The Greek that is translated as “(they) insulted him and shook their heads” in English is translated in Dobel with the culturally equivalent “(they) continuously bit their lips at him and abused him.”
In Nüpode Huitoto, “shake their heads” is translated with the cultural equivalent “stick out their chins” (source: Ronald D. Olson in Notes on Translation January, 1968, p. 15ff.), in Chol with “spitting on the ground,” in Copainalá Zoque with “clapping the hands” (source: John Beekman in Notes on Translation, March 1965), p. 2ff.), and in Chichewa (interconfessional translation) as “showing their scorn” (“‘wagging their heads’ is understood as a nonverbal expression of frustration, grief, or even surprise — source: Wendland 1987, p. 110).
In the German New Testament translation by Berger / Nord (publ. 1999) idiomatically with verzogen höhnisch das Gesicht und spotteten or “tauntingly grimaced at him and mocked him.”
Retrotraducciones en español (haga clic o pulse aquí)
Mientras Jesús estaba colgado en la cruz las personas se mezclaron y lo vieron: “Chafa, tu dijiste que ibas a destruir el templo y otra vez edificar un nuevo templo en tres dias, ¡qué chiste!”
Continuaban en contra de él: “¿Puedes salvar a ti mismo? A ver si te veremos bajar de la cruz, ¡ven!” Y se reyeron y burlaron.
En la misma manera los líderes de los sacerdotes y los maestros de la ley vinieron y dijeron: “Él, Jesús, antes podía salvar a otras personas, pero ahora no puede salvar a si mismo.” Se burlaron de él.
Dijeron: “Él es el Cristo, el rey de todo el país de Israel, dejanos ver si baja de la cruz, si lo vemos con nuestros propios ojos lo creeremos.” Lo insultaron.
Jesús, colgado en la cruz, también fue insultado en la misma manera por los dos rateros, los ladrones, en las cruces a la izquierda y derecha.
As Jesus was hanging on the cross, the people mingled about and looked at him: “Loser, you said you would destroy the temple and build another new temple in three days, what a joke.”
The went on against him: “Can you save yourself? Let’s try and see you come down from the cross, come on!” And they laughed and mocked.
In the same way the leaders of the priests and the teachers of the law came up and said: “He, Jesus, was able to save other people before, but now he cannot save himself.” They mocked him.
They said: “He is the Christ, the king of the whole country of Israel, let’s see if he comes down from the cross, if we see it with our own eyes we will believe him.” Thus they insulted him.
Jesus, hanging on the cross, was also insulted in the same way by the two villains, the thieves, one the crosses to the right and left.
The Roman soldiers seized Jesus and took him to the soldiers’ quarters. They also called other soldiers; they came and gathered around Jesus. They took a red cloak and put it on him. They took thorny branches and made a crown out of them. They put this crown on Jesus’ head. The crown had thorns, they cut his head, and blood flowed. And the soldiers mocked Jesus, mocked him and shouted:
— We greet you, King of the Jews!
For fun, they knelt before him and bowed low to the ground. Then they took a stick and began to hit him on the head. They spat and mocked him in every way. Then they took the red cloak back from him and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him to the place of crucifixion. They ordered Jesus to carry the cross.
On the way, they met a man named Simon. He was from the city of Cyrene. He had two sons: one named Alexander, the other Rufus. This man named Simon was walking after working in the fields. Some soldiers were passing by. They grabbed Simon and forced him to carry the cross. Simon took the cross of Jesus and carried it. The soldiers took Jesus to a mountain called Golgotha. It means “skull”. Because it looks like a skull. When they got there, the soldiers took bitter wine, poured it into a cup, and offered Jesus to drink. Jesus refused. The soldiers divided his clothes among themselves and nailed Jesus to the cross. They nailed his hands and feet. They took a board, wrote on it “King of the Jews” and nailed this board to the cross, above his head. So they crucified Jesus on the cross. This was at nine o’clock in the morning. That same day, two more people were crucified. They were hung on crosses, one on the right of Jesus, the other on the left. Different people walked past, scolded him, and shouted:
— Hey! You said that in three days you would destroy the temple and then build it again! Save yourself! Come down from the cross, and we will see.
And the chief priests and scribes also mocked him and said to each other:
— He saved other people, but he cannot save himself! He said that he was Christ, the king of Israel. Well, try, come down from the cross, we’ll see how you come down from the cross, then we’ll believe.
Also, the criminals who were crucified on the right and left also scolded Jesus.
Original Russian back-translation (click or tap here):
Римские воины схватили Иисуса, повели в помещение для солдат. Также они позвали других воинов; те пришли, собрались вокруг Иисуса. Они взяли красный плащ и надели на него. Взяли колючие ветки и сделали из них венок. Они надели этот венок на голову Иисуса. У венка были колючие шипы, они ранили голову, шла кровь. А солдаты издевались над Иисусом, глумились и кричали:
— Приветствуем тебя царь иудейский!
Они для потехи вставали перед ним на колени и низко кланялись до самой земли. Потом они взяли палку и начали бить его по голове. Плевались и всячески издевались. Потом сняли с него обратно этот красный плащ и надели на него его собственную одежду. Потом повели его к месту распятия. Они приказали Иисусу нести крест.
По дороге им встретился один человек, которого звали Симон. Он был из города Кирена. У него были два сына: одного звали Александр, другого — Руф. Вот этот человек по имени Симон, шел после полевых работ. Мимо проходили воины. Они схватили Симона и заставили его нести крест. Симон взял крест Иисуса и понес его. Воины привели Иисуса к горе, которая называется Голгофа. Это означает «череп». Потому что она похожа на череп. Когда они пришли к тому месту, воины взяли горькое вино, налили в чашу, и предложили Иисус выпить. Иисус отказался. Воины поделили между собой его одежду и прибили Иисуса ко кресту. Прибили гвоздями руки и ноги. Они взяли дощечку, написали на ней «Царь иудейский» и прибили эту дощечку ко кресту, над его головой. Так они распяли Иисуса на кресте. Это было в девять часов утра. В тот же день, распяли еще двоих человек. Их повесили на крестах, одного справа от Иисуса, другого слева.
Разные люди ходили мимо, ругали его, и кричали:
— Эй! Ты говорил, что за три дня разрушишь храм и потом построишь заново! Спаси себя самого! Сойди с креста, а мы посмотрим.
А первосвященники и книжники тоже издевались над ним и говорили друг другу:
— Других людей спасал, а себя спасти не может! Он говорил, что он Христос, царь Израиля. Ну, попробуй, сойди с креста, мы посмотрим, как ты сойдёшь креста, тогда мы поверим.
Также преступники, которые были распяты справа и слева, тоже ругали Иисуса.
In many English translations the Greek terms “hieron” (the whole “temple” in Jerusalem or specifically the outer courts open to worshippers) and “naos” (the inner “shrine” or “sanctuary”) are translated with only one word: “temple” (see also for instance “Tempel” in German [for exception see below] and “tempel” in Dutch, Danish, or Afrikaans).
Other languages make a distinction: (Click or tap here to see more)
Navajo (Dinė): “house in which worship is carried out” (for naos)
Balinese: “inner part of the Great Temple” (“the term ‘inner part’ denoting the hindmost and holiest of the two or three courts that temples on Bali usually possess”) vs. “Great Temple”
Telugu: “womb (i.e. interior)-of-the-abode” vs. “abode”
Thai: a term denoting the main audience hall of a Buddhist temple compound vs. “environs-of-the-main-audience-hall”
Kituba: “place of holiness of house-God Lord” vs. “house-God Lord”
Shipibo-Conibo: “deep in God’s house” vs. “God’s house” (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
Germandas Buch translation by Roland Werner (publ. 2009-2022): “inner court of the temple” (Tempelinnenhof) vs. “temple”
Languages that, like English, German, Dutch, Danish, or Afrikaans, don’t make that distinction include:
Toraja-Sa’dan: “house that is looked upon as holy, that is sacred, that is taboo and where one may not set foot” (lit. “house where-the-belly-gets-swollen” — because taboo is violated — using a term that is also applied to a Muslim mosque) (source for this and the three above: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
Aguaruna: “the house for talking to God” (source for this and above: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125.)
Guhu-Samane: “festival longhouse of God” (“The biiri, ‘festival longhouse’, being the religious and social center of the community, is a possible term for ‘temple’. It is not the ‘poro house’ as such. That would be too closely identified with the cult of poro. The physical features of the building, huge and sub-divided, lend it further favor for this consideration. By qualifying it as ‘God’s biiri’ the term has become meaningful and appropriate in the context of the Scriptures.”) (Source: Ernest Richert in The Bible Translator, 1965, p. 81ff. )
Enga: “God’s restricted access house” (source: Adam Boyd on his blog )
Another distinction that tends to be overlooked in translations is that between hieron (“temple” in English) and sunagógé (“synagogue” in English). Euan Fry (in The Bible Translator 1987, p. 213ff. ) reports on this:
“Many older translations have simply used transliterations of ‘temple’ and ‘synagogue’ rather than trying to find equivalent terms or meaningful expressions in their own languages. This approach does keep the two terms separate; but it makes the readers depend on explanations given by pastors or teachers for their understanding of the text.
