The Greek that is translated into English as “crucify” is translated in various ways:
Naro: xgàu or “to stretch” (as is done with a skin after slaughtering in order to dry it. The word is also widely accepted in the churches.) (Source: Gerrit van Steenbergen)
Yatzachi Zapotec: “fasten him to the cross” (source for this and two above: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125)
Noongar: “kill on a tree” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Apali: “nail to a tree piece put cross-wise, lift up to stand upright (for the crucified person) to die (and in some contexts: “to die and rise again”)” (source: Martha Wade)
In British Sign Language it is signed with a sign that signifies “nails hammered into hands” and “arms stretched out.” (Source: Anna Smith)
“Crucify” or “crucifixion” in British Sign Language (source: Christian BSL, used with permission)
Following is a painting by Wang Suda 王肅達 (1910-1963):
Housed by Société des Auxiliaires des Missions Collection – Whitworth University
(click image to enlarge)
Image taken from Chinese Christian Posters . For more information on the “Ars Sacra Pekinensis” school of art, see this article , for other artworks of that school in TIPs, see here.
Click or tap here to see a short video clip showing how crucifixion was done in biblical times (source: Bible Lands 2012)
The Greek and Hebrew that is translated as “chief priest” in English is translated in Muyuw as tanuwgwes lun or “ruler-of peace offering.” (Source: David Lithgow in The Bible Translator 1971, p. 118ff. )
Orthodox Icons are not drawings or creations of imagination. They are in fact writings of things not of this world. Icons can represent our Lord Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the Saints. They can also represent the Holy Trinity, Angels, the Heavenly hosts, and even events. Orthodox icons, unlike Western pictures, change the perspective and form of the image so that it is not naturalistic. This is done so that we can look beyond appearances of the world, and instead look to the spiritual truth of the holy person or event. (Source )
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”).
According to Pickett / Cowan, this verse, the inclusive form (including Jesus) should be chosen because “undoubtedly they consider him (Jesus) to be a Jew or they would not have invited Him to eat with them (vv. 29-30).” (Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff. and Velma B. Pickett in The Bible Translator 1964, p. 88f.)
The Huautla Mazatec, Tok Pisin, or Yagua translators also chose the exclusive form. The Yagua translators justify this by saying “Would Cleopas and his companion include the stranger who had joined them in this ‘we’? We think not in view of his previous estimate of the stranger. [‘Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know, etc.?’] This implies Cleopas would not consider Him as being subject with himself and companion to the Jerusalem authorities. We would use the exclusive here” (source: Paul Powlison in Notes on Translation with Drills, p. 165ff.) SIL International Translation Department (1999) concurs.
Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 24:20:
Noongar: “Our Chief Priests and other leaders sent him to get the death sentence, and he was crucified.” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Uma: “The leading priests and the elders of our town gave him to the government/rulers in order that he be condemned to death. After that, they really did crucify him.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Our (excl.) leading priests and the leaders of our (excl.) country handed him over to the governor and he was judged to be killed, and then they nailed him onto the post so that he died.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “The chief priests and our elders, they turned him over to Pilate, and he was sentenced to death, and then they killed him by nailing him to a cross.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “But the leaders of the priests and those who rule us, they filed-charges against him so he would die and they had-him -nailed to the cross.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “He was handed over by the chiefs of the priests and the important tribal-leaders to the governor so that he would be sentenced to death. Well what else but he was nailed to a cross.” (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 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 <em>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. ).
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 show different degree of politeness is through the choice of a third person singular and plural pronoun (“he,” “she,” “it” and their various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. While it’s not uncommon to avoid pronouns altogether in Japanese, there are is a range of third person pronouns that can be used.
In these verses a number of them are used that pay particularly much respect to the referred person (or, in fact, God, as in Exodus 15:2), including kono kata (この方), sono kata (その方), and ano kata (あの方), meaning “this person,” “that person,” and “that person over there.” (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
poia (with genomena ‘the things that happened’ understood) ‘what kind of thing?’ or simply ‘what?’ The latter is preferable.
ta peri Iēsou tou Nazarēnou ‘the things about Jesus of Nazareth.’ This general phrase is elaborated by (1) the relative clause hos egeneto ‘who was…,’ and (2) the indirect question hopōs te paredōkan, etc., ‘and how handed him over….’ It is also possible to understand both ta peri Iēsou tou Nazarēnou and hopōs te paredōkan, etc., as object of egnōs in v. 18, but this is less probable.
hos egeneto anēr prophētēs ‘who was a man, a prophet,’ i.e. ‘who was a prophet.’
dunatos en ergō kai logō ‘powerful in deed and word,’ in apposition to prophētēs. en ergō refers to miracles and healings, logō to teaching and preaching. For ergon cf. on 11.48.
enantion tou theou kai pantos tou laou ‘in the judgment of God and of all the people,’ cf. on 1.6. The phrase means that God confirmed Jesus’ power in word and deed by its outcome and that all the people recognized it as such.
(V. 20) hopōs te paredōkan auton … eis krima thanatou ‘how (they) handed him over to a sentence of death,’ i.e. ‘to be sentenced to death.’ hopōs refer to the facts related in the clause rather than to their mode.
hoi archiereis kai hoi archontes hēmōn ‘our chief priests and rulers,’ cf. on 9.22 (hoi archiereis) and on 23.13 (archōn).
kai estaurōsan auton ‘and (how) they had him crucified,’ still dependent on hopōs.
Translation:
Concerning Jesus, or, ‘the things concerning (or, about, or, that happened to) Jesus’; if the preceding question has been rendered ‘what?’ (see Exegesis) another antecedent may be preferable, e.g. ‘what happened to Jesus,’ “all this about Jesus” (New English Bible). The two subsequent subordinate clauses may better become co-ordinate sentences, e.g. ‘he (or, this man/this Jesus) was a prophet, …, but our chief priests … crucified him’ (cf. Kilega).
Mighty in deed and word, or, ‘mighty in what he did and said’; or changing the phrase structure, ‘Whose (or as a new sentence, his) deeds and words were mighty/strong’ (cf. Balinese, Ekari), ‘who/he acted and spoke powerfully,’ ‘who/he performed mighty deeds and spoke powerful words.’
(V. 20) Our chief priests and rulers. The pronoun has exclusive force, presumably. For chief priests see on “high-priesthood” in 3.2, for rulers see on 23.13.
Delivered him up, see on 20.20. If idiom requires a reference to the other participant(s), one may add ‘to Pilate,’ or, ‘to the Roman authorities.’
To be condemned to death, or, ‘to receive the death sentence,’ ‘in order that Pilate/the Roman authorities (or, a pronominal reference, if these persons have been mentioned already in the preceding clause) would sentence him to death, or, to be killed.’
And crucified him, or, ‘and had him (or, caused him to be) crucified’ (see Exegesis). If an active construction is obligatory a difficulty may arise in that Pilate or the authorities in their turn are also initiators. This may result in ‘and caused him/them to order the soldiers to crucify him.’ As a rule a rendering that is less explicit as to participants will be possible, e.g. ‘and (so) caused him to die on the cross.’
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.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.