The Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “fringe” or “tzitzit” in many English translations is translated in Uma as “the decorations [lit.: “fruit”] of clothes” (source: Uma Back Translation), in Tenango Otomi as “clothing that reaches the ground” (source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation) and in Mairasi as “wings of the garments” (source: Enggavoter 2004).
In Bura-Pabir a term is used that is traditionally used for the tassels worn on clothes by hunters. (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
In Paasaal it is translated as “cloth mouth.” (Source: Fabian N. Dapila in The Bible Translator 2024, p. 415ff.)
Following are a number of back-translations of Matthew 14:36:
Uma: “They requested to Yesus that he allow them to touch even as little as just the edges of his clothes. All who touched his clothes were immediately healed.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “They begged Isa if it were possible that the sick would only even touch the edge of his garment. Na, all who touched him were healed.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And they begged Jesus that he might permit them to take hold of even the hem of his shirt. And all who took hold of it were cured.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “They entreated that the sick might touch even just the hem of his clothes. And all who touched were made-well.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “They begged Jesus just to allow those sick ones to touch/brush-against what was attached to the hem of his cloak. Really all who touched truly got better for their illness stopped.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Tenango Otomi: “The people asked the favor of Jesus if even the edge of his clothing could be touched by the sick, and at once they were healed when they did so.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
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 choice of a benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.
Here, yatte (やって) or “do for their sake” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).” (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
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®).
In Greek the subject of besought is an unmarked “they” (masculine plural), which may refer either to the sick people or to the people who brought the sick people to Jesus. New English Bible shifts to a passive in order to avoid the difficulty: “and he was begged to allow them….” Both Good News Translation and Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 1st edition specify that “they” are those who brought the sick people to Jesus. It is possible to translate “Then the people who brought the sick people to Jesus begged him to let their sick….” Translators who choose the other interpretation will have something like “Then the sick people begged Jesus to let them touch….”
That they might only touch reflects the ancient belief that a person might be healed through physical contact with someone of unusual powers. As a rule, the person with the power to heal would have reached out to touch those who were sick, but these people have such great faith in Jesus that they believe his healing power overflows into the fringe of his garment. There is no hint in the text that Jesus encouraged this belief, though what they did was evidently interpreted as a genuine act of faith, because Matthew states as many as touched it were made well.
Fringe refers specifically to the part of the long garment that reached down to the feet. In 23.5 the word is used in the specific sense of “tassel,” referring to the tassels each Israelite man was obligated to wear on the four corners of his outer garment. See Numbers 15.38-39 and Deuteronomy 22.12. According to 9.20, a woman with a flow of blood was made well when she touched the fringe of Jesus’ garment. The fringe can be “the bottom” or “the foot,” or, as in Good News Translation, “the edge.”
The phrase as many as means “whoever,” “every person who,” or “all who” (Good News Translation).
Were made well is rendered “were completely cured” by Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, and Barclay. Moffatt translates “got perfectly well,” and New American Bible “were fully restored to health.” Although Matthew abbreviates Mark’s account, he heightens the miraculous element by introducing “all” in verse 35 and by introducing the intensive form of the verb where Mark uses the ordinary form. Were made well can also be rendered “were healed,” “were cured,” or by phrases such as “their illnesses (or, diseases) left them” and “were cured (of their illness).” It may also be translated as an active verb: “And Jesus’ power made everyone well who touched the edge of his garment.”
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 .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.