“Translators who have tried to find meaningful equivalents, for the two terms ‘temple’ and ‘synagogue’ have usually made a distinction between them in one of two ways (which focus on the contrasting components of meaning). One way takes the size and importance of the Temple to make a contrast, so that expressions such as ‘sacred meeting/ worship house of the Jews’ and ‘big sacred meeting/worship house of the Jews’ are used. The other way focuses on the different nature of the religious activity at each of the places, so that expressions such as ‘meeting/worship house of the Jews’ and ‘sacrifice/ceremony place of the Jews’ are used.
“It is not my purpose in this article to discuss how to arrive at the most precise equivalent to cover all the components of meaning of ‘temple’. That is something that each translator really has to work through for himself in the light of the present usage and possibilities in his own language. My chief concern here is that the basic term or terms chosen for ‘temple’ should give the reader of a translation a clear and correct picture of the location referred to in each passage. And I am afraid that in many cases where an equivalent like ‘house of God’ or ‘worship house’ has been chosen, the readers have quite the wrong picture of what going to the Temple or being in the Temple means. (This may be the case for the word ‘temple’ in English too, for many readers.)”
Here are some examples:
Bambara: “house of God” (or: “big house of worship”) vs. “worship house” (or: “small houses of worship”)
Toraja-Sa’dan: “house where-the-belly-gets-swollen” (see above) vs. “meeting house for discussing matters concerning religious customs” (and “church” is “house where one meets on Sunday”)
Navajo (Dinė): “house in which worship is carried out” vs. “house of gathering” (source for all above: Bratcher / Nida)
Click or tap here to see a short video clip about Herod’s temple (source: Bible Lands 2012)Click or tap here to see a short video clip showing synagogues in New Testament times (source: Bible Lands 2012)
Following are a number of back-translations of Mark 15:29:
Uma: “The people who went by there, they shook their heads making fun of him, they said: ‘Hahi!! You (sing.) [emphatic] said you’d destroy the House of God and build it again in three days!” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “And the people who passed-by, they laughed at him. They shook their heads and they said, ‘Aha. You said you would break down the temple and would erect it again in three days.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “The people passing by shook their heads laughing at Jesus. they said, ‘Oho! You thought you could tear down the church, the House of God, and raise it up in three days!” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “As for those who passed-by, they shook-their-heads to mock/disparage him saying, ‘O (disparaging ejaculation), you (sing.) also said indeed that you (sing.) would destroy the Temple in order that you (sing.) would again erect it in three days.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “Jesus was then insulted/belittled by those who passed by. They shook their heads, saying, ‘Isn’t it so that you are that one who would destroy the Templo and completely-build it within only three days?” (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 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 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 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. ).
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®).
The preposition en (before trisin hēmerais) ‘in’ is omitted by Tischendorf, included in brackets by Nestle, Westcott and Hort, Taylor; the majority of editions of the Greek text include it.
eblasphēmoun (cf. 2.7; 7.22) ‘they were blaspheming’: here in the sense of ‘insult,’ ‘slander,’ ‘derision’ directed against man (not ‘irreverent speech’ directed against God).
kinountes tas kephalas autōn ‘shaking their heads,’ ‘wagging their heads’: a gesture of derision (cf. Ps. 22.8 for the phrase).
kineō (only here in Mark) ‘move,’ ‘shake.’
oua (only here in the N.T.; not to be confused with ouai 13.17; 14.21) ‘aha!’: an exclamation of scornful wonder, of mocking amazement (cf. Moulton & Milligan).
ho kataluōn ton naon kai oikodomōn en trisin hēmerais (cf. 14.58) ‘the one who tears down the sanctuary and builds it (again) in three days’: the whole phrase is in the nature of a title, and to be taken as a vocative, in apposition to the subject of the verb ‘save thou’ in the next verse.
en trisin hēmerais (cf. dia triōn hēmerōn 14.58; meta treis hēmeras 8.31) ‘in three days.’
Translation:
Derided him is perhaps most accurately translated in many languages as ‘insulted him.’
One must be careful in translating wagging their heads, for though we would assume that such derisive attitudes would be expressed by wagging the head back and forth, in many languages one must translate by terms which imply raising the head up and down. What counts here is not the precise manner in which the head was moved, but the cultural implications of the action.
Aha should not be transliterated, but rather rendered by an equivalent term of contempt, of which there are usually plenty.
The clause you who … in three days is sometimes impossible as a subject of the following verb save, and hence it must be rendered as a separate sentence, e.g. ‘you are that person who said he would destroy the temple and build it in three days; you save yourself….’
Would destroy, if translated literally, is quite ambiguous or obscure in some languages. The closest equivalent may be ‘said that you would.’ One should avoid translating would as ‘wanted to.’
Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1961. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.