cast out demons in ones name

The Greek that is translated as “cast out demons in your (or: my) name” is translated in Ocotlán Zapotec as “said your name to cast out demons.” (Source: B. Moore / G. Turner in Notes on Translation 1967, p. 1ff.)

John the Evangelist (icon)

Following is a Bulgarian Orthodox icon of John the Evangelist from the 14th century (found in Rila Monastery, Bulgaria).

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 )

See also John (the disciple).

John (the disciple)

The term that is transliterated as “John (the disciple)” in English is translated in American Sign Language with the sign for the letter J and the sign signifying “beloved,” referring to John 13:23 et al. (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)


“John” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor

In Swiss-German Sign Language it is translated with a sign that depicts John’s head resting on Jesus’ chest, referring to John 13:23.


“John” in Swiss-German Sign Language, source: DSGS-Lexikon biblischer Begriffe , © CGG Schweiz

In Spanish Sign Language it is translated with with the sign for “young.” This refers to the traditional belief that he was the youngest of the apostles and the fact that he was younger than his brother James (see relative age of James and John. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)


“John” in Spanish Sign Language, source: Sociedad Bíblica de España

For more information on translations of proper names with sign language see Sign Language Bible Translations Have Something to Say to Hearing Christians .

See also John the Evangelist (icon).

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: The Apostle John .

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Mark 9:38 / Luke 9:49)

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 for the first and the second occurrences of “we” (“we saw” and “we tried”) (excluding Jesus) and either the exclusive or the inclusive pronoun for the third occurrence (“not following us” in English translations) (including or excluding Jesus). (Source: SIL International Translation Department (1999))

Both the Jarai and the Tok Pisin translations use the inclusive pronoun.

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 and Afrikaans translations, the disciples address Jesus before and after the resurrection with the formal pronoun.

See also this devotion on YouVersion .

complete verse (Luke 9:49)

Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 9:49:

  • Noongar: “John said, ‘Lord, we saw a man send away evil spirits in your name, and we told him to stop, because he is not one of us.'” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
  • Uma: “Yohanes said: ‘Teacher, we (excl.) saw a person cause-to-leave/expel a demon with your (sing.) name, but we (excl.) forbade him because he is not our follower.'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “Then Yahiya spoke he said, ‘Sir, we (excl.) found a man who spoke/uttered your name when he drove out a demon from a person. We (excl.) told him not to, because he is not one of our (incl.) companions.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And then John said, ‘There was a person whom we came upon, and he was curing people who were afflicted with demons, and he was using the power of your name to cure them. We told him to stop it, because he was not one of us.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “Then Juan said to Jesus, ‘Lord, we (excl.) saw a person causing-evil-spirits -to-leave using your (sing.) name, and we (excl.) forbid him because he wasn’t our (incl.) companion.'” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “One disciple who was Juan spoke. He said, ‘Master, we saw a person who was driving out evil spirit(s), your name being what he was mentioning. Well, we told him to stop because he wasn’t one of us.'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)

demon

The Greek 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)
  • 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.