus, ‘Even those demons, they obeyed us when we caused them to go out by means of the power of your name!'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “When those seventy-two whom Jesus had sent returned, great was their happiness and they said, ‘Lord, even the evil-spirits, they were obeying us (excl.) when we caused-them -to-leave using your (sing.) name!'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “On the return of those seventy two who had been sent, they were very happy. ‘Lord,’ they said, ‘really even the evil spirits, they obey by leaving when we drive them out in your name.'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)

demon

The Greek, Hebrew and Ge’ez that is typically translated/transliterated in English as “demon” is translated by other languages in the following ways:

  • Central Mazahua: “the evil spirit(s) of the devil” (source: Ellis Deibler in Notes on Translation July, 1967, p. 5ff.)
  • Kupsabiny: “bad spirit(s)” (source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Bariai: “bad bush-spirit(s)” (source: Bariai Back Translation)
  • Hausa: “unclean spirit” (see note below) (source: Hausa Common Language Back Translation)
  • Mandarin Chinese: “dirty spirit” (污灵 / wūlíng) (Protestant); “evil spirit/demon” (邪鬼 / xiéguǐ) (Catholic) (source: Zetzsche)
  • German translation by Fridolin Stier (1989): “false (or: perverted) spirit (Abergeist).
  • Adioukrou: abŋ ŋuŋ, originally “evil spirit (‘the spiritual/invisible part of a person that leaves the body at death, not an independent spirit being’).” “Exactly what abŋ ŋuŋ evokes for Adioukrou is the question. One thing Adioukrou know is that when a person’s abŋ leaves his or her body after death, it can enter someone else and speak through them to reveal the cause of death, a practice forbidden by the church. It is clear to all that abŋ eŋuŋ in Scripture is not speaking of this, however, because contexts that involve evil spirits in Scripture do not involve the Adioukrou post-mortem interrogation of a corpse. (…) Although the expression abŋ ŋuŋ is made up of Adioukrou words, it does not refer to a category in the Adioukrou worldview.” (Source: Hill 2006)
  • Sissala: kaŋtɔŋ, which traditionally referred to “either a spirit of natural phenomena such as trees, rivers, stones, etc., or the spirit of a deceased person that has not been taken into the realm of the dead. Kaŋtɔŋ can be good or evil. Evil kaŋtɔŋ can bring much harm to people and are feared accordingly. A kaŋtɔŋ can also dwell in a person living on this earth. A person possessed by kaŋtɔŋ does not behave normally.” (Source: Regina Blass in Holzhausen 1991, p. 48f.)
  • Umiray Dumaget Agta: hayup or “creature, animal, general term for any non-human creature, whether natural or supernatural.” Thomas Headland (in: Notes on Translation, September 1971, p. 17ff.) explains some more: “There are several types of supernatural creatures, or spirit beings which are designated by the generic term hayup. Just as we have several terms in English for various spirit beings (elves, fairies, goblins, demons, imps, pixies) so have the Dumagats. And just as you will find vast disagreement and vagueness among English informants as to the differences between pixies and imps, etc., so you will find that no two Dumagats will agree as to the form and function of their different spirit beings.” This term can also be used in a verb form: hayupen: “creatured” or “to be killed, made sick, or crazy by a spirit.”
  • Yala: yapri̍ija ɔdwɔ̄bi̍ or “bad Yaprija.” Yaprijas are traditional spirits that have a range presumed activities including giving or withholding gifts, giving and protecting children, causing death and disease and rewarding good behavior. (Source: Eugene Bunkowske in Notes on Translation 78/1980, p. 36ff.)
  • Lamnso’: aànyùyi jívirì: “lesser gods who disturb, bother, pester, or confuse a person.” (Source: Fanwong 2013, p. 93)
  • Paasaal: gyɩŋbɔmɔ, “beings that are in the wild and can only be seen when they choose to reveal themselves to certain people. They can ‘capture’ humans and keep them in hiding while they train the person in herbalism and divination. After the training period, which can range from a week to many years, the ‘captured’ individual is released to go back into society as a healer and a diviner. The gyɩŋbɔmɔ can also be evil, striking humans with mental diseases and causing individuals to get lost in the wild. The Pasaale worldview about demons is like that of others of the language groups in the area, including the Northern Dagara [who use kɔ̃tɔmɛ with a similar meaning].” (Source: Fabian N. Dapila in The Bible Translator 2024, p. 415ff.)

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.

name (of God) (Japanese honorifics)

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 to do this is through the usage (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. When the referent is God, the “divine” honorific prefix mi- (御 or み) can be used, as in mi-na (御名) or “name (of God)” in the referenced verses.

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )