possessed by a demon

The Greek that is translated as “possessed by a demon” in English is translated in Matumbi in two ways. Either as mundu mwene moka / “having a demon” or bandu babalobi moka / “being drunk with a demon.” (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext)

See also demon.

complete verse (Matthew 12:22)

Following are a number of back-translations of Matthew 12:22:

  • Uma: “After that, there were also people who came to Yesus bringing a person who was possessed [lit., ridden]. That person was blind and he was not able to speak. Yesus healed him, with the result that he could see and was able to speak.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “So-then a person was brought to Isa who was blind and dumb because he was possessed by a demon. He was healed by Isa that’s why he could speak and see now.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And then some people came bringing with them a man who was blind and dumb because he had been entered by a demon. Jesus treated him and immediately he was able to talk and able to see.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “One time, there were some who brought to Jesus a man who was blind and dumb because an evil-spirit possessed him. Jesus caused-the evil-spirit -to-leave, and that man could-see and could talk.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “And then there was brought to Jesus a man who was blind and dumb too, for he was possessed by an evil spirit. Jesus healed the man who could then speak and see.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “A man whom an evil spirit had caused to be dumb and blind was brought to Jesus to be healed. When he was healed, then the man could speak and see.” (Source: Tenango Otomi 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.

Honorary "are" construct denoting God (“heal”)

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

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 shows different degree of politeness is through the usage of an honorific construction where the morpheme are (され) is affixed on the verb as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, iyas-are-ru (癒やされる) or “heal” is used.

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

Translation commentary on Matthew 12:22

Then points back to verse 15. Translators can also say “After that.”

A blind and dumb demoniac is translated “a man who was blind and could not talk because he had a demon” by Good News Translation. The causal relation is clearly indicated in the Greek sentence structure, and it should be made equally clear in translation. Demon possession is not a third illness, to be distinguished from the other two; it is in fact the cause of the man’s blindness and of his inability to speak. As in 9.32, Good News Translation avoids the use of dumb, because in American English it often means “stupid.”

The Greek participle translated demoniac was first used in 4.24; see also 8.16, 28, 33; 9.32; 15.22. The idea may be expressed in a number of ways. New English Bible has “a man who was possessed,” and New American Bible renders “A possessed man.” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch translates “an evil spirit ruled him.”

Good News Translation provides an excellent model for a blind and dumb demoniac: “a man who was blind and could not talk because he had a demon.” The phrase can also be restructured, as in “a man who had an evil spirit (in him) that made him so he was blind and could not speak.”

Was brought to him, a passive formation in Greek, is translated “some people brought to Jesus” by Good News Translation. Several other translations also shift to the active: “they brought to him” (New Jerusalem Bible) and “they brought him” (New English Bible). Him, of course, is Jesus.

And he healed him: the healing of the man is narrated briefly and without detail. Good News Translation says “Jesus healed the man.” Matthew’s primary concern is not with the miracle but with the accusation which the Pharisees level against Jesus (verse 24).

So that the dumb man spoke and saw sounds inconsistent to English speakers. If the man is dumb (unable to talk), how could he speak? “So that he was able to talk and see” of Good News Translation resolves the difficulty. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch is even better (“Jesus healed him, and he was able to speak and see again”). New English Bible resolves the problem in yet another way: “Jesus cured him, restoring both speech and sight.” A slightly different way avoids “again”: “Jesus healed him, and he was thus able to speak and see.”

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1988. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .