New Testament Greek is by Balinese standards an extremely impolite language. Consider, for example, the second person pronoun. When speaking to God, to a nobleman, to a friend, to a pupil, or to a slave, the same word is used. In Balinese this is completely different. In the above examples one would differentiate various social ranks and use terms which, more or less freely translated, mean “adored one” or “he who is borne on the head”, “feet of Your Highness”, “older (or younger) brother”, “little one”, and “you”. (…) In Balinese one has to cope with three vocabularies within the language, each of which, at a moderate estimate, includes some hundreds of words. One employs the ordinary common language (“Low Balinese”) when speaking with intimates, equals, or inferiors; polite terms must, however, be used as soon as one begins to speak to one’s superiors or to strangers; and “deferential” terms are obligatory in all cases when one is so bold as to speak of parts of the body, or the acts, possessions, and qualities of important people. The Balinese sums up the two last named vocabularies under the term alus (“fine”, or “noble”): we say “High Balinese”. (…)
In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the younger son, who feels himself less than a slave, speaks to his father in High Balinese; the elder son may use the intimate Low Balinese. When, however, the latter severs himself from the intimate family community, he uses High Balinese to express his contempt, thus placing a gulf between himself and his father.
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 important aspect of addressing someone else in one’s or someone else’s family is by selecting the correct word when referring to them.
One way to do this is through the usage of an appropriate title within a conversation. In the widely used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017, in the parable of the prodigal son, both of the sons refer to their father with o-tō-san (お父さん), a form that expresses the intimate father-son relationship, whereas the servant (in Luke 15:27) refers to the father as o-tō-sama (お父様) with a formal title -sama to express a higher level of reference.
Incidentally, the term o-tō-sama (お父様) is used only one other time in the Shinkaiyaku Bible (in Judges 11:36).
Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 15:12:
Noongar: “The young son said to him, ‘Father, give me now my share of the property!’ So his father shared his property among his two sons.” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Uma: “One said to his father: ‘Dad, give me ahead-of-time my portion of your (sing.) goods.’ So, he really divided his goods to his two children.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “One day the younger one said to his father, ‘Father, divide now your wealth and give me my share.’ So it was like that, the person divided his wealth between his two children.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And the younger said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of all of our (incl.) possessions.’ And that was that, and the father divided up his possessions among these two sons.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “The younger-one said, ‘Father, I will please get my inheritance.’ So then their father divided-up the inheritance of the brothers (lit. their inheritance who were brothers).” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “The younger one spoke, saying, ‘Father, please give me my share now of the inheritance.’ Well, without anything further, their father truly did divide his belongings/assets.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
eipen de ‘and he said,’ introducing a parable in the proper sense. The situation is the same as before.
(V. 12) kai eipen ho neōteros autōn tō patri ‘and the younger one of them said to his father.’ kai marks here the transition from description (v. 11) to action.
dos moi to epiballon meros tēs ousias ‘give me the part of the property that falls to me.’ epiballō means here ‘to fall to,’ or ‘to belong to’; hence to epiballon meros is ‘the part, or, share that is due’ (cf. Translator’s New Testament, “my due share”). For meros cf. on 12.46.
ousia (also v. 13) ‘property,’ equivalent to bios (below). For the much debated question whether a son could claim his part of an estate when his father was still alive, cf. commentaries. For translational purposes it is best to take the present tense of epiballon at face value and to understand the share as due at the time of claiming.
ho de dieilen autois ton bion ‘and he divided the property among them.’ For bios cf. on 8.43.
diaireō ‘to divide,’ ‘to distribute.’
Translation:
And he said, or ‘again he/Jesus said.’
(V. 12) The younger of them, or, ‘the/his younger son,’ ‘the younger-brother’ (e.g. in Batak Toba), ‘the second one’ (Northern Grebo).
Give me the share of property that falls to me presupposes that their property is to be divided, which may have to be made explicit, e.g. ‘divide the property and give me the part that I am entitled to,’ ‘gather up my birth portion and give me’ (Mossi). Give. A polite form is sometimes required, cf. e.g. ‘please-hand-out-now’ (West Nyanja). The share of property that falls to me, or, ‘my share of the/our (inclus.) property,’ ‘as many things as will become mine by you’ (Tzeltal), ‘the part of the good I must receive’ (Sranan Tongo), ‘our things that will be mine’ (Medumba), ‘the things (in contrast with somebody else’s things in the context) I am to have’ (Ekari); or making explicit the reference to inheritance, ‘my share of the things that I shall inherit’ (Shona 1966), ‘my part of what I inherited from my grandfather/ancestors’ (cf. Tae’ 1933). In some cultures, e.g. Lomwe, Yao, a father can only make a gift, but never can assign such a right; a slightly more generic rendering will be preferable then, e.g. ‘a part of the/your property.’ Elsewhere a man can leave his property only to his eldest son not to the younger ones, or to his sister’s not his own sons. I such cases a note may be advisable to explain that according to Jewish custom sons normally inherited their father’s property, the eldest obtaining double the portion assigned to his younger brothers, cf. Deut. 21.17.
He, i.e. the father, which usually has to be specified.
Divided his living between them, or, ‘between the two of them,’ ‘gave to each of them (or, of his sons) a part of his property/possessions.’
Quoted with permission from Reiling, J. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1971. For this and other handbooks for translators see here . Make sure to also consult the Handbook on the Gospel of Mark for parallel or similar verses.
