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 (chief priests, elders, and scribes talking among themselves).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 20:5:
Noongar: “They started to argue together, ‘What can we say? If we say ‘God’, Jesus will say, ‘Then why didn’t you listen to John?'” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Uma: “Those Yahudi leaders spoke-among-themselves, they said: ‘How shall we answer him? If we say that his authority was from God, he will say: ‘If thus, why didn’t you believe him?'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Then they discussed/planned. They said, ‘If for example we (incl.) say that Yahiya’s authority to bathe people was from God, he will say, ‘Why didn’t you believe Yahiya?'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And they asked each other, saying, ‘If we say that John was a prophet of God, then he will ask why we didn’t believe in John.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Then they asked-each-other saying, ‘What shall we answer? If we say that God is the one who gave him his authority, Jesus will probably say, ‘Why then didn’t you believe him?'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “When they heard that, they talked-among-themselves, ‘If we say, ‘From God,’ he will then say to us, ‘Well, why aren’t you believing him?'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
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 the closely related 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®).
hoi de sunelogisanto pros heautous ‘they discussed among themselves.’ sullogizomai is here synonymous with the expression used in 5.21 and 20.14, and cf. Mk. 11.31.
ean eipōmen ‘if we say,’ ‘suppose we say,’ hypothetical.
dia ti ouk episteusate autō ‘why did you not believe him.’ autō may refer to John, or to his baptism, preferably the former.
(V. 6) ho laos hapas katalithasei hēmas ‘the whole people will stone us to death.’ laos refers not only to the people present but to the whole nation, cf. on 3.21; 7.29.
katalithazō ‘to stone to death,’ synonymous with lithoboleō in 13.34.
pepeismenos ‘convinced,’ here denoting subjective conviction, not referring to objective fact.
Translation:
They discussed it with one another, cf. on “said to one another” in 4.36. The pronoun may have to be specified, e.g. ‘the-ones-who were-questioned’ (Balinese).
Believe, see on 1.20.
(V. 6) The people, cf. on 7.29.
Stone us, i.e. ‘kill us by throwing stones,’ ‘pelt us to death with stones.’
They are convinced, or, ‘(they) are-certain in their heart’ (Tae’), ‘all of them vouch for the truth (lit. dare to confirm)’ (Balinese).
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.
They deliberated among themselves and said: This clause introduces the leaders’ words in 20:5b. The Greek verbs that the Berean Standard Bible translates as deliberated among themselves and said refer to the same action. The leaders talked to each other about how they should answer the question that Jesus asked them. The following verses tell what the leaders said in their discussion. Other ways to introduce the discussion are:
They discussed it with one another, saying (New Revised Standard Version) -or-
They started to argue among themselves (Good News Translation)
20:5b
If we say, ‘From heaven’: The pronoun we refers to the Jewish leaders who spoke to each other. They did not include Jesus in their conversation. They were considering one possible answer that they could give Jesus.
The phrase From heaven is a quote within a quote. Translate it in a natural way in your language. Some ways to do this in English are:
If we say that ⌊John’s baptism came⌋ from heaven/God -or-
If we say that God sent John ⌊to baptize people⌋ -or-
If we say, “God sent John ⌊to baptize people⌋.”
If you need to make the reply From heaven into a complete sentence, use wording that agrees with what you used in 20:4.
If we say: The Jewish leaders were not certain how they should answer Jesus. Here they introduced one possible answer. Other ways to introduce it are:
Suppose we say -or-
We could answer -or-
Should we reply…? -or-
We can’t say… (Contemporary English Version)
Introduce the possible answer in a way that is natural in your language.
20:5c
He will ask, ‘Why did you not believe him?’: The Greek verb that the Berean Standard Bible translates as ask is a general verb that means “say.” Here the Jewish leaders guessed how Jesus would reply to them if they said “From heaven.” Some versions translate this as indirect speech. For example:
he will ask why we didn’t believe John (New Living Translation (2004))
Translate it in a natural way in your language.
Why did you not believe him?: This is a rhetorical question. It expresses a rebuke. The Jewish leaders thought that if they admitted that John’s authority was from God, Jesus would rebuke them. He would tell them that they should have believed what John told them.
Some ways to translate this rebuke are:
• As a rhetorical question. For example:
Why did you not believe him? (New Revised Standard Version)
• As a statement or exclamation. For example:
Then you should have believed him! -or-
You should not have rejected his message. -or-
…he will say that we should have believed him.
Translate this rebuke in a way that is natural in your language. In some languages it may be natural to introduce the rebuke with a word or phrase. For example:
Then why did you not believe him? (New Century Version) -or-
⌊If you knew that God gave him the authority,⌋ you should have believed him.
believe him: The phrase believe him refers here to believing that what John said was true. The chief priests and the scribes did not believe what John preached. They rejected his teaching. They did not repent of their sins and allow John to baptize them, and they did not believe what John said about Jesus. Other ways to translate this phrase are:
accept his ⌊message⌋ -or-
agree that what he said was true
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.