The Greek that is typically transliterated in English as “Satan” is transliterated in Kipsigis as “Setani.” This is interesting because it is not only a transliteration that approximates the Greek sound but it is also an existing Kipsigis word with the meaning of “ugly” and “sneaking.” (Source: Earl Anderson in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 85ff. )
In Morelos Nahuatl it is translated as “envious one” (source: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.) and in Tibetan: bdud (བདུད།), lit. “chief devil” (except in Rev. 20:2, where it is transliterated) (source: gSungrab website ).
The Greek that is typically transliterated as “Beelzebul” in English used to be transliterated in English and most other languages with a long tradition in Bible translation as Beelzebub, going back to the LatinVulgate translation that had used Beelzebub. St. Jerome likely had done that to correspond with the pronunciation of Baal Zebub (בַּעַל זְבוּב) of 2 Kings 1:2 where a Philistine god by that name is mentioned. The Hebrew name carries the derogative meaning “Baal (or: god) of flies” and is likely an ironic and humiliating misspelling of Baal Zebul with the meaning of “Baal (or: god) the Prince” (see Translation commentary on 2 Kings 1:2).
In popular German literature of the 14th through 17th century, the term “Beelzebock” was also used, a word with a similar sound, but with last and changed syllable carrying the meaning of “(billy) goat / ram,” the partial form of the devil in popular imagination. (Source: Jost Zetzsche — see also the sheep from the goats)
In languages that use Chinese characters, including Mandarin Chinese, Min Nan Chinese, Yue Chinese (Cantonese), or Hakka Chinese, the characters 別西卜 are used in Protestant translations (pronunciation in Mandarin: biéxību, in Cantonese: bit6 sai1 buk1, in Hakka phe̍t-sî-puk). That transliteration name has been used since at least 1850 in the Literary ChineseDelegates’ Version, likely because of the suitably negative meaning of the last character 卜 or “divination.” (The Catholic transliteration is 貝耳則步 / bèiěrzébù in Mandarin, without any particular meaning.)
In Western Bukidnon Manobo it is translated with Endedaman, the Manobo name for the ruler of the evil spirits (source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation) and in the German New Testament translation by Berger / Nord (publ. 1999) with Oberteufel or “chief devil.”
“The name of the god of Ekron in 2 Kings 1:2, Baal-zebub, may possibly mean ‘Lord of the fly,’ in other words the god who protected people from the sores and diseases caused by flies. However, the name may instead be related to the Ugaritic word zebul (𐎇𐎁𐎍), ‘the highest,’ and thus may have originally been Baal-zebul (𐎁𐎓𐎍. 𐎇𐎁𐎍), the Canaanite equivalent of ‘Most High Lord,’ but it was changed sarcastically by the people of Israel to Baal-zebub, ‘Lord of the fly.’ Because of the doubt about the proper derivation of the word, it is probably best to transliterate the name rather than try to translate it, and add a footnote as follows, ‘This name means ‘Lord of flies’ and may be a mocking corruption of the god’s real name Baal-zebul.’ (Source: All Creatures Great and Small: Living things in the Bible (UBS Helps for Translators) ).
Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 11:18:
Noongar: “So if Satan’s country is divided, how will his country stand? You say that I drive out evil spirits because Beelzebul gives me strength.” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Uma: “So also in the kingdom of demons. If a demon opposes his fellow demon, the kingdom of demons will definitely fall/be destroyed. But you(emphatic) say, I expel demons with power of Beelzebul, the king of demons.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Therefore if the leader of demons drives out his demon adherents/disciples that means that they are opposing/fighting each other and the ruling of the demons will not be long-lasting. You say that I drive out demons because I am given power by Belsebul, the leader of demons.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And if Satan fights against his followers, his power will be destroyed. It is not possible what you said, that by means of the power of Endedaman, I am able to overcome his followers.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “It’s the same also with Satanas. If he quarrels-with his fellow evil-spirits, his ruling will emphatically be ruined. I tell you this because you are saying that Beelzebub is the one who gave me my power to cause-evil-spirits -to-leave.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Supposing Satanas is driving out the evil spirits he rules over, isn’t it so that he is opposing himself? Well, how will his kingdom last? Isn’t it so that it won’t? Therefore it’s not possible/acceptable for you to say that I am able to drive out evil spirits because I was given this ability/means by Beelzebub.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
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.”
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 most Dutch translations, Jesus addresses his disciples and common people with the informal pronoun, whereas they address him with the formal form.
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 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.
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 choice of a formal plural suffix to the second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, 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).
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®).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.